𝕄𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕣𝕪 𝕤𝕥𝕪𝕝𝕖 𝕨𝕖𝕒𝕡𝕠𝕟𝕤 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕣𝕖𝕞𝕒𝕚𝕟 𝕓𝕒𝕟𝕟𝕖𝕕

𝕄𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕣𝕪-𝕤𝕥𝕪𝕝𝕖 𝕤𝕖𝕞𝕚-𝕒𝕦𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕔 𝕨𝕖𝕒𝕡𝕠𝕟𝕤 𝕤𝕙𝕠𝕦𝕝𝕕 𝕙𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕓𝕖𝕖𝕟 𝕓𝕒𝕟𝕟𝕖𝕕 𝕒𝕗𝕥𝕖𝕣 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕞𝕒𝕤𝕤 𝕤𝕙𝕠𝕠𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒𝕥 𝔸𝕣𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕒𝕟𝕒 𝕚𝕟 𝟙𝟡𝟡𝟘, 𝕓𝕦𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕘𝕦𝕟 𝕝𝕠𝕓𝕓𝕪 𝕘𝕠𝕥 𝕚𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕨𝕒𝕪

Commemoration of the 2019 Terror Attack in Christchurch NZ, Introduced By Right Honourable Jacinda Ardern.
L

ike so many others, I will never forget March 15, 2019. I had not imagined that a terrorist attack on a city’s mosques would have occurred in New Zealand, let alone Christchurch. It took a long time to come to terms with what had happened and why.

It’s hard to believe that we commemorated the fifth anniversary this year, but it was good to have the Prime Minister backing former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern with the words “she spoke for all of us”. I hope this stands fast when the Act Party minister seeks sign off from Cabinet for a rewrite of the Arms Act 1983.

There are some aspects of the changes that were made after the mosque shootings that the Muslim community and many others are seeking reassurance will remain; a reassurance they have been unable to get from the minister.

.

.

This has taken me back to the days after the attack, as I delved into what had caused it. I started to learn of the dark places online where extreme misogyny, racism, religious intolerance, bigotry and prejudice add fuel to an already corrupt and perverted view of the world that could allow such a monstrosity to occur.

I didn’t know about the symbols and messages that reinforce to these ‘loners’ that they are never alone.

Aotearoa National Anthem. Aotearoa security should never be threatened by these military style assault weapons ever again

And the intention that sits behind these extremist acts – whether the victims are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, people of colour, gay, human rights activists – is to create division, and to inspire further acts of violence against the ones who are ‘other’. The Christchurch terrorist’s so-called manifesto was a carbon copy of the ‘replacement theory’ that has pervaded white extremist movements for decades. It has found a new following on the internet from those who have lost any sense of meaning to their lives other than a deep-rooted sense of betrayal, embodied in these ‘others’ who have taken ‘our’ rightful place in the world.

Combine these with access to military-style semi-automatic firearms that can kill many people without having to reload and we can see what can happen. Too many people did see what happened, in real time, as the terrorist live-streamed his bloody assault on people at their time of prayer. It was a lethal combination.

It is true that this terrorist should not have been given a gun licence, but neither should he have been able to build an arsenal.

The need to make changes to our gun laws was urgent.

The most important of these changes – the banning of military-style semi-automatics – should have occurred in the aftermath of the mass shooting that happened three decades before at Aramoana. But the gun lobby got in the way and Minister John Banks could only muster the numbers for a watered-down version of the changes he wanted. Banks spoke out after March 15 describing how he was haunted by the memory of walking among those who had died at Aramoana. He said that not having the numbers to rid this country of these “killing machines” was the greatest disappointment of his political life. One submitter’s words when the 1992 amendment bill went through were prophetic: “One can only speculate on the extent of the tragedy needed to spur our politicians into positive action to protect lives.”

It took 51 people to die, many more to be injured and many more again who will never be able to unsee what they witnessed that day at the time or in the aftermath. We must never forget that.

What happened here can be contrasted with the actions of the former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who regarded the banning of semi-automatics and the other changes made in the wake of the mass shooting at Port Arthur in 2006 as his finest achievement in his political career. And this raises the obvious point that the Christchurch terrorist could not have amassed these weapons in his own country. He could not have committed this atrocity in Australia. He came here and used our laws to do what he could not do at home. We must not forget that either.

The decision to change the gun laws in 2019 was not unanimous. Act leader David Seymour dismissed it as “political theatre”. The Council of Licensed Firearms Owners led the opposition to the law changes, and they had a powerful advocate, Nicole McKee. The following year, she was positioned to enter Parliament at number three on the Act party list.

In 2023 a commitment to rewrite the Arms Act 1983 and pass it through all stages during this term of Parliament is in the. Coalition Agreement, and as Associate Minister of Justice with the delegation for firearms McKee is leading this work. She will not rule out reversing the ban on military-style semi-automatics. This has sent a shudder across, not just the Muslim community, but everyone who has come to know the consequences.

.

.

I watched McKee’s video posted on September 11 where she accuses the Labour party of lying, saying they were attempting to create fear by speculating about the reintroduction of semi-automatic firearms. Her words were “you can’t reintroduce something that never left”. Her argument is that some licensed firearms owners can still hold these firearms with the right endorsement. That’s true. But this has never been disputed. That’s not lying. That’s simply shorthand to describe the overall effect of the change.

They have been banned, and thousands of them have been bought back (not “confiscated”, as McKee says), and the community wants a simple undertaking that they will remain banned. If not the minister, then perhaps the Prime Minister could offer the reassurance they are seeking.

Members of Christchurch’s Muslim community took comfort from the Prime Minister when he met them. They should be able to rely on him and his government to ensure that any changes do not make them more vulnerable in an increasingly polarised and violent world.

I remember how some people took comfort from the fact that the Christchurch terrorist didn’t come from here. They said he is not one of us. But he could have been. We know that.

I believe we all have a duty to stand up and be counted, so that the commitments that were made in the wake of March 15, 2019 are honoured.

.