Jacinda determined to stop Tarrant from having a fair trial.

Dunedin terrorist prompts Arderns denial

So much for a fair trial without political interference! Let’s not forget the long history of the many radicals amongst Christchurch Muslims that have been supporting Kireka-Whaanga in his creation of a halal funded Islamic State here in New Zealand:

2019: ‘One of us’ with bus packed with explosives.
2018:  Kiwi teenager radicalised planned mass killing in Christchurch ‘for Allah’.
2015: A foreign assessment of NZ’s contribution to the Islamic State
2014: Aotearoa Muslim is proud to support Isis  <  –  a dozen more radicals ID’d right there!
2014: A Kiwi lad’s death by drone – Daryl Jones
2014: The Deans Ave facility was partly funded by a $460,000 gift from the Saudi kingdom.
2012: Police justified in shooting knife-wielder – IPCA
2009: Treaty compatible with Islamic philosophy
2009: Mark Anthony Taylor visits Daryl Jones in Yamen.

But if we are to listen to FIANZ, the devout believers who read and obey the Quran are “not real Muslims“.

Remember that Dunedin mosque video that Tarrant’s alleged manifesto said inspired his decision to attack in NZ is still widely available online!!!

Prime minister Jacinda Ardern said she will do all she can to stop a man accused of killing 51 Muslim worshippers from spreading his message of hate at his trial, while she hopes artificial intelligence will one day stop such attacks from being broadcast online.

In an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday, Ardern described how she made decisions after the March 15 attacks at two Christchurch mosques, including introducing sweeping gun reforms and starting a global discussion on keeping violent extremism from the internet.

Australian white supremacist Brenton Tarrant, 29, has been charged with 51 counts of murder, 40 counts of attempted murder and one count of terrorism in the attacks and goes on trial next June.

Ardern said she thought he would try to use the trial to promote his views.

“It’s clear that a part of this individual’s motivation is creating a platform for himself. I think that’s absolutely clear,” she said. “And I think every opportunity we can to deprive the alleged terrorist of that should be utilised.”

She said she was limited in what she could do but was encouraged by the pledge of New Zealand’s major media outlets to avoid promoting white supremacist ideology when covering the trial.

Ardern said she stood by her decision to never speak the alleged gunman’s name.

“If someone’s motivated by infamy, then you deprive them of it,” she said.

The gunman livestreamed his attack on Facebook. Ardern said she hoped artificial intelligence could be used to stop future attacks from being broadcast, and that everybody had a responsibility to prevent such broadcasts from continuing to happen.

“Even Facebook have made moves around the way that they utilise livestreaming and who can access it,” she said. “In the future, I believe we can actually use AI technology increasingly.”

Ardern said she was traveling in a van on the outskirts of the North Island town of New Plymouth when she first heard about the attacks.

“The scale of it and the magnitude of it took some time to come to grips with,” she said.

Farid Ahmed, whose wife Husna was killed in the attack on the Al Noor mosque, said New Zealanders were initially confused about what to think. But a week later at Muslim prayers in Christchurch, Ardern gave a nationally televised speech that Ahmed said united people with three simple words: “We are one.”

“It was so beautiful, in just one sentence,” Ahmed said.

Ardern said she still had the piece of paper where she’d hurriedly written her sentiments after the attack, words that would later resonate around the world.

“To me, it should have been the most unextraordinary thing to say. It was just my instinct around the way New Zealanders would be feeling,” she said. “Yes, this was an attack, very explicitly on our Muslim community. But they were our Muslim community. I just felt that needed to be said straight away.”

Ardern said nobody at the time was really analysing what they were doing or saying, they were just responding, often with great compassion. She said everybody felt emotional at the time but she couldn’t let that get in the way of doing her job.

“I did the best I could at making sure that I didn’t let anyone down. I needed to keep going and keep focused and keep working on behalf of those families,” she said. “But yeah, of course, undeniably it had an impact on me.”

Ardern vowed to change New Zealand’s gun laws after the attacks, and less than a month later all but one of the country’s 120 lawmakers voted in favor of banning assault weapons.

“In my view, we are just total pragmatists,” Ardern said. “So when we saw the scale, and magnitude, and impact of these types of weapons utilized in this way, even those who legitimately hold weapons, said ‘Actually, we don’t need those. Those don’t need to stay.'”

A gun buyback scheme that ends later this month has seen 37,000 newly banned weapons turned over to police, although some estimates indicate there could be many thousands of banned guns that haven’t been turned in. Ardern said she felt the buyback had been a success.

“Those are tens of thousands of guns that are no longer in circulation,” she said. “And that is a good thing.”

In a speech after the attacks, Ahmed told a crowd of about 20,000 people in Christchurch that he forgave the man who killed his wife. He said he didn’t want to have a heart burning with anger and hatred.

Ardern said Ahmed was an extraordinary man. Asked if she could ever forgive the gunman, Ardern turned the focus back on those who were at the mosques.

