Yama Nabi is back at work at the meatworks, working with carcasses and wrestling with flashbacks (Photo: Dan Cook/RNZ)
Yama Nabi is back at work at the meatworks, working with carcasses and wrestling with flashbacks (Photo: Dan Cook/RNZ)

SocietyMay 5, 2019

Christchurch families desperate as Victim Support holds onto donated millions

Yama Nabi is back at work at the meatworks, working with carcasses and wrestling with flashbacks (Photo: Dan Cook/RNZ)
Yama Nabi is back at work at the meatworks, working with carcasses and wrestling with flashbacks (Photo: Dan Cook/RNZ)

People too traumatised by the Christchurch mosque attacks to work want to know why Victim Support is holding onto millions donated to the city’s Muslim community while they struggle, write Veronica Schmidt and Max Towle for RNZ.

Yama Nabi is a butcher, but these days he struggles with the sight of animal blood. It sends his mind careening back to 15 March. He sees the steps of the Al Noor mosque, blood flowing down them. He sees a woman’s body lying in the road, and another nearby. He thinks of his father, killed by a gunman along with 50 others that dark day in Christchurch.

Nabi isn’t ready to work again after what he saw and the people he lost. But he is back at the meatworks, working with carcasses, wrestling with flashbacks. He has no choice. ACC declined his application for support – the corporation doesn’t cover mental injury unless there is an accompanying physical injury or the person was at work when they were traumatised – and the millions donated by shocked well-wishers remains largely undistributed.

“My heart’s still broken,” he says. “But who’s going to pay the mortgage? Who’s going to pay for food for the kids, the family?”

Bianca Lindstrom is delivering food and clothes and offering advice to Christchurch families affected by the mosque attacks and, in her rare downtime, she’s worrying that some of them will end up dead. She has been working for the Christchurch Victims Organising Committee since the attacks and has watched survivors’ and grieving families’ recoveries stall or deteriorate.

“We’re worried that we’re going to see a lot of suicides… There’s a lot of people who aren’t coping and aren’t getting the help they need,” she says.

“What we’re finding is that they are traumatised. They can’t go to work, but they’re not getting paid. So that is being the biggest issue. And that’s why we’re thinking that it’s just going to get worse. Because if you’re stressed out and you don’t have the support or the money to be able to take that time out, then you’re going to feel isolated and then, you know, it’s downhill from there.”

Flowers and tributes left near Al Noor mosque on March 18 (Photo: Carl Court/Getty Images)

This isn’t the vision of a grieving community surrounded by support that emerged in the days after the Christchurch attacks. Back then, New Zealanders placed flowers at mosques, posted messages of love on social media, and donated incredible amounts of money to those who had lost so much.

Victim Support led the charge, creating a Givealittle fundraising page that has now raised $10.5 million, donated by almost 100,000 people and organisations. Other fundraising efforts also quickly amassed donations – more than $6 million was collected by the Christchurch Foundation’s “Our People, Our City” fund, and just under $3 million by seven predominantly Islamic groups.

So, where is that $19.5 million now? Why are traumatised people like Yama Nabi left struggling to make ends meet?

Victim Support is best placed to answer that question. It holds the purse strings for more than just the $10.5 million donated via its own fundraising push. RNZ understands responsibility for the close-to $3 million raised by predominantly Islamic groups – the At Taqwa Trust, Islamic Information Centre, Federation of Islamic Associations (FIANZ), Al Manar Trust, Handshake People, the Muslim Association of Canterbury and the North Shore Islamic Association – has also been given to Victim Support.

Victim Support is also in close contact with the Christchurch Foundation, after it helped set up a “funders’ group” to consolidate and coordinate the distribution of donated money. After discussion, Christchurch Foundation chief executive Amy Carter says the roughly $6 million raised via the foundation’s fund is now is earmarked for long-term support.

But Victim Support has stopped giving media interviews, employing two PR companies – first Acumen then Porter Novelli – to represent them. Following multiple interview requests and questions from RNZ, this week the organisation released its first statement since 10 April. It said 977 people had registered with Victim Support and it had made payments to 47 families and 80 people hospitalised.

It said it had distributed $3 million via two lump sum payments of $15,000 to the families of each deceased person, and two payments of $5000 and $8000 to hospitalised victims. Some grants had also been given to help people cover their immediate expenses.

The organisation would not give a timeline of when the rest of the money would be distributed, or say when further decisions or announcements would be made. It would not say when it would resume giving media interviews again.

