Now that the dust has settled from today's hijack attempt, and more facts have emerged, deeper analysis of the issue is possible.
The Somalian-born perpetrator indeed turns out to have been a Muslim, Asha Abdille. Statistically, no surprises there. My previous post raised the issue of insanity, but possibly the police don't think so as they've found her compus-mentis enough to lay actual hijacking and other criminal charges against her. Her lawyer I'm sure will seek a psychiatric evaluation.
Regardless, there are certain inalienable facts that my critics appear to have overlooked in the earlier thread.
Firstly, by importing people from wildly different cultures and religions, we do open ourselves up to the baggage that comes with that. This isn't a value judgment on immigration, but a bald statement of fact. Somalia is a war-torn hell-hole that was riven with Islamic fundamentalism. Throw in the post traumatic stress disorder associated with many who come from such lands, and you do indeed have a timebomb in the making.
Secondly, Fugley's plaintive "maybe she's a Christian" bleat was nought but a cynical appeal to political correctness. Regardless of whether her peers see her as a "good" Muslim or a "bad" Muslim, and regardless of whether they wish to dissociate themselves, culturally she is carrying that baggage. Her history in New Zealand bears witness to that baggage. Culturally, when was the last time a Maori, Pakeha or Asian New Zealander tried to hijack a commercial airliner and stab the pilots, as well as trying to wrest control of the flight during the critical landing attempt? That's right, we haven't seen it locally before. This is imported cultural baggage. Although it is an act that has been available to any one of us since 9/11, and although the Islamic community makes up only 1% of NZ's population, it had to be a Muslim woman who trailblazed this particular form of protest.
There will be a bitter irony in this for Labour, given the warnings they received about her instability four years ago.
Thirdly, we don't need more aircraft regulations. Small aircraft are deliberately not screened in NZ, for good reason.
- They don't carry tonnes of jetfuel.
- They are not massive enough to bring down a tall building.
- They carry fewer people than the number 12 bus from Glen Eden each morning
- If a terrorist seriously wants to use a plane as a weapon, they can hire or buy their own light aircraft, pack it full of explosive and fly it into whatever target they like, without ever once having to get their bags screened at a commercial airport
- If a terrorist wants to stab someone on a commercial flight, he can quite easily smash a couple of bottles of duty-free liquor and have a lovely jagged weapon in his hands, even on a Boeing 747 flying to the US tonight, having gone through complete security screening and passed with flying colours
- Even if someone took a sawn-off shotgun onto a tiny provincial flight, it would be no different to the same person hijacking a bus. Do we really want all buses to have baggage xray queues?
- Yes, we could implement a policy of "flagging" anyone with a police record who tries to catch a plane, but seriously, is there any point? What relevance does a DUI conviction have to being a hijack threat? Genuine terrorists don't tend to have prior police records.
- Is this just an example of liberal NZ media handwringing? Why, frankly, yes it is! Where were they when Investigate revealed Palestinian terror leader Abu Nidal had slipped into New Zealand? Where were they when we revealed hardline Islamic preachers of hate – some with proven terror connections - had been holding youth training camps for young Muslims in NZ? Where were they when we documented the cases of two Pakistanis with proven links to the Lashkar e Taiba terror group immigrating to NZ? Nowhere to be seen, on all counts.
Is there a need to overreact to this incident?
No. Existing commonsense laws have worked well to-date. You cannot legislate against the truly determined. Those who are really, deeply, fundamentally driven to commit mass murder will find a way to do so regardless of what impediments we put in place.
Wake up and smell the coffee. What happened today was almost inevitable in our current world climate.
Ian. Please. Stop This.
You are throwing banderillas into the neck of that lovely fecund, sacred cow we call 'multiculturalism'
PS. Why have you been so quiet lately? :) Do tell !
Posted by: Grant S | February 09, 2008 at 12:00 AM
I talked to the head of the Airline Pilots' Association today, and he mentioned that there have been three incursions into a cockpit in the last twenty-odd years, excluding the idiot in Fiji who was disarmed by a well-placed blow from a bottle of duty-free whiskey. So according to him, we HAVE seen this type of activity before.
He made the interesting point that small commuter aircraft in the US have started to introduce metal screens between the cockpit and the cabin, allowing the crew to keep an eye on the passengers, but ensuring their safety fro cockpit invasion while in the air.
