Beneficial Insulation's company logo is a sunwheel, or black sun, which was appropriated by Nazis.
Beneficial Insulation also charges $14.88 per metre for insulation – 14.88 is a hate symbol popular with white extremists.
The company's website www.BIIG.co.nz, is an acronym for the company's full name Beneficial Insulation Installs Guaranteed. BIIg was the name of a barracks at Auschwitz concentration camp, operated by Nazi Germany in occupied Poland during World War II and the Holocaust.
Pretty sad indictment on NZ that this guy has been operating his business with this branding for years without anybody taking it seriously. This is the sort of thing that makes the "this is not us" calls ring a bit hollow. Nobody really gave a shit about racist culture as long as it seemed 'harmless'.
To be fair, that's all pretty high level dog whistling. It's only in a world where Google exists and neo-Nazis are a thing that people think about that this type of behavior gets called out.
I know I had never heard of any of this. It does make me wonder if there could be any similar dog whistles in my area that I'm unaware of.
They're fucking everywhere, and they invent new nomenclature at a pace unprecedented up until contemporary times. Think about how quickly (the royal) we cycle through internet memes and you'll have an idea of how quickly hate groups create and appropriate new terminology and secret shibboleths with which to signal their existence to one another. Keeping track of it all is exhausting. If it weren't for these boards and the SLPC, I'd be hopelessly unaware of all the new iconography and code words these fuck-stains make use of.
And they do it so that there is reasonable doubt, like the OK sign. Its been around forever, but as a general sign used by certain countries instead of the thumbs up sign. Italy is one such country, which is why you can fine stereotypical pictures of Italian Chefs doing it. In Greece it was the opposite I think, with the symbol meaning asshole.
Recently alt-right nazis decided to hijack it for their own ends. Cue lots of people claiming it was not a white supremacist symbol due to it having existed for years. Some people even showed screenshots of 4chan message board with text claiming it was a joke on anti-fascist community in order to make them look crazy. Then the shooter did the sign as he entered the courtroom.
4chan's "It's all a joke" pose has been looking threadbare for a long time.
As an Australian, not my problem anymore. All our major telcos have blocked access to 4chan (and 8chan and something called LiveLeak).
Not a huge fan of governmental or ISP censorship, but having a difficult time from an ethical perspective bringing myself to give a shit. Still oppose it from a consistency perspective, but yeah, hard time caring at this point in time.
EDIT: Also, the assholes on Reddit claiming that this blockage of those sites is "a bigger terrorist attack than the actual shooting" are massive fucking wankers. Sorry, I disagree with censorship/blocking on principle, as I stated above. But get some fucking perspective about real life, assholes.
Details are still frustratingly vague and make me a little worried that the government doesnt know what it is doing.
But as far as I can tell, they are banning MSSAs being sold under A Cat. Which is a little confusing as MSSAs are already by definition not A Cat. But i think what they doing is shifting all semi auto weapons (with exceptions for 22 and shotguns) over to E Cat. If you dont have an E Cat license and cant get one (i assume E Cat endorsement will be harder to get?) then you will need to turn your rifle in (there is a planned buy back).
A lot of what the government has said it will do are things that are already the law eg MSSAs can't be sold as A Cat, semi auto 22s and shotguns having limited magazine size. Is the government just saying theyll do things that are already law to look good? Do they not know? Are these things being changed? We'll see. But it either makes me think they being cynical and trying to pass off current law as theirs or they are ignorant of the law as it is, which is worrying.
One very good change is banning ("banning"?) high capcity magazines. As that was probably the biggest factor in the attack.
I really do hope the government knows what it is doing. The original E Cat laws were quite effective at stopping the sale of AR15s and the like as A Cats. ...Until the courts looked at them in 2009 and found it didnt actually say that in the law. Hopefully these laws will be better written.
They keep usibg the word "ban" and yet every concrete detail they announce is something that would totally be at odds with a ban. They keep using that word, i do not think they know what it means.
They're fucking everywhere, and they invent new nomenclature at a pace unprecedented up until contemporary times. Think about how quickly (the royal) we cycle through internet memes and you'll have an idea of how quickly hate groups create and appropriate new terminology and secret shibboleths with which to signal their existence to one another. Keeping track of it all is exhausting. If it weren't for these boards and the SLPC, I'd be hopelessly unaware of all the new iconography and code words these fuck-stains make use of.
And that is by design.
Part of the point of the enterprise is to keep themselves sort of off the radar but accessible to fellow fascists, yes. A lot of the symbolism changes about 4-5 years ago - dropping the obvious swastika-like stuff in favor of the black sun, othala runes, etc. - was meant as a recruitment tool, to give the general impression of being the same type of bigoted asshats without being quite as off-putting as representing themselves as actual original Nazis would be.
But a good chunk of it is also - like the reflexive "it's just a meme!" reactions to the white power symbol - specifically meant to wear the rest of us down to just shaking our head because who knows what anything means anymore so can we really say this is a symbol for suchandsuch?
One of the goals is to get people who aren't paying so much attention to just shrug and dismiss people pointing out the red flags. "Pfft, whatever. You say everything is a neo-Nazi symbol these days."
The regular renaming of their actual groups - volkish, folkish, identitarian, nationalist, traditionalist, registered member of the People's Party of Canada, etc. - is the same thing, with the same end result. For the time being, they've won that one, which is why pretty much everyone here has seen "Pfft, whatever. You say everyone is a neo-Nazi these days" about the individuals, never mind their symbols and talking points.
Liveleak is a video sharing site which has been around for a while with the intent of being an uncensored political video site. I think they got their main start as being the place that Saddam Hussein's execution was leaked.
I mostly know them as the "Russian dashcam videos of accidents" site, prior to YouTube accepting that stuff.
They've gotten more restricted in what they allow in recent years, but I'm kinda not surprised they had the shooting video there. It's kinda in their wheelhouse. But more in the "making sure the government doesn't block yaddah yaddah". Like, I guarantee Tianneman Square is on there, and China probably has them blocked.
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited March 2019
The Government really hasn't changed much. They've just made the law cover semi-auto guns the way it should have been pre-court case about it.
