MP outing was "gay-bashingwitch hunt"

www.samesame.com.au
  • 98
  • 2
  • 9293

The revelation that now-former NSW Minister for Transport and Roads, David Campbell, was secretly filmed leaving an all-male sex club by a news programme which then outed him on national television has sparked questions over the morality of 7 News.

Campbell (pictured), who is married with two adult sons, resigned last night in the wake of the story.

Alex Greenwich of the Australian Marriage Equality lobby group was one of several people who contacted Same Same to express their concern over the item. He says he rarely comments on issues away from same-sex marriage, but brands the 7 story a “gay witch hunt.”

“Whether he is gay, bi, curious or confused we need to appreciate that anyone of his generation grew up in a very homophobic Australia, both in terms of social attitudes and laws. Any gay person knows how hard it still is to come out.

“This man has dedicated much of his life to public service, and without any understanding of the psychological issues associated with someone of his generation being able to be comfortable with his sexuality, he is being condemned by the media for walking down the stairs of a gay establishment.”

The story was presented by 7 News as ‘misuse of a government paid car’, but the issue of whether Campbell is secretly gay or not is the real reason he is being targeted, Greenwich concludes.

2DayFM gay radio presenter Geoff Field agrees, describing the outing as “an absolute tragedy in so many ways.”

“This man was obviously living a double life, which has now been exposed to a hungry media baying for blood,” he wrote, adding that “it’s ironic that this should happen, on the very day when gay people are told by an AFL player (Jason Akermanis) to stay in the closet.”

Put yourself in his shoes

After a few amused reactions to last night’s revelations, Same Same’s Forum members were also quick to voice their concern over 7 News’s stakeout. “It’s outrageous that the TV film crew was following him in any case,” a new member wrote. “He was not doing anything illegal by going to Ken’s.”

“I feel sorry for the guy,” a regular poster added. “It’s not really anyone’s business, and who doesn’t use their work car to get around?”

“I’m pretty sure David Campbell has never said anything homophobic or been an advocate for homophobia in Parliament,” typed a third Same Samer. “So no one on this site should take pleasure in his pain. Put yourself in his shoes.”

Who’s next?

The management of Sydney’s Ken’s at Kensington sauna, the sex-on-site premises Campbell was shown exiting in 7 News’ video footage, has so far declined to talk to mainstream media about the story. Manager Bruce Dallas told Same Same this afternoon he was still reluctant to make any comment, but revealed that a TV crew has been filming outside his venue today. “Of course this has had a detrimental effect on business,” he added.

Same Same emailed 7 News this morning to ask what justification it had for ‘outing’ Campbell, and whether further stakeouts outside gay sex venues were planned. So far there has been no response.

Social

  • twinstar
  • Cosmojc

Comments

www.samesame.com.au arrow left
17094
guru_g

guru_g said on the 22nd May, 2010

Crikey expose Adam Walters for the foul and despicable human being that he is...

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/05/21/the-minister-the-gay-sauna-and-a-reporter-with-scores-to-settle/

Great article, it deserves to be read by SameSamers.



The minister, the gay sauna and a reporter with scores to settle
by Andrew Crook

The Channel Seven newsroom has split this morning over the ethics of state political reporter Adam Walters’ icky scoop exposing transport minister David Campbell’s “double life” as a bisexual man.

Campbell, whose wife is battling cancer, resigned immediately after Walters informed the government that Seven was running with the story last night. Apparently acting on a tip-off, Walters and producer Steve Barrett had tailed Campbell to the salubrious gay sauna Ken’s of Kensington on Tuesday, using a concealed camera to snag footage of him exiting the premises.

But Seven staffers say the story, rather than coming from the usual milieu of the ALP factions or the opposition, emanated mostly from the dark sewer of media revenge. Seven and the opposition had been pestering Campbell for weeks over his whereabouts during a notorious traffic jam on the F3 freeway on April 12, but had got precisely nowhere.

On Wednesday, Seven led its news with a Freedom of Information scoop on the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) report into the hold-up, but absent from the report was any reference to Campbell’s whereabouts. The minister’s private life had been an open secret in state government and media circles for years. So why did Walters decide to pull the trigger now?

On April 20 in state parliament, Campbell was repeatedly questioned by shadow roads minister Andrew Stoner over his movements on April 12 — specifically what he was doing between 11:40am, when the F3 truck smash occurred, and when the RTA’s ‘contra-flow system’ was finally activated later that evening.

