Sunday, October 01, 2006



Very Dirty Pool IV

So, now we know who the Brethren's chief spy was. Lew Proctor, a former police detective, has admitted being hired by the Exclusive Brethren to stalk the Prime Minister, her husband, and other high-ranking MPs. And he's promising "shock revelations" later this week. Which likely means another big steaming dump of irrelevant personal muck in the media, and a further debasement of our politics. But I'm sure it will go down well in the sewer and with the Wishart crowd.

Meanwhile, Rex Mason, the head of the Brethren in New Zealand, seems to have figured out that their political activity is impacting badly on the Brethren's public reputation, and is trying to claim that all the muck digging and anonymous smear campaigns were done by him and the rest of the leadership cadre as individuals, rather than on behalf of the Exclusive Brethren Church. And if you believe that, there's a bridge I'd like to sell you.

But the most amusing bit is this:

[Proctor] claimed a contract had also been offered to spy on National Party leader Don Brash - by a National Party member.

Nice to know that some in the National Party caucus are as poisonous as the Brethren...

23 comments:

member of the National Party categorically does not mean member of the National Party caucus.

Posted by Graeme Edgeler : 10/01/2006 03:21:00 PM

True. It might have been a random member wanting to dig dirt on the leader, rather than one of his ambitious colleagues looking to roll him. But my money would be on the latter.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 10/01/2006 03:34:00 PM

There's more on Proctor in the print copy of the SST today:

"Proctor, chairman of the Counties Manukau Jetz league team, is a former drug squad head and was kicked out of the police in 1983 after he attacked three colleagues at a police bar, headbutting one in the face. Discussing the incident with the Star-Times, he said he had 'not just tapped' the officers, 'I smashed them'. But those days were behind him, he said, and his slate had been wiped clean.

"Proctor says he's not religious, but he shares the Brethren's concern over issues such as civil unions. 'I'm a real bloke, I'm one of these guys who hates all that, but that's not what hooked us up'.

"The Exclusive Brethren heard about him through another client and employed his services."

Who was the other client? What sort of person would recommend hiring a homophobic thug to investigate the PM and her husband?

Posted by Anonymous : 10/01/2006 05:01:00 PM

Are there any private investigators who aren't as excitable, indiscreet and *weird* as these guys? Or does it go with the job?

Cheers,
RB

Posted by Russell Brown : 10/01/2006 06:45:00 PM

My money would be on a random party member on behalf of a ambitious caucus colleagues - someone smarmy...

Smarmy just doesn't go with being a national leader. National leaders should be bulldogs.

In an election, it will be easy to come to despite a smarmy national leader.

Posted by Genius : 10/01/2006 06:48:00 PM

Are there any private investigators who aren't ex-cops?

Posted by Anonymous : 10/01/2006 07:21:00 PM

This guy of course - carrying such a blatant agenda. Not just your run of the mill PI - far right leanings out for the world to see.
A timeline of the EB developments is starting to get pretty cluttered. Connecting all the dots, meetings with Brash, timing of releases of information...quite a story here

Posted by Anonymous : 10/01/2006 07:22:00 PM

er I mean despise a smarmy national leader

Posted by Genius : 10/01/2006 07:37:00 PM

Could Proctor be anymore stereotypical? Or perhaps that's the way the SST likes to have him come across, given their low-moral-ground stance on all this?

Posted by Span : 10/01/2006 10:30:00 PM

"I'm a real bloke, I'm one of these guys who hates all that"

which always means .....

deep down I am insecure about my sexuality so I go round head butting people and chasing gay scandal so people think I am 'one of those'.

Yeah right - bet Proctors in the Jest shower room every chance he gets.

What a looser !

Posted by Anonymous : 10/02/2006 03:17:00 AM

There are a few PIs who aren't ex-cops but most people seem to prefer hiring someone with police experience. Most PIs will never follow anybody around and will do theft prevention and fraud detection work for corporate clients.

I have to admit that I'm beginning to find the government's EB bashing a bit werisome and suspect. I don't for a second believe that the majority of the EB congregation were aware that those 6 guys decided to fund that letter/pamhplet drop.

Also Ruth Dyson's threats towards them are without precedent and a purely vindictive assault on a group you have gone in to bat against Labour. I note that Jenny Shipley didn't try and remove the Anglican Church's tax exempt status after the Hikoi for Hope.

