The Whale Defence Fund
August 18th, 2010 at 10:28 am by David FarrarWhale Oil blogs:
Ok it is time for all those out there who support my stance on name suppression to assist with the legal bills. I appreciate the months of loyal support as I await the slow wheels of our Justice system to turn. Now I need your cash support, no matter the size, every bit helps, to help with the fight.
It is time to ban the Burqa of our Legal System – Stop Pedos and Sex Offenders from hiding under the burqa.
In just 8 days (25 August) I appear in the Auckland District Court to defend these charges.
I need help to pay the legal bills. The next few days are hectic as I prepare my defence with my lawyer Gregory Thwaite.
My Kiwibank account number, opened this morning for donations is 38–9010-0764240–01, you can also use the online Chipin widget below or on the side bar.
Any surplus funds raised will be donated equally between the RSA Welfare Fund and the Ex-Vietnam Services Association, in honour of those who fought for our rights to freedom of speech.
I thank you all in advance for your support. Hopefully I will see you in court as well.
It would be great if someone in the media applied to live webcast the court proceedings. I think a lot of people will be interested in the case.
Tags: name suppression, Whale Oil
August 18th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Bloody hell, this is a bit much Whale.
[Kinda surprised he uses Kiwibank too]
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Drunks only come right when they go to AA.
When a whale is in trouble, the only way out is to swallow its pride and call for help from — Greenwar!
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Good cause. Something practical we can do to protest against the growing secrecy of our courts. I’m in.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 11:27 am
You in favor of victims of sexual crimes being publicly identified as well cg?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 11:36 am
@pushmepullu
Dont be a tightwad – get out your wallet and donate – at least you can see what you are putting your money into.
People donate to aid funds and have no idea where the money goes. (check out http://ecadforum.com/articles/?p=446 or http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259061/Sorry-Bob-Geldof-Band-Aid-millions-DID-pay-guns.html )
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 11:38 am
I support this fund. someone has to speak out and create a tsunami about suppression in the courts. When you commit a crime, you have to be held accountable for your crime, name suppression is very much like denial, if nobody in my community knows i’ve committed this crime then i do not have to be held accountable. We have to be shown to be accountable for our actions in our communities.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 11:40 am
@ Murray
There was a case only a week or so ago where the VICTIM wanted complete publicity (as she said – anyone who knows her already knows about the situation, and the rest of the country had no idea who she was), but the judge said “No – we cant have that”
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Whale dug this hole for himself, I’m happy to see him buried in it.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 11:48 am
“You in favor of victims of sexual crimes being publicly identified as well cg?”
No, just those arraigned for trial on serious charges – (for example) murder, rape, sexual molestation / grooming, robbery, kidnapping, “white collar” fraud, corruption.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Applies to Whale too?
The suppression laws could do with some attention, but if pushing the boundaries results in being found to break the current laws it risks consequences. Whale knowingly took risks without knowing if he could finance the repercussions.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 11:52 am
He didn’t even say ‘please’.
We have a legal system in this country. It might not be perfect, but, like democracy, it’s better than most alternatives.
What Cameron Slater is doing is a form of vigilantism, usurping the processes of justice. They might not be perfect, but it’s what we have. If we don’t like the process, and we’re sufficiently moved to do, we can make use of the ‘proper channels’ (stuffy expression, I know) to get it changed.
He got himself into this. He can pay to get out of it, too.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Barry thats “a” case. cg has now modified her stance. Just disclosure in specified situatons. And she also wants to circumvent the principle of innocent until proven guilty by revealing the names of those on trial for serious charges. Unless she meant convicted of? Which would at least be a more reasonable proposition.
Mobs not tend to do detail very well.
Weighing up the consequences is an important apsect of changing laws and proceedures. I’d sugest this hasn’t been done here because only the “bad” situations are being used as arguments. in same way Clayton Weatherstion was used to remove provokation as a defence. This is entirely superious reasoning as his defence failed utterly rather sugesting there was no problem with the law.