In the statement, chief executive Kevin Tso said: “These are exceptional times and finding all those who need our help is an extremely complex process, which takes time.”

The Victim Support Givealittle page part way through the donation period

Farhaan Farheez’s needs are immediate. He is behind on his rent and bills and is relying on a friend for food. “I’m living like a beggar’s life,” he says.

Seven weeks ago, Farheez was a “workaholic”. He had two jobs and was signed up with an agency to try to get extra work to squeeze in around the edges. Then on 15 March he was at the Linwood mosque for prayer when the gunman entered and shot seven dead.

Farheez has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and struggles to explain what he went through that day. “I’ve never experienced anything like that before in my life.” He pauses, repeats himself, then stops. “Sorry, I just don’t have the words.”

He is under the care of a GP, a psychiatrist and counsellors, and is too unwell to work. After the attacks, he says Victim Support gave him enough money to cover his lost wages for two weeks, and checked in on him each day. Then, he says, the organisation told him they could not give him any more payments and the phone calls stopped.

“As soon as they were not able to sort of provide any financial assistance, they stopped calling me – just call me once a week maybe if I’m lucky.”

He is perpetually worried about how to make ends meet. “My main goal at this point in time is just to recover and just get back to work, but the added stress does not help at all with the PTSD… I can’t even focus on my health and well-being.”

Members of the Muslim community embrace outside the community centre in Christchurch (Photo by Hannah Peters/Getty Images)

Bianca Lindstrom says he’s one of many people who need access to the donated money. “I see a large number of victims that we feel have fallen through the cracks, and they’re not getting any help.”

She’s visiting numerous people who are traumatised, but not physically injured, who are unable to work. They don’t qualify for ACC and haven’t received payments from Victim Support. She’s seeing people who have lost family members and friends, who have watched them gunned down on the attacker’s video live stream, but who are not considered the next of kin so Victim Support has not prioritised supporting them.

Many of them have hidden themselves away at home, terrified to go outside, scared to gather with their own community for fear of more attacks, and worried about being seen as ungrateful if they ask for support, she says. After all, so many millions have already been donated that they are afraid of looking greedy if they complain that they are struggling to pay for their shopping or rent.

“We’re giving them donations of boxes – like we’ve been from the beginning – boxes of food, clothing, whatever they need, we are still supplying that. Yesterday, I gave an Indian family $200 worth of Pak’nSave vouchers,” she says.

“We’re getting calls saying, ‘Hi, Victim Support said to call you.’ Really? Because we don’t have any funding or resources or staff so we’re out working through all hours of the night and weekend getting Immigration sorted, trying to get them to get into mental health, we got someone a house yesterday.”

Lindstrom is angry and perplexed. “Where is Victim Support? What are they doing? They’re not doing anything… They’re not doing the right thing,” she says. Then she lowers her voice and the words come out staccato. “They. Are. Not. Doing. The. Right. Thing.”

Bianca Lindstrom says the Christchurch Victims Organising Committee has approached the prime minister and the mayor of Christchurch to point out that the support system is full of cracks (Photo: Supplied)

It puts Christchurch Victims Organising Committee in a difficult position, she says. They still need donations so they can continue to support families, but the public, who have already opened their wallets, have seen the news stories about the tens of millions raised and want to know how any more could be needed.

“We’re getting bombarded on our Facebook page saying, ‘Where’s all this money? Why do you still need donations? Where’s all the money gone?’ Well, we don’t know. We actually have no idea what’s happening to the money.”

“I feel so bad for those people [who donated] … and what I’m scared of is this is going to create more of a gap between the Muslim people of New Zealand and other New Zealanders. All they’re going to cop is, ‘See, this is why we don’t support Muslims… Because they think they’ve got the money. Why are we still giving? [The answer is] because we don’t have the money.”

Lindstrom says the Christchurch Victims Organising Committee has approached the prime minister and the mayor of Christchurch to point out that the support system is full of cracks. They’ve also asked Victim Support for a meeting – they wanted to tell them what was going on in the community and what was needed – and were “brushed off”, told by the organisation they were “too busy”, Lindstrom says.

Yama Nabi is afraid to ask where the donated money is – he doesn’t want to seem ungrateful. He received a small payment from Victim Support, but it is long gone – weeks off work with children to support chews through cash. Now, it’s his mother who both ACC and Victim Support recognise as the victim in his father’s death. He wants her supported, of course, but wishes he could access some help. He wants a bit more time off work to “just heal up”.

