A Woman’s Victim Status Entitles Her to Break the Law?
The news story this week about ACC employee Dr Peter Jansen was fascinating. A disgruntled female ACC claimant (on the basis of alleged sexual abuse) wrote potentially defamatory things about Dr Jansen on a blog. Dr Jansen asked her to remove the comments and, when she refused to do so, commenced a defamation case against her claiming $250,000 in damages. He has made it clear that his aim was simply to have the comments removed, although more recent news articles reported he also demands an apology.
In wades Labour MP Ms Carmel Sepuloni who, in parliament, asked the ACC minister
“Does he think fair treatment includes a senior medical adviser at ACC, Dr Peter Jansen, suing an ACC claimant, a victim of sexual abuse, for $250,000 for speaking her mind on a blog about the appalling treatment of sexual abuse victims under his watch?”
Well Ms Sepuloni, clearly this woman is being sued for defamatory comments about Dr Jansen, not for speaking her mind about ACC policy. If she had taken care to remain within the law in her public utterances then no lawsuit would have transpired.
Ms Sepuloni appears to follow a fashionable feminist belief that a woman’s victim status renders her free from any obligation to obey the law and from any accountability for breaking the law. This is the same attitude that sees feminists routinely defending all manner of criminal behaviour by women including murder on the basis of claimed victim status. Consistent with the Helen Clark regime, Ms Sepuloni appears to have adopted a new variation of the “girls can do anything” slogan, now: “girls should be allowed to do anything they want”.
Ms Sepuloni may not have thought through her position. If victimhood status is an excuse for breaking the law then we should be excusing rapists, child molesters, career burglars and indeed most criminal offenders for their crimes because nearly all of them have been victims of serious violence, exploitation and/or abuse in their own childhoods and that victimization contributed heavily to their own offending. Indeed, nearly all men are victims of sexist exploitation in our society so, according to Ms Sepuloni’s reasoning, they should never be hassled about illegal or inappropriate behaviour.
Various spokeswomen from feminist groups have essentially continued Ms Sepuloni’s line, claiming that this woman is being “re-victimized” by Dr Jansen (Huh? Is he sexually offending against her too?), even insisting that Dr Jansen should be sacked because his private law suit cannot be separated from his employed capacity.
Dr Nick Smith, Minister for ACC, announced that the woman had removed her defamatory statements from the blog and that Dr Jansen had therefore withdrawn his legal action. However, neither of these claims were correct and may have reflected wishful thinking on the minister’s part, hoping he could make the issue go away quickly. Apparently emboldened by the political support, the offending woman announced she “was considering” counter-sueing Dr Jansen. Yeah right, I’m sure he’s shaking in his shoes.
I commend Dr Jansen for standing strong against the political and employer pressure that has clearly been put on him to abandon his legal right to protect himself from defamation. It’s a disgrace that we are paying Ms Sepuloni an MP’s salary for promoting such sexist nonsense. Hopefully, this little saga will add another small step in showing up feminist entitlement and excess for what it is.
Has she actually broken the law here? That is for the Courts to determine. If the blog was so defamatory then why has no injunction been served to have it removed in the meantime? An injunction can only be issued
Do remember while we can make it about sexual abuse and “victims”, it is actually a defamation lawsuit? And remember this blog also has said a lot worse about different clinicains that don’t support your cause/view/stand-point. So why are they targeting her? If she is found guilty it will open this page up for litigation as well.
So lessons will be learnt by all from the outcome of this suit.
Comment by Greg — Sat 16th April 2011 @ 4:54 pm
Crap half the sentence is missing in the above post.
“An injunction can only be granted if no defense exists”. So clearly the Courts see a defense a?
Comment by Greg — Sat 16th April 2011 @ 4:58 pm
Good healthy point Greg. This doesn’t seem like a ‘woman bad’ situation. It does show how ACC is doing the same as other government agencies.
Their complaints procedures are a joke IMO.
Comment by julie — Sun 17th April 2011 @ 10:56 am
Fair enough, Greg, it’s true that defamation has not yet been proven in Court. I am making an assumption that Dr Jansen was defamed and that he and his lawyer would not have taken legal action unless they were pretty certain of this.
Of course, you too are making an assumption that the absence of an injunction reduces the likelihood that defamation can be shown. Perhaps no injuction was applied for. I doubt very much whether the matter will ever get to a Court because the woman will remove the offending material, and if so I could take your lead and draw an assumption that the woman and her legal advisors knew her writing was defamatory.
If indeed the woman’s writing was simply reasoned debate about ACC policy and government provision for the health effects of sexual abuse, then neither Ms Sepuloni nor her follow-up chorus line from the Misandry Brigades provided any good argument or evidence for this. They did not even provide a reference to the woman’s writing or any invitation for the public to read and make their own judgment. I don’t believe it for a moment.
Regardless, the position of MP Sepuloni and various feminist groups is that Dr Jansen should not be allowed to pursue the legal right available to any other citizen to try to protect him/herself from defamation, that the woman should not even be called to account for her actions, simply because she is (or claims to be) a victim of sexual abuse. My argument still stands.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 17th April 2011 @ 11:05 am
No, I never said that a lack of an injunction means that defamation can’t be shown or proven in Court. What a lack of injunction means is that the Court sees she has a possible defense open to her so it’s not an open and shut case! However, like you said he may never had applied for an injunction in the first place. Though I suspect if he seriously worried about the damage from that blog then that is the first thing one would have done until the Courts made a ruling. Not sure quite why he filed in the High Court either if he says it’s not about the money. But oh well, this will be very interesting if it does go all the way to Court.
I agree Ms Sepuloni often refers to the “re-victimisation” like that is the biggest conern here. I have never actually heard the actual defendant “Jax” say that though. But I suspect Labour have their own agenda here too. Sounds more like plain old bullying than anything else to me.
Comment by Greg — Mon 18th April 2011 @ 2:02 pm
Mmm, sounds familiar. A woman behaves in any objectionable way she chooses and if a man tries to use appropriate channels to gain protection from such behaviour, he is labelled a bully. We see the same thing in domestic violence; any attempt by a man to defend himself from a woman’s physically violent attack will see him treated as the aggressor. (Of course, in applying the police safety orders, even if the man does absolutely nothing but cower in a corner while a woman attacks him, he will still be the one ordered to leave his home and this injustice will later be used as “evidence” to slap a permanent protection order on him. The violent woman will hardly ever face any legal consequences.) Just as is the case for Dr Jansen, the public are so captured by feminism (in addition to ongoing traditional chivalry) that they rush to the badly behaved woman’s side and label the man trying to defend himself as the aggressor.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 18th April 2011 @ 10:19 pm
Righto…. PMSL. You managed to change the topic completely into domestic violence. Have you even read the blog? You seriously think that is ‘violence’?
Good grief, then I think MENZ would have to stand up and say, ‘Yip, we too are violent’ because we attack a clinicians character because they don’t support us! People in glass houses…. is all I’m saying.
Comment by Greg — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 7:40 am
Yep,
Right on the money there Hans.
Which as you know is a major reason why I cannot bring myself to be living in NZ.
I’d love to return one day feeling able to relax in the knowledge that NZ had moved on from it’s apparent current feminist-chivalrist inspired misandry. So I’m very intrigued by noconfidence’s effusive praise of the recent North and South magazine as being sympathetic to NZ men’s social position.
I’ve posted three requests on two different threads asking him to explain what he thinks is so affirming of men in the magazine. But alas no response to date.
I wonder therefore if you can shed any light on the topic?
Generally NZ culture seems so overwhelmingly blighted with misandry that I sure could use even scraps of encouragement that it’s moving in a more man friendly direction!
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 1:57 pm
@ Skeptik….. where do you live now? Can you explain what is different ‘policy wise’ over there from here? Cheers
Comment by Greg — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 3:10 pm
Hey all, we are so different than yesterday. Lesbians became the radical of heterosexual women while gays are the radical of heterosexual men. It’s men’s day now. Lesbians and gays couldn’t stand being in the same room as each other but today they have their rainbow community and since they have more time than men and women who have to balance family life – the world is changing big time.
