“He sought many things from his act of terror but one was notoriety, that is why you will never hear me mention his name,” the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern said of the gunman responsible for the recent attack on mosques in Christchurch New Zealand. “He is a terrorist. He is a criminal. He is an extremist. But he will, when I speak, be nameless”; going on to say, “And to others, I implore you: speak the names of those who were lost rather than the name of the man who took them.”
The sentiment of speaking the names of the victims rather than of the criminal responsible for their deaths is one with which I can agree – but it seems to me that by refusing to speak the name ‘Brenton Tarrant’ the result is to give the man exactly the notoriety that he is thought to have sought! Speak his name, and call him out for what he is, a man who perpetrated a crime of hatred against others! Don’t let him pass into the annals of history with the unique position of people not even being willing to say his name.
Rupert can you please as a mark of respect for the New Zealanders that died remove the name of the person that did this terrible act from your blog. His name is currently suppressed by our legal system. Our Prime Minister speaks for us all when she says we will not refer to him by name and legally we cannot anyway in the public arena. Thank you Teresa
Although I can appreciate that you and others may well be offended by this, (and I regret that) I will not remove his name no. I equate this policy to the practice of some religions concerning the intolerance of any depiction of their prophets (in particular Mohammed). If the Prime Minister wishes not to utter a single person’s name then that is her choice, Her’s is not a view I share.
I am not asking you to share her view I am asking you to show respect to those that died. Please do not support giving a name and platform to those that commit such atrocities. Kia kaha
That’s very disappointing Rupert.
Whilst everybody has a right to your own opinion, it is also incumbent on those parties to weild that power responsibly. To think otherwise is niaive.
Charlie Hebdo had the right to say what they wanted, but should they have done so in a disrespectful manner?
My thoughts can be found here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/time-right-more-responsible-press-giles-sullivan
Should I infer from your comments that my posting is to be taken as disrespectful? If so to whom? To those that died? To Prime Minister Ardern or to all New Zealanders? Who then determines where and when a comment becomes disrespectful?
As I said, I understand your views and I do not expect you to share mine, as I would expect mine also to be respected. I tried to make clear in my original posting that it is my belief that by not mentioning the man’s name he is given more power and notoriety.
Maybe we should allow people to show respect in their own way and culture? If so, should I not be allowed mine just as Jacinda Ardern can choose hers?
Rupert you either understand respect from another’s point of view or you do not. You have made your position clear your views obviously take precedent aroha nui
Understanding and respect can go both ways surely?
Yes that is what I am asking you to show as families of the victims have asked. That request should take precedent over your right to have a view. Have some decency and respect I know you have it… Please remove his name from your blog we are grieving as a nation at this time
Whilst agreeing that the name of an assassin, or in this case, a mass murderer should not have his name publicly circulated or even used in polite society (indeed I personally never speak of such people by name), it is also the case that actively banning the use of such a name is self-defeating.
e.g. Whose name is banned, oh it’s ……….. …….!
So, whilst agreeing with Jacinda, Theresa and Giles in principle, it is also the case that I will never go to the Eagles Nest, near Munich nor watch television programmes about mass murderers; sadly many people do both those things and are happy to glory in them, albeit mostly in private.
It is very sad that these crimes are often solely committed for the singular purpose of becoming famous in the very circles that that “we” all despise so much.
Banning salacious books has always increased sales and banning broadcasts just means they are repeated and sampled more frequently than when just letting them drift back into obscurity.
The point is that the press can easily report on events using anonymous phrases such as ‘a man aged 28…’. The name itself adds no intrinsic value to the story and serves only to fuel the ego of the individual.
To extend your analogy. Imagine if the Eagles nest had never been publically identified. It would have no notoriety and we would not be talking about it by name 60 years later. We’d simply know it as ‘Hitler’s retreat, somewhere in Germany’.
It was named. It is still famous. It is still talked about by name. And today they run day tours for visitors.
Do we really want that level of notoriety for today’s terrorist?
Whilst it is true that everything can in theory be anonymised, perhaps we might question whether or not it should be? Should all criminals be rendered anonymous, or only those who kill?
Who decides when a person should be made nameless and when not? Where is that line drawn? One death? Twenty? Should we not speak the name of Hitler who authorised the holocaust? Should we not speak the names of Milosovic and Mugabe and Hussein? How about Osama bin Laden who sent terrorists to fly planes into the Twin Towers? How about the British colonials who killed without discrimination the aboriginal populations of the great empire?! What about Franco – hero or villain? If we start to ‘edit’ history and events then we had best rethink everything written to date. Welcome to the world of Winston Smith.
Interesting that you mention Winston Smith….. destroyed by Orwell once he lost his sense of humanity…. Somewhat ironic in these circumstances.
We should always be wary of people being anonymously imprisoned (or otherwise locked away) under any pretext , society has to have the right to know who is being locked up in its name, and why.
Any despot will tell you how essential that is.
If you want more information on racism and violence, I can recommend Jane Mayer’s “Dark Money”, it is a study of American billionaires opting to donate to charity in lieu of death duty tax, the charities they choose are invariably their own family ones and many of them then go on to fund “legitimate” research groups and SuperPACs along with educational chairs in otherwise prestigious establishments. Charles and David Koch are highlighted along with Robert and Rebekah? Mercer. They fund a lot of the people the BBC use for contrary opinion on subjects like climate change and immigration.
Steve Bannon and Brietbart are also funded by them.