Posted by: Johnno | February 09, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Govt will most likely blame it on the weather again, or on some other cause to the actually issue. The Govt is putting NZers at risk with the open arm policies they have. Refugees need help but citizens of countries that help need protecting also. I have worked at the border for 8 years and what at times I have seen there regarding refugee claimants and some immigrants/visitors is scary.
Lets help out but not get hurt in the process.
Posted by: Craig | February 09, 2008 at 08:49 AM
Govt will most likely blame it on the weather again, or on some other cause to the actually issue. The Govt is putting NZers at risk with the open arm policies they have. Refugees need help but citizens of countries that help need protecting also. I have worked at the border for 8 years and what at times I have seen there regarding refugee claimants and some immigrants/visitors is scary.
Lets help out but not get hurt in the process.
Posted by: Craig | February 09, 2008 at 08:50 AM
"Secondly, Fugley's plaintive "maybe she's a Christian" bleat was nought but a cynical appeal to political correctness."
I would like to this a step further and say that fugly's sneering comment resulted from his or her deep hatred and mistrust of Christianity.
His or her presence on this blog indicates to me that it is hoping to gain a sense of completeness and relief to the aching void in its soul.
Great to see police want this women locked up for life at great expense to the struggling tax payer.
Well done Liarbour fools, as the mad hatter came in under your deluded watch.
Liarbour are a danger to every New Zealander.
Posted by: dad4justice | February 09, 2008 at 08:58 AM
Your commentary on this issue has been disgraceful.
As you finally concluded, this woman is a random case, and any links she had with any religion were purely coincidental.
Taking the opportunity to slur the reputations of a minority showed appalling lack of judgement at your level.
By the way, have been finishing "The Divinity Code" at long last - as I said before, when you put this book down, it is hard to pick up.
But really ... the last few chapters ascend into the realms of airy fairy land. Your discussion on Evil lacks substance and serves as no advertisement for Christianity.
I am now reading about New Age/Wicca - to me looks incrediblie, but no more incredible than arguments posed agaist it!
Posted by: peter | February 09, 2008 at 09:02 AM
Peter you are a classic example that evil exists .
Posted by: dad4justice | February 09, 2008 at 09:08 AM
"Fugley's plaintive "maybe she's a Christian" bleat was nought but a cynical appeal to political correctness."
Hmmm, I saw it as sarcasm mixed with a little dash of trolling myself.
Posted by: belt | February 09, 2008 at 09:40 AM
"As you finally concluded, this woman is a random case, and any links she had with any religion were purely coincidental."
Not really. Ian makes a valid point about her Muslim and Somali background that I for one don't think were coincidental to the offence. Also, given the incresingly radical Islamic movements within NZ it is only fair to raise the possiblity of a desire to further that agenda.
Perhaps its pertinent here to raise a point found in the suggestions of both Teddy Roosevelt and Winston Churchill to Australia in the early part of the 20th C. Both encouraged Australia to bring in much needed immigrants *that were able to assimilate with the host culture*. Thus Italians, Greeks, Polynesians and Slavs increased in number in Oz. Nothing to do with race, everything to do with worldview.
Is it too much to ask our govt to please try to only allow those who are willing to assimilate with our culture to come?
Posted by: usabikes | February 09, 2008 at 09:53 AM
Of interest.
----------------------------
Physical Activity Programs for Refugee Somali Women: Working Out in a New Country
Page Range: 83 - 99
DOI: 10.1300/J013v38n01_06
Copyright Year: 2003
Contributors: Pauline B. Guerin PhD, The Waikato Institute of Technology, Psychology Department, Hamilton, New Zealand, [email protected]
Roda Omar Diiriye, The Waikato Institute of Technology
Callie Corrigan BSpExSc, The Waikato Institute of Technology
Bernard Guerin PhD, University of Waikato
Islamic refugee women from non-westernized countries face a number of challenges in adapting to their new country, especially when that new country is westernized and is not Islamic.
http://www.haworthpress.com/store/ArticleAbstract.asp?ID=35252
Posted by: Acid Comments | February 09, 2008 at 11:24 AM
USA Bikey says:
"Ian makes a valid point about her Muslim and Somali background that I for one don't think were coincidental to the offence."
You were made for each other.
On the 11 o'clock radio news just now, we were told that the woman is undergoing some sort of psychiatric examination. Not a day before time, I would say.
I have not heard of any Islamic person coming out in support of her - all have distanced themselves.
The perceptions of uncaring and selfish "Christian" fundamentalists continues unabated in this forum.
You talk of "the offence" USA Bikey - the offence on my mind are the offensive remarks resulting from your stereotypical views.