Enjoy the ride if you want revenge, enjoy the ride if you hate, enjoy the ride if you want to harm another person. Just know that you harm innocent people along the way.
Comment by Julie — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 4:22 pm
Greg, I don’t have a problem with new men/women challenging those here, as long as they are willing to speak up for men themselves.
What is it you want? Do you want to help or do you want to destroy the voice of men altogether?
Comment by Julie — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 4:24 pm
Why? My concern is about the ability to live in NZ safely as a man.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 6:17 pm
As is often the case I have absolutely no idea what you are going on about here Julie. I cannot for the life of me see how your words here relate to the topic of the thread. Wasted space.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 6:21 pm
Lol,… It’s noted and in time note after note makes a difference.
Comment by Julie — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 6:33 pm
It’s kinda sad that we will never see eye to eye as love won’t tolerate hate and hate won’t tolerate love. I’ve said from day one I am the enemy from both hates and I was in Taupo also.
Comment by Julie — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 6:45 pm
Julie says –
WTF?
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 6:48 pm
Skeptic, just do what you do. I know it counts so I don;t care. Everyone else will adapt strategies so it’s just work and no big deal to you.
Comment by Julie — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 7:00 pm
By the way, do you have anything to offer? Not that I care or expect, but do you?
Comment by Julie — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 7:04 pm
Julie,
You’re seriously asking me to justify myself as being of ANY value? yet don’t care either way.
yeah right.
Weird.
In any case NO MAN man has to justify their existence to you.
Shame on you for thinking so.
The arrogance is appalling!
Comment by Skeptik (The real one) — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 7:55 pm
Umm. Well. Shite. I never gave this thought.
Please stay away from work and just be wonderful with talk. You are great.
Comment by Julie — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 8:03 pm
Skeptic, what I want from you is your crucifixion of me. I want you to show the world how better you are by showing my weaknesses going back 5 years. Just do it… your holy greatness, Just show what a horrible person I am,. the scum of the earth, the typical woman you men have to deal with.
My gosh Skeptic, You have a golden opportunity to show what a king you are in the MM because you can show how pathetic a woman is.
Comment by Julie — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 8:20 pm
Last time I looked at my bits Julie I was a man…. so I have a males voice. You on the other hand!!
@ Skeptik….. just assumed when you said, ….
“a major reason why I cannot bring myself to be living in NZ.
I’d love to return one day feeling able to relax in the knowledge that NZ had moved on from it’s apparent current feminist-chivalrist inspired misandry.”
…. you had found somewhere with different policies, laws around such issues. Is there a reason you don’t disclose what country you are currently living in? How long has it been since you left for better pastures? I am still living here in NZ.
Comment by Greg — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 8:37 pm
Greg,can you please share the new policies. (I am doing an assay on new policies)
Comment by Julie — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 9:14 pm
No, I didn’t change the topic but simply drew an analogy.
I haven’t read the blog and I haven’t claimed the content was violence, though slander tends to be emotionally and financially violent and of course the feminists have changed the definition of violence to include almost anything one might object to, at least anything done by a man. I used the terms “objectionable” and “badly behaved”, and I accept I make an assumption that such terms applied to this woman’s blog on the basis that Dr Jansen was sufficiently offended that he took steps to defend himself against it.
I’m not sure about your claim about attacks by MENZ contributors on clinicians’ character. Through the years I personally have challenged some for personal attacks and/or potentially slanderous statements and several such contributors were eventually banned for it. If a “clinician” believed they had been slandered they too would have the right to seek protection or redress, and I may well support them in enacting that right. Your implied accusation of hypocrisy is unfounded.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 9:48 pm
Julie,
Yet again we get back to the pompous demonizing false dichotomy that somehow talking or writing isn’t actually work.
Odd idea that one.
I know the world would be a hell of a lot worse were it not for certain people’s ‘mere’ talking and writing.
Greg,
I’m really not interested in disclosing my whereabouts so that the long arm of establishment feminism can attack me.
Suffice to say that I live somewhere, which like anywhere else is far from perfect, but I have to say is a damn sight better for me as a man than New Zealand.
I don’t have the expertise on local laws here to tell folks all the ins and outs of why it’s better legally either.
