New Zealand begins inquiry into Christchurch's mosques massacre

[webfact]

New Zealand begins inquiry into Christchurch's mosques massacre

 

Armed police officers stand guard outside Al Noor mosque where more than 40 people were killed by a suspected white supremacist during Friday prayers on March 15, in Christchurch, New Zealand April 1, 2019. REUTERS/Edgar Su/Files

 

WELLINGTON (Reuters) - An inquiry into Christchurch's mosques shooting massacre began hearing evidence on Monday, as New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern prepared to co-host a meeting in France that seeks global support to tackle online violence.

 

A lone gunman killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch on March 15 while livestreaming the massacre on Facebook. It was New Zealand's worst peace time shooting.

 

New Zealand's Royal Commission inquiry will look into the suspected gunman's activities, use of social media and international connections, as well as whether there was inappropriate priority settings in counter terrorism resources.

 

"The commission's findings will help to ensure such an attack never happens here again," Ardern said in a statement announcing a second commissioner to the inquiry.

 

The Royal Commission's website said it would gather information until August. It will report its findings to the government on December 10.

Some in the Muslim community called for better communication about the inquiry.

 

"Many of us in the Muslim community have not received any information about the process for hearings.....so many of us in the community very much feel out of the loop," said Wellington-based community advocate Guled Mire.

 

"Ultimately, we want our voices to be heard and to no longer be ignored, so hopefully steps are taken to ensure information is directly communicated to members of the Muslim community."

 

The Royal Commission did not immediately respond to request for comment.

 

Ardern is in Paris this week to co-chair a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday that seeks to have world leaders and chiefs of tech companies sign the "Christchurch Call", a pledge to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online.

 

In an opinion piece in The New York Times on Saturday, Ardern said the "Christchurch Call" will be a voluntary framework that commits signatories to put in place specific measures to prevent the uploading of terrorist content.

 

"This is not about undermining or limiting freedom of speech. It is about these companies and how they operate," Ardern said her column.

 

Representatives from Facebook, Google, Twitter and other tech companies are expected to be part of the meeting, although Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg will not be in attendance.

 

Facebook said Nick Clegg, the former deputy prime minister of the U.K., and currently Facebook's Vice President for Global Affairs and Communications would attend the meeting.

 

"These are complex issues and we are committed to working with world leaders, governments, industry and safety experts at this week's meeting and beyond on a clear framework of rules to help keep people safe from harm," Klegg said in a statement emailed to Reuters.

 

The meeting will be held alongside the “Tech for Humanity” meeting of G7 Digital Ministers, of which France is the chair, and France’s separate “Tech for Good” summit.

 

Australian Brenton Tarrant, a suspected white supremacist, has been charged with multiple counts of murder for the mass shooting and is next due to appear in court on June 14.

 

(Reporting by Praveen Menon; Editing by Michael Perry)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-05-13

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[metisdead]

A post containing a link to an out of date article which is not related to this specific event has been removed. 

[Wilsonandson]

In my opinion the inquiry should be centered on how a live stream event can be taken down as quickly as possible by social media sites. The video of this heinous murderous rampage was viewed by millions as it was uploaded across the internet that day. This could have been controlled better. Let's hope a solution can be found.

[milwaukeeboy]

The US military mows down innocents way more efficiently than this Tarrant guy. And if we give up our freedom of speech and right to question authority along with our right to bear arms, we may be the next to be mowed down.

We need rational discussion and not knee jerk reactions leading to suppression and oppression IMHO.

[BobBKK]

Banning guns after a shooting is great but not half as smart as banning then before.

[metisdead]

A troll post has been removed. 

[SOTIRIOS]

....God Help us......

 

....can we 'beg to differ'.....any longer....???

 

...this is truly alarming....

 

....all these 'events'...with greater and greater frequency.....

 

....followed by .....'the one and only official story'.......

 

....God Help us.....

 

 

[Kiwiken]

Things this so called Royal commission will not look into.

Why was a Foreigner (Not an NZ Citizen) allowed a Firearms license in the first place.

Why was he not properly vetted (And he wasn't)

Why after 1991 did successive governments not close the Loopholes that allowed a category A license holder to buy 30 round magazines.

Why after the fact that 1. he had those modified firearms illegally.

Did the Government move against law abiding Citizens with Category E and C licenses who have a much higher level of vetting

And security requirements.

Interesting stats were released yesterday about Death by Firearms in NZ in the past 15 years

105 gun related homicides (172 killed)

Of 84 incidents where it was revealed only 12 of the offenders were legally allowed to own a Gun

Handguns and MSSA's were only a tiny percentage of the firearms used.

