My Resignation From The Truth

Dear Cameron,

Firstly, congratulations on taking the role as editor of The Truth. I am genuinely delighted for you.

But I am also writing to you with a sense of regret, because I am also tendering my resignation from the writing team at The Truth.

My Mate Gets The Truth

I'm delighted to learn that my old friend Cameron Slater (he and and I are best mates: just ask Bomber Bradbury if you don't believe me) has been appointed as editor of The TruthinessTruth.

It's not quite as prestigious as being made chief editor of The New Zealand Herald, but it's a first step.

Thank You For Helping

Dear Cameron,

I'm writing just to let you know I'm loving your work. You are in fine form, my friend!

Your efforts on behalf of the Ports of Auckland have been a big help, and I wanted to thank you personally for what you've done to date.

I've also been impressed with your contribution to the Talleys industrial dispute. Your ongoing involvement makes it more likely than not that we'll get the right result.

And your achievement in keeping the ACC debacle at or near the front page of most newspapers deserves recognition.

I don't even care whether it's you doing all this great stuff, or that bloke Lusk. It's your blogsite and you deserve all the credit.

I just think you're doing a wonderful job. Keep up the good work!

Yours sincerely
A Labour supporter

POAL's Useful Idiot

A prominent blogger has leaked personal details about a Ports of Auckland worker’s employment records.

Clearly someone was outraged at this serf’s inflated sense of self-entitlement. How dare he object to the port’s plan to take away his livelihood!

We don’t know for certain who was behind the leaking of the information to the blogger, although it must have been someone within POAL. Who else would have access to these employee records? Whether these were the actions of a rogue employee or something more sinister remains to be seen.

There is plenty of speculation in the blogosphere about whether the blogger’s being paid to do POAL’s dirty work, but it is just as likely that such is his eagerness to garner media attention (regardless of the cost to himself or others) that no money needed to change hands. The blogger concerned has a history of using the internet to bully and abuse others, making him a particularly useful idiot for political and business groups who want to smear their opponents but don’t dare do so in their own names.

Whoever has leaked the information to the blogger has probably breached the Privacy Act. The fact that the person whose information was leaked was in the media making statements about his employer does not excuse any breach. There’s little point in anyone trying to argue that the leak was justified in order to counter what the worker said in the media. It is not a legal defence to the unauthorised release of personal information, and in any event it’s not especially clear how the information released counters anything said by the man. The man’s point is that he wants to keep his job and current conditions.

It’s less clear (to me anyway) whether the blogger concerned is also in breach of the Privacy Act for publishing the worker’s details, but I’m sure the thousands of media and privacy lawyers who routinely read my blog may have a view on that. The blogger probably hasn’t thought that far ahead, since his past actions would suggest he views himself as being above the law.

If this leak was perpetrated by someone senior within port management, then the organisation has big problems. If POAL management really thought leaking the personal details of a worker to an attack blogger would earn them some sort of victory in the ongoing media war over the dispute, then that would suggest they need to fire their current PR advisers.

Privacy?

Mentally ill blogger Cameron Slater is apparently about to publish information with names and details of Labour Party donors.

I’m looking forward to learning today how exactly Cameron Slater won’t be in breach of the Privacy Act when he does that.

[last line redacted - inappropriate cheap shot]

Much Ado About Nothing

Cameron Slater's mental illness is once again clouding his judgment.

He is now claiming that a Labour Party minute shows Labour are wrongfully using public money.

But the evidence cited by Slater is desperately feeble. Just a line in a minute taken by a local party member (probably a volunteer) stating that "Labour North" should "use Parliamentary Services for best outcome of LP". The meaning of this line isn't even clear, but Slater is saying it shows Labour is planning to use taxpayer money in its campaign.

Slater is also claiming that because an Australian Labor Party activist was present at the meeting the party must be subject to foreign influence.

