Archive
National Minister refers to PM as “Wild Eyed” Right-Winger!
.
.
It’s not often that Ministers of this increasingly desperate and inept government make a statement that is unerringly accurate – but on Friday 15 May, on Radio NZ’s Morning Report, GCSB Minister, Chris Finlayson did just that. Minister Finlayson painted a picture of Dear Leader John Key that every critic of this government would agree with.
Interviewing the Minister, Guyon Espiner asked;
@1.38:
Espiner: “Ok, when this become public in the NZ Herald,
one comment was that this was a back-ward looking
anti-American bunch of plonkers. That’s what these guys
are, they’re not interested in the future of New Zealand,
or making it stronger, they’re just opposed to the
government. Do you agree with that view?”
Finlayson: “Oh look you always get that kind of wild
eyed stuff from the right, just as you get the —“[drowned out by cross-talk]
Espiner: “Well that was from John Key I was quoting.
That was John Key, your prime minister who said that.”
Finlayson: “And you get the wild apocalyptic comment on
the Left. The fact of the matter is that there are lot of
people who are —” [drowned out by cross-talk]
Full interview:
.
.
Finlayson put his foot in it. The tendency of National ministers to react badly to any form of criticism has become more deeply ingrained the longer they are in power. They are unable to listen to alternative views, treating all criticism as a verdict of failure.
A prime example of this kind of aggressive defensiveness was highlighted by the “wild apocalyptic” abuse meted out by John Key to visiting US journalist, Glenn Greenwald;
“There is no mass surveillance of New Zealanders by GCSB, and there never has been mass surveillance of New Zealanders by GCSB. Now in the fullness of time we’ll respond to Dotcom’s little henchman [Glenn Greenwald], but mark my words, he’s wrong… Lets understand what’s going on here; Kim Dotcom is paying Glenn Greenwald to come to New Zealand a week before an election and he’s trying to influence New Zealanders.” – John Key, 13 September 2014
“Dotcom’s little henchman is wrong. I’m probably not going to jump in front of what information he’s got. It’s up to the henchman to go and deliver that information I suppose, but mark my words, he’s wrong. I’m right and I’ll prove I’m right.”– John Key, 13 September 2014
“This is what happens when you hack in to illegal information, when you wander down to New Zealand six days before an election trying to do Dotcom’s bidding – what happens is you get half the story.” – John Key, 14 September 2014
“People got really wound up about me calling him Dotcom’s little henchman. I would have a modicum of respect for the guy if he had the guts to turn up here six months before the election, or six months after. If this loser [Glenn Greenwald] is going to come to town and try and tell me, five days before an election, staying at the Dotcom mansion with all the Dotcom people and being paid by Dotcom, that he’s doing anything other than Dotcom’s bidding – please don’t insult me with that.” – John Key, 15 September 2014
Previous comments by John Key to Nickey Hager, Jon Stephenson, and others who dare critique this government is indicative of the Right’s sensitivity to dissent.
Which also happens to highlight Key’s sheer hypocrisy earlier this year when he had the gall to defend freedom of speech and the right of the media to question;
“The targeting of journalists going about their daily work is an attack on the fourth estate and the democratic principles of freedom of speech and expression, which must be strongly condemned.” – John Key, 8 January 2015
Indeed, Mr Key.
Perhaps condemning “targeting of journalists going about their daily work” and on “the democratic principles of freedom of speech and expression” would sound more credible if we started closer to home? And by ministers of this government?
Otherwise, Mr Key begins to sound like “wild eyed stuff from the right“, making “wild apocalyptic comment[s]”, to his own Ministers.
The truth, as always, slips out.
.
.
.
Postscript1
Previous instances of critics coming under sustained public attack by this government:
July, 2009
Natasha Fuller & Jennifer Johnston, solo-mothers
Personal WINZ details released to the media by Social Welfare Minister, Paula Bennett, to discredit both women after they criticised National for canning the Training Incentive Allowance (which Bennett herself used to pay her way through University).
