Russel Norman to Colin Craig – Bring it on

Written By: - Date published: 7:28 am, February 18th, 2014 - 121 comments
Categories: conservative party, greens, russel norman - Tags:

With the hope that this comment will not result in a solicitor’s letter from Chapman Tripp it seems that Colin Craig is overly sensitive to criticism.  He has had Chapman Tripp write to Green’s leader Russel Norman seeking an apology and retraction for Norman saying the following:

Now the thing about Colin Craig is he thinks that a woman’s place is in the kitchen and a gay man’s place is in the closet.”

As Craig is obviously very sensitive about his reputation I would ask people to be careful about how they comment but I have heard much, much, much worse being said about politicians.  And it is not unknown for Conservative politicians to prefer that women occupy traditional roles in marriage including those that require significant amounts of time in the kitchen and gay rights do not normally feature large in those policies which conservatives advocate for.

If Craig is upset that he has been wrongly maligned for being unsympathetic to gay rights then he could come out and say what he actually believes in.  Most Kiwis prefer that people are up front about what they believe in.

Craig does seem to have a habit of reaching for the lawyers when someone says something that is not nice about him.  The last occasion was when the Civilian claimed that Craig said this about Maurice Williamson’s speech on gay rainbows and the Marriage Equality bill:

Williamson likes to talk about big gay rainbows,” said Craig, “but it would help if he understood what the rainbow actually means. After Noah’s flood, God painted a giant rainbow across the sky, which was a message that he would never again flood the world, unless we made him very angry. And we have.”

The article was clearly satirical and I should add, quickly, that Craig never actually said this.  It was a joke.

The threat of action against Ben Uffindell resulted in this outstanding response by Danyl McLaughlan which has to be read to be appreciated.  The failure of Craig to get his lawyers to write to McLaughlan seeking a retraction of the statement that that he (Craig) enjoyed having his nipples grated with a citrus zester could make some wonder about the allegation although I again hasten to add that I am sure it is not true.  As well this further allegation by Uffindell that Craig smacked other people’s children for money passed without response.  For completion I am certain that this also was biting funny satire meant to be enjoyed by people laughing and I am sure that it is not true either.

Craig has not been beyond saying bad things about others.  For instance he recently insulted all young Kiwi women by claiming that they were the most promiscuous in the world.  Perhaps to respond there could be a group defamation action by young kiwi women against Mr Craig for making that allegation.

To be honest Craig needs to get over it.  Politics is a tough game and these sorts of issues should be debated publicly and passionately.  Sending lawyers letters and attempting to resolve these debates in Court is ludicrous in the extreme.

And the case of Atkinson v Lange has established a high protective threshold for defamation cases brought by politicians.  The case recognised a defence of qualified privilege for comments about the actions and qualities of actual or prospective politicians so far as those actions or qualities directly affect their capacity to meet public responsibilities.  Generally discussion about his social views must, in the absence of malice, be protected.

Norman has responded by saying he will not be apologising and has referred to a tweet from Craig where he suggested that homosexuality was not normal.  Norman will obviously not be backing down.  The two of them should find a hall somewhere and debate the issues.  This will allow Craig to say what he does believe in, quickly and clearly.

The stupid thing about defamation proceedings is that it takes months and months for the debate to be advanced.  If Craig just said what he does believe in and responded to the allegations then this debate can happen rather quickly.  Reaching for the lawyers will have a chilling effect on the debate and will stifle a discussion that should be robust and vigorous.

Craig should also be wary about the Streisand effect.  And he needs to grow a thicker hide.  I hear this is vital for anyone wanting to have a long career in politics.

lprent: Putting this post on moderation. If Colin Craig wants to screw up his political career by being a thin-skinned prima donna like Barbara Streisand, then I’d prefer the site to not be too closely involved in watching the process. On the other hand, Colin Craig is a total munter if he doesn’t think that this is going to make him an object of ridicule – especially by the blogs. The weak-kneed gutless wimp (my opinion) should decide if he wants to be a politician or not. Because Russel Norman’s opinion of his attitudes is going to be the least of the scrutiny that every politician can expect. So I will personally select the comments that are allowed through here to ensure that I will personally get involved in the fun.

BTW: Check out Andrew Geddis at Pundit saying exactly the same opinion as Russel Norman. I’d expect that Chapman Tripp will be overjoyed at the fees.

121 comments on “Russel Norman to Colin Craig – Bring it on ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. bad12 1
    18 February 2014 at 7:40 am

    It appears that the Electoral Commission really need seek an urgent law change surrounding just who can be eligible to stand as a candidate in the up-coming general election,

    It’s becoming glaringly apparent that all candidates must have physical measurements taken, a simple metrical test, to ascertain just how far above actual Terra Firma, while perambulating, an individual candidates knuckles are positioned in relation to that earth,

    This from Colin Craig on TV3News last night, ”I don’t expect gays to have to hide in their closets”, makes me believe that Colin must either perambulate with His knuckles either in contact with the pavement or not far above it, or, Craig has a well developed cynically amusing sense of humor and is simply taking the piss big time,