I simply know from day to day living that folks here do not treat me with the day in day out misandry I experienced in New Zealand and hear so much about reading posts regularly at MENZ.
Besides which one needn’t be living in a country to still have an interest in the place and therefore be affected by what goes on there, so no need for any dichotomous thinking about that.
Fact is there are people in NZ I care about, therefore I make it my business to have input about the place.
I AM a New Zealander.
I’m also extremely embarrassed about what has become of New Zealand socially over the last few decades for men under feminism.
I spread that message globally.
If that resonates with you then simply be thankful you have an overseas allie.
Comment by Skeptik (The real one) — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 10:04 pm
What are you talking about Julie? I was asking Skeptik that question! Wanted to know if there was a difference here from over there wherever he is that makes him wish to stay there rather than here. As he said he wouldn’t return until things changed here (like NZ has difference policies or legalisation around such issues to other western countries). Sorry if I wasn’t clear Julie. Also what is an assay? Cheers
Comment by Greg — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 10:27 pm
Fair point Hans, but it will be interesting for all bloggers to see what is acceptable and what isn’t in terms of defamation regardless. I do notice she refers to Nick Smith in the same blog calling him the same name and yet he doesn’t seem too offended by it.
Comment by Greg — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 10:31 pm
Not sure what you are talking about here Julie or how this relates.
Comment by Greg — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 10:32 pm
Skeptic, you have what you want. Thanx for being a leader in the MRM.It;s now about: Making it work.
Awesome man, you did it.
Comment by Julie — Tue 19th April 2011 @ 10:54 pm
Hello MENZ. Long time, no post.
Yet again, totally no offence or bias/misguidance is intended. I just think I nneed to say this.
This topic brings in mind a video of what seems to be a feminist rant. The womens seems to be degrading ALL men, but she then asks men to “stop beleiving in the masculinization you are believing”. I wonder why men are made to belive that…
But I get it, it is a man’s problem if a women wears skimpy clothing, and attracts presumably wanted sexual attention, knowing that they could easily file a rape complaint if things got out of hand. Rape is evil, does that maen blaming men is the reason why men are so misaligned, beacuse they are men? And women supposedly never rape or kill one another, let alone men?
If you think men are still over-represented then go find the ratio of girl power, anti-male groups, breast cancer awareness and men being the problem of, um, modern gender contradictions to the ratio of boys support, prostate cancer funding, and even the opinions of actual equalitists. You may be surprised.
Comment by Benjamin — Wed 20th April 2011 @ 10:53 am
Please post again. I wish one of my sons would post. He has the same common sense as you.
Comment by julie — Wed 20th April 2011 @ 11:01 am
I would just like to say here and now a big thank you to everyone who has supported Christchurch following the earthquakes. May you all enjoy the easter break and have my gratitude.
Comment by Benjamin — Wed 20th April 2011 @ 11:12 am
I have asked to be banned from this site also. I know men are getting things they want and ‘Cool, great for you guys,… enjoy’. May your lives be better and happiness surround you.
I did what needed to be done but I no longer agree on what I did. So sad, too bad.
Anyways, as always majority wins and thanks everyone who complained about me for if it wasn’t for you, I’d be sucked into mainstream also and I’ve spent my life on the outskirts and want to end my life here. God bless you all and…. I don’t have anything more to say.
Comment by julie — Wed 20th April 2011 @ 11:26 am
My above comment wasn’t meant for you Benjamin. Sory about it showing like it was. I hope you write how life is for young men cause it is worthy discussion.
Comment by julie — Wed 20th April 2011 @ 12:46 pm
actually Julie, I would love to hear what you have to say. I do have a sister with kids. I would like to hear “both sides of the fence” (maybe on a unisex board?)
Comment by Jono — Wed 20th April 2011 @ 1:47 pm
What on earth are you saying Julie?
Comment by Scott B — Wed 20th April 2011 @ 2:05 pm
Men, (haha, I usually write hey guys, lol)
People like you when you say what they want to hear and hate you when you don;t say what they want to hear. That’s life and I am grateful for I can’t lie – I’d be rich if I did, lol.
