Security Responses to the Christchurch Attack: A Mixed Methods Analysis

Abstract

The shooting attack that occurred at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand on the 15th of March 2019 sent shockwaves through the country. The attack changed the way New Zealanders perceived themselves and the threat of terrorism. Prior to the attack there was a general association between terrorism and Islam which manifested in instances of harassment and discrimination against Muslim New Zealanders. White supremacy was seen as a threat, but not acknowledged on the same level as terrorism. Two responses to the attack changed both perceptions. The rhetoric and content of these responses can be usefully analysed with securitisation theory. First, the use of the phrase 'they are us' by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Arden broke the association between Muslims and terror and created a new desecuritised one, which was simply that Muslims were New Zealanders, and New Zealanders were not terrorists. Conversely, in a securitising move, those who were white supremacists were framed as posing a threat and not belonging in New Zealand society. Second, the New Zealand Office of Film and Literature Classification, at the behest of New Zealand's Chief Censor David Shanks, ruled the alleged shooter's manifesto, published prior to the attack detailing his reasons for committing and the attack as livestreamed on Facebook, to be "objectionable' material. This was a securitising move that made it an offense to possess or share the manifesto and video of the livestreamed attack. The ruling can be interpreted as an attempt to govern New Zealand society to keep people in line with new values and prevent them from stepping outside of it. Analyses of the speeches and official documents that present these desecuritising and securitising moves, as well as of the New Zealand Media's portrayal lead to several conclusions that are in some ways different from prevailing applications. These concern the understanding of securitising 'moment', changes on the continuum from normalcy and threat, and the value of analysing micro-level security moves. In addition, the relationships between moves that result from one catalyst reveal limitations in conceiving securitisation and desecuritisation as opposing mechanisms.