Moral panics do not occur in a vacuum. We must recognise that they don’t arise spontaneously. They require conditions to be cultivated—societal anxieties to be inflamed—until accusations reach a fever pitch. I believe these conditions have been deliberately fostered in Aotearoa over recent years. Here are five developments that have helped set the stage for what I see as the latest witch-hunt:
James Lindsay’s Tour of Aotearoa
Last month, Dr James Lindsay, the self-appointed founder of the modern-day “groomer” movement was welcomed across Aotearoa for speaking engagements, brought here by a local “civil liberties” organisation, the Free Speech Union (for context O’Brien is a member of its governing council). As CEO of Countering Hate Speech Aotearoa, I personally contacted venues, including Parliament’s Speaker, urging them not to platform him.
A Legislative Attack on LGBTQIA+ Identities
This same “civil liberties” group has proposed legislation defining “contentious political issues,” using “sexual orientation” as an example. If enacted, this could regress us socially to pre-1986, before the Homosexual Law Reform Act. Whilst their legislation wouldn’t recriminalise being gay, putting such a thing into law could lead to discrimination occurring, which would then set up a conflict with our entire human rights legal framework. I argue in the strongest possible terms that there is nothing contentious about someone’s sexual orientation.
The Government’s Puberty Blocker Review
Late last year, the Government directed the Ministry of Health to conduct a public consultation as part of their review into puberty blockers, unleashing what I saw as a torrent of bigotry and misinformation directed toward transgender youth and their families. In their submission to the consultation the Human Rights Commission said: “An open public consultation on minority rights in a field of expert knowledge risks collecting misleading or incorrect information”.
A threatening legal letter to providers of gender-affirming care
Earlier this year Stephen Franks (also on the FSU council) sent a letter to providers of gender-affirming care to trans youth on behalf of a client of his law firm. It warned of possible legal action against practices offering such care. The letter attracted much controversy and the Law Society received numerous complaints about it.
Winston Peters’ Attack on Doyle
On The Platform last week, Winston Peters falsely claimed that Doyle wanted puberty blockers and other gender-affirming care given to young children. This assertion is designed to stoke passions as the only gender-affirming care available in New Zealand to young children is, in fact, for cisgender children if they have precocious puberty. The interview then devolved to what I viewed as an unhinged diatribe against the Rainbow community. I believe NZ First is spearheading the opposition to trans rights in New Zealand, and this fits their agenda perfectly.
I could populate this article with hundreds of examples showing how opponents of universal human rights have fuelled this hysteria, but space constraints prevent this.
Then, last month, the firestorm erupted on X. A coordinated attack on Doyle unfolded - led by someone actually concealing their identity - targeting the MP precisely, I believe, because they are a steadfast ally of the entire LGBTQIA+ community. Unlike others, they have never attempted to divide us—they have consistently stood for all of us. Given the prevalence of the “groomer” narrative, I believe the simplest attack against them was to label them a child safeguarding risk.
Among the dubious inquisitors’ initial fixations was a name and a photo, but now they have moved onto Ben’s bookshelf.
The name
Yes, “Bussy” is a portmanteau of “boy” and “p*ssy.” The inquisitors assert that if it referred to an adult’s anatomy, it would have been “Mussy.” This is an absurd argument that fundamentally misunderstands language. As Ludwig Wittgenstein noted, meaning derives from use - not pedantic, superficial, false equivalences. Unless someone is familiar with LGBTQIA+ spaces and communication, their opinions on this terminology carry little weight. “Bussy” has absolutely no paedophilic connotations. It appears in various contexts—“Get your bussy on” (hurry up), “Oh, Bussy” (general exclamation), “You’re so bussy” (flirtatious), or simply as a synonym for “cool.” It’s also used as a reference for ‘I’. Could it have been a more politically astute choice to avoid this word in a caption? Perhaps. But let’s be crystal clear: Doyle didn’t create the conditions for this moral panic, and there is no safeguarding issue whatsoever. I believe Ani O’Brien - who said on X that Doyle’s account was “a child-safeguarding nightmare” - is among those who are contributing to this moral panic by making this assertion.
The photo
The supposed “smoking gun” is simply a picture of a parent cuddling and kissing their child. That’s all. This has also spawned baseless accusations that they are sexualising their child. If Ben is sexualising their child, then tens of millions of other Instagram users are equally culpable.
The bookshelf
As a follow-up to their initial posts, the cloaked questioner has analysed books on a shelf in Ben’s home – the photo was part of an interview they did. Like Josef K. in Kafka’s The Trial, the accused is not judged for what they’ve done, but for what others have decided their guilt must be—based not on actions, but associations, preferences, or, in this case, the books they read. Guilt becomes a matter of interpretation, not evidence. Anyone with a coffee table book of (American photographer Robert) Mapplethorpe is implicated. That is - most definitely - not the Kiwi way.
What’s the agenda behind this?
Currently, Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori stand alone as the parties in Parliament championing universal human rights and LGBTQIA+ communities. We are now approaching a substantial confrontation over puberty blockers. Human rights and LGBTQIA+ advocacy groups anxiously await the outcome of the Government’s consultation on puberty blockers. I strongly suspect this attack on Doyle constitutes part of a broader strategy to inflame anti-LGBTQIA+ sentiment ahead of any adverse policy changes.
My message to the Green Party co-leaders: An investigation is unnecessary. Stand firm against the mob. Yield nothing. The adversaries of the Rainbow community view us as less than human—as morally compromised. If you capitulate to this moral panic, they will simply advance to the next target. This follows the Kafka playbook precisely—anonymous accusers, an unidentified tribunal, and no right to defence. Benjamin Doyle has consistently championed universal human rights with courage and integrity. Now it’s our turn to do the same for them. I stand with Ben, and in authoring this op-ed, I place the reputation of both myself and my non-profit organisation on the line. Moral panics dissipate only when people summon the courage to confront anonymous inquisitors.
For an alternative view, see Ani O’Brien’s original column.
