Yet people feel quite entitled to talk down their noses about a profession that has both a statutory obligation to the law and to their clients, as well as a professional obligation to same. How's that work? What makes y'all so high and mighty and moral that you get to preach about lawyers?
You ever faced the serious prospect of being financially and professionally destroyed, about a year out of journalism school, because you did you job? I have, so excuse me if I don't give the proverbial rodent's rectum about the hurt fee-fees of anyone at ChenPalmer or libel mills like Carter Ruck. They're just "doing their job"? Fine - they can harden the fuck up and stop waiting for the thank you cards from a profession that has plenty of experience of litigious intimidation.
Ah. It wasn't Mai Chen herself -- Potaura seems to have used her name interchangeably with that of Chen Palmer itself.
Well, in that case I am happy to withdraw and apologize to Ms. Chen for my comments directed at her personally. Still think the firm with her name over the door can find more useful things to do.
Obviously, ChenPalmer's understanding of mana differs from mine significantly, but I'm more heart-sick than angry reading that last paragraph. The kaupapa and mana of Kohanga Reo was built up over years -- even decades -- of passion and commitment from flaxroots activists who would make their case with anyone, anywhere. Not... this.
Do we want to live in a world in which your legal rights are determined by the personal moral scruples of whomsoever happens to be your lawyer at that time?
Not particularly. But I'd sure like to see libel law less easily used as a bludgeon to (and again, let's not be naive here) intimidate and harass journalists. And, yes, I make precisely no apologies for feeling ever so slightly contemptuous towards lawyers (and firms like London libel mill Carter Ruck) who profit off it. But you do have a point -- as long as the law allows that kind of bullying it's not entirely fair to blame the monkey for the organ grinder's tune.
Any way, why does a stern letter have to be seen as bullying ?. Would it not be a lapse to NOT point out the full implications of a transgression.
With all due respect, Steve, I don't think the dozens of libel actions Robert Maxwell had in train when he died against journalists investigating the state of the Mirror Group's pension fund were begun as a favour to anyone but himself. I'd also hope Mai Chen knows the diffference between alleging a statement is defamatory is a very long way from proving it in a court of law.
The law is a tool box, and a lawyer uses the tool that is needed to get the relevant job done.
Well, that's true as far as it goes. Can I just note the irony at Mai Chen being quite a high profile media commentator on legal and constitutional issues, while with the other she's happily using her tool box (and let's not be naive here) to try and beat down uppity journalists from asking inconvenient questions of her clients.
The response was a heavy letter from Mai Chen on the trust board's behalf declaring that the claims were "false and defamatory" and demanding that the site remove the statement immediately.
Of course it's legal bullying, Russell. It's also really fucking rich coming from the same people who complain Native Affairs committing investigative journalism isn't "how Maori resolve things". Well, darlings, in my book when you hire a high profile lawyer (who just happens to have her name over the door of a firm that has a lot of public sector clients AND a lobbying side line) you've lost that card.
ETA: And what's the going rate to hire Mai Chen to try and intimidate your critics? Not at all cheap I suspect...
This is heresy, and betrayal from me as a Green, but I'm starting to wonder if the best realistic outcome from this election might be for National to have to cobble up a flaky coalition with Winston.
'Heresy" would be too strong a word, but I'd like everyone (including the media) to think very carefully about what price we'd pay for another go-around with a pathological bigot like Winston. Hey, since we've now got to wait until after the election before asking such impertinent questions (at least where Labour is concerned) I guess we'll never know until it's far too late. But you'll excuse me if I find somewhat unreliable the "social conscience" of a man who has dubious distinction of having opposed every piece of pro-GLBT legislation since Homosexual Law Reform.
Steady on. No one was asking John Key whether he wanted to campaign jointly with Colin Craig, were they?
No - instead there were bizarre fantasies that Colin Craig was just going to be handed one of the safest National seats in the country, with the cheerful acquiescence of Murray McCully and the local organization. Which, let me tell you, resulted in some rather ungenerous speculation hereabouts about how many political journalists would pass random workplace drug tests.
Hard to see that's not the play though, right? It's a clever way to bash Labour as being untrustworthy etc --- the 2005 trope reappears with depressing predictability --- and emphasise the importance of voting Green if you're wavering Green/Labour. Shades of Corngate.
Oh, who's being a wee bit precious now? If you want to go there, this is quite a clever way for Labour to dog-whistle the Greens as flaky and entitled, so a vote for the Greens is just the splitter's way to guarantee three more years of National. That's the play, right?
This is the thing I would like to know. Who leaked it? Because that does seem like an act of bad faith.
So would I -- and it's funny how many folks on my Twitter have assumed it's someone in the Greens, and that the whole thing was just a giant bad faith troll from the beginning. None of which makes a lick of sense to me, but moving on...
But if you want to define the Labour/Green realationship, you need to dedicate substantial resources to it and come up with an actual coalition agreement, and a pretty clear joint programme.
Or be able to clearly articulate your points of agreement, which should only be as difficult as you choose to make it. And I'm sorry, but what "actual coalition agreement" would be necessary. If Labour and the Greens don't actually have a pretty solid sense of their commonalities by now, I guess we should lay in the popcorn for a very long round of coalition negotiations afterwards...