The right wing death threat against Winston

Written By: - Date published: 10:44 am, July 1st, 2019 - 117 comments
Categories: Christchurch Attack, national, nz first, same old national, Simon Bridges, terrorism, winston peters - Tags:

There was some disturbing news from Newshub last night.

And it rolls back to right wing extremist groups, the anti UN migrant pact protests and the Christchurch Mosque murders.

From Patrick Gower at Newshub:

Newshub can reveal police are investigating death threats made to Winston Peters by a notorious white supremacist.

Peters says National leader Simon Bridges has aligned himself with the anti-immigrant cause and is calling for him to resign.

Many will know Philip Arps – the white power extremist known for delivering a pig’s head to Al Noor Mosque in 2016 and publicly calling for the killing of Muslims.

He was the first New Zealander jailed for sharing the video of the shootings there on March 15. Now Newshub has obtained video of him threatening to kill the Deputy Prime Minister.

In Christchurch – seven weeks before the shootings – far-right groups attended a protest against a United Nations pact on immigration our Government signed up to.

The protesters believe the pact is ‘binding’ – meaning our immigration policy would be set by the UN and opening us up to immigrants – and blamed Peters.

“F**king publicly hang him,” Arps can be seen saying, along with throat-slitting gestures.

Peters is blaming it on a fake news campaign by neo-Nazis in Europe.

“A bunch of neo-Nazis in Austria were behind this – and they are,” he told Newshub.

In particular, he’s blaming it on Martin Sellner, the leader of the “hipster far-right” in Europe called “the new face of the far-right in Europe”.

The background to the pact has received some attention.  It is a non binding pact that is attempting to improve the plight of migrants.  And the movement against it has come from the European far right.

National’s complicity in the hoax is well documented.  They chose to scaremonger about the content of the pact and even set up a website to harvest email addresses of those opposed to the Pact.  It was pulled down at the time of the Christchurch killings by someone the party characterised as an emotional junior staffer.  You get the strong impression that if it was not for him the web page would still be up now.

Peters is calling on Simon Bridges to stand down.  Again from Newshub:

It wasn’t just extremists like Arps who came out against the pact. The National Party did too.

“National, if in Government, will overturn this,” leader Simon Bridges said in one video. “We believe it will cede our sovereignty to the UN on migration and that just isn’t right.”

Just like Sellner, the National Party set up an online petition. But immediately after the mosque shooting, when one of the alleged gunman’s weapons had anti-UN pact messaging – it was pulled down.

Peters says there are too many connections to the far right – deliberate or not – for Bridges to continue as leader of the Opposition, and he’s calling on him to resign.

“I don’t just think that any normal person would, in a political setting, say this is untenable. He’s gotta go.”

Bridges is doubling down.

Bridges says he won’t be resigning and says he doesn’t condone any threats to politicians.

He says National would still pull out of the United Nations Global Migration Compact, which the US and Australia haven’t signed.

“Winston Peters is wrong. New Zealand should decide our immigration settings, not the UN,” he says.

Ugly times …

 

117 comments on “The right wing death threat against Winston”

  1. SPC 1

    Trump's USA and the Kiwi persecuting government of Australia as National's fellow travellers on "immigration" settings, and of course also on … continuing to burn that coal. 

  2. Kevin 2

    If Bridges doesn't get it, why the fuck is he the leader of a political party?

    By not 'getting it' he is condoning what those far right extremist groups are saying.

     

    • Shadrach 2.1

      Are you saying that being opposed to the UN inserting itself into domestic policy is somehow linked to being a 'far right extremist'?  Funny if you are, because there are many on the left who also oppose the UN Migration pact. 

      • Anne 2.1.1

        there are many on the left who also oppose the UN Migration pact. 

        I suppose you are one of them. How come I'm not surprised. (sarc)

      • Kevin 2.1.2

        How exactly is the UN "inserting itself into domestic policy"?

         

        • Shadrach 2.1.2.1

          Once we have signed the migration pact, we are committed to it’s contents, even if only morally. There should be no outside influence on a sovereign nations ability to control it’s own immigration rules.

          • McFlock 2.1.2.1.1

            inorite? It really sucks that if we sign up to say we'll follow some principles, then we might look like dicks if we decide to not follow those principles.

            It's a gross outrage and violation of our independence that if we say we will do something, some people will think less of us if we don't do it!

             

            • Shadrach 2.1.2.1.1.1

               We wouldn't risk looking like dicks if we hadn't have signed up in the first place.  We're actually quite capable of establishing our own principles BTW.

              • McFlock

                I love the train of what passes in your head for "thought": let's not commit to doing the absolute basics in relation to the administration of migration because when the next tory government decides it won't try to achieve those pathetic competencies we will look like dicks.

                You do realise that we already do pretty much everything in the paragraph16 list, right? That it's mostly stuff that only developing nations would have difficulty in implementing, if they are not already implementing it?

                • Shadrach

                  You seem to believe we are incapable of forming our own policy around the 'absolute basics' without recourse to the UN.  I don't.  I view the UN as corrupt and incompetent.  We can make up our own policy, just like many other countries.

                  • McFlock

                    Your loathing of multilateral cooperation doesn't really address the point that we merely said we'd do what we pretty much already do.

                    • Shadrach

                      I have no problem with cooperation.  I do have a problem when we are led into it by a corrupt organisation like the UN.  We don't need them.

                    • McFlock

                      If we're already doing it, we're not being led into anything.

                      You think a resource-rich mid-size nation can go it alone internationally, playing one bunch of great powers off against the others without being squashed like a bug, rather than using the shelter of international diplomatic cooperation that at least nominally prohibits offensive wars. Fair enough, although it's noit a perspective I view as being stable in the medium term.

