19

I lost the battle but won the war

by Whaleoil on October 5, 2010

Simon “FIGJAM:” Power has announced changes to Name Suppression laws today. About time, he has been sitting on them for like for ever. My sources tell me it was because he didn’t want to be seen to be reacting to a blogger.

Even Judge Harvey told me off for campaigning for changes by breaking the law, and pinko handwringers said that there were more appropriate ways to achieve what I have actually done.

Make no mistake I have forced changes upon a government through protest.

It will be harder to get name suppression in court under changes announced by the Government today.

Justice Minister Simon Power said proposals included automatic name suppression for child victims and substantial penalties for breaches.

Suppression would be allowed when;

* it was needed to ensure a fair trial;
* it would prevent hardship for victims;
* publication of an accused’s name would identify a victim whose name was suppressed;
* when it would put someone in danger;
* when naming would create extreme hardship and;
* when publication would impair ongoing investigations.

No problem with one or two. the fourth option is a weasel clause that would allow pedo’s to hide behind the fact they might get a hiding, same with clause 5.

They are futilely trying to shut the door behind the bolted horse with attempting to censor the internet and it is downright ridiculous to expect ISPs to monitor everything. This was tossed out when looking at copyright infringment and it should be tossed out when looking at name suppression.

“Being famous is not a good enough reason to be granted name suppression.

“To ensure public confidence in the justice system is maintained there must be one set of rules for everyone.

Good. But I bet the Judges will just carry on willy-nilly unless the qualifications for name suppression are very tight indeed.

I said to the people of Albany that if they want changes made then they should vote for someone with a big hammer to smash down the barriers. Here is my proof.

I still have to pay my fines and my lawyers bills,so any help would be appreciated.

My bank account for legal fees is Kiwibank Howick 38-9010-0764240-01

Tagged: • • •

Related posts

  • Blondie

    Well done Slater.

    Though I certainly hope that you don’t need to go to court again over this issue – the maximum fine for name suppression breaches has now risen to $100,000.

    Compare this to a maximum fine of $20,000 for killing or injuring someone through dangerous/reckless driving. http://www.aa.co.nz/about/issues/fuel-taxes-fines-charges/Pages/Traffic-fines-and-penalties.aspx

    Hmmmmm

    • dta1

      Actually you conveniently forget to mention that in the case of killing or injuring through reckless driving also carries a penalty of up to 5 years imprisonment.

      Besides as the article notes fines aren’t necessarily the best deterrent anyway so maybe breaching name suppression should also carry a term of imprisonment instead of merely upping the fine which no others are sometimes happy to pay on behalf of the offender.

      After all it frustrates the law when people like Cameron Slater think they’re entitled to breach Court orders and it would be worse if people had come forward to help pay his fines.

      • dta1

        which other are happy to pay for* typo

      • dta1

        which others are happy to pay for* typo

  • medusa

    Excellent news Cam, shame you will get hammered but glad we made a donation, hope more will do the same.

  • http://www.cadlow.co.nz spanishbride

    Blondie great point you are making.

    The size of the fine seems to say that it is worse to damage some ones reputation than it is to injure or KILL them!

    • Agent BallSack

      At least their reputation is intact when you kill them, unless you are murdered by Clayton Weatherstone.

      • Agent BallSack

        Or David Bain :)

    • dta1

      Fines do not recognize harm to victims.. they are not compensatory payouts to the victim.

      It is a punishment to deter the offender from continuing their action that frustrates the maintenance of law and good order in society.
      Besides as pointed out above killing or injuring someone through reckless driving also carries a penalty of 5 years imprisonment so clearly it is treated as a more severe offence overall.

  • gaskranken

    Lost the battle but won the war Cam, however figjam has managed to introduce new rules whilst leaving the judiciary’s feathers completely unruffled – he’s good alright.

  • catrat07

    Ummm…
    I’m pretty sure that all and sundry knew the law needed revising far before your pathetic “protest.” Changes were most likely in the pipeline far before you breached name suppression in a variety of cases, most of which you had very little knowledge about in that you managed to name a victim on your blog through your ridiculous charade. Maybe you should think carefully about exactly who you have hurt.
    I doubt that you deliberately ignoring court orders was in a quest for justice. There are far better ways to achieve change than what you have done here with very little regard for anything but your own fame – wow you got more page hits and people know your name. How brave and courageous of you.
    Really at the end of the day you have done nothing to further the concerns of those whose voices are invisible in the justice process – that is the victims. In fact, by naming offenders you are often naming and shaming their victims, who may in many cases be related.
    Your ridiculous claim that you personally caused this law change would be similar to Paul Henry claiming all the credit (where credit is most definitely not due) for the prime minister picking a candidate for Governor General who he deemed to be “a real kiwi.”
    Please spare New Zealanders and the blogging world from your “protests” in future.

