GUEST BLOG: Ian Powell – The dirtiest of politics and a tale of two MPs cloaked in hypocrisy
The recent contrasting response of two different ‘controversies’ involving two politically different MPs are covered by a cloak of hypocrisy. The two MPS are National’s right-wing Hamish Campbell and the Greens’ social-liberal Benjamin Doyle.
Campbell also describes himself as having social liberal views. However, their respective takes on what being socially liberal means may be quite different.
Cloak of hypocrisy overarches responses to Campbell and Doyle ‘controversies’
These contrasting responses bring to the fore the opportunism of double standards. This opportunism is underpinned by the particularly nasty and violent bigotry of transphobia. That is, transgender people are inherently less than human and prone to child abuse.
‘Campbell controversy’
I first became aware of the ‘Campbell controversy’ in the mainstream media on 9 April with experienced journalist Michael Morrah’s NZ Herald article: MP tied to sect under FBI investigation.
This was followed by four articles from the newspaper’s senior crime and justice journalist Anna Leask on 16, 17, 22 and 26 April respectively:
- Christchurch sect elder investigated for sexual abuse.
- Campbell deeply embedded in religious group.
- Several new police sexual abuse investigations.
- Sect response to sexual abuse investigations.
Hamish Campbell a member of some standing in religious cult
Hamish Campbell is a scientist by vocation. He is also a member of some standing in this mysterious religious group known as ‘two by two’. It is not an embellishment to call it a cult. It is akin to ‘if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck’.
The cult’s origins are in the United States. Several of its members are under investigation by the FBI for sexual abuse (some of which appears to involve children). The Police have confirmed that “several” new investigations into cult members are underway over alleged sexual abuse in New Zealand.
The coverage by the NZ Herald has been measured and professional. It has not rushed to sensationalist questioning. Aside from reporting his membership status, no allegations have been insinuated or made against Campbell.
Hamish Campbell himself could have handled his response better. He has appeared evasive including when asked whether he was aware of sexual abuse allegations within the cult.
But, to the best of my knowledge and rightly so, no-one (including political opponents) has tried to take advantage of his failure to front-foot better by making insinuations (or worse) of sexual or child abuse.
A little bit of historical context
In 1976 a political scandal considered to be the worst in New Zealand’s parliamentary history occurred.
Prime Minister Robert Muldoon arguably made the most vicious parliamentary smear in 1976 before 2025
Then National Prime Minister Robert Muldoon accused senior Labour MP Colin Moyle (and former Minister of Agriculture) of homosexuality in Parliament.
This was a dangerous accusation to make at that time because male homosexuality was then illegal in New Zealand. Consequently, the potential for personal harm and reputational damage to the accused was high.
The controversy over Muldoon’s allegations culminated with Moyle’s resignation although the latter subsequently made a successful return to Parliament, including returning to cabinet. Although not confirmed, reportedly Muldoon later privately acknowledged regret for his action.
‘Doyle controversy’
Benjamin Doyle is a Green list MP who, last October, replaced Darleen Tana to become New Zealand’s first non-binary MP.
Previous history of the new MP includes teaching, working for the Burnett Foundation (formerly the Aids Foundation) Doyle is also the parent of a young child.
Benjamin Doyle the magnet for anti-transgender hatred
Well prior to politics Doyle had set up a private Instagram account with the user name “BibleBeltBussy”.
In November last year, an X (formerly Twitter) account began posting claims about Doyle, including referring to the hacked Instagram account. Allegations were made of “very very disturbing posts”.
It took this developing Doyle ‘controversy’ to match, in fact surpass, the ugliness of Muldoon’s above-mentioned smear. Child abuse is among the most terrible of terrible crimes. To insinuate or go further and make the allegation requires a strong evidence-base.
The threshold for such insinuations or allegations is high. In the Doyle case there is neither a complaint nor police investigation. This is also the case with Campbell in respect of himself.
However, this has not stopped the flood of such shocking behaviour towards Doyle from erupting; at least among a relatively small predominantly right-wing group.
Transphobia at the core of attacks on Doyle
What characterises this reprehensible conduct is that the insinuators and accusers (unfortunately ‘allegators’ is not a real word) is that they are deeply and viciously transphobic.