    Seriously tho, to have no understanding of the phraseology when speaking of the gay community being either ‘in’ or ‘out’ of the closet in the year 2014 would have most of accusing such an individual of either having been kidnapped by aliens and whisked off to a planet populated by functional idiots for the largest part of their existence, or, scratch the kidnapped by aliens bit and the end result is simply ”a functional idiot”,

    Of course, once the laughter at Craig has exhausted itself on the stupidity/hilarity of whatever provokes the neurons inside the cranial cavity of Craig to have him continually talk with one foot or the other firmly wedged either in his anus or olfactory hole we have to examine whether any Court would except that Craig could be offended by the making of a statement that He had no actual understanding of taking Russell Normans speech to the Big-Gay-Out literally instead of figuratively as the allusions to Craig’s foibles were obviously intended by Russell,

    Of course this is Politics with a capital P, and Craig, having made Himself a public figure can expect little sympathy from the Court having the precedent of the Lange defamation case which placed a significant hurdle in front of those practicing the dark art of politics to successfully mount defamation cases, in the jargon of the streets the Judge simply voiced the view that those involved in politics should simply ”harden the f**k” up” when cut deeply by the barbs of those that oppose them,

    Drilling down a little deeper, is Craig, having been used for month’s prior to 2014 as a potential coalition partner for National/slash media whore simply suffering from a media attention deficit having had more than His fair share of bizarre, stupid, and, dumb comments wrung from His lips,and then, being tossed aside like a blow up rubber sex toy having had multiple users all with bad hygenic habits,

    Is it a coincidence that the day after Russell Norman delivers a keynote speech to open the Green Parties 2014 election campaign that up pops Craig ranting and raving about having His ego offended by a couple of phrases Russell Norman used in a previous speech, which incidently Craig would seem to have no understanding of…

    [karol: maybe this should be moved to micky’s post on this topic. I’ve noted Lynn wants to moderate comments on this topic]

    • bad12 1.1
      18 February 2014 at 8:20 am

      Yeah true, its a bit of a loooong comment and i was typing it and didn’t see the post come up…

  2. You_Fool 2
    18 February 2014 at 7:42 am

    Can’t we all be Spartacus? Can he sue everyone if we all call him names? It might revive the NZ post service at the very least…

    • phillip ure 2.1
      18 February 2014 at 9:57 am

      @ you fool..

      ..i’ll kick it off..

      [deleted]

      ..(there ya go..!..)

      ..phillip ure..

      [lprent: You need to look at what the law on defamation is. In that case you were stating as fact what I suspect was really opinion. If you did think it was fact, then you’d have needed to show why you thought it was fact. It is hard to express that with dots. Usually links are more effective. 😈 ]

  3. karol 3
    18 February 2014 at 7:50 am

    Labour’s David Parker offers to defend Norman:

    Parker, a lawyer and former attorney-general, defended Dr Norman’s claim as ‘‘absolutely fair comment’’.

    ‘‘The idea politicians can’t make value judgments is wrong and if Colin Craig is so silly as to think he can repress public criticisms of his extreme positions he is both wrong in law and principle and I will be one of many lawyers to offer to represent him for free in court. It’s a nonsense.’’

  4. Anne 4
    18 February 2014 at 7:59 am

    This fool has made a lot of money out of real-estate. Real-estate agents are not always known for their honesty and trustworthiness. He thinks he can get his way by threatening to sue anyone who says something about him he doesn’t like. I call that harassment and intimidation – a criminal offence.

    Btw, he made a statement on RNZ this morning calling for “informed” political debates. Informed? This is the most ignorant, backward looking uninformed politician that has ever walked this land.

    • phillip ure 4.1
      18 February 2014 at 9:59 am

      ! anne..

      “..This is the most ignorant, backward looking uninformed politician that has ever walked this land..”

      careful..!

      ..he’ll sue ya..!

      ..easy to prove tho’..eh..?

      ..phillip ure..

    • The Pink Postman 4.2
      18 February 2014 at 4:22 pm

      An absolute plonker Annie ,where the hell has he come from ?However it does make one realize just how desperate Key is for power.

  5. framu 5
    18 February 2014 at 8:01 am

    on the rnz, colin was trying to claim that all his previous lawyers letters resulted in retractions (7 or 8 of them!) and that (in his fevered imagination) means that the other parties had agreed with him.

    No, colin – that means they didnt have the means or will to get into a legal dispute!

    What kind of moron thinks that getting a result via legal threats means youve won some kind of debate on an issue?

    If colin really wants to raise the debate he should suck it up, put the lawyers back in their box, stop issuing threats and you know… debate

  6. One Anonymous Bloke 6
    18 February 2014 at 8:10 am

    Suggestion for a private member’s bill:

    The Just Deserts Act.

    The purpose of this act is the compulsory marriage of Colin Craig to Cameron Slater…

  7. Zorr 7
    18 February 2014 at 8:12 am

    The Conservatives are a precious wee sausage-fest, are they not? Maybe they should take the advice of their National bed mates and zip it.

    • Rosie 7.1
      18 February 2014 at 11:56 am

      Yes, where are you now Judith Collins? Is Craig in your sights for being a “sensitive wee sausage”?

