vgloria

SocietyJuly 25, 2018

Disney on rice: at Gloriavale’s public variety show

vgloria

It’s free, four hours long and promises ‘A World of Adventure and Discovery’. But does the Gloriavale concert present a true reflection of the fundamentalist group? Anke Richter heads along.

Fog hovers over Lake Haupiri while the sun sets behind dense West Coast bush. A yellow sign at the turnoff from the empty road says Concert. That’s all. The only indication that I’ve entered the grounds of Gloriavale is the slow car in front of me because the driver is wearing a headscarf and blue dress. Hang on, a woman at the wheel? That must be as rare out here as in Saudi Arabia.

The white buildings look familiar from the TV documentary series, so it feels a bit like driving on to a movie set. Or like a foreign country. I count 24 prams in front of one of the hostels. Next to the car park is the new school and kids’ playground. Wooden military jeeps and a replica second world war cannon are parked between the trikes and slides. War toys are not what I would expect from radical Christians either. But those are only props, next to the hall where the concert is taking place. Every two years, the isolated South Island community puts on their famous show for free as a gift to the wider world. It runs over a month, sometimes with two events per day, and an overall audience of around 6000. Everyone gets fed a three-course meal. Some guests come from as far as overseas, but most from Greymouth or Christchurch. Some locals have told me they boycott what they believe to be cult propaganda: an extravagant effort to impress gullible outsiders and drown out critical voices.

The old man at the entrance thanks me for wearing a long skirt. His name is Gideon and he’s been a Cooperite for 48 years. Because most of the shows are sold out this winter, I mention that I’m lucky to have a ticket. He corrects me: “Not lucky – you are blessed!” My modest dress must be an invitation for more religious mansplaining. “What leads to sin?”, he asks me as if I were a school girl. “In one word!” “Uh… mistakes?” Is this an entry quiz? “Close. Starts with ‘D’!” The devil? Wrong again. “Disobedience”, says Gideon, beaming and nodding. He carries on with his friendly god-bothering while I browse the church brochures and comic strip tales on a rack (“Poor Little Lamb”, “Earnest for the Lord”.) Then I’m ushered in. No phones are allowed.

The dining hall has been transformed into a kind of 1950s Disneyland with elevated rows of candle-lit tabless, theme-park-like castle walls and murals. My place has a bread roll, chess figures as salt and pepper shakers and Cheezles in a toy truck. The theme of the night is “Musical Museum – A World of Adventure and Discovery”. Surely, though, adventures and discoveries are not what the repressive world of Gloriavale normally stands for, where knowledge is withheld and every aspect of life controlled?

Our young waiter’s name is Zealous. He serves us tomato soup while a large choir enters the stage. Some of the older girls have hair down to their knees. Rows and rows of tiny kids in blue come on, praising the lord. No one misses a note. Howard Temple takes the microphone to welcome us. Together with Fervent Stedfast, the 75-year old American has been at the helm of Gloriavale since founder Hopeful Christian died in May. After some housekeeping, we get a 10-minute run-down about immorality, King Solomon and not denying one another the spousal body. Then Temple introduces “a man with a vision” who has left “an outstanding example … in honour of Hopeful Christian – tonight is for you!”

Christian, aka Neville Cooper, appears on a screen and talks to us. For another 10 minutes, we watch a biopic of the late preacher: how he travelled the world, built a community, looked after his flock. Astonishing fun fact: God told him first about Israel becoming a nation in 1948 – two months before Ben Gurion declared this to the world. No mention of Christian/Cooper’s time in prison for indecent assault, but instead photos of his funeral while sweet voices sing, “May all who come behind us find us faithful.” No tears in the audience, as far as I can see.

I’m preparing myself for an excruciating evangelical marathon. More of “Poor Little Lamb” and the blood of sinners, like in the comic books outside? Nope. The curtain opens to pure fairy tale magic – a richly decorated musical themed around different cultures and eras. The first act, “All God’s Creatures”, kicks off with a fast-paced zoo parade of military precision – Disney on steroids. No Jesus in sight. Furry animals dance to catchy tunes, including a song from the animated film Moana. Cute little penguins waddle along. There’s even a life-size horse. The costumes are outstanding. The props are of Weta studio standard (rumour has it that the Wellington company gave them a hand). A big burly bear high-fives me on his way out. “So cool!” says a kid behind me. Everyone is clapping along and fired up. This is top-notch family entertainment.