Good God. Has Slater never been to a party meeting? They're hardly the stuff of hidden agendas, secret handshakes or locked doors. Most of the activity that goes on is deeply unsexy, and utterly uncontroversial. As the leaked minute shows. There's no reason why a visitor from a sister organisation wouldn't be allowed to sit in. I'm sure it's probably the same with National at grassroots level.

Slater may also have managed to get details of Labour's donors. It would seem that someone may have illegally got access to Labour's computer systems and is now feeding information to Slater, knowing that in his mentally ill state he'll do anything to get attention. It also allows the National Party activists who no doubt fed Slater the information to avoid scrutiny. They don't care that a guy so mentally ill he's living on a sickness benefit will take the heat when the information turns out to be deeply unarousing.

When Brash complained that someone had stolen his emails, the outrage from the right was deafening. Now the shoe is on the other foot they are filled with anticipation and looking forward to putting the boot in. But I suspect they will be disappointed with what they find.

I've no idea what the leaked information will show, but I could hazard a guess from what I know of the party. That most Labour donors are not wealthy people, and that large corporations aren't funnelling huge funds into the party, would be my guess. The hypocrisy here is that Slater's party won't let us know who's funnelling money through National's secret trusts. But we can be confident that come the election one party will have much more money than the other. It won't be the red party.

If Slater thinks he's helping his party then he's clearly not thinking straight. No surprises there. Like most of his stunts, this one will probably backfire, leaving Labour people more determined than ever to fight back. We're not taking this shit anymore, not even from a guy as ill as Slater.

Call The Cops!

The right wing bloggers have been having a field day over the Labour Party "stop signs".

This is what they're bleating about.

The signs don't actually look like stop signs. Anyone who thinks they do shouldn't be on the road, because they clearly have no comprehension of the Road Code.

Blogger Cameron Slater probably doesn't see the irony in attacking Labour for being law breakers, when all they are doing is exercising free speech. It is quite possible that he has lived his entire life without discovering the beauty of irony.

Perhaps it's further evidence that deep down, despite all the free speech posturing, there's a little policeman waiting to burst free.

I'm not actually convinced any law is being broken, and if one is I suspect it's not the sort of law that will be keeping the CIB, CSI or Special Victims Unit occupied.

Sunday Snippets

Matt McCarten in the HOS bemoans the lack of a strong Labour opposition, though none of what he writes will be news to anyone who follows politics.

Every time McCarten or fellow leftie Chris Trotter take a swipe at Labour (which is most weeks), David Farrar and others in the blogosphere on the right will quote them with approval.

Like this week. But Farrar chose to edit out the bits that basically said "Labour's bad, but still not as bad as National."

If you're not going to open yourself up to accusations of political hackery, you have to take both the good and the bad.

******

The HOS also has a piece written by Judith Tizard. A number of right-wing blogs have targetted her over the last few years, and they have been so successful in setting the narrative that even Labour's come to regard her as a liability.

Tizard's been much maligned, and it's hard to understand why she's been the subject of such vitriol. Was it because she was a woman? A friend to Helen Clark? Was she really as incompetent as some people have suggested? True, she lost a traditionally strong Labour seat, but does that make her useless?

In case we were tempted to think there was some substance to the criticism of Tizard, Whaleoil pops up and has a crack at her article*.

Forty uses of the word “I“
Ten uses of the word “I’d“
Four­teen uses of the word “my”
So then, what’s the arti­cle really about?

To answer the question, it was pretty obvious to anyone who read the article that Tizard was writing about herself. It's pretty hard to do that without throwing in quite a few "I"s and "me"s. And what exactly is wrong with that? She's been the subject of so much gossip, speculation and intrigue that it was actually refreshing to read her own words.

So yet another post attacking Tizard because... well, why? Can anyone actually tell me why Tizard is so useless? This is not a rhetorical question, as I'd genuinely like to know what aspects of her political performances over the years have appalled so many people.

Or is this all just a myth being perpetuated by cowardly internet bullies?

