Slater v Craig – battle of the has beens

Written By: - Date published: 8:55 am, May 21st, 2017 - 22 comments
Categories: colin craig, Deep stuff, democracy under attack, Dirty Politics, humour, Politics, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, The Standard, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: ,

So Cameron Slater and Colin Craig are in court.  Seeking damages from each other.

Right wingers have this thing about how state resources should be used only for essential purposes.  I agree.  Tying up weeks of the High Court’s time with a case that in my personal opinion involves the contest of bruised egos, one rich and one not so, seems to me to be something that should be sorted out by alternative means.  Tiddlewinks anyone?

I have practised law for the past 32 years.  Courts  are places where people go to die.

Rich people go there to squander their wealth and poor people go there to go through more stress than they can ever imagine.  I know ordinary people who went there who were never the same afterwards.  Even when they won.

I recommend going there only if you have nothing to lose or if it is your job or you just want to watch.  If you have something to lose I suggest you avoid it at all costs.  If at all possible.

A quite recent court appearance I was engaged in involved the application by Cameron Slater for name suppression after he was charged with attempting to procure a hack on the Standard.

I was astounded at the treatment that Slater received from the authorities in that case.  He obtained name suppression immediately because of a proactive application from the Crown and during the case the police did not attempt to ascertain the views of the trustees of the Standard before determining its position.  I cannot understand how this happened.  When there is a change of Government I hope the next Minister of Justice will ask why.

Jessica Williams summed up that case in these terms:

It’s like 10,000 Whales when all you need is a knife. However Alanis would have styled it, today is a day for irony.

For today is the day when we can finally report that Cameron Slater, arch defender of open justice, has failed in his attempt to get permanent name suppression, after accepting diversion for charges that he tried to get a small-time hacker to pry open a left-wing website.

Yes, you read that right. The man who has multiple convictions for breaching name suppression. The man who’s argued that justice should be public. The man who claims he changed the law to make suppression harder to get. He applied for permanent name suppression.

And now we have this case involving Cameron Slater, the self designated protector of our right to know what is happening verses Colin Craig, the former leader of a party that thinks that we are all too involved in licentious behaviour and should revert to more conservative styles of living.  Craig is facing allegations that his relationship with a former staffer may not have been the sort that the bible approves of.

As for Craig well he did pump huge amounts of money into a small political party.  And he could have been a major player in Parliament.  If the Conservatives had cracked the 5% barrier they could have been the difference between success and failure for pretty well every contested vote that has occurred this term.  Our laws could have become far more conservative if Craig had succeeded.

If I was making this investment I would be upset.  The return should have been greater.

Craig is also the writer of love poems.  Like this one:

You are beautiful because your eyes are lovely

You are beautiful because you look unbelievably good in your new dress

You are beautiful because your lips are so amazing to kiss

You are beautiful because you are fearfully and wonderfully made

You are beautiful because your skin is so soft

You are beautiful because you have the most perfect …

Please know you are beautiful

In a rather strange twist and despite his wealth Craig is self represented (although apparently with the help of Thomas Cleary as a McKenzie friend [corrected thank you Andrew Geddis]) and Slater is paying presumably huge amounts to have Brian Henry represent him.  Henry is a very good lawyer, but he has done a lot of work in the past for Winston Peters.  What is going on?

And why is Craig using a McKenzie friend?  Does he prefer his personal judgment to the judgment of lawyers who day in and day out engage in litigation?

No doubt Rachel McGregor will again have to give evidence.  She has, it appears, been the subject of unwanted attention from Craig, and had private information concerning her published by Jordan Williams and by Slater.

Hey guys, all who claim to be supportive of her, don’t you think it is time to let this go?

Steve Braunius has been giving the case the sort of attention only he can.  Read his posts and laugh.  Some have criticised him for continuing McGregor’s torment but I think the reporting has to occur.  The dying embers of the Conservative Party and of Dirty Politics need to have their end publicised and the history dissected so the chance of a repeat is diminished.