May, 2011
Jon Stephenson, journalist
John Key derides Stephenson’s research into NZ activities in Afghanistan: “I’ve got no reason for NZDF to be lying, and I’ve found [Stephenson] myself personally not to be credible.”September, 2011
Nicky Hager, writer, researcher
John Key dismisses Hager’s book, on CIA involvement in NZ military activities in Afghanistan: “I don’t have time to read fiction,” quipped the Prime Minister, adding that the book contained “no smoking gun”, just supposition, which, “makes it business as normal for Nicky Hager”. (Despite the book having 1300 footnotes to referencing documentation.)October, 2011
Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury, broadcaster, blogger
Criticised John Key on Radio NZ. Subsequently banned/ “uninvited” from returning to Radio NZ as a panellist for the Afternoons with Jim Mora segment.November, 2011
Robyn Malcolm, actor
Criticises the John Key led National government for it’s failures at a Green Party campaign launch, and is, in turn, vilified by the ‘NZ Herald’, and by one-time National Party aspiring-candidate, Cameron Brewer.November, 2011
Bradley Ambrose, journalist/photographer
Investigated by police after complaint laid by the Prime Minister, over the “Teapot Tape” affair. Ambrose investigated and interviewed by Police. Media office raided. Property seized. Eventually, no charges laid. Government considered seeking costs of $13,669.45 from Ambrose – but eventually decided not to.March 2012
ACC Claimant, Bronwyn’s Pullar’s personal details are leaked to the media and to a right wing blogger, who has been given her full files, emails, etc. ACC Minister, Judith Collins, and her office are implicated.
November 2012
Dr Mike Joy, environmentalist, scientist, academic. Attacked by both John Key and right wing “media relations/publicist”, Mark Unsworth, for daring to tell the public the truth about New Zealand’s polluted waterways. On 21 November, Unsworth sent a vicious email to Dr Joy that showed the state of mind of Unsworth to be bordering on unhinged.
March, 2013
Annette Sykes, lawyer, activist, President of Mana Party
When Annette Sykes criticised the appointment of sportswoman Susan Devoy to the role of Race Relations Commissioner, Minister Judith Collins responded with “Annette Sykes is a stupid person”.
May, 2014
Katie Bradford, Parliamentary Press Gallery, and TV1 journalist. Judith Collins makes allegations to a TV3 journalist, that Ms Bradford asked the Minister to intervene on behalf of her (Bradford’s) husband to join the police force. This is refuted by Ms Bradford as untrue. Collins later apologises.
September, 2014
John Key refers to to visiting US journalist, Glenn Greenwald, as Kim “Dotcom’s little henchman” and a “loser”.
.
References
Radio NZ: Morning Report – GCSB Minister responds to Greens claims
Fairfax media: Key dismisses GCSB spying claims from Greenwald
TV3 News: Key hits back at Greenwald’s claims of mass surveillance
The Guardian: New Zealand PM deceiving public over spying claims, says Glenn Greenwald
NZ Herald: Kiwis’ data lodged with NSA – Greenwald
John Key: New Zealand condemns Paris shooting
Previous related blogposts
John Key’s “pinch of salt” style of telling the truth
Taking responsibility, National-style
A Question to Hugh Rennie, Counsel for the NZDF
Why a Four Year Parliamentary Term is not a Good Idea – Part Rua
“One law for all” – except MPs
Hypocrisy – thy name be National
The slow disintegration of a government; 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 18 May 2015.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – From a warm beach in Hawaii, With Love
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Sunday Star Times <letters@star-times.co.nz>
date: Tue, Oct 7, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor
.
The editor
Sunday Star Times.
John Key has delegated responsibility and oversight of the SIS and GCSB to Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson saying,
“Mr Finlayson will operate within the framework I set and exercise ministerial oversight of the NZSIS and GCSB, including approval of warrants.”
The last person supposedly responsible for “exercising ministerial oversight of the NZSIS and GCSB” seemed to be “on holiday in Hawaii” when sensitive information was released by the SIS to a certain right wing blogger – or unaware that one of our spy agencies was illegally spying on New Zealand citizens.
It is reassuring to know that someone, at last, in this government will be “exercising ministerial oversight of the NZSIS and GCSB”
That will be a welcome change.
That will leave Mr Key with plenty of time to fulfill his role as Minister for Tourism – from a warm beach in Hawaii.
-Frank Macskasy
[name & address supplied]
.
References
NZ Herald: John Key unveils new Cabinet line-up
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
National’s Ohariu candidate admits contact by Simon Lusk
.
.
Wellington, NZ, 31 August – At a meet-the-candidates public meeting in the Rongotai Electorate, National’s Ohariu candidate, Brett Hudson, confirmed that he had been approached by “a mate”, who passed on a message from National Party operative, Simon Lusk.
