Terror struck the Sydney CBD Tuesday afternoon when 21 year old Mert Ney allegedly went on a stabbing rampage brandishing a large knife starting from King Street and ending at Wynard Street just after 2pm.
Ney was apprehended by a trio of British men who were working in the CBD and witnessed the danger from from a nearby building window. Lee Cuthbert, Paul O’Shaughnessy and Luke O’Shaughnessy successfully restrained Ney using a milkcrate and chairs from a nearby cafe.
Police later arrived and took Ney into custody. He was marched to a police van with his pants down and shirt lifted.
The trio were universally haled as heroes for their bravery in deciding in a split second to risk their own lives to prevent what could been a more deadly terror attack.
NSW Police Superintendent Gavin Wood agreed “They were brave and I use that word seriously. They were significantly brave people. To approach a person with the mindset of what this person (had), these people are clearly heroes”.
Many on social media during the evening were eager to highlight these men with the bravery were displaying the previously noble masculine traits of being the protector of the vulnerable. These days such physical conduct is viewed by feminists and left as “toxic masculinity”.
During the rampage Linda Bo, 41 was stabbed in the back and taken to hospital and will make a full recovery. Though we learned that before the rampage began that Ney allegedly stabbed Michaela Dunn, 24 to death at a nearby apartment. Ms Dunn a sex worker had an appointment to see Ney at 1.30pm. She was founded dead at 3.15pm that afternoon.
During the rampage pedestrians ran as fast as they could as Ney yelled ‘Allahu Akbar’ during his rampage. As is common practice with live breaking news journalists relay developments as they unfold. Sky News’ Laura Jayes reported that Ney had yelled ‘Allahu Akbar’, footage of the rampage backed up this report.
Though Jayes was soon attacked on Twitter for what was called “unhelpful” journalism. Jayes defended her reporting stating to the woman who sent the tweet Saman Shad that whole incident was “unhelpful” to the victims and asked should she have censored her journalism?
Despite choosing to actively engage on public forum with a high profile reporter, Saman blamed Jayes for replying to her tweet when others began to criticize her for it.
Soon the backlash Saman was too much and the freelancer writer for nearly every left-wing publication in the Australia soon protected her tweets so only her approved followers can view them.
The link to Islamic terrorism was soon hosed down by the usual suspects on Twitter. Muslims in the Australian media said he did not pronounce ‘Allahu Akbar’ properly so he could not be a ‘proper Muslim’ .The media reported at the time that Ney was of Caucasian appearance.
Police found on him a USB stick which had material relating to the Christchurch Mosque attack and US mass shootings so those who had tried to hose down the Islamic terror link were eager to then talk up a white supremacist link.
But once Mert Ney was identified as the suspect we learned he was of Turkish-Cypriot background. There are conflicting reports about his religiosity with the Daily Mail quoting an acquaintance of Ney that he recently converted to Islam. While the Daily Telegraph reports he was raised Muslim but did not attend any known mosques.
But it is clear that Islam is the only religion he has been linked with. Authorities have said at this time Ney has no known links to terrorist groups.
Today more has emerged of Ney’s criminal and mental health history, including pleading guilty to possessing a prohibited weapon after police found a knuckleduster while visiting his home on another matter. He was wanted before the rampage on a domestic violence allegation after his sister Yazel claimed he punched her in the face.
Today Yazel disowned her brother and apologized to the victims. She also denied her family was Muslim ‘how I’m dressed, I’m not Islamic. My mum’s not Islamic, my sister’s not Islamic, my dad’s probably straight up atheist’.
In the age of the camera phone and livestreaming any major public disturbance and attack can be captured extensively, so the public is in no doubt what happened. This is a good thing because real life horror should not be censored to shelter people who maybe ‘triggered’.
Often when the public are exposed to the full horror of terrorism and war, the effect is the public more actively oppose such atrocities being allowed to take place in the world. The Vietnam War was known as the first TV war, the reality of war was beamed into homes across the United States and was pivotal in turning public opinion against the war.
Those who believe that reality is ‘triggering’, have they forgotten that for the past fifty years the movies and television has been full of fictionalized violence?
But Waleed Aly on the Project Tuesday evening thought the public seeing for themselves exactly occurred in a public place in Sydney that day (and hence the facts) was like “we’re being traumatised by watching it. I’m not sure that trauma helps us in any way, does it really? Can you think of a way it would?”
One could be forgiven for thinking Waleed expressed this view because if the public was banned from seeing footage of the rampage it could then be covered up that Ney yelled ‘Allahu Akbar’.
Waleed did praise the British trio who apprehended Ney and conceded he would have not have been brave enough to put his life on the line in that situation “As I was watching the vision, I tried to imagine myself in it and I don’t think there is any chance of me approaching, I reckon.”
Waleed’s statement was prompted by co-host Carrie Bickmore asking with regard to the extensive video footage “I mean, it must obviously help with investigations and stuff, but then seeing it all unfold … I don’t know”.
We saw a push for livestreaming to be banned after Christchurch killer Brenton Tarrant livestreamed to Facebook his massacre at the mosque. Obviously this act of terror was much more horrific than that what occurred on Tuesday. Nevertheless attempts to make the video disappear from the internet failed dismally.
But it is worth asking the question: where do you draw the line in censoring the reporting and release of information and/or footage to the public? The second plane hitting the south tower of the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 was livestreamed on television killed hundreds of people instantly. Yet it was still replayed over and over again.
If we all took Waleed’s view then the public’s access to information on terror attacks would be severely limited, and hence censored. As we have seen with the “suicide” of Jeffrey Epstein, the fact the public has so little knowledge about this supposed “suicide” has fueled further skepticism about the official facts we are told to believe.
In the current year with trust in the mainstream media decreasing, activists online attempting to manipulate the news to advance their own agenda, the public, with access to the knowledge of the world through the internet expect to be told the truth, if they doubt they are being told the truth, they will investigate. Hence the recent calls for internet censorship.
The public deserve to know, and should have access to all information unfiltered about important, even violent public events. There should be no censorship of “unhelpful” facts, nor it should not be decided for us which facts are relevant. All facts and developments should be allowed to be accessed and reported on. Truth no matter how inconvenient is an absolute.