A couple of months back I defended the Mormon Church from a slimy attack by the far Left "columnist" Barbara Sumner Burstyn of the Herald. It was an attack that was dishonest to the core. The Herald printed my reply and since then hasn't published anything else I submitted to them - coincidence perhaps. I'm not a Mormon. I don't pretend to be. I don't support the Mormon Church. But the attack was dishonest and biased. Now I find myself in the same position of defending Labour MP Tim Barnett from an attack published in the strange magazine "Investigate". "Investigate" is the pet project of Ian Wishart - talk show host, conspiracy theorist, and anti-evolutionist. As best as I can tell Wishart takes the worst aspects of the statist Left and combines it with the most bizarre theories of the Religious Right. He thinks that puts him somewhere in the middle of the road politically. I think it calls his basic sanity into question. Wishart published a hit piece by a Bernard Moran called "Queerly Beloved". That it was a hit piece was obvious. Moran, to prove his point, quotes extreme Right groups throughout the article. But more on that shortly. Moran himself has written other anti-gay articles for Wishart's publication. And it appears that he is the same Bernard Moran who is a Trustee for Life Resources Charitable Trust, which lobbys against reproductive choice and was a major centre for the Religious Right's campaign against right to die legislation. That connection would make sense since Wishart is, as to be expected, firmly against individual choice on such matters himself. Moran has also presented himself as the Auckland coordinator for the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child as well as a contact person for Family Life International, another religious Right group. The oddest description of Moran comes from Otus, a company he works with. He is described as having "investigative skills ground[ed] in military intelligence experience" and has "built an extensive network throughout the Pacific Basin and is well 'connected' in the United States as well." Otus promises it's clients they will "achieve a competitive advantage" through "business intelligence". On another website Moran is described by a religious publication as a "Catholic journalist". Whether Mr. Moran is a journalist at all is questionable. Outside of Wishart's publication, this Catholic advocacy magazine and various anti abortion rights groups I find no evidence of Moran's journalistic endeavours reported on the Internet. Moran's article, early on, starts with a paragraph about Lenin being a professional revolutionary who arrived in Petrograd. The next paragraph mentions that Barnett arrived in Christchurch. You are supposed to connect the dots and see that Barnett is really just another Lenin. True Mr. Barnett is Left of centre politically. There is much we disagree about. But he's no Lenin. That this insinuation was used to introduce Barnett to the readers implies quite clearly that the article was meant as a hit piece and nothing more. That the editor, Mr. Wishart, left that comment in implies he's so blinded by his religious dogma that he's not a proper editor - at least not proper for a news magazine. But then Investigate is not really a news magazine. It's a propaganda sheet for Wishart's personal crusades and nothing more. That's fine. He's got the right to be biased. Moran mentions that Barnett worked with the Stonewall Group in the UK to promote equal rights for gay people. Moran then decides to enlighten readers as to the origins of the term "Stonewall" by quoting an extremist attack by a fundamentalist fanatic. Before explaining what Moran said let me fill you in on the facts. In 1969 there was a gay bar in Greenwich Village called the Stonewall. Police routinely harassed gay bars in the '60s and early '70s. In fact I witnessed one such "raid" on a bar in Chicago myself in the very late '70s when driving by one on my way home. I passed just as the police were storming in with their batons ready to bash a few heads. This sort of harassment was routine. The Stonewall was subjected to such treatments frequently. At the time there were laws saying you couldn't serve drinks to homosexuals. Other laws made same-sex dancing a crime. There were plenty of excuses to harass homosexuals, and the police, when bored, didn't mind busting a few "faggot" heads. But on one occasion something different happened. As the police attempted to attack the Stonewall Inn in New York City the patrons decided they had enough. They barricaded the doors closed and fought back. It was called the "Stonewall Riots" though it wasn't quite a "riot" in the classic sense of the term. This inspired a lot people, who were sick of being harassed, to resist and demand their rights. The annual gay pride parades were originally established in the US to commemorate that night at the Stonewall. Moran has a different interpretation of the events - of course. His source is the vehemently antigay religionist Robert Knight. Knight works for an extremists' group allied with the Concerned Women of America which was founded by Evangelist Tim LaHaye and his equally extreme wife Beverly. LaHaye made a fortune out of predicting the end of the world and all sorts of other dire disasters. He is to the far Right what the Greens are to the Far Left. LaHaye also believes, like Wishart, that there are secret conspiracies taking over the world. LaHaye has published books exposing this so-called "secular humanist" plot. Like many on the far Right LaHaye believes in censorship of pornography - something that Mr. Wishart would no doubt applaud. But LaHaye is so extreme that he claims Michaelangelo's magnificent statue of David is pornographic. That gives you some idea of where LaHaye and his crowd are coming from. Knight's branch of CWA actually attacked George Bush because they say he's too soft on homosexuals! It's no surprise that Moran runs to Knight for the "facts" about Stonewall. He quotes Knight's book, which was published by the hard Right publisher Spence Publishing. Knight claims the Stonewall was really "a haven for drug dealing" and pedophiles. No one outside these far Right circles has ever made that claim. The typical smear artist, when he has nothing left in his arsenal, is quick to make charges of pedophilia. It's totally untrue. But it's irrelevant to the Tim Barnett story, as irrelevant as the paragraph comparing him to Lenin. The purpose of a smear piece is not to enlighten people to the facts. It exists to put innuendoes into people's minds. It's the tactic of the lowest of the low. To cement the pedophile accusation Moran says the Stonewall lobby in the UK "lobbied hard for the legal age of consent to be lowered to 16". Actually that's another distortion. The sexual age of consent in the UK was 16 already - except for gay sex. Stonewall didn't lobby to change the age of consent downwards just to apply the law equally to gay people as well as to straight. Next Moran argues that the civil unions legislation is merely a ploy to push a secret gay agenda for destroying all marriage and replacing it with something he calls polyamory (basically group marriage). He quotes a few gay radicals who oppose marriage laws altogether. There is no consensus in the gay community on marriage anymore than there is consensus on any topic among any large group of people. Some on the radical Left hate all concepts of marriage and oppose gay marriage. They are allies with Mr. Moran and Mr. Wishart on that topic. What they don't represent is the wishes and views of most gay people. This group marriage thing is another fringe issue. But it's not particularly of great concern in the gay community. About the only people who seriously believe in polygamy would, on most issues, be marching in lockstep with Moran and Wishart. Polygamy is rare and would remain rare even if it were legal. But it's practitioners are very conservative and ultra religious. They are mostly Right - wing politically and and members of splinters off the Mormon Church. There are a few "New Age" types who get into this polyamory thing the same way those lunatics get into crystals for healing, auras and such rot. But there is no large constituency for such relationships. It's a smokescreen. To close things off Moran then goes to an "alternative" to gay civil unions from David Reardon of the Elliot Institute. Who are they? Well they were founded as an anti abortion rights group and they picked the name "Elliot Institute" as a "neutral" word that wouldn't give away their agenda. You can find them on the internet at www.afterabortion.org. Their web site is mainly anti abortion material. But perhaps, like Mr. Bush, they now think that the big money is running an anti gay campaign. Moran's article was nothing but a smear. I've no doubt there are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticise Mr. Barnett. He is Labour after all. But this article was not a critical analysis of Barnett and his views. It was a smear campaign and not a particularly good one at that. - Jim Peron is a political and social commentator whose observations and comments are published at www.liberalvalues.org.nz Jim Peron - 11th April 2004