EXPERT REACTION: Christchurch mosque attacks

"The Christchurch attack has ignited a debated about who is to be blamed for this heinous crime. Politicians and media are being identified as the culprits who have emboldened whether inadvertently or not white Supremacist. 

There is no doubt that these groups shoulder part of the responsibility. But this is time to shift the narratives that have underpinned discussions of militant activities since 9/11. In post 9/11 we created narratives of Muslim militancy and the West as the target which has had impact on the wider communities' view of Islam and Muslims. It has provided a reference point for Islamophobia elements to target Muslims. 

After Christchurch shootings, the narrative is shifting to assigning blame again. Muslims are victims of the recent attack but their portrayal as a ‘consistently victimised faith group’ creates a narrative with future risks. Such narratives run the risk of creating more fear among the Muslims, and despite the outpouring of support from the wider community, they can contribute to delayed resentment among Muslims in the long term. 

It is time to create a narrative which highlights shared responsibility of ALL to ensure acceptance, respect and safety of others. And politicians, policy makers, opinion makers and academia need to promote such a positive narrative on a continued basis. Not just now but consistently. 

The tragic Christchurch shooting was an attempt to recuperate wounded masculinity. The choice of New Zealand as a location for the crime draws our attention to the need for gun law reform and highlights the fact that laws in Australia and New Zealand need to be tightened, as Jacinda Arden has noted.

The killers’ 74 page ‘manifesto’ demonstrates that he is ignorant about Muslim culture. His use of Muslim culture and religion as a vehicle of hate should not be read as a position statement on Australia’s respect for Muslims.

Research shows that acts which are read as performances of ‘radicalization’ actually have little to do with religion. For the most part, radicalisation and radical violence is undertaken by men and discussions need to examine violent masculinity, not religion.

The concept of white privilege is not a useful tool with which to respond to such events. It ignores the complexities of class, nationality, politics, and pits people of non-white heritage against people of white heritage. Media reports complaining about white privilege only serve to widen the divide between white and non-white Australians.

We need to cleave violent performances of radicalised masculinity away from broad discussions of race and culture. We also need to recuperate the capacity that Australian culture has to value multiculturalism and look towards genuinely diverse forms of cultural appreciation while working to name and ameliorate all forms of racism.

For example, a first-generation white person from Slovenia or Ireland is not in the same position as a sixth-generation white person from England living in Australia, or a tenth generation non-white Australian from Afghanistan. Ignoring these complexities is an insult perpetuated by the ‘white privilege’ discourse, which also fails to mention long histories of Muslim culture in mainstream Australia.

Race, culture, class, gender and experience can never be reduced to skin colour alone and Australians need to own the project of multiculturalism as a way of learning from and valuing cultural difference. We are stronger together. 

This week the tragic events in NZ have reminded us that the world can be an unkind place. As adults, we have reeled from these events, so how do we explain these senseless acts to our children?

All research indicates that limiting media exposure to terrorism decreases the negative effects experienced by children (e.g., worry, fear). But I would contend that controlling media consumption would be challenging or impossible in this era.

As an alternative, we can remind children all events are possible, but that there is a low chance of these events happening. Children can be asked how they feel, what they are thinking, how they are processing the events that have unfolded. We can model confidence rather than fear.

We have a great country with many good people, one person or group does not change that. Encourage children to continue living their life. Don’t let fear steal who we are. We are good, we are kind, we will continue to be. 

Jacinta Ardern's response to the NZ terrorist attack was a wonderful and powerful demonstration of authentic leadership. She was measured in what she said and exuded real strength, compassion and care for the victims. While acknowledging the need to examine gun control she did not make this a focus, instead reinforcing that NZ was a community and home for all. The wearing of the traditional hijab reflected respect and her body language in meeting with victims was one of deep concern and empathy. You can't fake this!

All her behaviour and language clearly and genuinely said 'we stand together with you and for you, we remain here together in this community of NZ.

Social media companies are working to limit, but are unable to entirely prevent, the livestreaming of harmful content. To do so would undermine free speech protections. In the case of the Christchurch attacks, Facebook should have been able to do better than allowing the livestream of the massacre to continue for 17 minutes. Going forward, social media companies should be held to account by demonstrating how they can moderate content and meet community standards around the proliferation of harmful content.

Many people will be feeling absolutely devastated by the tragic and horrific shootings in Christchurch on Friday.

Those with cultural and religious affiliations to the victims of this crisis are more likely to feel emotionally distressed and fragile.

It is clear that the killings were a crime of hate and that can be hard for people to understand and digest. Those who lost their lives did so inside a place of prayer and peace - a mosque.