Comment by julie — Wed 20th April 2011 @ 3:26 pm
So…..
what do I want to hear?
which is ?
oh your having your 2c worth 🙂 what salary you on 🙂
Would we need a court system if everyone stopped telling lies?
Comment by Jono — Wed 20th April 2011 @ 4:48 pm
would you agree its alot easier to be mean to someone than it is to be nice. Words can be taken the wrong way (which happens alot) or not clear even with the best of intentions. Words can be so easily twisted even to a point used against you. We all say things in the heat of the moment (incl. discomfort).
Comment by Jono — Wed 20th April 2011 @ 10:13 pm
Menimists seem to me to be as dangerous as feminists. I read this and was surprisingly not amazed it went so off topic. What I find amazing is that it seems hardly anyone here has read the offending blog yet find themselves experts on the subject.
If you seriously represent all men in this country, do ya homework.
Comment by Nic — Sun 24th April 2011 @ 6:08 pm
Nic,
Menenists?
Wow! Weird term.
Sorry, you’re wasting your time trying to reduce us to an ‘ism.
Me? Like plenty here I’m a Men’s Rights Advocate.
You know, Human rights for males too?
You’d make more sense if you followed your own advice and did YOUR homework. That means being able to specifically refer to points of view you agree/disagree with and name the posters who put up those views.
Otherwise as it is your complaint seems too vague to respond to.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 24th April 2011 @ 7:25 pm
Skeptic my dear chap.
I had the pleasure to read your first post in this thread and you only say:
“Yep,
Right on the money there Hans.”
and then you go off topic by suggestion that you are better off out of the country than in. I ask you one question? What makes you qualified to comment on what this country does or doesn’t do? You aren’t here but you think you can be a voice here.
And you misquoted me. Menimist not Menemist. Yes I applaud the right of men to defend themselves if just cause exists, but that has to be proved right?
Lastly, the woman in question (the blogger) is not a rampant feminist nor bull dyke. She doesn’t hate men. She does have a view though if she feels she has been wronged she will act accordingly and what’s wrong with that? We all do it. In this case the poor indefensible male is a person who just happens to be a person in a position of power and some control over what happens at ACC and is fair game to public praise or ridicule (whichever rocks ya boat)> In my eyes he has erred in his action, more especially as the blogger is also having trouble getting ACC to fund her therapy.
Comment by Nic — Sun 24th April 2011 @ 7:51 pm
Menimists? I think the correct word is masculanists (or the shorter version, masculists). Do your own homework.
And just incase you are unable to understand what a masculist is here is a definition for you:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=masculanist
Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Sun 24th April 2011 @ 7:54 pm
A Rabbit by any other colour is a rabbit. The reason I termed you lot Menimists is because having read a bit here I find your attitudes rather far left wing and harmful especially towards women that stand up for themselves. Jax wasn’t standing up for womens rights as such but for all those who have been suffering at the hands of the ACC’s SCU, and that does include a lot of men.
Dr Jansen is one of the primary architects of the SCU and still heads that area of ACC. He is open to public scrutiny from anyone, and this time he’s bitten the bullet. I see you folk wish to defend Jansen? Why? I read in this thread one poster making comments on the case even though he admits he hasn’t read the blog. Homework. If you want to present a broad expose on the matter, homework.
Yes I did read the history of the movement and at one stage years ago I was in a position to think I might need you help, but thankfully I didn’t.
Comment by Nic — Sun 24th April 2011 @ 8:04 pm
Good thing I don’t know any menimists then.
Forced that direction by non members such as yourself. Notably your incursion seems solely for the purpose of drawing attention to it being off topic. What a magnificent contribution. Round and round we go.
I have read it. Furthermore I know several victims who have had similar difficulties with ACC. However none of them have engaged in published acts of slander. Frankly the more of her words I read the more explicable her problems with ACC become. Somewhere in the ACC is a very thick file with her name and the words “trouble maker” on the cover. As somebody involved in work for rape victims I find her approach problematic and not in the long term best interests of victims. I will predict that she will get what she wants for herself but at the cost of making it excruciatingly harder for others.