* I have a policy of not linking to that site, so you'll have to believe me, or find it yourself.

The Greatest Love Of All

I don’t generally link to that Whaleoil chappie’s blog, but today is an exception. Take a look at this.

What are we to make of this?

It would appear that Mr Slater is undergoing a metamorphosis and is in the process of transforming into a beautiful butterfly.

The other alternative is that Danyl has hacked his blog.

A Wannabe Whaleoil

A reasonably prominent political blog commenter has now set up his own blog site in order to expressly breach a name suppression order. The person has named one of the two people charged with voting forgery offences.

This person says he wants to share a cell with Cameron Slater. So immediately you have to question his mental state.

I have no time for this kind of activity. I understand the argument that these people are engaging in an act of protest, but name suppression issues are seldom straightforward, and if someone has to determine who should be entitled to protection of their name, I'd rather that decision was in the hands of judges and not halfwit attention-seeking bloggers.

In any case, the Government has announced changes to name suppression laws. I haven't had time to review the changes (honestly, I probably won't for a while), but it appears that name suppression will be harder to get, and the penalties for breaching suppression orders may have actual teeth.

In my view the issue has not been so much that suppression is too easy to get, but that the rules don't appear to be applied consistently. Anyway, that's probably something for a separate blog post.

Warning: I will delete any comment that mentions the name or identity of the said blogger, links to their site, or does anything to risk breaching the suppression order. Unlike the said blogger I do not wish to share a jail cell with Cameron Slater.

“Teacher, That Boy's Being Mean To Me!”

Someone really needs to harden up.

North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams has laid a police complaint against Whaleoil blogger Cameron Slater and wants him struck off as a super-city council candidate for using his campaign to "stalk" him.

Slater, who is running against Williams in the Albany ward, has labelled the mayor a "coward and a bully" and says police have told him they will not be pursuing the matter.

The Whaleoil blogger sees his opposition to Williams as a civic duty - "He doesn't deserve to be a councillor. It's a duty of every citizen to do what they can. I'm being a candidate to make sure he doesn't get elected.''

Williams said Slater's whole campaign was a form of the "stalking" he had endured for over a year.

"He stands up at a meeting and says 'I will not urinate on a tree, I will not use a credit card in a Takapuna bar, I will not send drunken texts'."

"What he has put in his candidate profile is harassment. His whole campaign is focussed on attacking me."

Williams urged the electoral officer to strike off Slater as a candidate.

It defies believe that a politician seeking office would go on record and complain because someone has been saying mean things about him.

Slater will be loving this publicity and will only be encouraged by Williams’ reaction.

If Williams can’t take a bit of flak from a mentally ill potty-mouth he’s got no business running for mayor. He should be asking for his own name to be struck off the candidates list.

Judge Harvey's Smackdown

As I reported earlier, blogger Cameron Slater has been convicted on nine charges of breaching name suppression laws.

Judge Harvey has written a lengthy judgment on the case (Scribd has it here), and in the judgment he carefully takes apart each and every argument Slater's counsel makes.

I don't propose to regurgitate the arguments and the reasons for Harvey's decision. But he's an expert in the field, and his reasoning is compelling. I expect counsel arguing future name suppression cases will find his judgment a useful resource.

Slater is saying he will appeal. If he appeals he will probably lose. But then it's never been about winning for this particular attention-seeker. The law is the law, and judges can't ignore the rules just because someone doesn't agree with them.

The fines are towards the maximum for these offences, but when you consider the flagrant nature of the breaches, the punishment is probably fair.

Slater has of course used the decision to court further publicity, and is boasting that nobody can tell him what to do. If he were a 14 year old you could forgive the belligerence and chest-beating. In a grown man it's just sad.

I'm also glad to see Slater seems to be over the debilitating illness that has seen him on a sickness benefit. He's running for a Supercity position in the coming local elections, which surely means he must be fit for work and off the benefit. Doesn't it?