Reactionary legislation is always dnagerous, particularly when we have a proven history of doing for entirely the wrong reasons.
What i do not support and will never is one individual or groups deliberatly choosing to violate a court order for the sake of their own agenda. The women handing out such information at Wellingto railway station beign a case in point.
This of course leads us to the question of way is Cameron Slater being taken to court and they were not even cautioned?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
I have chipped in a few bucks.
This issue needs a lot of attention IMHO and this should help.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
He should be in jail already, for being so ugly in all of his court appearance photos. Public decency.
If his representation in court is anything like his tourette-ridden rages on his blog, then god help him. I certainly won’t be.
+ What Murray said about stupid knee-jerk changes to legislation to appease the vox pop of a few small hobbyhorse-riding mobs.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Crap, three more horsemen to go.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Show me a case Murray where sex victims have been named. That is a spurious argument not supported in better jurisdictions than our.
No one wants to know the victim details but we sure as hell want to know who the pedo teachers, dentists, doctors and MPs are. Name suppression just keeps them hidden.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
does the prosecution need any cash?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Love your “superious reasoning”, Murray.
Slater’s cause is neither reactionary, Murray (in the sense of precipitous), nor a knee-jerk reaction, RRM. It’s an attempt to halt the inexorable, judge-led erosion of a long-established constitutional principle that our courts of justice and their proceedings should be open to the general public, not just to “insiders”. Slater himself has an additional concern about name suppression for defendants whose whereabouts in the community and alleged crimes need to be known in order to protect innocent people, including children, from becoming additional victims. And good on him for that.
Yes, Slater is playing a dangerous game legally. (Rather like some who used wanton violence to further their anti-Springbok protests in 1981, only to be regarded later as champions of their cause?) But as far as I know he hasn’t helped identify any person accused of serious crime who has subsequently been acquitted of the charges. It’s a fine line, but – when the legislature does not act – how else can one stand up against our judicial aristocracy who feel entitled to erode our constitutional rights and standards?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Oh and I love how he cites old soldiers to give his campaign that extra seal of legitimacy.
(Cause they weren’t fighting to prevent our country from falling to Japan, it was really a finely-wrought protest about free-speech issues.)
Quite impressive how he brings the burqa into it too, linking pedophiles with Muslims in a kind of axis of evil that’s sure to excite his fans.
Join Slater and the returned servicemen in the good fight against perverts and Arabs. Nice.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Quite right CG,
Id go further – in a society where the state prosecutes on behalf of the individuals, the legal system should be completely open without exception (except for some obvious stuff like endangering people etc) . I know lots of people think sexual offences are somehow different, but the fact is that they are but one type of assault and there is no particular reason why one type of assault show be treated differently from any other.
If people don’t want that sort of legal system, then the alternate is that you pay for prosecutions yourself and in that way obtain secrecy – thats what used to exist before the concept of state protection was thought of – and it wasn’t nice.
For the life of me I cant see the sense in suppression – those close to the case always know who the people are anyway, and if you think that making the name of some unknown person public (ie: the victim – who are almost always unknown to 999999.9% of the population) public is going to affect them , then you are very much mistaken. All the damage that is going to be done is already done by those close already knowing. The only thing suppression does is protect the offender.
And as for well known people – well thats just the baggage that comes with being a public figure. If you want the pay and notoriety of being a celeb – then don’t be a naughty person.
And for those who think Whale is sailing close to the wind – well he is, but nothing ever changed by accepting bad law was OK and not doing anything about it. Take those bums who broke into the radar station near Blenheim. Yes – I think they should be accommodated in a place described as “at the pleasure of Her Majesty”, but they took a stand and they have caused a change in the law (which isn’t exactly what they intended and may rue what they did). There are plenty of examples. The nurse who helped her mother to die, etc.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Well after reading comments bent and twisted by the screaming lefties, I have decided to make a donation to Whale Oil’s defence fund. Why should Judges protect pedophiles, rapists, murderers, robbers, bashers etc?
Eat shit you wimps
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Whilst I have some sympathy for WO I dont believe all cases should be treated the same.
