Statement by Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman on Colin Craig’s allegation of defamation
"I stand by my views, made both in my opening speech to Parliament earlier this year and restated at the Big Gay Out on Sunday February 9.
"Colin Craig has said that gay relationships aren't normal and that New Zealand women are promiscuous, I think those views are offensive.
"I and the Green Party are proud of our record of fighting for rights and freedoms for New Zealand women and the gay community. I think our position on these issues and Colin Craig's are very different.
"It is clear to all that my statements were made within the context of political speeches, at the beginning of an election year.
"It is only right that politicians robustly set out their positions, and I think that if Colin Craig wants to enter the political debate he needs to accept the criticisms that are going to come his way. That is just part and parcel of robust political debate.
"Colin Craig now has a track record for making allegations of defamation if someone says something about his views that he doesn't like. I don't plan to back down from my statements because of a lawyer's letter.
"New Zealanders want to hear freely from their politicians. Colin Craig appears to want all our statements run past lawyers. We are not going to engage in that style of politics.
"This election offers real choices for New Zealanders. And my message to women and gay New Zealanders is that I and the Green Party back your rights and freedoms."
14 comments:
I guess Colin Craig was worried that he hadn't been in the news for a while, time to sue someone for defamation (oh look, that worked)
Good on Russel for not backing down.
Did anything ever come of Colin Craig suing the Civilian?
Did anything ever come of Colin Craig suing the Civilian?
Once The Civilian's piece had spawned more pisstakes than his lawyers could poke a stick at, Craig appeared to realise that he'd made a prize arse of himself. Unlike online satirists though, I rather doubt that other political parties are about to pitch into calling Craig's bluff by way of solidarity.
an opportunity to discuss what Mr Craig thinks about women and LBGT people, woohoo, sounds like an opportunity for him to prove how suitable he is to be the leader of a political party, potentially an MP and less likely but much more frightening, a minister.
Go on Colin - sue, what could possibly go wrong?
Chutzpah!
If Russel has to go to court, he could wear one of Metiria's jackets.
Two letters in today's Southland Times, both headless-chickenly squawking about the Greens. It just gets better and better :-)
Well I'm more than happy to say I was wrong about other political parties standing by while Craig plays legal sillybuggers. Kudos to David Parker for stepping up to call bullshit on his attention-seeking nonsense.
C'mon Robert, think of the chicken friends! :-)
"Headless tofu squawking" is both more dramatic AND greener :-)
Joe - that was good to see - backing each other is how it's done and Parker's playing it smart. These are trite issues, but winning these arguments matters when they are in the public domain. Dismissal as nonsense of nonsense is the cleanest method.
Sorry, chicken-friends!
Old habits, Sister Bertrille.
This is an interesting situation in that if Craig proceeds, Normans only defence is proving what he said is true.
Politically it plays well into both parties' supporters (as you can see here) so I can't see it progressing to court, however it could play on for a bit longer in the media.
Norman's defence is easy - it's his opinion that Craig is screwy.
I wonder, Robert. It might be that Dr Norman failed to make it clear that he was expressing his opinion, in which case paranormal would be correct and his defense would have to be that his statement was true. The difficulty with that is that the statements relate to what Mr Craig thinks, and I have no evidence to support the suggestion he thinks anything. He appears to believe, but that's not the same as thinking.
What interests me the most is how much of a no-win situation this is for Mr Craig. As far as I know (and that's not very far; no one I know will admit to considering voting for him) he's aiming for the bigoted conservative anti-pc vote, and they are gagging for a misogynist gay-hater to vote for. If Mr Craig wins his case he loses their votes. If he loses his case the sub-set of the electorate his views appeal to is too small to get him a seat.
All up it's good politics by Dr Norman.
Col, (I like to call him Col) will reverse his threat-truck/tricycle and claim some moral victory or other, to the sound of raucous laughter.
I predict.
I must write something mean about him.
Post a Comment