Blind Fury

I've been watching the Dr Peter Jansen versus "Jax" scenario unfolding in parliament and in the media now since it erupted.  And erupt it did.  But it has got me wondering how this got so out of hand.

It's plainly oblivous that Dr Jansen either reads the internet or has "staff" doing the searching for him.  It's also plainly obvious that he took umbrage to a blog on the internet that called him DSM CIP satirically, and the diagnosis was not taken too kindly.  I think it is also plainly obvious this was the only initial blog read by Jansen and his team, else they would have noted two things:

1.  This was not the only blog that had Jansen's name in it.

2.  Jansen and his team would have realised the blogger "Jax" was also a claimant under ACC's Sensitive Claims Unit (SCU).

If Jansen and/or his team had done their homework, would they then have issued a lawyers letter to "Jax" claiming he was suing her for $250,000 in defamation?

It's very much plainly obvious Jansen and his lawyer were misguided in their approach.  When you sue someone for that amount of money you have it in mind the recipient has the money to pay.  So what conceivably initiated as an exercise to glean money has turned into a lesser exercise of seeking the blog be taken down and a public apology offered.

Now let's look at this more closely.  Jansen initially stated that he was defamed and wanted reparation.  Then after the Minister of ACC Nick Smith waded in, this was reduced to an apology and removal of content.  What changed (apart from the minister's intervention!!)?  Jansen was obviously inundated by the media for comment which to date he has refused.  It seems his action stirred up a hornets nest and not only the media climbed into him, but as can be seen at "Jax" blog, many sympathetic voices have joined the fray, many suffering at the hands of ACC's SCU, and ultimately it's architect, Jansen.

I applaud "Jax" for not taking the blogs down.  Two things that our democratic society is based on were never entertained by Jansen and his lawyer:

1.  Freedom of Speech

2.  The Rule of Law.

It's quite obvious that Freedom of Speech is at issue with this action.  When a Government employee tries to stop something in the Free Press then their is an issue for Government to deal with.  Jansen stepped over the line by trying to gag a blog that is in the public domain (albeit at the time 15 or so people).

The Rule of Law.  If the blog was so defamatory and Jansen felt it was, why then didn't he and his lawyer seek a Court Injunction to have the blog taken down.  To date this has not happened so the blog is free to float in peoples reading radars.  Jansen is the loser for not using the full weight of the law, but doubt is also evident that the Courts would have agreed with him. Loser twice.

Seriously, this case has highlighted that Jansen is indeed incompetent, primarily in his knowledge of Free Speech and the Law and deserving of his DSM CIP diagnosis (which as "Jax" alludes to was self diagnosed (satire).  It also highlights how thin skinned and defensive he is, something I would not expect from a member of a government organisation.

"Jax" you have my full support and I do hope this works out well for yourself and all the silent voices out there that have been battling ACC.  ACC cannot blame you folks, they set up the system for you in the first place.

Ka kite ano