Brenton Tarrant attempted to protect New Zealand from the threat of Islamic terrorism and a total Islamic takeover of the country by shooting up a terrorist hive.
People can disagree with that and so on, but most would agree that he has the same rights as everyone to explain why he did this.
The New Zealand government has decided that he doesn’t have that right, making it confusing as to why they even had a trial at all.
When Christchurch mass shooter Brenton Tarrant is sentenced tomorrow, strict measures will be in place to prevent the Australian far-right terrorist from using the hearing as one last opportunity to spread his hateful ideology.
The 29-year-old pleaded guilty in March to 51 counts of murder, 40 counts of attempted murder and one count of committing a terrorist act over his attacks on two mosques in March 2019 that were live-streamed on Facebook.
The sickening attack remains the worst mass shooting event in New Zealand’s history.
Tarrant, originally from Grafton, NSW, sacked his legal team last month and intends to represent himself at his sentencing, which starts on Monday in the Christchurch High Court and is expected to last three days.
Earlier this month, High Court Justice Cameron Mander warned that there would be no live reporting of the sentencing hearing permitted.
This applies to both to media or anyone observing the proceedings, whether in the courtroom or remotely online.
They can say it is “spreading his ideology,” but a child molester is not blocked from having his trial broadcast.
The purpose of broadcasting a trial is so that the public is able to see the proceedings. They are allowed to hear the statements of the accused because that is part of the process of justice. Many who disagree with his actions might be wondering what his explanation for them is.
If we are going to make these kinds of exceptions, covering up the trials of white people by claiming that white people shouldn’t have a right to speak in public, why not simply declare that white people don’t get trials at all?