Reactions to New Zealand’s first Muslim terrorist are not original


New Zealand, in 2018, had the dubious distinction of having its first publicly acknowledged Islamic terrorist or Muslim jihadist (whichever term you prefer.) His plans to massacre New Zealand citizens on this occasion have been thwarted but the reactions to his evil plans and his malevolent intentions towards non-Muslims have been met with bog-standard reactions from our media, the judge, our Human Rights Commissioner, our politicians and a representative from New Zealand’s Muslim community.

It is like there is a terrorism playbook that all weak Western countries follow when a terror attack has either been averted or has actually happened. Instead of learning from what has happened over and over again in other Western countries it looks like New Zealand plans to sleepwalk to our own terrorism nightmare, all the while protesting that…

  • Islam is a religion of peace
  • All the terrorists were homegrown and radicalised online, (nothing to do with their local Mosque or school)
  • Their claims that they did it for Allah and that they are Muslims have nothing to do with “true” Islam and
  • They are mentally ill and their actions were unrelated to the violent and prescriptive teachings of the Koran.

Overseas website JihadWatch has already reported on New Zealand’s first publicly acknowledged jihadist and their article gets to the heart of the issue New Zealand is now faced with.

New Zealand: Muslim teen planned to ram car into people and then stab them “for Allah”

Not to worry. He is getting “counselling by a member of the local Muslim community.” That will fix everything, won’t it? And the president of the Federation of Islamic Associations, Hazim Arafeh, says that jihad terrorists are “misinformed about Islam.” So you see, nothing to be concerned about at all! Go back to sleep.

But one last question: if this young convert to Islam was “radicalized on the Internet,” i.e., he decided that his new religion called for violence because he found Muslims online saying that it did, why wasn’t he able to recognize that this was a “hijacked” version of the peaceful faith he presumably was taught in Christchurch, and reject it accordingly?

A Kiwi teenager radicalised online planned to ram a car into a group of people in Christchurch and then stab them.

The teenager wrote a goodbye note to his mother, then started a violent incident, but has since told a psychologist when it began he “decided not to hurt anybody because he did not have the means to kill enough people”,[…]

“The reason no-one was hurt was that he did not have access to knives,” Lange said. But there was significant premeditation, and hostility towards non-Muslims.

The teen, who was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, harboured thoughts for five months of killing multiple people. He expected police to kill him once his rampage started.

Ordinary Kiwi-born teenagers are highly unlikely to suffer from something as severe as post-traumatic stress disorder. It is likely that the media (possibly because of the suppression orders) have been unable or are unwilling to reveal that the 15-year-old is a refugee or an immigrant to New Zealand and that his PTSD is from what happened to him overseas.

It is not politically correct to provide yet more evidence that we endanger Western societies by bringing in people from cultures alien to our own with completely different values and who are unlikely to assimilate into our way of life. Refugees are often traumatised and are more likely to suffer from PTSD and other mental disorders. His ethnicity has also not been revealed by the media which, again, makes me think that it is unlikely he is a New Zealand-born teenager.

After his arrest, the youth told police he was angry and had “done it for Allah”. He had left school at age 15, become socially isolated, and converted to Islam.

Here is where there is a gaping hole in the narrative. When you convert to a religion you cannot do it online. You need to go to a church, a mosque, a temple or some other religious centre. It is highly unlikely that this teenager did not attend a mosque in Christchurch. If he did then why do you think this information has been suppressed?

The court has adopted a rehabilitative approach to the teen’s sentencing, with Judge Stephen O’Driscoll releasing him on intensive supervision with a list of conditions and a warning that if he breaches the conditions or reoffends, he will likely be sent to prison.

Among the conditions – which will apply for two years while the judge monitors his progress – is counselling by a member of the local Muslim community.

The youth’s name is suppressed and the details of the offending cannot be published. He has admitted eight charges. People were frightened by his actions during the incident last year, and damage was done, but no-one was hurt before he was held until the police arrived.

This is a very damaged and dangerous young man who belongs in a mental institution where a specialist in cults can attempt to deprogramme him. He does not belong back in the community living with the same people who enabled him to become radicalised in the first place. If you believe that he was radicalised solely online I have a bridge I can sell you.

Lange said even though the youth had been treated for months by the youth forensic psychiatric team, he was still seen as a high risk of reoffending, and a risk to family members and members of the public.

Why are his freedom and privacy being put above the safety of the public and his family members? If he succeeds in his next planned attack will the judge who put him back into the community be held accountable?

He said the primary consideration was the protection of the community, and the teenager’s rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

If the primary consideration was public safety then the teen would NOT be back in the community.

[…] Judge O’Driscoll said the teen’s rehabilitation would benefit the community in the long run, but he said it was one of the most difficult sentencings he had ever been involved in. “There is a need to deter you, denounce your conduct, and protect the community.”

Sadly, the judge has failed to protect the community but then so have successive New Zealand governments who have failed to learn from the mistakes of Australia, America, Sweden, France, the UK, Germany and many others.

Islamic terrorist Tafsheen Malik


Do you want:

  • ad-free access?
  • access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • access to Incite Politics magazine articles?

Silver subscriptions and above go in the draw to win a $500 prize to be drawn at the end of March.

Not yet one of our awesome subscribers? Click Here and join us.

If you agree with me that’s nice but what I really want to achieve is to make you question the status quo. Look between the lines, do your own research. Do not be a passive observer in this game we call life.