From a right of centre blog:
After Friday’s attack, words cannot describe the anger and despair felt by Sri Lankans across Aotearoa. Many, including my parents, moved here to escape violence. It’s sickening that a member of our own community chose to hurt innocent Kiwis. He’s one of us – but he’s not one of us.
On Friday 3 September 2021 New Zealand changed forever and joined the rest of the world in being a country that has suffered an Islamic terrorist attack. An attack by ISIS sympathiser Ahamed Aathil Mohamed Samsudeen
, that in this instance was entirely preventable.
What has happened is what we have always said would happen…that an Islamic terrorist with evil intent would at the very least obtain a knife and would run amok. And run amok is the correct term in the true sense of the words.
The woke Wombles always said that the Muslims here in New Zealand were different. That it would never happen. That it was Islamophobia to even suggest that it would. And in the wake of another awful terrorist act by another foreign terrorist, we were told that ‘They Are Us’.
Sadly, we were right and they were wrong.
Ahamed Aathil Mohamed Samsudeen
The Connection to Islam
It is undeniable that there is a connection to Islam despite the Prime Minister’s frankly naive and illogical claim that “… it was carried out by an individual, not a faith
, not a culture
, not an ethnicity, but an individual person who was gripped by ideology
that is not supported here by anyone or any community.”
That deliberate falsehood
was designed by the Prime Minister to hide the obvious links to radical Islam.
It is simply not true that this ideology is not supported here by anyone or any community. There are more than 50 people on the terror watch list in New Zealand and a fair chunk of these people would in fact adhere to this Islamist ideology.
To say there is no link to Islam belies the fact that the first letter in the acronym ISIS actually stands for Islamic, and belies the fact that this Islamic terrorist was bailed by a weak-kneed judge to a mosque. Try getting yourself bailed to the local Presbyterian church and see how you get on with that in the court system.
It also belies the fact that this Islamic terrorist, whilst fervently stabbing his victims was shouting a peculiarly unique to Islam phrase ‘Allahu Akbar’.
So in stark contrast to the specious claims of the Prime Minister, there are in fact very strong links to a culture and religion that is implacably opposed to the ideals of our Western democracy, and that is Islam.
The liberal-minded that infest the bureaucracy of this country have let us all down. This Islamic terrorist arrived in New Zealand in 2011, and two years later sought asylum as a refugee making all sorts of claims about his safety if he returned to Sri Lanka.
However, despite his claims to the contrary, this Islamic terrorist went back to Sri Lanka in 2016.
In 2018 when his refugee status looked set to be revoked, Samsudeen protested that decision, saying:
“I’m very afraid of returning to Sri Lanka because I’m afraid of the authorities there, and the same risks and fears [that] I had when I left my country are still there in Sri Lanka. Also, young Tamil men face serious problems in Sri Lanka.
“We face arrest, detention, mistreatment and torture as we’re always under suspicions by the authorities because of the [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam].”
These statements are entirely false and an obvious deception. For a start, the Tamil Tigers were not Muslim; they had a secular nationalist ideology. It is simply not possible for a Muslim to have operated inside of the LTTE. On top of that deception, the Tamil Tigers were effectively defunct by 2011 – when he came to New Zealand – having been comprehensively defeated in 2009
. Tamils are also almost exclusively Hindu, with a smattering of Christians.
He made all those false claims despite the undeniable fact that he had indeed returned there in 2016, and obviously was not detained, mistreated, tortured or killed. This man should have been deported a long time ago.
Refugees and asylum seekers who can return to their home country should no longer have the protection refugee status of the State. They should be deemed safe, and if they want to return to NZ after the visit, apply for a visa like anyone else.
The Prime Minister’s media mouthpieces and indeed the Prime Minister herself, in seeking to minimise her own inaction in dealing with this Islamic terrorist, quickly ran up the flag pole that all this happened because “successive governments” had failed to correct the Helen Clark
government’s poor law-making in 2002. The NZ Herald
also specifically tried to sheet home the blame to Judith Collins
, along with numerous Labour activists.
But when asked by media directly if the law changes currently languishing in a select committee would have prevented this tragedy she was at pains to point out that any such claims were ‘purely speculative’
. It was a rehearsed line and one she repeated so often it became laughable.
She said it was “purely speculative
if any difference in our law or indeed any of the law changes we’re pursuing now would’ve made a difference in this case”, when asked if she regretted not bringing forward proposed counter-terrorism laws.
“It would be really speculative
of us to make an assumption that what happened today would have necessarily been prevented by a law change we are currently progressing.”
The Prime Minister can’t have it both ways. She cast shade on “successive governments” for not acting, but it is “purely speculative” that the proposed law changes would have made any difference.
The claims also rather ignore history. Back in 2013 when Judith Collins was supposed to have made changes, New Zealand was in the grip of the left-wing in this nation casting shade on John Key
‘s government for strengthening existing surveillance laws to assist in the fight against terrorism.
