'Destiny Church Is Terrorising Communities': Maranga Mai Demands Urgent Action On Hate
On Saturday, Auckland Pride event organisers expressed concern for the safety of rainbow and takatāpui whānau travelling through the city amidst the large Destiny presence. Some attendees reported deliberately concealing rainbow symbols, Muslim participants chose not to wear hijab and members of the Palestinian community hid keffiyeh and flags. Maranga mai member Bianca Ranson reports that the climate of fear was palpable and deliberate.
'These are survival responses to a growing threat' said Ranson, stating that the desecration of sacred cultural taonga like the taiaha, the burning of national flags, the open vilification of ethnic and faith based communities, as well as rainbow and takatāpui whānau, cannot be excused as free speech:
'The actions of Destiny Church are a coordinated campaign of hate, targeting ethnic, faith, rainbow and takatāpui communities with escalating threats and violence. This is not protest nor free speech. This is intimidation. This is harm.'
The working group note that this incident is not isolated but part of a concerning pattern of emboldened racism and far-right extremism in Aotearoa, designed to strike fear into the hearts of specific communities, and charting a pathway towards racialised conflict. Such behaviour directly undermines the vision of tino rangatiratanga, social cohesion and collective safety.
Lead advisor Tina Ngata drew parallels to the racism that has previously been overlooked by the Crown, with disastrous consequences:
'This is exactly the kind of extremist hate speech and actions that foreshadowed the Christchurch Mosque Terrorist Attacks,' said Ngata 'Muslim communities in particular have long borne the brunt of state surveillance and counter-terrorism efforts, often treated as threats rather than people in need of protection. Yet when these same communities are violently targeted by colonial nationalists or Christian fundamentalists, the state repeatedly fails to respond with appropriate urgency. This racist double standard exposes a deep-rooted hypocrisy—where the response to "terrorism" shifts not by the incident, but by the identity of the perpetrator, the identity of the victim, and the politics of power.'
Maranga Mai uphold the vision of a cohesive Aotearoa expressed through te Tiriti o Waitangi, where all communities may peacefully call this place home, where the rangatiratanga of Tangata Whenua is respected, and where all have the rights and opportunities of religious freedom.
The working group acknowledged the statements made by the Minister for Ethnic Communities, the Acting Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition. However, according to working group member Louisa Wall added, rhetoric must be backed with action:
'As faith and ethnic community leaders have reminded the nation, the recommendations of the Royal Commission following the March 15 terror attack remain largely unimplemented. This failure leaves communities vulnerable and enables acts of hate to flourish. The violence enacted in public spaces this weekend is a symptom of deeper structural failures. Without decisive action, the risks faced by racialised and marginalised communities in Aotearoa will only intensify. We call on all leaders—political, faith, iwi, and community—to move beyond statements and commit to transformation.'
Maranga Mai join calls for the following urgent actions:
• A comprehensive cross-party strategy for social cohesion rooted in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, with Māori leadership at its core.
• Urgent implementation of recommendations on incitement to racial and religious hatred, as outlined by the Royal Commission.
• Sustainable funding for education, curriculum reform, and community-led initiatives that build anti-racism capability and promote true inclusion.
• Implementation of a national, independent reporting mechanism for racist incidents—currently under development through the People's Action Plan.
• Resourcing and protection for rangatahi, ethnic and faith community leaders, and all those exposed to targeted hate.
Earlier this month, Maranga Mai launched the website for the People's Action Plan Against Racism, including a page with tips for safety and how to respond to racist harm. For anyone impacted by the weekend's events, you may find this advice at https://papara.co.nz/safety/
Maranga mai. Tū mai. Toitū te mana o te tangata.