Previously I have discussed what transphobia is in an earlier Political Bytes post (1 July 2023) – in a word, bigotry: Transphobia is sickening bigotry.
Fortunately, as with the ‘Campbell controversy’, the mainstream media have not joined in this anti-trans crusade although, given that one of them is Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, they have reported what some accusers have said.
Winston Peters’ attacks on Doyle reek of transphobia
The tenor of Peters’ anti-trans position is consistent with his opposition to the legalisation of homosexuality in 1986. He described that law reform as a “perversity” and voted against it to protect “children yet unborn”.
As it happens Peters was a backbench National Party MP in 1976 when Robert Muldoon delivered his parliamentary smear on Colin Moyle.
Balanced mainstream media coverage
Investigative NZ Herald senior journalist David Fisher provides balanced coverage of Doyle controversy
Experienced NZ Herald journalist David Fisher stands out with a balanced paywalled ‘explainer’ about the ‘Doyle ‘controversy’ on 2 April: Anatomy of a scandal.
Some of Fisher’s take-home points for me are:
- Part of the X account involved selective editing of images in the Instagram account, including a child on Doyle’s lap.
- The X account, supporting NZ First’s allegations, said: “A journo should ask this delusional sick individual if [Doyle] thinks that pedophilia [sic] is just a ‘sexuality’.”
- The claims against Doyle were subsequently amplified by three main people beginning with a Substack piece and a post on X from Ani O’Brien who is actively anti-trans. She asserted that “…the ‘BibleBeltBussy’ Instagram account is one big giant red flag. It is a child-safeguarding nightmare and outrageously inappropriate for a sitting MP.”
Winston Peters leading anti-transgender campaign in Parliament
- The second amplification came from Deputy Prime Minister and NZ First leader Winston Peters. In a X post he called on the media to start asking serious questions about Doyle. Peters is also leading anti-transgender initiatives in Parliament.
- Completing the troika is the far-right and also anti-trans Destiny Church leader, Brian Tamaki, whose accusations included that Doyle had been “posing with toddlers and children”. In fact, there was only one child: Doyle’s son. [Not to be left out are other far-right and anti-transgender commentators Ian Wishart, Sean Plunket and Chantel Baker have also attacked Doyle in similar tone].
- “Bussy” is a conflation of “boy” and a slang term for female genitalia. It is commonly understood to mean a male’s anus. However, it has a more nuanced meaning as one of many phrases to have developed inside the multitude of marginalised sub-groups that exist within the wider queer community. In this context, it involves using provocative language to challenge the status quo, and signify their identities within their communities. They have developed their own language (slang) in response to this marginalisation.
- Despite the shrill voices of Peters, O’Brien, Tamaki and others, the Police have not signalled an intention to investigate the accusations against Doyle.
- Top defamation lawyer Robert Stewart KC believes that “Obviously to suggest or imply someone has an unhealthy interest in children is a defamatory imputation. In this day and age, to say someone – any adult – has a sexual interest in children is very defamatory in my view.”
- As a direct result of the accusations Doyle has been subjected to serious death threats.
- On the positive side, the Greens including both co-leaders are firmly defending the targeted MP.
Origin of inflammatory attack on Doyle
Rhys Williams began the inflammatory attack on Benjamin Doyle
The following week (9 April) Stuff journalists Andrea Vance and Charlie Mitchell in a paywalled article revealed that the person behind the inflammatory above-mention X account post that triggered the subsequent attacks on Doyle
It was businessman and former NZ First member Rhys Williams: Who’s behind toxic online campaign.
A follow-up paywalled piece from David Fisher (14 April) picked up on the risks of physical violence and stalking threats that were initiated in the first instance by this inflammatory attack: Doyle faces physical violence and stalking threats.
Satirist Steve Braunias did provide good perspective in two Newsroom columns on 5 and 12 April:
The challenge for Benjamin Doyle
Of the two MPs involved in ‘controversies’ it was only Benjamin Doyle who was subjected to the public vicious attacks and whose personal safety became threatened.