                      But to complain about a non-binding agreement to do what we were pretty much already doing? It's a negative-free decision that gets us international diplomatic points.

                      Mind you, I recall that before 9/11 the militia types were terrified of the UN, too. I guess that if one can’t comprehend non-transactional cooperation within a society, one might be terrified of diplomatic cooperation between multiple societies.

                    • Shadrach

                      "If we're already doing it…"

                      There is no point signing up to the pact.

                    • Incognito []

                      That’s one of the most compelling arguments I’ve heard so far. Please elaborate.

                    • Shadrach

                      "Please elaborate."

                      Sure.  The argument from various individuals here is that the UN Migration Pact is a harmless, non-binding agreement, the essence of which we already follow. McFlock put it thus "we merely said we'd do what we pretty much already do".  If that is indeed the case, why are we signing the UN Pact?

                      McFlock also said "It's a negative-free decision that gets us international diplomatic points".  I would argue that the many nations who have NOT signed the Pact are more concerned with the interests of their local citizens than earning brownie points with international diplomats.

                    • Incognito []

                      I’d agree with McFlock. You seem to be oblivious to the powerful signal it sends when we formalise it; the symbolism is lost on you. Think of it as a couple who have been living together for a long time and then decide to get married. You’d throw your hands in the air saying: why bother?

                      I also love the way you frame it as if it is binary choice between looking after your own local citizens and ingratiating yourself with the international diplomatic community (whatever that is). Sounds like wrong equivalence too.

                      Migration is a global issue that needs to be tackled in a collective way. Pulling up the drawbridge is such a medieval response and completely inadequate for this day and age.

                    • McFlock

                      152 nations supported it and many are in the process of sugning it.

                      Those that refuse seem to have objections to even looking vaguely inclined towards providing basic services to migrants, working to restrict human trafficking, viewing migration as a right, and not detaining migrants where unnecessary.

                      Says it all, really.

                    • Shadrach

                      "…the symbolism is lost on you."

                      Oh so it's only symbolism?  If we're already doing it, we're already engaging in that symbolism, surely?

                      "I also love the way you frame it as if it is binary choice between looking after your own local citizens and ingratiating yourself with the international diplomatic community (whatever that is). "

                      The international diplomatic angle came from McFlock.  Take it up with him.

                      "Migration is a global issue that needs to be tackled in a collective way. "

                      You're showing your hand.  Immigration is an issue for sovereign governments to determine, based on their own peoples wishes.  Other wise we end up with the kind of disaster the EU have had to deal with.

                    • Shadrach

                      "Those that refuse seem to have objections to even looking vaguely inclined towards providing basic services to migrants, working to restrict human trafficking, viewing migration as a right, and not detaining migrants where unnecessary."

                      All that shows is that you knowledge of the objections being raised is rather, unsophisticated.

                    • Shadrach

                      "152 nations supported it and many are in the process of sugning it."

                      So?  41 countries either voted against, abstained or didn't vote.  Since then, some of those countries have stated their opposition.  In many of the countries that voted in favour, there is huge local opposition.  Signing the pact brought down the Belgium government (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/dispute-over-migration-brings-down-belgian-government-1.3736136).  And in many of those countries the main opposition party is opposed to the pact (including Canada and Brazil).  

                      The opposition to the Pact is far more broad based than you seem to understand. But really that isn’t the point. The UN should not get to involve themselves in any nations immigration policy. The disastrous EU experiment should have taught us all that.

                    • McFlock

                      The UN isn't involving itself. Countries are choosing to agree among themselves.That's how the UN works. Sovereign nations negotiate and make agreements.

                      Your loathing of the EU gives the game away though. Obviously you prefer a model of fluctuating alliances and constant conflict between sovereign nations, which ended up in world war.

                       

                       

                  • Marcus Morris

                    Wouldn't mind spending a little time on justifying that statement would you. I am profoundly grateful for the work of the UN and its unceasing endeavour of bringing social and economic justice to so much of the world. 

          • Incognito 2.1.2.1.2

            You cannot force me to do what I will do anyway. You cannot force me to the right thing. You cannot force me to commit to a good cause. I will resist the force but do it anyway.

            Does any of that apply to your stance or does it make any sense to you? Because your comments make little sense to me. You seem to resist for the sake of it. Just the thought of outside influence appears to make your stress hormone levels rise. Are you sure to be safe reading TS?

            • Shadrach 2.1.2.1.2.1

              Resist?  Resist what?  I'm not in favour of signing up to any principles from a corrupt and impotent organisation like the UN.  We can make our own rules, thanks.

              • observer

                That's not a view I agree with, but if you apply it to all cases then at least it's consistent.

                Point is, National don't agree with you. e.g. Key was happy to sign up to the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights. In government National will invoke the UN when convenient.

                So it's not a good faith position. It's pandering, and doesn't deserve any respect, because he'll drop his position as soon as it becomes awkward (as shown by the case of the "emotional junior staffer").

                • Shadrach

                  No argument from me.  I frankly don't give a rats whether National agree with me or not.

          • AB 2.1.2.1.3

            "should be no outside influence on a sovereign nations ability to control it's own immigration rules"

            Influence and control are different things. The UN pact seeks to influence sovereign states but does not affect in any way states' ability to make, break or change their own rules. What we have is a simple disagreement over the content of the pact. It's best just to say so, rather than dress your disagreement up in high-sounding concern about sovereignty.