Campbell joked and ducked the question: “As I’ve said, I have absolute confidence in the work that I was doing that day.”

A follow-up inquiry by former police commissioner Ken Moroney is likely to shed more light into the minister’s movements. But speculation is now swirling that Walters will reprise his yarn tonight, claiming Campbell may have been at Ken’s while 20,000 motorists sweated in their cars south of Gosford.

In a brief press conference held as Crikey went to press, Campbell said that while his decision to frequent Ken’s had hurt his family, there had been no impact on his professional life in parliament. On the night of the F3 debacle, Campbell said he was at his ministerial offices and his apartment in Potts Point, from where he conducted several media interviews. His office would release a statement with phone records proving his location later this afternoon.

Yet another explanation for the story is the bad blood that continues to circulate between Walters and the mother of his third child, dumped health minister Reba Meagher. Some sources are claiming the hatchet job on Campbell was payback for Walters’ emotional distress after the power couple’s relationship turned sour last year.

In 2008, Walters famously endured a “short but bruising” stint as the state government’s most senior spin doctor in former premier Morris Iemma’s ‘strategy unit’, where his tryst with Meagher began.

Walters later told the Daily Telegraph, which he would join months later as a staff reporter, that Iemma’s office was “a circus full of clowns” and that he was planning his departure from his first day in the job. The ill-will began after his planned appointment as Iemma’s communication director was nixed when incumbent Glen Byers announced he would be staying on.

With the F3 scandal already on the public’s radar, Walters acted to extract maximum damage against Labor in an election year.

There is also a factional dimension. Walters lost his job in September 2008 after the strategy unit was disbanded under Iemma’s successor Nathan Rees. At the time, Campbell was part of a group of ministers, including Meagher, that had moved against Iemma. While his girlfriend stayed on, the former premier’s treachery had left Walters without a gig.

After joining the Daily Telegraph in early 2009, Walters was accused of giving his lover preferential treatment, which just weeks before had pilloried Meagher with headlines including ‘GRIM REBA’.

David Koch picked up on this obvious conflict this morning, producing this amazing exchange on Seven’s Sunrise:

Koch: “Yeah, Adam, he [Campbell] has led a double life. Let me play devil’s advocate here: yes, he should apologise to his family, there’s no doubt about that. But is it a hanging offence? People make mistakes … to be polite you were involved in a similar situation when you worked at state parliament …”

Walters: “Very briefly.”

Koch: “… with a minister and things like that. Private things happened. So, should they have to resign? Yes they’ve got a lot of explaining to do to their family, but shouldn’t it be left at that?”

One Seven insider told Crikey this morning:

“Adam Walters is the last person who should be throwing stones. He has three children to three different women, and is unable to keep his own p-nis in his pants.”

Walters, who is paid $250,000 a year by Seven, has also been accused of attempting to protect his journalistic integrity by cloaking the headline-grabbing same-sex elements of the story in a sub-plot over Campbell’s use of a “ministerial vehicle”. But as premier Kristina Keneally remarked this morning, ministers routinely use their ministerial vehicles for private tasks, including picking up the kids from school.

JayTee

JayTee said on the 22nd May, 2010



how is it different to his employment? He is an MP and in government. ie he has power. Power is dangerous if not handled correctly - just look at the state of our state to see what happens when people with power use it incorrectly. look at police corruption and what the honest police have to be put thru because corruption is so damaging.

he left himself open to blackmail - which means he didn't do his job properly. It's the same thing as a footballer being held responsible for drinking too much in public because they are role models. The footballer can't cry foul and say "but i don't want to be a role model" when the only reason they get paid so much is because precisely because they are in the media spotlight. Netballers who get paid a pitance can get away with it because they aren't in the spotlight and recognisable, nor at they huge role models for thousands of kids.

same here. MPs get lots of perks that the rest of us dont. They are afforded services we aren't (like big fat super annuation payments). So they implicitly are expected to have a higher standard of personal behaviour - including in their public life. that's what politics is.

no-one forced him to get into politics. he may have been forced to marry a woman and stay in the closet 30 years ago, but at some point between then and becoming an MP, he had lots of choices to either:

a. get out of public life

or

b. separate from his wife so that he wasn't open to blackmail because he was living a double life.

or

c. sacrificed his sexuality for his public life and the marriage he wanted.

or

d. separated from his wife and came out publicly as a gay man who was (reasonably) competent at being a minister in this (sorry) government (my preferred option).

yes it's easier said than done, but he isn't a school teacher, he isn't your local plumber.

