New Zealand’s reputation as a principled, fair-minded nation has been challenged by a glaring inconsistency in how its media and Parliament label and respond to acts of terrorism. The contrast between the unequivocal language used to describe the 2021 LynnMall supermarket stabbing as a “terrorist attack” and the hedging, procedural wrangling, and ultimate failure to call the April 2025 Pahalgam massacre in India “terrorism” in Parliament is stark. This double standard has not gone unnoticed by New Zealand’s Indian community, international observers, and those who expect moral clarity from a country that prides itself on its values.

This article examines the facts, exposes the hypocrisy, and asks why New Zealand’s political and media establishments are willing to call some acts “terrorism” but not others—especially when the evidence for cross-border terrorism is overwhelming.

LynnMall: Immediate Recognition, Unambiguous Language

On September 3, 2021, Ahamed Samsudeen, an Islamic State supporter under police surveillance, stabbed six people in Auckland’s LynnMall Countdown supermarket. Within hours, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern publicly labelled the event a “terrorist attack.” Media headlines, government statements, and parliamentary debate consistently used the term “terrorist” and “terror attack.” The Minister responsible for the NZSIS, Andrew Little, addressed Parliament directly, calling it “terrorism carried out by an individual—not a faith, not a culture, not an ethnicity” and emphasising the need for a mature national discussion about security and terrorism.

Media coverage was equally direct. Reports and survivor accounts referred to Samsudeen as a “terrorist,” and the event as a “terror attack.” The BBC, RNZ, NZ Herald, and others provided detailed coverage, using the language of terrorism without hesitation. The legal process, including the coroner’s inquest, also adopted this framing, focusing on the ideological motivations and the threat of violent extremism.

Pahalgam: Reluctance, Procedural Blocks, and Semantic Games

On April 22, 2025, five heavily armed terrorists attacked tourists in Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, killing 26 civilians—mostly Hindu tourists, but also a Christian and a local Muslim. The Resistance Front, an offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba, initially claimed responsibility, and Indian and international investigations quickly established cross-border links, with digital and forensic evidence pointing to operatives in Pakistan. India responded with military action, and over 60 countries and international organisations condemned the attack as terrorism.

New Zealand’s government, including Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters, issued statements condemning the attack and expressing condolences. But when ACT MP Parmjeet Parmar moved a motion in Parliament to formally condemn the “terrorist attack” and recognise the distress caused to Indian New Zealanders, the Green Party objected to the use of the word “terrorist.” Labour proposed a compromise, but the Greens insisted on removing any reference to terrorism. Under parliamentary rules, a single party’s objection blocks such motions. The result: Parliament failed to unanimously condemn the Pahalgam massacre as terrorism.

This is not a procedural quirk. In 2019, Parliament had no such difficulty condemning the Pulwama suicide bombing in Kashmir as terrorism, nor did it hesitate to label the Christchurch mosque shootings or Sri Lanka Easter bombings as acts of terror. The difference now is a matter of political will and, arguably, selective empathy.

The Evidence: Pahalgam Was Terrorism by Any Standard

The facts of the Pahalgam attack leave no room for doubt:

Targeted Civilians: The attackers singled out tourists, asking for their religion before executing them. Twenty-five of the dead were Hindu, one was Christian, and a local Muslim was killed trying to resist the attackers.
Organised, Ideologically Motivated: The Resistance Front, linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba and Pakistan’s ISI, claimed responsibility. Forensic and digital evidence traced planning and support to safe houses in Pakistan.
International Condemnation: Over 60 countries, including New Zealand’s allies, condemned the attack as terrorism.
Indian Investigation: The National Investigation Agency and Jammu and Kashmir Police tied the attack to cross-border terrorism, with named masterminds operating from Pakistan.

Despite this, New Zealand’s Parliament could not muster the unity to call this atrocity what it plainly was: terrorism.

Media Coverage: Consistency in Domestic Attacks, Caution Abroad

New Zealand’s media, when covering domestic incidents like LynnMall, have shown little hesitation in using the language of terrorism. Headlines, survivor stories, and analysis pieces refer to the attacker as a “terrorist,” the act as “terrorism,” and the event as a “terror attack.” The coverage is detailed, empathetic to victims, and clear about the ideological motivations.

When covering the Pahalgam massacre, however, the tone is different. While some outlets report government statements condemning the attack, references to “terrorism” are often couched in quotes or attributed to Indian officials. Reports focus on the diplomatic fallout, the procedural wrangling in Parliament, or the reactions of the Indian community, rather than the nature of the violence itself.

This caution is not limited to Pahalgam. Academic studies and media analysis have repeatedly shown that New Zealand media, like many in the West, are more likely to use the term “terrorism” when the perpetrator fits a certain profile—foreign, Muslim, or ideologically “other.” When the victims are from minority or non-Western communities, or when the attack occurs abroad, the language becomes more circumspect.

