• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?

Samson said:
Another one down

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12214672

We will need that new prison to deal with the aftermath.

"In court, Arps was handcuffed and dressed in blue T-shirt, track pants and socks. His arms were heavily tattooed.

He is the director of a company which is under scrutiny for having a Nazi sign as its logo - the same symbol featured in a manifesto by the alleged shooter.

The company, Beneficial Insulation, has a sun wheel as its company logo. It is a symbol employed in a post-Third Reich context by neo-Nazis and some occult subcultures."
Click to expand...

Is he the guy who sells everything for $14.88?
 
A mother goes down...

New Zealand Herald said:
A Masterton woman has been charged under the Human Rights Act after posting a hateful message to her Facebook page in the wake of the Christchurch shootings.

Police have confirmed a woman is facing a charge of inciting racial disharmony, which carries a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment or a $7000 fine.

The Times-Age believes the woman is a parent to a child at a Masterton primary school, and parents complained to the principal and the police.

Senior Sergeant Jennifer Hansen said the Facebook post "upset a number of people because it referred to the events in Christchurch"....
Click to expand...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12214654
 
An offering from kiwiblog:

"Today in a meeting we were all encouraged to express our views about Friday.

But not before the person in charge set down the parameters of what would be an acceptable view to her.

She then proceeded to name another staff member who had earlier suggested to her that changing the gun laws so early on was a knee jerk reaction before it had been properly thought through. (And I note Jacinda Ardern has already had backtrack today and assure farmers their semi-automatic rifles will be ok to keep).

In a professional meeting, in front of a number staff, she called this colleague a “******* ********” for having an opinion that differed with her left wing politics.

A few minutes later after all the lefties had chimed in, she viewed the few of us who had said nothing and picked me out. She asked me how I was ‘feeling’. My response was “fine thanks” and I refused to say anything more.

That’s the level of free speech allowed in my workplace. Being singled out and/or sworn at. Also we were encouraged to start dobbing people in to her who’s opinions we deemed unacceptable-under the excuse of it being hate speech."
 
Stout said:
Yea, I know. We've been there already with this guy. Maybe if you're lucky he'll get the full 14 years and if Facebook coughs up the accounts that viewed this video you'll have a whole lot more people to charge.
Click to expand...

You are still clinging desperately to a falsehood, and its pretty obvious why you are doing so.... all your arguments disappear if you don't.

Let me restate this clearly and unequivocally....

IT IS NOT AN OFFENCE TO VIEW THAT VIDEO

IT IS AN OFFENCE TO BE IN POSSESSION OF A COPY
IT IS AN OFFENCE TO DISTRIBUTE IT

Glad I could help, and this time, try to remember what you have been told
 
Stout said:
if you don't like my "whining" feel free to put me on ignore. :)
Click to expand...

No need. I can just laugh at your baloney. What you think is beyond irrelevant. How are Canada's human rights in the area of First Nation people?

Maybe there are a few things closer to home you should be concerned with more than worrying about Kiwis.

banquetbear said:
...this...is not good.

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/poli...reats-in-10-years-of-gcsb-and-sis-public-docs

Entirely unsurprising considering what we have already discussed. We all knew this. But not good at all, and I suspect that we are going to be seeing a huge shake-up of our intelligence gathering agencies really ******* quick.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure I said that around Page 1. Funny how quickly they're moving all of a sudden. It was all too difficult last week.

Samson said:
"In court, Arps was handcuffed and dressed in blue T-shirt, track pants and socks. His arms were heavily tattooed.
Click to expand...

And he made the thread in the early pages when I was pointing out WS in Chch.

As far as I'm concerned, he can go to jail for as long as the judge decides - he's a piece of filth and even better, whatever prison he goes to he won't be high enough profile to get protective custody but will be high enough profile to get the snot kicked out of him.

I will not shed a tear for him.

And whoever asked, yes he is the $14-88 per square metre guy.

Probably realises not everyone thinks it's funny about now.
 
Samson said:
Another one down

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12214672
Click to expand...

