Hypocrisy on free speech

Cameron Slater would have been chuffed to be included as a ‘prominent Kiwi’ in a Dominion Post article on free speech: Speech: What it costs to be free

As part of that process, and in the quest for a little clarity, we approached a number of prominent Kiwis with some experience of free speech issues. They represent different sides of the debate.

We asked them for their thoughts on these key questions:

  • Is free speech the right to say anything you like?
  • Is there any point at which something is too offensive to be said in public?
  • Is there such a thing as “hate speech” and how should it be defined?
  • Is free speech under threat in this country? If so, where is the threat coming from?

Here are their responses. Massey University Vice-Chancellor Jan Thomas declined to be involved.

There’s some interesting responses. From Slater:

Hurt feelings are not grounds for harm. Mostly they need a good cup of concrete to help them harden up.

Perhaps he should listen to his own advice. he is more inclined to throw lumps of verbal concrete than he is swallow them.

Free speech is under threat in this country. The threat comes from a lack of action standing up to those who would threaten it. For too long there have been cases of bullying people out of jobs, threatening their income, boycotting advertisers and deplatforming of speakers.

I largely agree with that. But it is a tad hypocritical given thaat four days ago Slater posted Some good ideas from David Farrar that included this specified as a Slater favourite:

5. Target Massey’s funding. Identify major donors to Massey and request meetings with them to make the case for why they should donate to one of the other universities that doesn’t ban speakers on the personal whim of the VC.

Slater from the article:

Almost exclusively these actions come from within the angry Left-wing. We have in recent years witnessed the demonisation of John Tamihere and Willie Jackson for daring to ask hard questions on radio, the hounding of Paul Henry out of television, the attacks on me by Nicky Hager, the media and the Left-wing for daring to be effective and challenging, the cancellation of speakers such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern, not to mention the recent attack against Don Brash.

It is laughable though for Slater to claim that “Almost exclusively these actions come from within the angry Left-wing.”

Slater admitted trying to procure a hack of The Standard in an attempt to discredit their speech.

Slater was a prosecution witness in a private prosecution (dismissed at trial) of Lynn Prentice (associated with The Standard) and APN News (NZ Herald) in what appears to be what Slater refers to as lawfare when others do it – see NOTTINGHAM v APN NEWS & MEDIA LTD [2018] NZHC 596 [29 March 2018]. He was also an informant.

Slater was an informant and was named as an ‘expert witness’ in a private prosecution versus myself (and Your NZ) and Allied Press (ODT) – charges were eventually withdrawn.

Slater supported his “good friends” in getting a court order against me and Your NZ trying to shut us up and shut us down. That was a farce that was quickly thrown out by the court, but it was an attempt to imprison me because they (including Slater) didn’t like being held to account.

Perhaps Slater has been slurping cement since then, or has gone a bit cold on court proceedings as he still waits for a judgment on Craig v Slater and prepares for Blomfield v Slater, both defamation proceedings.

The media by and large have forgotten their responsibilities to be truth-tellers and have in many cases joined in the witch-hunting.

A bit ironic, but Sslater is more of a heavily slanted activist than truth-teller.

Whale Oil is easy to ignore most of the time these days, but claiming that “Almost exclusively these actions come from within the angry Left-wing” warrants a bit of a serve.

Perhaps Slater has hardened up not get angry about his hypocrisy being highlighted this time.

Remarkable absence of coverage for a political blog

The Northcote by-election has been a significant political story over the last few days.

Last night there was a post and discussion on it here, Also:

A notable omission is Whale Oil, who last posted on the by-election in a post grizzling about the lack of promotion in other for their preferred candidate on Thursday. I commented on that, referring to WO as a “largely irrelevant activist blog” and in response ‘Spanish Bride’ commented here:

then why on earth do you continue to write about NZ’s most popular, most read, number one political blog?

You have ignored everything that doesn’t fit your niche blog narrative but you are only fooling yourself.

In short you ignore all the many indications that Whaleoil is a highly successful new media organisation.

You can make your case for why Whaleoil is an insignificant niche blog till the cows come home. If it makes you feel better to believe that then good for you. This level of delusion, however, is better suited to a left-wing blog.

The self claimed “number one political blog” not covering the by-election result yesterday seems remarkable. Just about every media organisation covered the by-election apart from WO.

I think this makes a fairly good case for seeing Whaleoil as an insignificant niche blog.

They may say something about the by-election today, but it is unlikely to be anything like significant media analysis.

