The Labour Party plot to kill Cameron Slater: the shocking evidence

labour banner

Cameron Slater has claimed that people within Labour have tried to kill him.

Shortly after Slater made this astonishing claim, I received from an anonymous source a recording of a conversation between senior Labour Party members in which a plan to kill Slater is discussed. A transcript of this conversation is below.

The four speakers do not identify themselves in the recording, although I suspect I know who they are. I have labelled the four speakers A, B, C and D.

Slater has since claimed he never said Labour were trying to kill him, but the evidence is clear. Has he been intimidated by Labour Party operatives to stay silent?

I will of course co-operate fully with any police investigation into this shocking plot to kill Cameron Slater, although I don’t know the identity of the person who sent the recording to me.

Transcript of meeting to plan murder of Cameron Slater

A: So it’s agreed then? Cameron Slater must die.

B: Agreed.

C: Yes!

D: And the sooner the better. But how are we going to kill him? Who will do the deed?

B: We’ll have to hire a hitman.

C: No, we can’t afford a professional killer. We don’t have that sort of money, and how would we find someone? Do any of us have any underworld contacts?

A: We’ll have to do this ourselves.

B: That could be messy. Slater is quite… large.

A: Can I just say here that I don’t think I should be involved in the actual killing. I get terrible lumbago, and I hate to think what might happen if there was any sort of struggle.

C: And I faint at the sight of blood, so I’m out.

B: Maybe this is a job for Young Labour. They’re impressionable and idealistic and they already hate Slater, so all we need to do is convince them it’s for the good of the party.

A: That’s a bad idea. This needs to be done quietly. It’ll be all over Twitter and Facebook if we leave it to Young Labour.

D: Well we need to make some decisions if we want it done.

A: It needs a committee. Let’s agree to establish a committee to look at the options, and to select appropriately qualified assassins.

B: I’m all for that. But who will be on the committee? This is a major decision, and we can’t afford to get it wrong.

C: We will need to ensure we get the gender balance right. The committee will need to be at least half women.

A: Don’t be so ridiculous. It’s more important that we find the right person for the job, and if those people just happen to be men, then so be it.

C: So what you’re effectively saying is that men are more effective at plotting murder than women. I for one am utterly offended by your suggestion. It’s exactly the sort of dinosaur attitude I would expect from an entitled white male like you. Women have historically proven themselves just as effective as men when it comes to murderous scheming. Our problem has been a lack of opportunity, not ability.

B: It ought to be sixty percent women, not fifty. Women have missed out in the past on opportunities to plot to kill their political opponents, so this will send a clear message that we are serious about increasing female participation in the murder committee sector.

A: Sixty percent isn’t equality. It’s domination!

C: So what? Now you know how we feel. Women have been trampled down and oppressed for centuries.

D: I’m fine with that, provided we also agree to recognise the principles of partnership that underpin the Treaty of Waitangi. Will half of the committee members be Maori?

C: Good idea. We should also consult widely with iwi groups to make sure their voices are heard. They may well have a valuable contribution to make when it comes to assassination methods.

D: We should also seek representation from Rainbow Labour on the committee.

C: And don’t forget Young Labour.

A: No, I’ve already explained why Young Labour have to be kept out of this.

B: Frankly I’m disgusted by your patronising attitude towards young people. It’s no wonder so few young people want to be involved in the political process these days.

C: Has anyone stopped to consider the environmental impact of what we are proposing to do?

B: I’m actually more concerned about whether what we are proposing is strictly permitted under the party’s constitution. Don’t you think we ought to be establishing a separate branch of the party under the constitution?

C: I hadn’t thought of that. I agree. It’s important that we follow proper processes. Let’s agree to establish a branch. We’ll call it the “Cameron Slater Must Die Branch.”

A: Sounds good. Does anyone have a copy of the constitution? What’s the process for establishing a branch?

C: I have a copy here. Let me see… Oh, here it is. Rule fifteen. “When ten or more persons desire to form a new Branch of the Party they shall make application through their local Labour Electorate Committee for recommendation to the New Zealand Council. The ten or more persons, being founder members of a branch, must be resident in that particular electorate. Dispensations from this Rule are not available for those wishing to participate in the establishment of a new branch.” And then there’s rule sixteen. “When ten or more persons desire to form a new Branch of the Party, an application for approval for the formation of the new branch must be made to the Labour Electorate Committee, with a copy of the application to be sent to Head Office. The Labour Electorate Committee must make a prompt recommendation to the New Zealand Council either recommending approval or decline of the application. In the event of a recommendation of decline, the New Zealand Council must consult further before final approval. In the event of a recommendation of acceptance, the New Zealand Council continues to be the final arbiter as to whether the branch shall be accepted or not. In the event of the Labour Electorate Committee recommending declining the application, then reasons for their decision must be forwarded to the branch formation people. The Council shall then decide whether or not the Branch is registered. The application must be accompanied by the registration fee as set by Annual Conference for each founder member registered, together with a list of their names and addresses.”

D: So we need ten people from the same electorate to fill in the form, and then we need the local LEC to recommend us to the New Zealand Council, and then the New Zealand Council needs to approve our application.

A: There’s another problem. I’m not convinced that murdering Cameron Slater is entirely consistent with Labour’s policy platform. Take this bit: “Labour recognises that the social contract exists between the citizen and the state. As a consequence, any breaches of the social contract need to be resolved through public, and not private, means.” So shouldn’t Cameron Slater’s murder be undertaken by the state?

B: We could always put forward a remit to change  the policy platform at the annual conference. How about this as a remit? “Labour recognises that from time to time annoying and nasty little right wing shits will need to be despatched with extreme prejudice, and our justice system should permit anyone who wishes to kill Cameron Slater to do so.”

C: I like it.

A: But conference is months away, guys. We can’t wait that long.

C: I don’t see any choice. These things need to be done properly.

A: Agreed. So we look to pass a remit at the annual conference, then we establish the Cameron Slater Must Die Branch, and then we form a branch committee to look at options for killing Cameron Slater. We ensure we have proper representation on the committee from all key groups, including women, Rainbow Labour and Tangata Whenua, and then we consult with environmental groups to ensure our plan is sustainable and won’t adversely impact the environment.

B: Don’t forget that the rules of the branch will need to be written in both English and Maori.

A: Yes, of course. That’s a given.

C: In the interests of fairness and social justice, I think we should also consult with Cameron Slater. He may well have a valuable perspective on how any assassination ought to be undertaken. We need to make sure we kill him in a culturally appropriate way.

A: That’s reasonable. Let’s agree a timeframe for all of this. Shall we aim to have the structure in place within five years?

B: Oh, that’s cutting things fine. There’s an awful lot to do. Let’s say ten.

A: Done!

Advertisements