Christchurch shooting inquiry: Why did Ardern criminalize content?

By TONY MOBILIFONITIS
ON March 21^st, 2019, the Ardern Labor government of New Zealand criminalized the watching and sharing (even of links) of video footage purporting to show Brenton Tarrant on a shooting rampage against Muslims in the city of Christchurch just three days earlier. It left 51 dead and 40 wounded.

A Royal Commission of Inquiry into the shooting is being held in New Zealand, but as reported by Counterspin Media, the cover-up continues. Counterspin Media presenters Kelvyn Alp and Hannah Spierer, and another member of their team, are currently being threatened with 14 years imprisonment, as well as up to $600,000 in fines, for sharing links to banned information on the shooting.

An inquiry finding that exposed a lack of action by former PM Jacinda Ardern, whose office was alerted to the attack about nine minutes before it happened, has prompted a clash between New Zealand First leader Winston Peters and the media. According to media reports Peters has “shocked and appalled his fellow New Zealanders with a false claim” that Ardern had advance warning of the Christchurch mosques massacre and covered it up.

Ardern did mention the email in a press conference after the shooting but according to Peters, she failed to share vital information of the locations of the terrorist attacks were made known in the email. “Yet the PM (Ardern) the next day said the police couldn’t act because they didn’t have that detail,” said Peters.

He said the mosques weren’t even warned and that was his point about critical information not being passed on. “This inquiry is to find out what went wrong and what steps could’ve been taken to save lives – no matter how inconvenient the facts are.”

But Peters is only scratching the surface of “what went wrong”, as one only needs to see the footage livestreamed by Tarrant, that can be easily found online, to know that something is very seriously wrong with the official narrative.

For instance, an examination of Tarrant’s videos by Irish activist Michael O’Bernicia, shows Tarrant repeatedly firing off what are quite clearly blanks from a semi-automatic military rifle. Multiple bullet casings also eject and simply disappear into thin air. Tarrant’s video also showed no evidence of bullet holes in walls.

It also clearly shows him aiming and shooting at Muslims from close range in Al Noor mosque, which he entered twice. They were huddling on the floor and against walls, but there was no evidence of any of them, except several lying in what appeared to be blood, showing the catastrophic results of close-range gunshot wounds from a high-powered firearm.

However, actual fatal shootings appear to have taken place and it is clear from several reports that other people were involved. For instance, on the day of the shooting police reported they had arrested four people, three men and a woman, who were taken them into custody.

Media also reported “A number of IEDs (improvised explosive devices) attached to vehicles that were stopped had been made safe by the NZ Defence Force.” And that was the last that was heard of these incidents. After that, the entire focus was on Tarrant as the “lone nut shooter” – almost invariably the format applied in suspected terrorist psyops.

Due to the serious threats posed to our New Zealand readers, we will not post any links to the video. In July New Zealander Nathan Symington, 38, was jailed for two-and-a-half years in prison, for merely sharing links to two websites that investigated the shooting and having an illegal firearm.

Samantha Edwards’ latest Counterspin update covers the government criminalization of the video material. “There are many overseas websites that have analysed the shooter’s writing and videos and included these in analytical and investigative documentaries,” she says.

“While legal to do so in their countries, New Zealanders are subject to extremely harsh penalties, even getting harsher sentences that rapists and people actually possessing child pornography. Why is our government responding in such an extreme manner?” It’s clearly the video itself.

Edwards also interviews Adam Nuttal, who has made a video about the shooting called “Whose Platform Is It?” which covers a protest by a local Muslim Omar Nabi, whose father was killed. He’s been seeking accountability from local police.

The video also raises a number of unresolved issues around the shooting, including that Tarrant, previously from Grafton NSW before traveling extensively, was not put through the standard approval process for a gun license and had only been in the country about 15 days.

According to NZ police evidence Tarrant arrived at Al Noor Mosque at 1.40pm where 40 people were allegedly murdered in six minutes, that is on average one person every 9 seconds, not including those injured. Police said they arrived at 1.47pm, missing Tarrant by a minute but apparently unable to stop him continuing to Linwood Islamic Centre.

