Category: Islamic State

  • RNZ News

    New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says an attack at Auckland’s New Lynn Countdown supermarket today was a terrorist attack carried out by a violent extremist.

    The prime minister and Police Commissioner Andrew Coster addressed media after the man was shot dead at a west Auckland mall this afternoon.

    It is understood six people – all shoppers at the mall – have been wounded in the incident at LynnMall in New Lynn.

    A St John Ambulance spokesperson said three patients in a critical condition and one patient in a serious condition had been taken to Auckland City Hospital; one patient in a moderate condition had been taken to Waitakere hospital; and one patient in a moderate condition had been taken to Middlemore Hospital.

    Ardern revealed the terrorist was a Sri Lankan national who had arrived in New Zealand in October 2011 and he became a person of national security interest from 2016.

    The reasons he was known to agencies was subject to suppression orders, but Ardern said it was her view that it was in the public interest to share as much information as possible.

    The prime minister did say the terrorist held a violent ideology inspired by the Islamic State, but it would be wrong to direct any frustration at anyone other than this individual.

    Personally aware
    She said she was personally aware of the terrorist before today’s attack.

    Ardern said it was a senseless attack and she was sorry it had happened.

    “What happened today was despicable. It was carried out by an individual.”

    Ardern said the individual was under constant monitoring, and he was shot and killed within 60 seconds of the attack starting.

    The police team who was monitoring shot and killed him.

    Commissioner Coster said the man had been under heavy surveillance because of concerns about his ideology.

    He had entered the store and obtained a knife from within the store before starting the attack.

    When the man approached police with the knife he was shot and killed.

    Surveillance teams ‘close’
    Coster said the surveillance teams were “as close as they possibly could be without compromising the surveillance”.

    “I acknowledge that this situation raises questions about whether police could have done more, whether police could have intervened more quickly. I’m satisfied based on the information available to me that the staff involved did not only what we expect they would do in this situation, but did it with great courage,” he said.

    “The reality is, that when you are surveilling someone on a 24/7 basis, it is not possible to be immediately next to them at all times. The staff intervened as quickly as they could and they prevented further injury in what was a terrifying situation,” Coster said.

    Ardern said all legal and surveillance power had been used to try to keep people safe from this individual.

    “What I can say is that we have utilised every legal and surveillance power available to us to try and keep people safe from this individual. Many agencies and people were involved and all were motivated by the same thing – trying to keep people safe.”

    Police at LynnMall
    Police at LynnMall today, the scene of the terrorist attack. Image: Marika Khabazi/RNZ

    Coster said there had been nothing that would tell police the extent of his intentions, or that he intended to do this today.

    He said the individual was very surveillance-conscious, and surveillance teams needed to maintain a distance to be effective.

    intervened ‘in 60 seconds’
    “There was nothing to prevent him being in the community and we were doing absolutely everything possible to monitor him and indeed the fact that we were able to intervene so quickly — in roughly 60 seconds — shows just how closely we were watching him.”

    Ardern said the local Muslim community had been “nothing but helpful and supportive. It would be wrong to direct any frustration to anyone beyond this individual. That is who is culpable, that is who is responsible — no one else”.

    She said his past behaviour and action did not reach the threshold to have him in in prison, which was why he was being constantly monitored.

    An eyewitness told RNZ she had seen a man running around armed with a knife and heard many people screaming.

    Another shopper who was in the supermarket at the time heard someone scream before shoppers started running towards the door.

    Heavily armed police and ambulances remain at the scene.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • RNZ News

    A counter-terrorism expert says there is no reason to lay charges against a New Zealand-born woman linked to the Islamic State.

    Suhayra Aden and her two young children have been in custody in Turkey since February when she tried to illegally cross the border from Syria.

    New Zealand and Turkish authorities have stuck a deal for the 26-year-old to be repatriated.

    Turkey had earlier accused her of being a terrorist but has dropped all charges.