This was also when Labour, Nicky Hagar
and David Fisher
were pushing the agenda of Kim Dotcom
and accusing John Key’s Government of increased spying and surveillance.
Indeed in 2015 Andrew Little even accused John Key of scaremongering
about the risk of Islamic terrorists in New Zealand:
The Prime Minister is “scaremongering” with details of threatening Kiwis wanting to commit a terrorist attack in New Zealand, says Opposition leader Andrew Little.
John Key spoke on Tuesday of several New Zealanders under 24-hour surveillance with links to Islamic State, who want to commit a terrorist attack on Kiwis.
About 40 people are being monitored in New Zealand for their ties to Isis but the most threatening are under constant watch, which means they’re unlikely to be able to get anywhere near executing a terrorist attack, said Key.
That article has not aged well for Andrew Little
, especially as one of those people on that list at the time has now committed a terror attack on New Zealand soil. Scaremongering or prudence? You can be the judge of that.
Failure of the Chief Censor and the Judiciary
Apparently, the Police tried to hold the Islamic terrorist on possession of offensive material, including videos of decapitation, setting people on fire and ISIS training videos, but the censor’s office said that those could not be deemed objectionable.
Say what? Brutally killing people is not offensive enough? What then would be offensive?
Then you have several judges who have let this Islamic terrorist loose on society. Two weak judges stand out, Justice Edwin Wylie
and Justice Sally Fitzgerald
. Justice Edwin Wylie is of course the judge who made such a complete hash of the John Banks case that Banks was ultimately vindicated in the Court of Appeal.
Justice Edwin Wylie
Because of the risk he posed, Samsudeen was denied bail for more than a year until he eventually pleaded guilty to the lesser charges of possession of restricted material
, after the Chief Censor ruled the videos were not classified as objectionable.
As a result, Justice Edwin Wylie had little choice but to sentence Samsudeen to supervision
in September 2018, given the length of time he had already spent in custody on relatively minor charges.
The High Court judge also had no choice in granting a name suppression order to prevent Samsudeen from being identified.
Justice Sally Fitzgerald
Justice Sally Fitzgerald is the last judge to have dealings with the Islamic terrorist,
and she didn’t cover herself with glory. She stated the following:
“I am sentencing you to supervision, and so I cannot impose conditions relating to electronic monitoring
. Nor would I have done so even if I had sentenced you to intensive supervision.
In my view, conditions relating to your online activity and monitoring of that activity are much more relevant to reduce the risk of you re-offending.”
“A sentence of intensive supervision would permit me to impose conditions for a longer period of time than a sentence of supervision. That may help support your rehabilitation. It would also permit electronic monitoring. Nevertheless, I am very conscious of the lengthy time you have already spent in custody, and that I must impose the least restrictive sentence that is appropriate.
Sensible Sentencing Trust
So this judge took the easiest option and one that meant he was not required to wear an ankle bracelet to track his movements, despite Police assurances that this Islamic terrorist was a clear and present danger to the community, and then she bailed him to the community, indeed to a mosque!
Justice Matthew Downs
Only Justice Matthew Downs seems to have done his job
and actually highlighted the legal issues in relation to this Islamic terrorist.
… a High Court judge ruled that preparing a terrorist attack was not in itself an offence under the legislation, which he said could be described as an “Achilles’ heel” hindering the authorities’ abilities to stop such would-be attackers.
Justice Matthew Downs acknowledged there was a serious threat to public safety from “lone wolf” attackers, especially after the Christchurch shootings that killed 51 people and injured 40.
But he dismissed the Crown’s application to charge Samsudeen under the anti-terror law, saying it was for Parliament, not the courts, to create an offence of planning an attack.
Justice Downs also ordered that a copy of his judgment be sent to the Attorney-General, Solicitor-General and Law Commission.
You have to ask then what, precisely, did David Parker
or the Solicitor-General or the Law Commission do about this? Because it looks like they did absolutely nothing.
All this drama is because of the soft, weak, be kind, woke politicians, judges, officials and human rights activists. They have completely stuffed up. This now brings us to Prime Ministerial responsibility.
Prime Ministerial Responsibility
The Prime Minister was very quick to jump at the publicity opportunity that followed in the wake of the Christchurch terror attack by a foreign terrorist. She was also very quick and aided by the liberal media to blame so-called white supremacists for the terror attack. She has continued those lines of attacks to this day, as have the media. On top of that her rapid demonisation of innocent firearms owners casts a shameful shadow over her premiership.
Unlike with the Christchurch atrocity, she has gone out of her way to not blame the Muslim community, or indeed their ideology despite the clear links: in fact, links far clearer than the tenuous claims that there were white supremacists lurking in our society just waiting to commit heinous crimes, despite the fact that Brenton Tarrant
was actually an Australian.
I have no doubt in my mind that when Jacinda Ardern
was informed of the supermarket terror attack and who was involved that the colour would have drained from her already sallow complexion.
