Bethlehem College: Victim of Lies, Activist Harassment and Media Complicity

Bethlehem College, a Christian school in Tauranga, has found itself embroiled in a spiralling firestorm of lies, harassment and media complicity after a gay activist decided to target them with spurious allegations of discrimination.

The initial targeting of the school came in the form of a Bay of Plenty Times article last Friday.

In that article, Gordy Lockhart, a local gay activist accused the school of violating the Marriage Amendment Act and being “discriminatory” by asking parents to sign a student enrolment declaration acknowledging that they understand the school’s Christian tradition when it comes to marriage and sexual relations.

It is hard to see how a story containing such allegations even made it to print, when a quick examination of the statement in question shows that both accusations are clearly untrue. Here’s what it says:

"In the beginning God created male and female. Marriage is an institution created by God in which one man and one woman enter into an exclusive relationship intended for life, and that marriage is the only form of partnership approved by God for sexual relations".

What’s interesting about the statement is the fact that it doesn’t simply present the Christian tradition of marriage being a communal relationship between one man and one woman, but also the requirement of lifelong fidelity, and marriage as being the only morally acceptable relationship for sexual intercourse to take place.

Despite those other two important factors, there hasn’t been a single activist or media article alleging that the school is discriminating against divorcees, or people engaged in unmarried sexual activities and relationships.

More importantly, as is plainly obvious from reading the statement, there is clearly no violation of the Marriage Amendment Act, or even an incitement to violate that act contained in the statement. Neither is there any discrimination against individuals who might choose to adopt non-Christian beliefs and practices when it comes to marriage.

So what we have here is someone targeting the school for simply acting responsibly by ensuring that parents are aware, before their children are enrolled, that Bethlehem College is a school community which is faithful to the traditions of Christianity. As Bethlehem College told the Bay of Plenty Times; “the statement is not intended to tell anyone what they are required to believe but to "transparently explain what we believe".

As I said earlier, it’s hard to see how this story was even deemed newsworthy - unless of course the Bay of Plenty Times is more interested in salacious tabloid clickbait, or using their paper as a bully pulpit to target the long-held traditions of Christianity.

It should also be noted that, up until very recently, these traditions were universally observed by all people in all places, regardless of religious belief - and that they still are today in various other countries founded on non-Christian religious traditions.

The targeting of Bethlehem intensifies with harassment, lies and threats

Now, if this incident had ended there, it could have simply been chalked up to yet another example of political activism and questionable behaviour on the part of the media.

Things got worse, however, in the days following the publication of the Bay of Plenty Times article as other gay activists began targeting the school with lies, threats and harassment.

One particularly militant activist, Shaneel Lal, launched an online petition and began demanding an immediate Government investigation of Bethlehem College. Lal also declared that other faith-based schools should be targeted, and that “a law change” might even be needed in order to force them into compliance with Lal’s demands.

Lal has since told the Bay of Plenty Times that he is planning to ask the Green Party to table his petition against Bethlehem College in Parliament next week. Surely this raises serious questions about the spectre of a political party, and possibly even the NZ state now actively involving itself in the targeting a faith-based school for its legitimately held traditions?

Then, on Monday 13 June, a very serious allegation was made against the College in an article published by Stuff.co.nz.

The article alleged that some students engaging in activism at Bethlehem College had been surrounded by another group of students chanting “kill the gays”. It was also alleged that “one of the students was injured by something thrown”, and that the victims’ phones had been confiscated prior to the incident so that they would have no way to record any footage of their victimisation.

Make no mistake about it, this was a very serious accusation. What was effectively being alleged was that the school had facilitated (after all, who else would be confiscating phones apart from staff members?) a premeditated act of mob intimidation involving death threats against a group of students.

The source of these allegations is unclear, however the Stuff.co.nz article seems to indicate that they could have actually originated from Shaneel Lal, as, at one point the article states:

“A well-known campaigner for queer rights, Shaneel Lal (they, them) told Stuff that young people had also contacted them about the event and said that their phones had been confiscated so that they could not record video footage. Lal also said that students were chanting “kill the gays”.

If Lal was the source of these very serious allegations, then that would make them secondhand, and any journalist choosing to run with them would need to be very careful about ensuring the truthfulness of what was being alleged before choosing to publish the accusations.

Which, as it has evidently turned out, they do not appear to have actually done.

A subsequent investigation into these allegations by Bethlehem College revealed that there was no mob of students, and there was no chanting of “kill the gays”.

The investigation also found that, while two students did have their phones removed, this had nothing to do with the incident in question. Instead, the phones were removed because the two students were “breaching the school’s standard ‘no phones during school hours’ policy.”