Edit: For context, this was a pretty terrible post sorry, it had been assumed the original gun laws banned/restricted semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15. A gun seller started importing them, causing the Police to take him to court where the police lost, because he argued that the weapons weren't actually banned under the current laws (in a non-modified state). What's essentially happened is that your basic AR-15 is now a military style assault rifle and is banned unless you have a category E license (which is not easy to achieve).
So far I've not seen a terrible amount of resistance to it and action has been taken. There is already a buy back style program being implemented to remove what weapons are currently in circulation. Basically, what worked for Australia.
Liveleak is a video sharing site which has been around for a while with the intent of being an uncensored political video site. I think they got their main start as being the place that Saddam Hussein's execution was leaked.
I mostly know them as the "Russian dashcam videos of accidents" site, prior to YouTube accepting that stuff.
They've gotten more restricted in what they allow in recent years, but I'm kinda not surprised they had the shooting video there. It's kinda in their wheelhouse. But more in the "making sure the government doesn't block yaddah yaddah". Like, I guarantee Tianneman Square is on there, and China probably has them blocked.
Liveleak is that site that still has things up on it like the Islamic State-released video of journalist James Foley's beheading, among others (they refuse to take it down, but they also refuse to carry other IS videos). It's the video version of 4chan, to a point. They carry all the violent and bloody stuff YouTube won't touch. According to their Wikipedia article, this is where all those stupid videos of teens knocking each other unconscious and stuff is hosted. It's also notable as the place that hosted Dutch politician Geert Wilders's anti-Quran movie "Fitna" until it was finally taken down. They're one of those places that likes to say "muh free speech herpaderpaderp" when it comes to what they have on their site: LiveLeak holds to being strictly non-biased in its approach to members and their content, believing in freedom of speech within the site rules, regardless of how certain content might offend them personally.
I'd call them a shock video site, myself. They even claim to have fresh video of graphic things uploaded from the fighting in Syria and Ukraine.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
0
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
So an equal opportunity cesspool.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
+8
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Liveleak is a video sharing site which has been around for a while with the intent of being an uncensored political video site. I think they got their main start as being the place that Saddam Hussein's execution was leaked.
I mostly know them as the "Russian dashcam videos of accidents" site, prior to YouTube accepting that stuff.
They've gotten more restricted in what they allow in recent years, but I'm kinda not surprised they had the shooting video there. It's kinda in their wheelhouse. But more in the "making sure the government doesn't block yaddah yaddah". Like, I guarantee Tianneman Square is on there, and China probably has them blocked.
Liveleak is that site that still has things up on it like the Islamic State-released video of journalist James Foley's beheading, among others (they refuse to take it down, but they also refuse to carry other IS videos). It's the video version of 4chan, to a point. They carry all the violent and bloody stuff YouTube won't touch. According to their Wikipedia article, this is where all those stupid videos of teens knocking each other unconscious and stuff is hosted. It's also notable as the place that hosted Dutch politician Geert Wilders's anti-Quran movie "Fitna" until it was finally taken down. They're one of those places that likes to say "muh free speech herpaderpaderp" when it comes to what they have on their site: LiveLeak holds to being strictly non-biased in its approach to members and their content, believing in freedom of speech within the site rules, regardless of how certain content might offend them personally.
I'd call them a shock video site, myself. They even claim to have fresh video of graphic things uploaded from the fighting in Syria and Ukraine.
Last time I heard something like that, it was a Russian Propaganda and Intelligence Organ
+6
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
The Government really hasn't changed much. They've just made the law cover semi-auto guns the way it should have been pre-court case about it.
Edit: For context, this was a pretty terrible post sorry, it had been assumed the original gun laws banned/restricted semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15. A gun seller started importing them, causing the Police to take him to court where the police lost, because he argued that the weapons weren't actually banned under the current laws (in a non-modified state). What's essentially happened is that your basic AR-15 is now a military style assault rifle and is banned unless you have a category E license (which is not easy to achieve).
So far I've not seen a terrible amount of resistance to it and action has been taken. There is already a buy back style program being implemented to remove what weapons are currently in circulation. Basically, what worked for Australia.
This is really what makes the most sense. Hopefully everything will change over without incident and there won’t be any need for an extensive sword hunt
fuck gendered marketing
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Sol3 Mio is an opera group from the Pacific Islands, but they tend to call New Zealand their home.
They are two brothers and a cousin, all professional opera tenors. The lead is married to another opera star upcoming in the world. Her uncle was injured last week in the attacks.
Edit: it's a link to one of our morning shows where the group is singing Coldplay's "Fix You"
The Government really hasn't changed much. They've just made the law cover semi-auto guns the way it should have been pre-court case about it.
Edit: For context, this was a pretty terrible post sorry, it had been assumed the original gun laws banned/restricted semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15. A gun seller started importing them, causing the Police to take him to court where the police lost, because he argued that the weapons weren't actually banned under the current laws (in a non-modified state). What's essentially happened is that your basic AR-15 is now a military style assault rifle and is banned unless you have a category E license (which is not easy to achieve).
So far I've not seen a terrible amount of resistance to it and action has been taken. There is already a buy back style program being implemented to remove what weapons are currently in circulation. Basically, what worked for Australia.
Though the NZHerald had a dissapointing headline about GunCity selling out of the gun used in the attack.
Not sure what people's thought process is though, that gun is going to be banned soon, and I'm really hoping that the buy-back price is heavily reduced to non-existant for weapons bought after Friday. A "you really should have known better" slap on the wrist.
So many supportive headscarves around the city today. It's quite noticeable.
I don't really know where I fall on this whole thing. There's a part of me that's a little weirded out by it, but I'll readily admit I might just be reading too much into it.
For those who are interested, RNZ radio and TVNZ will be broadcasting the Call to Prayer and 2 minutes silence today at 130pm Just over 2.5 hours from now. It can be streamed from http://www.radionz.co.nz
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I went out in a head scarf today. It's not a beautiful, soft, silk or organza one, but a wool and silk shawl that I knit for myself. It was hot. But man did I feel, something.
I bought myself a Jewish Star necklace after Pittsburgh, but I have to fight my own fear to our it on every morning. Yes, even here.
But it's only a Star. It's only a small piece of jewelry and you would need to actively be looking at me to see or tell what it was. A headscarf is completely different.
