I didn't know what to make of the claims being made on The Standard about a Labour MP threatening to "out" or discipline certain bloggers and blog commenters. So I read a number of posts and hundreds of hundreds of blog comments.
The good news is that my eyes finally stopped bleeding about an hour ago.
What did I learn? Could there be truth in these allegations?
Three or four commenters on The Standard claim to have inside knowledge but won't name the MP, and yet it's not hard to join the dots and work out who they are referring to.
It's wise to be sceptical when someone posting pseudonymously makes an allegation about another person, who is also unnamed. But other commenters on The Standard (some whose names we know) appear to back up the claims.
There is a real "hate David Shearer" vibe throughout much of The Standard right now, and it's entirely possible that the visceral dislike for Shearer and his supporters felt by many commenters makes them see things that don't exist.
But it's also entirely possible that on this occasion there may be something going on. I'm not convinced either way.
If a Labour MP really is trying to silence the party's online critics in the way being claimed, then that MP really has lost the plot and should probably think about finding another job, and fast. There is enough crap going on within the party, without some zealot with all the nuance of a suicide bomber trying to destroy everything around them for the greater good.
We should also consider the possibility that the MP in question (assuming there is a factual basis for these allegations) is very much out on his/her own and is in the process of being told by his/her fellow MPs that he/she is really quite a special class of fool, and should just shut his/her mouth, because look at the mess he/she has made. Again!
But this is all rumour and speculation, so some scepticism is warranted, especially since it doesn't really make sense that the party would be trying to silence some critics while accepting a very high profile one back into the party. Why would the party do something that defied all good sense? When has that ever happened?
Update: So it seems pretty clear from various comments on this and other blogposts that a Labour MP wrote a letter that went to Labour's NZ Council, proposing that some form of action be taken to suppress anonymous bloggers. It seems that the MP in question is being accused of naming in that letter a particular person who uses a particular pseudonym on Red Alert and other blogsites. It also seems that the Council took the proposal no further, no doubt because they thought the idea was completely barking mad.
This is all very ugly, but if that's the extent of the bullying then at least it's isolated to one MP.
I direct you to the first comment in this thread...
ReplyDeletehttp://robertwinter.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/we-know-who-you-are.html#comment-form
Ask the NZ Council - the letter has been presented.
ReplyDeleteHer role in caucus and her spokespersonship makes it highly unlikely she's attacking as a lone wolf
OK. This is possibly ill-advised, but what the hell, at this point ill-advisedly blabbing on the internet seems to be the order of the day. Also (and somewhat fittingly) I'm not putting my name to this, because rather depressingly I am on a policy committee with the aforementioned MP and that probably means best not to annoy them too much. (That also makes it quite easy to figure out who I am but oh well ill-advisedness rules the day.)
ReplyDeleteFirst, if this did go to NZ Council, there's no reason you shouldn't talk to your regional representative about it, and they should be willing to discuss this (although no doubt in confidence.)
As far as I understand it, a paper did go to Council discussing anonymous blogging. Lots of stuff goes before Council. Much of it is quietly filed in the circular file. I have it on very good authority that was the fate of this particular paper. And I got the impression that everyone rolled their eyes at this one, and it was very much an awkward interlude between a series of awkward decisions.
As to the other stuff, I have no idea. It wouldn't surprise me one way or the other. But I would put this in the `daft idea, quietly being killed' box.
"First, if this did go to NZ Council, there's no reason you shouldn't talk to your regional representative about it, and they should be willing to discuss this (although no doubt in confidence.)"
DeleteMaxton, that's all well and good for Labour Party members, but the issue is wider than that. I don't belong to the Labour Party but I know consider Red Alert to be an unsafe place to post. If it's true that the Labour Party has used data off that website to find out who commenters are, and then has used that information outside the administration of the website, then that's waaay over the line. It's the same shit that Whale Oil does. It also puts Labour smack in the same club as Paula
Bennett. Does Labour really want to be associated with the behaviour of Bennett and Slater?