Dirty campaign continues at WO

Cameron Slater made debatable denials of involvement in the spreading of rumours. Both he and ‘Nige’ (Helper and problem solver for Cam Slater’s Whaleoil) have stated there was no factual basis to the rumours.

But Whale Oil has continued to run a smear campaign against Clarke Gayford. Dirty politics, and proud of it.

Posted by SB on Tuesday: Help us update the Whaleoil dictionary

Political retard A politician who has said or done something stupid politically.

Rules of politics, The rules as devised by Cam.

  1. If you are explaining, you are losing
  2.  Utu is good, even necessary
  3. Never hug a corpse – it smells and you end up smelling like the corpse too
  4. Always know where the bodies are buried
  5. Don’t let mongrels get away with being mongrels
  6. Don’t mess with The Whale or Cactus Kate
  7.  Never wrestle with pigs, two things are for certain if you do. You will get dirty and the pig will enjoy it.
  8. Never ask a question if you don’t already know the answer
  9. Speak plain, Speak Simple
  10. Remember, I’m telling this story
  11. Never trust a politician if you aren’t close enough to them to hit them in the back of the head with a bit of 4×2
  12.  Never trust a politician with a moustache or a hyphenated name.

Ratf**king  Undermining or ruining someone’s reputation. Not a personal profanity but an actual political term. Google it.

Slater’s reputation is well known. He is now supported by SB (aka spanishbride aka Juana Atkins) who seems to be just about as shameless.

Who is Nige? He works in the shadows at WO, but seems to have become a major cog in the Oily machine. Ity’s easy to get dragged into things online – I wonder if he has ever stepped back and reflected on what he has become a part of.

Slater has some problems and helping perpetuate dirty smears is hardly going to solve them. It is digging deeper into the mire.

The media mostly ignores WO these days, and that seems to annoy the hell out of them because they have long seeded  stories relying on mainstream media to give them momentum.

They seem to have decided that getting dirtier will somehow make a difference. All it does is reinforce how toxic they are politically.

National leader Simon Bridges made a major faux pas yesterday, ‘liking’ a smear tweet (yet another in the dirty campaign against Clarke Gayford). This is very unfortunate for Bridges and National, who will have hoped to have put 2014’s ‘Dirty Politics’ behind them along with Jason Ede and John Key.

Now Bridges has attached himself to WO, and unless he clearly and unequivocally disassociates himself from WO and from doing dirty politics that is   stain that will be difficult to shed.

Slater may see Bridges’ balls up as an opening for Judith Collins to take over the leadership she has been seeking, but her past association with Slater and his continued championing of her must count strongly against that, unless the aim is to drag National rightwards and downwards to niche party status. Ironically Collins is one of National’s best performing MPs.

Regardless, expect the dirty campaigning to continue at WO. It seems to be the only way they know, along with whinging about being held to account for their despicable smears.

They appear to be gearing up for an attack the messenger outburst.

 

Simon Bridges embarrassed by Twitter ‘like’

Simon Bridges says that it was an accidental ‘like’ on Twitter, but whether it was or not it is seriously embarrassing for him associating himself with a Whale Oil attack on Clarke Gayford.

NZH: National leader Simon Bridges accidentally ‘liked’ social media post mocking Clarke Gayford

National leader Simon Bridges has admitted ‘liking’ a social media post by Whaleoil blogger Cameron Slater in which the Prime Minister’s partner was mocked.

But Bridges said he did it by accident and then withdrew the “like” he had placed on Slater’s Twitter account.

He said “too much tweeting maketh a twat”.

Bridges blamed a thumb error for accidentally hitting the “like” button on Slater’s post and that it was done while scrolling through his Twitter feed.

It had the effect of broadcasting Slater’s tweet, in which a photoshopped image of Gayford holding a fish was depicted. Slater started running a “Fish of the Day” feature making fun of Gayford immediately after the rumours were dismissed.

Bridges said:”I’m not on Twitter very often and I think this shows why. Effectively I was scrolling down and I saw a tweet there that you’re referring to.

“I noticed it. I accidentally liked it. I got rid of that within literally a second and kept on moving but I’m regretful about it actually because I’ve been really clear with my caucus colleagues that we don’t want families brought in to politics.

It comes in the wake of Bridges attempting to distance the National Party from gossip mongering over Clarke Gayford, and just over a week after he told his MPs to have nothing to do with the rumours.

Whatever the explanation or excuse this is going to be a difficult association for bridges to shrug off.

Slater has denied having anything to do with pushing the Gayford rumours. He is being approached for comment.

