Trial mustn’t be used to share his views

May I through your columns make a respectful suggestion to the presiding judge in Christchurch, in advance of the mosque murder accused’s next appearance.

The reported comments of the duty lawyer seem to imply that the accused intends to attempt to represent himself. Plainly, he would then use this as another free opportunity to broadcast his odious views, following Anders Breivik. This must not be allowed.

If the accused will not instruct his own counsel, the court should appoint an experienced defence lawyer to interview him and to speak for him in court.

The alleged murderer himself, whether he appears by audio-visual link or in person, should be handcuffed, shackled, and have his mouth taped shut.

Brian Gore, Waikanae

It is quite appalling to see the preorchestrated resistance by gun enthusiasts and their representatives to any changes in New Zealand’s gun laws.

There is no doubt these laws are too lax and permissive. In particular, semiautomatic weapons need to be banned outright, including pump-action shotguns. They are totally unsportsmanlike weapons, require no skill in their use, and as we have just experienced in Christchurch, that one shooter can kill very many people in a very, very short time.

These lobbyists need to look closely at themselves, at their motivations, and their total disregard of any factors other than their own selfish gratification. And their lobbying, to force their own inherently dangerous obsessions on society as a whole.

In spite of their protestations to the contrary, it is sheer and utter nonsense for them to argue that the ban on semiautomatic weapons in Australia, after the Port Arthur massacre, has had no effect – how do they know?

What we can say with absolute certainty is that their hasn’t been another ‘‘Port Arthur’’ in Australia since then. I say to these lobbyists: ‘‘Do you want us to be like America? Where gun availability enables a continuous stream of mass shootings at schools, churches, synagogues, mosques, and rock concerts?’’

After every one, America says, ‘‘This must never happen again! Something must be done!’’ But nothing ever is.

These gun ownership advocates are not the majority. They must not be allowed to dilute what needs to be done.

A proper gun register must be put in place. And semi-automatic weapons must be banned in NZ – or there will be more tragedies like Christchurch.

Clyde Scott, Auckland

We all possess a deadly weapon. Our brain. A brain does not need guns to cause mayhem if it snaps or is driven to madness. Banning gun ownership and censorship of what we can share on social media is not the solution. Telling us that we face 14 years in jail for sharing a genuine news item is clearly out of proportion to the situations where most people might do this.

We should not be intimidated or frightened into surrendering yet more of our rights to a war on terror in which we have little say. Critical thinking and statistics tell us that we have little to fear from the direct effects of terrorism.

There is a difference between sensible precaution and fear-driven acceptance of censorship and other loss of hard-won rights.

We should all be aware that after we gave up many of our freedoms and rights after 9/11, all the problems this was supposed to solve got worse.

Let’s not make the same mistake here. Perhaps we have more to fear from yet more mistakes by our politicians than we do from the appalling actions of a rare individual whose brain we don’t yet understand.

Robin Wakeling, Karori

Anyone who, at this time, opens his or her mouth in defence of semi-automatic weapons is crass beyond belief (or has been captured by the NRA).

After the massacre in 1996, Australia introduced real change to its gun laws. Owning a gun became a privilege, not a right. To buy a gun, one now has to: (1) join and regularly attend a hunting or shooting club (clubs are required to notify authorities of inactive members), or document that one is a collector; (2) complete a course in firearm safety and operation and pass a written test and practical assessment; (3) arrange firearm storage that meets safety regulations; (4) pass a review that considers criminal history, domestic violence, restraining orders and arrest history (authorities may also interview one’s family and community members); (5) apply for a permit to acquire a specific type of weapon; (6) wait at least 28 days; and, finally, (7) buy the specific type of gun for which the permit has been issued.

We should follow Australia’s lead.

C Brian Smith, Wellington

We were pleased to read that each person who was killed in Friday’s attack was individually acknowledged. It is very important to see them as individuals, each with their own family situations and life experiences.

However, we were disappointed in the captions at the top of each brief biography. These all stated where the person was from. But many of the victims were New Zealand citizens and permanent residents who were born in other countries. By just stating their country of origin it continues to define these people as ‘‘other’’.

The victims are part of the wider New Zealand community, apart from those who happened to be visiting at the time. Surely this is the important thing to emphasize right now.

Rather than saying ‘‘person X is from country Y’’, a more inclusive way of describing them could say, ‘‘person X, a New Zealand citizen/resident, was originally from country Y’’.

Helen Walch and Judith Miller, O¯ taki

The events in Christchurch on Friday are both tragic and horrific. However, talk of changing the name of its Crusaders rugby team to something else is an overreaction.

