Mike Smith is the activist, the agitator, the chainsaw man, the "smack the America's Cup" bloke.
So, you know, a life of angst and upset.
His latest outing was in court, looking to sue individual companies over their pollution around climate change. He was looking for an activist court to agree with the idea that a company can be held to specific and individual account for something that happens all over the world by, if you think about it, all of us.
The Government stepped in a week or so back and put an end to it.
Their argument is Parliament is your ultimate court and these sorts of laws are for it, not individual judges who may sway with the wind. They didn’t put it that way, I did.
But there is no doubt in my mind, in a number of areas, various courts these days are open to a bit of judicial dabbling. In my humble opinion it is brought about by an increasing arrogance that they make the rules.
It's true to say a court can have a say or hold sway. But it's equally true to say the ultimate court is the Parliament of the land and we do not want that undermined.
Now, Mike claims people like Fonterra have been writing to the Prime Minister's office and advocating for the Government to step in on court action like his.
And given they did he now suggests this is collusion, this is scally-waggery, this is big money, big influence malarkey that borders on scandal.
Or could it be a corporate saying what you would expect a corporate to say and a government, not surprisingly, doing what they would do anyway.
In other words, Fonterra didn’t need to say anything because Paul Goldsmith would have done what he did without any correspondence.
Why?
Because they think the same way I do. I didn’t write to anyone and didn't have a meeting with anyone and yet I would have thought, nay expected, the Government to nip the Smith fishing expedition in the bud.
Why? Because it's obvious and it's common sense.
See not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes, remarkably, especially when it's obvious, people tend to have the same view. Letters or no letters, meetings or no meetings.
Nothing to see here.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
The Government stepped in a week or so back and put an end to it.
Their argument is Parliament is your ultimate court and these sorts of laws are for it, not individual judges who may sway with the wind. They didn’t put it that way, I did.
But there is no doubt in my mind, in a number of areas, various courts these days are open to a bit of judicial dabbling. In my humble opinion it is brought about by an increasing arrogance that they make the rules.
It's true to say a court can have a say or hold sway. But it's equally true to say the ultimate court is the Parliament of the land and we do not want that undermined.
Now, Mike claims people like Fonterra have been writing to the Prime Minister's office and advocating for the Government to step in on court action like his.
And given they did he now suggests this is collusion, this is scally-waggery, this is big money, big influence malarkey that borders on scandal.
Or could it be a corporate saying what you would expect a corporate to say and a government, not surprisingly, doing what they would do anyway.
In other words, Fonterra didn’t need to say anything because Paul Goldsmith would have done what he did without any correspondence.
Why?
Because they think the same way I do. I didn’t write to anyone and didn't have a meeting with anyone and yet I would have thought, nay expected, the Government to nip the Smith fishing expedition in the bud.
Why? Because it's obvious and it's common sense.
See not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes, remarkably, especially when it's obvious, people tend to have the same view. Letters or no letters, meetings or no meetings.
Nothing to see here.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
8 comments:
Maybe in the not too distant future people as stupid as Mike smooth Will held to account for the crimes against humanity- the impoverishment of humanity the continued enforcement of idiot greenie ideals might one day be looked on as the crime it is. Not to mention the pollution of our beautiful landscapes with those hideous future landfill disasters of wind turbines and solar paddocks
Another coordinated attack piece on the judicial system. Another opinion writer not versed in civics. Destruction of democracy is here and the politicians are taking away your rights, running riot with legislative overreach. They have no mandate!
Yep, the likes of Stuff and TV1 News are pushing the conspiracy barrow hard - anything to undermine this Govt. But the REAL STORY, the skulduggery where there's been REAL MISCHIEF at play that has every potential to cause the unwinding of our country and goes to the very heart of our SOVEREIGNTY OF PARLIAMENT, they haven't so much as uttered a whisper.
What am I on about? At whose instigation was UNDRIP (you know, that thing Helen Clark didn't want a bar of and that any 'honest' person could see didn't apply to NZ; nor, more recently, India went to some pains to skirt; and what, pivotally, directly resulted in that thing Jacinda didn't want any of us to see, for it would turn our world upside down greatly for the worse - aka, He Puapua) inserted in our FTA with India? Now, THERE"S A STORY. But our msm, Fourth Estate, and PM strangely silent. Why, why, WHY?
So who is batting against us in the shadows and why are they being hidden from view and accountability? Perhaps someone could approach MFAT, since Minister McClay and our media seem both incapable and incompetent of following a lead, or in journo parlance, lede?
Since when did Hosking decide to give up objective journalism and become an extension of Lux's government? DJ Mike writes, "Fonterra didn’t need to say anything because Paul Goldsmith would have done what he did without any correspondence". I know Paul and have never read anything so ridiculous. Ever. Keep up the fake news, Mike.
Easier to just drop the whole climate con drag costume and then we will just have to accept the weather.
Oh, so clear evidence of big business lobbying for law change and donating hundreds of thousands to politicians and then getting the law change they asked for a “conspiracy theory” now? Yeesh, Mike, I thought you were a journalist, not a national party PR manager. Journalists investigate and report, they don’t go “nothing to see here”. Laughable.
The only people to benefit from Mike Smiths actions would be the lawyers involved. How could Smith prove it was definitely Fonterra causing whatever damage (not defined) to him and his family and not somebody else? Surely if it could be proved, Fonterra would be charged in a criminal court and if found guilty, fined. A civil case to sue them is just vexious showboating. And who was bankrolling Smiths legal bill? Personally I think Mike Smith should be put in a straight-jacket and led quietly away to a padded cell
I always enjoy 'Anonymous's' comments in these columns. He/she/her/him/they seem to have a very wide range of opinions - not at all biased.
Is an anonymous comment worth reading?
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.