New Zealand Censors Killer’s Manifesto Then Charges $102.20 for Printed Copies

Opinion

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- -How vulnerable are the rights we hold dear? It appears they are incredibly vulnerable. In New Zealand, most people believe they have freedom of the press. The government classification office might view things a little differently.  After the mass murder at the mosques in Christchurch, the classification office made it illegal for people to view or distribute either the video of the event or the manifesto put out by the killer because it fomented potential violence.

From classification office.gov:

A publication reportedly written by the terrorist behind the fatal attacks in Christchurch, has been officially classified as objectionable.

“Others have referred to this publication as a ‘manifesto’, but I consider it a crude booklet that promotes murder and terrorism. It is objectionable under New Zealand law,” says Chief Censor David Shanks.

The document, examined under the Films, Videos & Publications Classification Act 1993 (FVPCA), is deemed objectionable for a number of reasons.

“It promotes, encourages and justifies acts of murder and terrorist violence against identified groups of people, ” says Mr Shanks.

“It identifies specific places for potential attack in New Zealand, and refers to the means by which other types of attack may be carried out. It contains justifications for acts of tremendous cruelty, such as the deliberate killing of children.”

The government generously allows journalists and academics to apply to look at the document. All they need do is state their qualifications, intentions, reasons to read the document and pay a non-refundable $102.20 fee.  Here is a Link to the form to request a copy while it is still available from online sources.

You do not see any publication of protests for the ramming of the ban on most semi-autos through the parliament. There has been no debate.

There are far more common documents that promote mass murder and terrorism. Here are a few:

• The Koran.
• The Communist Manifesto
• The Unibomber Manifesto
• The Turner Diaries

We are fortunate in the United States that our Constitution forbids this sort of emotional, instant response to a single crisis.   It is mass media controlled by a single overriding ideology, that makes the yellow journalism demand for action so effective and swift.  If there were an effective free press in New Zealand, at least one outlet would print the Manifesto.

There has been no questioning of the acts of one Mosque in Christchurch in the recruitment of members of Al Queda, as reported in 2014.  Maybe the members of the Mosque were innocent of extremism as they claim. It at least deserves mention.

There has been no context of the multiple mass murder of Christians by Muslims around the world, which is a far more common phenomenon than the killings at the Christchurch (how ironic a name!) mosque.

Such discussion is not allowed by the media and government in New Zealand.  People are encouraged to print stories of “Islamophobia.” They are officially forbidden from reading the Manifesto’s claims of retaliatory vengeance.

Why? Because it does not fit the narrative the Government of New Zealand, and other globalist governments around the world, want to promulgate.  In that narrative, Muslims must always be victims.

The killer is a political terrorist. So have been many others throughout history, with a great many on the left.

What we see in New Zealand is the official government censorship of political propaganda they disagree with, and protection of political propaganda they agree with.

The First Amendment protects “objectionable speech.” Speech that is not “objectionable” needs no protection. The linkage of First and Second Amendment rights becomes ever more obvious.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.