      If not, he should be.

  8. bad12 8
    18 February 2014 at 8:14 am

    ”I don’t expect gays to have to hide in their closets”-so said Colin Craig on TV3News last night, i will admit to burning a couple of brain cells and having a near death experience as i choked upon my laughter at that portrayal of what actually occurs inside Colin’s nut,

    Not a f**king lot has to be the considered opinion of anyone having been subjected to that one sentence from the Conservative Party leader,

    If Craig has not the slightest understanding to the allusion inherent in the modern day English language use of gays being ”in” or ”out of the closet, and, ”women’s place is in the kitchen” then how the hell could Craig or anyone else be offended by a statement made with such references in them,

    Is there something going on here that we are not seeing, the day after Russell Norman makes a ground breaking much publicized speech about solar energy up pops Colin Craig with this absolutely bizarre claim which the news media all too happily use to push the intent and content of Dr Normans speech out of the headlines,

    A cynic, and at such an accusation i would have to innocently ask,”who me”,would have to begin a process of thought wondering aloud if Craig hasn’t been deliberately primed to make such a bizarre outburst with the intent of gaining the very result that it has,

    That cynic would then have to pose the question, is the job of work Craig has just done, with the aid of a more than compliant media, part payment, the deposit so to speak, for having National not stand a candidate in the East Coast Bays electorate in effect leaving this electorate open for Craig to ‘win’ it in 2014…

  9. mickysavage 9
    18 February 2014 at 8:17 am

    Andrew Geddis in his post suggested that bloggers everywhere should try and write a blogpost that says what Russel Norman did about Colin Craig, but in a way that avoids getting a letter from Chapman Tripp threatening you with a defamation action. He then nominated Scott Yorke who has replied with this beauty …

    http://imperatorfish.com/2014/02/18/im-sorry-colin-really-sorry/

    It is hard to imagine being threatened with defamation for apologising so profusely!

    Who next?

  10. Lanthanide 10
    18 February 2014 at 8:55 am

    One strategy for Russel Norman would be something like this:

    “I unreservedly apologise to Colin Craig for incorrectly stating my opinion about what he thinks as a fact, when clearly it is only my opinion. He is indeed correct that it is impossible for me to factually know what he thinks, and that I misspoke in my comments about him earlier.

    I therefore withdraw and retract the statement about what Colin Craig thinks.

    While on the subject of Colin Craig, I would like to offer my opinion that to me, it seems like he thinks that a woman’s place is in the kitchen and a gay man’s place is in the closet. Now I may be wrong in this opinion, but it is my personal belief based on his comments and behaviour in the past.”

    That should satisfy the legal defamation case, while clearly pointing out what a petty little man Colin is.

  11. Debbie Brown 11
    18 February 2014 at 8:59 am

    I couldn’t help laughing at Mr Craig in this morning’s Herald. Apparently (well, according to him), he makes an excellent roast and this is clear evidence that he isn’t at all sexist.

    Sorry no link, I’m typing this on my phone. But hopefully even Mr Craig wouldn’t sue me for saying he makes a good roast?

    • Tracey 11.1
      18 February 2014 at 9:19 am

      LOLOL

    • bad12 11.2
      18 February 2014 at 9:30 am

      You could always pose the question: ‘If a competition were held tomorrow seeking the public’s view of who they would vote for as best portraying in public life all the attributes needed to fulfill a role of ”The Village Idiot” do you think Colin Craig win by a country mile???…

    • phillip ure 11.3
      18 February 2014 at 11:28 am

      @debbie brown..

      ..i think you would be more in danger of being sued..

      ..if you claimed he had ‘burnt’ the roast…

      ..’chem-trails’-col..roast-burner…

      ..phillip ure..

      • Debbie Brown 11.3.1
        18 February 2014 at 12:57 pm

        Lol, but burning the roast would be the manly, nongay thing to do – wouldn’t it? So no fear of defamation proceedings over that!

        He probably drowns it in Watties tomato sauce too, like a good manly kiwi bloke. Ugh

    • Jenny 11.4
      20 February 2014 at 4:17 pm

      “Apparently (well, according to him), he makes an excellent roast…”

      So if you want a decent roast… Who ya gonna call?

  12. Bob 12
    18 February 2014 at 9:14 am

    Huh, personal attack by Russell Norman against an oppoition party and no-one see’s this one as a sign of desperation…..has Russell seen bad internal polling? Has he run out of policy ideas? Or does Mickeysavage just think that Stephanie Rodgers was being a sensitive wee sausage last week? http://thestandard.org.nz/the-politics-of-nastiness/

    • lprent 12.1
      18 February 2014 at 9:28 am

      …no-one see’s this one as a sign of desperation…

      Noone with any understanding of politics would. It is part and parcel of the political debate. John Key does it all of the time. Winston Peters has made a political career out of it etc etc It is part of the process of examining the fitness of people for public office where their personal characteristics and the ability to engage in robust debate are challenged. So far Colin Craig appears to be coming up short.

      But I guess your problem is that you don’t understand politics, and based on your past comments you’re only trolling anyway.