Maranga Mai
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Gunfire Communication With 'Zombie Hordes': The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation And The IDF
It's made to order. First, eliminate the aid system after creating circumstances of enormous suffering. Then, kill, starve, vanquish and displace those in need of that aid. Finally: give the pretence of humanity by ensuring some aid to those whose suffering you created in the first place. As things stand, the system of aid distribution in the Gaza Strip is intended to cause suffering and destruction to recipients. Since May 26, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an opaquely structured entity with Israeli and US backing, has run the distribution of parcels from a mere four points, a grim joke given the four hundred or so outlets previously operated by the United Nations Palestinian relief agency. The entire process of seeking aid has been heavily rationed and militarised, with Israeli troops and private contractors exercising murderous force with impunity. Opening times are not set, rendering the journey to the distribution points even more precarious. When they do open, they do so for short spells. Haaretz has run reports quoting soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces claiming to have orders to deliberately fire upon unarmed crowds on their perilous journey to the food sites. In a June 27 piece, the paper quotes a soldier describing the distribution sites as 'a killing field.' Where he was stationed, 'between one and five people were killed every day.' Those seeking aid were 'treated like a hostile force – no crowd-control measures, no tear gas – just live fire with everything imaginable: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars. Then, once the center opens, the shooting stops, and they can approach. Our form of communication is gunfire.' The interviewed soldier could recall no instance of return fire. 'There's no enemy, no weapons.' IDF officers also told the paper that the GHF's operations had provided a convenient distraction for continuing operations in Gaza, which had been turned into a 'backyard', notably during Israel's war with Iran. In the words of a reservist, the Strip had 'become a place with its own set of rules. The loss of human life means nothing. It's not even an 'unfortunate incident', like they used to say.' An IDF officer involved in overseeing security at one of the distribution centres was full of understatement. 'Working with a civilian population when your only means of interaction is opening fire – that's highly problematic, to say the least.' It was 'neither ethically nor morally acceptable for people to have to reach, or fail to reach, a [humanitarian zone] under tank fire, snippers and mortar shells.' Much the same story can be found with the security contractors, those enthusiastic killers following in the footsteps of predecessors who treat international humanitarian law as inconvenient if not altogether irrelevant. Countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq can attest to the blood-soiled record of private military contractors, with the killing of 14 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad city's Nisour Square by Blackwater USA employees in September 2007 being but one spectacular example. While those employees faced trial and conviction in a US federal court in 2014 on an assortment of charges – among them murder, manslaughter and attempted manslaughter – such a fate is unlikely for any of those working for the GHF. On July 4, the BBC published the observations of a former contractor on the trigger-happy conduct of his colleagues around the food centres. In one instance, a guard opened fire on women, children and elderly people 'moving too slowly away from the site.' Another contractor, also on location, stood on the berm overlooking the exit to one of the GHF sites, firing 15 to 20 bursts of repetitive fire at the crowd. 'A Palestinian man dropped on the ground motionless. And then, the other contractor who was standing there was like, 'damn, I think you got one'. And then they laughed about it.' The company had also failed to issue contractors any operating procedures or rules of engagement, except one: 'if you feel threatened, shoot – shoot to kill and ask questions later.' No reference is made to the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers. To journey to Gaza was to go to a land unencumbered by laws and rules. 'Do what you want,' is the cultural norm of GHF operatives. And this stands to reason, given the reference of 'team leaders' to Gazans seeking aid as 'zombie hordes'. The GHF, in time honoured fashion, have denied these allegations. Ditto the IDF, that great self-proclaimed stalwart of international law. It is therefore left to such contributors as Anas Baba, NPR's producer in the Gaza Strip, to enlighten those who care to read and listen. As one of the few Palestinian journalists working for a US news outlet in the strip, his observations carry singular weight. In a recent report, Baba neatly summarised the manufactured brutality behind the seeking of aid in an enclave strangled and suffering gradual extinction. 'I faced Israeli military fire, private US contractors pointing laser beams at my forehead, crowds with knives fighting for rations and masked thieves – to get food from a group supported by the US and Israel called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation'. If nothing else, it is high time that the GHF scrap any pretence of being humanitarian in its title and admit to its true role: an adjutant to Israel's program of extirpating Gaza's Palestinian population.