Hmmm, half a century in the labour movement and classed as centre left I view virtually all the contributors to MENZ as being to the right of myself. If you perceive them as “far left” then you would be somewhere to the right of Pinochet by my reckoning.
Please define this “harm” to which you refer. How is it caused and how does it manifest?
Glad you acknowledge that the slander was public. Whether he was wise to respond in the way he did is moot. The slander exists regardless of the subsequent actions of the slandered.
Is it Jansen who’s specifically being defended or a principle being stated with Jansen as an exemplar? Regardless of the validity of Jax’ cause it seems she has engaged in slander.
And as she, herself, has stated…
This unaccountability shit has become rife in Society.
I wonder if she is willing to accept for herself the accountability she insists upon for others.
Comment by gwallan — Sun 24th April 2011 @ 11:19 pm
Nic – This site is not a promotion of men at the expense of women, their children and civilization (like feminism is a promotion of women at the expense of men, their children and civilization). Instead, it is a promotion of civilization, as it is represented by the Constitutions of countries throughout the developed world. The civil rights of men, fathers and their children and families are critical for civilization to persist.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 24th April 2011 @ 11:19 pm
Never liked the term masculist or masculinist, as it seems to legitimize or mirror the feminists. And we do not do that. We support the Constitution and civilization and families and civil rights (of everyone, including women).
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 24th April 2011 @ 11:25 pm
I had no need to read the offending blog in order to make the arguments I did. It’s not my place to judge whether her blog was defamatory or not, that would be for a Court to determine. I have not defended Dr Jansen but only his right to use proper legal channels to protect himself against what he considers to be slander.
I challenge your statement that Dr Jansen “is fair game to public praise or ridicule” because he is employed by ACC to contribute to policy. You think that it’s ok to attack the person if you disagree with his beliefs or decisions? Laws against defamation exist precisely because of attitudes like that. Although feminists seem to seek the removal of all laws constraining women’s behaviour towards men, and indeed they are already well on the way to achieving this, I don’t support that direction.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 25th April 2011 @ 12:13 am
And by the way, I quite like the term “menimists”. But menimists seek gender equality and fairness, not the special female privilege and unaccountability that feminists have long pursued. Menimism could be compared with what feminism initially claimed to be, but should not be compared with what feminism has become.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 25th April 2011 @ 12:55 am
Nic,
Thank you for addressing me personally.
I can see who your conversing with that way.
You write –
Actually if you thought about it some more you’d perhaps see there’s no going off topic at all. There’s a direct link between a woman’s victim status (real or imagined) all to often leading to her having permission to break the law with impunity in NZ and me skedaddling away from NZ to safer shores.
It’s not rocket science to me, but I’ll happily explain it to you if you need help.
What makes me qualified is having lived in NZ for decades and since leaving keeping close tabs on the place.
Oh, yes! And I’m a man.
Are you?
I can’t tell with a moniker like Nic.
Meninist, menemist, meningitis…… it’s all the same to me ….a meaningless term. Anything with an ism denotes a form of seperation, whereas Men’s Rights Advocates/Activists don’t want to split off – they want to join the other half of humanity in having human rights!
So like I said I’m with others here who identify as being a MEN’S RIGHTS ACTIVIST.
The proof for Men’s Rights if you need it is woven throughout the many threads and articles of this and many other websites.
Stick around and learn a bit.
Nowhere on this thread or anywhere else did I say she was, so no need to demonizing by suggesting I had.
However, in making that statement you also imply you know the woman.
Since you are falsely accusing me, it doesn’t inspire my confidence in her as I think ‘birds of a feather often flock together.
Thank you for the implied recognition.
In this case the poor indefensible male is a person who just happens to be a person in a position of power and some control over what happens at ACC and is fair game to public praise or ridicule (whichever rocks ya boat). In my eyes he has erred in his action, more especially as the blogger is also having trouble getting ACC to fund her therapy.
Ah yes the old feminist Duluth Power and control jargon gets brought into play.
Again,
Thanks for addressing me specifically and with clearly defined issues too.
Well done.
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 25th April 2011 @ 1:16 am
Actually Skeptik, I thought the “Skeptic, my dear chap” opening rather sarcastic as well as wrongly spelled. But I can see that at least you knew the comments were being directed at you, and I understand your gratitude for small mercies.
