Stuff reports:

One of Australia’s most senior Muslim clerics, Sheikh Shady Alsuleiman, was refused entry to New Zealand following the Christchurch massacre – but the ban was overturned following a complaint to the Australian government.
The revelation will raise questions about why the Sheikh was on a New Zealand no-fly list, particularly in light of accusations that Australian security agencies and their international partners are too focused on Islamic extremism compared to right-wing terrorism. …

Immigration New Zealand confirmed Sheikh Shady was refused entry to the country due to a ban placed on him by Denmark last year.
“[INZ] can confirm that Mr Alsuleiman was advised that he was unable to travel to New Zealand visa free as a result of being excluded from Denmark,” said national border manager Stephanie Greathead.
“Because of the exclusion he required what’s known as a special direction enabling a visa to be granted. Taking into account all the circumstances Mr Alsuleiman has now been granted the special direction and a one month visitor visa.”

I don’t have a problem with Sheikh Shady coming here. I do not think he is a security threat. But it is worth looking at what he has said over the years. They include:

• In 2013, Alsuleiman spoke of the “evil actions” of homosexuality, saying, “Allah will send on them diseases they have never experienced before
• He has said in online videos that females will be ‘hung by their breasts in hell’ and that adulterers should be stoned to death
• He has advocated 100 lashes for people engaging in pre-marital sex
• He has said women must obey their husbands and men have the right to demand sex from their wives
• Spoke to a UK school and said “Give victory to all the Mujahideen all over the world. Oh Allah, prepare us for the jihad”
• In 2009 invited a top recruiter for Al Qaeda to speak to Muslim youths in Sydney

Personally I’m against the death penalty for anything, let alone consensual adult sex.

As we know the terrorist was motivated by opposition to immigration from non-Europeans. He did his slaughter to try and provoke conflict, hoping it will lead to his eventual goal.

So what better way to respond to his hatred of immigration, than for the Government to announce that say for the next three years we will relax our immigration settings so an extra 5,000 people a year (100 per person killed) can migrate to New Zealand, under the normal residency criteria.

Could there be a stronger way for us to say that New Zealand rejects his anti-immigration hatred of non-europeans. That the result of his madness is now what he wanted, but the opposite?

One can have legitimate debates about the right level of immigration, but an extra 15,000 over three years is not going to have a huge impact on infrastructure,

Let all the parties in Parliament get together and announce unanimous support for allowing an extra 15,000 people to immigrate to New Zealand over the next three years. Let that be our response to his murderous hatred of non-white immigrants. WOuldn’t that be great and fitting.

In a week or two I will do a fuller post on the issues around freedom of speech, the terrorist attack in Christchurch and acceptable comments on Kiwiblog. It will be a very long post as it is a complex area.

But as people know I have put comments on manual moderation, as the normal process of waiting for someone to complain about a comment was not ideal in this period.

Having me manually approving every comment is not a long-term solution. But neither was the old system of having all comments appear automatically unless there were complaints about them. Because that means some unacceptable comments stay there.

At this stage I am not changing the criteria for what is an acceptable comment, but will touch on that in a couple of weeks. What I am announcing is a change which will give preference to people who post under their actual name.

I post under my name. I believe doing so encourages me to be responsible. It makes you think a bit longer and harder about what you write before hitting publish.

If you use your real name for comments, you will be given a status that allows your comments to appear automatically. There will be no delay. You’re still subject to moderation after the event if your comment breaches policies, but you will not have any delays.

If you do not wish to use your real name, you are entitled to do so. There are many genuine reasons you may have for that. But it means your comments will be held for moderation until a moderator (currently just me) can view it and approve or decline it.

The idea is to incentivise people to use their real names, but to still allow an alias.

Some people have said they are happy to “own” their comments but don’t want to have their name listed as the commenter as it becomes the first thing which comes up on Google. One can qualify for “auto-approve” status if you link your user profile to a page that identifies you, even if you use initials or an alias.