Peters’ and Luxon relationship (Emmerson, NZ Herald)
The Greens have strongly defended Doyle and deplored the attacks, especially from the Deputy Prime Minister. This included calling on Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to ‘reign’ Peters in, Courageously Luxon declined the call! Instead, he made a brief comment consistent with Peters’ assertions although without the vitriol.
After first focussing on family safety Doyle gave a media briefing (8 April) in response to the personal attacks: Doyle’s media briefing.
Doyle showed personal courage including the emphasis on refusing to be silenced by hate. Further developed was the point about nuanced language by marginalised groups in the first above-mentioned Fisher article.
The ‘BibleBeltBussy’ Instagram account is a nuanced conflation of terms used by a marginalised community to communicate among themselves.
Transphobes are fixated on ‘Bussy’ while ignoring the clever linkage with ‘BibleBelt’. In my words, this is ‘taking the piss’ out of bigoted transphobes.
Naivety and an inescapable conclusion
The Green MP is not without fault. Doyle is located on a spectrum ranging from being politically naïve to being very politically naïve. Politically the MP is both Green and green.
Doyle’s first major political naivety was not to close the account once the decision was made to seek to be on the Greens party list for the last general election.
It would have only been a matter of time before those anti-transgender activists and opportunists would seek to take advantage of this nuanced Instagram communication to simplify and distort it in order to smear and harm the new MP.
Brian Tamaki’s and other transphobes viciousness were inescapably predictable
This was an inescapable conclusion in light of the evidence of the intensity of this bigotry associated with the visit of far-right activist ‘Posy Parker’ and the subsequent threats of violence from Brian Tamaki’s Destiny Church.
Doyle’s second major political naivety was the failure to action the advice of the Greens leadership to close the account. The leadership was acutely aware of this inescapable conclusion (the leadership should have been more insistent about its advice).
I don’t agree with Doyle on everything such as the MP’s earlier unbridled support for puberty blockers. This disregards serious medical concerns about the need for stronger professional guidance consistent with the Hippocratic Oath of ‘first do no harm’.
I discussed this issue further in my health system blog Otaihanga Second Opinion(7 January): Stronger puberty blocker guidance required.
I also don’t get pronouns. This is not based on opposition to the use of ‘them’ or ‘they’. It is more that I had drummed into me at primary school the difference between singular and plural.
I would love it if the transgender community could invent a singular term for non-binary individuals. It is clever enough do. Unfortunately, I’m not.
But my take-home message is that the unjustified vicious attacks on Benjamin Doyle by far-right and other transphobes are cloaked in hypocrisy when contrasted with their justified absence on Hamish Campbell.
Campbell should not be smeared and vilified and wasn’t. Similarly, Doyle should not be smeared and vilified but was.
Ian Powell was Executive Director of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the professional union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand, for over 30 years, until December 2019. He is now a health systems, labour market, and political commentator living in the small river estuary community of Otaihanga (the place by the tide). First published at Political Bytes
We all know that sex abuse is the domain of the right .How many National party candidates and MPs have had to stand aside because of sexist emails or having porn on the go .Then there is the act leader who is still trying to overturn his conviction and the former National MP who passed before getting to court on charges of child abuse .
My mum has two sayings that could apply here.
1) Empty vessels make the most noise.
2) He who protests loudest may not be the innocent he would have you believe.
Many of those named in this article fall into both categories
I agree Doyle is green Green. He should have taken the advice of the party to begin with. They know how things can be twisted. In the event that he failed to do that, he should have been dumped by the party.
He is only in parliament because someone else thought they were above the rules and knew better than their party advice. Surely that should have convinced him.
I don’t get pronouns either. We were taught that ‘them’ and ‘they’ were plurals and anything else sounds stupid. Worry about the important things. It sounds very precious and not a reason to be an MP.
These people are in parliament to govern and to be an effective opposition. This is a huge distraction and gives the right ammunition for their unhinged attacks. We know they’re easily provoked and think they are immune to police interest, despite what they threaten and influence others to do.
The Greens need to look at all their MPs and decide if they are too extreme in any way. They cannot represent us, the other 90% of the population, with oddballs. They need to be GREENs first and foremost.
“Campbell should not be smeared and vilified and wasn’t”.
So why bring him into the discussion?
Why not choose some other random Member of Parliament?
