New Lynn knife attack
-
@donsteppa said in New Lynn knife attack:
@gt12 said in New Lynn knife attack:
@donsteppa said in New Lynn knife attack:
@gt12 said in New Lynn knife attack:
My old man told me that he tried to leave the country but was refused (and arrested). Is that true? If so, who is the fuck-knuckle who needs an uppercut?
Most Western/allied/OECD nations detained people who planned or attempted to travel offshore to join Isis. Including Japan from a quick Google.
We find out soon about his visa or residency status. In the meantime, I imagine there would have been a lot of clamouring for uppercuts if a "New Zealander"or "New Zealand resident"showed up in Isis footage in 2017 committing atrocities if that law had been ignored at the border.
From your quick google was that Japanese residents or Japanese citizens?
The two are very different.
This is a far as I got while also checking Oz and the US etc. The first one is paywalled so this is as far as I got: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/tag/isis/
Man, 31, referred to prosecutors over attempt to join Islamic State while at Hokkaido University
A 31-year-old man was referred to prosecutors Wednesday for allegedly preparing to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State militant group in 2014 while he was a student at Hokkaido University, Tokyo police and other sources said. The police also sent investigative papers to ...
Not sure if this guy got sent back from Turkey: https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/japanese-aspiring-jihadist-detained-turkey-1.5422192
I'll bet all the money in my pocket that he was either locked up or sent home, or otherwise didn't need following 24/7 for the next goddamn how many years.
-
@aucklandwarlord said in New Lynn knife attack:
Now revealed he was a Tamil refugee claimant who was in the tedious process of having his refugee status unwound by the courts and tribunals.
It's a real long process full of appeal rights to unpick that stuff. Not uncommon for someone to arrive on a temporary visa and then claim, hence arriving as a student.
Ah, so he was our responsibility to stop at the border, as tempting as it would have been to see the swine vanish. Quoting in part:
Ardern: Ministers had sought advice on deporting terrorist since 2018
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has provided further information on steps Immigration New Zealand had taken over several years to try and have the man who turned a supermarket into a scene of terror deported from the country.
Shortly after suppression orders were lifted which had previously meant media couldn't report Ahamed Aathil Mohamed Samsudeen's identification, Ardern said facets of the process had been "frustrating".
Samsudeen arrived in New Zealand in October 2011. Shortly after he made a claim for refugee status which was declined by Immigration New Zealand.
But that was successfully appealed to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, and he was granted refugee status in December 2013.
"In 2016 the terrorist came to the attention of the police and the NZSIS," Ardern said.
"In the course of these investigations, Immigration New Zealand were made aware of information that led them to believe the individual's refugee status was fraudulently obtained. The process was started to cancel his refugee status, and with it, his right to stay in New Zealand.
"In February of 2019, Immigration New Zealand cancelled his refugee status. He was served with deportation liability notices. In April, he appealed against his deportation to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. He was still in prison at this time, and facing criminal charges. For a number of reasons, the deportation appeal could not proceed until after the conclusion of the criminal trial in May 2021."
Ardern said agencies also became concerned about "the risk this individual posed to the community".
"They also knew he may be released from prison, and that his appeal through the Tribunal, which was stopping his deportation, may take some time
"Immigration New Zealand explored whether the Immigration Act might allow them to detain the individual while his deportation appeal was heard.
"It was incredibly disappointing and frustrating when legal advice came back to say this wasn't an option.
"A person can only be detained under the Immigration Act for the purpose of deportation. Immigration New Zealand was required to consider whether deportation was likely to proceed. That meant making an assessment of what the tribunal would likely find. Crown laws advice to immigration New Zealand was that the individual was likely to be considered a "protected person" because of the status of the country from which he had travelled, and likely treatment on return. Protected people cannot be deported from New Zealand. After receiving this advice Immigration New Zealand determined they could not detain the individual while he waited for his appeal."
Soon after he was released from prison and the police monitoring and surveillance of Samsudeen begun.
On August 26, the Immigration and Protection Tribunal hearing was rescheduled.
"At the time of the terrorist attack, the offenders attempt to overturn the deportation decision was still ongoing," Ardern said. "This has been a frustrating process.
