Helen Clark is like a teflon-coated snake who can swim into a cesspit to visit her friends and then come out clean and fresh.
Today she admitted that Owen Glenn told her “pretty much what he said in the letter to the privileges committee”. That letter says that Peters solicited the donation, which Peters has denied. So Helen admits that she has known of a “conflict of evidence” since February, but there is no evidence (yet) to show that she knows who is lying. The snake is clean at this time, but see my warning here.
Glenn has little or nothing to lose by lying, and Peters has much to gain by concealing the truth. That, and Peters’ track record, causes me to think that Peters is lying. Also, Winston and his friends in parliament are clearly trying to cover up the stench of rotten scampi and other foodstuffs.
You will find the audio of Helen’s statement from this morning here. Near the end one of the tame journalists says, in regard to John Key refusing to deal with Peters after the election, “Do you think that was a premature call to make and what’s your response?”. Clark replies “From a natural justice and fair process perspective I think it is not a good approach”. Thankfully I wasn’t drinking coffee when I heard that, otherwise I would have been off to hospital with third degree burns.
This is the woman who made smacking illegal despite the opinion of more than 80% of NZers. It should have been a conscience vote for parliament, but Helen forced her cronies to vote on party lines. What about natural justice and fair process for the parents who have been wrongly accused of assault and separated from their children before conviction? See here, especially cases 11, 15, & 19. This is the woman who said on the radio several years ago that she wouldn’t make smacking illegal.
This is the woman who bought in the Electoral Finance Act to stifle free speech in election year. I can give my opinions here because it is a blog, but if I used any other method of communication I would have to comply with the regulations of the State that I am opposed to. That is not free speech, that is speech with a ball and chain. Helen justified the EFA by saying that she didn’t want money buying elections: not only does the evidence show that money doesn’t buy elections, the Helen Party (commonly called the Labour Party) and Winston have received very large sums of money from Owen Glenn and others.
Helen’s definition of natural justice and fair process is “Whatever suits me at the time”. I wouldn’t be surprised if she has the words of Engels tattooed on her body somewhere: “A means can be justified only by its end”.
The best way to deal with a snake is to cut its head off; you will find the tools in a ballot booth this year.