Arthur
Recently Professor Richard Jackson wrote a Newsroom article about New Zealand men intending to take up arms in Ukraine against Russia. The full article is available here.
Extremist or freedom fighter? NZ’s racist double standard (msn.com)
It states:
The Government’s implied consent of Kiwi men vowing to take up arms against Russia is problematic for its Countering Violent Extremism programme, revealing politically biased underpinnings of what we consider violent extremism […]
A recent segment on TVNZ’s Sunday programme interviewed several New Zealand men who plan to travel to the Ukraine to fight against the Russian invasion.
OK, all well and good. It starts out reasonably, as the weasel ones do. However, the attack quickly emerges.
According to many international definitions and the opinion of experts, these should both be considered examples of what we call violent extremism. They are civilians advocating for, and preparing to use, violence in pursuit of a political cause against a certain group of people.
Let’s pick that apart. First, we have some nebulous but unnamed “international definitions” and then the dreaded “opinion of experts”, also unnamed and uncited. I’ll put it to you that after the climate con and the Covid con we have had enough of ‘experts’. But a good lefty ‘nudge’ piece cannot be stopped.
The reality however is that neither the police nor the media or public at large considers these men to be violent extremists or is concerned they will return to New Zealand and pose a threat.
Well of course not. The police, media and public should not and cannot act on what these people may or may not do in some imaginary future.
Then an argument is made about other conflicts.
If these men were openly preparing to travel to Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Myanmar or any other conflict zone to fight for their relatives and friends under attack, there is little doubt they would be condemned as violent extremists and likely face severe sanctions under terrorism or foreign fighter legislation.
Is there “little doubt”? In the author’s opinion, there is, but not necessarily so. But then, a lefty’s opinion piece is never complete without a little anti-Israeli comment:
Similarly, those who publicly advocate for violent resistance to Israel’s occupation of Palestine or to Syrian chemical attacks on civilians are shut down as violent extremists.
“Shut down”? I call nonsense on that. Pro-Israelis are shut down and lefty attackers of Israel get free rein in the media and are lauded. Golriz Ghahraman and her Mexican mate to the fore as examples.
Then eventually we get to the usual lefty thrust of Jackson’s beef with it all. Racism: the dreaded white people.
Your white neighbour who is packing his bags to go and kill Russians in Ukraine will be ignored or even patted on the back. No one will call him a violent extremist, even if he fits the current definition of one.
Here we fall back on the nebulous but unnamed “international definitions” to justify Jackson’s race problem.
If you’re taking up arms in defence of a white European people or against one of the Western’s sworn enemies in the Middle East, you’re not considered a violent extremist […]
Ah, more anti-white rhetoric but, not content with that, we must have more and he brings in the shadowy bogey men and women of the supposed white supremacist groups that roam our countryside.
This perception problem will get even more complicated if and when white supremacist groups decide to go and fight in Ukraine or indeed, if some individuals go to fight on the Russian side.
Jackson spins a good yarn and in places makes good points but ruins it all with lefty anti-European culture bias.
[J]udging what counts as extremist violence as opposed to a legitimate use of force, and what counts as an extremist cause as opposed to a moderate or legitimate cause, is a value judgment made from a particular vantage point determined by history, values and the dominant culture.
There it is: the trendy dislike of European culture and its dominance with democracy and freedoms. Nasty white people again. He then brings in pet causes that are lefty approved to add credence with familiar ugly key words/phrases.
[S]uffragettes who planted bombs, went on hunger strike and engaged in acts of disruptive civil disobedience in their quest to fundamentally change the patriarchal nature of society were considered extremists. Tino rangatiratanga activists, both historic and contemporary, who are struggling to radically overturn the remaining structures of the settler colonial state arguably fit the same bill […]
Fortunately, Jackson has a solution: enforced snitching enabled by convenient government interpretations.
The Government is looking at trying to bring in a so-called see something, say something culture in line with the Christchurch Commission recommendations. Specifically, the SIS is planning to release a public version of the agency’s own indicators of violent extremism in the next few months to help people to identify signs that an individual could be mobilising to violence.
Ordinary people will then be obliged to report signs of violent extremism to the authorities.
Obliged indeed! Then we have the usual craven crawling to minorities and their stirrer mates to add lefty cred to the diatribe and of course the buzzwords and cliches du jour about information.
The problem is […] people can have implicit bias, hold racist views, be subject to cultural misunderstanding and stereotyping, and fall victim to misinformation and disinformation. […] people of colour, as well as some political activists, will be disproportionately reported as possible violent extremists.
Gosh, we cannot have approved activists and favoured races getting some gyp can we? No, only nasty white ones.