And honestly, how many members who post at the Standard are now going to trust their local regional rep to keep things in confidence? (There is a new post up on the Standard today about Labour's ideas about the Standard).
There are serious privacy issues here even if the letter itself was dumped in the rubbish (and are you sure about that? I would think that copies have to be kept).
I'm specifically talking to Scott here. Quite frankly, if I was a regional rep I wouldn't trust someone who posted at the Standard to keep anything in confidence.
DeleteFurther, to be honest, I am hugely hugely doubtful of the rest of the stuff swirling around. You have PG rabbiting on about various rules he is assuming are being invoked when I can tell you quite confidently they aren't. Much of the rest of this is similarly worthless noise.
So the 'disrepute' rule is not being used?
DeleteOn what basis can a certain MP be intimidating and silencing bloggers then? One identified said he had been sent a cease and desist message. If that wasn't based on party rules what does that leave other than defamation or blackmail by threat of revealing information or identity?
Pete, can I suggest that you be very careful accusing identifiable people of committing crimes?
DeleteI think the short answer here is that rumours are swirling and it would be ill-advised to start speculating in advance of the evidence.
As I posted on YourNZ, I never said that rule 302 had been used!
DeleteThe rumor I heard/read was that an MP had been suggesting to NZ council members that a whole set of rules be developed and implemented, specifically to control what party members can say and do online. My point in identifying rule 302 was to show that, if needed, the party already has such a rule, better still, its a catch all, cover all eventualities type of rule.
To me that showed that either the MP in question had no idea about the rules that governed the party she was an MP for, or that they realised that NZC would never sanction a party member under rule 302 for the types of activities she had such an issue with. The comments here seem to back this up.
Maxton - I'm not accusing anyone of committing crimes, I don't think inappropriate behaviour for a party or for an MP, being undemocratic or gross hypocrisy are crimes.
DeleteEven if breaching party rules were involved that isn't criminal.
A number of credible people have made statements suggesting political wrongdoing by their own party and MPs - there is far more substance to it than Mallard and Little had when they accused Collins, or Shearer had when he accused Key re the GCBS.
" Quite frankly, if I was a regional rep I wouldn't trust someone who posted at the Standard to keep anything in confidence."
DeleteI probably wouldn't either, but I think that speaks to the problems within the Labour party rather than the Standard. We don't see these kind of issues within the Green Party because the members feel relatively ok with process and their involvement.
btw, if you take PG as any kind of indicator of anything it makes sense that you would disregard what is happening. Personally all I'm interested in is the number of people that say the letter exists, and whether those people can be trusted. I can't see any reason why not so far.
Yes. It turns out that major mass parties with significant internal ideological differences are quite different to ideologically homogeneous minor parties. Who would have thought?
DeleteNobody's denying that something went to NZ Council. That's common ground. What I am saying is that as far as that matter goes, one MP lost the plot, and the rest of the party has quietly and definitely ignored their suggestions.
The details of comment-sniffing at Red Alert and all that stuff I have no particular knowledge of, but on the other hand political parties attract cranks and fantasists and let's just say that I would look out the window if most of the people alleging things told me the sky was blue. I am very much reserving judgement here.
"But this is all rumour and speculation, so some scepticism is warranted"
ReplyDeleteYes, scepticism is warranted as usual. As always I've watched this story carefully and sceptically as it's unfolded. I've watched many rumours and speculations on blogs and in media.
This story is not just rumour and speculation. There have been specific claims made by several identifiable Labour Party members I know of four), plus corroborating stories and evidence from people using pseudonyms.
This is nothing like the rumour and speculation swirling around the Cunliffe 'coup' story, which claims and counter claims coming from both sides.
This gagging case is not a mess of competing agendas. It is multiple people making very specific credible claims that have been that fit with past reported behaviours of the MP in question, and I have personal experience and evidence of that. The accused has been given the opportunity to comment on this issue and has not done so yet.
"The accused has been given the opportunity to comment on this issue and has not done so yet."