Can't You Feel The Vibe? Updated

I did have a chuckle over my lunch while reading this article about Cameron Slater’s hearing for allegedly breaching name suppression laws.

Judge Harvey, who is hearing the case, is acknowledged as New Zealand’s foremost expert on internet law. He literally wrote the book. This may bode well or ill for Slater, depending on whether you think his defence is viable or a joke.

His lawyer Gregory Thwaite has certainly been creative in his arguments.

At the earlier hearing Slater's lawyer Gregory Thwaite told the court his client had no case to answer for name suppression breaches as suppression laws only referred to direct reports of court proceedings.

Thwaite argued that it was higher courts had argued it was legal to discuss names individuals had hear in courts and blogs were extension of this.

At today's hearing Thwaite told Judge Harvey he should assess whether the suppression orders in question should ever have been applied.

Judge Harvey said: "So if a high court judge makes a suppression order I can, on a subsequent occasion, say 'sorry you're wrong'.

Thwaite replied: "Yes your honour when it comes to a criminal prosecution. Because effectively it's the only way to assess the validity of an order."

Judge Harvey called the argument "a novel concept".

"I can't revisit what another judge has done. If an order has been made an order has been made."

To do so would bring "the entire the system of justice into disrepute", Judge Harvey said.

"For heavens sake suppose the Supreme Court makes a suppression order am I required to go behind it?

"I simply do not have the power to do that."

Anyone who has studied first year law knows that a District Court judge override the decisions of a higher court.

Thwaite also argued that New Zealand's official language were English, Maori and New Sign language.

Any mention of a person's name which occurred in other languages or through pictures was not a breach of law.

Burns said anything which led to the identification of an individual protected by name suppression was a breach of the court order.

"A name is a name is a name. Whether its spoken, whether its written or whether its established by a pictogram.

I don’t want to comment on the quality of Slater’s representation, because I don’t know all the facts, and Mr Thwaite may well be under orders from the prize clown he represents to try everything.

But this was probably a job for Dennis Denuto.

The article says Judge Harvey will deliver his decision at 2:15 this afternoon. I think we can probably guess what it will be.

UPDATE: GUILTY! There was never any doubt Slater would be nailed, and he has been. Guilty on 9 out of 10 counts. Harvey would not have been amused by the pathetic defence put up by Slater's counsel. Will take a look at the judgment tonight if I get time.

Cameron Slater Is A Fraud

As much as I detest the "name and shame" antics of Cameron Slater, I have always been able to grudgingly admit that his campaign might lead to something positive. Our name suppression laws are applied inconsistently (as the Law Commission has itself found), and Slater's campaign to test the law at least draws attention to that fact.

That doesn't mean I support his actions, because the harm he has done to the justice system and to potential victims of crime clearly outweighs any good that might come from his campaign.

However, what little moral authority Slater may once have possessed (and yes, using the term "moral authority" when speaking of Slater does feel wrong) has gone. In a desperate attempt to smear Jim Anderton he has posted on his site* a video of Anderton on CTV on Friday night, in which Anderton appears to say that only an earthquake can stop him from winning the Christchurch mayoralty.

Of course, Anderton said no such thing. But it is pretty simple nowadays to edit a video so it says just about anything you want.

I can't see why Slater did this, other than to make Jim Anderton look like a fool and discourage people from voting for him. In committing this video fraud Slater showed the depths of deceit he is prepared to sink to. He exposed to the world how lacking in principles he actually is. Surprise surprise, I hear you say.

So Cameron Slater cannot be trusted. He is a fraud.

(I feel mildly unclean having to defend Jim Anderton in this way. I have little time for the old relic, but I despise dirty tricks)

UPDATE I always have a moment of remorse whenever I post anything about the sad attention-seeker. I know I should just ignore him. But the post is up, and I don't generally like to delete my work, even when I end up regretting it.

* I never link to that site. Find it yourself.

Imperator Fish News 15 August 2010

There Should Be A Rehab For Bloggers

I was thinking just the other day about Lindsay Lohan and Cameron Slater (aka Whaleoil).