To use myself as an example, I could qualify for auto-approve status if I comment under my real name of “David Farrar”. Or alternatively I could comment as “DPF” or “Laughing Gnome” and have my user profile linked to Kiwiblog or my Facebook page which identifies me.

At present no-one but me is on auto-approve status. If you wish to gain this status change your user profile (if necessary) to display your real name or a link to your identity and e-mail [email protected] with your username. If I verify you, I will give you auto-approve status.

I believe this change will be an improvement overall, even if not for everyone. As with any change I’ll review it over time.

UPDATE: Also if you don’t want your name linked to your previous comments but happy to do so for future ones, I can remove your e-mail address from your old account so you can use it for a new account.

I was interviewed by Agence France-Presse (AFP) on how the Prime Minister has handled the terrorism attack in Christchurch.

Their article is online here. Worth reading the whole thing but my quote is here:

“Empathy has always been one of her strengths and never has it shown more,” said David Farrar of the popular politically-focused Kiwiblog.

“The picture of her in Christchurch wearing a headscarf looking devastated is a powerful iconic image. I think Ardern has been near perfect in her response to the tragedy.”

I think some get blinded by their disagreements with the PM on other issues, to not see how well she has handled this.

Scarcely 18 months in office, Jacinda Ardern faces an era-defining tragedy for her country — and is winning praise for meeting the moment with a deft mix of empathy and resolve.

That was sort of my quote also – the mixture of both empathy and resolve. She has shown that with the quick action on guns.

In due course I will be opposing the Government as they try to impose an unfair Capital Gains Tax on New Zealand. But opposing them on some things, doesn’t mean opposing them on everything.

Likewise as the details of the gun law changes are known, I may critique the details. But I’m glad for once the Government isn’t just setting up a working group and waiting 18 months. New Zealanders don’t want the status quo to continue when what happened in Christchurch happened under the status quo.

The PM announced:

Today it was also agreed that there will be an inquiry to look at the specific circumstances leading up to the Christchurch mosques terror attack on March 15. The purpose of this inquiry is to look at what all relevant agencies knew or could or should have known about the individual and his activities, including his access to weapons and whether they could have been in a position to prevent the attack.
It will look at whether there were any impediments to the sharing of information, such as legislative or intelligence sharing challenges. The key agencies we’ll be looking at include the New Zealand SIS, GCSB, Police, Customs, and Immigration I want to highlight again, though: this is an inquiry that these agencies absolutely support.
 The inquiry will also look at the individual’s travel movements to and from New Zealand, and internationally; his activities in New Zealand; and his use of social media and his connection to others.
The terms of reference are currently being finalised, and decisions around who will lead the inquiry and what form it will take will also be made shortly. Our key considerations will be public confidence in the work, timeliness, and the management of classified information. We’re also mindful, of course, that criminal proceedings are under way.

This is a good thing, and what you would expect.

I would suggest though that the terms of reference might be a bit narrow. It should cover how the Police implement the Arms Act currently. Really it should be able to go into any area where changes could be made to stop a reoccurence. I wouldn’t just focus on the intelligence agencies.

But regardless of exact TOR, an inquiry is absolutely the right thing to do.

Stuff has profiles of the victims who have been named. I’ll just highlight a couple:

• Atta Elayyan, 33, from Kuwait, Elayyan was the goalkeeper for the national and Canterbury men’s futsal teams.
• Husna Ahmed, 44, from Bangladesh Ahmed was killed when she returned to the Masjid Al Noor in Deans Ave to check on her husband Farid, after getting some children to safety.
• Mucad Ibrahim, 3, born in Christchurch,
  Mucad, whose family is from Somalia, was with his father and brother at the Masjid Al Noor in Deans Ave when the shooting began. His father and brother escaped. Mucad was “energetic, playful and liked to smile and laugh a lot”
• Sayyad Milne, 14,
  Milne was described by his half sister, Brydie Henry, as a good-natured, sporty teenager who loved football. He had dreams of being an international footballer, and played goalie.
• Kamel Darwish, 38, from Jordan,
  Kamel immigrated to New Zealand about six months ago and worked on a dairy farm in Ashburton
• Ansi Alibava, 25, from Kerala, India,
  Alibava came to New Zealand to pursue a Master of Agribusiness Management at Lincoln University.
• Amjad Hamid, 57,
  Hamid was a Senior Medical Officer and Rural Hospital Consultant at Hawera Hospital.