      BTW: Just finished reading an article about a nice study about the personality defects of trolls. It turns out that they tend strongly towards the sociopathic and sadistic. What a surprise. They certainly bring out the sadistic responses from me.

      • Bob 12.1.1
        18 February 2014 at 12:12 pm

        lprent – I don’t so much troll as refrain from commenting until something really sticks out as blatant hypocracy/requires a retort as noone else seems to spot the obvious flaws in their statements….I see you had no such comments on the ‘Politics of Nastiness’ post just last week, have you only just obtained said ‘understanding of politics’ yourself?
        I agree Colin Craig is coming up well short during this campaign so far, but so is David Cunliffe and even Russell Norman is starting to show weaknesses for the first time I can remember, I am sure you wouldn’t have noticed this with your rose tinted glasses on though.

        • lprent 12.1.1.1
          18 February 2014 at 1:07 pm

          you had no such comments on the ‘Politics of Nastiness’ post just last week

          Different topic. This one could have been titled “The problems of a dickhead trying to be a politician”. As you know I’m more interested in that topic and similar topics. And I have to work the brain on the odd occassion. That is when I forgo commenting and just moderate instead. At present I’m just testing code, so I get some time to comment.

          I am sure you wouldn’t have noticed this with your rose tinted glasses on though.

          Just as peering into the ultraviolet like a weird parody of Elton John has prevented you from noticing the disintegration of ACT into the cesspool of quite unelectable libertarians.

          Or that John Key is looking less and less in control of either himself or his minions recently. Dumping his poor deluded sockpuppet in it to prevent close scrutiny of a possible misuse of the security forces was pretty bad….

          • Bob 12.1.1.1.1
            18 February 2014 at 4:48 pm

            “Just as peering into the ultraviolet like a weird parody of Elton John has prevented you from noticing the disintegration of ACT into the cesspool of quite unelectable libertarians” I have thought they have been a cesspool of unelectable libertarians ever since Don Brash and John Banks became their ‘dream team’ (the fact they make Rodney Hide look good speaks for itself!), they have not and will not be a significant enough part of this election to even warrant mentioning.

    • George D 12.2
      18 February 2014 at 9:32 am

      LOLWUT?

      The Greens did a media focused release of an energy policy on Sunday – do you think they’re interested in distracting from that?

      • Bob 12.2.1
        18 February 2014 at 12:13 pm

        Obviously, otherwise Russell Norman would have simply stated that those were simply his opinions and this whole saga would go away. He hasn’t, and now he has completely distracted from his policy release.

        • mickysavage 12.2.1.1
          18 February 2014 at 12:32 pm

          Do you honestly think that Norman would have foreseen the possibility of being threatened with defamation proceedings because of what he said? If he did I am sure that he would have said it in Parliament and not outside.

          • Bob 12.2.1.1.1
            18 February 2014 at 4:53 pm

            No, I don’t, but as soon as he was threatened with defamation he should have tried to diffuse the situation by stating it was simply his opinion and keep the attention on his latest policy release rather than giving more limelight to Colin Craig.

            • mickysavage 12.2.1.1.1.1
              18 February 2014 at 8:52 pm

              Why?

              Why should Norman back down? Why shouldn’t Craig?

              • Bob …
                19 February 2014 at 10:40 am

                Are you serious? Let’s say as an example, I come out in public and say that you have been cheating on your wife with a sitting Labour MP, are you saying that you should apologise to me if this caused you distress? Colin Craig is an idiot, and in my opinion isn’t up to the job as a politician in NZ, but to say he should apologise for being publically maligned is equally idiotic (or should you now be apologising for me calling your question idiotic? Is that how it works now?)

                Russell Norman has allowed himself to get in a public shit fight with a guy percieved as the village idiot and dragged the focus away from his latest policy release, either Russell has internal polling to say this policy has a negative effect on their vote (unlikely), or he has stuffed up by allowing this to continue.

    • framu 12.3
      18 February 2014 at 9:40 am

      one is a pollie making a statement in a relevant setting, based on public statements by their opponent – the other is an attack based on clothing

      on what planet are those two situation even remotely the same?

      FFS bob – thats really weak – either or trooling hard or your just as much of a cry baby as “crazy (in my opinion) colin”

    • phillip ure 12.4
      18 February 2014 at 10:07 am

      @ bob..

      ..is that you..?..’chem-trails’-col..?

      ..phillip ure..

    • Chooky 12.5
      18 February 2014 at 11:13 am

      @ Bob…it i a sign of desperation that the Right has their finger on the legal defamation trigger.

      John Key after having spying details on Winston for a long time has no coalition partners

      …. except NACT “dead horse” ( with its British Cambridge philosophy man jetted in to desperately try to act as vet and revive the moribund beast )

      …. and Colin the God Fathers “Chosen” Mr ” Spanker” and “sue the pants off you”……inwhich case Norman, the red headed Greeny Aussie, seemed a likely best candidate as the naughty boy deserving of a spanking

      imo…NACT will be going after the 800,000+ non voters( who would normally vote Labour) and if they can frame anyone on the Left for defamation they will threaten to sue the pants off them …they will also be trying to frame anyone on the Left as racist ( probably to cover their own tracks on Neo Lib policies which have most severely impacted on Maori and Pacific Islanders)

      …

  13. Tracey 13
    18 February 2014 at 9:21 am

    Lucky Labour and Green MP’s don’t sue national Minister’s on a regular basis then. Winsto and Colin Craig at a cabinet table. Cameras please!