    • http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz Whaleoil

      And you should get your facts right. I never named a victim at all. The only people I named are those who were afraid of their own names.

      • catrat07

        Ahem
        “This afternoon at the Auckland District Court he was convicted of eight counts of breaching name suppression orders and one count of identifying a victim in a sex case on his Whale Oil blog. “

        • http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz Whaleoil

          The posts are all still there, see if you can identify a victim?. Because I am damned if I can.

          I wouldn’t believe everything you read.

          • dta1

            Whether you named a victim or not you were reckless as to whether you would.
            You didn’t actually consider the implications your offending would have on other people or the facilitation of the criminal system so really you’re just a common criminal yourself.

            As for your crusade to make more offenders accessible to your naming and shaming this is nothing more than indulging the self-righteous people’s need to judge and punish the offender for a second time. How does it actually help victims?!?

            It is not in the public interest to know most of these cases since as Judge Fraser pointed out in the case of a Manawatu man who downloaded 300,000 child porn images

            ‘Judge Grant Fraser said he granted permanent name suppression to protect the man’s family, his mental state, his wife’s job and his ability to rehabilitate, the Manawatu Standard reported.
            “I’ve also accepted without hesitation the public interest and the public being aware of the character of you, and I’ve also taken into account the seriousness of your offending,” Judge Fraser said.
            “In this case there is no offending against any individuals within the New Zealand community.
            “Therefore publicity in my view is not required to flush out any potential offenders or to enable members of the community to keep themselves safe from you.”‘

            You see he actually balanced the interests and came to a decision.
            You would have predetermined every application for name suppression if it involved a type of offending that personally offends you e.g. sex offences and that is exactly why people like you should stick to blogging and advertising your ignorance.

            Victims are harmed by offenders of course; but the criminal law is in place for the good order of society primarily plus the offenders do their time.
            You violated that good order by breaching name suppression orders and quite rightly the fine has been upped to $100,000. This form of “vigilante justice” cannot be tolerated in a society governed by laws as opposed to prejudices as you’d have us live under.

            [WO: Oh really, how could the Judge possibly know that every single one of the subjects of 300,000 porn images, most of which were children, weren't New Zealanders. He couldn't. Would also make a difference to you to know that this Doctor saw children as regular patients in his role as a specialit for ACC and that it was an ACC laptop that had all the images on it.]

          • catrat07

            Of course I can’t, because I don’t know her in real life. You are entirely missing the point. You posted that a man whose name was suppressed had been convicted of offences against his wife or was it partner. Anyone who knew his wife to any amount of detail would know who she was married to.
            Your comments show you clearly have very little understanding of why suppression laws exist. Say for example, a person had been sexually or violently abused and all we were allowed to know about the person was that they were the victim’s father. If you name the father, you clearly name the victim for anyone who knows the family. The same applies to partners or husbands and wives. By doing what you have done, you have the potential to destroy more lives than just the offender’s. Victims have the right to have their names suppressed. As you should know, sexual and domestic violence have a multitude of impacts. By more or less publishing the identity of a victim by publishing the offender who has been reported to be intimately connected to the victim, you are making these impacts far worse.
            As for believing everything I read, I clearly don’t. I don’t for example believe that your “protest” led Simon Power to change the name suppression laws. Naming such a singular causal connection is extremely ignorant.

      • dta1

        I’d just like to say one more thing; I don’t agree with every law either but when I break it I pay for it on my own and don’t appeal to others to socialize my punishment.

        You’re pathetic.

  • gaskranken

    And the seventh cat rat has spoken – I consider myself part of the all and sundry and I had no idea the rules for name suppression should be changed until I wanted to find out who `lick my balls’ was. A world famous in NZ moby rip off as it turned out and I found out on Google long before Whale got involved.

    It still intrigues me that the Whale got singled out when there are still copious on line references to this `entertainer’ where his particular suppression order is still breached regularly.

    Double standards, hypocrisy, smack the head that dares pop itself up over the trench, single out the loudmouth for special attention, whatever you wanna call it craprap07 there is something rotten in the state of justice.

  • dta1

    “Oh really, how could the Judge possibly know that every single one of the sub­jects of 300,000 porn images, most of which were children, weren’t New Zealan­ders. He couldn’t. Would also make a difference to you to know that this Doc tor saw children as regular patients in his role as a specialit for ACC and that it was an ACC lap top that had all the images on it.”

    Well if you have evidence that suggests he offended against his patients then obviously this changes the relevant considerations.

    Do you have such evidence? It is not logically inferred from the fact that the images were on the ACC laptop that he offended against his patients. It is purely circumstantial evidence and has very little probative value.

    The point is on the facts as established in Court i.e. that no New Zealanders were victims of his offending and that he was not a threat to society the judge balanced the interests and came to his decision.