There is no way to hide that you are wearing one. You can be seen and marked as different from across the street.
It was very confronting.
It took me ten extra minutes to decide to leave the house with it on today. I thought I knew the bravery of facing that fear. I thought I understood the feeling of being vulnerable in my armour.
I had no idea. I had no appreciation. Academically I understood the fear of wearing a hijab, the knowledge that at any point, any of these other people around your will hate you, want to hurt you, want to hurt your child.
Even as someone who is in that edge of passing white privilege, it was a very challenging day.
In the end, I saw a few other women while we were out in scarves. It felt good to be connected in some way.
Take a moment today and reflect on things we take for granted.
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
edited March 2019
Of course the alt-right groups are now saying that they didn’t know him, speak with him and he acted alone, now that the police are looking around at his online activity.
-Loki- on
+2
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
The NRA has been trying to lobby/brainwash in New Zealand in the same manner that they do in the US. When members of parliament were discussing gun control laws, they were getting messages from people that included very American talking points
They talked about how we were trying to take away their Second Amendment rights to own guns. We don’t have a right to bear arms. To own a gun in New Zealand is absolutely a privilege and not a right.
When I met with these lobbyists they spoke the language of the NRA.
Articles also said she told the NRA to "bugger off" but I can't seem to find the direct quote on that.
Interesting. I can see why the NRA went to her and I am very surprised that Judith Collins did not take the bait. She is a scandal ridden (out of cabinet, and back, twice now iirc) Law and Order type. She's even had photo ops of her shooting a gun to make her look tough.
Of course the alt-right groups are now saying that they didn’t know him, speak with him and he acted alone, now that the police are looking around at his online activity.
That's usually been the way they do things ever since... well, ever. They'll back each other up, they'll support and aid each other, but the second somebody does something devastating, they pull the whole amnesia act while saluting and celebrating in private. They keep the crazies around to martyr them like this- to have a way to make the rest of the movement seem more benign. "Not all X are crazy, he's an outlier."
Pretty much, he's been relegated to coffeeboy status- nobody knew him, talked to him, saw him, interacted with him; he just brought the coffee.
JaysonFour on
I can has cheezburger, yes?
+2
Options
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
The NRA has been trying to lobby/brainwash in New Zealand in the same manner that they do in the US. When members of parliament were discussing gun control laws, they were getting messages from people that included very American talking points
They talked about how we were trying to take away their Second Amendment rights to own guns. We don’t have a right to bear arms. To own a gun in New Zealand is absolutely a privilege and not a right.
When I met with these lobbyists they spoke the language of the NRA.
Articles also said she told the NRA to "bugger off" but I can't seem to find the direct quote on that.
You can check her twitter feed where she states it outright herself, but as @Gvzbgul said, she doesn't really need the oxygen as she occupies a Thatcher-esque hardliner
profile, although it's nice to see her put the boot into the gun lobby on this occasion.
In general the response to the pro-gun movement has fallen flat here in NZ; I liked this twitter thread from Dr Bex that broke down how and why certain narratives just don't work in NZ:
This whole thread is worth a read as it outlines both the resistance that comes from social context and the kind of arguments that actually start landing. But I like the part where Americans just don't get the self-depricating ridicule of NZ. It's basically an entire nation of Flight of Conchords over here, and we'll fucking take you the moment you say something that just... isn't relevant. See also:
this is really good. Im sick of this slippery slope free speech bullshit that the extreme right has used to basically advocate for murder or forced relocation at best. Sometimes you need to take a stand, even a largely symbolic one.
The altright going "first they came for the nazis, and you did nothing!" bullshit has been driving me nuts.
Well. It's in line with New Zealand law, so they do their thing. I personally don't agree with it, mainly because thoughtcrimes (ie, the very ownership of political ideas, no matter how repugnant, is illegal) gives me uncomfortable totalitarian vibes. Hate speech is one thing (ie, it should definitely be illegal to share the document unless purely for research purposes), but banning ownership of political manifestos is...imho not great.
Fiendishrabbit on
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
I'm slowly coming around to the idea that hate speech spreads like a virus and quarantine is a valid method of seeking to stop that spread. Because fuck if anything else has worked.
Well. It's in line with New Zealand law, so they do their thing. I personally don't agree with it, mainly because thoughtcrimes (ie, the very ownership of political ideas, no matter how repugnant, is illegal) gives me uncomfortable totalitarian vibes. Hate speech is one thing (ie, it should definitely be illegal to share the document unless purely for research purposes), but banning ownership of political manifestos is...imho not great.
You do understand that you can apply for exemptions for research purposes under NZ law, right? I'm not sure why you say 'I don't agree with it' when the very thing you're proposing (illegal to distribute, but available for research) is exactly the condition it is in under NZ law.
Well. It's in line with New Zealand law, so they do their thing. I personally don't agree with it, mainly because thoughtcrimes (ie, the very ownership of political ideas, no matter how repugnant, is illegal) gives me uncomfortable totalitarian vibes. Hate speech is one thing (ie, it should definitely be illegal to share the document unless purely for research purposes), but banning ownership of political manifestos is...imho not great.
You do understand that you can apply for exemptions for research purposes under NZ law, right? I'm not sure why you say 'I don't agree with it' when the very thing you're proposing (illegal to distribute, but available for research) is exactly the condition it is in under NZ law.
Because NZ law makes it illegal to own as well. It places it under objectionable material along with stuff like child pornography.
Political documents should not be illegal to own.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Well. It's in line with New Zealand law, so they do their thing. I personally don't agree with it, mainly because thoughtcrimes (ie, the very ownership of political ideas, no matter how repugnant, is illegal) gives me uncomfortable totalitarian vibes. Hate speech is one thing (ie, it should definitely be illegal to share the document unless purely for research purposes), but banning ownership of political manifestos is...imho not great.
You do understand that you can apply for exemptions for research purposes under NZ law, right? I'm not sure why you say 'I don't agree with it' when the very thing you're proposing (illegal to distribute, but available for research) is exactly the condition it is in under NZ law.
Because NZ law makes it illegal to own as well. It places it under objectionable material along with stuff like child pornography.
Political documents should not be illegal to own.
