Role-players exposed
Stuff has put it online as has Mr Bradbury in the post immediately below this one. We are left with little option but to assume the leaked allegations (they are not even technically "evidence") are courtesy of the NZ Police as part of their back-door campaign. So as for the police investigating themselves:
Deputy Commissioner Operations Rob Pope says the scope of the investigation, announced on Monday, will be expanded to include the Dominion Post material, and any other publication which could be considered to breach court suppression orders or potentially compromise criminal proceedings.
Sounds as credible as a Police Complaints Authority investigation - obviously it is not in their interest to find it was a police officer behind the leak.
The fact the police acted when they did should be proof enough that any threats heard in bugged hypothetical musings or private conversations would not amount to anything in the future. The police did not act when they did to take down a terror group before they struck - they took them down because they knew they never would strike. The police have proved their surveillance is so thorough that if they actually had evidence of a joint commitment to any credibly dangerous plan of action then that would be the very first thing that would have been leaked. They knew that the longer they waited the less likely any plan would come into being. Why else would they act when they did? The Terrorism laws and the Police Act before parliament? They can't be credited with such shrewdness can they?
Having read the leaked allegations I find them to be indicative of nothing more than role-playing. Role-playing by grown men with firearms - rather than by man-children in homemade knight's armour. Role-playing by angry men embittered by a regime that has harassed them - rather than by frustrated geeks who can't get dates. Role-playing by a group of eclectic opinionated, radical, loners who lust for the company of similar minds to fuel their fantasies - rather than... well, yes... role-players. The fact is if they were talking about what they should have done in the past- rather than what they should do in the future we would have thought we were talking about historical re-enactment societies. But they are still role-players in essence aren't they? It's not OK to shoot people - but it's still OK to shoot your mouth off isn't it?
posted by Tim Selwyn @ 1:04 pm
15 comments
15 Comments:
Oh! So it was just some role playing fun by a bunch of saddos! Are we still showing solidarity with these sorry role playing Military enthusiasts? I suppose David Grey was just a sad, lonely, misunderstood role player too, until he he finally flipped his lid and killed a whole lot of people.
The fact is if they were talking about what they should have done in the past- rather than what they should do in the future we would have thought we were talking about historical re-enactment societies.
Riiiiiight, how many historical re-enactment societies do you know of that do their re-enacting in secret with live ammunition and Molotov cocktails?
Keep defending them, keep on digging yourself deeper mate.
Is it solidarity to think they should get a fair hearing instead of one prejudiced from day one by the police?
Is it solidarity to understand that the courts don't think a single one of them is dangerous enough to be kept in jail in a country where they lock up mothers with three day old babies because they shoplifted?
Is it solidarity to make an assessment of the context in which private conversations take place?
Is it solidarity to point out that the police commissioner has publicly acknowledged he has to make amends for police action in Ruatoki?
Is it solidarity to remind people that the "terrorism" charges were not brought?
Is it solidarity therefore to draw the conclusion that the police over-reacted to people who are less than terrorists and might possibly be guilty only of firearms offences?
Is it solidarity to think they should get a fair hearing instead of one prejudiced from day one by the police?
Yes, fair enough.
Is it solidarity to understand that the courts don't think a single one of them is dangerous enough to be kept in jail in a country where they lock up mothers with three day old babies because they shoplifted?
Maybe Tim, but don't you think that if the judge that locked up the mother had been presiding over the Urewera case that out come might have been quite different?
Is it solidarity to make an assessment of the context in which private conversations take place? Sure, if you want to claim that people who were talking about killing Pakeha to get used to killing, blowing up power supplies, hurting the country, being like the IRA are harmless and merely taken out of context, if you want to try and find a context were saying such things isn't completely fuck mental and disgusting: Cool, you knock yourself out my friend. But ask yourself, if this was a group of right-wing nutbars, would you be so concerned for them and the context of their disturbed rantings?
Is it solidarity to point out that the police commissioner has publicly acknowledged he has to make amends for police action in Ruatoki? No I don't see how pointing out a publicly made statement is an act of solidarity.
Is it solidarity to remind people that the "terrorism" charges were not brought? Again, no I don't see that as showing solidarity, so they aren't being charged with "terrorism", that makes what they've done ok?
Is it solidarity therefore to draw the conclusion that the police over-reacted to people who are less than terrorists and might possibly be guilty only of firearms offences? Possibly, if you are ok with supporting people who are talking about killing people and blowing shit up, go for it, doesn't sound much like peace to me, but you can have these clowns on your side of the debate if it makes you feel better.
"Peace" activists? I've never used that term have I? Mr Bradbury is concerned about the damage done to peace and social justice campaigners and the progressive/left wing activist community in general by the actions of these people - and rightly so - and he says that if you pick up a gun you can't be part of that mainstream NZ scene. But I don't think I have ever labelled the accused as "peace activists" - I haven't seen enough information yet to call them that - quite the opposite!
But ask yourself, if this was a group of right-wing nutbars, would you be so concerned for them and the context of their disturbed rantings?
They say they want to kill me (and all sorts of classes of people) in the comments section of this blog all the time - most of the time Mr Bradbury and I delete them because they are generally sub-standard comments; but we never take them seriously because of the context. On Stormfront and other racist forums on which NZ right-wingers discuss their hatreds and fears they are openly genocidal; but in context they are role-playing in their own world too. And do they get together with firearms and play GI Joe together and basically have the same conversations face to face as they do online (including killing individuals and wiping out classes of people and traitors etc. etc.), yes of course they would.