In turn, I thank you for your sensible responses to Nix (oh, did I mispell that?).
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 25th April 2011 @ 1:25 am
http://k1w1jax.blogspot.com/2010/11/peter-jansen-undergoes-dsm-iv.html
This is the blog post she is being sued for gwallan. Wonder why Nick Smith isn’t suing her too for giving him the same diagnosis? I’m a little unsure how this is defamtion (clearly Dr. Jansen believes it is) but most would read it as funny rather than slander as Hans states. The Judge rules on what the majority of the general population read the post as and not what Dr. Jansen and his lawyer think it is or isn’t. So if you read it and begin to believe that yes the guy misused ACC resources to give himself a diagonsis of CIP then yes it’s slander.
Damages upwards of $250,000 for such a blog is taking it a bit far though. Did he lose his job or was the blog even in the mainstream (only had 15 followers) or mentioned on TV or in media before this?? NO, of course not. I mean some MENZ members (I say some) are quick to jump on people (namely woman) receiving subsided ACC counselling as abusing the system but they would never see that much money (even those who got a solid conviction in Court). I just can’t help wonder if this man is a little to thin skinned and precious for such a job.
Skeptik…. still wondering where you are living nowdays?
Comment by Greg — Mon 25th April 2011 @ 3:10 pm
Also Hans while you say you haven’t read the blog itself you yet defamed the said person in the title of this blog post. No law has currently been broken and considering MENZ strong stance about “evidence and Court processes” it is suprising to me you made such a statement. Also, this woman has not used the victim card in any of this….. “corporate bullying” are her words in the media. The rest is media spin and Labour. So you can see how this case will set the way for bloggers such as yourself to be sued for defamation in the future for making untrue and unfounded statements.
Comment by Greg — Mon 25th April 2011 @ 4:10 pm
I doubt it “Greg”. I don’t claim and didn’t state that this woman, whose name is not mentioned, defamed anyone or broke the law. But her supporters object to the idea that she should even be subject to legal challenge or Court scrutiny of her behaviour. A call to protect someone from investigation for allegedly breaking the law amounts to a call to allow that person to break the law without being hassled about it.
However, I am interested in what you see as “untrue and unfounded” statements in the post above.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 25th April 2011 @ 5:28 pm
“Hans”
Doesn’t have to be untrue to be defamation Hans… but I agree the title of the blog is would probably not be considered as such ONLY due to the fact you posted a question mark at the end of it.
For the purposes of members on here the legal definition of defamation is:
“A defamatory statement is one that tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, or which tends to cause him or her to be shunned or avoided, or which tends to cause a person to be exposed to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or which is a false statement about a person to his or her discredit. The statement may be in the form of words or pictures, visual images, gestures, and other means of signifying meaning.”
So again, like I have been trying to say for this whole thread is that this website could be liable also and that we can all learn lessons from this case. If you or John Potter (for hosting this site) was facing charges then we wouldn’t be having a discussion about ‘woman victims’ would we? It’s all in how you bracket it really! I see a much wider issue here than clearly you do!
Comment by Greg — Mon 25th April 2011 @ 6:32 pm
Greg, I agree that there is a much wider issue here. If lawyers apply their trade into internet debate then free speech is over for ever and we the people are the only losers here. Mainstream media only serves the interests of its owners. The Communist Manifesto advocates the destruction of nation, religion and family and the transfer of all private wealth to the international bankers and their cabal who own everything and hide behind the state.
Comment by Doug — Mon 25th April 2011 @ 6:48 pm
Well, not really how I would have explained it but YES… Doug, you are right.
Comment by Greg — Mon 25th April 2011 @ 7:16 pm
Sorry about the quotation marks around your name Greg; it’s just my way of acknowledging that we really don’t know that a name provided is actually the writer’s name.
Thanks for your concern about possible legal action. There is another factor relevant here though: If someone felt defamed I would readily remove comments that might be at risk of being defamatory, and in some cases even if they simply caused offence. Most written pieces can be worded to avoid personal attacks or defamatory claims while still making their point clearly. In the case of an internet blog, doing that may be seen as adequate remedy.