If you don't want your political document to be banned, don't shoot up a religious establishment. Easy.
New Zealand is not exactly totalitarian or going remotely in that direction is it
They're banning the manifesto of a mass murdering terrorist fuckhead because he shot loads of innocent people and they don't want other fuckheads spreading that shit around. That's perfectly fair.
+30
Options
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
Well. It's in line with New Zealand law, so they do their thing. I personally don't agree with it, mainly because thoughtcrimes (ie, the very ownership of political ideas, no matter how repugnant, is illegal) gives me uncomfortable totalitarian vibes. Hate speech is one thing (ie, it should definitely be illegal to share the document unless purely for research purposes), but banning ownership of political manifestos is...imho not great.
You do understand that you can apply for exemptions for research purposes under NZ law, right? I'm not sure why you say 'I don't agree with it' when the very thing you're proposing (illegal to distribute, but available for research) is exactly the condition it is in under NZ law.
Because NZ law makes it illegal to own as well. It places it under objectionable material along with stuff like child pornography.
Political documents should not be illegal to own.
Hey, if we're going to do the whole thoughtcrime bit, let's call a spade a fucking shovel. These are not 'political documents'. That's disingenuous doublespeak.
This is an agenda of terrorism. It isn't insight into a disturbed mind, it literally identifies additional targets for more attacks in New Zealand, and outlines how they might be carried out.
These are murder plans.
These are murder plans that set out a call to action and then goes on to give detail as to how to continue on with a rampage of terror.
Personally; I'm fucking fine with declaring that even possession of such a document needs to clear a minimum bar of justification in some way.
Just so we're clear about what you are advocating for to be not objectionable.
That's unbelievably cool. Your new name is cool guy. Let's have sex.
+41
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
Well. It's in line with New Zealand law, so they do their thing. I personally don't agree with it, mainly because thoughtcrimes (ie, the very ownership of political ideas, no matter how repugnant, is illegal) gives me uncomfortable totalitarian vibes. Hate speech is one thing (ie, it should definitely be illegal to share the document unless purely for research purposes), but banning ownership of political manifestos is...imho not great.
You do understand that you can apply for exemptions for research purposes under NZ law, right? I'm not sure why you say 'I don't agree with it' when the very thing you're proposing (illegal to distribute, but available for research) is exactly the condition it is in under NZ law.
Because NZ law makes it illegal to own as well. It places it under objectionable material along with stuff like child pornography.
Political documents should not be illegal to own.
If you don't want your political document to be banned, don't shoot up a religious establishment. Easy.
I know a ton of people who own Mein Kampf. They own and read it not because they are nazis, but because they want to better understand WWII, the Holocaust, and how it all happened under the person who wrote the work in question. I'm not saying that the document written by Trumpdick McDoucheland in NZ (because of the outlets I pay attention to I still don't even know this shooter's name) has that kind of historical significance going for it, but if it's not illegal to ownMein Kampf, a work that has inspired the hatred and death of more people than I know how to count and still does every day, putting this one on par with child porn seems strange and poorly thought out to me.
edit: unless it is illegal to own Mein Kampf in NZ, and then this fits right in with that.
edit part 2: I realize this sounds like I am literally trying to Godwin this, but it's the only thing that came to mind because I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of horrific manifestos. :P If horrific manifestos are to be banned in general I'm more or less okay with that.
ceres on
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
I think the thoughts and writings of one of the biggest monsters in the past hundred years are somewhat more of public interest than the latest mass murderer.
This person was seeking fame, probably to spread their ideology, almost certainly to spread terror, no point in giving it to them.
+11
Options
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
Comparing the terrorists murder plans with Mein Kampf is an unhelpful false equivalence that misrepresents the contents and context of both documents, and betrays a misunderstanding of why and what parts of the terrorists literal murder plans were ruled objectionable under NZ law.
They're not censored because of ~ideas~. They're objectionable because they're literal murder plans against people and communities living in New Zealand.
Get your head around that distinction, and then consider the duty of care that a government should enact over its people.
There's an argument regarding where societies should draw that line, but until you understand why this line was drawn and why, you're not having the right conversation.
That's unbelievably cool. Your new name is cool guy. Let's have sex.
+12
Options
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
edited March 2019
Consider also this: that titling this document as a 'manifesto' is itself an act of alt-right propaganda designed to directly draw these false comparisons between this writing and other alternate documents of historic significance.
But this is not Das-fucking-Kapital. This is a naked entreaty to commit mass murder, framed in garbage fire conspiracy and the internet memes of child porn imageboards.
And by continuing to make these false equivalence arguments comparing these murder plans to Mein Kampf you are literally doing
Consider also this: that titling this document as a 'manifesto' is itself an act of alt-right propaganda designed to directly draw these false comparisons between this writing and other alternate documents of historic significance.
But this is not Das-fucking-Kapital. This is a naked entreaty to commit mass murder, framed in garbage fire conspiracy and the internet memes of child porn imageboards.
And by continuing to make these false equivalence arguments comparing these murder plans to Mein Kampf you are literally doing
what
a
mass-murderer
wanted.
just as a stepping off point from this
one of the things that's been driving me crazy recently is people pointing to dogwhistles and veiled rhetoric and whatnot as things that need to be addressed socially and seeing people arguing "psh, you should read the shooter's manifesto, you're just playing into his hands by continuing the culture war"
Well yes he defined his motivations in a way that it will be impossible to constantly eradicate, culture wars are the new normal, and they're trying to pretend that unless you actively consume a racist mass murderer's propaganda you're uninformed and misled, as a way of driving people who might be on the fence to read his manifesto. It's horrible and dishonest as fuck but I know it's going to work on a nonzero amount of people.
There was a steam sig here. It's gone now.
+4
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited March 2019
See, and I feel that this is what the shooter wanted: to have his plans so specially enshrined in the law of a nation that they become contraband. The people I watch and pay attention to have been so good about their reporting (to my way of thinking at least) that I don't even know his name after seeing so much about this shooting, focusing on the victims (for the most part) and the acts of heroism involved that again I feel that the purpose of all that has been defeated. That is, unless this is a blanket ban. No, I have not read the manifesto. I never read them. I don't care to. They so frequently mention the ones that came before. I know this kind of thing does not happen in New Zealand, and so it's a very different thing from what it is here, but these sites extend globally, and people who have chosen to know his name will not forget it. He has made such an impression with his actions that there is a law specially dedicated to him. Talk about some big shoes to fill.
I just looked it up; it is not a blanket ban, it appears to be just this thing from this one guy. Why not ban all of them, as in all of that type of content? Why ban only this one?
I super appreciate the posts that say I am spreading right-wing propaganda, though - that I didn't think this through and have my reasons for feeling this way that are unrelated. That I can't have a thought outside some people spreading hate speech I haven't sought out or read because why bother. As for my use of the word manifesto, that is literally what this is. Literally. From, you know, a dictionary. For that matter, also literally, that is what Mein Kampf is.
This thread is not about Mein Kampf. I used it as an example of a manifesto because it's a famous one that I know, because that's what it is. It's hard to know what conversation I'm having when I have no idea where you're getting some of this stuff from what I said.
"This is a naked entreaty to commit mass murder, framed in garbage fire conspiracy" ~ you
"A manifesto is a published declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer, be it an individual, group, political party or government. A manifesto usually accepts a previously published opinion or public consensus or promotes a new idea with prescriptive notions for carrying out changes the author believes should be made." ~ Wikipedia, with the first part being lifted directly from Merriam-Webster.
"The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their international poisoners are exterminated... If at the beginning of the war and during the war twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the nation had been subjected to poison gas, such as had to be endured in the field by hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers of all classes and professions, then the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain." ~ Mein Kampf
I get that you want this thing to spread no further. If you will recall there was a synagogue shooting in the US not so long ago where the shooter was taken by those same ideas. But let's be super clear about what you are suggesting here when you specially ban this one thing at a national level rather than the type of content in general. It is this act that lifts the work to the levels ultimately desirable to an attention-grabbing mess of terrorists on the internet, not a person suggesting (via "dog whistle," what even the fuck) that making this one person famous in a law forever is a terrible fucking idea. I don't disagree that it should be banned. I am saying ban all of it, because neglecting to do so is horrifically flawed.
ceres on
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
Personally I would be completely fine with just putting a blanket moratorium on all of this stuff. Why is it okay to own Mein Kampf now? Because Hitler and the (historical - fuck this is a thing now isn't it?) Nazi's are fucking dead and died decades ago.
I would be completely fine with a de facto moratorium on the distribution and publication (without prior approval for academic interest or use) of manifesto's and other documents produced by people who then go on to commit acts of terrorism. Doesn't even have to be long - make it like, a year maybe? But just a default law that says "if someone goes on to commit terrorism, then if you're really so interested you turn up to the public library and read it there".
This seems reasonable to me: we're not actually restricting access in any serious fashion but we are seriously limiting the ability to radicalize (and telling social media that if we find that text, get it the fuck off there while people are grieving).
EDIT: The more I think about it the more I really like this idea actually - I suspect it would be a massive disruption to the types of personalities who do this stuff if the moment they try it actually just wipes all their previous thoughts and feelings out of existence on the major media outlets. There's no way the thought that your grand plans will only be read by social studies professors and reinterpreted is very appealing. And it fucks free-speech absolutists when the answer to every "why can't I" becomes "sure you can - make some time and go do it if you're so interested". Because they wouldn't.
The document is literally an incitement to violence and lawlessness.
The things that hate speech laws very specifically were created to ban and stop.
So allowing the incitement to be passed around is a clear contravention of hate speech laws, because there is no way to tell if the propagation of its ideas are sincere, mere curiosity, or just an attempt to be edgy.
Just like you might jail a person who was constantly extolling others to attack a minority, you have to ban/censor a document that seeks to do the same.
The document is literally an incitement to violence and lawlessness.
The things that hate speech laws very specifically were created to ban and stop.
So allowing the incitement to be passed around is a clear contravention of hate speech laws, because there is no way to tell if the propagation of its ideas are sincere, mere curiosity, or just an attempt to be edgy.
Just like you might jail a person who was constantly extolling others to attack a minority, you have to ban/censor a document that seeks to do the same.
Yeah, Canada draws the line in a similar kind of way.
"Willful promotion of hatred" isn't just ThOuGhTcRiMe, it's a pretty specific offense focusing on intent and actions rather than just the words themselves; to qualify it's not just bigotry, but bigotry with a particular kind of end in sight that whoever's doing the yammering is clearly pushing for: they want a target demographic to be harmed, and they're trying to encourage that harm via their words or acts.
The standards are high enough that the charge can't be pressed without the federal government's attorney general signing off on individual charges on a case-by-case basis, something which only happens maybe a couple of times a year against some seriously over-the-top people. In those cases it's not the person's words that are bringing the charge about, it's the fact that they are using those words to tangibly render a population unsafe.
This guy and his manifesto would absolutely qualify, especially in the context of his actions. I have no idea if his fans sharing the video and manifesto around would under Canadian law, but that question's probably going to come up sooner or later, especially if some of the more channy electoral candidates start bouncing those around to make some kind of dumbass point.
Zibblsnrt on
+2
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
Yes I know.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
I think that there is such a thing as making statements through laws as well. You respond to the Christchurch shooting by banning the manifesto of the guy who did it and restricting gun ownership; this sends a clear message to the victims and those who might be in the same targeted group of "we do not find this acceptable at all, we are taking steps to stop it, we support you and are on your side" and sends a clear message to those who would support such hideous acts saying "your words and actions and the tools of your trade are not welcome here, we will not accept them, we will ban your filth and stop you."
That's important. That's a significant statement. And I think that the government is wise to make such a significant statement following this, about this manifesto in particular, because the time immediately after an atrocity is when the actual action needs to be taken if you want to send that message. So I support the NZ government. Mein Kampf is a historical book, written decades ago. Is it hate speech? Yes. Does it inspire White Nationalists? Yes. If someone shoots a bunch of people with a gun covered in quotes from it would I expect the NZ government to ban it? Probably. Would they ban it now, without that happening? Probably not. Would I support the banning now? I tend to dislike book bannings in general, I must say.