Zealous serves us the second course: meat, rice, peas and croquettes with gravy or white sauce. During dinner, a magician entertains us with juggling balls and bad dad jokes. “My wife said to me: ‘You never take me anywhere expensive any more.’ I said: ‘Right, get your coat on. We’re going to the petrol station.’” It feels more sad than funny, given that Gloriavale couples can never go out on a dinner date and have zero money to spend on their own. Or cycle around a town at night-time to a café, as the next round of actors do.

The same double standard goes for Angel Benjamin, well-known from the TVNZ documentaries. While tiny cowboys hop out of Wild West coaches, the stunning music teacher sings a song, dressed as a Native American – with her long hair down and uncovered. Such frivolous exposure would normally be punished in Gloriavale. That’s not the only compromise for a good show. Legs and arms that appear bare in the ethnic costumes are actually covered in skin-coloured tight fabric.

During the intermission, I spot a group of female visitors in mini-skirts, heavy make-up and jewellery, smoking in the car park. Hard to tell whether they are just culturally insensitive or deliberately provocative. More surprises after the break: Dove Love, the real TV star of Gloriavale, is in one of the couples dancing on stage. They even kiss. Then a high-tech scene, with policemen and gangsters in LED costumes flashing away in the dark. And last, but not least, homemade ice-cream sundaes for dessert. It’s the best frozen dairy I’ve ever tasted. For a few minutes, I’m where Hopeful Christian claims he is. In heaven.

The special effects become even more spectacular. Computer-animated visuals make the stage look flooded while my face gets a dusting of water from the sprinklers above. A whale as big as a boat floats above our heads. Next minute, we’re transported to the battlefields of the Second World War. Our row of chairs gets a jolt from underneath while fake bombs go off. There’s quite some engineering going on here. And there’s Adolf Hitler, in another video sequence, for a bit of history. Then over to Egypt and the biblical story of Joseph.

I’ve now been watching for over four hours and am fluctuating between overload, rebellion and compassion. How many hard months have the self-described sheep of the community laboured away for this “sacrifice”? Their shifts are gruelling because they cook and serve in-between rehearsing and performing, late into the night. During concert season, some have to give up their one-room family apartments for visitors who stay overnight – and make them breakfast and a packed lunch.

The grand finale makes me think of North Korea. Lovely girls wave pastel flags in synchronized perfection while hand-animated sea birds, built by the crafty men of Gloriavale, meander through the hall. The performers appear like an army. No-one stands out individually. They don’t even get a curtain call at the end – too vain. Just Howard Temple, back at the mic, telling us to drive safely in the dark.

On the way out, each visitor can take a freshly baked loaf of bread and a piece of butter home. Prudent, the son of Fervent Stedfast, hangs around with a group of people to answer questions. This is the best place to raise kids, I hear. Women can still be women and don’t have to work like men folk. He sounds almost like a commander from Gilead. I have a question too, but cannot ask it there. If this was not a deeply patriarchal and misogynist place – where women can’t vote, teenagers are married off without a choice, birth control is forbidden, and sexual abuse too often ignored – but instead a fundamentalist community that practiced apartheid for religious reasons, would we accept their generous offering with the same enthusiasm or tolerance? Let’s imagine their chosen way of life was blatantly racist, rather than sexist. Would we still applaud them and gratefully tuck into their food?

There are no human rights protesters or picket signs as I drive out of Gloriavale. Just fog and bush.

Gloriavale has not responded to an invitation to comment.

Keep going!
Pro-life activist Lynn Jackson, with the group Bound for Life, protests in front of the U.S. Supreme Court November 30, 2005 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Pro-life activist Lynn Jackson, with the group Bound for Life, protests in front of the U.S. Supreme Court November 30, 2005 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

OPINIONSocietyJuly 25, 2018

Anti-abortion protestors are using ‘free speech’ as a smokescreen for harassment

Pro-life activist Lynn Jackson, with the group Bound for Life, protests in front of the U.S. Supreme Court November 30, 2005 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Pro-life activist Lynn Jackson, with the group Bound for Life, protests in front of the U.S. Supreme Court November 30, 2005 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Yes, anti-abortionists should have the right to protest. No, they shouldn’t be allowed to bully, intimidate or harass people accessing abortion services, writes Amy Pearl.

