[On Friday], New Zealand Police issued me with a notice revoking my firearms licence. According to the Firearms Safety Authority, I will not be getting my firearms licence back.
This follows the temporary suspension issued to me on 30 June and the subsequent submissions made by my lawyer opposing that suspension.
The decision goes even further. I am now prohibited not only from possessing my own firearms, but from possessing or using a firearm even under the supervision of a licensed firearms holder.
After holding a firearms licence for many years without issue, Police have now decided I am no longer a “fit and proper person”. And why?
Four of the five matters relate to statements I made concerning the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi. To recap…I was publicly challenging serious human-rights issues in India under Modi’s leadership, including reports of:
- Christians being killed and persecuted.
- Sexual violence and attacks against Christian women and girls.
- Churches being attacked and burned.
- Child marriage and the treatment of vulnerable children.
[...]
POLICE SAY THEY SUPPORT FREE SPEECH
Inspector Glenn Nalder, who made the decision to revoke my licence, says his decision was made independently, impartially and in accordance with the Arms Act 1983. [...]
But then comes the paragraph that should concern every New Zealander who values free speech:
“The Police position is that your words speak for themselves. Your speech appears prepared and considered, and your statements were calculated, direct, unequivocal, and repeated. This is not a situation where an off the cuff or spur of the moment remark or phrase escaped without proper forethought. You encouraged and promoted violence and significant property damage. You say you have no history of threatening violence or ‘causing social harm through such fears.’ Police disagree.”
Think about what is being said here. My words are central to the decision.
Not an allegation that I misused a firearm. Not an allegation that I threatened somebody with a firearm. Not a history of unsafe firearms handling.
In fact, the decision itself acknowledges: “I have taken into account that you have held a firearms licence for many years and, until recent events, no question has been asked of your fitness to possess firearms.”
Yet the verdict is: “On balance I am not satisfied you are fit and proper to possess firearms.” That contradiction deserves scrutiny.
– Brian Tamaki
Overreach of the Day
You don’t have to agree with me and you don’t have to like what I said, but once we accept that authorities can punish a Kiwi for political speech they consider too confronting, every New Zealander should be concerned. Free speech isn’t free if you can be punished for using it.
Related
Face of the Day
Ukad has laid the blame for the positive test on Parker’s nutritionist for the fight in a report which said he was a “regular user of cocaine”.
Face of the Day
Brian Denys McFarlane, 56, was sentenced in the Hamilton District Court on Thursday to nine years and four months’ imprisonment after being found guilty of nine historical sexual offending charges.
Man of the Day
The Hui examines the debate over whether transgender wāhine should be able to receive moko kauae.
Contempt of the Day
The complainant had set out in their affidavit “the significant personal emotional distress” that they had suffered, said the judge in her interim decision.
Latest
Good Oil General Debate
Please read our rules before you start commenting on The Good Oil to avoid a temporary or permanent ban.
The Good Oil Word of the Day
The word for today is… avarice (noun) - : excessive or insatiable desire for wealth or profit : greediness, cupidity Source : Merriam-Webster Etymology : A more formal synonym for greed, avarice has a long if uncomplicated history in English. Chaucer in his 14th-century The Parson's Tale compared avarice with covetise,
The Good Oil Daily Bible Verse
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