            • Dennis Frank 2.1.2.1.3.1

              Human nature to resist coercion, but also human nature to coerce.  frown

              The UN's plan seemed to be moral guidance via consensus.  No problem with that, eh?  Oz govt supports Trump in knee-jerk rejection of the herding, Simon tags along with that.  The sovereignty argument they use is a straw man, since they are unable to back it with evidence – the pact itself declares no breach of sovereignty is included!

              You got it right.  Just more game-playing by rightists silly enough to believe assertions with no basis in reality can win a propaganda war.

            • Shadrach 2.1.2.1.3.2

              My concern is about sovereignty.  I've been in too many discussions in which people resort to the 'oh but we signed up to the (insert some UN agreement)' argument to justify behaviour and/or policy that is simply not in our best interests.

              • Dennis Frank

                I've written consistently against excessive immigration here in recent years.  I see no reason to be paranoid about the UN initiative, but I share your concern about how it could be used as leverage to misinform the naive.  Not sufficient reason to reject it, imo.  People have to learn to sort out information from disinformation, and they do that from experience.  Trying to prevent them getting that experience is nanny-state thinking (paternalism – or maternalism if you prefer)…

                • Shadrach

                  I just don't trust the UN generally.  I'm certainly not opposed to immigration, but we're well capable of making our own rules.

              • AB

                Do you see other international organisations – say the IMF and World Bank – as similar threats to sovereignty? Or does your like/dislike of the ideological content of their pronouncements colour your perception of the degree of the threat?  Lefty UN is a threat to sovereignty, neoliberal World Bank is just rational economic management? Most people are a mess of such inconsistencies – and I frequently catch myself out in such self-deceptions.

                • Shadrach

                  I'm suspicious of any international organisation that seeks to exert undue influence on sovereignty.  I just happen to view the UN as more corrupt that most.

      • lprent 2.1.3

        You mean like those various other UN initiatives that we have signed in a similar fashion like not committing genocide or protecting children from abuse or outlawing slavery?

        FFS: are you a genocidal pedophile slaver, or wish to support them… Becaue that is what it sounds like you are defending against.

         

        • Shadrach 2.1.3.1

          So you don't you now the difference between committing genocide and setting an independent immigration policy?

          I’m heading to Eastern Europe in September. Hungary havn’t signed the pact. Are they run by paedophiles and people who have committed genocide? What about Austria (I’m popping in to Vienna while I’m in Slovakia)? Please let me know so I can rearrange my itinerary.

          • Dennis Frank 2.1.3.1.1

            While in Austria, make the identitarian connection.  The head honcho seems fluent in English.  "Just a week after the Christchurch attack, Austria’s Generation Identity group — known as Identitarian Movement Austria — held a protest against “The Great Replacement” in Vienna, calling for “remigration” and “de-Islamization.”   https://www.politico.eu/article/who-are-europe-far-right-identitarians-austria-generation-identity-martin-sellner/

            "Sellner’s movement provides instructions for step-by-step far-right radicalization. It recommends leveraging widespread grievances related to free speech or gender equality as a starting point, before gradually introducing new recruits to identitarian ideologies: “You sow the soft redpill seeds and then you water them constantly. An honest question to start with, a news piece here, an email there, and in the evening an anecdote over beer.”"

            This collegial approach would only work on unformed minds.  You'd be resistant, but you'd get better informed about how the subculture works.  Think of it as political/anthropological tourism…

            • Shadrach 2.1.3.1.1.1

              I'll only be in Vienna for a day, sorry.  I'm splitting a month between Hungary, Poland, Slovakia (including a day trip to Vienna) and the Czech Republic.  I will be interested to see countries that have maintained an independent immigration policy have fared compared to those who have swallowed the UN and EU Koolaid and gone full monty.

              • Dennis Frank

                It will, I agree.  Saw Gower interview Sellner in the lead story on 3News just before.  He seems genuine, and surprised me by rejecting violence.  Sent the shooter's donation to the Chch victims.  Folks will have to start differentiating the violent alt-right from the non-violent.  Sharing the same ideology is no excuse for conflating them when the only valid rationale for hate-speech law is incitement to violence…

                • Incognito

                  When he speaks kindly, do not believe him,

                  For there are seven abominations in his heart

                  • Dennis Frank

                    People read facial expressions, body language, and also decode choice of words used in messaging, as it happens.  It rings true or false, and the ring bypasses the rational mind.  What we now call emotional intelligence is an ancient survival skill, honed by evolution for millennia.

                    Still, a reality check of group messaging (internet & print publication) to ascertain advocacy of violence is essential.

                    If his movement passes that credibility test, then all those leftists conflating the various strands of the alt-right will lose leverage in the culture war.  Fair-minded people will see that their condemnations are no more credible than those from anti-islamists, who conflate the religion with terrorism.  Again I heard him oppose terrorism, this morning on RNZ to Corin Dann…

                    • Incognito

                      Still, a reality check of group messaging (internet & print publication) to ascertain advocacy of violence is essential.

                      Well, He may have converted to non-violence but not so long ago he was not practising what he preaches:

                      In February 2017, Sellner was involved in a fight in a Vienna U-Bahn station where he used pepper spray on people he described as far-left activists. Since this incident, he has been banned from carrying weapons.

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

                      I don’t think one can read people well by video-link or TV interview.

                      I was not condemning but expressing a healthy dose of scepticism and caution. Indeed, by (the results of) their actions they will be known to us.

          • lprent 2.1.3.1.2

            So you can't tell the difference between the locally non-binding resolutions of the UN and the ones we have already signed up for – many as long ago as during the last world war? Some were done with the League of Nations  or even earlier.

            Our own laws against genocide were based around the UN non-binding agreements – perhaps you’d like to discuss why, as an example, why those particular they’re a step towards a world state. Try discussing why laws against gencode are a bad idea at the same time – and let everyone laugh at you (more than they already are).