She knew that she wouldn’t be able to sweep this under the table as a mad nutter, although she is heroically trying to by calling him a lone wolf. She knew this wouldn’t fly because she was briefed as recently as 9 August 2021 about the specifics of this particular Islamic terrorist. She also knew that if she had been briefed by the intelligence agencies then the leader of the opposition would also have been briefed. So she couldn’t hide from that. That is why she called it a terrorist attack from the get-go. She had to and she knew that no amount of spin could hide that fact.
But she has also admitted to at least five briefings including to cabinet about this individual Islamic terrorist. In fact, she claims that this Islamic terrorist was known to her.
In the wake of the Christchurch terror attack, Jacinda Ardern personally said that our authorities should stop spending so much time surveilling Islamic terrorism because it was white supremacists who were the real problem. She directed the intelligence agencies to change their settings and focus on white supremacists.
Her flunkies in the media have also done the same, most notably Patrick Gower
who is now beclowned as a result. While he was assiduously pursuing white supremacists he missed the Islamic terrorist lurking right under his nose.
I repeat, Jacinda Ardern essentially made sure that surveillance of this Islamic terrorist and others, reportedly more than 50 of them, was reduced.
Then there are her contortions over the naming of terrorists. She said in the wake of Christchurch that we won’t name terrorists so they don’t become martyrs. How strange then that the Prime Minister rapidly moved to make sure that this Islamic terrorist’s name suppression is lifted so that she and the media can then name him.
The Prime Minister has already suggested it is “speculative” to suggest her pedestrian law changes in regards to terrorism suppression would have made any difference. Indeed, that stands in stark contrast to her rapid demonisation of law-abiding firearms owners and rushed legislation rammed through parliament with scant public scrutiny, to change our firearms laws. Ironically those changes were to close a loophole that she herself created the year prior to the Christchurch massacre that made it easier for Brenton Tarrant
to obtain his firearms.
But, strangely, she can’t seem to pass laws like the Australians famously have to deport those of their criminal underclass who also happen to not be Australian citizens. Such a change makes much more sense than her illogical firearms law changes. How many foreign criminals could we send home if such a law had already been implemented?
It would be supremely ironic if she now moves to implement such a law given her propensity to cast shade on the Australians for similar laws.
Jacinda Ardern also says that she is extremely frustrated with how long it was taking to deport the terrorist and that she was personally involved. This is the same person who demanded that the ISIS bride must come to New Zealand because it is her home and then berated Scott Morrison for revoking her citizenship.
Ardern also demanded that Australia give her the Manus Island rejects because it wasn’t fair that they be kept effectively stateless.
And now she expects us to believe that her “personal involvement” in this latest case was to revoke the Islamic terrorist’s visa?
I believe that when the full facts of this case emerge we are going to find that the Prime Minister was deeply involved in this case, but not in the way she wishes us to believe. That is why I believe she will resist any wide-ranging inquiries because she knows she is going to be found wanting.
The Prime Minister is desperately trying to spin that her government was moving as fast as it possibly could in passing laws that may have prevented this attack. That’s why the spin argues that to suggest such law changes would have helped is “purely speculative”.
But her government’s use of urgency in parliament will expose that lie. Indeed, Newsroom wrote an article in February
of this year about the government’s excessive use of urgency.
The Prime Minister can’t claim to have moved as fast as possible on legislation when they have used urgency to give businesses support in the event of a longer lockdown, fix a loophole exposing NZ’s carbon market to major manipulation, introduced the wrong piece of legislation
and then passed it within hours, accidentally bringing into law a multi-billion dollar loan scheme and abrogated local body democracy with the Local Electoral (Maori Wards and Maori Constituencies) Amendment Bill
The 52nd Parliament under a Labour-led coalition (2017-2020
) passed 18 motions of urgency, none of which were amendments to our terror laws. On top of that, the Attorney General was notified of the need for an urgent law change in 2018 by Justice Matthew Downs. The Government has continued to use urgency for a plethora of other issues but for some reason, preventing Islamic terrorists like Ahamed Aathil Mohamed Samsudeen
wasn’t high on their priority list.
The Prime Minister cannot run and hide from her personal responsibility in this terror attack. She has admitted this terrorist was known to her. We know that his specific case has been highlighted by Police, intelligence agencies, and a single judge, that cabinet has considered this Islamic terrorist’s case on at least two separate occasions, and that the Prime Minister has been briefed as many as five times including a recent briefing on 9 August. This is on her. The buck stops at the top even if she doesn’t want that to be the case.
I can tell you one thing, you won’t see this Prime Minister rushing out of her way to dress up like Cheryl West
and claiming that Westies are Us.
Photoshopped image credit Pixy. The BFD
What is undeniable though is that the myth that “They Are Us” is well and truly busted. They never were us, and they never will be. There are 50 others out there just like Ahamed the Dead Terrorist. What we want, and indeed should demand to know, is what is the Prime Minister going to do about that.
Jacinda Ardern must admit her role in this shambles, and if an inquiry shows clear failures from her government then she must resign. What will be interesting is hearing what Winston Peters
has to say about all of this.
Please share this article so others can discover The BFD.