Parliament’s Excuses and the Politics of Language

The Green Party justified its objection to the word “terrorist” on procedural grounds, arguing that motions should be succinct and avoid unnecessary material. Labour’s compromise version, which did include “terrorist attack,” was also rejected. Te Pāti Māori supported the Greens’ version, which removed all references to terrorism and Indian New Zealanders. The result was a watered-down motion expressing only condolences, with no recognition of the nature or motivation of the attack.

This is not the first time Parliament has struggled with the politics of language. In 2019, similar motions passed without controversy. In 2025, the same parties that once stood “absolutely” with the victims of terrorism in Sri Lanka and San Diego now insist that “semantic disagreements” justify silence or equivocation.

The Indian community in New Zealand, and many others, see this as a profound moral failure. As one editorial put it, “To suggest, as some have, that semantic disagreements should outweigh the fundamental need to denounce terrorism in its ugliest form is an exercise in misplaced intellectualism that borders on the callous.”

Academic and Policy Analysis: Selectivity and Cultural Bias

Academic research into New Zealand’s counterterrorism discourse confirms that the use of the “terrorism” label is selective and shaped by cultural, political, and ideological narratives. The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 provides a broad definition, but in practice, the government and media have used the label more readily for acts committed by “cultural outsiders”—Islamic extremists, foreigners, or those perceived as threats to the national identity.

Critical studies show that violence by “cultural insiders” or against minority communities is often minimised, rationalised, or described in less charged terms. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch mosque attacks found that security agencies had focused disproportionately on Muslim communities, overlooking the threat from far-right extremists. The same logic appears to apply in Parliament’s response to terrorism abroad, especially when the victims are not New Zealanders or Westerners.

The decision to treat some acts as terrorism and others as “acts of violence” is not a matter of legal precision, but of political and cultural bias.

The Impact on New Zealand’s Indian Community

For Indian New Zealanders, the failure of Parliament to call the Pahalgam massacre terrorism is more than a symbolic slight. It is a denial of their grief, a minimisation of their trauma, and a signal that their pain is less worthy of recognition than that of other victims. Community leaders, former MPs, and advocacy groups have expressed deep disappointment and called for a unified, principled response.

Candlelight vigils, public statements, and editorials have all highlighted the sense of betrayal. As one community leader said, “The victims of the Pahalgam attack deserve our unequivocal condemnation of the violence they endured. The Indian New Zealand community deserves to know that their Parliament stands with them in their grief and outrage.”

International Repercussions and Diplomatic Signals

New Zealand’s equivocation has not gone unnoticed abroad. India, which received strong support and solidarity from dozens of countries after Pahalgam, has noted the absence of a clear, united statement from New Zealand’s Parliament. This affects not just bilateral relations, but New Zealand’s standing as a nation that claims to uphold universal values of human rights, pluralism, and opposition to terrorism.

Diplomatic observers point out that when New Zealand’s Parliament fails to condemn terrorism with clarity, it undermines its own credibility in international forums and weakens its voice on issues of global security.

Lessons from the LynnMall Attack: What Parliament and Media Got Right

The response to the LynnMall attack showed New Zealand at its best: clear language, empathy for victims, and a willingness to confront the ideological roots of terrorism. Parliamentarians from all parties stood together, the media reported with clarity, and the government took action to review security laws and support survivors.

This is the standard that should apply to all acts of terrorism, regardless of where they occur or who the victims are.

What Needs to Change

1. Consistent Use of Language: Parliament and media must apply the term “terrorism” consistently, based on the nature of the act, not the identity of the perpetrator or victim.

2. Procedural Reform: Parliamentary rules that allow a single party to block motions of condemnation on semantic grounds should be reviewed. National unity against terrorism should not be held hostage to procedural games.

3. Cultural Sensitivity and Inclusion: New Zealand must recognise the pain and trauma of all communities affected by terrorism, whether at home or abroad.

4. Accountability and Transparency: Political parties must be accountable for their decisions and willing to explain their reasoning to the public, especially when those decisions cause hurt and division.

5. Media Responsibility: News organisations should reflect on their own biases and strive for fairness in how they report acts of terrorism, wherever they occur.

Summary

New Zealand’s failure to call the Pahalgam massacre terrorism in Parliament, despite overwhelming evidence and international consensus, stands in stark contrast to its clear, principled response to domestic attacks like LynnMall. This double standard exposes a troubling inconsistency in how the nation defines and responds to terrorism, shaped by political, cultural, and procedural factors rather than moral clarity. To restore trust and uphold its values, New Zealand must confront this hypocrisy, reform its processes, and ensure that all victims of terrorism receive the recognition and solidarity they deserve.