spinofflive
Al Noor mosque under armed police patrol on March 22, 2019 (Photo: Carl Court/Getty Images)
Al Noor mosque under armed police patrol on March 22, 2019 (Photo: Carl Court/Getty Images)

SocietyJuly 7, 2020

‘Everything was in place to ignore us’: Officials ‘uninterested’ in Muslim community’s pre-March 15 warnings

Al Noor mosque under armed police patrol on March 22, 2019 (Photo: Carl Court/Getty Images)
Al Noor mosque under armed police patrol on March 22, 2019 (Photo: Carl Court/Getty Images)

The Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand said it repeatedly warned the government an attack like that on March 15 last year was possible. Today, it released the evidence.

Within days of the March 15 mosque attacks, while the names of the dead were still being recorded, Anjum Rahman of the Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand wrote an impassioned and chilling article. The violence in Christchurch was not a surprise, she said. Her organisation had been warning of it for months, for years. “We begged and pleaded, we demanded,” she wrote then. “We knocked on every door we could, we spoke at every forum we were invited to.”

Today the council detailed just what it knew, and when. At a press conference at Al-Masjid Al-Jamie mosque in Ponsonby, Auckland, the IWCNZ revealed its submissions to the royal commission of inquiry into the attacks on Christchurch’s Al Noor and Linwood mosques, when a single gunman killed 51 people and injured 49 others. The group’s national co-ordinator, Dr Maysoon Salama, lost her son in the attack.

The IWCNZ’s submissions, now public, detail how it repeatedly and with increased urgency warned the New Zealand government that there was a “rising temperature” of white supremacy and Islamophobia in New Zealand. It describes civil service officials as “poorly trained, unprofessional and uninformed”, and agencies involved as “unmotivated” and “uninterested”.

Aliya Danzeisen, who continues to lead the IWCNZ’s government engagement efforts, spoke to the crowd gathered at the Al-Masjid Al-Jamie mosque in Ponsonby, Auckland, about evidence she presented to the government in an attempt to warn them about potential terrorist actions against the Muslim community.

The IWCNZ said it made efforts to engage with the government in the five years prior to the Christchurch mosque attacks, and warned of increased urgency and risk in the three years leading up to it. “We expressed the urgent need for support, and that we needed them,” she said. “The public service was uninterested in solving the problem.”

Flowers and messages of condolence outside the Al-Masjid Al-Jamie mosque in Ponsonby, where this morning’s press conference was held, the day after the attacks last year (Photo: Phil Walter/Getty Images)

Danzeisen said minutes were not kept at some meetings she had with government officials. At one meeting at which she spoke at length on the IWCNZ’s concerns, the minutes didn’t reflect that she spoke at all.

She said members of the Muslim community, in particular women and children, were regularly harassed in public and in schools. “Our own prime minister at that time, John Key, reinforced this othering by asserting that jihadi brides were leaving from New Zealand.” This was not true, but Danzeisen said this resulted in Muslim women experiencing related harassment from the public afterwards. 

In the lead-up to March 15, the IWCNZ informed officials of evidence that white supremacy was present in New Zealand. The submission even details how social media was involved in harassment, including the lack of adequate monitoring of what was uploaded to social media platforms. “We specifically raised that lack of monitoring was hurting New Zealand’s brand as a welcoming and open community,” said Danzeisen. 

“The public service was uninterested in solving the problem,” she said. “We knocked on every door, we offered solutions, and were basically dismissed.”

“When I received a threat on Facebook on February 20 everything was in place to ignore us again,” she said. The message in question threatened to burn a Qur’an outside a mosque in Hamilton on March 15 of last year, but the IWCNZ noted the user was in Christchurch.

“It is our opinion that the attack was preventable,” she said. “Had our warnings been heeded there would have been support on the steps of the mosques on March 15.”

Anjum Rahman, media spokesperson for IWCNZ, said public policy needed to focus on the prevention of violent extremism, not countering it. “Prevention means empowering communities, fostering belonging, valuing and celebrating difference,” she said. Countering can mean heavy surveillance, a technique the IWCNZ believes isn’t done well. “If you’re going to surveil a community, then you should be engaging with that community, and working with them to solve the problem.”

“We know that three young Muslim men were arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned in New Zealand as the result of sharing an Isis video,” she said. It’s also understood by IWCNZ that no one sharing white supremacist videos or inciting white supremacist actions in New Zealand was surveilled. “There was an over-reliance on Five Eyes,” she said of the imbalance in surveillance. “New Zealand is a world leader in so many ways. We get so many things right, why look overseas for policy and practices that are often clearly biased?”

The IWCNZ said further policy should take people’s histories of harassment into account when considering gun ownership. The submission states that gun owners making threats, online or offline, of harm either direct or indirect, should be penalised. Rahman said mass killers overseas leave a trail of evidence including abusive behaviour online and violence against intimate partners. The IWCNZ recommends that members of the public should have the ability to report death threats, rape threats, or other threats of harm. “Those [threats] should be checked against the firearms registry, and licences revoked,” said Rahman. “A genuine and legitimate gun owner would not be making these kinds of threats”. 

The SIS in particular came under criticism from Frances Joychild QC, who represented IWCNZ before the commission.

Joychild is critical of the SIS because she’s aware the IWCNZ told the director general of security, Rebecca Kitteridge, and relevant ministers repeatedly and personally about the urgency of their concerns. “Yet we still see, in a speech by Rebecca Kitteridge around that time [of the IWCNZ’s warnings], she’s talking about the terrorist threat from Muslims. There’s no one turning and looking the other way.”

