For those praising New Zealand’s Government.

A publication reportedly written by the man accused of the Christchurch shootings has been officially classified as objectionable by the Chief Censor.

The document was examined under the Films, Videos & Publications Classification Act and was deemed objectionable for a number of reasons.

Chief Censor David Shanks said others have referred to the publication as a “manifesto”, but he considers it a “crude booklet” which promotes murder and terrorism.

Mr Shanks said this publication crosses the line to make it objectionable under New Zealand law.

Christchurch mosque shootings: ‘Manifesto’ deemed objectionable

Chief Censor David Shanks

I can give you a long retort that as an American,  an official government chief Censor should make you sick to your stomach and start demanding that heads roll. But instead I am going to give you one  little comparison: As much as they have screwed and brought pressure and censorship to all  Media with the Law of Social Responsibility, not even the Socialist governments of Venezuela have dared to create the position of Chief Censor and give somebody the sole power to dictate bans without a judicial order.

When Maduro seems more in favor of Freedom of Speech than your government…

7 Replies to “For those praising New Zealand’s Government.”

  1. Stuff like this, along with the complete lack of freedom of speech in much of Europe, makes you realize how good we have it here. For now.

  2. I downloaded the “manifesto” a few days after the attack. It was very hard to find. Several of the links to it were dead so I had to actually download the pdf. I haven’t gotten to read the whole thing yet (it is very long) but from what I have read, the NZ government, the Democratic Party, and the “news” media have done exactly what this guy stated his intended goals were.

    They are banning the manifesto because they dont want the average prole to question the narrative or realize that terrorism is used as a convenient excuse in the march toward totalitarianism.

    1. Yeah, I was wondering why the MSM and polititions in NZ and America were falling for the shooters intentions hook line and sinker. And then they started trying to scrub the manifesto and video from every corner of the internet. It’s fishy to me that the powers that be let the video and documents hang around online just long enough to rile up emotions to push gun control, but now they trying to ban it. Perhaps to prevent too much scrutiny?

      I’m not claiming anything. But if you read some of the analysis done combat vets and other experts there really is stuff that is off about certain aspects of the video.

      If I can find the articles that I read again, I’ll try to post them.

  3. I am going to push back here.

    I would like to suggest that getting fame and notoriety or the publication of your screed or manifesto is very strong motivation with basement-dwelling losers who shoot up schools or terrorists who attack soft targets.

    At a minimum, law enforcement needs access to all of the details of a shooter for analysis. I think we can all agree there.

    I think that the Fake News Media is dead wrong with publishing the likeness of a SOB. Just recall the sexy cover of Rolling Stone for the Boston Bomber. That is beyond sick and exactly what the SOB would appreciate. Screw Rolling Stones!

    I would like to propose what has already been suggested elsewhere that the law enforcement agencies give an ID number to these incidents and suppress the names and likeness of these SOBs to reduce the motivation for copycat crimes and future attacks. We can still discuss the attack specifics without giving them the credit they so desire.

    One other approach is that the media behaves itself and does not glorify these attackers. I think that ship has sailed with the vile creatures that call themselves journalists who would sell their mother into white slavery for a headline scoop.

    What about their pesky manifestos and rambling screeds? Will suppressing them cause more problems? This case is special because as I understand they lay out the perverse manipulation plan.

    In general, I think near total governmental transparency is the best disinfectant for their corruption. For terrorists, it seems more like a megaphone and exactly the opposite of what we want to do.

    I don’t have the answers. I just want to point out that our devotion to free speech and transparency can have a high cost.

    1. I agree that it would make sense for the government not to post pictures of criminals or their names, nor to spell out in detail what they have done or what they have said.
      However, that’s not at all the issue here. The issue is censorship. The government is saying “these are things you are not allowed to say” and “these are things you are not allowed to see”. For that matter, they also tell us “these are things you are not allowed to think”.
      In the USA all those government actions are illegal, though unfortunately they do happen and they generally go unpunished. But elsewhere in the world, these actions are fully authorized by local law. I’m glad I came here where we have a real Constitution that offers real protection for human liberty.

  4. Yes, pkoning I agree. You are so right that we are fortunate that we do have First Amendment protections. I guess I just wish we had a media that had a moral compass. They mislead, lie, obfuscate, and omit crucial information so that they effectively are censors for the Left.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick. Also, You can use html code to decorate your comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.