Say Steve Abel or Dan Bidois?
Clearly there was a reason to choose Campbell.
That is because he is accused of being “a member of a cult”.
Which is also a smear of sorts.
Ben Doyle is smeared by Winston Peters.
And Hamish Campbell is smeared here.
Quite unnecessarily.
The case against Peters stands without needing to introduce Campbell into the discussion.
In fact, it would be a much better case against Peters if Campbell had been left right out of it.
Because with the insinuations against Campbell it just looks like a case of smear vs smear.
I disagree. The reason for mentioning Campbell was the close coincidental timing and the contrasting treatment largely by the far right. The blog made it clear that Campbell was not behaving suspiciously just as Doyle wasn’t. I’m not aware of suggested or implied comparable accusations about Abel or Bidios.
You repudiate the claim made against Doyle and quite properly denounce those who made the accusation.
But in the case of Campbell you accept the slur (that he belongs to a religious “cult”) as a fact and fail to name or condemn those who launched the attack upon Campbell in the first place. On the contrary you praise as “measured and professional” the attempts to create an aura suspicion around Campbell on account of his religious beliefs and associations, and thereby to connect him with child sexual abuse.
You are not being even-handed. If you were you would give Campbell the same respect as you gave Doyle. You would have condemned those (who happen to be very close to you) who made a meal out of the fact that Campbell belongs to a church which includes some people who have been accused of sexual abuse. You would have pointed out the unfairness of both the presumption of guilt and guilt by association in his case. You would not have used the word “cult” to disparage him.
You write: “But, to the best of my knowledge and rightly so, no-one (including political opponents) has tried to take advantage of his failure to front-foot better by making insinuations (or worse) of sexual or child abuse”.
Yet are you not doing that right here? When you say no one has tried to do it you thereby suggest that someone could, and therefore you are insinuating that it just might be true.
At a late stage in his career, when his mental faculties were clouded by alcohol, Robert Muldoon launched a personality attack on Colin Moyle. In similar circumstances, Winston Peters has now made the same grievous error of judgement with respect to Benjamin Doyle. That is all you need to say. You don’t need to find someone on the other side whose character can be attacked in the same way.
Your wires are completely crossed. My substantive point is that both MPs could have been viciously smeared for sexual or child abuse. But only one was and it was driven by transphobia.
Cult is not a slur of itself. A cult is a particular group venerating or devoted to a particular figure or object. Cults can be harmless.
If you are saying that I’m close to the mainstream media journalists who wrote about Campbell’s church, then you are totally wrong. Never even met them and probably never spoken to them. Do your homework better.
You say that both MPs “could have been viciously smeared for sexual or child abuse”.
By saying that they “could have been … smeared” you are implying that in both cases there was at least ground for suspicion, if not a prima facie case. That in itself is defamatory of both MPs.
Yet you also seem to acknowledge that neither Doyle nor Campbell have a case to answer.
You then go on to say that Doyle was slandered, but Campbell was not.
If that was the case, then why bring Campbell into the argument at all?
The only possible valid (though clearly and absolutely insufficient) reason would be to make the case that the right slanders its opponents while the left does not.
In point of fact, Campbell was and is being slandered.
Members of Christian churches feel that their church is being denigrated if it is called a cult and the great majority of your readers would attach negative connotations to the word “cult”.
You seem to be claiming that you are unaware of those negative connotations. If you were unaware of the pejorative meaning of the word “cult” when you wrote your article you should be aware of it now.
“The people close to you” would be those on TDB who published a series of articles on Campbell alleging that he belonged to a “cult” whose members had been “accused of child sexual abuse”. That is slander by association and presumption of guilt.
In short, the two cases are not that different. Both men were slandered for purely political reasons.
You continue to miss and misrepresent the point. It was reasonable for media to report that some members of a secretive religious group were being investigated for sexual abuse and that an MP happened to be a member of that group. I’m not aware of anyone on TDB accusing the MP of bad behaviour on the basis of his church association but it they did, they shouldn’t have. My final comment on this repetitive and now boring discussion.
People have been using them and they to refer to individuals for years – maybe hundreds of years I don’t know, but it’s not grammatically incorrect I don’t think.