Thursday, April 06, 2006

Brad Shipton's other court appearance, the acquittal, and that leaflet

It seems strange that just a couple of weblogs have mentioned Brad Shiptons other court appearance. In case you have missed out on the news, I just thought I`d let you know that Shipton, acquitted of raping Louise Nicholas, has appeared before the court on at least one previous occasion.

Click on the above link for further details. Here's more details, with Shipton's smiling face

Enough said.

We appear to have a law where if you break suppression laws using a leaflet or a pledge card, you won't be prosecuted. Labout tried to suppress National with its tax-payerfunded pledge cards, wheras the leaflets tried to breach suppression laws, the most blatant contempt of court I am aware of. The leaflet that was handed out in Wellington regarding the Louise Nicholas case has appeared on the Internet in at least one Newsgroup. What is the police and authorities doing about the breaching of the suppression order regarding the fliers, and the contemptous websites, given that they know the name of the culprits, and, in some cases, what they look like as well.

The leaflet discusses the upholding of principles of justice. Of Louise Nicholas, it says, among other things,
"It’s a travesty that evidence that would show that she was telling the truth never made it to court."
Of course those distributing the flyers don't really care about upholding principles of justice. Hypocrites!

Are the very police who know who broke the law with these fliers afraid to lay charges, or have we a new precedent set by the Labour party when it broke the law over another leaflet advertising its pledge card.

It's this: If you are break the law with a leaflet or a pledge card, you won't get charged or prosecuted, just warned. Particularly if you are a feminist. Just ask Helen Clark, she's experienced in these matters.

Its time for the police in Wellington to uphold the law - after all, its supposed to be the police's job to uphold it.

So why doesn't it when all the investigation has already been done? Too busy driving up and down the Brooklyn Hill all day in mufti cars trying to catch speeding and unregistered vehicles?

I thought so.

1 comment:

Barbara Faithfull said...

If the Wellington women protesting in defence of Louise Nicholas are not from the radical Marxist * Rape Crisis I would be extremely surprised, because their fanaticism epitomises it to a "t", such as :-

1. By claiming, as Rape Crisis does, to be "fighting for justice for women rape victims". (What about other people's justice, as in this current case??)

2. By mouthing the ludicrous mantra that "a woman never lies about rape", which is fundamental Rape Crisis dogma.

3. By applying the emotive and nonsensical term "survivor" to a woman who claims to be a rape victim, and even when not proven, as in the current case; also a Rape Crisis practice.

4. By employing radical, and even unlawful, direct action tactics to make a political point; a common Rape Crisis practice. Remember the scandalous attack on Mervyn Thompson in Auckland some years ago? My recollection is that they admitted responsibility.

Moveoever, last Saturday Radio N.Z. news played many times comments from Kim McGregor, director of Auckland Rape Crisis, implying that Nicholas had been telling the truth, so they are definitely involved in this matter, and my hunch is that they have even been closely involved from very early in the case, and so are smarting at this (to them) "negative" outcome.

I also believe that the only reason these activists are not identifying themselves as Rape Crisis is for the sake of credibility, and to get the public behind them. I suggest they have none and are even two-faced into the bargain, being ideologically driven and using the current case to further their nefarious political cause.

Barbara Faithfull

* Leftist activist Christine Dann showed this in an article on radical feminism in N.Z. in the July 1979 issue of Bruce Jesson's The Republican