"Since 2018 Ministers have been seeking advice on our ability to deport this individual."
Ardern also said she had met with officials and "expressed my concern that the law could allow someone to remain here who obtained their immigration status fraudulently and posed a threat to our national security".
"Ultimately these timelines show that Immigration New Zealand from the beginning have sought to deport this individual, and were right to do so." Ardern said.
So add the Immigration Act 2009 to the list of laws that need some revision.
-
@gt12 said in New Lynn knife attack:
@anonymous said in New Lynn knife attack:
@canefan said in New Lynn knife attack:
His internet search history and bookmarks included heroes of Isis, Islamic State dress, and New Zealand prison clothes and food, according to Stuff.
Now I'm curious as to what clothes and food they get but I can't google it or I'll end up on some sort of watchlist!
I'm not sure why Stuff thinks that's anywhere near as noteworthy as the first two.
I imagine if you were planning to commit a crime you might want to know whether you'd be getting bacon for breakfast every morning in jail.
Fortunately the cops had other ideas. In the footage they showed in the supermarket I heard a minimum of 10 shots. Cheaper than life imprisonment
-
@kirwan said in New Lynn knife attack:
So basically our system is set up to look after everyone but the people living in this country.
Once he wasn’t a real refugee he should have been deported, no matter how dangerous the source country is.
Is Sri Lanka even troubled by the Sinhalese/Tamil troubles nowadays?
-
@kirwan said in New Lynn knife attack:
So basically our system is set up to look after everyone but the people living in this country.
Once he wasn’t a real refugee he should have been deported, no matter how dangerous the source country is.
It's incredible, isn't it. Due process shouldn't allow this shit to happen.
Those who went against the original decision to give this fluffybunny refugee status must be sleeping well tonight.
-
-
@mick-gold-coast-qld said in New Lynn knife attack:
snip snip
Am I the only one who thinks this, or is she kinda hot?
-
@kirwan said in New Lynn knife attack:
he should have been deported, no matter how dangerous the source country is.
human rights bro!
-
The current law was passed under urgency, and it didn't cover this. It's also fundamental to civil liberties that criminal offences are not made retrospective, so current changes to the law wouldn't fix the previous situation, so why put amendments through under urgency when urgency was one of the potential causes of the problem in the first place? Select committee processes are like crowd sourcing, and have fixed potential drafting issues in the past because of submissions from the law society and other experts.
Refugee status is difficult to revoke and claims of potential violence/murders are taken seriously because we've had experience in the past of deporting refugees and others claiming refugee status to their murders. It's not a theoretical problem, it has actually happened, including to Sri Lanka. The Immigration Act is written with those failures in mind, so it is deliberately difficult to deport a refugee. If the Tribunal process took a long time, resource them better so appeals are heard faster.
I'm sure the Immigration Act will be amended, but do we want people deported for spewing hate speech? For hate speech and buying a knife or sports equipment? What about gun licensing? Where should that line be drawn?
In this particular case, we stopped him leaving the country to join Isis which is standard international practice. How do we reconcile deporting him with that? Is it acceptable to deport someone if you know that's where they will go?
-
@godder said in New Lynn knife attack:
Refugee status is difficult to revoke and claims of potential violence/murders are taken seriously because we've had experience in the past of deporting refugees and others claiming refugee status to their murders. It's not a theoretical problem, it has actually happened, including to Sri Lanka. The Immigration Act is written with those failures in mind, so it is deliberately difficult to deport a refugee. If the Tribunal process took a long time, resource them better so appeals are heard faster.
I'm sure the Immigration Act will be amended, but do we want people deported for spewing hate speech? For hate speech and buying a knife or sports equipment? What about gun licensing? Where should that line be drawn?
Spot on re the difficulties with refugee status. From what I understand, there were some fairly atrocious rights abuses leveled at the Tamils during, and in the aftermath of the civil war. It's definitely not as simple as sending them home, and we can't export them to be a third party country's problem either (although Syria may not have been a bad option...).