One is a mediocrity who has drawn more public attention than their meagre talents deserve, and whose self-destructive behaviour has become so commonplace it's tedious. 

The other's just a lousy actress.

Slater's in the news again - with no money, no house, in trouble with the law, and with a family at their wit's end.

The best thing Slater could do is take a break from the online world and get well.

If he took a break I'm sure he'd find the world a better place. The blogosphere certainly would be.

Time For A Change?

An assortment of random Sunday bits- because I can't be arsed writing something more thoughtful.

My last post dealt with the odious Pat Robertson and his comments on Haiti.

His "pact with the devil" claim is cut to pieces here. Worth a read.

******

Does anyone care that Prince William is in town?

No, me neither. Just checking.

******

It appears Deborah Coddington doesn't like snitches. Fair enough - who does?

She labels as a snitch the guy who taped MPs talking at a National Party function during the last election campaign.

That secret recording always struck me as a shabby trick, and although the guy was not (as far as I recall) affiliated to Labour, it certainly didn't do the Clark government any favours. Many on the left who think National has a secret agenda believe this kind of deceit is justifiable - if it gets the truth out. Though that would suggest Key has an agenda. A plan? Any plan would be better than sleepwalking through these perilous economic times.

She appears uncertain whether Cameron Slater is a whistleblower or something else. But she proves that Slater's not the darling of everyone on the right.

How ironic, though, that this man, now so opposed to name suppression, for a long time made personally cruel and hurtful remarks about many with whom he disagreed, while hiding behind his pseudonym of Whale Oil.

******

Michael Laws doesn't like bloggers:

PREJUDICE #235: "Bloggers" are opinionated losers who spend way too much time in darkened rooms. They have porn addictions, staple microwave pizza to their bibs, are blubbery and smell.

This peculiar purview has been harboured ever since blogging became the online onanism. Which was the first day some idiot decided to anonymously opine and imagined that people gave a continental.
 
I'm probably still right. If I was to take a cross-section of bloggers I'd wager that most don't have a partner or a wardrobe, are in desperate need of a stomach staple and regard deodorant as the devil's snare. They would also be exceedingly jealous of each other: like literary fiction writers. Too many only children, I suspect.

 And the only thing that has shaken him from this conceit is... meeting Cameron Slater...

Apparently we're all against Slater because we're envious - nothing to do with his toxic personality or alleged breaches of the law then.

******

So a UK blogger thinks we dress badly.

I've written before about what I think of those who express strong views on how Kiwi men dress. Perhaps I'm one of those badly dressed men, since I clearly don't spend enough time in the mirror preening. Nor do I particularly care what some overseas fashionista thinks. I'm not even sure why we have a fashion industry. I mean, what is it for?

On the other hand, our famous cultural cringe is never far away when it comes to being commented on by foreign types. Heaven forbid that someone might not like something about us. Does this call for general panic?

******

There may be a softer, kinder face to US power nowadays. but many on the left are still defiantly anti-American. Much of the comment on the left surrounding the now-postponed visit by Hilary Clinton has been hostile. And commentators like Matt McCarten still dream about those heady days in the '80s when we told the US to shove it. And didn't we do well? Even if the US policy of outspending the USSR on nuclear weapons eventually helped to destroy that superpower.

Anti-Americans argue we shouldn't be in Afghanistan. Sure the place is a hellhole, but, really, what choice do we have but to stay? It remains the frontline in the War on Terror. And if we want American support and protection (militarily and economically) we need to do our bit.

There's no shortage of anti-US feeling in the blogosphere. For example this comments thread on Public Address. It seems a good number of people really think Communist China would be a better master than the US.

The last US President was a notorious fool, and squandered most of the goodwill towards the US that existed post 9/11. That has fed much of the anti-Americanism that exists today. But a new man's in charge. He's not perfect, but he's no Bush. He is slowly changing the way the US looks at the world. Perhaps it's time we changed too.