Good, the more of these scumbags that go down, the better.

Samson said:
We will need that new prison to deal with the aftermath.
Click to expand...

Only if people don't get the message - its generally only stupid people and extremists who won't, so the more of them out of circulation the better. It will give a chance for the average IQ among the population of free citizens to go up.

angrysoba said:
Is he the guy who sells everything for $14.88?
Click to expand...
One and the same

William Parcher said:
A mother goes down...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12214654
Click to expand...

Again, good. Racism and hatred plays no favourites.

Samson said:
He is in a land of small businesses.
Does he have a criminal record? We won't be told.
Click to expand...

No excuse. He has a Celtic Sun and $14.88 prominently displayed on his business vehicles... If you think this is a co-incidence, you are more naive than I thought.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
You are still clinging desperately to a falsehood, and its pretty obvious why you are doing so.... all your arguments disappear if you don't.

Let me restate this clearly and unequivocally....

IT IS NOT AN OFFENCE TO VIEW THAT VIDEO

IT IS AN OFFENCE TO BE IN POSSESSION OF A COPY
IT IS AN OFFENCE TO DISTRIBUTE IT

Glad I could help, and this time, try to remember what you have been
told
Click to expand...

It is now illegal for anyone in New Zealand to view, possess or distribute the video of the Christchurch attacks in any form, including via social media platforms. Link

Now illegal in New Zealand to view, possess or distribute the material in any form Link

Please not the use of the word view
 
Checkmite said:
What are the chances?
Click to expand...

With his vans also displaying the Sunwheel symbol

220px-BlackSun.svg.png


Somewhere between ZERO and ZIPPO?
 
Stout said:
It is now illegal for anyone in New Zealand to view, possess or distribute the video of the Christchurch attacks in any form, including via social media platforms. Link

Now illegal in New Zealand to view, possess or distribute the material in any form Link

Please not the use of the word view
Click to expand...

Buzzfeed are wrong, Daily Mail are wrong, and you are wrong.

If you want to know about the NZ Law, Buzzfeed is not a reliable source.

The NZ Govt Website is

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0094/55.0/DLM312895.html

123 Offences of strict liability relating to objectionable publications

(1) Every person commits an offence against this Act who—
(a) makes an objectionable publication; or
(b) makes a copy of an objectionable publication for the purposes of supply, distribution, display, or exhibition to any other person; or
(c) imports into New Zealand an objectionable publication for the purposes of supply or distribution to any other person; or
(d) supplies or distributes (including in either case by way of exportation from New Zealand) an objectionable publication to any other person; or
(e) has in that person’s possession, for the purposes of supply or distribution to any other person, an objectionable publication; or
(f) in expectation of payment or otherwise for gain, or by way of advertisement, displays or exhibits an objectionable publication to any other person.

(2) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction,—
(a) in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding $10,000:
(b) in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $30,000.

(3) It shall be no defence to a charge under subsection (1) that the defendant had no knowledge or no reasonable cause to believe that the publication to which the charge relates was objectionable.

(4) Without limiting the generality of this section, a publication may be—
(a) supplied (within the meaning of that term in section 2) for the purposes of any of paragraphs (b) to (e) of subsection (1); or
(b) distributed (within the meaning of that term in section 122) for the purposes of any of paragraphs (b) to (e) of subsection (1); or
(c) imported into New Zealand for the purposes of paragraph (c) of subsection (1),—

not only in a physical form but also by means of the electronic transmission (whether by way of facsimile transmission, electronic mail, or other similar means of communication, other than by broadcasting) of the contents of the publication.
​
Click to expand...

Note the ABSENCE of the word view.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
IT IS NOT AN OFFENCE TO VIEW THAT VIDEO
Click to expand...

Ahem.

You might like to walk that back a little in view of what the OFLC says.

Their website states:

It is illegal for anyone in New Zealand to view, possess or distribute this material in any form, including via social media platforms.
Click to expand...

I think they know the difference, seeing as how they write the law on films classifications.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom