The Craig vs. Slater Muppet show | The Jackal

19 May 2017

The Craig vs. Slater Muppet show

If you've kept track of the Craig vs. Slater defamation case in the Auckland High Court recently you could be excused for thinking the proceedings were some sort of sick joke! You might also have noticed the many contradictions of right wing propagandist Cameron Slater.

Perhaps Slater's delusions are due to the hearing being extended over a number of weeks and he simply cannot remember what was said from one day to the next. Whatever his problem let's have a quick look at the goings on of hearing so far.

On Tuesday, Stuff reported:

Cameron Slater defends Colin Craig blog posts

But giving his brief of evidence on Tuesday, Slater said he was just a journalist chasing a story.

"The difference between my conduct and other journalists is that I never write anything that does not agree with my libertarian and conservative viewpoints."

He said he received payment for individual posts on his blog.

"With regards to payment for posts, this is a standard journalistic endeavour these days. It is commonly called native advertising or sponsored content."

Clearly Slater doesn't understand what native advertising actually means. The tricky thing for his lawyer is that the deluded blogger actually believes his own bullshit. For instance Slater incorrectly thinks he's somehow protected by publishing laws, while at the same time flouting them.

Slater simply cannot claim innocent dissemination or journalistic privilege in any of these proceedings because in most instances the malicious statements originated from his blog. He also did not clearly indicate the posts were opinions and instead wrote rumour and conjecture as fact.

"I am by profession a journalist; I was simply doing my job. I investigated along with all political media a sex scandal and Colin Craig's attempt to cover it up."

Cameron Slater a journalist... LOL!

It could be that Craig’s political opponents paid for the defamatory posts on (what a dumb name) Whale Oil Beef Hooked. It's relevant to the case, so Slater et al better pray to God the Judge doesn't want to find out who the real authors might be.

The right wing clearly recognised the difficulties another centre right political party would cause them at the upcoming election and employed the services of a number of propagandist’s at the time to actively work to try and destroy The Conservative Party.

That puts Slater's muckraking well outside the realms of news-worthy reporting. Unfortunately the truth of the matter hasn't stopped him from claiming to be a champion of the fourth estate over and over again though.

Last Wednesday, Newstalk ZB reported:

Colin Craig and Cameron Slater clash in courtroom

Slater said he was just doing his job as a journalist when he posted the allegations.

Under cross-examination by Mr Craig - who is representing himself - at the High Court at Auckland on Wednesday, Slater said the personal affairs of politicians needed to be exposed if they reflected hypocrisy.

"If you put yourself in public, then yes, you get a free hit. But (journalists) have to stay within bounds of law. You have to tell the truth," he said.

Slater telling the truth? Yeah right!

Consider the fact that the authors might well be other politicians who are secretly posting their political attacks online through Whale Oil Beef Hooked.

It's well known that Slater publishes other people’s work under his own name without proper attribution. Perhaps the Judge might be interesting to know who exactly Whale Oil's political ghostwriters are?

Slater could therefore use the defence that he copy-pasted word for word the defamatory content that was sent to him (along with a cheque), but I doubt such a defence would work.

Slater personally disseminated the malicious content and he would have to be a complete dribbling moron to not understand what he was doing. On second thought the Judge might consider such an argument.

Let's see what else Slater thinks is a legal defence for defamatory blog posts:

"But just because someone doesn't like what's being said about them, doesn't mean it's defamatory."

Plenty of legal cases around the world suggested there was a "free-for-all on politicians", he said.

Not much of an argument really considering such a disaster of a case hasn't been heard under New Zealand law before and it's not just that the post are disliked; they are in fact defamatory.

Despite this, Craig will likely need to prove the attack articles caused damage because he’s probably unable to show that Slater published malicious falsehoods all by himself. There was simply too much information in the public arena already and I doubt the Judge will even bother to wade through it all.

Also on Wednesday, NZCity reported:

Politicians despicable, Slater tells Craig

Under cross-examination by Mr Craig - who is representing himself - at the High Court at Auckland on Wednesday, Slater said people such as Nicky Hager in his book Dirty Politics had regularly attacked him because he was influential.

"That is why I'm targeted and continue to be targeted by people such as yourself," he told Mr Craig.

Mr Craig later asked Slater if his blogs were a political force that influenced votes and altered political outcomes, to which Slater replied "yes".

I wonder if Slater understands the implications to his answer? The deluded blogger effectively just agreed that he caused the Conservative Party harm by publishing malicious posts about Colin Craig. What a jackass!

He said he did not hide his opinion in his posts and on some issues could be considered a political lobbyist.

However, he said he was never paid for blog posts but did receive income as a consultant providing media training or helping clients, such as politicians, prepare for hostile question and answer sessions.

So Slater was never paid for blog posts but received payment for individual posts on his blog. WTF!

It's little wonder the Judge has become tired of the slapstick routine by a couple of clowns.

Yesterday, Stuff reported:

Judge scolds Craig and Slater in the High Court

Colin Craig and Cameron Slater have each been scolded by a judge in the Auckland High Court.

The former Conservative Party leader and the Whaleoil blogger are suing each other for defamation.

Craig, who is representing himself, was cross examining Slater on Thursday, when Justice Kit Toogood took exception to his methods.

The problem for Craig is he’s taken things far too personally. The case isn’t about his feelings, which any competent lawyer should have told him.

It’s about being able to prove Slater acted with malice and/or that the defamatory posts actually caused Craig harm. He can point all day long at his former political parties plummeting support after the scandal broke… But that’s not actually proof of cause and effect from just one blog.

Does the serial litigant have the competency to highlight the difference between Slater’s posts and mainstream media reports? Will he even bring to the judges attention the fact Slater has contradicted himself, effectively committing perjury?

Did Craig even bother to reply to or request the malicious content on the festering boil of a blog be removed? Is his pamphlet defensible because he was simply trying to make some sort of vain attempt at a public response to the allegations? I guess we’ll have to wait for the Judges ruling on these matters.