Simon Lusk is a far right-wing apparatchik who runs a private, self-styled “candidates school” for potential National Party candidates. Amongst those National MPs linked to Lusk are Taupo MP Louise Upston, Maungakiekie MP Sam Lotu-Iiga, Napier MP Chris Tremain, Rodney MP Mark Mitchell and former list MP Aaron Gilmore. Disgraced Minister, Judith Collins, is also an associate of Simon Lusk.
The media reported that some National Party insiders were so concerned by Lusk’s activities that they leaked documents to the media in 2012, and the following year. At least one senior Minister, Michael Woodhouse, discussed his growing unease with National’s president, Peter Goodfellow .
Brett Hudson
On Sunday, this blogger put a direct question to National’s Ohariu candidate, Brett Hudson, enquiring if he has had any recent contact with Simon Lusk; Lusk’s so-called “college for candidates”; Cameron Slater, or any of their associates.
Hudson confirmed that he had been approached, explaining that he had been offered Simon Lusk’s services through a third party,
“I have [had an] indirect approach. Someone else had said that, that gentleman had said if your mate wants to get involved, let me know. And I turned it down.”
When I enquired who that “someone else” had been, Hudson refused to disclose the name.
“I’m not going to name who it was, it’s not relevant to this situation.”
Hudson insisted,
“They just said, I’ve had a message from this guy Lusk, who sez if your mate is interested let me know. Tell him to get in touch.”
Hudson stated categorically that the un-named person who approached him was not National Party parliamentary staffer, Jason Ede.
When questioned further, Hudson stated,
“I’ve no contact with Slater or Lusk. I have no intention to never, nor would ever consider entering their scheme.
So I made my own message, which I think it was Facebook, I can’t recall exactly, just went to Lusk, and don’t want to participate.”
Upon further questioning, Hudson confirmed that he contacted Lusk directly to decline the offer,
“It was just a message to say I’m not interested… so I’m not involved, I’ve had no conversations.”
When I asked when this exchange took place, Hudson was vague, and said,
“I can’t recall, last year probably. Or even… probably… could’ve been late 2012. I don’t know. Honestly, ‘cos I’ve no intention of being involved.”
I asked when he was selected as a candidate and Hudson replied,
“End of April this year.”
I asked,
“End of April this year? So why would he have contacted you… in 2012?”
Hudson replied,
“Because if he wanted people to join his college, which as I understand it, and I don’t know, but it would be a paid for thing, then maybe he was touting for business, I don’t know.”
Hudson was emphatic when he denied all involvement with Lusk;
“And also I think the message was, if your mate was interested then he could contact me. And I said I’m not interested.”
Despite repeated enquiries, he refused to name who the “mate” was who acted as a go-between him and Lusk.
Interestingly, Hudson joined Facebook on 5 May 2011, so why would Lusk have offered his services through a so-called third party, rather than FB messaging Hudson directly?
Especially when Brett Hudson is one of Simon Lusk’s FB friends;
.
.
Lusk does not appear on Brett Hudson’s FB friends list.
If Hudson was approached by a “third party”, there are two well-known associates of Simon Lusk who appear on Brett Hudson’s Facebook Friends list; right-wing lawyer Jordan Williams, and blogger, David Farrar;
.
.
.
Chris Finlayson
At another public meeting in Rongotai, on the same day, National’s Treaty Negotiations Minister and Attornery General, Chris Finlayson was also asked what dealings, if any, he had had with Simon Lusk or Cameron Slater.
At this point, as I put the question to Finlayson, National Party supporters attempted to shout me down. Nearly all middle-aged men and women, their behaviour was mob-like, reminding me of the “F**k John Key” Youtube video we have seen recently, and attempted to stop me from questioning the Minister. They took particular exception to a hand-held voice-recorder in my hand. One particularly observant older National supporter yelled, with a hint of panic,
“He’s got a recorder! He’s got a recorder!”
I turned to the greying-haired lady and responded,
“Why yes, so it is.”
The chair of the meeting felt the need to address the matter and called for a voice “vote” on whether or not I should record Finlayson’s response to my question. The loud vocal braying from the National Party supporters would have done a village mob proud, with one National supporter sitting directly behind me adding,
“Sit down! Not relevant!”
At the Chair’s request, I turned my recorder off and said,
“But I will put the question, as it’s an important election issue.”