The most common weapon of choice .22 rifle and 12 gauge shotgun

Gang related (drugs etc 35%) Domestic disputes (33%) Foreign terrorist (30%)

The Aussie terrorist accounted for 51 of these people.

A Policeman last year accounted for 2 (He shot his estranged wife and BF in Invercargill)

Have not seen them move on Police handguns?

My summation i have for 20 years pushed for better regulation. Restriction only fuels Black markets. But if law abiding Citizens know that if they reach a set criteria and meet Security standards they can pretty much own whatever firearm they want.

sadly the anti Gun , everyone should carry flowers group prevails.

I do not support weapons for self defence but am saddened that my right and others to legally and safely use firearms is infringed and I and 250,000 other legal firearms owners have been targetted and penalised for the Actions of One Foreign Terrorist.

Now only Criminals and Terrorists will have semi automatic centrefire rifles .

And Sportsmen and Women and recreations shooters lose out.

This is my opinion and view 

But i am sure those of you who hate firearms will skew it. Regulation not restriction keeps your populace safe

[cracker1]

"Many of us in the Muslim community have not received any information about the process for hearings.....so many of us in the community very much feel out of the loop," said Wellington-based community advocate Guled Mire.

Hi Gulud

Many of us Kiwi's who are not in the Muslim community, are in exactly the same situation as you are, and feel out of the loop also.

[Scott]

A post from a questionable source has been reported and removed.  

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 10:59 AM, Kiwiken said:

Things this so called Royal commission will not look into.

Why was a Foreigner (Not an NZ Citizen) allowed a Firearms license in the first place.

Why was he not properly vetted (And he wasn't)

Why after 1991 did successive governments not close the Loopholes that allowed a category A license holder to buy 30 round magazines.

Why after the fact that 1. he had those modified firearms illegally.

Did the Government move against law abiding Citizens with Category E and C licenses who have a much higher level of vetting

And security requirements.

Interesting stats were released yesterday about Death by Firearms in NZ in the past 15 years

105 gun related homicides (172 killed)

Of 84 incidents where it was revealed only 12 of the offenders were legally allowed to own a Gun

Handguns and MSSA's were only a tiny percentage of the firearms used.

The most common weapon of choice .22 rifle and 12 gauge shotgun

Gang related (drugs etc 35%) Domestic disputes (33%) Foreign terrorist (30%)

The Aussie terrorist accounted for 51 of these people.

A Policeman last year accounted for 2 (He shot his estranged wife and BF in Invercargill)

Have not seen them move on Police handguns?

My summation i have for 20 years pushed for better regulation. Restriction only fuels Black markets. But if law abiding Citizens know that if they reach a set criteria and meet Security standards they can pretty much own whatever firearm they want.

sadly the anti Gun , everyone should carry flowers group prevails.

I do not support weapons for self defence but am saddened that my right and others to legally and safely use firearms is infringed and I and 250,000 other legal firearms owners have been targetted and penalised for the Actions of One Foreign Terrorist.

Now only Criminals and Terrorists will have semi automatic centrefire rifles .

And Sportsmen and Women and recreations shooters lose out.

This is my opinion and view 

But i am sure those of you who hate firearms will skew it. Regulation not restriction keeps your populace safe

IMO, they were just waiting for an excuse to bring in the ban, so it's pointless to use logic.

No way, IMO, they could have drawn up the legislation in such a short time, and then everything was rushed so sensible people would not have an opportunity to talk sense and maybe slow it down or even stop it.

Has he been actually proven to be a terrorist, other than accused by people with an agenda?

My opinion, for what it's worth is that he was just an angry man that wanted to kill Muslims. Terrorists have an agenda, but I fail to see what his was. Perhaps he had one but it was suppressed by the government, which also appears to want to keep us in the dark, as well as removing legally held weapons.

 

[simple1]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO, they were just waiting for an excuse to bring in the ban, so it's pointless to use logic.

No way, IMO, they could have drawn up the legislation in such a short time, and then everything was rushed so sensible people would not have an opportunity to talk sense and maybe slow it down or even stop it.

Has he been actually proven to be a terrorist, other than accused by people with an agenda?

My opinion, for what it's worth is that he was just an angry man that wanted to kill Muslims. Terrorists have an agenda, but I fail to see what his was. Perhaps he had one but it was suppressed by the government, which also appears to want to keep us in the dark, as well as removing legally held weapons.

 

I'll take the bait.

 

No he hasn't been proven to be a terrorist, yet to face trial. As you well know the killers 'agenda' has been extensively covered - in summary based upon the "The Great Replacement". He called out Muslims as 'invaders', seeking to stop Muslim immigration into White Christian countries, somewhat similar to the Norwegian mass murderer.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Replacement

 

Please do not respond with more conspiracy nonsense.

 

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by simple1