Censorship in West Auckland:
the Poison Spray issue develops into a civil rights case.

Helen Wiseman-Dare: Fighting the mad poison sprayers.

GLN interviews Helen Wiseman-Dare, chairperson of West Aucklanders Against Aerial Spraying, who was recently served a "banning order" (remember apartheid South Africa? "Banning orders" were a favorite of the regime there too!) after she called a medical mercenary an "arrogant arsehole". Planet Net used to publish my WASP Newsletters but someone saw one where I mentioned one of the MAF doctors by name. I and the website then got lawyer's letters!

Former protester Bob Harvey: "Today's protesters are like terrorists!"

Jim Sutton got hold of some of my newsletters and put out a press release, Minister abhors activists' harassment. Perhaps it should have been headed: "Minister abhors having his cover blown!" See a related story on Rudy Giuliani, who ordered poison spraying over New York for political benefit, then lied and made false assertions about its "safety".

This came at the time the Herald featured a photo of Sally Lewis living in a leaking tent, having been denied evacuation by MAF. And the reporters were over here making the Dateline Australia documentary on the spraying. Plus other overseas media were showing an interest.

Since then a smear campaign has been launched from within Parliament accusing me of sending cruel emails re the Crop and Food GE scientists' plane crash. Next came the Trespass Banning.

MAF are desperate to contain all the bad publicity they are getting over the spraying and will obviously stop at nothing.

The articles in Allergy Today are just more of the same – chock full of MAF propaganda. They also mention the "advice" Sutton was getting steamed up about in his press release. It turns out that what they don't like is the fact we have been telling people not to sign consent forms for the MAF doctors to access people's medical records – these are people's private medical history held by their own GPs. MAF are using the information to "prove" the spray could not possibly be causing their symptoms as it "shows" they have a pre-existing medical condition!

GLN: Aren't these tactics exactly the sort of fascism that Bob Harvey enjoyed protesting about when he was younger?

Yes, he was active in the protests over apartheid and the Springbok rugby tours, and the Vietnam war. But now HE is the Establishment. He is even on record as comparing the non-violent protesters as being "like terrorists." And he has taken a case against 83-year-old Margaret Jones to the Race Relations Conciliator, because of a sign she carried with a swastika on it!

GLN: Yes, Bob emailed me about that case too when I took the issue up with him. He suggested I send copies of my email to Zionist groups and ask if they felt it is racist! But I told him that the lady's sign was clearly not intending to be racist, but was comparing his regime with that of Hitler: surely even a bear of little brain like Bob could see that. I understand you were censored by the "Western Leader"?

The article in the "Western Leader" implied that the policeman spoke to me about another matter as well as the trespass banning. And instead of printing the words I actually said, "Arrogant arsehole", they printed "Arrogant [expletive]". Which made it sound much worse and left people wondering. The whole tone of the article felt like a smear campaign.

The editor of the "Western Leader" has not printed any of the 3 letters I have sent him since he printed the piece about myself. So I have been denied right of reply. And thanks to myself, he has managed to fill several pages of his papers with stories and letters related to the issue (including almost a page about Margaret Jones and the swastika issue). If I hadn't phoned his reporter and told her of my trespass ban his paper would have had nothing to print as she was not present at the time and knew nothing of it until I told her. It is curious that many letters get published which do not seem to have the same stringent rules applied to them as he insists on applying to each of my letters - many of which, other papers seem quite happy to print! I also note that until I became the spokesperson for an anti aerial spray group he printed my letters regularly. He regularly prints letters from other protest groups. The question is: under whose orders is he acting, or is he conducting some kind of personal vendetta? As matters stand at the moment, he has still not allowed me any right of reply to the original article that he printed about me. Perhaps it's time I had a chat to my lawyer.

GLN: Would you share that correspondence with us?

Certainly, here it is. You are welcome to publish it all online.

Sent: Thursday, 10 July 2003 4:47 p.m.
To: edwl@snl.co.nz
Subject: Letter to the Editor

Dear Sir,
I am very concerned at the inaccuracies in your article: "Spray campaigner gets council ban".
The only children within earshot were the 2 children who were part of our protest. There were no other children visible within the closed Council chamber or outside when we came out. When I asked the policeman where the children were, he pointed to a set of closed doors. It was impossible to know whether anyone was behind those doors. If so, they would certainly not have been within earshot.

The article also says that the schoolchildren were upset that I threatened someone. Calling someone an "arrogant arsehole" can hardly be called a threat.

You also quote Penny Hulse as saying that protesters were welcome and given an opportunity to speak. We were given no such opportunity and if issuing someone with a trespass notice is making them feel welcome then I would hate to be someone who was not welcome.

Helen Wiseman-Dare

From: Western Leader Editorial [SNL]
To: 'WASP'
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 8:18 AM
Subject: RE: Letter to the Editor

Dear Helen,

I am happy to consider your letters for publication - however this one does not make the grade.

A couple of points made in your letter are clearly wrong.

