Must read

We are all enemies of Islam “including those who call themselves Muslims”

On Stuff Dr Sahib was quoted as saying that he does not…

… “hate any human being regardless of their faith, place of origin, race, colour and political affiliation”.

“Sadly and falsely, I have been accused of giving hate speeches and being anti-Semitic,” he said.

“I have always preached for peace and harmony in the society.”

He claims the “cut and paste” video that surfaced on YouTube was taken out of context.


His above words are in stark contrast to what he said on this video, the third one in my series on context.

You can read part one here and part two here.

Read more »

A natural experiment in hate and responses to it

The recent events concerning Bishop Brian Tamaki and Shaykh Dr Mohammad Anwar Sahib have provided a natural experiment in hate, and the response to it. Both religious leaders had videos exposed of them preaching objectionable material. Below is a side-by-side comparison of the speeches and responses. What conclusions do you draw?

What was said?

Bishop Tamaki said that homosexuals were sinners and suggested that their sin causes earthquakes like the one New Zealand recently experienced.

Shaykh Anwar said that Jews were the enemy of Muslims and women should not leave the house without their husbands’ permission.

What does that mean?

Christians need to forgive or try and ‘save’ sinners.

Muslims must fight against their enemies.

Women do not have free will under Sharia law.

Read more »

ACT: David’s Dilemma [UPDATED]

This morning, I ran a story suggesting ACT’s performance through David Seymour this year is noticeably less impressive than last year.


A number of Whaleoil commenters disagreed with me, and this appears to have spurred Mr Seymour on to send the following email:

From: David Seymour <[email protected]>
Date: 22 November 2016
Subject: Comedy
To: “[email protected]” <[email protected]>

Based on the comments and their popularity it looks like your readers agree that you are getting old or need a humour transplant. If you were following closely you’d see that my last two parliamentary questions led to news stories, how many MPs are you aware of who achieve that? What about this speech in defense of PSKH ? And so it goes on.

Kind regards

David Seymour
MP for Epsom, Leader ACT New Zealand

David clearly wanted me to react, so for a while I decided to not give him the pleasure.   But after a while I realised there was an object lesson going begging.

A couple of points before I get to it. Read more »

When will Shaykh Mohammad Anwar Sahib resign as secretary of FIANZ?

Will FIANZ show that they reject the hate preaching of Shaykh Mohammad Anwar Sahib by removing him as secretary of the organisation? Will Shaykh Mohammad Anwar Sahib resign now that his hate preaching has brought the Muslim community that he represents into disrepute?

While I am very happy that we have got this story into the public view I am concerned that FIANZ will murmur sweet useless nothings to Susan Devoy and will take no action. They will reject Shaykh Mohammad Anwar Sahib’s words and claim that they do not represent their Muslim  community but will keep him in his positions of influence regardless. Will they encourage the Masjid at-Taqwa Mosque to take down his videos on their Youtube channel for example? What real action are they prepared to take to show their rejection of his hateful preaching?

Here is the timeline so far although by the time this post goes live there may be other new media and MSM outlets covering it.

Read more »

Journo-terrorism created the Trump monster

Cognitive dissonance occurs when the facts don’t match your perception of the world. In order to maintain your view of yourself as a smart and well-informed person you need to come up with an explanation for why those facts don’t match your perception.  This is the situation that Hillary voters found themselves in when Trump won and it is the reason why so many of them have gone crazy, crying and rioting and generally carrying on like spoiled brats. The cognitive dissonance has been HUGE for them.

Victims of Journo- terrorism, they have been conditioned to see  Trump as a monster. The creator of the cartoon Dilbert, Scott Adams  explains the problem.

This brings me to the anti-Trump protests. The protesters look as though they are protesting Trump, but they are not. They are locked in an imaginary world and battling their own hallucinations of the future. Here’s the setup that triggered them.

1. They believe they are smart and well-informed.

2. Their good judgement told them Trump is OBVIOUSLY the next Hitler, or something similarly bad.

3. Half of the voters of the United States – including a lot of smart people – voted Trump into office anyway.

Those “facts” can’t be reconciled in the minds of the anti-Trumpers. Mentally, something has to give. That’s where cognitive dissonance comes in.