This shooting feat, in cold, hard military terms, seems astounding, as it assumes either a highly accurate shooter or a massive number of rounds being discharged. The video shows no evidence of the latter or former senarios. Even the numbers of people seen in the Mosque don’t support that.

Further highly questionable police evidence has Tarrant leaving Al Noor at 1.46pm then arriving at Linwood Islamic Centre 1.52pm, just six minutes later. Google maps indicates the trip takes 12-13 minutes in normal traffic, but 27 minutes in peak traffic. There he shoots dead two people outside the mosque before going inside to allegedly kill a further nine. Police say Tarrant is intercepted and arrested at 1.59pm.

As noted by O’Bernicia, the Tarrant video showed obvious signs of doctoring, the most obvious being the multiple shell cases discharging and literally disappearing. In one segment 14 shots are fired showing the shell cases falling towards a wall, then magically disappearing.

Further footage inside Al Noor shows Tarrant firing directly at people with no sign of bullet penetration. But there are clear signs of blasts of compressed air hitting their clothing. Then Tarrant goes to his parked car after the first Al Noor incursion and moves red plastic petrol cans around in the back of the car, apparently searching in vain for a lighter or matches. He is clearly recorded saying, while walking back to the mosque, “Looks like we won’t get the burn today boys.”

According to O’Bernicia, the video allegedly showing the Linwood attack was uploaded to a porn site on March 14^th, 2019, the day before the attack. It shows some people lying on the floor, but again, with little appearance of blood except for a several smeared patches that look fake. The Imam of the mosque is wearing a white robe smeared with fake looking blood stains.

In one instance a man shown lying on his stomach on the floor as if badly wounded or dead. He then gets up and walks across the room. Other people are lying down looking at their mobile phones and taking selfies. Others are wandering around wailing.

“In other words the entire video has the appearance, sound and performances of a very bad amateur dramatics group trying and failing to convince and portray the scene of the alleged slaughter,” O’Bernicia says. A middle-aged white man and a dark-skinned man, both in dark clothing, are seen observing the entire scene from a corner.

In further bizarre events Tarrant’s recording in his car indicates a second voice, with whom he converses. The male says quite clearly “…got out, we should have stayed longer” to which Tarrant replies “There’s time for the few more.” This is followed by “Are we really going to burn that f…. mosque to the ground?” Then Tarrant says “Look, shit happens.”

Co-incidentally, or perhaps not, the music playing through the car speakers is “Fire”, the song by the English singer and apparent satanist Arthur Brown, about “the god of hell fire”. Was it also co-incidental that suspected satanist John “mangled fingers” Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager and Obama counsel, visited New Zealand in the week before the shooting for a Global Progressives conference, heaping praise on Ardern while warning of a potential major online hack against her coming election?

And was it further co-incidence that Ardern emerged after the shooting in global news bulletins as the great, oh so compassionate, progressive leader, grieving with the victims and then banning all semi-automatic guns in New Zealand, as if their owners were somehow complicit in the shooting.

But it was definitely no co-incidence that Ardern announced shortly after the shooting that she and her international socialist cohorts would be hosting with French President Macron in mid-May a conference discussing the “unprecedented” manner in which online platforms were used during the shooting. And so Jacinda’s pet project, censorship of online media, was launched and continues to this day.

“This isn’t about freedom of expression, this is about preventing violent extremism and terrorism online,” Ardern announced, before imposing the most draconian restrictions on free speech ever seen in New Zealand’s history.

The Commission of Inquiry now leaves the new New Zealand government in a difficult spot. If politicised recommendations are made, such as more gun bans and continued criminalization of online content, the media will be screaming for Prime Minister Luxon to obey.

Any failure to do so will lead further to an international media outcry, which Luxon is unlikely to withstand, as media are already after blood following the overwhelming defeat of their Labor Party darlings Ardern and Hipkins. This now begs the question: Was the timing of the Commission of Inquiry designed to allow this very scenario to play out?