he is (was) a guy who made major decisions about things that affected people's lives on a grand scale.

and to put that at risk of corruption and blackmail is the reason why he shouldn't of been there.

he had lots of choices that he could've taken but didn't. And that left him at the mercy of that idiot journalist.

and to call it a homophobic witch hunt lessens the outrage when people who really ARE victims of homophobic witch hunts go thru it.

it's not homophobic and it's not a witch hunt. it's just a persons career crumbly because of bad personal choices clashing with political point scoring.

sneakos

sneakos said on the 22nd May, 2010

disregarding his performance as a minister for a moment (given that was not the reason for him standing down anyway), i believe there is a bigger structural issue here. this case highlights the level of homophobia in our society that still exists when a man decides that he cant (or wont) come out for fear of being persecuted. its easy now in hindsight to say that he could have come out in later life as things have changed since he was younger, and arguably they have, we have bob brown and penny wong, for example, as opennly gay politicians. however, david campbell never had the luxury of hindsight - and there are plenty of david campbells out there, who, for whatever reason, make a decision not to come out, or, in his own words, live a double life. (god knows, i did it for a while, and i know others on this site have too). that some would say we are a more tolerant society now than a few decades ago is true, but we still have a long long way to go to achieve equality and reduce homphobia, and comments earlier this week by jason akermanis only highlight the gap that still exists. i wonder how a young gay footballer, or indeed, his family memebers, feel after hearing jason's comments? and i can only imagine that they may then empathise with david campbell's thought process. and its only 18 months ago that the catholic education office issued a directive on behalf of the secondary schools in nsw that come under its auspice, that same sex partners would not be allowed at school formals. what is the message underpinning this? unless, and until, there is equality and freedom from discrimination, there will be many more stories like that of david campbell. that, in my opinion, is the real tragedy

guru_g

guru_g said on the 22nd May, 2010

Great comment from Michael Kirby
http://mumbrella.com.au/michael-kirby-seven-are-serial-homophobes-for-outing-david-campbell-and-they-hounded-my-friend-to-death-26164

Michael Kirby: Seven are serial homophobes for outing David Campbell and they hounded my friend to death

Former High Court Justice Michael Kirby today accused the journalists of the Seven Network of being “serial homophobes” over the outing of transport minister David Campbell, and accused the broadcaster of hounding former Law Society president John Marsden to death.

His comments came in a speech to about 700 people at the TEDx Sydney conference.

Kirby raised Thursday night’s outing of NSW transport minister David Campbell by Seven News.

The network secretly filmed the married politician entering a gay sex club in Kensington. Campbell immediately resigned his post.

Kirby told the audience:

“The newsroom of Channel Seven should hang their heads in shame. They are serial homophobes.”

Kirby also referred to the late John Marsden, former president of the Law Society of New South Wales.

In the mid 1990s, the Seven Network made a series of allegations alleging that Marsden had sex with minors. Marsden successfully sued in a marathon legal case.

The final amount the Marsden received from Seven was never revealed. But when the High Court ordered a new trial in 2002 to take into account Marsden’s hurt feelings, the network settled for a reported $6m to $9m dollars.

Marsden died of stomach cancer in 2006 after an illness of around four years. Kirby delivered the eulogy at his funeral.

Today Kirby told TEDx: “They hounded him to his death.”

Kirby’s speech received loud applause from the audience.

The outing of Campbell has by Seven has sparked furious debate over the journalistic ethics involved.

At the time of posting, Seven had not responded to Mumbrella’s request for comment.

weathervain

weathervain said on the 24th May, 2010

maybe or maybe he'd just rather keep a friend around that he's had for 25 years who has supported him, you don't know that he is actually defining himself as gay, he may have been sexually active with his wife until she was diagnosed. You have no idea, you are just speculating and your aggression is coming from that uncertainty. Give the guy a break, and his family, you obviously can't put yourself in his shoes and understand that his socialisation process is different to yours and also his gender definition.

I really think the only thing the guy did wrong and unthinkingly(I made up a word) was to use his work car for an act which is frowned on in society. Honestly though it's not that dissimilar to having a bat in the office toilet when you are bored. It's not really professional but you might do it if you are bored and horny. You might also get caught on camera doing it, and the repercussions would be you get fired. Now because the stakes are much higher in this scenario so are the consequences.