Update, October 2018: A parliamentary petition is seeking to establish a no-protest buffer zone surrounding Wellington Hospital to protect people seeking abortions from harassment. The petition closes on October 26.

Update, 11 March 2020: MPs last night voted down all sections of the Abortion Legislation Bill that would have made legally protected ‘safe areas’ possible outside clinics.

Anti-abortion protests in New Zealand predominantly occur outside clinics and hospitals. Some protests, or ‘vigils’ as they are named, are only held on the one day of the week abortion clinics are open. Currently in Auckland protests are every Wednesday outside the Auckland Medical Aid Centre. As I write this a rosary procession is being led to pray outside the Wellington Regional Hospital. The protests can intensify into sustained harassment during times such as Lent, when each year the anti-abortion organisation Right to Life holds its ’40 days for life’ campaign. 

I cannot understand why our law, our institutions and our people are so unenthused about protecting the human rights of people seeking reproductive care. Our abortion law is still based in the Crimes Act, but our laws still allow people to seek abortion services, albeit under specific circumstances. So why then are groups permitted to ‘protest’ outside abortion clinics and hound those with legal consent to obtain the health services they are seeking? I use the term ‘protest’ very loosely, because I don’t think what they are doing is really protesting. What I do see them doing is bullying and intimidating those seeking services they are legally entitled to.

To be clear, I’m not arguing against free speech. But free speech and protest can occur at parliament, in the streets, and at venues who’ll have you. Why should we enable intimidation at the doors of clinics? Is this what free speech looks like? I don’t think so. Is facing off with extremely vulnerable people a suitable way for anti-abortion protesters to express their views? No it is not.

We don’t accept this type of intimidation at other places of work or other facilities providing health care, so why do our institutions provide permits to ‘protest’ outside clinics and hospitals which provide reproductive care? Where are the buffer zones around our clinics to protect the rights of our people against a small group of zealots?  A ‘buffer zone’ or a ‘safe access zone’ is an extended area around clinics where anti-abortion protesters are no longer permitted so “women can access the health facilities in privacy and free from intimidating conduct.” In places were safe access zones have been introduced, people in areas outside abortion clinics and hospitals people are now protected by law from harassment, intimidation and obstruction.

In May 2018 in NSW, Australia, a bill to establish safe access zones to abortion clinics passed the state’s parliament. Other states such as Tasmania, the ACTVictoria and the Northern Territory had already established similar laws. The NSW bill passed the legislative assembly in June and now makes it a criminal offence to interfere with the rights of people to access abortion in a safe manner. In the UK buffer zones are now being considered by councils as the number of protests rise.

The 40 Days for Life logo. (Source)

New Zealand anti-abortion activists often boast of their ‘success’ taking abortion staff out of the workforce and share statistics from affiliates overseas about many abortion clinics they’ve had a hand in closing worldwide. The workers in these clinics are not immune to the protests. Imagine going to work each day and being told by strangers you are going to hell. 

This is both a health and safety and a workplace harassment issue. As far I’m aware, clinics take security and the welfare of their staff seriously. But their hands are tied when it comes to protecting their workers on the pavement and in their car parks. They are not able to protect their patients from psychological stress or further impacts on their health. They are not able to ensure staff morale doesn’t suffer or that staff turnover does not increase due to the presence of protesters. How can clinics ensure the health and safety of their workers, as is their duty, if councils keep handing out permits for protest at their doors? 

We need to stop turning a blind eye to the way that pro-life groups are often allowed to protest – even if we’ve been lucky in New Zealand that some of the more vindictive approaches to clinic protests haven’t been adopted by pro-life groups here. In other nations women and those accompanying them can be splattered with fake blood or have dismembered dolls thrown at them; they can be followed and filmed as they enter clinics. Threats of violence against US abortion clinics almost doubled in 2017. 