Say if you were accused of crime where there werent a number of independent witnesses so it came down to a he said she said.
If your name was published and then you were found 100% innocent as in the acusser was malicious towards you IMHO no amount of publicity is going to completely clear you.
There will always be some who say. He did it and got off.
So why not suppress the names in these cases but publish IF they are found guilty.
Afterall dont we have that quaint saying Innocent UNTIL proven guilty
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
CG and barry have made very good points. Name suppression law in this country badly needs large scale reform, and Whaleoil has kept this issue in the public eye. Sometimes I find him a bit abrasive for my liking, but accept that as an idiosyncracy – and most of those who have changed the world have those, as do us all.
I dont have so much of a problem with name suppression pre-conviction, unless the person concerned is still out in the community where they have further opportunities to reoffend. Perhaps the answer for that is not to lift name suppression, but keep them isolated in the first place.
Post-conviction, the only circumstance under which name suppression should apply are when the victim or their guardians have specifically requested it. And the victim should be able to apply for its removal at any time further down the line should they wish to.
I am reminded of a quote (and I’m not sure I have got this right word for word or who it is by so I cannot attribute it) – “No reasonable man has ever effected change in this world, it is only the unreasonable man that makes change happen” On that not I shall now go make my donation
Regards
Vote:Peter Jenkins
Webmaster for Sensible Sentencing Trust
August 18th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
And think about how you would feel if it was you who was the accussed You know your innocent and will be found NOT guilty when it gets to Court yet your name is out and about as the ACCUSSED.
Feel OK about that do we????
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
I have both blogged in support of WO, and made a donation to the cause. I don’t necessarily agree with the manner in which he has gone about this campaign, but I DO support his efforts to effect change.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Yes, that’s exactly how I fell Inventory – he has made an admirable stand, and even if he hasn’t always gone about in the manner I would have done so, nobody else did it or made the sacrifice he has.
As for lastmanstanding’s comment – that is exactly why I have no issue with pre-conviction name suppression, which largely is not the issue here anyway (except where the accused is still out and active in the community). Post conviction it is a different matter
Regards
Vote:Peter Jenkins
Webmaster for Sensible Sentencing Trust
August 18th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Here’s the quote I was looking for;
“Reasonable men adapt to the world around them; unreasonable men make the world adapt to them. The world is changed by unreasonable men.”
Edwin Louis Cole
I have also put a link to Whaleoil’s appeal up on the Trademe message boards….
pigeons-cat-pigeons
Regards
Vote:Peter Jenkins
Webmaster for Sensible Sentencing Trust
August 18th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Yeah, let’s name everyone accused of anything and watch their lives crumble and be destroyed long before the court ever rules. And if it finds them not guilty – or if the flaky charges are dropped before it even gets to court – well tough luck, mud sticks and a large portion of society believes nonsense like “where there’s smoke…”
You call that a “justice” system?
There is usually no reason – beyond salaciousness – for the wider public to know the name of an accused person before their guilt or innocence is established. In fact I can rarely see a need for them to know that an unnamed person is even accused of a particular offence, though I see no reason that shouldn’t be reported.
After a trial is a different matter. We need to know what precedents are being set, what sentences are being handed down, what evidence was found etc. But that can be achieved through publishing judgments, as we do now, and reporting on those.
To be fair and just to all, name suppression ought to be automatic up till the verdict, and the prosecution have to fight to have it lifted if they feel there’s a good reason to do so.
Then automatically extended forever if found not guilty and lifted if found guilty. That way people wrongfully accused get to keep most of their life. They’ll quite possibly have lost the trust of friends, family and maybe workmates who know of the charges, possibly their job, and certainly a lot of money in legal fees. The least we can leave them is their reputation.
I can understand the SST laying in a supply of burning torches and pitchforks ready for the precedent that would be set by a Whale win, but I’m disappointed to see more rational thinkers unquestioningly accepting this premise.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
How can we donate to assist the prosecution? Taxes that I’m happy to pay, for once.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Rex, the whole premise of the justice system is openness. By placing the burqa of name suppression on details right from the start as you suggest, and I understand where you are coming from, just makes justice even more murky than it already is.
