Compare and Contrast

In 2005 a small but enthusiastic church decided to get involved in politics. They offered on the ground support in many electorates and an even smaller group decided to put their money where their mouth was and spend their own money telling the truth about the Green party.

What ensued was a despicable attack on the church, in the media, and in the law and resulted ultimately in one of the most spiteful and anti-democratic pieces of legislation curtails our democratic freedoms, the Electoral Finance Act.

When this small group of people entered the political world thy were vilified. Trevor Mallard repeatedly called them “chinless scarf wearers”. Other Labour MPs, referred to them as a “weird, secretive religious sect” and “blatant liars”. Ruth Dyson threatened to end their ability to claim benefit of a longstanding employment law exemption for conscientious objectors. The vilification continues today long after the events of 2005;

But the scumbag employers—people like the Exclusive Brethren – Trevor Mallard, 2008, Employment Relations Amendment Bill

All because they dipped into their own pockets and told the truth about the Green party. Remember, not a single thing was ever refuted in their brochures, byt the Greens or anyone else. They were vilified and an anti-democratic law passed simply because they opposed the government of the day.

Contrast that to the recent local body elections, particularly in Auckland and particularly in the campaign to win Len Brown the mayoralty.

Just four days before the official election date Bernard Orsman wrote in the NZ Herald:

Union leaders and the churches have mobilised South Aucklanders like never before to get out and vote for Mr Brown, while the Banks camp has struggled to match the effort, particularly on the North Shore, where the vote is barely more than 20 per cent.

Curious? Where was the resulting vilification of church leaders that were going around collecting ballot papers and running ballot filling in lessons at their churches? Where was the media door-stepping Len Brown’s campaign team and Len Brown himself asking about the scret back-room deals he had made with the church leaders in South Auckland?

Just two weeks later Brnard Orsman was writing, again in the NZ Herald, about the stunning result of Len Brown:

In a turnaround from a low voter turnout at the 2007 local body elections, Mr Brown’s campaign team mobilised South Aucklanders through churches and unions to vote in equal numbers to residents in the other major cities.

Again, where is the outrage from the media about the blatant collusion of a candidate with churches in the political process. Nowhere is where. Lefty commentators like Brian Rudman (who wants millions pf ratepayers money spent on theatres) haven’t commented at all about the involvement of the churches in len brown’s victory yet felt compelled to write about the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act thus;

Repealing the Electoral Finance Act is the easy part. Now the National Party and its governing allies have to reveal whether they’re happy to return to the law of the jungle which allowed wacko sects like the Exclusive Brethren to run secret $1 million pro-National campaigns with impunity.

Once again vilifying citizens and their democratic right to freedom of speech and of spending their own money. “Where’s my Theatre” Rudman makes several factual errors in his statement. The may be wacko but it was their money, and they had as much right to spend money as the unions did supporting Labour. Plus it wasn’t secret, it could hardly be secret they mailed and delivered the brochures to nearly every household in New Zealand. An lets not quibble of the fact that they never spent a million dollars anyway.

One of very same people who once called one group of religious adherents “chinless scarfwearers” is now crowing about the result in Auckland.

Labour Party Mayor of the Supercity with a clear centre left majority. Key’s nightmare.

So for Trevor Mallard, when a religious group helps his opponents they are to be vilified in the parliament with no re-dress and when his own team use churches in exactly the same way that is to be lauded as a win for the left. Clearly he subscribes to the view that it’s ok if we do it but not them.

Now don’t get me wrong here, I am not saying that there was any nefarious deal done between Brwon and the churches, nor am I saying that the churches shouldn’t have been involved. I am merely comparing and contrasting the treatment of churches that supported National in 2005 and churches that supported and aided Labour run campaign of Len Brown.

Labour politicians were very quick to rush to vilify a religious group when they opposed them, and very, very grateful that the churches rallied to support their candidate in the local body elections. I am just wanting to show the utter hypocrisy of Labour politicians and our left leaning mainstream media.

Think for a moment if Rudman or Orsman had discovered that Destiny Church were mobilising to help John Banks. Would they have written just two lines mentioning church help in the Banks campaign, or would there have been a media frenzy of outrage an opprobrium that a religious group was aiding and abetting John Banks. I think you all know the answer to that question.


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

As much at home writing editorials as being the subject of them, Cam has won awards, including the Canon Media Award for his work on the Len Brown/Bevan Chuang story. When he’s not creating the news, he tends to be in it, with protagonists using the courts, media and social media to deliver financial as well as death threats.

They say that news is something that someone, somewhere, wants kept quiet. Cam Slater doesn’t do quiet and, as a result, he is a polarising, controversial but highly effective journalist who takes no prisoners.

He is fearless in his pursuit of a story.

Love him or loathe him, you can’t ignore him.

To read Cam’s previous articles click on his name in blue.

6%