I understand that Dr Jansen’s initial aim was to have statements removed that he believed were defamatory. It seems likely that he initially asked for this to happen. From the news stories it appeared that the author felt self-entitled to maintain publication of the offending comments. What is he supposed to do if the author refuses his request? He has two options, either put up with comments remaining in the public forum that he believes defame him or use the channels legally available to him (as they are to anyone else) to force their removal. Why should this be seen as corporate bullying? The real bullying in such a situation is by the person who insists on continuing publication of offending comments that were probably unnecessary anyway.
If your neighbour is poorer and less powerful than you and writes “My neighbour Greg’s a dangerous psychopath” on her fence in the context of some dispute, then refuses to remove this when you ask, do you think you should be seen as a bully when you then take the matter further legally? Do you really believe that you should have to put up submissively with the offending statement simply because your neighbour is poorer, less powerful, a female or a victim of some sort? I doubt it.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 25th April 2011 @ 11:38 pm
While you have a point here you are misinfomed Hans and are again making an assumpution. The first contact the person “Jax” had with the said person was when they were served with the legal papers and she has received nothing further from his lawyer stating legal action would be dropped if the blog post was removed. Of course, the media are reporting the action will be dropped if the blog in removed and she also makes a public apology (though no lawyer has informed her of such) but I suspect it would be hard to apologise for something that is your opinion and strongly held belief.
Regardless of that, the lawyer of ‘Jax’ advised her to leave the said blog as he believes she is not in breach of any such law with this post.
Thank you for the apology about the quotation marks around my name. I thought it was ‘odd’ but then I have noticed if people present an opposing arguement may MENZ members question their gender or identity. You can of course just look up the IP address to find my name is Greg, however, I don’t know the name is really important as the point I’m making. I mean I don’t question Skeptik and many other members here as not having a point because they use what are obviously not real names.
Comment by Greg — Tue 26th April 2011 @ 5:04 pm
“Greg”, I don’t know how or whether you know what you claim to know. I’m happy to accept your claims in good faith, though lawyers usually ask for the desired remedy in the first instance, perhaps specifying what consequences might be pursued if the recipient does not oblige.
I made no assumption in stating “It seems likely” that Mr Jansen initially asked for the offending comments to be removed. Whether this was first done through a lawyer or not is irrelevant. You might not want to approach your neighbour directly about the defamatory things she wrote on her fence about you.
I have not questioned your identity or gender, nor have I claimed or implied that you didn’t have a point; in fact, I have responded point by point to many of your statements respectfully. I have no idea who you are, whether your name is Greg or not, and looking up your IP address (which I have no interest in doing) would not leave me any more certain about those matters. I prefer to highlight this uncertainty through using quotation marks in some cases. However, if you find that particularly offensive please let me know and I will be quite happy to desist in your case. I welcome your participation in reasoned debate.
If the woman has not written and refused to remove anything that a Court would find defamatory, then she has nothing to worry about. Your neighbour may obtain legal advice that her warning about you on her fence also isn’t defamatory. It’s all irrelevant to my argument. Just as you would have every right to pursue legal means to try to make your neighbour remove stuff about you that you didn’t like, Dr Jansen has the same right. Just because she is a female who has been the victim of someone else’s crime and he is a white male (who may well also been the victim of crimes during his life) should not make any difference here in my opinion, but Dr Jansen’s critics seem to believe it should. This gets to the heart of the matter: it’s about feminist self-entitlement, privilege and unaccountability as well as ongoing chivalry.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 26th April 2011 @ 6:40 pm
Dr Jansen now appears to have succumbed to institutionalized feminist pressure, probably from his employer, to discontinue his efforts to protect himself against defamation. One defamatory accusation made against him, that he accessed an ACC claimant’s file inappropriately, has been investigated and found to be baseless. Yet, because of her gender and claimed victim status, this woman’s defamatory accusations have been allowed to remain published. Appalling. Men of NZ, don’t delude yourselves any longer with any expectation that your rights will be respected, or that you will be supported in trying to protect your rights.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 7th May 2011 @ 10:26 am