            Only a complete illiterate would equate those kinds of non-binding agreements as being binding on the whole nation by the UN. Sure we may have locally enacted legislation to support them – the armed forces law comes to mind. But those are subject to parliament removing them.

            It usually comes with some penalty costs. If only with the disdain of countries who don’t like pedophiles or genocidal maniacs.

            If you're too lazy to look at the process then please don't bother trying to make up stupid lies here.

            • Shadrach 2.1.3.1.2.1

              I can absolutely tell the difference. But I don’t trust the UN the way you clearly do. And when did I claim the UN pact was binding?

              • lprent

                Once we have signed the migration pact, we are committed to it’s contents, even if only morally. There should be no outside influence on a sovereign nations ability to control it’s own immigration rules.

                There… Morally binding is just as binding as anything else.

                Now substitute genocide – like this.

                Once we have signed the anti-genocide pact, we are committed to it’s contents, even if only morally. There should be no outside influence on a sovereign nations ability to control it’s own genocides.

                If you look at the history of why there are things like refugee policies (for instance), you’ll find that they are directly related to previous genocide policies.

                • Shadrach

                  You know full well what I meant by 'morally' binding.  We are morally bound by something we sign, but we are not legally bound.

                  I'm not arguing against signing an anti-genocide pact.  So you're comparison is more than silly.  Let's sign it, I'm sure all those committing mass genocide will really sit up and take notice!

                  • lprent

                    Of course I understand what you are trying to say. I'm telling you are a legally an idiot and even moment's thought will make you aware of why you are. 

                    We already signed treaties, pacts, agreements, conventions and just about every other name for things like anti-genocide conventions (around 1949) along with many others about things like the Red Cross, rules of war, sexual abuse of childrenracial discrimination, slavery, religious freedom, refugees, and multitude of other things. We have then put recognition for these in our internal laws.

                    There is a pretty comprehensive list on the UN site of international ratified conventions and agreements. Try reading it some time. It 

                    • Won't bite and isn't even scary.
                    • Won't brainwash even your weak mind.
                    • Mostly is so old that only extreme psychopathic bigots still disagree. For everyone else it resembles common or natural law.

                    However regardless how much local law is enacted, there is no legal difference if parliament is sovereign and the 'crown' is pretty much completely unconstrained. That law supporting a convention or any agreement can theoretically be removed at any time. Provided either or both are willing to take the consequences – the same as just about every other thing we've signed up for.

                    The 'moral' argument is simply that once a country decides to sign up for something like any of these then they are expected to live up to them. That usually particularly applies to local citizens. I'd imagine that if I had a government that tried to repudiate the refugee or religious freedom policy (and just about every other one we have signed up for), that I'm likely to start rebelling against the gilead fuckwits.

                    So to me that you're jerking off on about 'moral' obligations just indicates to me that 

                    1. You don't understand the basics of international law and how it applies to nation states; or
                    2. You don't understand what international law is for – and therefore are too dangerous to leave around these kinds of debates (just think of what really unconstrained warfare would be like) ; or 
                    3. You don't actually have any argument about this particular convention and prefer lying about it as scare tactic; or 
                    4. You are simply a parrot without a brain.

                    I'm leaning towards that last one.

                    [Your comment ended up in Auto-Moderation – Incognito]

                    • Shadrach

                      "We already signed treaties, pacts, agreements, conventions and just about every other name"

                      Yes but we're not discussing those, are we?  We're discussing the UN Migration Pact.

                      "The 'moral' argument is simply that once a country decides to sign up for something like any of these then they are expected to live up to them."

                      That sounds rather like a binding commitment then?  And yet you accused me of lying for saying it was morally binding.

                      "So to me that you're jerking off on about 'moral' obligations…"

                      I haven't done anything of the sort.  And your contradicting yourself by asserting that and yet also asserting we have a moral obligation.  The sign of someone really struggling to put a coherent response together.

                       

                       

            • Shadrach 2.1.3.1.2.2

              "If only with the disdain of countries who don’t like pedophiles or genocidal maniacs."

              There you go again!  Look down the list of countries that didn't sign the UN Migration Pact.  How many are run by people who support pedophiles or genocidal maniacs?  Perhaps you should compare then with some of the countries who are on the UNHCR, like Algeria, or China, or Somalia.

              • lprent

                How many didn't eventually sign up for the anti-genocide convention? currently South Sudan (I think) – brand new nation.

                How many didn't eventually sign up for the anti-pedophile conventions? 2

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

                As of December 2014, 195 countries have ratified the Convention, including every member of the United Nations except the United States and South Sudan.[5][6]

                Sometimes you have to wonder about a overtly 'christian' country when you look at Alabama and that they are really the solitary holdout against basic child abuse. I guess that is why they lead the western world in missing children. 

                If you would actually learn to read relevant material (rather than the intellectual equivalent of Putin’s PR puppets), you’d find that typically every international convention takes decades to get ratified worldwide. That is because international conventions are usually pretty low on national legislative programs.

                So your argument has no credibility unless you can show active decisions to not ratify

                • Shadrach

                  "How many didn't eventually sign up for the anti-genocide convention?"

                  Who gives a shit?  That's my point.  YOU started making some kind of wild comparison between not signing an immigration pact and pedophilia and genocide.  Not my problem you went down that particular dead end.

                  • lprent

                    As I said – you clearly didn't understand the existing conventions that we have signed up for.  I can't see how this one is in any way different. It just establishes the same kinds of protections that we have signed up for about genocide and pedophiles. 