At the end of the day, the in-depth investigation (which included interviews with students and an examination of CCTV footage), found that there was an incident where “two pieces of fruit were thrown - an apple, and a banana or part of a banana - which struck one of the protestors.” The school also found that “some students made offensive comments”, though the school was still verifying exactly what was said, according to Stuff.co.nz.

Bethlehem College Board of Trustees chair Paul Shakes also told the media:

“Some other students responding to the protest did not meet the standards of behaviour we require of our school community… We don’t tolerate bullying and expect our students to act in good faith and to show civility and tolerance for differing views, and students who breached our standards will face disciplinary action.”

So, in a nutshell, what we have here are false allegations made against the school that were given a national platform by Stuff.co.nz, who clearly don’t seem to have done enough due diligence before choosing to publish them.

Importantly, Paul Shakes also told Stuff.co.nz that the Bethlehem College “board of trustees, including staff members and our student representative, have had their names and photos posted online in a context inviting harassment, and the school’s board chair has received offensive emails”.

In other words, the school is also being targeted for harassment from outside parties, but, so far, unlike the response from Bethlehem College, there do not appear to have been any media statements from either Lal or Lockhart condemning such behaviours.

Serious questions about media conduct in all of this

One of the most troubling aspects in all of this has been the behaviour of the mainstream media, with several questions now arising from their conduct in relation to this incident.

Why did the Bay of Plenty Times choose to run the original story in the first place, when it was abundantly clear to any fair-minded person that the allegations of discrimination and violating the Marriage Amendment Act were clearly untrue?

The statement of belief does not exclude anyone, it does not denigrate others or their beliefs, nor does it demand that signatories must personally adopt the Christian traditions about marriage and sexual relations it annunciates. There is no factual basis for the central allegations that gave rise to the media reporting, thus making any claim that this story was in the public interest dubious at best.

It’s certainly in the interest of the activists who want to attack the traditions of the Christian community in New Zealand, which leaves one wondering whether the journalists and media outlets involved in this share those same hostile intent against people of faith?

Why did Stuff.co.nz choose to bury important details which showed that the serious allegations of a mob intimidation were not true, and that the harassment of Bethlehem board members, staff and a student rep. is happening?

When I checked their article this morning (Tuesday 14 June), the important facts about the falsified allegations were buried 17 paragraphs into the article, and well after the false allegations are aired without critique in the article’s opening sentences.

The details about the online targeting of board members, staff and a student rep., and the fact that the board chair was receiving abusive emails, were not even mentioned until the very final paragraphs of the article (paragraphs 61 and 62 - as of 8pm on Tuesday 14 June).

What this effectively does is weight the story against the college, and increase the chance of readers not discovering that the allegations that the article leads with (in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3) have actually been shown to be falsified. The structuring of the Stuff.co.nz article is clearly prejudicial to the school and to the truth.

New allegations are made against the original Bethlehem College accuser

Just when it appeared that this incident could not spiral any more out-of-control, late on Tuesday 14 June, new allegations were revealed to have been levelled against Gordy Lockhart, the gay activist who first targeted the school last week.

The serious allegations were contained in an email that was sent to his employer which claims that Lockhart had a history of advocating "bigotry towards a range of people of faith, whether that be Muslims, Jews or Christians". It also alleged that he has "no issue with paedophiles being able to express themselves, or subjecting children to individuals with sexual proclivities targeting children". The author of the email stated that they were "more than happy to provide overwhelming evidence” for the allegations contained in the email.

Lockhart has denied the allegations, claiming that the email was retribution for his accusing Bethlehem College of discrimination.

Ideological colonisation is the end goal of the attacks on Bethlehem College

Regardless of what happens next, there seems little doubt that Bethlehem College has become the latest target of ideological colonisation on the part of these activists and their allies.

Ideological colonisation happens when a group of ideological fundamentalists attack a pre-existing community in an attempt to overthrow that community’s traditions and then colonise it by force with the new doctrines of the ideological colonisers.

What is happening in Tauranga is clearly an attempt to overthrow the established traditions of a Christian school community in order to force new ideological doctrines upon that community.

The one shining light in the midst of all of this has been the way that Bethlehem College, particularly their board chair Paul Shakes has responded to these unwarranted and vitriolic attacks on their integrity and traditions.

He has conducted himself with dignity and virtue in the face of irrational hostility, and he has shown great courage by challenging the narrative of those who would seek to unjustly impose themselves upon his school community.

For that, he deserves our admiration and respect, which is why I will give him the final word on this matter (from his responses to Stuff.co.nz): “Our message to those acting in this way is: we respect your rights to hold and express your beliefs, please respect ours.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself Paul. Kia Kaha.