This sharp juxtaposition of rampant violence in a place of peace makes the events difficult to process.

Witnessing these events can be traumatising.

People viewing the events that unfolded will see them as powerful, confronting and difficult to take in.

Those without direct experience of the events may still feel that it has unsettled their sense of belonging to their community - to New Zealand or Australia.

In some ways, we can also be drawn to these events because we want to try and make meaning out of what has happened.

It is important to realise there will be a range of reactions from people – responses can fluctuate and be quite individual.

If you find yourself becoming distressed, try to calibrate your exposure to television and radio reports. Reach out for support from others to prevent over-exposure or a cycle of distress.

There is a lot of speculation regarding the sentence that the perpetrator will get at the end of his trial. The act of the perpetrator certainly amounts to terrorism and hence NZ’s Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002 would undoubtedly be triggered in this case. The accused has currently been detained under murder charges and a trial is yet to commence. Under the Terrorism Suppression legislation, the maximum punishment that the perpetrator can get is imprisonment for life or a lesser term. It is worth knowing that NZ abolished the death penalty for all crimes in 1989 and hence capital punishments for the perpetrator is out of the question. The real question is whether the punishment under NZ laws would suffice in order to bring justice to the victims?

The principle of Universal jurisdiction in international law allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting entity. The possibility of states or IO’s laying a claim for Universal Jurisdiction, in this case, seems to be narrow.  

Muslim bodies and sites are under constant scrutiny and attack, particularly visibly Muslim women who cite verbal and physical abuse in their everyday lives during basic activities such as accessing public transport, driving, or walking. Attacks such as the recent massacre in Christchurch further restrict the already limited spaces of belonging and safety available for Muslim communities. This attack of terror has further undermined the Muslim’s ‘right to the city’, where their own mosques cannot provide the respite and safety to practise their faith. These spatial impacts must be taken into account in ensuring the safety and equal access to city space for Muslim communities in the West.

After Australia introduced sweeping gun law reform in 1996, we saw 22 years without a massacre, having seen 13 in the previous 18 years. The gun lobby argued that these were rare events and so it was possible that they were still rare, and nothing could be concluded. We tested this idea mathematically and concluded the probability of this 22-year absence occurring following the pattern in the preceding 18 years was about 1 in 200,000. That’s odds slightly worse than a ticket holder winning first prize in the NSW $5 jackpot lottery: 1 in 180,000.

"Over the 18 years prior to 1996, mass shootings occurred here at a rate of about three every four years. Had they continued at this rate then, under our rare events model, the expected number of mass shooting incidents since 1996 would by March 2018 have been 16.3. John Howard’s historic leadership in implementing our gun law reforms, therefore, seems likely to have averted some 16 mass shootings in this country.

After the tragedy

Four phases follow events like the tragedy in Christchurch – shock and disbelief, grieving, a search for answers, and new countermeasures.

The shocked New Zealand reaction to the Christchurch terrorist massacre was similar to Australia’s following the terrorist attacks in Bali in 2002, when Indonesian terrorists killed 88 Australians in twin nightclub bombings. (In all, there were 202 fatalities, including two New Zealanders.)

Since 1950 in New Zealand there have been seven multiple-death incidents resulting in 50 deaths, with only one getting into double figures - what is called the “Aramoana massacre”, which resulted in 14 deaths.

This was a mass shooting that occurred on 13 November 1990 at Aramoana, northeast of Dunedin. Resident David Gray, after a verbal dispute with his next-door neighbour, shot and killed 13 people, including local police Sergeant Stewart Guthrie. The next day, the Police Anti-Terrorist Squad located Gray, and shot and disabled him as he came out of a house firing from the hip. He died on the way to hospital.

None of these fatal incidents seems to have been politically motivated. Most politically motivated acts of violence in New Zealand have been bombings without the specific intention of causing loss of life. These included the Huntly rail bridge bombing (1951), the Wanganui Computer Centre bombing (1982), and the Wellington Trades Hall bombing (1984).

New Zealand will be particularly shocked by the Christchurch massacre as it prided itself on being a well-integrated community welcoming migrants from around the world - including Muslims unwelcome elsewhere. However, there are clearly some right-wing activists in New Zealand who do not welcome migrants from other cultures.

New Zealand security authorities seem to have been mainly focused on Islamist extremists and not to have taken members of the extreme-right seriously enough - such as those attracted to the NZ Sovereignty movement.

The agency that will come under most scrutiny after the Christchurch massacre is the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, or NZSIS.

NZSIS is a civilian intelligence and security organisation. Its role is to investigate threats to security and to work with other agencies within Government so that the intelligence it collects is actioned, and threats that have been identified are disrupted.