Those denials look dubious given the campaign attacking both Ardern and Gayford that started in September last year, There are still some dirty looking posts up on Whale Oil.

Bridges can’t just shrug this off. He was fairly limited in his condemnation of the dirty rumour mongering targeting Gayford.

He needs to step up and make it absolutely clear that he and the National Party disassociate themselves from dirty politics and from ‘Dirty Politics’.

What the hell is Bridges following an openly dirty account like this?

He should make it clear that dirty politics is a bad thing, especially for the leader of a major party in Parliament.

He also needs to make it absolutely clear that the National Party disassociate themselves from Whale Oil, which is inextricably linked with ‘Dirty Politics’,  brags about doing dirty politics, and has clearly been running a dirty campaign against Gayford and Ardern, and continues with it daily despite the rumour mongering story going public last week.

Pawns, Bishop. Who to believe?

On February 13 this was posted by ‘Cameron Slater’: Bishop victim of blue-on-blue attack?

Several reliable sources are saying that Chris Bishop was the victim of some utu by Bill English and his faction after Bishop, Nikki Kaye and Todd Muller were held responsible for the chatter about Bill’s leadership and leaking to Barry Soper and Richard Harman.

The beauty of the hit on Bishop is that no matter what Bishop says Bill’s team have framed him…

Slater made a number of very low, dirty insinuations in that story (hence no link). He went on the surmise quote a lot considering he had claimed to have “several reliable sources”.

Hit jobs always leave trails, and murk, and make the target look over their shoulder. I should know better than most, having been the target of a few hit jobs. Don’t look at who was hit, or where the information originated… look at who benefits. Look for who isn’t in the mix. Once you establish those things then you are close to identifying who is behind the hit jobs.

Don’t look for what and who was in the books, look for who was missing. Then, look at who benefited from all of those hit jobs. Look for who had previously been hurt or harmed by the targets in some way.

Now look at the Bishop hit job with new eyes.

There’s enough murk to make the post looked like dual hit jobs against English and Bishop, totally unsubstantiated.

Slater made a number of other claims of sources in his scatter gun attacks during National’s leadership contest.

Today, a month later: Now we know why Bishop’s Snapchat issues were leaked

I looked back at the date that Chris Bishop’s little issue with Snapchat was released to media by Labour associated people.

It was 11 February, just two days after the alleged sexual assaults at the Labour youth camp.

Now we know why. Labour thought they were going to be the news after four youths were allegedly sexually assaulted at the camp.

Cue the attack on Chris Bishop.

Heather Du Plessis-Allan fingered Labour for it back then…

She mustn’t have been one of his sources back then.

In the end, Bishop’s Snapchatting was innocuous and not really a story…

That’s a change from Slater’s very dirty insinuations a month ago.

And – there’s an accuracy fail in today’s assertions. Going by The definitive timeline of Labour’s sex scandal (at Whale Oil):

10/02/18 Day 2 of Young Labour Summer Camp

The alleged sexual assaults are said to have happened late that evening or early the following morning.

11/02/18 Day 3 of Young Labour Summer Camp

  • NZME runs story on Chris Bishop about a mother upset at him for messaging her daughter and other minors.
  • Alleged 20-year-old offender sent home from camp.

Slater’s changed claim is that Labour initiated the attack on Bishop via a story that was probably running through the printing presses about the same time as the offences were happening supposedly happening.

Going by comments, the WO army just lapped up Slater’s latest claims, as they believed his claims a month ago without question. One comment:

So the Chris Bishop smear article wasn’t “a blue on blue hit piece” originating from Bill English’s crew after all? It was Labour putting out covering fire a week before any trace of media coverage? Surely both scenarios can’t be true.

No, both scenarios can’t be true – but both were asserted and believed at WO.

Who to believe? The ‘Cameron Slater’ who wrote last month’s post, or the ‘Cameron Slater’ who wrote today’s post?

Also, this puts some doubt (if any where needed) on ‘several reliable sources’.

What’s up at Whale Oil?

It’s curious that there were no posts at Whale Oil yesterday under ‘Cameron Slater’ apart from a couple of regular posts that had no commentary, and none on Wednesday either since early in the day. I haven’t seen any messages that Slater would be on blog leave.

This is in contrast to a procession of posts under that author’s name in the previous week or so on the National Party leadership contest.

There could be a number of reasons for Slater’s absence, and I don’t care what the reason is, this is merely an observation.

In lieu of Slater’s activist style attack or promotion posts a number of authors have filled the gap, with a diverse range of topics – I think this is good for WO. Some of them are quite interesting.

