I wasn't surprised at the result of the referendum. New Zealand is a conservative country and the issues in this debate were well and truly obscured by a concerted effort by the No Vote campaign.
However, I was frustrated at the media's slack back-grounding of the participants in the debate.
The Yes Vote was publicly backed by any number of public, non-profit organisations with clear agendas and open processes. The No vote campaign on the other hand was quite dishonest in its agenda and connections. And New Zealand's media made almost no attempt to clarify that for the voting public.
It isn't hard to articulate the organisational agenda behind the No campaign but journalists seemed to ignore it completely.
First, Focus on the Family. Sounds fairly benign if a little conservative, yes? Well, benign if you think that an anti-gay agenda, campaigns for the teaching of creationism in schools, a concerted anti-liberal agenda and support for the reintroduction of corporal punishment in schools is benign.
A leading campaigner for the No vote is Sheryl Savill, who is 2IC for the Focus on the Family New Zealand operation. Despite their denials, it is plain that the New Zealand office have close connections with their American parent group which has supported their Kiwi colleagues with over $1 million in the past six years. FoF in NZ is a branch of an ultra-right-wing, christian, fundamentalist lobby group intent on de-liberalising society.
The other leading player was Family First. Prominent No Vote campaigner,Bob McCroskie, is a member of this christian group. Like FoF, Family First sells itself as just a pro-family group but it is plainly in the fundamentalist camp with all the attendant anti-gay, anti-liberal agenda. They also have quite a strong pro-censorship agenda (despite an ironic support of the campaign against the Electoral Reform Bill on the grounds it suppressed free speech!). McCroskie is a broadcaster on fundamentalist radio station, Radio Rhema (as was his close friend and FoF's boss, Tim Sisarich).
Larry Baldock was a principle organiser of the petition to force a referendum on the Section 59 Amendment. He and Savill were a double act in the last stages of the campaign. Baldock has led the mis-information campaign claiming to have a list of parents who had been arrested or harassed by the Police but which he never revealed.
Both of the groups above speak out against 'liberal values' and 'liberal culture'. Both actively lobby for policies that reflect "christian" values. Both can easily be read as anti-abortion and anti-gay, anti-welfare state and pro-censorship.
So the No Vote campaign was led by a ultra-right, fundamentalist christian cabal and the media said absolutely nothing except for a small piece buried in the middle of the paper at the end of the campaign. I believe New Zealand voters would have reacted differently to the campaign if they were fully aware of the roots of the campaign.
I suspect that part of the reason for this pathetic showing by our journalists is the strong connection between FoF and FF, media and our government.
Former All Black Michael Jones, TV1 weather presenter Jim Hickey and former What Now? presenter Anthony Samuels are Family First board members. Families Commissioner, Christine Rankin, is a Family First supporter and her For the Sake of Our Children trust is pretty much a fundamentalist organisation - she is a confidant of Social Welfare Minister, Paula Bennett (Jones is also a very public National supporter). More FM radio announcer, Simon Barnett, was a vocal No vote campaigner with strong fundamentalist connections.
I just know that if the Yes Vote campaign had had this sort of underlying agenda or even a "dodgy" connection we would have heard about it.. ."Yes vote campaigner once a member of radical lesbian student group" etc etc.. In fact we did hear about it from the loony, talk back media within their constant refrain of "political correctness gone mad". They painted the Yes campaign and Bradford's original bill as part of a liberal agenda.
Unfortunately, I think that the main reason we didn't hear about the No vote agenda is because too many of the media are too close to the protagonists. I also think that they're skittish about "criticising" fundamentalist christian groups who will then claim discrimination.
I don't really care what an individual believes or in which building they choose to spend their religious days. I do care when these individuals are involved in campaigns against the secular, liberal society that has taken so much blood and sweat to build. For, heaven's sake (intended) it is this liberal society that provides their freedom of worship and belief in the first place.
And I think that when that agenda is so clear it's time journalists and editors manned up and took them on - or at the very least did their job.
Posts