Farheez wants Victim Support to understand it is not their money – that it was donated to the community who he says are suffering and in need. “At the end of the day this money isn’t Victim Support’s money. It’s the money from the people of New Zealand and technically Victim Support is a third party who is supposed to help people like myself and others … I feel they’re simply not doing their job.”

Keep going!
Photo: Thomas Koehler/Photothek via Getty Images
Photo: Thomas Koehler/Photothek via Getty Images

SocietyMay 5, 2019

Can internet anonymity survive in a world of online extremism?

Photo: Thomas Koehler/Photothek via Getty Images
Photo: Thomas Koehler/Photothek via Getty Images

Should we increase surveillance of ‘lawless’ online bulletin boards like 4chan and 8chan, and if so, how? Radio NZ’s Max Towle asks 8chan’s founder Fredrick Brennan and New Zealand experts whether the rise of online extremism can be curbed.

Fredrick Brennan would open 4chan when he woke, and close it long after dusk, moments before closing his eyes. During his teenage years, he spent countless hours on the website – an online bulletin board where anyone can anonymously upload images or post comments. As one of millions of faceless users, he typed his thoughts about technology, video games and life itself. Often his parents let him skip school so he could spend all day on his computer.

Brennan has brittle bone disease, and has suffered dozens of breaks and fractures. Anonymous forums were an escape. “People on there seemed very honest and ‘real’ and … I was treated differently on there. In real life, a lot of people perhaps saw me as someone who was fragile and easily injured, and because I had a weak body, I must have a weak mind.”

Once, he wrote a heartfelt post about living with a disability. No one knew it was him.

In 2013, when he was 19, Brennan set up his own rival website, 8chan. As opposed to 4chan, where administrators would determine discussion topics, Brennan wanted to give users more freedom to chat about whatever they wanted. For the first year or so the topics were fairly innocuous, but as the site grew in popularity, so did the alarming nature of the content.

In 2015, the Washington Post described 8chan as a more “lawless” version of 4chan, and a site that welcomed forums dedicated to paedophilia, suicide and concerted harassment and trolling. At the time, Brennan believed this was an unfortunate consequence of freedom.

Speaking from his home in the Philippines, Brennan now says he was focused on boosting 8chan’s popularity. “That toxicity was not something that ever really got to me. I barely considered it. I knew 4chan had gotten extremely toxic and I felt like, if they can [get away with it], why can’t I?”

He quit 8chan in 2016, but mostly out of frustration with the technology and his perceived lack of investment from the site’s backer and owner, Jim Watkins.

Fredrick Brennan in 2014. (Photo: Screenshot / YouTube)

On March 15, hearing a so-called manifesto announcing the terror attacks on two Christchurch mosques had been posted on 8chan, Brennan logged back in. He says he was surprised to see a wealth of content inciting further violence. “A lot of people were celebrating the shootings on the board.”

Yet when asked if he feels any guilt about a mass murder being announced and celebrated on something he created, he bristles. “I feel like – at least this is how I’ve rationalised it to myself – that if it wasn’t 8chan, it would have been some other [website] and there’s nothing I could have done. I did feel a little bit guilty, but I’m not sure it was rational to feel guilty.”

The deepest shadows

Aspects of the manifesto, which has been declared objectionable by the chief censor, appear to show how important such anonymous communities were in the author’s world. The booklet referenced memes, in-jokes and discussion topics that are popular on 8chan, and other similar sites like the more established 4chan.

There is a growing, global movement that is gaining steam within the darkest shadows of the online world; where you can read some of the most vile conversations imaginable. Just this week, shortly before a deadly shooting at a California synagogue, a user identified as the man accused of the attacks announced his intentions on 8chan. Other mass murderers, such as Dylann Roof, convicted for perpetrating the Charleston church shooting in 2015, have been strongly linked with 4chan.

The popularity of these two sites is immense – 4chan averages more than 8 million visitors per month. Their political discussion groups have long been known for extremist ideas – racism, homophobia, sexism, graphic violence, and, occasionally, child pornography. These sites require no sign-up process or usernames.

A few weeks ago, 8chan’s owner Jim Watkins publicly denied his site should take any responsibility for the Christchurch shootings, saying it was impossible to predict the attacks: “There are no Tom Cruises out there with psychic assistance to stop someone from committing a crime before they commit it.”

He said New Zealand enforcement agencies, such as the police, were essentially powerless.

Strange territory

It is virtually impossible to determine who is posting what in the dark, anonymous corners of the internet. This is a problem raised by politicians around the world, and one without a clear solution.