    • bad12 13.1
      18 February 2014 at 9:39 am

      True Tracey, it would have been a much watch comedy watching Slippery the Prime Minister trying to justify in the Court His ”Labour/Greens are the Devil-Beast” outburst,

      Considering my comment above to Debbie Brown about a competition to decide who in public life would best fulfill a role of The Village Idiot i now have to conclude the field has just doubled in size and there’s a odds on probability of a dead heat…

      • Tracey 13.1.1
        18 February 2014 at 9:46 am

        and Dunne proving his Taleban comment.

        • bad12 13.1.1.1
          18 February 2014 at 10:06 am

          LOLZ Tracey, i fogot that one, in the Village Idiot Stakes run in conjunction with the Wellington Cup at the Trentham Racecourse we are putting together a fine field of fillies…

  14. Cancerman 14
    18 February 2014 at 9:25 am

    To play devils advocate this is getting Colin attention. Also Colin only has to get to his 5%, which means he doesn’t have to appeal to the normal NZer who is put off by this behaviour. Just creates the impression he is the Conservative underdog to this, his target, 5%. By Norman letting this continue to a court gives Colin more attention close to election. This attention however is generally only good for the small parties and won’t be benefical to the Greens, who in this fight are the big established party.

    • lprent 14.1
      18 February 2014 at 9:32 am

      If this goes to court then apart from status hearings and challenges, it is far likely to be there in 2015 or even 2016 than it is in 2014. How small do you think that the courts backlog is?

    • Tracey 14.2
      18 February 2014 at 9:47 am

      Judging by some comments at kiwiblog I saw today… Colin might be stealing from that crowd…

    • ianmac 14.3
      18 February 2014 at 10:06 am

      That’s what I think. Those who would vote Conservative Party would likely be sympathetic to the alleged, “Now the thing about Colin Craig is he thinks that a woman’s place is in the kitchen and a gay man’s place is in the closet.”
      “It is what we really really want,” say the potential voters.

  15. George D 15
    18 February 2014 at 9:26 am

    Dr Russel Norman’s statement:

    https://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/statement-green-party-co-leader-dr-russel-norman-colin-craig-s-allegation-defamation

    “I stand by my views, made both in my opening speech to Parliament earlier this year and restated at the Big Gay Out on Sunday February 9.

    “Colin Craig has said that gay relationships aren’t normal and that New Zealand women are promiscuous, I think those views are offensive.

    “I and the Green Party are proud of our record of fighting for rights and freedoms for New Zealand women and the gay community. I think our position on these issues and Colin Craig’s are very different.

    “It is clear to all that my statements were made within the context of political speeches, at the beginning of an election year.

    “It is only right that politicians robustly set out their positions, and I think that if Colin Craig wants to enter the political debate he needs to accept the criticisms that are going to come his way. That is just part and parcel of robust political debate.

    “Colin Craig now has a track record for making allegations of defamation if someone says something about his views that he doesn’t like. I don’t plan to back down from my statements because of a lawyer’s letter.

    “New Zealanders want to hear freely from their politicians. Colin Craig appears to want all our statements run past lawyers. We are not going to engage in that style of politics.

    “This election offers real choices for New Zealanders. And my message to women and gay New Zealanders is that I and the Green Party back your rights and freedoms.”

    • Rosie 15.1
      18 February 2014 at 11:54 am

      Beautifully said. Clearly showing who is the bigger person is. Right there, in that statement.

      If anything will C…Y Colin Craig be damaged by the path he is so childishly pursuing?

  16. captain hook 16
    18 February 2014 at 9:35 am

    colin cwaig is a theologaster and a pseudo christian. there is no love in hi sscheme. he really thinks he is moses so I guess he should convert to judaism.

  17. Roy 17
    18 February 2014 at 9:37 am

    It is my considered opinion that Colin Craig is too thin-skinned for politics. (Is it safe for me to say that?)

    • Jenny Kirk 17.1
      18 February 2014 at 10:39 am

      I think I might have called him something defamatory on the Labour website – too. Roy.
      Didn’t even think about it …… just called him a twerp. That’s a personal opinion though, so maybe I’m safe !

      And btw – Mickey – I too looked up the Pundit, and then Imperator Fish – both beautifully written pieces of “up yours” to Colin whatsit. So if you haven’t yet read them – Standard posters – do get onto them ….. they’ll keep you chuckling for hours

    • Tracey 17.2
      18 February 2014 at 10:49 am

      as long as you have a reasonable basis for your opinion 😉

  18. Hami Shearlie 18
    18 February 2014 at 9:38 am

    Are there really 5 percent of NZ people who would vote for Colin “Sue-er” Craig? Really? I’ve been thinking that his recent extreme diet might account for his “unusual” behaviour – He’s looking so gaunt these days I keep thinking I’m looking at Frank Spencer!!