                    I really can't explain why you feel the need to attack exactly the same kind of international convention.  While claiming some kind of moral/legal issue that didn’t happen with those conventions. It seems like the act of a hypocrite. Full of false equivalences.

                    Simple stupidity? Or you are just an unthinking parrot too lazy to do some reading?

                    • Shadrach

                      It seems you simply cannot understand the difference between signing up to an agreement about pedophiles and genocide and a pact in which the UN is attempting to insert itself into sovereign nations immigration policy.

                      So you take the lazy way out and accuse people you disagree with of being stupid. It really is a broken record.

                    • lprent

                      I guess that you are too stupid to get the point. You haven't shown why that it is any different.

                      I can't see any reason why this agreement is any different to  previous agreements that governments have ratified and supported. How is setting some rules about migration any different to accepting rules about the conduct of war or treatment of refugees  or how to discrimination against pedophiles or working against  genocide.

                      Simply asserting that it is different without explanation is simply the action of a dumb fool or someone who is too gutless or lazy to explain why they think it is different.

                      Personally I'm now coming to the conclusion that you're simply ashamed of your reasons – a touch of racial bigotry perhaps.

              • michelle

                yes we are still waiting for our Tino rangatiratanga Shadrach 

    • woodart 2.2

      bridges will bark at every passing car, and try and climb on every passing bus, its all about getting clicks. if trump has taught us anything, its how to generate headlines, and bridges is desperate for them…

  3. Dennis Frank 3

    Alt-right paranoia derives from perception that immigrants pollute culture (rather than enrich it).  Separatism rather than integration.  Yet escalation into violence is in proportion to the reality of any threat.  If immigration permits islamic violence to enter here, they get traction.  No evidence of this happening, so no traction.

    The call from Arps ought to trigger a response from the state.  I'm waiting.  Recycling the shooter's video is small potatoes compared to threatening to kill the deputy PM.  No point having hate speech laws if you keep refusing to use them, eh?  Proof of incitement to violence seems evident.  Govt must act on it.

  4. Enough is Enough 4

    Peters asking for someone else to resign in connection with anti immigration rhetoric is irony in the extreme.

    He has made a career out of demonising Asian and Muslim immigrants.

    I can't believe Paddy let him away with this and did not throw some of his own quotes back at him.

    • Shadrach 4.1

      Yes the irony is rich on this one.

    • mickysavage 4.2

      Maybe it is the Jacinda effect and he is a more tolerant caring person now?

    • Chris T 4.3

      Indeed

      It is actually hilarious

    • Gosman 4.4

      It is beyond hilarious. It is like we have passed through in to some alternative universe. Next he will come out against the alcohol and racing industries,

      • Peter 4.4.1

        I saw the thing on TV with a strange person holding a New Zealand flag yelling all sorts of things.

        It takes all types to make a world. Including a mass who don't think there's something awful about a person performing as the guy was. 

         

      • reason 4.4.2

        He says National would still pull out of the United Nations Global Migration Compact, which the US and Australia haven’t signed.

        How many refugees have those fuckers created …. since they invaded Iraq … a decade and a half ago

         

        The usa alone has used over 100000 bombs and missiles in Iraq and Syria since 2014 …

        Similarly, many of the refugees come from Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries still being devastated by US wars of aggression.

         

        Dem bloody democrats … and hillary War Criminal clinton …

         "So in late 2011 there is an internal document called the Libya Tick Tock  that was produced for Hillary Clinton, and it's the chronological description of how she was the central figure in the destruction of the Libyan state, which resulted in around 40,000 deaths within Libya; jihadists moved in, ISIS moved in, leading to the European refugee and migrant crisis.

         

        Not only did you have people fleeing Libya, people fleeing Syria, the destabilisation of other African countries as a result of arms flows, but the Libyan state itself was no longer able to control the movement of people through it."

         

        Clinton shared responsibility for massively de-stabilising the Middle East, which led to the death, suffering and flight of thousands of women, men and children.

         

        http://johnpilger.com/articles/clinton-assange-and-the-war-on-truth

         

         

         

         

         the struggle to maintain European ‘civilization’ against the barbaric hordes of uncivilized brown-skinned invaders arriving as a “swarm,” to borrow the unintentionally honest expression used by British Prime Minister David Cameron to describe the refugees. This is of course the neocolonial, supremacist position espoused most vocally by the far right throughout Europe, from Marine Le Pen and the Front National in France, to Hungary’s conservative Prime Minister Viktor Orban whose heavy-handed tactics – building fences, mobilizing troops and the unemployed, convicts, and fascists of various stripes – to block the refugee influx, have been both praised and condemned by various elements in Europe.

         

        https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2018/06/25/how-the-u-s-under-obama-created-europes-refugee-crisis/

         

         

        https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/25/the-refugee-crisis-separating-the-conspiracies-from-the-conspiracy/

         

        the media removes the refugees from their politico-historical context, transforming them into so-called “migrants” – an elusive term designed to obscure the reality of who these people are, and why they’re desperately trying to get into Europe – as if they’re simply poor people looking for work, rather than victims of imperialism looking to protect their families and escape wars and destabilizations initiated by the West.

         

        https://consortiumnews.com/2018/04/25/how-many-millions-have-been-killed-in-americas-post-9-11-wars-part-3-libya-syria-somalia-and-yemen/

         

         

    • SHG 4.5

      Only Winston has the balls to run on anti-immigrant rhetoric his whole career and then complain that someone else is aligned with the anti-immigrant cause.

      Tune in tomorrow for when Winston accuses National of pandering to the grey power vote.

    • Muttonbird 5.1

      As I said this morning:

      This isn't a coincidental one-off nutter threatening a politician. It's him, and the Christchurch Australian murderer, the alt-right, Southern and Molyneux, Jordan Peterson and the incels, and Sellner and his fake news identarian crowd.

