A key part of Don Brash's argument to get his rather fishy injunction was the claim that he would be unable to function as an MP or as National's leader if they were published. The implication was that this would be due to personal stress caused by the intrusion into his private life. But the revelation that Nicky Hagar has written a book dishing the the dirt on Don's dodgy dealings shows it in rather a different light. Rather than protecting his privacy, it seems that Brash was protecting his job against the natural consequences of his systematic dishonesty and deceit being revealed to the public. He is, as Hagar notes [JPEG], using claims of personal privacy to dodge political accountability.
Is this really something the courts should be supporting? And is false pretences a good reason to overturn such an injunction?
7 comments:
You overlook the obvious.
The book is a subset of the total e-mails Brash sent during that period.
It is quite possile that the reasons which exist for protecting the e-mails as a whole, would not apply to a small subset of them.
Posted by David Farrar : 11/21/2006 03:37:00 PM
"The implication was that this would be due to personal stress caused by the intrusion into his private life."
Well, if true, I'd be pretty sympathetic to this as well. But haven't we already had Brash's private life dished out to us (whether we wanted it or not)?
Posted by Anonymous : 11/21/2006 04:26:00 PM
I had the impression hearing Brash make this point on Checkpoint tonight, that he meant that people (constituents) would stop emailing MPs with their personal concerns and views, for fear they would be published at a later date.
However Hager blew that concern out of the water by making it clear that the information he was provided with was between senior figures in the National Party, not emails from the general public at all.
Posted by Span : 11/21/2006 06:11:00 PM
I want to see Helen Clark's emails for the last 9 years. Especially those that relate to the 'gates'.
Otherwise there is some implication that that should not happen - which seems to imply that brash has a right not to have his emails published.
choose your side
I'd actually prefer option 1.
Posted by Genius : 11/21/2006 07:15:00 PM
Don Brash was sleeping with his secretary. She leaked the emails after discovering his simultaneous affair with Diane Foreman.
Posted by Anonymous : 11/21/2006 07:37:00 PM
If only helen would sleep with more people! Either that - or hire John Tamihere as her secretary!
Posted by Genius : 11/21/2006 08:30:00 PM
It may be a subset - but its a very important subset! The public have a right to know just what was planned and how it differed from what we have been told! Also we need to know who were the "movers and shakers". I have said it before on here, the revelation of who is pulling Don Brash's strings is something that every voter needs to know! Because it is them that they vote for - not Don Brash or the National Party.
Posted by Anonymous : 11/21/2006 08:41:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).