As someone who has had a fair bit to do with the Immigration system, personally I think a deliberate and ongoing pattern of spewing hate speech, coupled with purchasing hunting knives, having ISIS propaganda and telling people you're going to do a lone wolf attack is enough of a perfect storm to send someone back, even if it does put them in danger. Terrorist ideologies from a refugee (or any other non-citizen) are dangerous, polarizing and shouldn't be something we have to wear.
Ultimately, despite all of our commitments to various conventions, our governments priority should be protecting its citizens from this sort of behaviour, even if it comes at the expense of the safety of the offender when they're sent back home. I think our refugee programme is amazing, and refugees bring incredible value to New Zealand and generally work harder than the person next to them to make something of their new chance, but there has to be a killswitch at some point where we can saying that a particular bad apple isn't a financial, resource and safety burden we should bear as a country. Something about biting the hand that feeds etc.
There is no one size fits all approach, but it could also be something that is approved at a very high level. If the Immigration Minister (who in any given parliament has no relevant training or qualifications in the matter) can overturn any immigration-related decision made my an Immigration Officer, Judge or tribunal, surely someone at his level or higher should be able to immediately revoke refugee status in critical situations on a case-by-case basis with the same lack of due process. It's not like this guy was unknown to the governments for the past five years.
-
Don't get me wrong, I completely appreciate that many refugees who arrive come from war-torn backgrounds or have had atrocities perpetrated against them in the past, which have significantly damaged them psychologically and which result in anti-social behavioural traits being shown. And as a default, I truly believe we should aim to heal and rehabilitate them instead of deporting them as a default.
But when it is shown that it hasn't worked to the point that they're an uncontrolled danger to those around them, or that their behaviour isn't strictly related to their experiences, I just don't see why it should be our burden as a nation. It's not like this guy had settled into New Zealand, put down roots or had a family here. All of his family were back in Sri Lanka, judging by news reports today.
The cost and resource drain of constant surveillance on this terrorist would have been astronomical and unsustainable in an already stretched thin blue line.
-
@aucklandwarlord said in New Lynn knife attack:
@godder said in New Lynn knife attack:
Refugee status is difficult to revoke and claims of potential violence/murders are taken seriously because we've had experience in the past of deporting refugees and others claiming refugee status to their murders. It's not a theoretical problem, it has actually happened, including to Sri Lanka. The Immigration Act is written with those failures in mind, so it is deliberately difficult to deport a refugee. If the Tribunal process took a long time, resource them better so appeals are heard faster.
I'm sure the Immigration Act will be amended, but do we want people deported for spewing hate speech? For hate speech and buying a knife or sports equipment? What about gun licensing? Where should that line be drawn?
Spot on re the difficulties with refugee status. From what I understand, there were some fairly atrocious rights abuses leveled at the Tamils during, and in the aftermath of the civil war. It's definitely not as simple as sending them home, and we can't export them to be a third party country's problem either (although Syria may not have been a bad option...).
As someone who has had a fair bit to do with the Immigration system, personally I think a deliberate and ongoing pattern of spewing hate speech, coupled with purchasing hunting knives, having ISIS propaganda and telling people you're going to do a lone wolf attack is enough of a perfect storm to send someone back, even if it does put them in danger. Terrorist ideologies from a refugee (or any other non-citizen) are dangerous, polarizing and shouldn't be something we have to wear.
Ultimately, despite all of our commitments to various conventions, our governments priority should be protecting its citizens from this sort of behaviour, even if it comes at the expense of the safety of the offender when they're sent back home. I think our refugee programme is amazing, and refugees bring incredible value to New Zealand and generally work harder than the person next to them to make something of their new chance, but there has to be a killswitch at some point where we can saying that a particular bad apple isn't a financial, resource and safety burden we should bear as a country. Something about biting the hand that feeds etc.
There is no one size fits all approach, but it could also be something that is approved at a very high level. If the Immigration Minister (who in any given parliament has no relevant training or qualifications in the matter) can overturn any immigration-related decision made my an Immigration Officer, Judge or tribunal, surely someone at his level or higher should be able to immediately revoke refugee status in critical situations on a case-by-case basis with the same lack of due process. It's not like this guy was unknown to the governments for the past five years.
I'd upvote this twice if I could.