      /open-mike-30-06-2019/#comment-1633053

      The two threats against John Key were individual people with mental health problems and with single issue grievances.

      The Irish threat maker and Arps are part of a well established global extreme right collective which Bridges seems quite happy to rub shoulders with…for votes.

      • Puckish Rogue 5.1.1

        Should lump Jordan Peterson in with the alt-right considering how much he's against the alt-right (and alt-left for that matter)

  5. observer 6

    There are several degrees of separation between Bridges and the neo-Nazi making death threats, so linking the two is drawing a very long bow.

    But I'd reflect on something else. The video shows a man in a public place, in full public view, repeatedly calling for another man's murder, with both his words and his actions.

    Now run that video again in your head, but this time make the speaker a Muslim. Then imagine the reaction – from media, public, politicians, and so on.

    It wouldn't just be news. It would be the news, dominating all media and a thousand angry talkback calls. Far more than the Arps story (so far). And the biggest victims would not be politicians.

    • Jenny - How to Get there? 6.1

      observer 6

      1 July 2019 at 1:50 pm

      Now run that video again in your head, but this time make the speaker a Muslim. Then imagine the reaction – from media, public, politicians, and so on.

      You don't have to imagine it, we know exactly what would have happened if for instance that speaker had been Tuhoe.

      The police went to great lengths to tap his private phone conversations in an extraordinary effort to catch Tama Iti out saying such things, so that they could charge him as a terrorist. And came up with nothing.

      But what if the police had managed to get a wire tapped  recording of Tama Iti or other Tuhoe making the sorts of threats against politicians that these fascists have?

      We would never have heard the end of it.

      Police would have illegally leaked whatever they had to media. (which the police actually did at the time, even though they actually had nothing, but innuendo and gossip, to leak.)

      After a public media lynching, Iti instead of being tried and convicted of relatively minor fire arms charges, Iti would have been tried as the police were angling for, as a terrorist.

      If Tama Iti can be charged as a terrorist under the Suppression of Terrorism Act, on the mere suspicion of having said something like this, why haven't these fascists not been charged under the Suppression of Terrorism Act.

      If the Suppression of Terrorism Act cannot be used against white supremacist extremists until after they actually commit  a terrorist act. what actual use is it?

      • Incognito 6.1.1

        What-if?

        If Tama Iti [sic] can be charged as a terrorist under the Suppression of Terrorism Act, on the mere suspicion of having said something like this, why haven't these fascists not been charged under the Suppression of Terrorism Act.

        You continue with this false framing of equivalence of something that did not actually happen.

        Nobody will ever be convicted of any crime “on the mere suspicion” because the standard required is “beyond reasonable doubt”.

        Please provide a link that Tame Iti or any of the Tūhoe Māori activists was charged under the Suppression of Terrorism Act.

        • lprent 6.1.1.1

          Short answer was that no-one in that operation was. The solicitor general stated that it didn't apply.

          The rogue police unit doing those operations had used that act when applying for warrants – which even the broad scope of which was exceeded and eventually repudiated by the courts (and evidence gained unlawfully was removed to the cases).

          That act is notoriously hard to use. I think that the dimwit from Australia is going to be the test case that makes it to court. 

           

          • Incognito 6.1.1.1.1

            Thanks for confirming that and I hope Jenny is not only listening and actually hearing. Her comments on this are becoming a tad tedious.

          • Jenny - How to Get there? 6.1.1.1.2

            Leaked evidence controversy
            [edit]

            In November 2007, The Dominion Post published a front-page story "The terrorism files", including a photograph of an AOS officer with a gun, and an extract from the tapes: "'Get someone to assassinate the prime minister . . . just drop a bomb.", a story based on a copy of the police evidence affidavit, including their surveillance transcripts – material which was all covered by a judge's suppression order.[57][58]

            “The rogue police unit doing those operations…..”

            That a  rogue police unit could call up a paramilitary operation involving hundreds of officers is beyond credibility. Only very high ranking officers with seniority and authority could have ordered such an operation.

            The 'rogue police unit' also broke the law to release a  partial unsubstantiated 'extract'  of an alleged wire tapped phone conversation between an unidentified individual and another unidentified individual threatening to bomb the Prime Minister.

            None of this so called 'rogue police unit' were ever disciplined or demoted for their illegal acts. So I think that it is safe to presume that they are still operating in the police and at the highest levels.

            Amazing how circumspect these same law breaking senior police officers are when it comes to white supremacists and  fascists threatening acts of violence.

            Have the police learnt their lesson, as some here have suggested? 

            Or is it that they are more fixated on Maori, or other dark skinned people.

            The kid glove treatment of violent racists and fascists, and the high arrest, conviction and imprisonment of Maori, compared to white New Zealanders would suggest the latter.

            “That act is notoriously hard to use. I think that the dimwit from Australia is going to be the test case that makes it to court.”

            If the Act is notoriously hard to use (against white people), even after they have committed acts of terrorism. then what practical use is it? (other than to be used to intimidate and demonise Maori, or any other minority the police take a dislike to).

            • gsays 6.1.1.1.2.1

              I, for one, do not find your observations "tedious" Jenny.

              The TSA, while hard to use (I don't know about notorious, tried and 'failed' once), was used and did what the state wanted it to do. Put those uppity Maori in their place.

              Well done on highlighting the common police practice of making statements early in the investigation that cast the perp in bad light, or leaking selective evidence.

               

              As to the complexity of the Act, Judith Collins criticised it when Justice Minister. The Law Commission started reviewing it and Minister Collins shut that down. Probably because of the further bad light it would shine on the GCSB, Key/Dotcom/Warners.