    A former counter-terrorism expert for the US government, Dr Paul Buchanan said it would be “grossly unfair” if police charged her based on current evidence.

    “We have to remember she has committed no crime in New Zealand,” Dr Buchanan said.

    “She left … to go to the battlefields of the Middle East as a concubine, as a camp follower, not as a fighter so she has committed no crimes as far as anyone knows, in Syria or in Turkey.”

    Police, government silent
    Police and the government are keeping mum on the plan for her return, but Dr Buchanan said the authorities would be keeping a very close eye on her.

    “Her computer will be monitored, her daily movements will be monitored, she will be subject to considerable scrutiny.”

    Terrorism control laws brought in in 2019 allow for electronic monitoring, restrictions around on where she can go, who she can talk to and what websites she can use.

    Dr Buchanan said if she was found trying to spread radicalism she could be charged with inciting violence.

    But he said her safety was likely more at risk than any danger she herself posed.

    “There are Islamophobic people in New Zealand who have already made comments along the lines that they wish to do her harm or they wish that harm befalls her.”

    Dr Buchanan said international evidence showed women who leave Islamic State were often traumatised and posed no threat to the community.

    Australian passport
    Aden was born in New Zealand but moved to Australia when she was six, travelling to Syria in 2014 on her Australian passport.

    University of Waikato law professor Alexander Gillespie said Australia’s decision to cancel her citizenship – forcing responsibility for her onto New Zealand – was wrong.

    “Ultimately because of Australia’s actions, which were not in good faith, they left us holding the ball, and New Zealand picked it up and we’ve done the right thing.

    “It’s a difficult situation, but ultimately we’ve lived up to our legal responsibilities, and many would say our ethical ones as well.”

    Dr Gillespie said the government would not have got involved – but for the children.

    “Had it just been a man… or a woman over there who had gone to fight for Islamic State, then it’s very unlikely that the government [would be] going out of their way to repatriate that person.

    “But having children involved meant that we had obligations to look out for the best interest of the children which means that we had to intervene.”

    Children’s privacy protection
    Dr Gillespie said in order to protect the children’s privacy and chances of reintegration the authorities have to be less transparent with the public about the family’s location and restrictions they would face on arrival.

    Refugees As Survivors provides mental health and wellbeing services at the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre.

    Chief executive Sharron Ward said it has not been approached to care for Aden or her children so could not speak to the specifics of her case.

    But she said Aden would likely need considerable mental health help.

    “I can assure you that she will take a long time to adjust,” she said.

    “I wouldn’t be surprised if she had quite high rates of post-traumatic stress, she has been living in a war zone in one of the most dangerous places on the planet.

    “She’ll be a figure of hate in some parts of Western society, so she’s damned if she does and and she’s damned if she doesn’t in many ways.”

    Not contacted over support
    Islamic Women’s Council national coordinator Aliya Danzeisen said her organisation had also not been contacted to provide support.

    But she said community members have survived similar trauma and, with support, flourished.

    “We’ve had people who’ve lived 12, 15 years in refugee camps where rape and abuse and things are very common.

    “And yet they come out and they’re able to live highly productive lives.”

    Police have confirmed there was an investigation into Aden, but refused to give any more information.

    It said it was making plans with a number of agencies about the family’s return, and that security measures would be in place.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Women’s lawyers say they are considering going to UN bodies after the high court turned down their appeal

    Five Yazidi women who say they were held as slaves by the notorious Australian terrorist Khaled Sharrouf have failed in a high court bid for compensation.

    Lawyers for the women have told the Guardian they are now considering lodging a complaint with United Nations bodies focusing on “Australia’s duty to provide an effective remedy” for survivors of sexual violence and slavery.

    Related: After Isis, Yazidi women forced to leave their children behind

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Tribunal rules trio said to have travelled to Syria to join Isis were left stateless by Home Office decision

    Three British-Bangladeshis said to have travelled to Syria to join Islamic State (Isis) have won a legal challenge against the stripping of their British citizenship after a tribunal ruled the move left them stateless.