    • Tracey 18.1
      18 February 2014 at 9:50 am

      I saw comments at kiwiblog today that suggest there are people in NZ with extreme conservative views. 5% of a total population who vote? I think it is possible.

      • JanM 18.1.1
        18 February 2014 at 10:09 am

        Anything’s possible in a country where John Key is the preferred leader!

        • logie97 18.1.1.1
          18 February 2014 at 10:47 am

          Look how they flocked to Dunne in that “worm experiment” election. United got heaps of the “fundy” vote – yep there are plenty of them out there.

          • North 18.1.1.1.1
            18 February 2014 at 10:31 pm

            Hear hear as to Frank Spencer. Less the queeny voice. ShonKey Python owns that one. Beware however…….this is all a stunt…….a dirty stunt to blacken Norman. Christ I hope New Zealand wakes up before the election.

  19. Colonial Viper 19
    18 February 2014 at 9:39 am

    Chapman Tripp did their client a disservice by even agreeing to take such an inane and useless measure.

    Ah well, I guess its billable time for a partner @ $650/hr (+GST + disbursements).

  20. Rich 20
    18 February 2014 at 10:11 am

    Did Barbra Streisand sue Duck Sauce?

    You’ve just wasted hours of my time that I will forced to spend in Ableton editing the words “Colin Craig” onto the track.

  21. bad12 21
    18 February 2014 at 10:16 am

    ”I don’t expect gays to have to hide in their closets”- Colin Craig TV3News 17/02/14,

    This begs another question, does Colin Craig think and converse in an until now unknown language called Dunce while Russell Norman thinks and converses in that language many of us know as intelligent English???,

    Will Dunce become an official language of the Parliament in the unlikely and bizarre event of Craig being elected to the Parliament…

    • JanM 21.1
      18 February 2014 at 10:27 am

      Has anyone thought to ask him yet where he thinks they should hide?

    • North 21.2
      18 February 2014 at 10:47 pm

      I suspect that sadly this whole bizo is designed to bring Craig’s getting an electorate seat in parliament all that closer. And in my worst nightmares I think that with ShonKey Python’s cynical machinations it will happen. Craig is positively yelling out to those who really really really do believe that gay men etc etc and women etc etc. Worse, their hand wringing tea and scone making wives will vote right along. Imagine……Sarah Palin in pants. In parliament.

      No !!!!

      • bad12 21.2.1
        18 February 2014 at 11:23 pm

        Colin Craig, Slippery, and, Winston Peters round the same Cabinet table, the idea just about makes me want to become a million different people so i could vote for it, there must be a Doctorate degree in a study of the dynamics that would be involved in such a sweet menage a trois

        i would like to vehemently disagree with you North, but, well remember the ‘worm’ and what that did for the Hairdo,

        Of course Dunne dead-panned his Mr sensible act to the max in that little side show and i can’t quite see the people of East Coast Bays voting for a virtual idiot…

  22. Tracey 22
    18 February 2014 at 10:45 am

    “the reason for this is to allow scrutineers to more easily challenge a voter’s credentials to vote. If a scrutineer does this, the returning officer automatically has to take a statutory declaration, with the underlying threat that a false statement is a criminal act.”

    I confess I only skim-read the amendment bill because I have an appointment to go to. BUT can you link me to the sections which relate to this part (above). I want to know what the criteria for such a challenge are?

  23. Crunchtime 23
    18 February 2014 at 10:48 am

    MICKYSAVAGE, surprisingly enough I think John Armstrong wrote a more amusing article than you on this subject….

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11204339

    “Running to mum no way to play politics” – what a headline! Baaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha.

    Harden up Colin.

  24. Bill 24
    18 February 2014 at 10:53 am

    But do you see how quickly and easily this sort of nonsense creates an environment of self censorship and has people ‘walking on egg shells’?

    That’s the very unfunny thing about it all.

    That MS feels it’s safer to immediately disclaim certain statements and that Lynn feels a need to moderate the thread is not at all funny and not healthy – not in any way shape or form.

    • lprent 24.1
      18 February 2014 at 11:22 am

      Agreed.

      BTW: The main reason that I’m specifically moderating this post is because then I have also personally approved each and every comment. That means that if some lawyer from Chapman Tripp (lawyers for the thin of skin idiots) tries to expand the scope of any case against the site, then I have a good argument to confine it to myself. This limits the potential motions of discovery.

  25. Clemgeopin 25
    18 February 2014 at 11:02 am

    Oh dear crazy Colin,

    You are such a thin skinned sensitive wee sausage!….Now sue me!

    You need to understand that in politics, there is robust debate. The way to handle it is being proactive in defending yourself by rebutting your opponents with logic, clarification and wit. It is silly to rush to your queen’s counsels like a little cry baby.

    Here is a leg up for you. All you have to do is make some profound statement to clarify what your opinion really is:

    For example, say something like,

    “No, Norman, you are wrong and I don’t think so!”

    or, say,

    ” A woman’s place is not in the kitchen and a gay man’s place is not in the closet.”

    or, better still, for some real effect and great publicity, say,

    “I think a gay man’s place is in the kitchen and a woman’s place is certainly in the closet!”

