Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Vote LabourGreen; keep Kim Dotcom

We spotted this tweet from Patrick Gower late yesterday:


We're surprised that no other media has picked up on this, because it is a very significant story, in our ever-humble opinion.

Here's the lead line of Gower's 3News story on this from last night:

Kim Dotcom's efforts to stay in New Zealand received a boost today - with Labour and the Greens revealing they are prepared to stop his extradition if they take power.

Go to the video at the link above, and from around the 1:30 mark, you will see both David Cunliffe and Russel Norman state their views on the Dotcom case. Norman's view is particularly strong.
 
We challenge David Cunliffe and Russel Norman to state categorically that their respective parties have made no dirty deals with Kim Dotcom to help him avoid extradition to the United States to face serious criminal charges. The charges themselves are outlined in the indictment against Dotcom and his alleged co-conspirators. We urge people to take time to read the actual indictment, instead of simply taking the word of a convicted criminal that the charges against him are trumped-up.

We are mere bush lawyers, so we would be interested in comment from someone with legal knowledge as to the possible international consequences of a government making a political decision to overturn a lawful, court-ordered extradition from New Zealand. 
 
The Green Party's distaste of all things American is a matter of public record, but we are surprised that David Cunliffe has not put some distance between himself and his party and this suggestion.

What it boils to is this; if you think that Kim Dotcom is a saint, and that he should stay in New Zealand forever, vote for Labour or the Greens. On the other hand, if you think that Kim Dotcom has a case to answer in the United States, and that however much overkill was used in the raid on his Coatesville property, the US Government still has the right to apply to have him extradited, DON'T vote for Labour or the Greens; or the Internet Party.

 
 





17 comments:

Missy said...

There are a number of worrying issues in this, and it puts the tweet from Kim Dotcom to Russel Norman a few weeks ago into a new light. It is seemingly more and more possible that there has been some deal done with parties on the left and Kim Dotcom, and they need to be transparent about it if there has, or deny it categorically if not.

Another worrying trend with this is the precedent it would set in politicising our justice system. One of the fundamentals of our democracy is that there is separation between the executive (cabinet and government) and the judiciary, if David Cunliffe was to step in and overturn a legal decision made in court following NZ laws then this would set a worrying precedent, it is in essence the thin edge of the wedge.

I would have thought that Labour at the least would understand about perception in politics, and unfortunately for them the perception of their leader indicating the politicisation of our judicial system is not a good one, it is something that is often associated with corruption.

Keeping Stock said...

Well said Missy. It's no surprise that the Greens are in on this, but I would have expected far more caution from David Cunliffe and Labour.

James Stephenson said...

Simple solution - deport the fat fuck to his native Germany, then they can do a swap with the States for Paul Watson.

Keeping Stock said...

Language please James; but I don't disagree with the sentiment!

Ursula said...

"We challenge David Cunliffe and Russel Norman to state categorically that their respective parties have made no dirty deals with Kim Dotcom to help him avoid extradition to the United States to face serious criminal charges."

What answer would you be prepared to believe?

Nookin said...

Well, why wouldn't they legislate to turnover a legitimate court ruling against a political ally?

They legalised the theft of a bundle of dosh and the election of an ineligible candidate on the grounds of expediency, didn't they?

They defended a corrupt minister (Field) to the hilt until he said he would stand as an independent.

We don't even have to mention their cover up over Winnie's $100,000 which Auntie clearly knew about well before she let on.

What's a poke in the USA eye with a sharp stick between friends. It's not as though there are any principles or ethics at stake.

Grant M. McKenna said...

I like Kim DotCom, for the same reason that I like shopping in Porirua: people that are fatter than me are always appreciated.

Not a reason to keep him, but I'm just saying.

In other news, yesterday I saw a Mana bus here in Wellington that didn't have a Kim Dotcom advert on the back.

Nookin said...

"Norman: No. I’ve always said I don’t support the extradition process. I mean, I just don’t think it’s fair. I mean the fairness isn’t there – look at the way they have been acting illegally against him… They illegally raided his mansion, they illegally obtained evidence, they illegally gave the evidence to the U.S Government against the directions of a judge. That is not a lawful or fair process…The case that John Key has jacked up with the US Government I don’t think stands up."

The above quote is attributed to Norman and has been cut and pasted from Whaleoil's site. The very clear suggestion is that Key is party to a conspiracy with FBI pursuant to which fabricated charges have been levelled at Dotcom. There is absolutely no other interpretation that can be placed on Norman's comments. This from a party that abhors ad hominem attacks. I suspect that Norman knows that Key is busy enough and does not need or have the time for defamation action. I wonder if he has the guts to make the same allegation against Crusher. I very much doubt it. Sleazy is a word that comes to mind.

Baxter said...

I seem to recall a Chinese criminal who for a koha was granted citizenship by a Labour Minister at a private ceremony in Parliament even though said minister was warned by his department that he was an undesirable..It seems that Cunliffe/Norman are giving the same nudge nudge wink wink to the German criminal.

Keeping Stock said...

You may well think that Baxter, but I couldn't possibly comment...

Quintin Hogg said...

I believe in the rule of law.
Obviously the greens don't.

Keeping Stock said...

And you're surprised about that QH?

Ursula said...

This from a party that abhors ad hominem attacks.

Do as we say, not as we do.

Sid Viscious plagues Homepaddock, and even our beloved scattergun here can spray the vitriol especially as far as John Key is concerned, whilst claiming the victim role in the dirty tricks department.

Keeping Stock said...

"Sid Viscious"; love it!

alloy said...

#GreensforsaleMEGA

New hash tag for elections 2014?

Keeping Stock said...

I've just swiped that and posted it on Twitter and FB Alloy; deserving of a wider audience :)

Bogusnews said...

I suspect this was probably the reason Dotcom came up with his party idea. He figured it would frighten the left and they would come to his defense to stop it.