The Spinoff
a day ago
- The Spinoff
Appeasing Trump in the Middle East is not cost-free for New Zealand
The government's responses to recent events in the Middle East indicate that its desire not to offend the Trump administration has compromised New Zealand's commitment to uphold an international rules-based order, argues Robert Patman. While distant in geographic terms, brutal violence in Gaza, the West Bank and Iran marks the latest stage in the unravelling of an international rules-based order on which New Zealand depends for its prosperity and security. It should be emphasised that New Zealand's founding document, the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, emphasises partnership and cooperation at home, and, after 1945, helped inspire a New Zealand worldview enshrined in institutions such as the United Nations and norms such as multilateralism. In the wake of Hamas' terrorist attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023, the National-led coalition government has in principle emphasised its support for a lasting ceasefire in Gaza and the need for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the occupied territories of East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank. However, in practice, this New Zealand stance has not translated into firm diplomatic opposition to the Netanyahu government's quest to control Gaza and annex the West Bank. Nor has it been a condemnation of the Trump administration for prioritising its support for Israel's security goals over international law. Foreign minister Winston Peters has described the situation in Gaza as 'simply intolerable' but the National-led coalition had little specific to say as the Netanyahu government resumed its cruel blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza in March and restarted military operations there. Even more striking was the government's silence on president Trump's proposal to own Gaza with a view to evicting two million Palestinian residents from the territory and the US-Israeli venture to start the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) in late May in a move which sidelined the UN in aid distribution and has led to the killing of more than 600 Palestinians while seeking food aid. While New Zealand, along with the UK, Australia, Canada and Norway, imposed sanctions on two far-right Israeli government ministers, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar ben Gvir, in June for 'inciting extremist violence' against Palestinians – a move that was criticised by the Trump administration – it was arguably a case of very little very late. The Hamas terror attacks on October 7 killed around 1,200 Israelis, but the Netanyahu government's retaliation by the Israel Defence Force (IDF) against Hamas has resulted in the deaths of more than 56,000 Palestinians – nearly 70% of whom were women or children – in Gaza. Over the same period, more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank as Israel accelerated its programme of illegal settlements there. In addition, the responses of the New Zealand government to pre-emptive attacks by Israel (13-25 June) and Trump's America (June 22) against Iran to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities were strangely ambivalent. Despite indications from US intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran had not produced nuclear weapons, foreign minister Peters said New Zealand was not prepared to take a position on that issue. Citing provocative behaviour by both Iran and Israel, Peters adopted a neutral stance toward the 12-day war between the two nations. With respect to the attacks by the US on three Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, the current New Zealand government seems to have echoed the view of Mark Rutte, the secretary-general of NATO, that such actions were consistent with international law. Peters and deputy PM David Seymour reiterated Iran could not be allowed to have nuclear weapons and tacitly supported the US decision to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran. Peters noted that the Trump administration's targeted attacks were aimed at 'degrading Iran's nuclear capabilities' and acknowledged the US statement to the UNSC claiming these attacks were taken 'in collective self-defence consistent with the UN charter'. Taken together, the coalition government's responses to recent events in the Middle East indicate that its desire not to offend the Trump administration has compromised New Zealand's commitment to uphold an international rules-based order. To be clear, Israel's conduct in Gaza is clearly at odds with its legal responsibilities as an occupying power, and the pre-emptive attacks by nuclear armed Israel and America on Iran cannot be justified legally when the clerical regime in Teheran does not have nuclear weapons and the diplomatic process had not been exhausted. Of course, some observers maintain that a relatively small state like New Zealand has no choice but to tacitly accept flagrant violations of international law when they are committed by big powerful friends like Trump's America. However, such a perspective understates the capacity of small and middle powers to shape what is an increasingly interconnected world. In 2003, then prime minister Helen Clark bravely refused to support an illegal US invasion of Iraq and the wisdom of that stance was subsequently confirmed in what was a disastrous military adventure for the George W. Bush administration. Moreover, New Zealand's leadership in promoting the 2021 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) – which has been ratified by 73 states – means it should have a strong voice on the military actions by Israel and the Trump team that have effectively incentivised Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Confronted with Trump's 'might is right' approach, the National-led coalition faces stark choices. The government can continue to fudge fundamental moral and legal issues in the Middle East and risk complicity in the further weakening of an international rules-based order it purportedly supports, or it can get off the fence, stand up for the country's values, and insist that respect for international law must be observed in the region and elsewhere without exception.
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
First session of Hamas-Israel talks ends inconclusively
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Photo: Reuters The first session of indirect Hamas-Israel ceasefire talks in Qatar ended inconclusively, two Palestinian sources familiar with the matter said today. They added that the Israeli delegation didn't have a sufficient mandate to reach an agreement with Hamas. The talks resumed Sunday (local time), ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's third visit to the White House since US President Donald Trump returned to power nearly six months ago. "After the first session of indirect negotiations in Doha, the Israeli delegation is not sufficiently authorized and is not authorized to reach an agreement with Hamas, as it has no real powers", the sources told Reuters. Netanyahu said, before his departure to Washington, that Israeli negotiators taking part in the ceasefire talks have clear instructions to achieve a ceasefire agreement under conditions that Israel has accepted.