Minister Finlayson responded (with far more grace than his supporters, I might add). The following notes were jotted contemporaneously,
“No, [I] haven’t been contacted by them. I haven’t read the book. But all I know is I think they called me a tosser who tried to speak latin.”
I thanked the minister, sat down, and turned to the National Party supporter seated behind me,
“Are you a National or Conservative Party (he had cheered and clapped for several comments made by the Conservative candidate) supporter?”
“Doesn’t matter, irrelevent,” he replied.
“Well, it is relevent. You’ve expressed strong views and I’d like to know where you’re coming from.”
“No, irrelevent, just like your question to Chris,” he said.
I replied, “it can’t be ‘irrelevent’, because it’s a major election issue.”
“Well,” he said with some smugness, “we’ll have to agree to disagree then, won’t we?”
I replied,
“Really? That didn’t stop you from trying to shut me down, did it?”
At the conclusion of the public question and answer session, I approached Chris Finlayson and introduced myself. I asked if he would go on record, to answer my question. The Minister seemed quite happy to do so, and added an interesting ‘aside’.
I asked,
“So you’ve never had no contact or anything with Simon Lusk or Cameron Slater, say in the last year or so?”
Finlayson replied, without any hesitation,
“I’ve never had contact with them.”
He added,
“I suggest you ask the same question of Stuart Nash, the Labour candidate in Napier.”
When I asked why I should ask Nash that question, Finlayson refused to say why, and instead repeated that I should put the question to him.
Accordingly, I have put the question to Stuart Nash via Facebook messaging,
Kia ora Stuart,
I’m putting together a story for the Daily Blog, regarding Simon Lusk and Cameron Slater, and your name has come up in discussions with certain people. Can you confirm what dealings you have had with Simon Lusk (or his intermediary) , and what services he has offered you for your election campaign? Have you paid any money for any services he might offer, or has any amount been agreed on? Furthermore, what was the nature of the agreement and did it refer to the Mana-Internet Party? Also, are you aware of other Labour candidates who are currently in contact with Simon Lusk (or his intermediary, or Cameron Slater). I look forward to your responses on these questions, to shed some light on matters that have arisen.
The message was seen at 1.46am on 1 September, but no reply has been forthcoming.
Mr Nash, if you wish to reply and address the question, the opportunity is still open.
It is the contention of this blogger that Cameron Slater and his dealings are a matter of intense public interest. People who are putting themselves up for election to Parliament should have nothing to hide when it comes to disclosing what contacts they have had with controversial public figures and matters of considerable public interest.
I will continue to ask these questions, and noisy supporters of National (or Labour) would be well advised that attempting to shout down the truth does not serve their interests.
References
NZ Herald: National Party had high-level concerns over member’s influence
NZ Herald: National turns on hard right advisor
Fairfax media: Seriously happy to upset the status quo
TVNZ News: National Party selects Ohariu candidate
Facebook: Simon Lusk FB Page – Friends
NZ Parliament: Chris Finlayson
Previous related blogposts
Power Struggle in the National Party?!
David Farrar – Challenging Slater for Sultan of Sleaze?
National MP admits collusion with bosses to set up strike-breaking law!!
Other blogs
The Paepae: Simon Lusk in the headlines again!
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 2 September 2014
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Focus on Politics for 7 February 2014
.
– Focus on Politics –
.
– Friday 7 February 2014 –
.
– Chris Bramwell –
.
A weekly analysis of significant political issues.
Friday after 6:30pm and Saturday at 5:10pm
Politicians converging on Waitangi Marae this year were given a relatively easy run, with a noisy but respectful protest, and a few fish dropped at the Prime Minister’s feet. History was made though – with women allowed to speak on the marae for the first time, 15 years after the former Labour Party leader Helen Clark was refused permission to speak.
.
.
Click to listen: Focus on Politics for 7 February 2014 ( 17′ 36″ )
.
.
.
= fs =
Not so sensible justice
.
.
By now we should all be aware of the influence and power of the internet. It has allowed the world into our homes, workplaces, and lives, in an intimate way.
It can facilitate relationships; be a powerful tool for popular causes; assist the democratic process; and it can be a vital tool for rapid acquisition of information – a boon for bloggers like me. On occassion it has allowed us to “meld” into a single, focused ‘mind’, to exert a coherent action to affect the physical world.