NZSIS’ headquarters is in Wellington, with regional offices in Auckland and Christchurch, and some staff based overseas. It has close to 300 full-time equivalent staff. The Director-General since 2014 has been Rebecca Kitteridge. She was reappointed for another three years from May 2019. The Minister Responsible for NZSIS is Andrew Little.

The New Zealand Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is quite active in global and regional counterterrorism forums. It notes “While the risk of a terror attack here is thought to be low, we need to be vigilant, and play a part in countering terrorism abroad.”

Located within the NZSIS is an interdepartmental group, the Combined Threat Assessment Group (CTAG), whose role is to warn of terrorist and criminal threats. The CTAG is hosted by NZSIS and includes representatives of the Government Communications Security Bureau, New Zealand Defence Force, Police, and Civil Aviation Authority.

In February 2019, the DG NZSIS noted in a briefing to the New Zealand Government’s Intelligence and Security Committee that at any one time around 30 people are of particular interest to the NZSIS. No mention was made of any right-wing concerns. There is also no mention of right-wing extremism in the NZSIS 2018 annual report.

New Zealand lists 21 groups as terrorist entities. The list comprises Islamist and left-wing groups apparently drawn from a UN list; but most of the groups pose no threat to New Zealand or its interests. The list also includes the Taliban which is usually regarded as an insurgent group and not a terrorist group. It is not clear whether the terrorist entities list actually drives the prioritisation of security intelligence resources.

It seems harder for the public to access counterterrorism advice in New Zealand than it is in Australia. For example, it was difficult to determine easily what New Zealand’s terrorism threat levels are. I found them buried in a Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet website. There are six threat levels: Negligible, Very Low, Low, Medium, High and Extreme.

At the end of 2014, because of concerns about Islamist terrorism, New Zealand’s terror threat level increased from Very Low (unlikely) to Low (possible but not expected). In the wake of the Christchurch massacre it has been raised to High (assessed as likely). The High ranking was because of not knowing who else might be involved and to guard against copycat attacks.

The other area that will attract scrutiny in the “search for answers” phase is New Zealand’s lax gun law situation. Only pistols and military style semi-automatic firearms need to be registered with Police and there is no national register.  

There are about 230,000 licensed firearms owners and an estimated 1.5 million firearms in New Zealand. Gun licences are issued at the discretion of Police provided they consider the applicant to be of good standing without criminal, psychiatric or drug issues, and have suitable storage facilities.

Last year 52,000 weapons were imported legally but Police have long been concerned about the number coming in illegally.

The 1997 Thorp Inquiry estimated there were between 10,000 and 25,000 firearms owned by people with criminal intent, along with possibly another 100,000 "grey guns" held by unlicensed individuals, but not intended for criminal purposes.

New Zealand Police have pushed for years for tighter gun controls, against political resistance.  In March 2009, a Police bid to reclassify certain types of civilian semi-automatic firearms - of the kind used in the Christchurch attacks - was overturned by the New Zealand High Court as a result of a legal challenge mounted by the New Zealand National Shooters Association.

Clearly, high priorities going forward should be a review of New Zealand’s security threat assessment system, a tightening up of gun laws, and a buyback scheme to reduce the number of firearms.

Do we lead or do we follow? 

The internet is a swamp, but it is not the wild west. The main reason we have not applied any real checks and balances to the system is because we have not asked. Well, now the right questions are being asked by the right people, so we will get to see what can be done.

What must not be taken for granted, what must not be accepted, is the notion that we stop before we start because it goes in the too ‘hard pile’.

I am told constantly that my calls for more responsible reporting are moot because of the internet. Before the internet, we were told it was not acceptable for other reasons.

Let’s use the evidence, let’s try and do it right. It is my firm belief that if we effectively apply a better understanding of the relationship between mass murder and the way it is reported, then other problematic areas, such as social media platforms, are more likely to be held to account. The evidence tells us the first step we can take, let’s take it.

Facebook and Twitter have done an incredible job getting rid of ISIS and other extremist-related content over the last two years. To do this they’ve deployed a combination of algorithmic, community reporting, and moderator assets. I don’t feel they’ve paid as much attention to right-wing extremism and in many cases have promoted it. There is advertising revenue to be had for example. So yes I feel they do already have the tools and the capacity to combat this: it just hasn’t been their focus. So we need to encourage them to change focus. To take White Supremacist and right-wing content as seriously as other dangerous content. Because it is dangerous. 

They did respond fairly quickly to the NZ massacre and removed both video content and links to the video. But could we redirect attention to stopping violent live-streams from occurring in the first place for example? The AI capacity exists if it was turned to that end.