SB has been doing some good posts on partnership schools and Labour’s education plans, for example Chris Hipkins described as ‘aggressive’ by CEO of He Puna Marama Trust. Education is an area of interest to her.

Something seems amiss by Orinjamba makes a good point:

Has anyone noticed that ever since the new Government took power there have been very few, if any, stories in the MSM about families with kids living in cars?

I seem to remember this being an almost constant running theme on a weekly basis while National were in Government, however, now it seems to have slipped off the radar entirely. One could even be forgiven for thinking that this is no longer even an issue given the apparent dearth of coverage on the subject.

Another noticeable absence has been the lack of wailing and gnashing of teeth from Labour supporters regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership or whatever the bloody thing is called these days. I can remember the groundswell of antipathy towards the negotiating process for this deal back when National were pushing for it, followed by the momentous gushing of confused excitement when the deal fell over due to a lack of collective agreement amongst the proposed signatories.

Where is all the opposition now from Labour supporters who, only a couple of years back, were so against this trade deal?

There is some opposition to the TPPA still, but it is very muted. Obviously the diaries of Labour and Green MPs will be much busier now they are in Government.

I expect Slater will be back on deck some time, but in the meantime I think it’s good to see more variety and less of the abrasive attack culture at WO.

The WOBlog Party and a dirty politics encore

At times in the past Cameron Slater has promoted Whale Oil as a great new alternative to fading and flailing old media. He had some success until he got dragged down by exposure via Nicky Hager’s ‘Dirty Politics’, plus getting embroiled in a number of defamation cases (three are still in progress).

He took a Breitbart phrase (probably claims they took it off him) – the media Party, due to the growing involvement of media in political activism as opposed to investigations and reporting. This was very ironic, given his very obvious emphasis on political activism, and this activism has raised a few notches recently.

One could suggest Slater is trying to run a WOBlog Party. One could also question who is financing his activism.It os on record that he has run a mercenary blog to an extent, and continues to not reveal any vested inteersts in his posts and campaigns.

Some of his hit jobs seem to be purely spite, he doesn’t let go of old gripes easily. This has been apparent with his numerous attacks on Bill English, making obvious he has longstanding differences.

All this would be just a now fairly irrelevant blogger flailing. He is generally regarded as politically toxic – he claims to have inside information but rarely has anything other than vague unsubstantiated assertions to offer these days, and quite notably was taken by surprise by English’s announcement on Tuesday – Slater was still busy trying to smear English when the announcement was made, and Slater obviously found out from news reports as it happened.

But in apparent desperation to be noticed (unless he is being paid to smear) Slater has lowered himself to past depths of dirtiness.

He tried this without getting much support in his attacks on English – often multiple posts a day at Whale Oil.

He got very dirty over the non-story about Chris Bishop, making disgraceful insinuations, worded in a way that he presumably hoped would protect his legal butt.

And this scum level politics has continued against potential National leadership contenders, with targeted attacks against some possible contenders yesterday. Again these involve insinuations and suggestions of impropriety, of course only as ‘suggestions’ with no evidence.

He is getting limited support on Whale Oil, with some opposition and criticism getting passed site censorship but ticks also show a general lack of support. He is now regularly trashed on Kiwiblog – there are some examples here yesterday – National leadership candidates.

Slater has obvious political motives, and other motives like money could also be reasonably raised.

However he is likely to be toxic for any MP and especially for any leadership contender that might be seen as associated with or a beneficiary of his dirty attacks. That may be why he generally attacks politicians he opposes without openly showing support for those he wants to promote.

Whatever he is up to Whale Oil is obviously being used as an extreme political activist site, delving to the dirtiest of depths again. That’s not something any politician or party would want to be seen to be a part of.

Hopelessly out of touch poll claim

Polls are often used to claim things that they don’t portray. There is no way of knowing exactly why polls move, and what timeframe cause and effect operates under. Pundits can only guess, or make things up.

In New Zealand media companies who publish polls try to make dramatic stories out of their own polls.

Here a niche blogger makes a ridiculous claim based on a US poll aggregator’s rolling results: Shithole countries comment gets Trump a big bounce in the polls

I had a chat amongst some other political tragics some weeks ago about how big a bounce would Donald Trump get with his shithole countries comments.

Some weeks ago? Trump made those comments just over two weeks ago, reported on 11 January (US date so 12 January NZ date).

It turns out a pretty substantial bump in the polls:

It doesn’t turn out to be anything of the sort. A Real Clear Politics ‘President Trump Job Approval’ chart is displayed – here is the same thing a day later, with the date of the shithole comment shown.

