Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
5:30 pm, December 18th, 2020 - 28 comments
Categories: Daily review -
Tags:
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
We've just had a credible terrorist threat greater than that of March 15.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/123751610/otago-uni-graduation-threat-surpassed-magnitude-of-christchurch-terror-attack
Quote:
I am truly looking forward to Prime Minister Ardern doing more than emoting her way out of this specific named threat greater than the Christchurch attack. New Zealand's security apparatus just got their failures handed to them, again.
[Reformatted quote for clarity]
Doesn't the fact that it was stopped before it happened suggest our security worked this time?
Interesting that she got bail. The article is kind of light on detail.
It indicates that we are a sustained target and Christchurch was a pattern.
The threat successfully hit the lives of thousands of graduands and their families who had flown down.
So a successful intervention would have stopped the threat and stopped the disruption to our lives.
There will be some more detail to follow in the Court proceedings. But only some.
She was charged with threatening an attack, not planning one. Says it all.
She threatened to commit an attack using firearms and explosives targeting graduation ceremonies.
So with Police evaluating the threat, Otago university shut down all its graduations, and they found out who she was, she was arrested and charged.
Thankfully you don't evaluate terror threats to New Zealanders.
and then she was given bail. If she had been planning an attack I doubt that would have happened.
"It indicates that we are a sustained target and Christchurch was a pattern."
We are a sustained target from what? We don't even know what her motivations were.
My guess, given her age, is a failure to complete a course successfully and not graduating. Presumably someone with common sense assessed that as part of identifying who made the threat.
That's all up in the air.
It could be like the guy who left a fake bomb in the foyer as he walked into an exam he really hoped would get cancelled so he could get an aegrotate pass (true story). Or it could be the other end of the intent scale (likely short on competence, though).
The courts will do their thing. If it was just someone looking to not tell the parents they dropped out… that escalated a bit on them, lol
Likewise
The emotional and psychological issues of an individual, and their criminal charge consequences have little to do with our security apparatus or the PM, but the courts and medical professionals.
It is precisely because her intent was discovered that she was arrested and charged. Note also she didn't act alone:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/123751610/otago-uni-graduation-threat-surpassed-magnitude-of-christchurch-terror-attack
"Another person who the defendant met on an internet dating site is alleged to have also taken part in the offending. That person has not been arrested, police said."
If this was a mere therapeutic lapse she would be being sectioned under the Health Act. This is a threatened terror attach greater than that of Christchurch 15th, so it is a Police matter.
It's important to New Zealand because of that terror threat. Clearly enough for Police to require all graduations be stopped in Dunedin this December.
If they arrested someone for actually planning anything close to chch, I strongly doubt bail would be much of a possibility.
There was some jerk a few years before chch who did the anonymous threat thing at the same university. It's not necessarily related to any medical issues, some people are just morons. Maybe they want to avoid an event, maybe they just like making everyone jump.
But as soon as you assume it's just some jerk before you know who is behind it, the paper bag explodes in your face.
Intent and act. Your words. And not alone, but the other person is not being charged …
There is no charge of planning any act.
It appears someone made a threat, and to those at an event/events involving more people than gather at a mosque. And because of that the events were called off and someone is being charged for threatening violent action. End of.
We’ve known we were a target since
Are you saying that the execution of the New Zealanders on March 15th is the same as the Tuhoe raids?
Please, for the widows and widowers, spell it all out.
Hardly. More likely she has never owned a gun.
Details won't come out until hearing in February.
What was the message you wanted us to understand from your list above?
Puting your credible terrorist threat into a historical perpective.
Which historical perspective do you mean?
Yup – although the knowledge and logistics are relatively simple, most folk are not up to killing large numbers of their fellow citizens on their first go. Plenty of folk get angry enough to threaten to kill – but talk is cheap.
The Christchurch shooter was unusual in being well equipped, with a thought out plan, and considerable redundancy in the form of extra weapons and ammo. Absent Abdul Aziz he might have gone on to kill another 50.
You forgot 10 July 1985.
I am truly looking forward to finding out if the 22yo had access to firearms and explosives.
Kind of irrelevant whether someone making such a threat actually has the means to carry it out. Until you know for sure they're a fantasist, it has to be treated as credible.
I mean, most personnel might treat it as a drill rather than getting amped up for their portrayal in the latest NZ homegrown ghoulsploitation miniseries or movie, but you still follow procedure and go through the process.
Because the penalty for ignoring a committed offender is pretty bad.
Yes. And the fact the person appeared "shaken" at the court hearing today and has been allowed bail provided one or both of her parents are with her at all times.
This is a good move:
…
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/433200/prime-minister-and-mp-salaries-capped-for-three-years
For RedLogix:
"What if scarcity is just a cultural construct, a fiction that fences us off from gift economies? When I examine Serviceberry economics, I don’t see scarcity, I see abundance shared: photosynthate is usually not in short supply, since sun and air are perpetually renewable resources."
https://emergencemagazine.org/story/the-serviceberry/
A great read Robert, thanks.
This idea of the gift economy is deeply culturally bound in Asia, where at least twice a year families gather, and gifts, usually of money are exchanged. The head of the family (usually a grandmother) gets the bulk of the serious giving, and status is attached to generosity to her. Children also receive gifts, for which they bow to the responsible relative. One need not give gifts, but if not you lose the opportunity to gain status, and the children will not bow to you. Grandmothers often recycle some of their gifts to the grandchildren or single adolescents. Governments also understand that they are expected to deliver, and a lack of delivery is accompanied by a corresponding lack of respect.
Without any sense of trying to disparage the underlying idea of that essay, which I would suggest speaks to a profound spiritual idea (that essentially we all exist to be of service to each other), there is a mistaken conflation between the spiritual and the material going on here.
photosynthate is usually not in short supply, since sun and air are perpetually renewable resources
They may be perpetually renewable, yet they are also fundamentally diffuse and intermittent. This means that at any given moment there are strict constraints on what is available. The author does sort of recognise this:
Of course, sometimes there’s not enough rain, and then the scarcity ripples through the web of relationships, for sure. That is real scarcity: when the rains don’t come. A physical limitation with repercussions that are shared, just as abundance is shared. That kind of scarcity is not what troubles me.
Well it damn well should trouble him because this is exactly the constraint our pre-industrial ancestors lived with … and the result was a grinding material poverty stretching endlessly from one generation to the next with few exceptions.
Still I'm pleased you raised this; it's directly related to the next post I'm writing at the moment. There's a certain synchronicity going on here