‘Our safety is a concern’: fears endure among Muslims after Christchurch attacks
|
Version 0 of 1. Despite attempts to address online hate speech in New Zealand and global praise at the response, an estimated 60-70 far-right groups still exist “They are us. The person who has perpetuated this violence against us is not,” said Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s leader, in the hours after a terrorist attack in March last year that killed 51 people and injured dozens more at two mosques in the country’s worst peacetime massacre. “They have no place in New Zealand. There is no place in New Zealand for such acts of extreme and unprecedented violence.” The mass shooting in Christchurch, a remote, peaceful corner of the world, reverberated around the globe – shocking in its brutality, violence and the white-supremacist hatred that inspired it. Afterwards, it was overtaken by the remarkable compassion and unity of New Zealand’s response. But while the year since the attacks has heralded a ban on semi-automatic weapons and attempts to address hate speech on and offline, it has also seen white supremacists emboldened. A threat to one of the targeted Christchurch mosques surfaced on social media just days before the one-year anniversary of the shooting. “There’s certainly been a continuation of verbal and physical abuse and online hate that died down for maybe a month or two [after the attack],” says Anjum Rahman, a spokesperson for the Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand, which had tried to alert the highest levels of government about a rising tide of far-right threats before the 15 March shooting. “It’s certainly back up at pretty high levels and we still feel that our safety is a concern.” A 19-year-old man appeared in court this month in relation to an alleged threat and a photo of Christchurch’s Al Noor mosque posted on the messaging platform Telegram, and several others have been charged after sharing the mosque shooting video, which was banned in New Zealand. New far-right activist groups have emerged since the attack. Professor Paul Spoonley, a researcher at Massey University, estimates there are now about 60 to 70 such groups, and between 150 and 300 far-right activists, in New Zealand. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, leaders exhorted the public not to allow the episode to change anything about New Zealand’s way of life, but many Muslims around the country say change was badly needed. The biggest opportunity New Zealanders have been offered in the year since, they say, has been the chance to think and act differently. “People have been willing to challenge their unconscious biases and think about how those biases can change into something bigger and more deeply rooted,” says Sondos Qur’aan, 19, a law student at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, and a member of Al Noor mosque. She has advocated on behalf of the affected families. The attacks upended New Zealanders’ understanding of racism and terrorism, with the public willing to refer to white supremacist attacks as terrorism for the first time, she adds. “A lot of people’s biases are coming out and it’s really a chance to realise: ‘Hold on. We’re not as bad as the people who go out and do something violent, but we can contribute to it with these narratives and ideologies that we hold inside of us,’” Qur’aan says. The attack placed the country – which had rarely encountered terrorism, and had not seriously confronted white supremacy – at the centre of an online web of far-right extremism. The fact that the Christchurch gunman appeared to have posted a live video of the shootings on Facebook provoked criticism of social media platforms. Ardern eschewed domestic restrictions on tech giants, instead – along with Emmanuel Macron of France – generating a global pledge, the Christchurch Call, between world leaders, technology companies, and civil society platforms. The voluntary accord included new protocols for tech platforms to work together and with governments in the event of a terrorist attack. But some analysts from civil society groups who attended meetings cast doubt on whether the measures would keep Muslims safer. “If what they were responding to was an attack on the Muslim community, they could have done a better job of addressing that kind of terrorism, instead of immediately partnering with France and a number of companies that have a very different working definition of terrorism,” says Jillian C York, the director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “I personally feel that restrictions – whether they’re from companies or big bodies like the EU or the US – that have global implications, that have implications for other people’s cultural contexts, are more problematic than national regulations,” she adds. But some actions taken by New Zealand’s government drew global praise. Six days after the attack, Ardern announced the country would ban semi-automatic weapons – including all those used by the gunman – and a law was passed less than a month later, with 119 of the parliament’s 120 lawmakers in favour. Some 56,000 weapons were turned over to the police in the following six months, although it was not known how many semi-automatic guns there were in New Zealand to begin with, so the success of the scheme was difficult to assess. A second tranche of proposed gun laws will allow police to deny or revoke firearms licences on the basis of extreme posts on social media. This year, Ardern’s government has planned more a controversial change: a proposed new law to curb hate speech, which Anjum Rahman says is unlikely to find enough support. “There are quite a few political actors who use inflammatory rhetoric to get votes,” she says, adding that she fears “desperate” minor parties might deploy anti-Muslim rhetoric ahead of September’s election. An independent inquiry is underway into whether action by New Zealand’s government agencies could have prevented the attack, and is due to publish a report in April. Many Muslims are anxious to see accountability and consequences for any failings found. “A lot of people might have this idea that we’ve done this much, that’s enough,” says Qur’aan. “We should acknowledge how far we’ve come but not just stop there. We must continue with that change.” |