This is absolutely a difficult topic and White Nationalists/Fascists are using the tolerant and intellectual values of our society, where we are against the idea of thoughtcrime, of banning books and speech, of saying certain forms of thought are illegal to express etc, they are using those against us. And therefore we will struggle to draw the right line. But I think that at least the attempt to do so and take action and send that clear message to victims and perpetrators is significant. One thing that is perhaps the most awfully, tragically depressing about things like spree killings in the US and such; after they happen? The government does nothing. It says "sorry" and shrugs, nothing to be done.
Arden is the PM of a shocked, horrified and in many cases scared country. She's taken admirable steps to reject the mindset that led to Christchurch, publicly and in law, and to make attempts to stop it happening again. Sign of good leadership IMO. And I certainly don't think people in this thread who are saying "hey intellectual liberty to own and study even truly evil texts is important and shouldn't be lost" are saying it because they are anything other than just believers in the significance of that, a significance I absolutely share. There is no-one defending the Freedom to say Hate Speech here. But also this guy's manifesto is... it's just a hate-filled screed. It's just filth. And if NZ says "we don't want this filth that killed dozens of us in our country" then that is supportable, understandable, and without much downside.
Posts
As an Australian, not my problem anymore. All our major telcos have blocked access to 4chan (and 8chan and something called LiveLeak).
Not a huge fan of governmental or ISP censorship, but having a difficult time from an ethical perspective bringing myself to give a shit. Still oppose it from a consistency perspective, but yeah, hard time caring at this point in time.
EDIT: Also, the assholes on Reddit claiming that this blockage of those sites is "a bigger terrorist attack than the actual shooting" are massive fucking wankers. Sorry, I disagree with censorship/blocking on principle, as I stated above. But get some fucking perspective about real life, assholes.
Details are still frustratingly vague and make me a little worried that the government doesnt know what it is doing.
But as far as I can tell, they are banning MSSAs being sold under A Cat. Which is a little confusing as MSSAs are already by definition not A Cat. But i think what they doing is shifting all semi auto weapons (with exceptions for 22 and shotguns) over to E Cat. If you dont have an E Cat license and cant get one (i assume E Cat endorsement will be harder to get?) then you will need to turn your rifle in (there is a planned buy back).
A lot of what the government has said it will do are things that are already the law eg MSSAs can't be sold as A Cat, semi auto 22s and shotguns having limited magazine size. Is the government just saying theyll do things that are already law to look good? Do they not know? Are these things being changed? We'll see. But it either makes me think they being cynical and trying to pass off current law as theirs or they are ignorant of the law as it is, which is worrying.
One very good change is banning ("banning"?) high capcity magazines. As that was probably the biggest factor in the attack.
I really do hope the government knows what it is doing. The original E Cat laws were quite effective at stopping the sale of AR15s and the like as A Cats. ...Until the courts looked at them in 2009 and found it didnt actually say that in the law. Hopefully these laws will be better written.
They keep usibg the word "ban" and yet every concrete detail they announce is something that would totally be at odds with a ban. They keep using that word, i do not think they know what it means.
And that is by design.
Part of the point of the enterprise is to keep themselves sort of off the radar but accessible to fellow fascists, yes. A lot of the symbolism changes about 4-5 years ago - dropping the obvious swastika-like stuff in favor of the black sun, othala runes, etc. - was meant as a recruitment tool, to give the general impression of being the same type of bigoted asshats without being quite as off-putting as representing themselves as actual original Nazis would be.
But a good chunk of it is also - like the reflexive "it's just a meme!" reactions to the white power symbol - specifically meant to wear the rest of us down to just shaking our head because who knows what anything means anymore so can we really say this is a symbol for suchandsuch?
One of the goals is to get people who aren't paying so much attention to just shrug and dismiss people pointing out the red flags. "Pfft, whatever. You say everything is a neo-Nazi symbol these days."
The regular renaming of their actual groups - volkish, folkish, identitarian, nationalist, traditionalist, registered member of the People's Party of Canada, etc. - is the same thing, with the same end result. For the time being, they've won that one, which is why pretty much everyone here has seen "Pfft, whatever. You say everyone is a neo-Nazi these days" about the individuals, never mind their symbols and talking points.
I mostly know them as the "Russian dashcam videos of accidents" site, prior to YouTube accepting that stuff.
They've gotten more restricted in what they allow in recent years, but I'm kinda not surprised they had the shooting video there. It's kinda in their wheelhouse. But more in the "making sure the government doesn't block yaddah yaddah". Like, I guarantee Tianneman Square is on there, and China probably has them blocked.
Edit: For context, this was a pretty terrible post sorry, it had been assumed the original gun laws banned/restricted semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15. A gun seller started importing them, causing the Police to take him to court where the police lost, because he argued that the weapons weren't actually banned under the current laws (in a non-modified state). What's essentially happened is that your basic AR-15 is now a military style assault rifle and is banned unless you have a category E license (which is not easy to achieve).
So far I've not seen a terrible amount of resistance to it and action has been taken. There is already a buy back style program being implemented to remove what weapons are currently in circulation. Basically, what worked for Australia.
Liveleak is that site that still has things up on it like the Islamic State-released video of journalist James Foley's beheading, among others (they refuse to take it down, but they also refuse to carry other IS videos). It's the video version of 4chan, to a point. They carry all the violent and bloody stuff YouTube won't touch. According to their Wikipedia article, this is where all those stupid videos of teens knocking each other unconscious and stuff is hosted. It's also notable as the place that hosted Dutch politician Geert Wilders's anti-Quran movie "Fitna" until it was finally taken down. They're one of those places that likes to say "muh free speech herpaderpaderp" when it comes to what they have on their site: LiveLeak holds to being strictly non-biased in its approach to members and their content, believing in freedom of speech within the site rules, regardless of how certain content might offend them personally.
I'd call them a shock video site, myself. They even claim to have fresh video of graphic things uploaded from the fighting in Syria and Ukraine.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
Last time I heard something like that, it was a Russian Propaganda and Intelligence Organ
This is really what makes the most sense. Hopefully everything will change over without incident and there won’t be any need for an extensive sword hunt
Sol3 Mio is an opera group from the Pacific Islands, but they tend to call New Zealand their home.