Firstly: "The article also says that the schoolchildren were upset that I threatened someone".

The article does not say this at all - Penny Hulse is however quoted speaking generally about protesters and saying, "it's not right to threaten people."

Secondly: "You also quote Penny Hulse as saying that protesters were welcome and given an opportunity to speak."

Again, this is not the case.

The article reads:

"[Protesters are welcome] and often, if it's appropriate, we give them an opportunity to speak."

This is very different to what you claim in your letter and it is clear, again, that Ms Hulse is speaking in general terms.

I am always happy to receive letters your letters and invite you to have another go... but please stick to the facts.

If you are going to challenge any aspect of a story, it would be better to quote it verbatim to avoid confusion of this kind.

Regards

Matthew Gray
Editor

Sent: Monday, 28 July 2003 11:03 a.m.
To: Western Leader
Subject: Letter to the Editor

Dear Sir,

Your refusal to allow me the right of reply to your article slating me for calling Dr Sinclair an "arrogant [expletive]" leaves me wondering whether your paper has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Council.

By the way, the exact words I used were: "arrogant arsehole". It surprises me that Bob Harvey's spokesperson considers me to have "crossed the line of common decency". I well remember reading reports of Bob Harvey exposing that same portion of his anatomy to at least one member of the public. Obviously whether it is considered "obscene" or not depends on who you are.

Also, figures obtained under the Official Information Act show that 10,000 calls were received by MAF's health service between January and December 2002 alone, not the 3,290 that Dr Sinclair has stated in your article.

Also, not one of the hundreds of people who have contacted me have ever had their medical fees and prescriptions subsidised, let alone fully refunded.

Helen Wiseman-Dare

From: Western Leader Editorial [SNL]
To: 'WASP'
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 11:57 AM
Subject: RE: Letter to the Editor

Helen,

Again, you have twisted words and misrepresented facts.

You have not been refused a right of reply.... indeed my letter to you of July 11 says:

"I am always happy to receive your letters and invite you to have another go... but please stick to the facts".

Therefore the tired old "mouthpiece for the council" quip deserves no further comment.

Also, I am well aware of the precise language used by yourself at the meeting in question.

However this is a family newspaper and as such it is company policy not (generally) to print expletives.

Regarding the remainder of your letter.

You raise some interesting points... please provide us with a copy of the information you have to support the figures you have quoted and I will look at running it.

I suggest a version such as:

"It surprises me that Bob Harvey's spokesperson considers me to have "crossed the line of common decency". I well remember reading reports of Bob Harvey exposing that same portion of his anatomy to at least one member of the public. Obviously whether it is considered "obscene" or not depends on who you are.

"Also, figures obtained under the Official Information Act show that 10,000 calls were received by MAF's health service between January and December 2002 alone, not the 3,290 that Dr Sinclair has stated in your article.

"Also, not one of the many people who have contacted me has ever had their medical fees and prescriptions subsidised, let alone fully refunded."

I have no doubt that you are very passionate about the Painted Apple Moth debate and welcome your thoughts.

However, as stated to you on earlier occasions, it is imperative that you stick to the facts and provide evidence to support your claims.

Hearsay and assumption does not make for responsible reporting and ultimately benefits no one - except perhaps the lawyers that end up battling both sides of a defamation case in court.

Again, the same principle - as expressed to you in my email of July 11, applies:

"If you are going to challenge any aspect of a story, it would be better to quote it verbatim to avoid confusion of this kind."

Regards,

Matthew Gray
Editor

To: Western Leader
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 5:51 PM
Subject: Letter to the Editor

Dear Sir,

I am absolutely appalled at the lengths Mayor Bob Harvey seems willing to go to in what appear to be attempts to stifle community protest. Firstly, by sanctioning my trespass ban, by allowing his spokesperson to say that I had "crossed the line of common decency" (WL 15/7/03) with my "obscene outbursts" (WL 15/7/03) for using a word which describes the portion of his anatomy which he has reportedly exposed to at least one member of the public. Obviously, whether it is considered "obscene" or not depends on who you are.

Secondly, I hear that Mr Harvey has said that CAP members acted like "terrorists" during their recent peaceful occupation of Council premises (West Weekly 16/7/03). This is the same Bob Harvey who protested against the Vietnam war and the Springbok tour. Using his logic, he could've been expected to be labelled a terrorist for taking part in such protests today.

And finally for laying a complaint with the race relation's conciliator against an 82 year old woman over her form of defence of freedom of speech.

Mr Harvey and his Councillors have said that protesters are welcome and that it's a democracy, but their actions would suggest otherwise.

Helen Wiseman-Dare
_____________

So there you have it, dear readers. Is the Labour Party hierarchy organising this poison spraying at the highest levels, and combining forces to stifle any protest? Bob Harvey is a former president of the Labour Party. You be the judge.

More Info : Visit the Stop Aerial Spraying Auckland website.

Since this correspondence was received the "Western Leader" has finally deigned to print Helen's third letter – minus the whole "terrorists" paragraph.