Posted by: peter | February 09, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Ian said:
"My previous post raised the issue of insanity, but possibly the police don't think so as they've found her compus-mentis enough to lay actual hijacking and other criminal charges against her. Her lawyer I'm sure will seek a psychiatric evaluation."
Ian - as you would know very well, the police would be most likely to press charges ANYWAY! What is to be lost? It is just a first step.
The issue of psychiatric assessment would be likely in a case like this to be raised by the defence. Successfully in this case.
The woman appeared in front of to Justices of the Peace this morning. She has been referred to a Psychiatric Hospital under the Mentally Impaired Persons Act.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/other/pamphlets/2004/criminal-procedure.html
Posted by: peter | February 09, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Er, Peter - like you, I also previously suggested she was simply sufferring from psychological problems. That aside I still think there were valid reasons for discussing the place of her background and the - well known - predisposition of others of her religion as possible influences in the matter.
Ian's in the news media - isn't part of their job to ask questions and provoke comment by offerring alernative perspectives?
Its a shame that no-one in the Islamic community came out in support of her, she needs some support.
Posted by: usabikes | February 09, 2008 at 12:16 PM
usabikes...
You must only look to the past when the offender is a NZder born and raised and their is no other reason not to lock them away.
When the offender is an official UN minority or refugee, you must ignore the past and look only to the present for excuses not to lock them away for a long time.
I'm surprised you forgot this as it is straight from the liberal two-faced justice handbook of huggim2Death hypocrisy.
Luckily peter has put you straight on the matter. Saints be praised.
Posted by: Rick | February 09, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Where would we all be without Peter?
Posted by: dad4justice | February 09, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Firstly, by importing people from wildly different cultures and religions, we do open ourselves up to the baggage that comes with that.
Yes. Yes we do. But we're grown-ups, and know that people arriving as refugees from war zones are quite possibly suffering from some pretty intense traumatic stress disorders. Helping people out can definitely open you up to risk. Any Christians on the thread want to suggest this is a reason to refuse to help refugees?
Secondly, Fugley's plaintive "maybe she's a Christian" bleat was nought but a cynical appeal to political correctness. Regardless of whether her peers see her as a "good" Muslim or a "bad" Muslim, and regardless of whether they wish to dissociate themselves, culturally she is carrying that baggage.
Yes. So, if she'd been one of us, she'd probably have settled for one of the more traditional avenues for deranged violence that we go in for here. Would that be in some way better? More culturally appropriate?
Thirdly, we don't need more aircraft regulations.
At last, a journalist talking sense! The last 24 hours have made me wonder if NZ journalists have all gone completely off their rockers. Enhanced security at Blenheim airport? Get a grip on yourselves ffs, you cowardly munters.
Posted by: Psycho Milt | February 09, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Rick said:
"When the offender is an official UN minority or refugee, you must ignore the past and look only to the present for excuses not to lock them away for a long time."
Funny you should say that, because mental health issues are very significant in the refugee population.
Refugees have sometimes been living in camps for up to 20 years. They can come from communities that are centuries behind the Western World in terms of standard of living.
So they come to New Zealand with all their traumas, and we in NZ endeavour to make their lot better.
Some maintain their religious practices, others shed them, as you may see in a recent Metro article on the subject.
Charitable Christians used to be highly supportive, no matter what.
Posted by: peter | February 09, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Where would we all be without Peter?
Ssh D4J, leave your personality attacks at the door, the grown ups are talking.
Posted by: Danger Mouse | February 09, 2008 at 02:37 PM
"The perceptions of uncaring and selfish "Christian" fundamentalists continues unabated in this forum."
Peter.
It's got nothing to do with being selfish or uncaring.
A truckload of Taxpayer $$$, etc has been spent on refugees and in particular on the Somalian ones and they've been the hardest group to 'assimilate' into NZ society.
Hey I remember all the Welfare $$$ that was spent on them in Hamilton.
Every Monday morning the local WINZ office had them (maninly women)jammed packed inside and a line of them at the door out onto the street. They were often very demanding and wanted grants for this that and the other.
The NZ Govt agencies turned Hamilton into a 'dumping ground' for many Somali Refugees.
Posted by: Acid Comments | February 09, 2008 at 04:14 PM
Peter B laughs at your insanity, but then again as a subject of a compulsory mental health treatment court order I can relate to the process the mad women is about to go thru.
Got any smelly cheese timid mouse?
Posted by: dad4justice | February 09, 2008 at 04:18 PM