And some heroes:

• When the gunman advanced toward the mosque, killing those in his path, Abdul Aziz didn’t hide. Instead, he picked up the first thing he could find, a credit card machine, and ran outside screaming “Come here!” Aziz, 48, is being hailed as a hero for preventing more deaths during Friday prayers at the Linwood mosque in Christchurch after leading the gunman in a cat- and-mouse chase before scaring him into speeding away in his car.

• The police officers who dragged an alleged gunman from a car following a shooting at two Christchurch mosques came straight from a training session on how to deal with armed offenders.The Herald has exclusive details about how the officers, after hearing there was an active shooter on the loose in the city, took to the streets to find him – and stop him. The officers, who the Herald has agreed not to name, are both based in smaller towns out of Christchurch.

Comments turned off until I have had time to delete and sanction those who have crossed the line.

UPDATE: Comments now back on. But they will not appear until manually approved. Those lacking in empathy will probably not appear.

Stuff reports:

The man charged over the Christchurch mosque shootings faces an unprecedented prison term if found guilty, a veteran criminal defence barrister says.
Brenton Harrison Tarrant, 28, appeared in Christchurch District Court on Saturday morning. He faced one murder charge, but police say more are likely.
Belinda Sellars QC, who specialises in murder cases, said the offender was likely to face an “extraordinary” minimum non-parole term if found guilty of the shooting – given the number of casualties was far in excess of previous mass-murder cases.

I don’t believe there will be a finite non-parole term. Thankfully we now have another option.

There is also a little known clause in the 2010 Sentencing Act that was overshadowed by the three strikes law at the time. That clause introduces the possibility of life without parole for crimes attracting a sentence of more than 10 years. The clause has never been used. 

Once he is found guilty, he must be sentenced to life without parole. If murdering 50 people doesn’t qualify for life without parole, then what would?

The Herald reports:

While four people were arrested in relation to Christchurch’s mosque massacres, only one man, Brenton Tarrant, has been charged with murder.
What happened to the other three? And why were they suspects?
One woman and two other men were also arrested and held in custody in relation to the attacks.
The woman has been released without charge. The man who was in a vehicle with the woman has been charged with firearms offences and will appear in the Christchurch District Court on Monday.

An 18-year-old man, who was not connected to the couple, will also appear in Christchurch District Court on Monday for possessing a firearm.
Police say they do not believe either men were involved in the attacks.

It’s a bit too early to be certain, but it does look like this was an attack planned and staged by one man – a foreigner. This is no comfort to those mourning dead families and friends, but if no New Zealanders were involved in this attack, that is a small relief.

Of course there will no doubt be a Commission of Inquiry which will look at wider issues such as how he did this, and who assisted him either knowingly or unknowingly.

I’ve spent a fair bit of time reading the manifesto of the terrorist. I am wary of taking it at face value as it is a propaganda document, and not necessarily what he believes.

The most striking part to me is his belief that those he killed were not innocents. He sees them as invaders. He even explains how he think children will grow up to be and are future enemies. It is stomach churning stuff.

The salient point is he doesn’t see those he targeted as human beings. He sees their group characteristics (migrant and/or Muslim) as defining them. They are not individuals, they are not humans. They are invaders.

This is the same rationale that the Nazis used to kill Jews in The Holocaust. My great grand parents were killed because their bloodline saw them defined as part of a group that were deemed enemies.

Seeing people solely as part of a group, rather than as individual human beings, is what dehumanises people. This is one reason that aspects of identity politics I find problematic.

But it is also why those who lump all Muslims in together, contribute to the problem. One should be able to debate immigration policy and issues of integration.