              But apparently, nothing to see here folks. Move along.

               

               

               

               

            • lprent 6.1.1.1.2.2

              The problem with the police is that they aren't a particularly hierarchical organization. They retain a the structure of regional militias who cooperate with relatively little higher level oversight. The problem is that that cooperation is based around the legal system, and that is pretty flawed when it comes to search warrants.

              If a search warrant is obtained, regardless of how daft or stupid the basis is, it usually gets granted by court registrars and acted on without significiant thought. Whoever gets it, asks for and is usually given cooperation by supporting forces, without sufficient attention to the detail of the allegations and without usually looking at the documentation that obtained them. Looking too closely would usually indicate a lack of trust and expose them to critical thought.

              The number of times that the basis that search warrants have been overturned or implicitly reprimanded by reviews and higher courts is pretty high and as far as I can tell – still increasing. 

              In this case it was triggered by a group in Onehunga, who appeared to be  bored shitless and looking for something to do after the flurry of post-911 activity. There simply isn't that much for them to do in NZ.

              A few years previously they'd been focusing on outright innocuous animal right activists (including my niece) with roughly the same kinds of mindless and outright moronic tactics.

              They'd been getting woven deeper into the post-911 paranoid security apparatus. They had mana amongst them… So when they invented their own little conspiracy to target and proceed to look for and find circumstantial evidence – most of which had obvious alternate explanations that they didn't bother to look at…. 

              Well a complete screw up ensued.

              But really you shouldn't follow their example and invent conspiracies where a simple fuckup is all that is required to explain blind stupidity. That is always Occam's razors favourite result.

  6. Ad 7

    The Deputy Prime Minister would take some pleasure turning this threat into a submission to the Christchurch Massacre Royal Commission.

    He would not hold back and would be outstanding tv news.

  7. infused 8

    Conflating two different issues to try and push an agenda. Simon is right to tell Peters to get lost.

    • Michael 8.1

      Bullshit. Neo-Nazi death threats against our Deputy Prime Minister are a direct result of dog-whistling by opportunistic right-wing politicians here in NZ.

      • infused 8.1.1

        What utter bullshit. It’s just another excuse to shut down discussion/debate by the left.

        Why do you think there is a big backlash at the moment around free speech etc? because of this sort of nonsense.

        • McFlock 8.1.1.1

          Massive cakes of moist, fetid bullshit.

          The "big backlash" is restricted to white-supremacist-esque fuckwits and the right wing politicians who want the votes of white-supremacist-esque fuckwits.

          The only "discussion/debate" any normal person wants to "shut down" is the histrionic fearmongering and outright lies that end up being regurgitated in the deranged rants of white-supremacist-esque mass murderers.

           

      • michelle 8.1.2

        yes the very desperate national are feeding the fire cause they are soooo desperate 

    • Dennis Frank 8.2

      Simon is already lost, so he must want company.  Told us kiwis are threatened by the UN pact due to it attempting to remove our sovereignty.  Anyone capable of doing a reality check knows that's crap.  From the Wikipedia page:

      "The draft agreement recognises the principles of national sovereignty:

      "The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in conformity with international law. Within their sovereign jurisdiction, States may distinguish between regular and irregular migration status, including as they determine their legislative and policy measures for the implementation of the Global Compact, taking into account different national realities, policies, priorities and requirements for entry, residence and work, in accordance with international law."

       

  8. Observer Tokoroa 9

    ObserverTokoroa 14

    1 July 2019 at 8:09 am

    "Peters says there are too many connections to the far right .."

    'The far Right" is a cuddily phrase for 'The Worldwide political Murderers'

    No one of right mind should be tied up with poltical Murderers, and National here must get in and clean their shit up immediately!

    It is strange that National ratbags, according to recent reports (which I have lost track of) continue to have access to Goverment Papers without due process or permission.  It will not be a problem if I am wrong. Will it Simon Bridges ?

    But I sincerely think there should be be a determined effort by our Parliamentary Security Bodies to Rip through National and report on their connections with far right Groups and their access to Government Information.  Also Report on whether our Security Staff knew in advance of the Slug into Winston Peters.

    For Instance, and In brief, who got a far right missile into Winston Peters – as Reported by Journalist Paddy Gower. just several Hrs ago. Peters is being monitored very effectively by exceedingly evil Far Right Murderers.

    But not unfortunately, by Our Security Staff, and Police.  I wonder why  !

  9. Ken 10

    A large proportion of these nutters will be the same people who want to be able to own military style automatic weapons.

    • cleangreen 10.1

      The right are gearing up for another fight against the imigrant issue  as it makes good fodder for the neo-nazis again.

      To shore up their popular vote.

      Europe is a deep civilisation stepped in fighting invaders  from the birth of Christ.

      This is the norm over there, 'but dont' bring their problems to our shores' should be the logic here.

       

      • Incognito 10.1.1

        This is the norm over there, 'but dont' bring their problems to our shores' should be the logic here.

        With all due respect, that would be terribly flawed logic.

  10. JohnSelway 11

    Just as a aside I think you'd be pretty hard press to find a major MP like Peters who hasn't received a death threat. Seems par for the course

    • observer 11.1

      That's absolutely true – from online anonymous trolls or foam-flecked letters in green ink, no return address.

      But as pointed out above, this was a public name and face, in a public place, a known business owner and somebody with a history of behaviour, not only drunken boasts in the bar. So it's really not the usual "par for the course".