They are two brothers and a cousin, all professional opera tenors. The lead is married to another opera star upcoming in the world. Her uncle was injured last week in the attacks.
Edit: it's a link to one of our morning shows where the group is singing Coldplay's "Fix You"
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Though the NZHerald had a dissapointing headline about GunCity selling out of the gun used in the attack.
Not sure what people's thought process is though, that gun is going to be banned soon, and I'm really hoping that the buy-back price is heavily reduced to non-existant for weapons bought after Friday. A "you really should have known better" slap on the wrist.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I don't really know where I fall on this whole thing. There's a part of me that's a little weirded out by it, but I'll readily admit I might just be reading too much into it.
For those who are interested, RNZ radio and TVNZ will be broadcasting the Call to Prayer and 2 minutes silence today at 130pm Just over 2.5 hours from now. It can be streamed from http://www.radionz.co.nz
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I bought myself a Jewish Star necklace after Pittsburgh, but I have to fight my own fear to our it on every morning. Yes, even here.
But it's only a Star. It's only a small piece of jewelry and you would need to actively be looking at me to see or tell what it was. A headscarf is completely different.
There is no way to hide that you are wearing one. You can be seen and marked as different from across the street.
It was very confronting.
It took me ten extra minutes to decide to leave the house with it on today. I thought I knew the bravery of facing that fear. I thought I understood the feeling of being vulnerable in my armour.
I had no idea. I had no appreciation. Academically I understood the fear of wearing a hijab, the knowledge that at any point, any of these other people around your will hate you, want to hurt you, want to hurt your child.
Even as someone who is in that edge of passing white privilege, it was a very challenging day.
In the end, I saw a few other women while we were out in scarves. It felt good to be connected in some way.
Take a moment today and reflect on things we take for granted.
Arohanui, my friends.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Articles also said she told the NRA to "bugger off" but I can't seem to find the direct quote on that.
But I guess she's only NZ tough not NRA tough.
That's usually been the way they do things ever since... well, ever. They'll back each other up, they'll support and aid each other, but the second somebody does something devastating, they pull the whole amnesia act while saluting and celebrating in private. They keep the crazies around to martyr them like this- to have a way to make the rest of the movement seem more benign. "Not all X are crazy, he's an outlier."
Pretty much, he's been relegated to coffeeboy status- nobody knew him, talked to him, saw him, interacted with him; he just brought the coffee.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
You can check her twitter feed where she states it outright herself, but as @Gvzbgul said, she doesn't really need the oxygen as she occupies a Thatcher-esque hardliner
profile, although it's nice to see her put the boot into the gun lobby on this occasion.
In general the response to the pro-gun movement has fallen flat here in NZ; I liked this twitter thread from Dr Bex that broke down how and why certain narratives just don't work in NZ:
This whole thread is worth a read as it outlines both the resistance that comes from social context and the kind of arguments that actually start landing. But I like the part where Americans just don't get the self-depricating ridicule of NZ. It's basically an entire nation of Flight of Conchords over here, and we'll fucking take you the moment you say something that just... isn't relevant. See also:
this is really good. Im sick of this slippery slope free speech bullshit that the extreme right has used to basically advocate for murder or forced relocation at best. Sometimes you need to take a stand, even a largely symbolic one.
The altright going "first they came for the nazis, and you did nothing!" bullshit has been driving me nuts.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
You do understand that you can apply for exemptions for research purposes under NZ law, right? I'm not sure why you say 'I don't agree with it' when the very thing you're proposing (illegal to distribute, but available for research) is exactly the condition it is in under NZ law.
Because NZ law makes it illegal to own as well. It places it under objectionable material along with stuff like child pornography.
Political documents should not be illegal to own.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
If you don't want your political document to be banned, don't shoot up a religious establishment. Easy.
They're banning the manifesto of a mass murdering terrorist fuckhead because he shot loads of innocent people and they don't want other fuckheads spreading that shit around. That's perfectly fair.
Hey, if we're going to do the whole thoughtcrime bit, let's call a spade a fucking shovel. These are not 'political documents'. That's disingenuous doublespeak.
This is an agenda of terrorism. It isn't insight into a disturbed mind, it literally identifies additional targets for more attacks in New Zealand, and outlines how they might be carried out.
These are murder plans.
These are murder plans that set out a call to action and then goes on to give detail as to how to continue on with a rampage of terror.
Personally; I'm fucking fine with declaring that even possession of such a document needs to clear a minimum bar of justification in some way.
Just so we're clear about what you are advocating for to be not objectionable.
I know a ton of people who own Mein Kampf. They own and read it not because they are nazis, but because they want to better understand WWII, the Holocaust, and how it all happened under the person who wrote the work in question. I'm not saying that the document written by Trumpdick McDoucheland in NZ (because of the outlets I pay attention to I still don't even know this shooter's name) has that kind of historical significance going for it, but if it's not illegal to own Mein Kampf, a work that has inspired the hatred and death of more people than I know how to count and still does every day, putting this one on par with child porn seems strange and poorly thought out to me.
edit: unless it is illegal to own Mein Kampf in NZ, and then this fits right in with that.
edit part 2: I realize this sounds like I am literally trying to Godwin this, but it's the only thing that came to mind because I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of horrific manifestos. :P If horrific manifestos are to be banned in general I'm more or less okay with that.
This person was seeking fame, probably to spread their ideology, almost certainly to spread terror, no point in giving it to them.
They're not censored because of ~ideas~. They're objectionable because they're literal murder plans against people and communities living in New Zealand.
Get your head around that distinction, and then consider the duty of care that a government should enact over its people.
There's an argument regarding where societies should draw that line, but until you understand why this line was drawn and why, you're not having the right conversation.
But this is not Das-fucking-Kapital. This is a naked entreaty to commit mass murder, framed in garbage fire conspiracy and the internet memes of child porn imageboards.
And by continuing to make these false equivalence arguments comparing these murder plans to Mein Kampf you are literally doing
what
a
mass-murderer
wanted.
just as a stepping off point from this
one of the things that's been driving me crazy recently is people pointing to dogwhistles and veiled rhetoric and whatnot as things that need to be addressed socially and seeing people arguing "psh, you should read the shooter's manifesto, you're just playing into his hands by continuing the culture war"
Well yes he defined his motivations in a way that it will be impossible to constantly eradicate, culture wars are the new normal, and they're trying to pretend that unless you actively consume a racist mass murderer's propaganda you're uninformed and misled, as a way of driving people who might be on the fence to read his manifesto. It's horrible and dishonest as fuck but I know it's going to work on a nonzero amount of people.