In fact any assault on the status of EB owned businesses would only highlight the benefits of anonymous donations to political parties: the other parties in parliament can't go after them if they don't know who they are. 6 months ago I would have said that was a paranoid view to take but Dyson's comments coupled with Cullen's threats to the NZ Herald have made me think otherwise.

Posted by Anonymous : 10/02/2006 07:20:00 AM

Oliver, I am afraid I think your comments are nonsense. The Exclusive Bretheren are EXTREMELY tight knit. I think I/S has a bridge he wants you to inspect with a view to purchase.

I would allow that the patriarchal mysogeny of cults like the EB means that the women and children might not be aware of whats going on. But its just a nonsense to imagine this smear campaign is the result of maverick few.

And as for the moves by Ruth Dyson - the EB can hardly decide to play the game by a new set of rules of their own making then bleat when they the opposition take them at their word and plays for keep as well. Besides, it is outrageous such an exemption exists anyway. Just because the EB believe in nasty big sky fairy shouldn't give them the privilege of stripping their workers of protection.

I agree with the argument that anonymous donations are a good thing becuse it protects the donor from retribution; However, the corrupt abuse of this privilege by our politically radicalised business elites to secretly fund their chosen new right vehicle (in whatever party he or she pops up in - they don't mind as long as they get their palace coup) in defiance of the constantly expressed wishes of the electorate to my mind means that it has to be done away with, and replaced with state funding of political parties.

Posted by Sanctuary : 10/02/2006 08:52:00 AM

Sanctuary,

Yes it is outrageous that such an exemption exists buzt it is equally outrageous that Labour could bimble along and not care less until the chips are down for them. Church money helped to fund the Hikoi for Hope but Jenny Shipley's National government didn't go after it.

Would you call me intolerant Sanctuary if I copied and pasted your comments about the EB but substituted the word Muslum for EB.

The "corrupt abuse of this privilege by our politically radicalised businbess elites": there is nothing corrupt about what they've done and they're not radical either. Their views and politics are no more radical than those of any other social, sectoral or lobby group in NZ. Less radical than many others actually.

Labour has changed the electoral laws six times in seven years and never had a problem with anonymous fuunding until they got caught with their hands in the public cookie jar. Labour was very happy with anonymous funding in 1999 and 2002 when they attracted more of it than National. It seems to me that Labour's position on these issues has more to do with keeping power than with any principle.

Posted by Anonymous : 10/02/2006 11:30:00 PM

Come on now Oliver. If you can't generalise, insult and abuse rich, white, Christian businessmen then where's the fun?

I mean we all know that the Exclusive Bretheren are not allowed to have public opinions. And they certainly aren't allowed to promote those opinions. No sir.

No, the only lobby groups allowed are ones that all civilised people agree with. All the fundy bigots just have to crawl back under their rocks like good little slugs.

Posted by Muerk : 10/03/2006 12:07:00 PM

Oliver, to my certain knowledge the local Moslem community hasn't sort to secretly funded a political smear campaign targetting Labour MP's who don't support the Sensible Sentencing Trust's drive to introduce Sharia law. If they did, they would rightly be equally excoriated. Until now, the EB claim that they have withdrawn from all connections to "outside" temporal life had some validity; Politically it was probably regarded as more hassle than it was worth to remove the privilege they had been granted. Now there claims ring hollow and if they get a dose of the cold realities of power politics then good job I say. I hope Labour nails the EB good and hard. To quote Voltaire (out of context but he didn't like God squadders either so I think he would approve) "pour encourageur les autres" on the religious right to stay out of politics.

On the issue oon how radical is our business elite, I beg to differ. Many of our business leaders are new right zealots. If they were trade unionist marxists who expoused equally revolutionary "reforms" from the left the establishment papers would have us lathered up in a red scare in a trice.

The likes of the BRT have an ideological agenda; They regard the pursuit of this supra-national agenda to justify lying and subverting democratic institutions, since they know any party that frankly ran on that agenda would not just be unelectable but would be wildly unpopular; They seek to as secretly as possible reverse takeover any political vehicle they can that will advance their ideology once that vehicle gains power through a false-populist facade. To me, cynically manipulating the system to help buy political parties to further advance a hidden ideological agenda is corrupt - and possibly even constructively seditious. Now THATS something to consider...

