Monday, October 3, 2011

Kent Parker - the rise and fall of a hate-siter.

Kent Parker is an interesting, if rare bird, on the NZ landscape, most particularly because of his abortive attempt to use cyber-space in a novel way, for New Zealand, - to begin hate-sites and hate campaigns. But probably the most fascinating aspect of his failed attempt is that it ought to have been obvious to him and his followers that they were bound for failure. There are a number of reasons for this.
1/That he didn't understand the medium (cyber-space) he used.
2/That he was impetuous and driven by something other than that which he claimed was motivating his campaign. In other words he was insincere and sought to take advantage of others, many of whom were sincere if but also misguided.
3/He didn't know his subject and paid no critical analysis of 'information' supplied to him.
4/He has no ability to think on his feet or change a position, he becomes angry if there is any suggestion that he might be wrong.
5/He became obsessed with Joe Karam in particular to the point where he showing a type of bizarre jealousy.
The above in more detail
1/Kent thought that defaming or stalking people on line had no possible consequence. He clearly misunderstood that despite the word 'space' cyber-space was contained by international borders and law, where words written in 'space' landed and any relay points along the way were in fact all culpable under the law. He has consistently failed to understand this and even in recent pleadings to the High Court displayed the incapacity to follow that he was a publisher no different from a publisher in print media, he claimed that he couldn't take material of his own sites without approval of members of his site. Not only has he demonstrated that he is responsible for what he has published he also failed to realise his culpability in providing a site where he and others conspired to commit crimes contravening the Crimes Act.
2/The fact that Kent's insincerity was lost on many of his followers for some time provided him the opportunity to capitalise on the sincere anxiety of his followers so that he was able to meld them to his cause - himself. He may or may not have realised that the less 'enlightened' of his followers saw Kent's willingness to 'go public,' have a website and so forth, as legitimising things which were morally wrong and in many cases illegal. It's hard to blame the weaker minded individuals that were attracted to Parker because he empowered them, encouraged them in the belief that they were the 'only' ones that saw the truth and that those that did not were 'outsiders' an enemy.
3/Because Kent didn't know his subject and accepted whatever suited the cause, and rejected what did not, he further disadvantaged those that were acting on a 'gut feeling,' what somebody told them, 'facts' that existed no where accept in their minds and the minds of those that had provided them. For example, it was almost 18 months before Kent's group finally understood that Bain had been 'strip searched' and (perhaps) the significance of that. Most people would need the information that he wasn't searched before claiming that and hanging their hats on such a 'fact.' Their campaign was riddled with misinformation and speculation heightened by 'information' leaked to them from various sources, in many ways they were pawns, and Kent in turn, was a pawn of others, but so arrogant he is he would be unable to even consider that. Put succinctly, Parker went to 'war' with no understanding of the war and instead saw what the spoils of war might offer him and paid no regard or reservation on doing the research before reaching an opinion, in fact he worked backwards - much like the police inquiry, decided who it was then 'found' the 'right' evidence and ignored contrary evidence.
4/Parker is unable to think on his feet. The times when he has made a change have most often resulted in him back-tracking to where he was originally placed, most often these have been attended by Kent re-inventing the wheel, re-convincing himself of something and expecting others to follow. The various flip-flops in his defence to the defamation charges show this, particularly his recent attempt to have the pleadings struck out with such things, as that mentioned above. that he 'couldn't' removed defamatory material without a 'consensus' of members - many of whom it is obvious have long since headed for the hills.
5/Kent's obsession with Karam is obvious and only requires the comment that it is far from Kent's proclamations about 'victims,' his attempts to become a musician,  politician, court the media etc belie his true cause, himself.
All of which Kent now sees as his predicament of; 'The People vs Joe Karam.' More on that delusional 'title' later.

1 comment:

  1. Now, why would he call it The People vs Joe Karam, when the High Court
    titled it Karam V Parker?
    Is he attempting to pass the buck?

    ReplyDelete