Last week as pretty hectic was I continued to tell the truth about the Maritime Union, Garry Parsloe and Helen Kelly. Busting each and every one of their falsehoods that were feeding the gullible and accepting media.
Via my tipline I released the details of a wharfie who maligned the company that had been so generous to him.
Helen Kelly and Garry Parsloe along with all the useful idiots of the leftwing of the blogosphere jumped up and down calling it an outrageous breach of privacy and a “disgraceful breach of trust“. The poor hard done by wharfie even went on television and had a bit of a sook about how outraged he was about the breach of privacy, and one of his mates sent threats via email.
Then after I went on Radio Rhema with Pat Brittenden to talk about the issue Helen Kelly went all septic and threatened legal action for slander and defamation of “her worker”.
Note her words…”slandered one of our members”…and…”got the facts completely wrong”…and…”completely untrue”. Strong and emphatic words, not much room for wriggle there.
Now this is where it gets interesting. In order for there to be a slander or a defamation of her worker then I must have not told truth. If, as I contend, I have told the truth then no defamation or slander has occurred. Neither is there a slander or defamation action possible against Radio Rhema if I told the truth.
Which puts the Maritime Union, Garry Parsloe and Helen Kelly in a difficult position.
Either I told the truth and there was an outrageous breach of privacy, and that is one position they have, after all they have complained to the Privacy Commissioner about it.
Or, it is a slander and defamation because I did not tell the truth and therefore their action with the Privacy Commissioner is about to fail.
The two positions cannot exist together.
I know what the truth is, and I can reasonably be assured that any defamation or slander action by Helen Kelly will fail as¬†spectacularly¬†as their strike action is currently failing.
They can stick with the line that I have slandered their worker, that everything I have said is “completely untrue” and that I got the “facts completely wrong”…and we can visit that and test it in court…or they can admit that their complaint to the Privacy Commissioner is now based entirely on lies. Of course the reverse is possible…that the details I released are in fact correct and Cecil Walker is an ungrateful and disloyal wretch, and that I haven’t slandered him at all.
As I have said above the two positions ¬†cannot possibly exist together. Helen Kelly has some choices to make.