    Two women who were born in the UK, known only as C3 and C4, had their British citizenship removed in November 2019 on the grounds of national security.

    Related: Shamima Begum ruling sets dangerous precedent, say legal experts

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • A roundup of the coverage on struggles for human rights and freedoms, from Colombia to the Sahara

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Readers respond to the supreme court decision that Begum will not have her citizenship restored

    Every day it seems the Guardian serves up another reason for being ashamed to be British. On Friday, it was the case of Shamima Begum (Shamima Begum loses fight to restore UK citizenship after supreme court ruling, 26 February). It makes it particularly difficult that I’m tutoring someone who is hoping to take an A-level in British politics. All the books list human rights and explain how carefully protected they are in our system. Article 5 is supposed to protect the right to liberty and freedom from arbitrary detention. Yet the supreme court is unable to protect Begum’s rights against a home secretary who is operating a policy based on pandering to public opinion in return for (hoped-for) votes.

    We are told that legal protections are particularly important in difficult cases – that is, cases where an individual presents as unpleasant or undeserving. Begum was a teenager who took the extraordinary step of leaving her country to defend something she believed was deserving of her support. But even if she left with the firm intention of terrorising her fellow citizens, does this mean she should be deprived of her rights? It is a matter not of what Begum deserves but of what our national honour, and our constitution, deserve. This has been increasingly in doubt in recent years, with the government threatening to renege over the Northern Irish border agreement; not to mention the Chagos Islands and our participation in rendering citizens to be tortured during the “war on terror”.
    Jeremy Cushing
    Exeter

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Charity Reprieve criticises government’s ‘abdication of responsibility’ over Shamima Begum

    Britain risks creating “a new Guantánamo” in Syria by leaving Shamima Begum and others like her stranded in Syrian detention camps, it has been claimed, after the supreme court rejected Begum’s appeal against a decision to revoke her UK citizenship.

    A key figure who has been involved with Begum’s case said the judgment left the 21-year-old in a legal limbo, unable to return to the UK or mount an effective challenge to the deprivation decision remotely.

    Related: Shamima Begum is a victim of trafficking – and the UK should treat her as such | Maya Foa

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The supreme court’s decision to allow this formerly British woman to be exiled does more harm to the public interest than bringing her back

    Shamima Begum was born and brought up in London, as a British citizen. Six years ago, when she was 15, she and two other girls, Amira Abase and Kadiza Sultana, left the UK to join Islamic State. Today, Ms Begum is the widowed mother of three dead children, imprisoned in the al-Roj camp in territory controlled by Syrian Kurds. On Friday, the UK supreme court reversed a decision by the court of appeal, judged that she is not entitled to have her British citizenship restored, and that she should not be allowed to return to the UK to fight her case in person.

    These are wrong rulings. The UK is the correct place for an examination of this British-born woman’s mistakes or crimes, however horrific. By exiling her, as the court decided that the then home secretary, Sajid Javid, was entitled to do, the UK is ducking its international responsibilities. Ms Begum cannot properly instruct lawyers. The court held out the faint hope that a “fair hearing” could possibly take place at some future date. In the meantime, it is hard to see why other countries, or non-state actors such as the Syrian Kurds, should have to detain British fighters or their families (around 60 British adults and children remain in detention in Syria). For Britain to offload Ms Begum, on grounds that this would not make her stateless because her heritage entitles her to apply for citizenship of Bangladesh (where she has never been), is an abuse of position and of history.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Neil Basu says move to protest appointment of William Shawcross could harm process

    Britain’s best chance of reducing terrorist violence risks being damaged amid a huge backlash to the government’s choice of William Shawcross to lead a review of Prevent, the country’s top counter-terrorism officer has told the Guardian.

    Assistant commissioner Neil Basu’s comments came after key human rights and Muslim groups announced a boycott of the official review of Prevent, which aims to stop Britons being radicalised into violent extremism.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.