Radio NZ also has been reporting on the case.  Including this gem:

The cross-examination began with Mr Slater explaining why his blog was the most popular while left-wing blogs were run by a bunch of “moaning Labour Party supporters”.

“You have to provide relevant, funny, pertinent information for readers otherwise they don’t come. It’s the ultimate market forces in action. They come because they like what they see. That’s why they buy merchandise, that’s why they back me. That’s why everyday in court I’ve had a legion of supporters watching.”

Yep funny videos, gun porn and quotes from the bible are important to distinguish a small bit player on the right from an earnest and occasionally funny site on the left that blogs for the discussion and not for the income flow.

Mr Craig, who is representing himself in court, then asked Mr Slater about politics.

Mr Slater replied: “It’s in my DNA, politics. It’s the best show in town. There’s no rules.”

Donald Trump thinks the same.  The best civilisation is one where there are no rules and the biggest, most obnoxious and most aggressive people are on top.  Works every time.

Mr Craig then asked Mr Slater who was fair game.

“Well, if they’re standing up on a platform of conservative values – hate the gays, all of that sort of thing – and then in the background their personal life is a complete and utter wreck where they’re trying to get their leg over with various different people, then they’re a hypocrite and they become a target for a story,” Mr Slater said.

Mr Craig asked if there were any rules.

Mr Slater responded: “Well, there’s plenty of court cases that say politicians are public property. If you put yourself out in public, then yes, you get a free hit but you still have to stay within the bounds of the law. You have to tell the truth, you have to follow the laws of the land but basically, just because someone doesn’t like what’s being said about them, doesn’t meant it’s defamatory.”

Although there seem to be different rules.  If you are a champion of free speech on the right you are still entitled to seek name suppression even if if you were involved in an attempted hack of a left wing site.

Later, Mr Slater summed up his views on politics.

“Politics is about actions and reactions and there’s this ‘motherhood and apple pie version’ that some politicians have that’s rather quaint – that we should all hug each other, and eat apple pie and thank Mum for it all and be pleasant. Politics is a dirty, despicable game and it’s played by dirty despicable people and they can be of any persuasion – left, right, whatever. But if you don’t acknowledge that’s what politics is about, then you’re going to get nowhere.”

If you or your party has this view then for the sake of our democracy you should be marginalised.  And any party that uses your services should be punished.

Interestingly Cameron let out readership statistics which cast some doubt on his claims about his blog’s popularity.  From Stuff:

I wrote a few posts that at best, 6000 people read. It was a massive overreaction on your part and made worse by the fact you lied about me.”

The Standard has posts with similar readership statistics.  But our publicised overall readership is nowhere near Whaleoil’s, at least according to his statistics.  Maybe the gun porn and the biblical quotes and funny videos are more important than we thought.

The resources being expended in this trial could provide many kids in South Auckland with breakfast.  Craig and Slater ought to reconsider their priorities.

22 comments on “Slater v Craig – battle of the has beens ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tc 1
    21 May 2017 at 9:10 am

    Ahhh the odious Cameron slater and his enablers, yes that would be an issue well worth pursuing mickey. He did admit to a crime didn’t he over the ‘hack’ ?

    Our police have become such overt tools of this national govt it’s all a bit disturbing IMO.

  2. Stunned mullet 2
    21 May 2017 at 9:19 am

    Arghhh please don’t give these egomaniacs the oxygen they so dearly love.

    Media blackout please MS.

  3. Tricledrown 3
    21 May 2017 at 10:07 am

    RWNJ’s 2 sleezy dinosaurs duke it out in court
    Self destruction is never pretty to watch.

  4. red-blooded 4
    21 May 2017 at 10:32 am

    If Slater (such an apt name: both a bug and someone who constantly “slates” – moans about and criticises – people) thinks that all politicians are dirty and despicable, then how is it that he focuses his attentions so strongly on criticising those on the left, while cosying up to those on the right like best buddy Judith?