Closer to home, the most recent pro-life killing in Australia was in 2001. Security guard Steven Rogers was shot dead by a perpetrator intending to kill all 15 staff and 26 patients by setting a fire. In New Zealand the last major plot to incinerate a clinic was at the Lyndhurst Hospital in Christchurch in 1999. A protester who spent most of his days protesting outside of the gates of this clinic had spent his nights tunnelling beneath the clinic to prime it with explosive material. The judge presiding over the case in 2000 told defendant Graeme White that “you claim to be a pacifist but there is a certain incongruity to that claim.” 

I’ve no doubt one of my feminist heroes, Eleanor Roosevelt, would today be arguing against sanctioned protest outside abortion clinics. Roosevelt was a great proponent for free speech and one of the authors of our most important global human rights documents, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but even she would see the absurdity and cruelty of allowing protest at the places where women access their right to reproductive care. She said “The battle for the individual rights of women is one of long standing and none of us should countenance anything which undermines it.” Many of today’s free speech advocates quote Roosevelt in their arguments – but it’s clear they don’t always understand her actual beliefs. 

Prayer not protest, say the people holding a vigil outside the Auckland Medical Aid Centre on Dominion Rd, 2017. Photo Alex Braae.

This is where the concept of ‘balancing the scales’ comes into play. Golriz Ghahraman, a Green MP with a background in human rights, recently noted that “freedom of speech, like most rights, is not absolute. It’s subject to the rights of others, to safety, freedom, equality.” Universities in the UK are struggling with these new definitions of ‘safe versus free’, as safe spaces on campus are being used to shut debate down. New Zealand doesn’t have to follow their example if we continue to have our own debate around these highly contested concepts. Safe spaces are places where a group of people or an individual won’t be exposed to discrimination, criticism, harassment, physical or emotional harm, and we need those places in society. We also need to define where those places are and whether they should be enforced at all costs. 

New Zealand had this debate as it relates to anti-abortion protest at Auckland University in 2015 when a complaint was made about the anti-abortion group ProLife making students feel harassed. ProLife won the right for their club to stay on campus and I was relieved for that result. Places of learning, by nature, should not be used to prevent the propagation of thought. Could a student body who has a constitutional obligation to support the rights of women remain associated with a pro-life group? That is a different question. 

If there is one institution that should remain open to debate, even open to offensive views, it’s our universities. They should be places where counter narratives can be explored on any topic, no limits, but always accompanied by the rights of the individual and the right of reply. As a feminist, I’m well aware of the lack of safe spaces – but also the way that complaints about ‘hate speech’ can be used to shut down debate.

In 2013 I joined Alison McCulloch as a part of her Pro-Choice Highway tour of New Zealand. She was ‘on the road for reproductive justice’ raising the issue of reproductive rights with public meetings and related events for her new book Fighting To Choose on the history of the struggle for reproductive rights in this country. That morning in the Wairarapa we set up in an alcove off the footpath in front of a shop whose owner had given us permission to be there. It was a productive morning with many unsolicited discussions, especially with women who had had an abortion and wanted to discuss their families’ experience of having been affected by abortion politics.

A representative of the local council arrived and told us we had to leave, “because there had been a complaint.” 

We packed up peacefully and left. There was no breaching of the peace, no offensive behaviour or language. This wasn’t a protest requiring a permit. So where would have been an appropriate place?

We need to find the balance. We cannot say we support free speech and then shut it down; likewise we should always be vigilant of the loudest voices in a debate as they too often hijack the discussion and become the ones who end up setting the the agenda. 

Pro-life protesters at the doors of our health facilities are my case in point. 

It is a disgrace that our reproductive laws currently stand where they are. While we fight to have abortion law to be removed from the Crimes Act, our justice system could show some moral courage of its own and impose buffer zones around reproductive health clinics. Our politicians cannot be intimidated by groups who use a false claim of rights to freedom of speech in order to perpetrate harm.

The law commission review of abortion law needs to look at this issue very closely. Buffer zones should be implemented and they need to be extended to GPs and smaller clinics. Anywhere a person can access health or reproductive services should be out of bounds. New Zealand’s laws around abortion already fall short of our human rights obligations, and still we must fight for our rights to access medical care, including abortion, which must be considered a health care issue rather than a criminal matter. 

Anti-abortion campaigners are entitled to their opinion but they are not entitled to play a dirty game. This is not free speech in action, it is sponsored intimidation and I call foul.