Posted by Sanctuary : 10/03/2006 12:22:00 PM

Oliver, are you actually trying to say that the Hikoi for Hope was on the same level as the Exclusive Brethren's activities? Because that's quite extraodinary, and absolutely deplorable.

The Hikoi for Hope was designed to send a message to New Zealanders about the thousands of people living in gross poverty in New Zealand. It was organised by a transparent, mainstream religious group that cares about people outside its confines.

And the Exclusive Brethren ran a hugely negative campaign against parties that largely try to implement the values presented by the Hikoi. They made up vile lies about the policies of the Green Party and tried to hide behind non-existent organisations.

I bet even Jenny Shipley could tell the difference between those.

Posted by Chris Nimmo : 10/03/2006 03:07:00 PM

Muerk: I don't think people have a problem with the fact that the Exclusive Brethren have opinions or state them in public. It's the way they're doing it - via anonymous smear campaigns and hiring PIs to stalk their political opponents - that is the problem.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 10/03/2006 04:15:00 PM

The EB tactics are disgusting similar to Rove's swiftboaters in the USA. And to think Don Brash was reluctant to cut himself loose......

Posted by Anonymous : 10/03/2006 04:34:00 PM

"I don't think people have a problem with the fact that the Exclusive Brethren have opinions or state them in public..."

That is precisely the problem Ruth Dyson has. She has not attacked the exemptions that the EB have because they are underhand, but because some of their number have engaged in politics at all (their complete disengagement from society and the political process being the reason they got various exemptions under the ERA).

The analogy with the Hikoi of Hope isn't an entirely fallacious one. Bodies that engage in politics do not qualify for charitiable exemptions under tax law (donations to political parties, unlike donations to charities like churches or schools are not tax deductible etc.).

The problem Ms Dyson has with the EB is quite similar to the the 'problems' to which Oliver alludes with the Hikoi of Hope.

Yes the Hikoi of Hope was a good thing, and underhand political tactics, and Private Eyes are bad, but the problem the government seeks to rectify by removing charitiable and religious exemptions from the EB is that they have engaged in the political process, something Ms Dyson appears to be arguing is incompatible with their present charitiable and religious exemptions. The step to saying the Hikoi of Hope took those churches involved beyond the exemptions which they receive from the government isn't a great one.

Posted by Graeme Edgeler : 10/03/2006 05:31:00 PM

I/S:

I too dislike the underhanded techniques the EB employed.

Buuut... I'm sorry. I think people _do_ have a problem with groups expressing EB-type opinions and values.

Exhibit A would have to be the way you describe the Christian Heritage Party's demise. Or Destiny Church, or people who agree with the normal idea of marriage.

It's fine to oppose these groups' ideas and values, but people end up being derogatory about the actual groups themselves.

Posted by Muerk : 10/03/2006 09:20:00 PM

Indeed the "weird" word seems to be pretty fundimental to the attacks on the EB - more so than any claim that they are immoral.

And maybe they are immoral, but that would be more of a fortunate coincidence.

Posted by Genius : 10/03/2006 09:56:00 PM

Simply put: "we stand outside politics and wish to be exempt from some related laws" is possibly acceptable, if marginal. But to say that *and* actively campaign is just b*llsh*t. I could accept them not having to vote in Australia (where it's compulsory), but I suggest a quid pro quo: members may not join or donate to a political party, nor act in any way related to politics. No meeting the local MP (heathen scum that she is), no dealing with the media (ungodly heretics that they are).

But the idea that someone employed by an EB member does not qualify for the full protection of the law? On what basis? If their religious beliefs prevent them from allowing union members into their business, then they can't run a business, obviously. Otherwise the door is wide open... did not Bob himself state that taxation was evil? I'm sure his followers would like exemptions from all that is ungodly too.

Posted by Moz : 10/03/2006 11:39:00 PM

I can definitely see the argument.

Can you see a similar argument from the Anglican Church "yes we want to be recognised as a charity, and not engage in politics (as no charity can), oh and we want to march the length of the country to Parliament to protest about lack of action on poverty, that's not political is it?"

A can see an argument that the law ought not to be there, but while the law is there people whose religious beliefs prevent them from dealing with unions should be permitted to avail themselves of it - whatever their political views.

Posted by Graeme Edgeler : 10/03/2006 11:55:00 PM