Businessman behind toxic online Benjamin Doyle campaign

Wednesday, 9 April 2025

Warning: This story contains explicit language.

The anonymous online account that helped spark a political firestorm over Green MP Benjamin Doyle’s past Instagram posts is run by a businessman who is a former NZ First member, The Post can reveal.

Rhys Williams, from New Plymouth, is behind the inflammatory X (formerly Twitter) account @2ETEKA, which last month unearthed posts from Doyle’s pre-Parliament Instagram page, “BibleBeltBussy”.

The controversy centred on a post where Doyle, who uses they/them pronouns, juxtaposed a photo of their child with explicit sexual terminology. The posts were amplified by NZ First leader Winston Peters, who called for a police investigation into Doyle.

While criticism of Doyle’s posts has come from across the political spectrum, the backlash quickly morphed into a torrent of abuse, including baseless accusations of criminal behaviour. The nature and intensity of the online attacks have raised questions about the boundary between legitimate scrutiny and harassment.

At the centre of this campaign is @2ETEKA, which has called for more dirt on Doyle and relentlessly targeted political opponents with slurs, smears, and thinly veiled allegations of paedophilia.

There is no evidence suggesting NZ First is involved with the account. The party said Williams is not a current member.

The Post linked Williams to the account through a trail of biographical breadcrumbs — references to jobs, locations, and a recent anonymous interview on The Platform.

Williams, who has lived abroad for much of the last 20 years, has kept a low public profile. On The Platform, he explained why he wanted to remain anonymous: “I've got children, I've got a job, I've got a life… we’ve seen what's happened to other people who speak out on particular issues. It can become quite nasty.”

Last year, Williams organised and emceed the “Inflection Point” conference in Wellington — a gathering opposing the “gender indoctrination” of children.

Online, @2ETEKA was explicit about its writer’s political leanings. “I literally started my account to encourage people to vote NZ First,” read one post.

The account frequently promotes the party and appears to have acted as a go-between for events, including a campaign appearance by Winston Peters in New Plymouth.

A party source told The Post Williams had previously been a member, however; the account posted about attending the party’s 2023 AGM and helping draft a policy remit that ended up in the coalition agreement — activities typically reserved for members.

Despite this, the same source said Williams was not a significant figure within the party: “I wouldn't say [he’s a] bit player, but it wouldn't be too far from that.”

Attempts to reach Williams for comment this week were unsuccessful.

Responding to The Post story following publication, the @2ETEKA account posted:

“Hear this bozo’s, [sic] it’s X, you’ll find thousands of the same sentiments expressed on any given day in NZ. I’m a proud New Zealander and I do not regret standing up for what is right, I do not regret exposing a public interest matter, and I won’t be stopping tweeting about issues, or offering my opinion on subjects that I know many good kiwi’s support me on, and I would encourage you all to also continue doing so, don’t let them win.”

In a statement, NZ First president Julian Paul said the party was not responsible for posts made by its supporters on their private social media accounts.

“To the best of our knowledge, this account existed for years and well before New Zealand First even returned to Parliament,” he said.

The account was created in February 2023.

Paul said neither the party nor Peters had “ever coordinated, planned, or even communicated with [Williams] about Doyle, and it was not the party’s role to act as “some sort of totalitarian thought police”.

“We became aware of the Doyle issue just like everyone else – reading the plethora of posts on multiple social media platforms,” Paul said.

“Our party has a huge number of members, most of whom have personal social media accounts, that they and they alone are responsible for. We do not scroll through and monitor every member’s posts and vet them – nor should we.

“We believe in the freedom of expression and freedom of speech. If there are any accusations of slander, slurs, smears, or false allegations, that is for the individual involved to address.”

A megaphone for NZ First

Since February 2023, @2ETEKA has posted more than 18,000 times, gaining nearly 10,000 followers. The account’s name is a reference to Prince Tui Teka, the Māori showband performer.

The account lavishes praise on NZ First while heaping vitriol on the party’s perceived enemies — including journalists, academics, and rival politicians.

Among the insults: One female journalist is a 'stupid bitch' and another a 'communist c….' A prominent academic is a 'dumb Marxist bitch'. Nicola Willis is a 'sick bitch,' Chlöe Swarbrick a “mental illness bitch” and Dame Jacinda Ardern an 'evil stupid bitch,' a 'c…,' and a 'junkie crack whore.'

MPs Matt Doocey and Chris Bishop are labelled “child abuser” and “rainbow retard,” respectively. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is a “giant pervert”.

The account sometimes implies that its targets are either paedophiles or sympathetic to paedophilia. One post reads: The Greens “use kids any which way they please… They turn them into political and sexual play things.”

The account has called Doyle “P Diddy Doyle”, a reference to the musician accused of sex crimes. It also said Doyle “hasn’t claimed he’s NOT a MAP”, referring to Minor Attracted Person, a euphemism for paedophile.

Despite these highly personal and vulgar attacks, @2ETEKA is followed by various senior NZ First figures, including party president Julian Paul, party secretary Holly Howard, board member Helma Vermeulen, and MPs Shane Jones, Jenny Marcroft, and Tanya Unkovich.

A legal grey zone

Media law experts told The Post that some of the posts by the account were legally questionable.

“I think there’s potential defamation liability for some of these posts and comments, but online defamation can be pretty complicated,” said barrister and media law specialist Steven Price.

“I think a court would dismiss some of these comments as mere vulgar abuse. Some could be defended as honest opinion. Some are doing no more than calling for an investigation.

“But others are flat out calling him a dangerous paedophile, or clearly implying that… They’re the most likely to be found defamatory since the evidence strikes me as tenuous.”

Unlike defamation law, where the person making the claims has to prove them to be true, in the harmful digital communications regime, the person seeking an order must prove them false.

Barrister Graeme Edgeler also reviewed some of the posts and said it wasn’t a “slam dunk” case.

“Establishing that the intent of the communications was to cause harm to Doyle is an appropriately high bar,” he said.

“The posts do not clearly encourage the harassment or threats that appear to have followed from the publicity. The best argument for a civil order would appear to be around some of the posts making false allegations.”

The strongest claims appeared to be about the Green Party in general, Edgler said, but the connection to Doyle was likely strong enough to form the basis of a claim.

“Of course, there would be a question of how much Doyle wished to be involved in court proceedings against the person posting this material.'

The Greens have indicated that their current priority is Doyle's safety, and there has been no discussion of pursuing legal action. Any decision to initiate legal proceedings would rest with Doyle personally.

For Cassandra Mudgway, a senior law lecturer at the University of Canterbury, the torrent of online abuse directed at Doyle was what she calls “online violence”.

Laws like the Harmful Digital Communications Act were designed to address online harassment by a single person, she said: “But the most distressing kind of abuse comes from the sheer number of violent commentators, most of whom are unknown to the victim or intentionally anonymous.

“This includes volumetric or 'mob style' attacks, where large numbers of perpetrators coordinate efforts to harass, threaten, or intimidate their target.”

The challenge, she said, was balancing free speech — especially political speech — with the safety of those targeted. The consequences of these attacks were the “continuation of certain kinds of abuse rooted in patriarchal attitudes and homophobia in our political discourse”.

“If fewer women and queer people are likely to share their opinions online because of online violence, then this limits their enjoyment of that freedom,” she said.

“Online violence has what we might call a chilling effect on their freedom of expression.”