And it was fitting, too, that a man with his own history of false-identity shenanigans should jump to Garrett's defence.
The astonishing thing is that Laws doesn't appear to accept that Garrett's theft of a dead child's identity was all that major, or was even a proper crime (note the speech marks below):
Garrett's "crimes" were committed long before he entered politics or ParliamentAnd stealing the identity of a dead child isn't as bad as watching porn at the expense of the taxpayer.
It was hardly booking up parliamentary porn on the contemporary taxpayer. And if Shane Jones isn't resigning from Parliament, why must Garrett?Even if Jones had committed fraud, the only victim was the taxpayer to the tune of a few dollars. Garrett's offence caused geuine pain to the family of a dead child (yes, even 48 years later, I think it is possible to grieve over a dead child).
I stopped reading after that. Didn't want to vomit.