Unable as I am to post or read substantially from my regular web sources (thanks iHug) I do want to comment on some of what appeared on the front page of this morning's Herald since it does help explain why I started blogging: In short, because there's so much nonsense that passes for educated commentary.
I refer of course to Nicky Hager Vs Don Brash. If you want my opinion, here it is.
Says the Herald
, "Hager said he had planned to launch the book yesterday, but was prohibited from doing so." Leaving aside for the moment the reputation of Dicky Faker for honesty and integrity -- a reputation which, based on past history, must be somewhere close to the freezing point of glycol -- as I understand it what is injuncted are emails stolen from Brash's computer. If FaFer has written his book based on emails that weren't stolen -- "Hager said the emails weren't stolen," says the Heral
d -- then he's free to publish his book. It would seem however that he doesn't.
The man, once again, is lying -- as too it seems is John Armstrong, who writes blandly of the "High Court injunction blocking publication of Hager's book." This is pure humbug, if not outright lying to his readers. I'll say it again: the injunction is against stolen
emails, not against Hager's book. If Hippy Daker has data honestly come by (if he would even know what "honest" looks like), then he is free to make if it what he will.
But it seems he doesn't.
continues with further humbug. "Blanket injunctions of the kind of the kind that Dr Brash has obtained are not healthy for our democracy," pontificates the Herald
. "Those who ask to be entrusted with power have to accept that their dealings should be an open book."
Now, this is nonsense. Are they really suggesting that all "those who ask to be entrusted with power" should make their private emails avaliable to whoever asks for them? Apparently so.
They boast they are "in possession of hard-copied emails which are, or may be, the subject of [Brash's injunction" -- in other words, emails stolen from Brash's computer -- and they are presently arguing in court for these to be publicly released. Not to do so, their lawyer is arguing, is "inconsistent with the rights of freedom of expression affirmed and protected by Section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act."
Frankly, this is bullshit, just as much as TV3's argument that injuncting these private emails is an "unreasonable restriction on freedom of expression."
If they really and truly believe this, then I look forward to the Herald
senior staff and the producers and presenter of Campbell Live making the contents of their own emails available to us all online, and seeing their applications to the courts for the release of private emails of H1, H2, Alan Bollard, Mark Prebble, and the entire front bench of the Clark Cabinet.
As I say, this is bullshit, nd not just from Hager who is professionally enmired in the stuff.
Hager claims he is doing work "in the public interest," work that "shines a light on many deceptive and unethical activities" etc. etc. etc., and he outlines some of his claims in the press pack up there at Scoop.
Now it's hard to answer this after watching a year of demonisation by the Clark Government, but is there really something wrong with talking to the Brethren? Or constituents? Or business groups? Or donors? When did association with either business or Brethren or making a donation to a political party or releasing an anti-Labour or anti-Greens pamphlet become so demonised, so evil inand of itself, that we need
-- as a matter of intense public interest --to see and hear all the private communications about these activities?
What's wrong with criticising all the lies and spin and just complete nonsense that appears right out there in the open and is made and lapped up everyday, like for example the very demonisation of those groups Hater says Brash has been talking to, or much of what appeared on the front page of the Herald
today, or on the front page of the Sunday Star Times
Or is Nicky Hager just used to shadows himself?
By the way, and to conclude: Having mentioned the Sunday Star Times and Hicky Nager in the same opinion piece, I can't now fail to mention the opinion of Justice Neazor of the worth of their collaboration over the "revelation" of of the SIS bugging Tariana Turia -- "a work of fiction" Justice Neazor
called it after a thorough investigation. As I said back then:
Good advice might be to remember this finding next time you read a story writtenUPDATE:
by either Nicky Hager or Anthony Hubbard and as Justice Neazor suggests, just file it under fiction.
Just to remind of previous 'Hagerings' NBR has a roll call of those previously 'Hagered,'
from the SIS to the SAS to Timberlands West Coast to Helen Clark herself.RELATED: Politics-NZ, Politics-National, Nonsense
Labels: Alan Bollard, Hollow Men, John Armstrong, Spin