It also has it’s much darker side. The internet can reflect the most base of human emotions; hatred, anger, paranoia, fanaticism, xenophobia, a thirst for revenge, and other irrationalities.
Those who maintain that the internet is somehow less “real” than the physical world underestimate it’s influence in our lives.
I foresee the growth of a potential great evil, which will place incredible pressures on our judicial system and perhaps even undermine it.
We have already witnessed individuals using the net to circumvent name suppression, or to foment mass-hysteria targetting prominent individuals.
Soon after David Bain was found not guilty on five counts of murder in June 2009, at least one website sprang up vociferously maintaining his guilt, and several on-line fora were filled with strident commentary expressing all manner of irrational accusations.
It has been suggested that the concerted force of this stridency had a degree of influence on Judith Collins throwing out Justice Binnie’s report and recommendations for compensation.
There was the case of far right-wing blogger, Cameron Slater, who in September 2010, wilfully broke name suppression of convicted New Zealanders, and in the process identified the victim of a sex-abuse case. He justified his actions as being some kind of (mis-guided) campaign against name suppression. (See: Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater guilty)
And recently there was the chap who published the names and images of those alleged to have attacked cricketer, Jesse Ryder.
Jordan Mason felt he could take it upon himself to “name and shame” the two men charged with assaulting Jesse Ryder – even though the pair have not yet been tried or convicted. (see: Jesse Ryder attack: Accused felt he had to ‘name and shame’ men)
Garth McVicar’s latest proposal is another step further along the road toward a dystopian near-future. One where Cyber Mob ‘Justice’ holds undue influence on our judicial system,
.
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ: Trust to launch website to ‘name and shame’ judges
.
Garth McVicar’s populist vigilantee organisation, the so-called “Sensible Sentencing Trust” is planning a website that has one core function; to be an instrument of punitive reaction against judges who do not measure up to the Trust’s vision of retributive ‘justice’.
This “Naming & Shaming” has one agenda only – to encourage and foment an influence on our judiciary that is separate from the law, and puts power into the hands of a small clique (McVicar and his cronies). It would exploit the lowest common denominator in our society – ignorance, fear, hatred, and a hunger for violent revenge – and exploit Mob Mentality to achieve it’s ends.
Who amongst us is not disgusted by the vileness of certain criminals and their horrific misdeeds. Our primal urge is to exact a fitting revenge – usually involving copious amounts of pain, and a much-shortened life-span. It’s an urge that lurks in the deepest recesses of our reptilian brains.
As a consequence of the socialising aspects of civilisation, we’ve left those urges (mostly) behind us. Though it can be useful when governments plan resource-wars against other nations.
The ‘net – as we also know – allows that veneer of civilisation to be stripped away and our primal instincts for punitive revenge to surface and expressed in emotive terms. The cloak of anonymity can embolden the meekest.
Have a look at the political messageboard forum on TradeMe, and you’ll understand what I mean.
McVicar’s group understand the power of the ‘net to further their agenda for a more punitive society – and they are going hard out to achieve it.
On this issue, I stand with Justice Minister Judith Collins and Attorney-General Chris Finlayson; who oppose this ill-disguised step toward mob-”justice”.
Little wonder that the New Zealand Bar Association condemned this lunatic idea,
We join with the Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General in condemning this proposal. The Bar Association regards the step as being ill-considered, totally unnecessary and likely to give rise to illegality as contempt of court.
What is being proposed amounts to little more than on-line talk back radio – likely to attract debate and comment of similar quality but with the added disadvantage (or advantage, depending upon one’s perspective) of being permanently available and accessible in the blogosphere.
Judges have an extremely difficult job. They are constantly required to make hard decisions under the mounting pressure of increasing case loads, exacerbated by diminishing resources. Their decisions are rightly the subject of appeal processes which are open and transparent. The daily work of a Judge in court is done publicly and is scrutinised by the news media. If the conduct of a judge is questioned, that conduct can be the subject of complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.
Acknowledgement: Scoop – NZBA President on Sensible Sentencing Trust Website Proposal
The author of this statement, Stephen Mills QC, added – and I emphasise the point,
In our society the freedom to criticise is a valued and protected right, but as with most rights there is concomitant responsibility. The responsibility here is that criticism of the judicial arm of our democracy must be responsible, accurate and measured. These characteristics are frequently absent on talk back radio and they are unlikely to be a feature of the invited public comment on this website, given its stated objective.