I also think that there should be a difference between letting citizens go to warzones to flight versus residents. In such a situation, the resident should be leaving either way, and if you are a refugee you should know that in doing so, you are giving up your refugee status.
-
if someone flees thier homeland claiming refugee status, and then are granted citizenship in the adopted country, is thier previous citizenship dissolved?
I know not exactly the same, but was the case with that IS women who Aus revoked her Aus citizenship, but cos she held a KIwi passport, she comes back here; therefore if these people have NZ citizenship, can we legally deport them anyway?
Not saying this was the case, just curious.
-
@gt12 said in New Lynn knife attack:
@aucklandwarlord said in New Lynn knife attack:
@godder said in New Lynn knife attack:
Refugee status is difficult to revoke and claims of potential violence/murders are taken seriously because we've had experience in the past of deporting refugees and others claiming refugee status to their murders. It's not a theoretical problem, it has actually happened, including to Sri Lanka. The Immigration Act is written with those failures in mind, so it is deliberately difficult to deport a refugee. If the Tribunal process took a long time, resource them better so appeals are heard faster.
I'm sure the Immigration Act will be amended, but do we want people deported for spewing hate speech? For hate speech and buying a knife or sports equipment? What about gun licensing? Where should that line be drawn?
Spot on re the difficulties with refugee status. From what I understand, there were some fairly atrocious rights abuses leveled at the Tamils during, and in the aftermath of the civil war. It's definitely not as simple as sending them home, and we can't export them to be a third party country's problem either (although Syria may not have been a bad option...).
As someone who has had a fair bit to do with the Immigration system, personally I think a deliberate and ongoing pattern of spewing hate speech, coupled with purchasing hunting knives, having ISIS propaganda and telling people you're going to do a lone wolf attack is enough of a perfect storm to send someone back, even if it does put them in danger. Terrorist ideologies from a refugee (or any other non-citizen) are dangerous, polarizing and shouldn't be something we have to wear.
Ultimately, despite all of our commitments to various conventions, our governments priority should be protecting its citizens from this sort of behaviour, even if it comes at the expense of the safety of the offender when they're sent back home. I think our refugee programme is amazing, and refugees bring incredible value to New Zealand and generally work harder than the person next to them to make something of their new chance, but there has to be a killswitch at some point where we can saying that a particular bad apple isn't a financial, resource and safety burden we should bear as a country. Something about biting the hand that feeds etc.
There is no one size fits all approach, but it could also be something that is approved at a very high level. If the Immigration Minister (who in any given parliament has no relevant training or qualifications in the matter) can overturn any immigration-related decision made my an Immigration Officer, Judge or tribunal, surely someone at his level or higher should be able to immediately revoke refugee status in critical situations on a case-by-case basis with the same lack of due process. It's not like this guy was unknown to the governments for the past five years.
I'd upvote this twice if I could.
I also think that there should be a difference between letting citizens go to warzones to flight versus residents. In such a situation, the resident should be leaving either way, and if you are a refugee you should know that in doing so, you are giving up your refugee status.
Ultimately when a resident goes offshore to fight, you can (in theory) strip the residency, and they will still have citizenship of another country where they could return to live. The issue with stripping citizenship, is that you potentially leave someone stateless, which is far less tidy and breaches at least one international convention.
The problem with just letting people go to fight in warzones is also around the damage they cause. If you let that guy go to fight for ISIL, there is every chance he gets demolished in a drone strike or gunfight. But if he perpetrates a suicide attack which kills 10 marines, there is the very relevant question to be asked about why they were allowed to go in the first place. The last thing you want is another "Jihadi John" becoming a terrorist icon for wannabe ISIL members in western countries.
-
@taniwharugby said in New Lynn knife attack:
if someone flees thier homeland claiming refugee status, and then are granted citizenship in the adopted country, is thier previous citizenship dissolved?
I don't think it is. Effectively you're just given them a safe haven. It's not uncommon for many refugees to return to their homeland to live once things settle down. I read about a few who returned to Afghanistan and then ended up caught out over there when the Taliban took power back.