Since the comment there has been a small improvement in the poll average.  All polls cover several days and are obviously published after they are taken. Some of them are rolling polls. There is never a ‘before and event’ poll and an ‘after an event’ poll that can measure a movement on a specific day. So there is no way of knowing when a poll moves and why with any precision.

And different polls come out over time, with some leaning one way or the other, so the timing of the polls in the mix can make a difference, especially coming out of a time when some polls shut down for the holiday period.

RCP polling data shown at the blog:

I don’t know how that can tell anyone why a poll average changed due to one of many events that happened on 11 January, before that and after that. Trump is in the news a lot. A few days prior to his shithole comment Michael Wolff’s book was big news, and that’s likely to have some effect on poll trends.

A single rolling poll (Rasmussen Reports that tends to favour Trump) shows no appreciable change over the shithole period.

Date Approval Index Strongly Approve Strongly Disapprove Total Approve Total Disapprove
26-Jan-18 -12 30% 42% 44% 55%
25-Jan-18 -15 29% 44% 45% 54%
24-Jan-18 -16 29% 45% 44% 55%
23-Jan-18 -18 29% 47% 43% 57%
22-Jan-18 -18 28% 46% 42% 56%
19-Jan-18 -14 30% 44% 45% 54%
18-Jan-18 -16 28% 44% 45% 54%
17-Jan-18 -16 29% 45% 45% 54%
16-Jan-18 -16 29% 45% 45% 54%
15-Jan-18 -13 31% 44% 46% 52%
12-Jan-18 -13 30% 43% 46% 53%
11-Jan-18 -13 29% 42% 45% 53%
10-Jan-18 -14 30% 44% 44% 55%
09-Jan-18 -17 28% 45% 43% 56%
08-Jan-18 -16 30% 46% 42% 56%
05-Jan-18 -15 29% 44% 44% 54%
04-Jan-18 -12 31% 43% 45% 53%
03-Jan-18 -15 29% 44% 44% 54%

To understand what people thought of Trump’s comment requires a targeted poll. Like this one from HuffPost/YouGov:

January 11 – 12, 2018 – 1000 US Adults

According to a recent news report, President Trump asked “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” referring to immigration from African countries and Haiti. Do you agree or disagree with that comment?

  • Agree strongly 12%
  • Agree somewhat 14%
  • Total agree 26%
  • Disagree somewhat 13%
  • Disagree strongly 45%
  • Total disagree 58%
  • Not sure 16%

A comment at WO from ‘no bullswool’ would appear to be bullswool:

Donald Trump is refreshing in that he says what many ordinary people are thinking.

Back to the WO post:

Once again the media are shown to be hopelessly out of touch with ordinary voters.

Those are big changes over the previous months polling and you can clearly see his Approval ratings climbing rapidly off of the back of his shithole comments.

They are not big changes, ratings haven’t climbed rapidly, there is no way of linking minor poll fluctuations to one comment by Trump, and are a fool (or are trying to fool others) claiming you can see clearly what Slater is claiming.

Who is hopelessly out of touch?

Dirty faces of Boxing Day

It didn’t take Whale Oil long to go dirty on the Prime Minister after the ‘season of good cheer’.

On Christmas Day Jacinda Ardern tweeted:

At 2 pm on Christmas Day that’s probably a fairly typical snapshot of the mood of children.

SB kicked off Boxing Day at Whale Oil with this picture in Face of the day:

My first thought was that this was a photoshop but it was on our PM’s twitter feed so it is totally legit. Someone needs to photoshop some happy kids into the photo stat!

I suspect that if the photo had been one selected (or photoshopped) with happy faces SB and WO would have piled on Ardern for that.

But instead a bunch of bozos piled in on Ardern over her Christmas wishes. That’s sad.

WO frequently claims to have some sort of great moderation, but being nasty without swearing is still dirty. The dirty faces of Boxing Day

Lorde and Israel

A singer has removed a gig from their schedule. In the circumstances I have concerns about the use of social media pressure to coerce, but this is just the entertainment industry and the bottom line is financial, and that’s likely to be the reason for the change.

But some seem to think it’s a big deal.

The Standard:

Kiwiblog:

It’s fair to question why Lorde has singled out Israel, but why single out Russia as a comparison? Activists in the world could probably argue against every venue if so inclined.

Tough talk from a dirty gutless flake? WO should know all about financial compromises and imperatives.

But this may not be the end of it, as the other side of social media pressure plays it’s hand.