A Pukekohe man found in possession of extremist Islamic State content, including beheadings and terror attacks in Europe, has failed in his bid to secure a discharge without conviction.
However, his application for permanent anonymity was granted.
Why? He has been convicted of serious crimes, and is obviously potentially dangerous. This deprives the public of the ability to know if he is their neighbour etc.
Disturbing content accrued by the 24-year-old featured footage of Islamic State (Isis) murdering civilians and encouraging viewers to attack governments, as well as endorsing certain terror attack methods that could be used in Australia.
There is a well known pathway where people go from viewing such material, to carrying out attacks.
A different video featured multiple beheadings and extolled Muslims in the West to join Isis and conduct terror attacks.
Sounds just like the sort of person who should not get name supression!
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
2 comments:
What exactly was he convicted for?
News media journalists and security agencies are also in possession of such materials. Should we presume them to be potential terrorists also?
A potential crime isn’t an actual crime. Being named publicly as a potential terrorist would be unjust as it wouldn’t give the man any hope of changing his ways but would drive him further down the “potential terrorist” path Mr Farrar.
He’ll be being watched with or without name suppression either because he’s a threat to state or because he’s a state asset already. That should be a sufficient deterrent.
I'm with David. "He'll be watched.." Dream on. Men like this just go on and on until they do achieve a litter of bodies and devastated families.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.