In countries like China where dual citizenship isn't allowed, their Chinese citizenship would be dissolved. Not refugee related, but the Chinese government were pretty happy to deport their ex-citizen back in this instance, where a drug dealer wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
-
@aucklandwarlord said in New Lynn knife attack:
@gt12 said in New Lynn knife attack:
@aucklandwarlord said in New Lynn knife attack:
@godder said in New Lynn knife attack:
Refugee status is difficult to revoke and claims of potential violence/murders are taken seriously because we've had experience in the past of deporting refugees and others claiming refugee status to their murders. It's not a theoretical problem, it has actually happened, including to Sri Lanka. The Immigration Act is written with those failures in mind, so it is deliberately difficult to deport a refugee. If the Tribunal process took a long time, resource them better so appeals are heard faster.
I'm sure the Immigration Act will be amended, but do we want people deported for spewing hate speech? For hate speech and buying a knife or sports equipment? What about gun licensing? Where should that line be drawn?
Spot on re the difficulties with refugee status. From what I understand, there were some fairly atrocious rights abuses leveled at the Tamils during, and in the aftermath of the civil war. It's definitely not as simple as sending them home, and we can't export them to be a third party country's problem either (although Syria may not have been a bad option...).
As someone who has had a fair bit to do with the Immigration system, personally I think a deliberate and ongoing pattern of spewing hate speech, coupled with purchasing hunting knives, having ISIS propaganda and telling people you're going to do a lone wolf attack is enough of a perfect storm to send someone back, even if it does put them in danger. Terrorist ideologies from a refugee (or any other non-citizen) are dangerous, polarizing and shouldn't be something we have to wear.
Ultimately, despite all of our commitments to various conventions, our governments priority should be protecting its citizens from this sort of behaviour, even if it comes at the expense of the safety of the offender when they're sent back home. I think our refugee programme is amazing, and refugees bring incredible value to New Zealand and generally work harder than the person next to them to make something of their new chance, but there has to be a killswitch at some point where we can saying that a particular bad apple isn't a financial, resource and safety burden we should bear as a country. Something about biting the hand that feeds etc.
There is no one size fits all approach, but it could also be something that is approved at a very high level. If the Immigration Minister (who in any given parliament has no relevant training or qualifications in the matter) can overturn any immigration-related decision made my an Immigration Officer, Judge or tribunal, surely someone at his level or higher should be able to immediately revoke refugee status in critical situations on a case-by-case basis with the same lack of due process. It's not like this guy was unknown to the governments for the past five years.
I'd upvote this twice if I could.
I also think that there should be a difference between letting citizens go to warzones to flight versus residents. In such a situation, the resident should be leaving either way, and if you are a refugee you should know that in doing so, you are giving up your refugee status.
Ultimately when a resident goes offshore to fight, you can (in theory) strip the residency, and they will still have citizenship of another country where they could return to live. The issue with stripping citizenship, is that you potentially leave someone stateless, which is far less tidy and breaches at least one international convention.
The problem with just letting people go to fight in warzones is also around the damage they cause. If you let that guy go to fight for ISIL, there is every chance he gets demolished in a drone strike or gunfight. But if he perpetrates a suicide attack which kills 10 marines, there is the very relevant question to be asked about why they were allowed to go in the first place. The last thing you want is another "Jihadi John" becoming a terrorist icon for wannabe ISIL members in western countries.
I don't disagree, my point was not letting them go, but rather that in such a situation you'd be stripped of your right to live in NZ and would be shipped off home.
-
Parliament stripped the minister of the ability to revoke refugee status (it lies now with refugee and protection officers) with the passage of the Immigration Act 2009. The old act (1987) had the ability to deport people for terrorism, but that was removed as well - I haven't read the departmental or select committee reports recently, but I think that was because it either comes under deportation for security (Governor-general can do that on recommendation of the minister) or for criminal offending.
-
@godder said in New Lynn knife attack:
Parliament stripped the minister of the ability to revoke refugee status (it lies now with refugee and protection officers) with the passage of the Immigration Act 2009. The old act (1987) had the ability to deport people for terrorism, but that was removed as well - I haven't read the departmental or select committee reports recently, but I think that was because it either comes under deportation for security (Governor-general can do that on recommendation of the minister) or for criminal offending.
That was dumb, it seems.