New Zealand: A Nation of Sheep

On the off chance that you did not know it, the nation of New Zealand contains more sheep than human beings. If you did not know it already, you would have suspected as much when you saw the New Zealand Prime Minister react to a terrorist attack on a mosque by donning a hijab and projecting weakness and cowardice.

One Masha Gessen, in The New Yorker, declared that Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had set a new global standard for how to react to terrorism. The solution, Gessen explained, was not war, was not fighting, was not justice, but was… you guessed it… empathy. And refusing to name the terrorist or vowing the least retaliation.

As you probably know, Ardern is the mother of a baby. She was pregnant when the New Zealand sheep population went to the polls to elect her. As we should know by now, research had demonstrated that a pregnant woman’s brain rewires itself in order to enhance its capacity for… you guessed it… empathy. Because when you are bringing up an infant, one that cannot articulate needs, you do best to have an enhanced capacity for empathy. It makes perfect sense.

In truth, Ardern, who was widely praised for bringing her baby to the United Nations meeting last fall, is not bringing  up her baby. She has offloaded the responsibility to her husband, a man whose brain, the research shows, did not rewire itself during her pregnancy. Of course, no one blinks as this derogation of maternal responsibility, but ought we not at least to ask what happens to these babies who are deprived of maternal care?

But, we will not ask the question, because New Zealand has just shown us how not to respond to terrorism. For her part Gessen thrills to the prospect that Ardern did not put forth any warrior rhetoric. And what exactly were you expecting from a young mother anyway? Ardern's perspective comes straight out of the nursery.

She writes:

Ardern has resisted war rhetoric. Since the modern era of terrorism began, on September 11, 2001, world leaders have responded to terror by promising vengeance and waged war, rhetorically and militarily. George W. Bush set the tone, with a statement on the morning of the World Trade Center attacks: “Make no mistake. The United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts.” He elaborated in a televised address later that day. “Today, our fellow-citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack,” he said. He named the emotions evoked by the chaos in lower Manhattan: “disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger.” He pledged war. “A great people has been moved to defend a great nation,” he said. “Our military is powerful, and it’s prepared. . . . America and our friends and allies . . . stand together to win the war against terrorism. . . . America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time.”

Unfortunately, this is a hopeless muddle. Gessen seems incapable of distinguishing between a mass murder committed by a lone wolf madman and an attack orchestrated by an international terrorist organization. If an organized conspiracy attacks you, keeping silent is the last thing you want to do.

If she herself had been capable of thinking, Gessen would have drawn distinctions between, say, al Qaeda, the ISIS killers in Paris, the Palestinian terrorists and the Anders Breivik. Let’s see, when  Palestinian terrorist murders an Israeli citizen, do you really think that the best reaction is weakness?

The Ardern approach, lauded by Gessen, involves ignoring the perpetrator. In truth, this is not overly new. It was adopted by the weak and cowardly Obama administration. Whether with the Boston marathon bombing, the Ft. Hood massacre, the San Bernardino killing or the Orlando killings, the Obama administration had no time for the murderers. It preferred to tell people not to fall prey to Islamophobia. You see, its enemy was not Islamist terrorism, but thought crimes. Did that reduce the number of terrorist attacks?

Ardern, on the other hand, immediately showed that she had no time for the perpetrator of the mosque shootings. “Many of those who will have been directly affected by this shooting may be migrants to New Zealand; they may even be refugees here,” she said. “They have chosen to make New Zealand their home, and it is their home. They are us. The person who has perpetuated this violence against us is not. They have no place in New Zealand. There is no place in New Zealand for such acts of extreme and unprecedented violence.”

So, Ardern stood up for Muslim refugees. She has no awareness of what is happening in Europe, in the crime sprees and the rape culture and the No-Go zones that are infesting that continent… all the result of unlimited migration.

Gessen, in her muddled way, seems to believe that the best approach, when your nation is under attack—because many of the terrorist incidents she exposes are attacks on a nation—is the ostrich policy. You put your head in the sand and pretend it did not happen.

These phrases are remarkable for what they do not contain: a promise to find the perpetrator and bring him to justice; any attempt to degrade him; any recognition of his desire to be seen, recognized, and fought. The opposite of terror is not courage, victory, or even justice, and it is certainly not “war on terror.” The opposite of terror is disregard for the terrorist.

And, let’s not forget, Ardern was also widely praised for donning a hijab, an instrument of female oppression, in order to show sympathy and empathy for her nation’s Muslim community. Why not normalize female oppression in the name of girl power?

The Gateway Pundit has some choice words about the hijab (via Maggie’s Farm):

That same day New Zealand women are being encouraged to wear the Islamic head covering on Friday in sympathy with Muslims in the wake of the mass shooting at two Christchurch mosques last Friday that killed 50 and wounded dozens.

The campaign was dubbed #HeadScarfForHarmony and encouraged non-Muslim women to wear hijabs.

This is how the female leaders and females in the media show their solidarity with Muslims in New Zealand — bowing to Sharia law and submitting.

Yes, indeed, bowing to Sharia law and submitting. Because no one can really avoid the message that Ardern was sending: saying nothing and adopting the hijab signified submission to Islam.

Many Muslim women saw it that way and were horrified:

Muslim women in Iran, Saudi Arabia and other nations under Sharia law are oppressed and are forced to wear the Islamic head cover.

One Iranian woman who’s fighting against Iran’s dictatorship was furious over the #HeadScarfForHarmony campaign and expressed her anger over it in a tweet.

I am an Iranian woman who fights for my basic rights under the Islamic regime tyranny and you are all partners of this atrocious crime.
still, We are the ones who pay the price for all the stupidity of this world.#headscarfforharmony

Another tweeted this:

Many of us lost everything, some even their lives & freedom bc of hijab! U wear it 1 day like it's just some piece of cloth & think its empowering when u re only normalizing rape culture & oppression of millions of women all over the globe! #headscarfforharmony #freefromhijab

So, the New Zealand prime minister has given aid and comfort to Muslim misogynists. And she has shown, with her pathetically weak response to the tragedy why nations are loath to put women in positions of power.