The two “chans” and their ilk have been on the radar of New Zealand’s security agencies for years, says Netsafe chief executive Martin Cocker. Although until the shootings, he says there has been no reason to engage with them. “We were certainly aware that these sites existed and the conversations that happen on them … [but] it was a different sort of environment for us to suddenly be actively working in.”

Since March 15, Netsafe has contacted about 40 websites that hosted and played a role in distributing the livestream, including 4chan and 8chan, and only six agreed to remove content. Six flatly rejected the request, while 4chan and 8chan didn’t even respond. “In the long term, these sorts of sites are the real problem areas. They don’t abide by our laws, but they also don’t really abide by any laws. They’re so dominated with the idea of freedom of speech that they become the home of hateful, problematic content,” says Cocker.

Some of the discussion groups on 4chan (Photo: 4chan / Screenshot)

Like Netsafe, the police appear to have been contacting sites also. The operator of American site Kiwi Farms, Josh Moon, publicly shared an email he received from New Zealand Police requesting information about the website’s users, including their email and IP addresses. Moon responded: “Is this a joke? I’m not turning over information about my users.”

NZ Police would not say what response they have received from other sites, although last month, the official Twitter account of 8chan tweeted it had “not received any takedown request from any government or law enforcement agency, NZ or otherwise”. The account also tweeted: “Non-US governments have no jurisdiction over 8chan.”

Here in New Zealand, the government has been coy regarding how it can prevent similar tragedies. National Party leader Simon Bridges has called for the resurrection of a cyber-snooping proposal that gives greater scope to scan internet traffic coming into the country, but Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she doubted it would help agencies like the Security Intelligence Service. “What I haven’t had evidence around is whether or not their powers limited them from doing the work they needed to do,” she told RNZ. This is a question the Royal Commission [an inquiry into the country’s security agencies following the Christchurch attacks] will investigate. Ardern added that working in an online environment that features anonymous groups and encryptions is “not easy”, and a challenge for every democracy.

Last month the Prime Minister announced an international “call to action” led by New Zealand and France to ensure the most popular social media platforms aren’t used to organise and promote terrorism, yet smaller sites, like 4chan and 8chan, aren’t the focus of this. Last month the director general of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), Andrew Hampton, said agencies don’t have the technical capability, legal authority or resources to monitor all online activity in the country. He said there wasn’t any evidence to suggest the accused shooter was a person of interest. Regarding the difficulty of monitoring chat rooms, he said “you need to know where to look”.

Fredrick Brennan says as long as people are able to use the internet in a certain way, they can act without any fear of repercussions. The only concrete way to restrict harmful content, he says, is replicate China and its heavily censored internet. “China has attached a name to everyone’s connection. Even in anonymous forums, your account is anonymous to other users, but the website and the authorities know who you are,” Brennan says.

“As long as the internet is free and open, there’s really no way to prevent videos like the Christchurch shootings from spreading.”

A stop sign

There is one potential solution, but according to Martin Cocker, it is a “crude” one. After the Christchurch attacks, the country’s biggest internet service providers (ISPs) – Vodafone, Spark and 2degrees – came together to block people’s access to 8chan, 4chan, Kiwi Farms, and dozens of other similar sites that hosted live footage of the attacks. The blocks lasted a couple of weeks. In a joint statement, the ISPs conceded it was an “extraordinary” move: “[We] accept it is impossible as internet service providers to prevent completely access to this material. But hopefully we have made it more difficult for this content to be viewed and shared.”

The blocks were criticised both internationally and at home by some in the tech world, who felt they restricted people’s freedom of expression. Online magazine Slate wrote 4chan and 8chan may be “awful internet places whose ugliness spills into public view”, but that doesn’t render the actions of New Zealand’s ISPs less concerning. “It is censorship when ISPs, which are merely gateways to … conversations, try to take on hate speech or other content themselves. We don’t want ISPs making those calls.”

What really concerned the chairperson of the NZ Council of Civil Liberties, Thomas Beagle, was the lack of transparency. “There was no apparent process or any of the things we want to see in a well-regulated system … the ISPs, which connect over 90% of the population, claim they took the action on their own.” Beagle says 4chan and 8chan may host awful content, but they’re also sites where topics like anime, TV and politics are discussed. Yet Cocker says beyond blocking, there’s little else that can be done – “[it’s] not easy to put down a plan of response that will make any difference at all”.

The Sri Lankan government’s blackout of social media sites after the terror bombings on Easter Sunday, which was lifted this week, came under similar scrutiny.