But the trap some people fall into is lumping 1.1 billion people together on the basis of one group characteristic. That is dehumanising. It is saying that one group characteristic outweighs everything else about that person. We must always treat people as individual human beings.

The same critique applies to those who believe apostates should receive the death penalty. That is also dehumanising. It is saying a human being who changes their religion is no longer a human being worth of living.

The other things that struck me in the manifesto was how the terrorist said that at various times he had been a communist, an anarchist and a fascist. They are all of course extremes. I’m not saying they’re all equal, just that this is a guy who seems attracted to extreme positions.

Extremism isn’t unique to the left or right. In the UK Jo Cox was murdered by a far right extremist. In the US then House Majority Whip Steve Scalise was shot by a far left extremist.

Extremism is the enemy.

We don’t yet know if the other two people arrested are New Zealanders and how they were involved in this act of terrorism. But it does suggest we need to take home grown extremists more seriously.

I recall back in 2006 I was placed on an enemies list of the local neo-nazis. They even photoshopped “Juden” on my forehead in blood colours. At the time I laughed them off as a bunch of big talking idiots who would never actually do anything. I often mocked them. With the benefit of hindsight that may have been the wrong approach, as we are in an era where those who talk hate sadly sometimes follow through.

Reject hate. Reject extremism. Reject dehumanising people by seeing them only as members of a group rather than as wonderfully precious individual human beings.

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says gun laws will change after Friday’s deadly mass shooting in Christchurch.
On Friday, a gunman opened fire at a mosque on Deans Ave in Christchurch killing 41 people.
A further seven people were killed at the Linwood Ave mosque. Another one person has since died in hospital, and a further 48 are injured, two in a critical condition.
A 28-year-old man has been charged with murder and appeared in court on Saturday morning.

On Saturday morning, the prime minister said the main suspect was in possession of a gun licence, obtained in November 2017. Five guns were used in the attack including two semi-automatic weapons and two shotguns. A lever action firearm was also found.

On this issue, the PM has my support, and I suspect almost all of Parliament.

Yes terrorists can kill without guns. They use vans and knifes etc. But the death toll we saw in Christchurch would not have been as high as 49 without the access to guns.

Guns are validly needed for farming, hunting, etc. But I’ve never seen semi-automatics in the same light. There should be a massively high threshold for such guns, and the terrorist should not have been able to legally acquire them.

This is not an abstract debate. A gun is not the same as a knife or a van.

Yes I am aware the terrorist said in his manifesto he did this to cause gun laws in the United States to be tightened, so it would lead to a breakdown in US society. But people should be wary of taking his manifesto at face value. It is a propaganda document and at least some of it is trolling.

A good background on the problem with our current law.

The true side of New Zealand shows with 16,590 to date having donated $1.12 million to support the victims of the shooting in Christchurch,

You can donate at Givealittle.

It almost defies belief he is a Federal Senator. He actually only received 19 first preference votes in the 2016 election but thanks to preferential voting he got in.

The fanatics are those who slaughtered 40 Muslims in Christchurch, not the victims.

Senator Anning has previously called for a “final solution” to immigration and restoring a White Australia immigration policy.

The best response to Senator Anning has come from Chris Bishop who may have dented his chances of being Foreign Minister, but was admiorably to the point:

Not going to post on any other topics for a wee while. While issues such as Capital Gains Tax, legalising cannabis, natural gas etc are all important issues, they pale into insignificance with what has happened in Christchurch.

I think it is a time for reflection.

So I’ve postponed all the posts I had scheduled for the weekend. Normal service will return at some point of course.

The death toll in the terrorist attack on two Christchurch mosques has been confirmed at 40, with a further 20 injured.

There are so many victims, it is hard to know where to begin.