  5. Upnorth 5
    21 May 2017 at 11:01 am

    Courts are tough but we live in a democracy they have every right to be there

  6. Wainwright 6
    21 May 2017 at 11:15 am

    Braunias has been acting like a dickhead. There’s an obvious difference between covering the clownshow and further humiliating the poor woman. Republishing that dross of a poem in this post also crosses that line imo.

  7. Andrew Geddis 7
    21 May 2017 at 11:38 am

    In a rather strange twist and despite his wealth Craig is self represented (although apparently with the help of Tim Cleary Barrister as a McKenzie friend)

    Wrong Cleary. It’s Thomas (Tom) Cleary acting as a McKenzie friend: https://www.shortlandchambers.co.nz/juniors.

    (The reason Tom can’t represent Craig directly is that he hasn’t practiced as a Barrister for the necessary 3 years.)

    [Thanks Andrew I have corrected the post – MS]

  8. james 8
    21 May 2017 at 1:36 pm

    Just to correct your title. In order to been “has beens” you first had to be something.

    They are both fools with a lack of understanding that people dont think of them as much as they think of themselves.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1
      21 May 2017 at 1:55 pm

      Well, apart from the fact that one of them used to wallow in the gutter with the National Party before they got caught doing it, and then they pretended not to know him.

      Stay classy.

  9. adam 9
    21 May 2017 at 1:51 pm

    Why are my taxes paying for this?

    Seriously, with the Torie saying they will use my taxes for their supporters and not everyone when elected, I’m fast moving to not waning to pay tax at all.

    This is a cost we do not need, we should not have to pay tax to have peoples egos rubbed.

    • Stuart Munro 9.1
      21 May 2017 at 2:04 pm

      This too is Gnat policy – to destroy public confidence in government so that people neither participate nor criticize.

      We need a corruption commission – so many rorts have manifestly betrayed the public interest upon which our system of governance relies.

      • adam 9.1.1
        21 May 2017 at 2:12 pm

        I agree, as the corruption in this country is not the obvious kind of openly taking bribes. It is far more insidious.

  10. weka 10
    21 May 2017 at 2:04 pm

    Thanks for the update. The no rules thing is enlightening. The grand unifying theory of the past 9 years.

    btw, the Jessica Williams quote probably needs a link.

    [Right you are. Now fixed – MS]

  11. Paul Campbell 11
    21 May 2017 at 2:09 pm

    You know in another age they would have fought a duel, at far less cost to the taxpayers, and whatever the result probably to all our advantage. Pity Slater didn’t just challenge him to another boxing match.

    Note: please don’t think I’m suggesting this is a ‘matter of honour’ … There’s no honour here

  12. Graeme 12
    21 May 2017 at 4:53 pm

    Is there a mechanism by which both litigants can be charged / billed for the full costs of running the court in a civil case?

    • Paul Campbell 12.1
      21 May 2017 at 5:23 pm

      Doesn’t the loser get stuck with ‘court costs’? Perhaps a sane judge will stick the with some sort of vexatious litigant status and make sure they pay all the real world costs of their folly

  13. dukeofurl 13
    21 May 2017 at 5:34 pm

    The reason for Slater having expensive counsel – when he normally represents himself- could be that he saw the the big fat jucy award for Williams out of his defamation action against Craig.
    Little did he expect the judge to set aside the jury award upon appeal by Craig as a miscarriage of justice. This case is set for a new appeal of the judges decision by Williams this time.

    No wonder he had a bout of Bells palsey.

  14. WILD KATIPO 14
    21 May 2017 at 6:48 pm

    Aside from all the costs we have to pay ,…. not only are these guys bores , … and one in particular a nasty piece of work… they both could have been written about by Carly Simon – without the sophistication , of course…

    Carly Simon – You’re So Vain – YouTube

  15. North 15
    21 May 2017 at 8:43 pm

    Reading the post this suddenly occurred to me; Slater is so, so Trump.

  16. BlueSky 16
    22 May 2017 at 6:39 am

    There were a few train wreaks at the last election. The Conservatives got the closest to getting out of the station. The Nats were mightily relieved that they did not.

    I hoped the left are smarter this time around.

    I feel sorry for the people in the story actually.