8chan founder Fredrick Brennan says right now it’s impossible to stop, or even identify, those determined to spread content like the livestream of the Christchurch attacks, or post violent messages. “[Blocking] might stop normal people who don’t understand how the complexities of the internet works, but for people who have any understanding of the domain name system, let alone peer-to-peer sharing, it’s ineffective.”

Yet blocking is a blunt tool he, like Martin Cocker, predicts will be used more in the future. “I believe we’re going to see a lot more ISPs forced by courts to block things in certain countries because of websites that aren’t cooperative outside their borders. I wouldn’t say this is a good thing, it’s just what I believe will happen.”

The dark crevices

Tackling the technology may be the focus, but understanding the type of people who use anonymous sites may be equally, if not more, important.

Ginger Gorman, an Australian investigative journalist who recently published a book about online hate, Troll Hunting, has been closely following, and interacting on sites like 4chan and 8chan for years. She told RNZ white nationalist radicalisation is happening in these spaces, and nothing regarding what happened on March 15 surprised her. “These are conversations being had in the cesspit of the internet … the things [in the manifesto] are actually part of a whole culture that exists there.” She says law enforcement around the world is “completely out of its depth”.

Ginger Gorman (Photo: Hilary Wardhaugh)

There’s a sense of power afforded to people in anonymous forums, says Kathleen Kuehn, a Victoria University media lecturer who specialises in surveillance and online privacy. Outside of the sites, a “spiral of silence” is perpetuated. “If you hold a minority political view you might not want to speak up, and so you might retreat to anonymous spaces.”

She suggests some don’t really believe what they write online, but are simply being provocative. “Those thoughts may exist in their hearts and minds, but there is behavioural research that [suggests] if you create a fake identity, your goal may be simply to be a troll. That speaks to the sense that there’s no connection to the real self in these spaces, and that can encourage anti-social behaviour.”

In Fredrick Brennan’s experience, the racism, sexism and homophobia is real: “This argument is something I think a lot of people use as a shield. Most of the people posting on 4chan who are edgy and racist really believe what they’re saying.”

While running 8chan, he often received shocking emails from people using the site. “I was like, ‘wow, I am talking to a neo-Nazi right now’,” he recalls. “There may be some kids making jokes or people blowing off steam, but I believe a great majority believe what they’re posting. They may just be too scared to say the same thing in real life.”

And anonymity is key: “When you take away someone’s name and image, they will say what’s in the dark crevices of their heart. They know it won’t be traced back to them, and so they open up and you get to see what’s inside them,” says Brennan.

These days, he says he uses anonymous sites as little as possible. Reflecting now, he feels he wasted a lot of his life. “As I’ve grown up, I’ve realised that these sites aren’t real. Most people aren’t like that in real life – they’re not deeply racist, and not everybody has a constantly negative outlook. I used to think it was honest and edgy because of how dark it was, but I was missing the lighter side of life.”

Beyond the screen

Anonymity may incite toxicity, but it can also provide people with a voice – Kathleen Kuehn says it all depends on context. “People living in oppressive regimes have a vested political interest in remaining anonymous – they may want to criticise the government or organise a protest and they don’t want to be punished for their views.” And while those in more democratic countries may not have the same fears, “some of us just don’t want to be watched”.

Other anonymous spaces might include closed discussion groups regarding queer rights, anonymous auctions on TradeMe, or people, like the teenage Fredrick Brennan, craving the freedom to open up about their disability.

Kuehn says the internet is built on the idea of experimenting with ideas without the fear of being socially sanctioned, and connecting with people you might never meet in reality.

Brennan says ultimately, every country will have to decide what it wants from the internet: “Do you want to connect to the free, open internet where you can say anything, be anonymous and [perhaps] spread a livestream video so it can never be deleted; or do you want to segregate yourself from that, as China has done?”

He says it’s no surprise New Zealand agencies appear to be scratching their heads: “As soon as you get to a server that isn’t in New Zealand, your police are kind of impotent.”

Kuehn says we might be looking for answers in the wrong places: “The conversation about stopping abusive content and the alt-right and hate speech always seems to resort to a technological fix – that we just need to make the technology better and the problem is solved.”

But, she says prohibiting anonymity, or toxic anonymous spaces, probably isn’t the solution. As soon as one space closes, another will open: “If you want to fix the problem, you need to address the ideas. You’re not going to solve hate speech until you solve racism and sexism and homophobia. As a society, these are problems that go beyond the online world. Let’s all get fucking woke, anything else is just a band-aid.”

This post also appeared as an RNZ Insight podcast, which you can listen to here.