ReplyDeleteLast I checked it was the job of the accuser to prove the veracity of their claims, and as yet there has been nothing remotely close to evidence backing these claims up
There are four credible and identified witnesses and more from people with pseudonyms who have stated things that all tie up and there are no contradictions.
DeleteIt really sounds desperate - or ignorant of even half of the known facts - to dismiss this as 'unproven'.
So all you're going off is the claims made by individuals. That isn't proof, in fact it doesn't even come close to being proof. Unless these individuals release transcripts or communications to back up their allegations, they cannot be taken seriously
DeleteTry telling our justice system that witness statements shouldn't be taken seriously.
DeleteMighty kites you hit the nail on the head. What if the vicious comments and misdirected rumours are wrong? What happens then? The mud still sticks.
DeleteFreedom of speech includes the right to know your attackers otherwise it's not really freedom of speech, is it.
A reminder that I delete anonymous comments. Just use a handle or pseudonym if you don't want to use your real name.
ReplyDeleteJust don't use the one you use on Red Alert...
Yes, it is true. The letter of complaint was presented to NZ Council by Clare Curran last week I believe. I can't think of any similar situation, where an MP has felt so worried and insecure that she needed to complain about the online comments of an anonymous member. It doesn't bode well for the future.
ReplyDelete"This is all very ugly, but if that's the extent of the bullying then at least it's isolated to one MP. "
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to believe it's isolated to just one MP. We know the council was aware of proposals. And it would be mind boggling if one MP with strongly relevant spokesperson roles is doing this without at least the knowledge of party leadership.
And if it is a lone wolf that's still a major problem. Bloggers are being targeted with a 'no dis-repute' clause in the party rules. Who brings the most disrepute, someone who crticises an action of disrepute, or the person responsible for the disrepute?
There's no evidence to suggest that the MP was acting in concert with others. And one commenter here has indicated that the NZ Council didn't see any merit in her request.
DeleteWhich appears to reinforce the view that it was just the actions of one deluded MP with a history of making spectacularly bad calls. Probably not the crisis many people would like it to be.
"...here's no evidence to suggest that the MP was acting in concert with others..."
DeleteHowever, if you are one of the victims of such an incompetent attempted use of asymmetric power it is pretty frightening. I can see why people reacted the way they did. Clare Curran is the Josie Pagani that sneaked in under the radar.
Just an observation - surely if you (in general) belonged to a political party and you continuously dissed others online within that party, and under a pseudonym, you should not really have a reason to feel so utterly indignant if confronted with this behaviour. If you dish it out.....
ReplyDeleteYes Twist.The meanness of some comments on some blogs against some Mps was bound to get up the nose and cause a response. Energy of Labour folk should be to pick holes in the Government. They are the "enemy."
DeleteYep, pretty daft idea if true. A lot like the decision to allow a minority in the caucus to call leadership challenges
ReplyDeleteThere is a bright side to all this.
ReplyDeleteMumbles is getting a bit of a break from the lynch mob at the Standard.
The anti cyber bullying stand taken by the accused in this case will provide delicious fodder for all over the coming years.
Well Curran has had an opportunity to answer all the vile comments directed at her. http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/238634/curran-hits-out-online-critics Notice the parts that say "not at any point have I sought disciplinary action against any individual" & "she had not used individuals names" & that CV had identified themselves to her.
ReplyDeleteSo much for your witch hunt.
So Curran admits she wrote a letter complaining about "anonymous" bloggers, had a discussion about how to deal with them, and confirms most of the accusations made. The only major accusation against her she has denied is that she used information from Red Alert to identify someone.
DeleteSo many of those "vile" comments were in fact accurate, and Curran has shown herself to be politically inept.
Curran knows nothing about technology, nothing about communications, and nothing about open government. What's her job again?
DeleteI'm not sure I'd believe everything she writes.
ReplyDeleteScott, THIS IS A DISTRACTION... I don't even need to read the original item, the hundreds of comments or the thirty here. No one involved has sufficient judgment to be part of any future for Labour. Best they wear themselves out through their tantrums.
ReplyDeletePaul Williams (from miles away and of no moment)