. . . and came up with a very different response
There were also issues like intimidating a former leader of what sounds like the FIANZ and a possible split in the Avondale Mosque in Auckland. The Herald did a pretty fair job in its coverage. But Stuff ... well Stuff is Stuff and they live in a different world to the rest of us. Stuff did however include some very interesting input from a couple of academic experts.
Would you like to hear how the media covered what they said about Islamic extremism and what our response should be to it?
Thought you might.
Professor Richard Jackson, deputy director of the National Centre of Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Otago, said overseas evidence suggested that a heavy-handed response to expressions of anti-Western sentiment or young people exploring radical ideas could be detrimental.
"There is evidence that that does contribute to further radicalisation. It creates the sense that Muslims are unfairly targeted, because there have been cases where right-wing extremists, or Christian extremists, don't get that same type of treatment, they're treated much more leniently.
I gave the matter a thorough going over in my initial post but in the light of the Al Noor atrocity and they perceived threat from "right wing" extremists, it occurred to me that there may be a couple of lessons we can take from revisiting this.
Firstly, we are told that a heavy-handed response to expressions of anti-Western sentiment or young people exploring radical ideas could be detrimental. You don't say? It's strange that we've heard nothing in this vein from today's academics on stemming the rise of "far right" hatred and extremism isn't it? Here's one expert saying that we should deal gently with Muslims who are drawn towards extremism lest we drive them further towards extremism. Nowhere have I read that we should deal thusly with people with "far-right" tendencies. Why-ever might that be? This couldn't be a blatant double-standard could it? No?
Secondly, do note once again the use of the trendy but utterly dull-witted term "Christian extremist". Any so called academic that uses this term merely displays a complete lack of understanding of what Christianity actually is and, in Tarrant's case, who Tarrant actually is. Their opinion should be summarily disregarded. As I said before Tarrant does not consider himself a Christian. Neither does the Bible encourage any of Tarrant's actions or attitudes. How muddle-headed can you be?
Then we're blessed with similar insights from another expert:~
Security expert Dr Paul Buchanan agreed locking up the two men in prison could be detrimental.
"There is fairly strong evidence throughout Europe, North America and to some extent here that people do, if not get radicalised in jail, certainly get more hardened. Whatever criminal propensity they have, a lot of people come back a lot more hardened than before and rehabilitation stories are few and far between."
However, authorities had to also protect the public and took threats like this seriously.
So perhaps there's lots of solid evidence for us not locking up any associates or accomplices of Tarrant's? I mean, after all, they might become further hardened in their perspectives if that were to occur right? Or is there a difference between Islamic extremists and "far-right" extremists that I'm not picking up on? What's the nuance? What am I failing to understand?
Because to me, it simply seems like the old "soft bigotry of lowered expectations" thing kicking in once again.
Do the learned academic experts mean to tell us in not so many words that because these two men have brown skins they are not capable of thinking things through as well as white people are? Isn't that extremely patronising? Isn't that in fact the very definition of racism?
Jackson also warned it was important media took great care in reporting the case responsibly, as it could cause xenophobia and also add to radicalisation as Muslim fears that the West hated them seemed to be confirmed.
"It is a bit worrying, because to be honest the media has not been that responsible in reporting on these types of issues...and [it] contributes to that broader social anxiety.
"There is a strong well-spring of public opinion out there that Muslims, as a group of people, are inherently dangerous and this will confirm that and lead to more calls to restrict immigration and perhaps expel people from the country."
So I take it that media should similarly take great care in responsibly reporting anything to do with alleged "far-right" individuals or groups yes? The last thing we would want is for the media to start making baseless accusations that someone like, oh I don't know, Jordan Peterson, was somehow linked to the terror attack in Christchurch eh? How incredibly irresponsible would that be? It goes without saying that we must not ever feed into any strong well-spring of public opinion that white people, especially white men, especially Australian white men, are inherently racist or dangerous eh? That would only lead to anti-white bigotry and hatred and that's not who we are as a country eh?
The media would never be that irresponsible. Would they?
Well, that seems to depend entirely on what group is under discussion doesn't it?
Just some consistency guys.
That's all we're after.
Just some consistency.