“No one is more central to what happened on the 15th of March than those who were directly affected,” Ardern said. “So it’s not for me to give.”

Jacinda Ardern determined to stop alleged Christchurch mosque gunman from spreading hate at trial


  1. Of course, there can’t be a fair trial. You have to remember that this is all a drama, and that the “trial” is therefore no more than the last act in the drama. The aim of the entire exercise is to put the stamp of reality on illusion, and to ensure that the “live stream’s” many anomalies do not become common knowledge. The only questions that interest me are: (1) Will the “survivors” of the “massacre”, who have told many lies in their various interviews, repeat those lies, under oath, in court, and thereby commit perjury? and (2) Will the defence team fail to challenge any of the testimony of these “survivors”, despite the blatant falsehood of it?

    If this website – Islamic State Watch – were a conscientious website, it would also be asking these questions – and looking at some of the analysis of what really happened (and didn’t happen) on March 15. Instead, it does its best to portray all Muslims in the worst possible light, without reference to what might be described as the bigger picture. Yes, the Muslims have a lot to answer for. But at the end of the day – as far as Christchurch is concerned – they have done little more than volunteer their services as crisis actors. Ultimately, neither they nor Tarrant is responsible for the charade that has been characterized as “New Zealand’s darkest day”, and which was specifically designed to facilitate and expedite a wholesale rollback of civil liberties.

    It is imperative we all get a good grasp of what is really going on, and unite to resist those who would control us, and eventually enslave us, by using “terrorist attacks” to stampede us into the protective arms of the authoritarian/therapeutic state. The “terrorist” may be portrayed as a “rabid Leftist”, a “radical Muslim”, or a “white supremacist”. It doesn’t matter. These labels do little more than whip up our emotions, so that we do not pursue any rational inquiry – and do not notice the modus operandi that the globalist elite has been pursuing since the days of Operation Gladio in the postwar era.

  2. There were no deaths of 51 Muslims of Christchurch as there are no brass in memoriam plates with the name of the person and date of death, 15 March 2019, place of death, Christchurch, in the cemeteries there.

  3. The presence or absence of memorial plates (or graves) doesn’t actually prove anything. All we can say, at this stage, is that there is no evidence that anyone died in the “shooting” we see in the so-called live stream. All the “bodies” appear to be either dummies or crisis actors.

    I am 99% sure there was no police forensic examination of the crime scenes, and no proper police investigation of the “shootings”. All we have, at this stage, is the official narrative of what happened – which I suggest is an almost total fabrication, designed to whip up our emotions.

    Not so long ago, the Muslims of Al Noor were characterized as dangerous “radicals”. Now, suddenly, they are being cast as candidates for sainthood. Those who allegedly died on March 15 are “martyrs” who, in almost every case, were mercilessly “gunned down” while trying to help or shield others. Oh, please, pass me a tissue while I wipe away a tear.

    Even a child should be able to see that we are being deceived and manipulated.

  4. Their absence would prove everything. Seeing as you live there, and with a name like yours, you could discreetly inquire of the cemeteries as to the location of the graves, inquire also of the Imams of the two mosques whether they could provide you with the names of their late congregants, as you wish to pay your respects by visiting the place of their burials. At worst they would be shocked, but then the shock subsides, and they become co operative, perceiving your honorable intentions – to know the truth. Were you to do it soon the corrupt state appariti of NZ would not have time to engage in the fakery of first placing an order for plaques and then to set them in cemetery grave plots which do not contain human remains, nor will.
    Suppose the plaques are already in place, you could take a picture of each. Later you could do bio checks on each and you would find that there is no bio at all, that all these names are totally made up.

  5. First, I am in New Zealand, but a long way from Christchurch. Second, I have a picture of a row of graves, presumably in a Christchurch cemetery, and a close-up picture of one of the graves. This has a plaque reading “Tariq Rashid Omar 16195” on it. The number is presumably the lot number. (I picked these pictures up at http://chchtruth.com/tariqseries.html.)

    “Omar” probably has a bio. But if he does, that doesn’t prove his body is in the grave. He could have died earlier, in inscrutable circumstances, and had his death “assigned” to the “shooting”. Or he could now be living elsewhere, possibly in his family’s homeland, under another identity (or even under his own identity, if he is far enough away). As the Christchurch Truth website points out, there are several possibilities.

    All I can say is that – as a person who has viewed the alleged shooter’s video many times, and who has collected most of the pictures of the “dead” and “wounded” – I can see no evidence there were any casualties. The “wounded” have no visible injuries, and the “dead”, as I have said, look like dummies. In one case – that of the “body” in the gutter outside the mosque – the “body” has a head when it is “shot”, but no head when it is photographed later.

    I actually know the imam of Al Noor, but I am far from confident that, even if I went to Christchurch, I would be able to get any useful information out of him. His fame and fortune – and probably his life – depend on his continuing to parrot the official narrative.

Comments are closed.