History records that the Crusaders fought with Muslims and there was widespread bloodshed. We can’t change that, so why pretend that it didn’t happen.

Sport is competitive and about winning and losing; battles won and lost. At the moment it might seem in poor taste but it needs to be kept in perspective.

Our rugby teams are not racist, nor are they murderers.

Mike Jarvis, Paraparaumu Beach

Freedoms in the firing line (Editorial, March 18) tells us that it won’t be an easy conversation to have, about whether owners of semi-automatic and military weapons should be required to give them up. If we ‘‘push them to extremes’’, it warns, they may feel ‘‘ostracised’’ and will be forced to commit mass murder.

What nonsense is this? Our society is beset with rules on health and safety. Ask any tradesperson. You can’t go more than two steps up a ladder without a harness.

How can rules like that, supposedly for our safety, exist in a country which, in the same breath, is worried that disarming potential mass murderers might hurt their feelings?

Sue Smith, Waikanae Beach

I hope people take heed of Anne Salmond’s excellent opinion piece (White supremacy is a part of us, March 19). In our very genuine desire to support New Zealanders of Islamic faith we are in danger of collective amnesia.

This atrocity was not committed by an Australian in isolation. We must own the origins of racial hatred and violence in our society and do more to counter it.

Understanding our history is an important part of that. ‘‘The whole Treaty was worthless, a simple nullity. It pretended to be an agreement between two nations, but in reality was between a civilised nation and a group of savages. Britain became the ruler of New Zealand not by signing a treaty but simply by being the first civilised occupier of a territory thinly peopled by barbarians without any form of law or civil government.’’

This statement was not made by some white power fringe element but the Chief Justice of New Zealand in 1877 (Wi Parata vs. Bishop of Wellington).

Failure to understand and learn from our history condemns us to repeat it. Murray Short, Papako¯ whai

It is extraordinary that an historian with a worldwide reputation has used the tragedy in Christchurch to give a highly biased and subjective view of our history.

Anne Salmond’s White supremacy is a part of us is full of unsubstantiated generalisations unworthy of an acclaimed academic. For example, after a statement on the 1840 Waitangi Treaty she writes: ‘‘This promise (of equality) was utterly smashed by the incoming settler government, which proclaimed and practised white supremacy.’’

She provides no evidence to back this claim and knows that many governors and politicians, such as Grey and Gore Browne, worked hard to fulfil the promises of fairness and equality for Ma¯ ori. There were some bigoted MPs at the time, as in all parliaments since, but these were a minority.

She makes no mention of the chaos in Ma¯ ori society during the decades leading up to the Treaty. These were times of inter-tribal warfare, slavery, cannibalism, rape, abduction and the slaughter of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

To use Salmond’s phrase – there is plenty of evidence that Ma¯ ori were lucky to be colonised as tino rangatiratanga had meant war, male supremacy and insecurity.

Roger Childs, Paraparaumu

I agree with a number of points made by both columnist Phil Quin and Anjum Rahman about white supremacy and racism (It’s time to tackle all bigotry headon, March 18). They are currently prominent as a result of events in the northern hemisphere, continental Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and America.

However, from personal experience of living, working, and studying in the northwest Pacific, and Asia, that issue is not only the preserve of whites. Education may be a key; horses can be led to water, but you can’t make them drink. And in a country where even the whiff of higher taxation is an attack on one’s individual livelihood, despite a desperate need for infrastructural repairs, and for an unknown future under climate change, the likelihood is elusive.

In a secular, multicultural state where freedoms are guaranteed, it is important for the sake of social harmony that all citizens, whether religious or not, know something of the cultural practices and beliefs of those among whom they live. It will be increasingly so as migration increases and nature decides for us. The Abrahamic co-religionists must learn to love their neighbours as much as themselves.

Ignorance, fear, overpopulation, poverty, and unemployment are also driving factors in terrorist attacks of all sorts, ranging from domestic, gender, and racial abuse to outright carnage against innocents. We must seriously curtail the ownership of guns for those who need use them for specific purposes.

R. Roberts, Miramar

Same old platitude: it’s not the gun, it’s the person. No logic applied. The purpose of a gun is to kill. Therefore, rigorous psychological testing is required, before any person can buy a weapon. Those hoping to join defence forces or police go through this, why not civilians ?

Liz Hunt, Waikanae

The behaviour, character and clarity of word from our prime minister over the past few harrowing days is truly deserving of a Nobel Prize nomination. John Gamble, Emeritus Professor VUW, Thorndon