  11. Incognito 12

    According to Bridges and the National Party, the UN Pact essentially is a binding threat to our sovereignty. This view they have in common with the far-right extremists. However, they have done very little to distance and differentiate themselves from the extremists. This then becomes a mutually validating positive feedback loop. Unfortunately, Bridges and National are not willing or capable to put nuance into the debate about migration.

    Migration has always been a polarising issue and it is no different here in NZ. This is not just an issue of scale because similar xenophobia and fearmongering surrounds moves to increase the numbers of international refugees despite these numbers being pathetically low.

    Of course, Bridges or National do not condone death threats, but in reality that is a distraction, a side issue, from the much bigger issue that is migration. National has form in getting others to do the dirty work for them and keep their hands pretty clean. Sadly, Winston Peters is not steering the debate in the right direction either as he is also prone to populism and political grandstanding.

    At the same time, there is no narrative coming from the left either, there is no moral or political leadership anywhere in sight (possibly with one notable exception). Many New Zealanders have concerns about migration, for example. These voices have no forum or representation in an environment dominated by two extreme poles. The pathetically weak Opposition leaves the door wide open to extremism. By not channelling voters’ concerns they are complacent and by not acting against extremism they become complicit (analogous to lying by omission). To me, populism is a milder form of ‘political terrorism’ where fuelling fear and propaganda are the main weapons tools.

    All this can be described as a major failure of our politicians and political parties. The lives lost of 51 people should be a wakeup call but instead (some) politicians and media double down and dig in for more polarisation and radicalisation. Because it suits them and/or because they seem to be out of their depth to change it.

  12. Fireblade 13

    "Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says the National Party's campaign against New Zealand signing a UN pact on migration was irresponsible and built on misinformation".

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/113910670/pm-national-campaign-over-un-pact-irresponsible-and-built-on-misinformation

  13. CHCoff 14

    Bridges wants the UN to excel to the standard of J. Key; that's understandable, his mentor and predecessor, who himself had rebuffed the UN and told it to 'step it on up' or something at his last UN address.

    But these things take time, i'm sure the UN hasn't forgotten, and is trying it's best.

  14. Observer Tokoroa 15

    The Rightside and the Shameside

    Like a perfect Selfie  – National are showing their dirty colours daily. They are currently condoning and assisting the "Far Right Supremacy of Wealthy Sadists" that roam the World hoping to Murder normal persons.

    Why has National recruited over numerous years, the dirtiest, most lazy, sadistic group of people in this land as their Political Monstsrosity?  They have less brain than dying  rabbit.

    They own great wealth, they do not reveal their stolen Wealth by manipulating Tax; They despise the people who do the Work in NZ. They force the Land Lords to make lowly people pay exorbitant rents for slum results. Unbelievable.

    They have not lifted the economy of NZ one iota ever!  They have fattened their Bottoms.  For none of them go Hungry. Food is dearer than ever during their miserable dirty occupancy. Housing hardly exists. Every poor person is taxed in New Zealand. Thanks National ! 

    They are the promoters Of lethal Rapid Fire Murderer Guns. Rebelious bastards.  They have all but failed with their Fletchers Constructions. Their Fonterra is hanging by a thread. Puffing coal throughout the air.

    They have built up the Casino – for Sir John Ratbag Key.  And shat on the Poor.

    They built up Lethal Diseased Cattle.  They have polluted every stream and River in New Zealand.

    They have done exactly what the Herald wants of them. Misled – Misled – Misled. 

    By The Gods above – lets get Rid of them !  Now

     

     

     

     

     

    • Jimmy 15.1

      Wow OT, do you really believe all that stuff?

    • cleangreen 15.2

      Jimmy do you think and sun shines out of National's backside then do you?
      “Wow OT, do you really believe all that stuff”?

  15. Jenny - How to Get there? 16

    Newshub can reveal police are investigating death threats made to Winston Peters by a notorious white supremacist…..

    Why this "notorious white supremacist" [Phillip Arps] has not been charged under the Suppression of Terrorism Act is beyond me.

    White privilege perhaps?

    • Incognito 16.1

      It is crystal clear why it is beyond you: you are wedded to your own biased and binary views. You ignore comments here that do not confirm your views.

    • Dennis Frank 16.2

      The report says the police are investigating, so they haven't reached the moment of decision as to charge or not.  You know how lawyers operate, eh?  Take forever to figure anything out.  That's why the justice system always produces results years later, when everyone has forgotten the crime…

      • Grant 16.2.1

        "Transportation for life" was the sentence it gave,

           "And then to be fined forty pound."

        The Jury all cheered, though the Judge said he feared

           That the phrase was not legally sound.

         

        But their wild exultation was suddenly checked

           When the jailer informed them, with tears,

        Such a sentence would have not the slightest effect,

           As the pig had been dead for some years.

Leave a Comment

Use WYSIWYG comments on next comment (inactive new feature)

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New digital service to make business easy
    A new digital platform aims to make it easier for small businesses to access services from multiple government agencies, leaving them more time to focus on their own priorities. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Small Business Stuart Nash ...
    4 days ago
  • Million-dollar start to gun collection events
    Million-dollar start to gun collection events  Police Minister Stuart Nash says a solid start has been made to the gun buyback and amnesty after the first weekend of community collection events. “Gun owners will walk away with more than ...
    5 days ago
  • Praise after first firearms collection event
    Police Minister Stuart Nash has praised Police and gun owners after the first firearms collection event saw a busy turnout at Riccarton Racecourse in Christchurch. “Police officers and staff have put a tremendous effort into planning and logistics for the ...
    5 days ago
  • New Police constables deployed to regions
    Seventy-eight new Police constables are heading out to the regions following today’s graduation of a new recruit wing from the Royal New Zealand Police College. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the record high number of new Police officers being recruited, ...
    2 weeks ago