Do I think they should be classified as "terrorists"? - no. Do I think they should be investigated for firearms offences? - yes, if there is credible evidence, fairly obtained, then why not? But you can't seriously label this category of people as "terrorists"?
...
look, let's be clear here - you can't get arrested for saying 'I'd shoot George W Bush' - Christ if you could I'd be serving 20years in maximum security - shooting your mouth off as Mr Selwyn rightly points out should not be a crime in any democratic country - in my mind the issue at hand here has to be firstly capacity - could these people pull off a criminal act that would have resulted in politial violence and secondly conpiracy - what we have here is some pretty appalling comments (taken in OR out of context), those comments certainly rob the protestors of their shine in terms of the Urewera 17 all being saints, but it doesn't in any way damn them as terrorist devils either - the Police would need to show conspiracy for this to cross the threshold, that people were actively planning to do something, beyond just getting together to shoot semi-automatic weapons. All that said, these activists have tainted the moral high ground that social activism has always been able to maintain in this country - and that is a tragic loss. That doesn't defend the TSA or the insanity of allowing the Prime Minister of the day to decide who is or isn't a terrorist - but by god these activists have handed the right wing all the bullets they need.
Speaking as a role-player - hell, a LARPer, even - this is kindof insulting. One of the basic rules of LARP is "no weapons". On the occasions where people decide realistic props are desirable, that's exactly what they are - props. The idea that people would play with real fucking guns is insane. More so if they're loaded.
(Yes, I am familiar with real steel loonies. And that's exactly what I think they are: loonies)
middle class white academic urban outlook on what is a fun weekend
versus
working class Maori hands-on bush outlook on what is a fun weekend
You only need some crazy-arse - I believe Mr Bradbury's term is "pisstalk" - being spoken between two of the latter to ensnare many of the former in a technical conspiracy.
I find it very difficult to believe that some of these people in the 16 would be part of firearms offences. I presume they are probably innocent and they should be able to answer the charges in the proper forum without us debating it.
We only know what the police want us to know. The accused should always say nothing until they know what exactly they are accused of ie. depositions. After that they can play the leaking game too to make themselves look good to a jury (or judge) via the media. At the moment we should tiahoa on playing into police hands in damning the entire 16 and that stoner guy. I hope he gets off. They might well all walk because the police have nothing. We'll see it eventually, it might take a year before the trial starts.
Why don't you add:
working class white supremacist 'hands-on' bush outlook on what is a fun weekend.
Would this alter your perception?
Of course we shouldn't jump to conclusions should we
From Scoop:
"What you read in the paper this morning is not what happened in the Urewera over the past 12 months.
Rather it is a highly abbreviated subset of a 156 page summary of a huge investigation designed to enable the police to get search warrants for a large number (the actual number is not known) of houses throughout the North Island.
If some commentators are to be believed this extravagant search operation - which included the alleged Human Rights abuses at Ruatoki - was needed precisely because the Police - even at that late stage - were short of "real" evidence against their targets. In other words it was a fishing expedition.
BUT VERY IMPORTANTLY (HENCE THE CAPITALS) this highly abbreviated summary has had the names of people removed from it. Consequently all 16 of those arrested under "Terrorism" warrants on October 15th have been tarred with all of its lurid contents.
Even assuming that the document it is based on is factual - and not largely fictional and opportunistic as some suspect - this is not very fair on all 16 named individuals - some of whom may not have even attended the camps in question.
Relying only on the public remarks of the Solicitor General last week it is fair to conclude that of these 16 - around 6 were the core and are responsible for most of the colourful remarks reported in the paper.
On the basis of what Scoop's reporters have heard during the hearings of suppressed evidence at bail hearings over the past three weeks - it would be reasonable to suspect that two of the individuals are responsible for a large chunk of the "disturbing" things that have been reported."
14 November 2007
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0711/S00244.htm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Roleplaying? Wasn't that the defence of those idiots (Burrett?) who tried to kidnap one of the Trotter family in Wellington?
Seems an unusually elaborate and secretive roleplay. The number of illegal firearms seems to be odd as well.
difference was with burret or whoever the pom you are referring to was named had a SPECIFIC PLAN which was in the process of being carried out when the police moved in.
Ususally I'm a 'show me the money ' type guy.
....... now I ask "show me the plan" ............ any old plan will do as long as it has a real target/objective with a solid time table of events to happen.
A hole lot of blow areses in the bush dont cut it
difference was with burret or whoever the pom you are referring to was named .....is that he had a SPECIFIC PLAN which was in the process of being carried out when the police moved in.
So you're saying that if there's no specific plan uncovered then it is nessesarily roleplaying or are you suggesting the police shouldn't take action to avoid violence unless they've uncover a specific plan?
My point is that claiming roleplaying is just silly.
No I didn't say anything like that at all richard ................
What I am saying is that they appear to be in a bit of trouble on some firearms charges ( which the police may well have buggered up anyway).
BUT if people are going to claim they are/were terrorists ...............then show me a PLAN ............. to do ANYTHING.
Otherwise all I can see is some blow arse idiots dreaming it up large.
Post a Comment
<< Home