But lying to his electorate... are you serious? What has sexuality got to do with politics at all aside from the fact that being non-hetero and married it slightly limits his ability to sleep his way to the top? It's unnerving that someone with a different sexual persuasion to the hetero-norm is so vehement about this, why do we need to judge people by who they fuck, especially politicians, all they are is talking heads, for all intents and purposes they may as well be eunuchs or castratos you don't need to know as it should not define how they perceive the world and their constituents.

JayTee

JayTee said on the 24th May, 2010

maybe or maybe he'd just rather keep a friend around that he's had for 25 years who has supported him, you don't know that he is actually defining himself as gay, he may have been sexually active with his wife until she was diagnosed. You have no idea, you are just speculating and your aggression is coming from that uncertainty. Give the guy a break, and his family, you obviously can't put yourself in his shoes and understand that his socialisation process is different to yours and also his gender definition.
.

you are right. i am unable to put myself in his shoes because I have never been a member of parliament with access to all of it's privileges. (that's sarcasm). he's not your average joe blow who is trapped in a marriage. he's a career politician who has the intelligence and financial resources to be able to make that difficult transition from being a closeted married gay man to being a divorced gay man. Marriage wasn't intended as being a way of marrying your best friend. That's why so many people in our community are fighting for same sex marriage, because they don't want to be "registered" to their partner as if that person was a dog. They want to be married to them because of the deep and induring intimate sexual relationship they share.

i'm not judging him on his behaviour in 1979 or whenever it was that he got married. I'm judging it on the time he has been in parliament. As I have said before, there are divorce laws in place in this country. Many older gay men have used them to remove themselves from a marriage that they felt compelled to be in when they were much younger and times were different.

what kind of example is this guy setting for others?

"i'm intelligent and have access to sufficient finances, but i'm still a victim of my time?" BULLSHIT!!

There are PLENTY other gay men in less advantageous circumstances who've made the very difficult transition from being a married closeted gay man, to being a divorced man (whether they are openly gay or not afterwards isn't the point). They've had to leave young children behind and cop the blmae from the inlaws because they feel they "ruined" their daughters life. If others can do it, then he should have too.

i'm not saying it's easy - just that it's the right thing to do.




But lying to his electorate... are you serious? What has sexuality got to do with politics at all aside from the fact that being non-hetero and married it slightly limits his ability to sleep his way to the top? It's unnerving that someone with a different sexual persuasion to the hetero-norm is so vehement about this, why do we need to judge people by who they fuck, especially politicians, all they are is talking heads, for all intents and purposes they may as well be eunuchs or castratos you don't need to know as it should not define how they perceive the world and their constituents.

his sexuality would have had nothing to do with his being a good politician if he hadn't used it as a way of showing how he is "the common man". Don't be naive to think that politicians don't use their personal lives when it suits them and then say "my private life has got nothing to do with my job" when it doesn't suit them. He sent out xmas cards of him and his family to his electorate for crying out loud! and he didn't add a bi-line on it (pun intended) saying "this is my intimate friend whom I share a bond with". he presented the picture KNOWING that it would send out the message "look at my beautiful happy family - see we are just like you!"

it wasn't his sexuality that was the problem. it was how he handle the situation he found himself in that was the problem. (and i'm not going to go on about how he opened himself up to blackmail because we've already covered that).

and just for the record, they are not just "talking heads". They actually help create the world you live in a major way! You may think that they are all puppets, but they aren't.

Of course we need to know about how they conduct themselves in their private lives because it reflects on how they conduct themselves in the work lives. He was the police minister previously and then the Transport minister. The way those departments are run has a huge impact of the way our society functions, and thus how you live your life.

Personal scrutiny is something that is a necessary part of many jobs. Footballers have to put up with it. Teachers have to put up with it. Police have to put up with it. In fact anyone in any kind of a job that have some level of working with the public, or is in a corruptable position has to put up with it.

JayTee

JayTee said on the 24th May, 2010

No you have it wrong.
As just posted by someone else he may have had an understanding with his wife. Thats between them.


Where has it been said in public that he had an arrangement with his wife? is it only speculation on this board?

Let's ASSUME he did have an agreement with her. Why was he still happy to trade on the image of being a happily married family man? That doesn't make him in right. it just makes him a manipulative politician who likes to have smoke screens about who he is so that he is more electable. hardly the best way to run a democracy.

and it still leaves him open to blackmail because extortionists will say "I'll tell your boss/the media/your electorate" etc etc.