    End of matter! Who can argue against that?

    You are welcome!

  26. veutoviper 26
    18 February 2014 at 11:42 am

    But … what about gay women? Where is their place? The kitchen pantry?

    • veutoviper 26.1
      18 February 2014 at 12:04 pm

      Note – above was meant in a sacastic sense. Had second thoughts and thought I had deleted it, but does not appear to have worked.

      • Rosie 26.1.1
        18 February 2014 at 1:49 pm

        I’m glad it wasn’t deleted veutoviper. I ackshully did laugh out loud when I read your comment. I think all reading it would understand that it is sarcastic humour.

        Thats one angle of this threatened defamation case – that it provokes humorous retort and puts Craig’s actions into perspective: silliness. Unfortunately the flip side is the atmosphere of censorship it creates as Bill points out above at #24

        • veutoviper 26.1.1.1
          18 February 2014 at 5:01 pm

          I am pleased that you laughed, Rosie. But I totally agree with Bill’s comment @ 24 above that the flip side is an inciduous form of censorship/threat.

          And as stated by others, in my personal opinion, CC is just a bully and a wimp who thinks that money (to call in the lawyers) can be used to threaten and intimidate.

          For once I actually agreed with John Armstong (will wonders ever cease!) that CC just runs to mummy.

          And @ Anne below, not sure the wives would want gay women under their sinks …. the mind boggles at the picture!

          • Anne 26.1.1.1.1
            18 February 2014 at 6:30 pm

            not sure the wives would want gay women under their sinks …. the mind boggles at the picture!

            I doubt they would have much say in the matter if married to the Colin Craigs of this world.

    • Anne 26.2
      18 February 2014 at 1:33 pm

      You reading my mind vv?

      Actually I wondered whether they could go under the kitchen sink and the wives could work on top of the kitchen sink. Makes it nice and simple for neanderthal Colin. Won’t hurt his little brain. I suppose there is one there somewhere.

  27. BM 27
    18 February 2014 at 12:00 pm

    How many Christians vote or more importantly don’t vote?
    According to wikipedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_New_Zealand#Denominations_and_organisations

    2,027,418 in NZ align themselves with some sort of Christian denomination

    For quite a while in NZ it’s being open slather on any one who believes in Christianity.

    They’re constantly being accused of homophobia , beating their wife’s, abusing their children etc, especially from left wing quarters.
    They seem to have to endlessly justify their beliefs and the way they live their lives.

    I’d actually say Colin will gain quite a lot of support with Christians around NZ for not putting up with Normans nonsense and showing Christians aren’t the extreme intolerant nutbars, certain people make them out to be.

    • Debbie Brown 27.1
      18 February 2014 at 1:06 pm

      Actually BM I’m a Christian but have no intention whatsoever of voting Conservative.

      Perhaps if Colin Craig actually attended church, he might be a bit more attuned to what we generally do believe, rather than making us all look like a bunch of homophobic bigots. For example, the sermon last Sunday was about restoring relationships, forgiveness and making peace. Not one word about gay relationships or smacking, even though such things seem to be the crux of Conservative party policies.

    • Pete 27.2
      18 February 2014 at 2:05 pm

      The vote share of the three largest denominations – Catholics, Anglicans and Presbyterians probably track with the population as a whole. Maybe slightly leftwards if you consider Catholic attitudes to social justice and the reception of the Pope’s change in tone. People in these denominations aren’t so slavish to their respective hierarchies on social issues as non-religious people might believe.

      Cunliffe has shut down abortion as an election issue – which is probably the only issue left now that would provoke a lurch to the right amongst some active church members (I think he could shield himself from some of that with a royal commission and a conscience vote on its recommendations if he wanted to liberalise the law).

      Methodists, the one other denomination of more than 100k have a history of charity so they may lean leftwards too.

      Ratana with 40k members has a long association with Labour, although that has loosened in recent years.

      That leaves Pentecostals, Mormons and Baptists who together have around 160,000 members (I don’t know the breakdown between those over and under 18, though). They tend to be more conservative and would probably be more likely to be receptive to Colin Craig.

    • NickS 27.3
      18 February 2014 at 7:38 pm

      🙄

      BM once more descends into utter fantasy, this time the ye olde persecution complex one, along with thinking Christians are monolithic in their behaviour etc.

    • Paul 27.4
      18 February 2014 at 8:47 pm

      Maybe CC might want to hear what Jesus said about the rich’s chances of getting to heaven.

  28. Flip 28
    18 February 2014 at 12:01 pm

    Craig will have to say what his view is on gays and women’s role. Also what is his party position and policies. As its leader does his view represent the policy of his party?

    Otherwise we have no idea whether Norman’s comments are metaphorically correct so not sueable. Craig has no case unless he states his views and the relationship of those to his party policies as being different from the way portraited.

    As outlined above it does require information so raising level of debate.

    • Enough is Enough 28.1
      18 February 2014 at 3:54 pm

      We don’t want to give this guy air to express his 17th century views.