No Contempt For Slater - No Surprises There

Those of you who follow this blog may recall a couple of posts by me on the Cameron Slater issue earlier this week

A lot of so-called experts in the media have been quick to list all the things Slater is going to go to prison for, including contempt of court, perverting the course of justice, and just about every other offence short of sheep bothering.

Never mind the presumption of innocence, sub judice and all that.

Now I have to say I'm not particularly fond of Slater, but I am rather fond of the law, being one of those lawyer types. And while I'm by no means an expert in this area of law, it appears I must know more than some of the rent-a-quotes who have been in the media this week, and who have been publicly planning Slater's incarceration (I won't name them).

Because I have been saying (on this blog and on others) that the penatlies for breaching name suppression may well be limited to a mere fine, and that if anyone thinks Slater is bound to face different charges they may be proven wrong.

And so it turns out.

I know it's the sign of a rampant ego to parade one's little victories over the hoi polloi, but come on, let me have this one. I was right, it seems. For now anyway.

The Great Whale Hunt

It seems appropriate that it is the whale hunting season.

However, whales of the blogging variety appear to be even more endangered than cetacean ones.

I don't have sympathy for Cameron Slater, because basically that well is dry, but the reaction in the media and internet to his latest activities is interesting.

I have also written a little about some of those activities, though I have tried to steer clear of any assessment of whether Slater is guilty or innocent. The same cannot be said for a large section of the blogosphere, particularly on the left. Slater's past disregard for nuance and civil discourse makes him a target for many. There is currently a thread up on the Standard on Slater (no, I won't link to it) that would make most people ill, and which is as bad as anything you'll find on Kiwiblog.

Now the story has moved into the mainstream media, and various "experts" are opining as to what can be done to stop Slater. I posted an article last night on the potentially inadequate penalties for breaching name suppression laws, but I am not pre-supposing Slater is guilty and must be stopped. Although I am still happy to state that should Slater be deliberately engaging in breaking the law, he may have a few challenges ahead of him.

But some of these "experts" are pulling out the statute books to find things to pin on Slater, and they seem to have already determined his guilt. Maybe they should leave well alone. I'm by no means an expert on the doctrine of sub judice (it doesn't come up a lot in my commercial IP practice!), but this just feels like we're getting into dangerous territory.

Name Suppression Laws - Is The Penalty Right?

Cameron Slater has been in the news a lot recently.

Now it appears he is under investigation for another alleged breach of name suppression laws.

Slater will get his day in court - perhaps more than one. I won't speculate on the potential outcome of any criminal trial, as it isn't appropriate to do so.

But it is interesting to speculate just what the system can do if someone decides to flout the law on an ongoing basis. The maximum penalty for a breach of section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 is a fine of $1000. Bear in mind that is the maximum. In most cases a person found guilty will not face anything like that amount of fine. The court will assess the seriousness of the offence and the offender's ability to pay.

But people who give the system the one-finger salute don't tend to come out of it well.  The example I have previously cited is of Vince Siemer, who tried to flout defamation laws but ended up spending time in prison. On the other hand, a breach of section 139 can at worst lead to a fine. If a person was determined to disregard the law, and had no means to pay a fine, it might be difficult for the system to stop that person. Although an approach to the person's ISP might reap rewards.

Interestingly, as at the time of writing this post, Slater's website is offline.

So is the penalty for breaching section 139 too light? That depends, I suppose, on what importance we place on name suppression laws. If we accept that name suppression laws serve an important purpose, then we should arguably do everything we can to ensure effective deterrents to illegal publication exist. It could be argued that a relatively paltry fine is not a deterrent.

I have written previously that our name suppression laws are in need of a shake-up, and the Law Commission has proposed a number of mostly sensible recommendations to clarify when a judge may grant name suppression. If those recommendations are to be acted on, then it may be worth also looking at the penalties for failure to comply with a suppression order.