I just looked it up; it is not a blanket ban, it appears to be just this thing from this one guy. Why not ban all of them, as in all of that type of content? Why ban only this one?
I super appreciate the posts that say I am spreading right-wing propaganda, though - that I didn't think this through and have my reasons for feeling this way that are unrelated. That I can't have a thought outside some people spreading hate speech I haven't sought out or read because why bother. As for my use of the word manifesto, that is literally what this is. Literally. From, you know, a dictionary. For that matter, also literally, that is what Mein Kampf is.
This thread is not about Mein Kampf. I used it as an example of a manifesto because it's a famous one that I know, because that's what it is. It's hard to know what conversation I'm having when I have no idea where you're getting some of this stuff from what I said.
"This is a naked entreaty to commit mass murder, framed in garbage fire conspiracy" ~ you
"A manifesto is a published declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer, be it an individual, group, political party or government. A manifesto usually accepts a previously published opinion or public consensus or promotes a new idea with prescriptive notions for carrying out changes the author believes should be made." ~ Wikipedia, with the first part being lifted directly from Merriam-Webster.
"The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their international poisoners are exterminated... If at the beginning of the war and during the war twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the nation had been subjected to poison gas, such as had to be endured in the field by hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers of all classes and professions, then the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain." ~ Mein Kampf
I get that you want this thing to spread no further. If you will recall there was a synagogue shooting in the US not so long ago where the shooter was taken by those same ideas. But let's be super clear about what you are suggesting here when you specially ban this one thing at a national level rather than the type of content in general. It is this act that lifts the work to the levels ultimately desirable to an attention-grabbing mess of terrorists on the internet, not a person suggesting (via "dog whistle," what even the fuck) that making this one person famous in a law forever is a terrible fucking idea. I don't disagree that it should be banned. I am saying ban all of it, because neglecting to do so is horrifically flawed.
I would be completely fine with a de facto moratorium on the distribution and publication (without prior approval for academic interest or use) of manifesto's and other documents produced by people who then go on to commit acts of terrorism. Doesn't even have to be long - make it like, a year maybe? But just a default law that says "if someone goes on to commit terrorism, then if you're really so interested you turn up to the public library and read it there".
This seems reasonable to me: we're not actually restricting access in any serious fashion but we are seriously limiting the ability to radicalize (and telling social media that if we find that text, get it the fuck off there while people are grieving).
EDIT: The more I think about it the more I really like this idea actually - I suspect it would be a massive disruption to the types of personalities who do this stuff if the moment they try it actually just wipes all their previous thoughts and feelings out of existence on the major media outlets. There's no way the thought that your grand plans will only be read by social studies professors and reinterpreted is very appealing. And it fucks free-speech absolutists when the answer to every "why can't I" becomes "sure you can - make some time and go do it if you're so interested". Because they wouldn't.
The things that hate speech laws very specifically were created to ban and stop.
So allowing the incitement to be passed around is a clear contravention of hate speech laws, because there is no way to tell if the propagation of its ideas are sincere, mere curiosity, or just an attempt to be edgy.
Just like you might jail a person who was constantly extolling others to attack a minority, you have to ban/censor a document that seeks to do the same.
MWO: Adamski
Yeah, Canada draws the line in a similar kind of way.
"Willful promotion of hatred" isn't just ThOuGhTcRiMe, it's a pretty specific offense focusing on intent and actions rather than just the words themselves; to qualify it's not just bigotry, but bigotry with a particular kind of end in sight that whoever's doing the yammering is clearly pushing for: they want a target demographic to be harmed, and they're trying to encourage that harm via their words or acts.
The standards are high enough that the charge can't be pressed without the federal government's attorney general signing off on individual charges on a case-by-case basis, something which only happens maybe a couple of times a year against some seriously over-the-top people. In those cases it's not the person's words that are bringing the charge about, it's the fact that they are using those words to tangibly render a population unsafe.
This guy and his manifesto would absolutely qualify, especially in the context of his actions. I have no idea if his fans sharing the video and manifesto around would under Canadian law, but that question's probably going to come up sooner or later, especially if some of the more channy electoral candidates start bouncing those around to make some kind of dumbass point.
That's important. That's a significant statement. And I think that the government is wise to make such a significant statement following this, about this manifesto in particular, because the time immediately after an atrocity is when the actual action needs to be taken if you want to send that message. So I support the NZ government. Mein Kampf is a historical book, written decades ago. Is it hate speech? Yes. Does it inspire White Nationalists? Yes. If someone shoots a bunch of people with a gun covered in quotes from it would I expect the NZ government to ban it? Probably. Would they ban it now, without that happening? Probably not. Would I support the banning now? I tend to dislike book bannings in general, I must say.
This is absolutely a difficult topic and White Nationalists/Fascists are using the tolerant and intellectual values of our society, where we are against the idea of thoughtcrime, of banning books and speech, of saying certain forms of thought are illegal to express etc, they are using those against us. And therefore we will struggle to draw the right line. But I think that at least the attempt to do so and take action and send that clear message to victims and perpetrators is significant. One thing that is perhaps the most awfully, tragically depressing about things like spree killings in the US and such; after they happen? The government does nothing. It says "sorry" and shrugs, nothing to be done.
Arden is the PM of a shocked, horrified and in many cases scared country. She's taken admirable steps to reject the mindset that led to Christchurch, publicly and in law, and to make attempts to stop it happening again. Sign of good leadership IMO. And I certainly don't think people in this thread who are saying "hey intellectual liberty to own and study even truly evil texts is important and shouldn't be lost" are saying it because they are anything other than just believers in the significance of that, a significance I absolutely share. There is no-one defending the Freedom to say Hate Speech here. But also this guy's manifesto is... it's just a hate-filled screed. It's just filth. And if NZ says "we don't want this filth that killed dozens of us in our country" then that is supportable, understandable, and without much downside.