Read more »

Massive Election Fraud discovered in America * UPDATED

Biggest Election Fraud In History Discovered In The United States: Breaking Now 2016-11

Biggest Election Fraud In History Discovered In The United States: Breaking Now 2016-11

The first hint I got that something was seriously wrong was the below Gab.



Soon I discovered why it was that people were prepared to queue for two hours rather than use a voting machine.

Read more »

Time for the government to change the rules for e-cigarettes


Many of our New Zealand laws have not kept up with technology so laws designed for one thing are clumsily applied to another. One glaring example of this problem is how the law applies to e-cigarettes. E-cigarettes and ordinary cigarettes are legal and tobacco is legal but the e-liquids that contain nicotine and that are needed for e-cigarettes cannot be sold legally. People can buy e-liquids online and import them for personal use but it is still illegal to sell them.

This will surprise many consumers who have purchased them in New Zealand from both physical and online shops. New Zealand remains in legal limbo with a Ministry of Health that is choosing to not prosecute retailers who flout the law and a government who as yet has not changed a law that clearly needs changing. If Tobacco is legal it makes no sense at all that liquid nicotine should be illegal.

Read more »

The other court decision Colin Craig doesn’t want you to see [UPDATED]

Colin Craig (both of them) with the interviewer and Mr X

Colin Craig (both of them) with the interviewer and Mr X

At 5 pm on October the 3rd 2016, court-ordered suppression was lifted on something that Colin Craig’s lawyers successfully kept from the Williams v Craig defamation case jury as well as the defense witnesses, the media and the public.

Last year Rachel MacGregor took Colin Craig to the Human Rights Tribunal over  breaches of the confidentiality agreement Mr Craig agreed to in his settlement of Ms MacGregor’s earlier claim for sexual harassment.

The Tribunal ordered Mr Craig pay Ms MacGregor $128,780 in damages.

This is the largest amount ever awarded under the Human Rights legislation. Read more »

Were the damages really too high?

There are a great many people, mostly those who weren’t in court to hear the evidence, the chambers discussions or indeed the witnesses, all proclaiming that they know better and the damages were too high in the Williams v Craig case.

They talk about the chilling effect of such damages without first working out it might be better for media and rich people to start by telling the truth.

Nonetheless, there are comparisons with previous defamation records and that of the awards in the Williams case.

TVNZ reports:

The awarding of Jordan Williams $1.27 million, after a jury found he’d been defamed by former Conservative Party leader Colin Craig, is the highest in New Zealand history.

In 2014 Joe Karam was awarded $535,000 plus costs in a defamation case against two men for their comments about his support for David Bain.

Musician Ray Columbus was awarded $675,000 plus costs for action he took against the NZ Truth for an article they published in 1997.

Michael Stiassny v Vince Siemer — $825,000 and costs

Ray Columbus v Truth newspaper — $675,000 and costs

Terry Quinn v TVNZ — $650,000 and costs

Joe Karam v Kent Parker and Victor Purkiss — $535,000 plus indemnity costs estimated to be $500,000

Jung Nam Lee v New Korea Herald — $250,000 and costs

Which is all well and good, but is Jordan William’s win really a record?   Read more »

Dancing on the head of a legal pin

Colin Craig’s lawyer, Stephen Mills QC, says they will appeal on the basis that the jury did not consider the argument of qualified privilege.

That is simply dancing on the head of a legal pin.

Here is the problem. The jury was given what is called a Question Trail. That is a trail of questions they need to answer in a logical manner to step them through the legal complexity of defamation law. The judge spent two hours summing up and directing the jury on how to use this Question trail to come to their decisions.

The Question Trail was drafted by Craig’s lawyer, then approved by Jordan’s lawyer and then finally by the Judge. Mills drafted the Question Trail to start with the defence of Qualified Privilege, then move to truth when that failed and then to honest opinion after that.

The Question Trail contained 14 questions, and there were two counts, so the jury had to step through 28 questions and write up their reasoning beside each one and hand that to the judge after the verdict was given.

The first few questions stepped through qualified privilege. They would not have been required to step through any more questions if the jury had considered qualified privilege and decided it applied. They clearly passed through those questions after quite some time…they deliberated for 10 hours.   Read more »