“If citizens are required to be loyal to the state, then the state must be loyal to its citizens,” said Rahman. “This includes not sending troops to fight illegal wars. This means applying policy fairly. This means speaking out against human rights abuses, even when committed by allies. This means being honest in the telling of our history.”

The royal commission into the events of March 15 is still under way, with a report due out at the end of July. The IWCNZ’s recommendations are publicly available here.

Keep going!
Members of the Muslim community embrace outside the community centre in Christchurch following the March 15 terror attacks (Photo: Hannah Peters/Getty Images)
Members of the Muslim community embrace outside the community centre in Christchurch following the March 15 terror attacks (Photo: Hannah Peters/Getty Images)

SocietyJuly 6, 2020

What to expect from the sentencing of the Christchurch mosque terrorist

Members of the Muslim community embrace outside the community centre in Christchurch following the March 15 terror attacks (Photo: Hannah Peters/Getty Images)
Members of the Muslim community embrace outside the community centre in Christchurch following the March 15 terror attacks (Photo: Hannah Peters/Getty Images)

After months of delays, the man responsible for murdering 51 people in a Christchurch mosque will finally be sentenced next month. Law professor Kris Gledhill explains how the sentencing will likely unfold. 

On the very day New Zealand entered Covid-19 lockdown, the man arrested for the Christchurch mosque terror attacks admitted he was a murderer and a terrorist.

Despite the lockdown, Justice Mander arranged for media and community representatives to be present when the accused confessed guilt via an audio-visual link from prison. Adjourning the case for sentencing, the judge expressed the hope that those who wished to attend in person would be able to do so.

Last week, Justice Mander directed that sentencing begin on August 24, some 17 months after the atrocity of March 15, 2019.

Why the delay?

This crime was exceptional in its brutality. While the courts have treated it largely as any other case, there have been accommodations. Before the guilty pleas were entered, the trial date had been moved due to Ramadan. And extra steps have been taken to allow more victims to participate in the sentencing.

Under the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, the families of those killed and injured are directly involved in a sentencing hearing. With lockdown lifted, New Zealand’s courts are running again, but many of those who will want to make a victim impact statement are abroad. Those with citizenship or permanent residence will have to be quarantined if they return.

Those not automatically entitled to enter will have to seek an exemption. The judge acknowledged the sentencing date was a compromise. Some who want to attend in person won’t be able to. But at the same time, finality is important. Video links will be arranged for those who can’t attend.

The judge did not explicitly mention the defendant’s interest in learning his fate, but this will also be a factor.

Journalists wait outside the Christchurch District Court following the March 15 terror attacks in 2019 (Photo by Sanka Vidanagama/NurPhoto)

How will the gunman be sentenced?

The scale of offending in this case means the hearing will take several days, not least to allow meaningful participation by victims. Before the hearing, the lawyers will file submissions about the appropriate sentence based on the facts, aggravating factors and any mitigation that can be presented. Advice is given by probation officers, and medical reports often feature for serious offending.

A hearing typically opens with the defendant being asked if he or she has anything to say before sentence is passed. This is a cue for the lawyers to make their statements to the court.

Several issues may arise here. Will the defendant wish to speak directly? If so, will it be permitted? Will he be in court or appear via video link?

If he does want to be present for sentencing, the judge may still prevent this by finding it “not contrary to the interests of justice” if the defendant appears only by video link.

If facts alleged by the prosecution are disputed by the defendant, and if those disputed facts may make a difference to the sentence, a mini-trial might be required to resolve them.

Who can present victim impact statements could also be disputed. The terrorism in question was aimed at the Muslim community, making it arguably a “person against whom” the offence was committed and so within the definition of a victim.

Al Noor mosque under armed police officer patrol on March 22, 2019. (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)

What sentence can we expect?

The maximum sentence for a terrorist act is life imprisonment, as it is for murder. The defendant has admitted 51 murders. For attempted murder, the maximum sentence is 10 years, and he has admitted 40 such offences.

Unlike some jurisdictions, New Zealand doesn’t allow sentences of several hundred years for multiple offending. The focus, therefore, will be on the life sentence.

The Sentencing Act requires a life sentence for murder unless that would be manifestly unjust. No one can suggest that exception applies here. The main issue will be the minimum non-parole period the judge should apply.

Parliament requires a minimum term of 17 years for a terrorist murder or one involving more than one victim. But the legislation allows the judge to set no minimum non-parole period. In other words, a life sentence is literally for the defendant’s remaining life.

A “whole life” sentence has not yet been imposed in New Zealand but it seems likely the prosecution will call for one.

The defence lawyers’ job is to argue against it. It’s also likely that whatever the judge decides will be appealed – by the prosecution if he does not impose a whole life sentence, and by the defence if he does.

Could the gunman be sent back to Australia?

Whether or not there is a whole life sentence, the defendant will be imprisoned for the foreseeable future, inevitably in a high-security facility.

Given he is Australian, might he be transferred to Australia? We have no standing arrangements to transfer serving prisoners, so deportation usually follows release. However, the government is able to negotiate special arrangements if the Australian government is willing.

The August hearing and any appeal will determine the responsibility of the gunman. The focus can then turn to the wider questions of whether the horror could have been prevented and how to guard against it happening again.The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.