Making a comparison between the Ch Ch Mosque Event and the McSkimming conviction and sentencing.

PUBLIC NOTICE — OBJECTIONABLE BY DECREE?

Keep in mind there are 4 or more people still in prison for sharing video footage of the first Mosque building shooting. The video footage was not officially viewed and processed long after their court cases. McSkimming got off with home detention. We are looking for consistency in the application of the law.

Public Notice — Questions of Law, Not Speculation

Following the events of the Christchurch mosque shootings, the State exercised one of its most serious statutory powers — classifying associated footage as “objectionable material” under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993.

That classification does not merely restrict content. It criminalises possession and distribution, carrying severe penalties.

This notice sets out a narrow and lawful question:

On what exact legal and evidential basis was that classification made?

The Legal Threshold — What Must Be Proven

Under statute, a publication must do more than depict harm. It must:
– Promote, or
– Support,

serious criminal conduct in a manner injurious to the public good.

This is a high threshold. It is not satisfied by mere existence of disturbing or violent imagery.

The Point of Tension

A clear legal distinction exists:
– Depiction of an event
versus
– Promotion or encouragement of that event

The classification outcome depends entirely on how that line is drawn.

The public has not been shown how that line was applied.

Authority and Accountability

The decision sits within the jurisdiction of the Office of Film and Literature Classification, with enforcement carried by New Zealand Police.

Questions arising include:
– Who made the decision?
– Under what delegated authority?
– What material was relied upon?
– What reasoning was recorded?

Consistency — The Unanswered Variable

Public confidence depends on consistency of application.

Where severe penalties attach in one category of material and different outcomes appear in other serious contexts, a legitimate question arises:

Are the same legal standards being applied?

Why These Questions Are Being Asked

Requests under the Official Information Act 1982 are being pursued to obtain:
– Decision frameworks
– Legal interpretations relied upon
– Delegations of authority
– Review, audit, or oversight records

This is a targeted examination of decision-making integrity.

What Has Been Observed

Responses to date show:
– Narrowing of scope
– Fragmentation across agencies
– Emphasis on process over substance

What remains absent is a clear, documented explanation of how the statutory threshold was satisfied.

Clarification of Position

This notice does not: