Abstract:
This thesis examines the discourses surrounding the violent events that transpired on March 15, 2019 in Christchurch, New Zealand, which were quickly labelled a terrorist attack by the New Zealand government. It explores how constructions of terrorism influence the practices of government and the perpetrator. Willig’s comprehensive guidelines to Foucauldian Discourse Analysis was selected to critically examine government texts that constructed terrorism and counter-terrorism practices. The method was also used to examine how the perpetrator’s texts constructed terrorism and counter-terrorism. In response to March 15, the state constructed the events as terrorism and the terrorist subject as a singular anomaly in an otherwise harmonious society. However, March 15 was arguably made possible because the state upholds a white supremacist system. A failure to acknowledge this led to a focus on the technologies that facilitate terrorist acts, attributing blame to firearms and social media. Counter-terrorism strategies that ensued from this vantage point strengthened and extended state dominion over civilians, which is typical of states that counter terrorists. The perpetrator harnessed his white privilege and ran with well-established conceptualisations of terrorism to construct his actions as a counter-terrorist effort against the “real” terrorists (i.e., Muslim men). The manner in which he presented this violence to mass audiences on social media was arguably market driven. The subsequent virality of the Christchurch Mosque Attack Livestream implicated the public as complicit with the perpetrator’s actions. This event represents racial violence that was sanctioned by the government and accepted by a portion of the public. Arguably, normalised everyday practices– such as an acceptance of white culture, white privilege, going on social media, and sharing newsworthy content – were implicated in this act of terrorism. The perpetrator was not inexplicably evil. He was borne out of dominant discourses and practices (e.g., “war on terrorism”) that legitimate and endorse violence against Muslim peoples. Therefore, what distinguishes this violent event from others is that many members of society effectively accept the discourses that were utilised to justify the perpetrator’s actions.