• 40 New Zealanders are dead, when they were peacefully at prayer. They were slaughtered because of their religion.
• At least 40 families have a lost fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, children etc. The family members will never fully recover. Their lives will never be the same again.
• Every Muslim in New Zealand will be reflecting that this could have been them. This was a slaughter of innocents based on their religion. The main gunman said he considered Dunedin also, and Ashburton if he could make it. He didn’t care where so long as it was a mosque. New Zealand as sadly joined other countries where armed Police now have to protect places of worship
• People in Christchurch are mourning. Their city has been through enough. No place deserved this, but it seems especially unfair Christchurch gets to suffer again. Few people in Christchurch won’t know someone directly affected.
• And of course everyone in NZ is affected also. One of the worst terrorist attacks in the world has happened in New Zealand. It will change us and affect us.

For now we are mourning. There will come a time when the focus will be on how did this happen, and how do we stop it happening again. How did they get guns? Could they have been detected early? How were they radicalised?

But now now we mourn and hopefully reject extremism. Any ideology that doesn’t value human life and justifies the deliberate killing of innocents is simply evil.

UPDATE: 49 now dead

Stuff is reporting that a man entered a mosque in Christchurch and shot people there.

This is terrible. Everywhere should be safe from gun violence, but especially places of worship.

Thoughts go out to everyone affected. One can only hope and pray for those caught up in this.

UPDATE: There are reports that up to 30 people may have been shot. I am feeling physically sick as I type this, that this has happened in New Zealand. Part of our innocence has died today.

Stuff reports:

A Government Minister has said Sir Michael Cullen’s payments as chair of the Tax Working Group after the body has disbanded is “peanuts” and suggested the former Deputy Prime Minister should be paid more.

Willie is touch with the families earning $20 an hour by describing $1,000 a day as peanuts.

I have no problem with Cullen being paid $1,000 a day as TWG Chair when there was a TWG. He was being paid to lead a group of people to design a Capital Gains Tax – a highly expert task.

What I have a problem with is having him paid $1,000 a day to shrill for the Government and attack their opponents. That is outrageous. He shouldn’t be paid even $20 an hour for that, No one should be funded by the taxpayers to be a Government shrill.

Pleased to announce New Zealand’s newest blogger is Sir Bob Jones. He is blogging at nopunchespulled.com.

This is Sir Bob unfiltered with no editor or lawyer in between him and the publish button. I look forward to many amusing reads.

Newshub reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has issued New Zealand First MP Shane Jones a public telling off for appearing to question the integrity of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). 
And not only that: she has given her entire Cabinet a dressing-down. 
“My expectation is [that] ministers focus on doing their jobs and not on National,” the Prime Minister said on Thursday. 

Jones, the Regional Economic Minister, on Wednesday risked breaching the independence of the Serious Fraud Office which is investigating National Party donations. 
“We will study every single step they take to ensure, because it’s the National Party, it’s not whitewashed,” Jones said in Parliament. 
Ardern on Thursday made it clear to the public Jones was in the wrong.
“The SFO absolutely have operational independence and that must be maintained,” she said. 

Okay so Ardern has said Jones was wrong and has “told him off”. Now normally the Minister will apologise, say they were wrong and be penitent but …

But Jones is far from penitent.
“I have every right as a Parliamentarian to have high expectations of the SFO,” he told media on Thursday. 

So he is basically giving the finger to the Prime Minister. And he knows he can do this because …

And New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is not phased. When asked if he reprimanded Jones on Wednesday, he replied: “Why would I need to do that?” 

It is clear that the Prime Minister has no actual control over Ministers not in her party.

Could you imagine that happening with Clark? with Key? Not in 1,000 years.

Politik reported Marama Davidson on Morning Report:

“I’ll be really, really clear. I don’t think it’s appropriate to have surpluses while we have floodings happening in countries, where we’ve got floods happening, where we’ve got homelessness, I don’t think it’s appropriate that we’re holding onto surpluses in that way.”

Just think about this. The Green co-leader says we should be borrowing money and running a deficit because there is flooding in other countries.

This shows that there is no limit to how much the Greens want to tax New Zealand taxpayers. Basically her argument is that if anyone anywhere in the world is struggling, we should tax ourselves more and spend more to fix it.