Making critical comments via email to a website affords the critic a degree of anonymity that is likely to encourage a lack of responsibility in what is said. This is likely to improperly and unfairly undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.
Acknowledgement: IBID
Understandably, the Bar Association has labelled McVicar’s dangerous idea as “irresponsible” – because that it precisely what it is. The gradual under-mining of the judiciary would become the inevitable reality. Ultimately, no one could possibly benefit from this.
It is worthwhile to consider that there are sufficient numbers of disturbed individuals who could take the existence of such a website as a license for vigilanteeism. Even those with less nefarious intentions, acting with collective thought and “righteous” belief, could place pressure on individual judges who would have little means to resist.
Remember the fuss made over the proposed “Wellywood” sign on Wellington’s hills? This was the online response,
.
Source: Google
.
Which lead to physical-world protest action,
.
Acknowledgement: Otago Daily Times – Poll shows majority opposed to Wellywood sign
.
Now extrapolate into others areas of human activity.
Law enforcement and members of the judiciary are vulnerable. As happened recently in the United States (though no evidence yet exists of internet-vigilanteeism being a factor),
.
Acknowledgement: BBC – Texas district attorney third law official killed in weeks
.
On 18 April, on Radio NZ’s Nine To Noon programme, Kathryn Ryan interviewed “Sensible Sentencing Trust” spokesperson, Garth McVicar. He told Kathryn,
“… So ultimately the way it’ll work is some of the judges that are brought to our attention, and we do our due diligence and think, you know, by our research that we believe they are consistently getting it consistently getting it wrong, they will be named on that site, as will some of the previous history and some of the decisions they’ve made that we believe earn them the right to be on the site.”
Acknowledgement: Nine to Noon – “Judge the Judges” website to be launched
In other words – we have the potential for a witch-hunt for judges who, by McVicar’s “research that we believe they are consistently getting it consistently getting it wrong, [and] they will be named on that site “.
Some obvious questions are,
- Who decides the criteria of McVicar’s stated “due diligence“?
- Who will be tasked with bringing “judges… to our attention“?
- Who decides what constitutes “consistently getting it wrong”?
- Who decides what aspects of “previous history” will “ earn them the right to be on the site“?
- What right of appeal or response will judges be given? The right of appeal is the most basic of rights for a person accused of a “mis-deed”?
- How will the information be presented?
- How will judges be identified?
- Who will be accountable if information is incorrect, or presented out of context?
This Web Vigilanteeism is an unpredented and dangerous road that McVicar and his mates are taking.
Later that same day, on Radio NZ’s Jim Mora’s panel-programme, to a question from the Host as to how such a website could be moderated, Garth McVicar was at pains to reassure listeners,
“… I’m not sure if many of your listeners know Ruth Money but she’s no fool. And some of the people that are behind her and putting this together are no fools. So it will be well monitored. It won’t become a rant, for, you know, a rave site for people to rave on like some of the other sites I believe are. I don’t bother even looking into them. This is going to maintain the credibility of the organisation… “
Sorry – no. That’s not reassuring at all. McVicar cannot control the end-use of any information that his group publishes on the web. Ruth Money (a SST administrator/spokesperson) may be “no fool” – but who knows about the state of mind of people rreading it?
And if a judge comes to harm – can the SST be held to account?
After all, they are demanding that judges be held to account.
Earlier in this piece, I wrote of the “growth of a potential great evil”.
My fear is that taken to it’s end-conclusion, ‘net-based “Justice” could begin to influence the judicial process more and more. The day when citizens go on-line to ‘vote’ on the Guilt or Innocence of a person charged with a crime is a far-fetched fantasy.
I would like to keep it that way.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 21 April 2013.
.
*
.
References
Otago Daily Times – Poll shows majority opposed to Wellywood sign (24 May 2011)
BBC – Texas district attorney third law official killed in weeks (1 April 2013)
Scoop – NZBA President on Sensible Sentencing Trust Website Proposal (18 April 2013)
Radio NZ – Trust to launch website to ‘name and shame’ judges (18 April 2013)
Radio NZ – Nine to Noon – “Judge the Judges” website to be launched (18 April 2013, audio)
Radio NZ – The Panel with Irene Gardiner and Michael Deaker (Part 1) (18 April 2013, audio)
.
.
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 