See if he hadn't of lied like that then he wouldn't be in this mess. If he was a separated/divorced gay man who was outed, then yes, I would be on your side. But he wasn't. he was a married man who went to a gay sex venue.

nobody can blackmail Bob Brown nor Penny Wong about their sexuality because they aren't hiding anything!

Phony Tony is being pillared for admitting he lies. why shouldn't anyone else?



They may have decided to stay as a family to raise their kids. Good on him ! Gays have children.


Yep. Gays can have children. That is true.

But this man is hardly going to get the father of the year award for putting his children through this public mess. Again, it's not his sexuality that is the issue. it's how he acted in the circumstances he found himself in.

Being a closeted politician and STILL putting going to a gay sex venue above the welfare of his sons? if they were under 16, I'd report it to DOCS that they are at risk of psychological harm of being traumatised by the public disemination of their father's sex life in the media. Because he knew there was the possibility of something like this happening.


How do we know he was not going to tell his sons when they got to a certain age or how do we know the boys are already aware ?

I don't know when or whether he was going to tell his sons.

But he obviously misjudged his circumstances because he left it too late though. (they are in their 20s - when was he waiting for?) Again, something he had control over. How is he always the victim in this?

if they already were aware, how the story aired a problem for them?



He lives his life his way not yours. So far he has done nothing illegal.

Tough if you dont agree the way he lives his life.


The same could be said for him.

Tough if he doesn't like how he has been treated by the media. they did nothing illegal.

Besides he's a politician. he knows better than anyone how much the public's view is paramount in how they vote. And he knows it otherwise he would've done something to get him out of this situation.



Look, I'm not saying "lynch him". I'm saying "Please don't call this a homophobic witch hunt because it lessens the cry when there really is a homophobic witch hunt". The boy who cried wolf and all that. I'm sure you've heard the story.

JayTee

JayTee said on the 24th May, 2010

Nobody has those answers. Except to say he has handled himself well during this


absolutely. i agree with this. he made mistakes but he owned up to them - he has faced the media and apologized for his actions. Since he was outed he has been completely honourable.

it's the description of this as a "homophobic witch hunt" that I have a problem with.


and there is nothing to say he would of tolerated blackmail.


but how can we be sure? He may very well have not tolerated blackmail, but can we say the same about others in the same situation?



Bill Clinton held the rains of the worlds largest super power while having an affair and he retained power despite the apparent risks you highlight. It's ridiculous to think David Campbell is especially bad in that spectrum of upsets in peoples private lives.


Never said he was bad. I said he left himself open to blackmail and extortion.

you don't have to have access to nuclear weapons to be able to destroy people's lives. he was minister for police and police have a history of being corrupted. not all of them a crooked, but that's little conciliation to people who have been victims of crooked cops.


I'd question whether he even has access to change someones $79 fine. Doubt it. And in any case there is always more respect for coming clean than there is for blackmail.

And if the blackmail was for something less trivial, there is nothing... NOTHING.. to say he would tolerate blackmail.


are you saying he would come clean over a $78 fine?

he would throw away his privacy, sex life, humiliation of his family in public over a $78 fine?

He would just realise after that $78 blackmail episode that the right thing to do would be to come clean instead of stepping in over something like that?

After years of socialisation that being gay is wrong, that you should get married, that you should stay married, that you shouldn't separate from your wife because you are gay, that you should send xmas cards to your constituents because that is what they want to see, all it would take is one idle threat and he would realise that honesty is the best policy?????

I wish that were true! It would make politics in this state a much better place!!!

The $78 fine is the thin edge of the wedge. It's the first drag of a ciggarette that means you are just that slightly further down a path that is difficult to get out of.

Once you have used your power to waive a $78 fine/waive the rules for someone/do someone a favour to have them not expose you, you are further down the path.

They'll then say "well now I've got more to blackmail you with, you perverted the course of justice by waiving the fine/waiving the rule/using your ministerial privilege to help me, so you'll do this next favour too - because now I won't just expose you as being gay, but expose you a being gay AND corrupt". And thus you get sucked in a little bit more. before you know it you are up to your neck in order to save yourself.

It's the same with police officers. The Police Integrity Commission (PIC) does little things to see if police officers are honest. Like leaving a woman's handbag with a bit of cash or other things left at a crime scene. A police officer might find it and think "it's only 15 bucks/2 ciggarettes/some lipstick in my colour, who's going to miss it?" If the police officers fail that test. They are gone because the PIC know they are corruptable.

unfortunately the PIC equivalent for politicians doesn't do the same testing. That's why we have a free media to help keep them honest.