      There are bigots in this country who will swarm to him if we allow im to express his rubbish.

      Think Orewa One. National has not looked back since that date.

      We need to silence the cretin. Not ask him to explain.

      • chris73 28.1.1
        18 February 2014 at 5:07 pm

        Damn straight, the last thing we want is people with differing views and representing people who hold those same views

  29. Dosey 29
    18 February 2014 at 2:16 pm

    He’s a tool. Nothing but a tool trying to keep headlines…

  30. Puckish Rogue 30
    18 February 2014 at 4:07 pm

    So Norman made some stuff up about Craig to pander to the crowd and Craig now wants an apology for it…

    Maybe Normans not used to someone calling out the Greens

  31. Ron 31
    18 February 2014 at 4:58 pm

    If case goes ahead and as someone else said it could be a way off, then I presume that Greens will have to bankroll Norman. If so they might well need a fighting fund. I for one will be very willing to kick in to any such fund.
    And I am not a member of Greens.
    I hope that everyone in The Stgandard would feel likewise

    • lprent 31.1
      18 February 2014 at 5:37 pm

      I hope that everyone in The Stgandard would feel likewise

      I do. If they open a bank account for it, I’d be happy to chip in.

      • Clemgeopin 31.1.1
        18 February 2014 at 6:27 pm

        Me too.

        I dare say, lots and lots of people of all political persuasion, including some from the right, will want to contribute too.

  32. mickysavage 32
    18 February 2014 at 5:57 pm

    I reckon that Norman should use the response stipulated in Arkell v. Pressdram which is a UK case from 1971. The case involved a claim for defamation made by a chap Arkell against the editor of Private Eye. Correspondence was exchanged as follows:

    Solicitor (Goodman Derrick & Co.):

    We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell’s first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.

    Private Eye:

    We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell’s attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.

  33. Rich 33
    18 February 2014 at 7:24 pm

    I notice that Steven Price is asking for discovery of all Craig’s “comments that he has made in relation to gay people and women, including emails and other correspondence”, should he pursue the case. That should be good for a few laffs.

  34. SPC 34
    18 February 2014 at 9:45 pm

    Maybe someone should point out that no one goes to the event at which Norman spoke to be understated.

    Of course the position of Craig was going to be overstated/exaggerated to the point of placing him back in time to some past era stereotype.

    To misunderstand this context and call the misrepresentation “slanderous”, shows out of touch with modern society and such occasions someone like Craig is.

  35. Frank Macskasy 35
    18 February 2014 at 11:42 pm

    Strange, I thought that Colin Craig used both [deleted] when he inserted the [deleted] into a well oiled [deleted] [deleted] with [deleted] and a watermelon. Not that I’m saying he’s [reference to sexual orientation deleted through lack of verification] but his fondness for using his mouth to [deleted] and to [deleted – not anatomically feasible] suggests he’s just jealous of [deleted] and his pet sheep, Waldo.

    All lawsuits can be emailed to me via my blog. Or shoved [deleted] through the opening at your [deleted]. Or [DELETED – that’s just WRONG!]

  36. risildowgtn 36
    19 February 2014 at 7:12 am

    This has made me laugh:

    Nikki Kaye and her teammates Ricardo Simich and Maurice Williamson offered plenty of humour of their own, along with some sensible arguments in favour of the moot.

    Their side was full of high jinks, with fake make out sessions between Kaye and Simich, and Kaye and Williamson, of course leading to one between Williamson and Simich too, leading Carlson to pipe up with “Colin Craig’s left nut just exploded”.

    Craig jokes were in fashion all night, leading Elwood to pithily point out “having not one, but two National MPs making fun of Colin Craig is going to look really funny if you do win this year and end with him as your ‘Science Minister’.”

    http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/2/article_14640.php

  37. Tanz 37
    20 February 2014 at 8:06 am

    Just shows the left are worried about Craig, as is the leftist MSM.

    Criag is refreshing in that he wants what is best for NZ and I hope he wins the case.
    Norman is just like Key.

    • Clemgeopin 37.1
      20 February 2014 at 11:58 am

      No, sorry to disappoint you, but Colin Craig will blink first and withdraw the defamation suit showing that he is full of BS and bluster and is gutless.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 37.2
      20 February 2014 at 5:12 pm

      Seriously, Tanz, Colin’s going to lose. He already looks like a fool, and if he carries on he’ll just become a loser who looks like a fool.

      The cut and thrust of politics is beyond this man if he can’t take Russel’s blunt barbs.

      • Tanz 37.2.1
        20 February 2014 at 9:25 pm

        the MSM are spinning it all out of proportion and are doing all they can to make Craig look a fool. Of course, Russell Norman can do no wrong…

  38. Clemgeopin 38
    20 February 2014 at 1:44 pm

    TIME LEFT FOR THE CRAIG vs NORMAN DEFAMATION DEADLINE :

    15 HOURS.

    [Readers, please update this when you can as I am not here all the time]

  39. S 39
    20 February 2014 at 8:52 pm

    FYI (as has been referred to in a previous comment): it’s “Barbra” Striesand. She didn’t get a namechange for nuthin’.

Links to post