The more open something is the less salacious it is. By making things a secret makes them salacious by definition. By trying to hide makes people want to discover the hidden.
Name Suppression up to verdict simply applies the veil harder. Openness could lead to more victims being identified.
I understand your very personal view on this but in the interests of open justice we simply cannot tolerate a burqa being placed upon our justice system, because once Justice is NOT being seen, it isn’t open any longer.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
I too appreciate the position you’re arguing from Whale, and I know you do so from a belief at least as deep and well-founded as my own. But your assertion that:
completely ignores the manner in which the media chooses to report certain crimes versus the way it reports other matters -even other crimes. And the way in which it treats certain people versus other people charged with the same offence.
When I was in jail I commented to several other prisoners that I thought my life was already pretty much over. They – who were charged with similar offences – couldn’t understand what I meant. Then I showed them the media coverage I’d been sent – front page, above the fold, colour photos. The guy I shared a cell with had been sent his coverage too… two paragraphs in the local freebie on about page 27.
He ended up being acquitted (his “indecent assault” was to smack a girl of unknown age on the backside at a party because she kept gyrating it in his face. Turned out she was 15). Aside from a bit of reconciling to do with his wife, his life was pretty much untouched by the experience.
I know not every case attracts the publicity mine did. But bear in mind that by that time I’d been out of national politics for seven years and didn’t hold a media position either. I was essentialy of no more news value than the guy I shared a cell with. From what I could tell (from the questions my elderly parents were rung up and badgered with) the journalists were doing it either because they liked wallowing in sleaze, because they disliked me, or because of the whole “tall poppy” thing (though if I’m a tall poppy, then NZ is pretty barren soil!).
Why can’t we see justice being done without names attached until a verdict is in? Does it help us to know whether the person accused if something is a “prominent entertainer” or a plumber? Does it make the offending any worse? And even if employment is a factor (teachers in underage sex cases for instance) then surely it’s enough for us to know just the employment?
If we’re that keen, we should be able to go to any (open) court and watch for ourselves… which is from where, in the days before media, the concept of open justice arose; not to feed salacious gossip in the town square, just to ensure that no legislature could run an Inquisition because its judges would be watched by a handful of ordinary citizens.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
The logical step is live streaming of all court proceedings, why should courts be open only to those with the means to travel to them physically.
The openness is more about the carry of the judges and lawyers than the accused or otherwise. As you will have seen, just sitting in the court shows just how deeply cosy the whole system is. Openness is the only solution. Not secrecy.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Whale:
That’s a brilliant idea. I’d happily support the streaming of courts live, provided the media (including blogs) were constrained by name suppression till verdict as I’ve said. That way people who were genuinely interested in the administration of justice would be able to see and hear the reality of the situation, not the tabloid trash version as seen through the media’s lens.
Of course the media could(and no doubt would) publish the relevant URL and time of the hearing etc but there’d be far less people who took the trouble to do that than presently absorb the “nudge nudge, wink wink, he’s been charged so he must be guilty” in which much of the media indulges.
Alternatively, I’d accept a law demanding that media be forced to accord the same prominence to an acquittal or the dropping of charges as they did to an arrest. The daily that featured me front page above the fold when I was arrested, for instance, ran the story of the charges being dropped in its “in brief” column buried inside. And only after my family rang to ask them why nothing had been run.
Only person who did the decent thing was Paul Holmes, who gave me 6 1/2 minutes at the top of his show, for which I will be forever grateful (and I don’t think his show even covered the original arrest).
Despite our philosophical differences I still support your acquital, however, as I think this is a clear case of the system using its might to heavy someone who was acting on principle in a way in which he genuinely believes to be right. And if you can wreck Waihopai domes and use that as your defence, then it should certainly apply in your case. Good luck.
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 11:25 am
wheres my fucking receipt ?
Vote: