Despite a 1996 election defeat, convicted child molester and former Christian Heritage Party leader Graham Capill was relentless in opposition to GLBT rights, suggesting same-sex couples were a threat to children and that Christians' right to free speech was being taken away. "We've become obsessed with sexuality and the lurid side of people's lives, and it's all driven by ratings. I think it's all a waste of taxpayers' money." The year was 2000. Then-Christian Heritage Party leader Graham Capill was talking about a new documentary on Kiwi sexuality made by TVNZ, New Zealand Sex 2000. His focus on the evils of television continued after his oh-so-close defeat in the 1996 election. But Capill's complaints didn't always focus on what was being shown on television – sometimes he complained about what wasn't. In March 2000, a then-little known evangelical preacher called Brian Tamaki had scored his first media hit when his infomercial ministry, “Higher Ground”, was pulled off the air by TVNZ. The reason? Tamaki's suggestion that Satan was at work in the community due to the fact women were running the country. Capill spoke out on Tamaki's behalf, paving the way for a reframe of Christian morals campaigners as advocates for free speech. Capill's appeal that the cancellation of Tamaki's programme violated the Bill of Rights might have held more weight if it had come from someone who didn't once campaign on a promise to repeal that Bill. But, just like his denials that he ever wanted to recriminalise homosexuality, Capill's argument changed to fit the agenda. “Pastor Brian Tamaki's views may not be those of TVNZ or those of the Prime Minister, but since when is that a ground to silence the opinions of others?” Capill asked. “When they...do not like the opinion of a Christian preacher, they simply do not put it to air and refuse to make public the grounds of their decision. Such behaviour is inconsistent with what is proper from a SOE.” In his rush to support a fellow Christian preacher, Capill perhaps hadn't examined too closely exactly what Tamaki was saying. Over the following weeks, he would back down on his calls to reinstate “Higher Ground” after coming under fire for being seen to endorse Tamaki's anti-female views. THE "GAY PROPAGANDA MACHINE" Capill didn't recoil from playing the free speech card though, in yet another attack on the AIDS Foundation in 2000, this time calling – again – for its funding to be cut over an education programme in the works about the damaging effects of homophobia. “The real reason for the campaign is to preach a message of tolerance towards homosexuals to our children...The AIDS Foundation is simply acting as a propaganda machine for the homosexual community,” he said. “This campaign is designed to silence the critics of the homosexual lifestyle.” Assuming that such a charge were true, it obviously never worked on Capill. He was nothing if not reactionary, and his indignation at Brian Tamaki's removal from television was in response to his failure to stop another programme from being aired – the British gay soap opera “Queer As Folk”. When word reached Capill's ears that the controversial new programme would be screening in New Zealand, Capill was quick to condemn, calling it “disgusting in the extreme”. He was equally as quick to resort to his usual trick of connecting homosexuality with paedophilia. “I felt sick to think that our nation's young people were being fed such immoral material,” Capill told Christian newspaper Challenge Weekly. “It is inexcusable to screen paedophilic homosexual acts on national free-to-air television. Depictions of such illegal acts may well result in greater child and young person abuse.” The fact of the matter was, “Queer As Folk” contained nothing that could have been described as paedophilia. The most controversial aspect of it involved a relationship between a man in his early twenties and a boy just shy of his sixteenth birthday, who seduced him in a nightclub. The story revolved around the older man discovering his partner's real age and being horrified, as the boy had actually looked closer to eighteen. Perhaps unsurprisingly in light of the acts of molestation Capill would perform on an eight-year-old girl within a year of his “Queer As Folk” outburst, he seemed unable to tell the difference between someone who was clearly underage and someone who wasn't. “I do not think showing homosexual acts between an adult and a 14 year old (who may, in fact, be younger) is ever acceptable,” he said. “Neither is it right that such a young person be depicted as acting under the threatening eye of an adult homosexual.” Capill threatened TV4 with legal action before the broadcast in an attempt to curb its screening. He failed, but the programme screened with significant cuts. He complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority after actually seeing the programme, and when that complaint was not upheld on the basis that paedophilia was not an issue, he threatened to take High Court action. A REALITY CHECK In a breakfast radio interview with Paul Holmes, Capill again raised the spectre of paedophilia and homosexuality to an increasingly wearisome audience. The normally energetic Holmes seemed to be going through the motions in asking Capill the usual series of questions. “So now, the programme is ‘Queer As Folk', and what did you see?” “Well there was clear references and simulation of, of sexual activities between somebody in their early twenties and a fifteen year old lad, and we don't even know that he was fifteen,” said Capill. “He originally told the older guy that he was eighteen and he gradually worked his age down to fifteen and, and it stopped at that point. So he was clear a, a high school student and, under our current law, that's under age.” “Forgive me asking,” Holmes interrupted. “Was this a drama or was it a documentary? Was it a fly on the wall documentary? I mean, I don't understand.” “Oh it was a series, it was a drama,” Capill answered. “It was a drama, Graham, wasn't it?” “Examining homosexual activity,” Capill clarified. “Yes, that's right.” “It was a drama?” “Indeed.” “Well so it's a drama,” Holmes replied. “So it depicts life as it goes on maybe?” And so it continued. Capill suggested there was a conspiracy between the Authority and broadcasters, who hire “experienced lawyers” to fight off complaints from innocent little old ladies who get offended by what they see or hear on air. “And she's expected to take on the big boys,” said Capill. “I think normally that sort of power imbalance has to be addressed.” Holmes questioned Capill's notion. “What evidence have you got of that because, you see, the opinion of the broadcasters is that there's too much collusion between the extreme right-wing religious bigots and the BSA?” Capill continued his attacks on the BSA in public, calling for a major review of the system. “That the BSA can conclude ‘paedophilia was (not) in issue' despite acknowledging the programme depicted under age sex, is beyond belief. What is it if a twenty year old stalks an under age teenager, if it is not paedophilia?” he asked in a press release. “It is time to lift the standard of morality but I am not confident that that will happen under the current regime.” Needless to say, the issue of “Queer As Folk” soon fell by the wayside, as did his attacks on author Paula Boock's award-winning lesbian-themed novel for teens, “Dare, Truth or Promise” which he described as warped, and his attacks on a Christchurch high school setting up a support group for gay students, which he said was forcing a “sexual agenda” onto children. Capill would have bigger fish to fry when amendments to the Matrimonial Property Act by the government recognised same-sex couples under the law for the first time. But before he even got to criticising the amendments themselves, he was publicly calling on the Prime Minister to dump gay MP Tim Barnett from the select committee hearing public submissions on it, in order to “protect the democratic process”, Radio Pacific reported. Capill was at pains to explain to the media that Barnett's sexuality had nothing to do with his calls for the dumping, merely that he thought Barnett was biased. With that out of the way, Capill went on television to say the government had virtually decided on gay issues without listening to the New Zealand public. “Our government is prepared to look at issues that even liberal Scandinavian countries have said no to,” he alleged. “Norway allows registration of same-sex couples but they do not allow IVF nor do they allow same-sex couples to adopt yet our government tackles these issue before the public have had their say.” Of course, even in 2005, same-sex couples cannot legally adopt a child. In 2000, the changes to the Matrimonial Property Act concerned just that – property. But Capill didn't think same-sex couples were worthy of any legal recognition, and in his many public statements on the issue, was clear in his opinion that same-sex relationships were a threat to children. "Same-sex 'couples' are already breaching the bounds of what is morally acceptable by choosing such lifestyles," he said. "Adults consenting to such relationships is one thing; to raise children in such an environment is irresponsible and morally sick." Any further legal recognition for same-sex couples, said Capill, would logically open the door for paedophilia. “...in giving rights to homosexual couples but not to other types of sexual relationship is, on its own ground, discrimination. If giving special protection to marriage is discrimination, then why doesn't this legislation recognise paedophilia? Is that not also discriminatory?” he asked, in a sinister piece of foreshadowing. “So the issue is not one of discrimination...It is our submission that no government should consider giving ‘rights' to fornicators, adulterers and homosexuals.” And if same-sex couples weren't worthy of parenting, they certainly didn't deserve next-of-kin status either, as evidenced in Capill's slightly less hysterical 25-page submission to Parliament on the matter. “The rationale for considering one's spouse as the next of kin is tied to the covenant of marriage. It is so intimate that they are seen as one. It is only right that in those circumstances one's spouse becomes the next of kin and new rights of succession are established,” he wrote. “No such covenant relationship is contemplated for defacto couples especially where that includes homosexual relationships. Thus, there should be no provision in law which would take precedence over one's biological family.” Capill questioned whether the law should allow for same-sex relationships at all, harking back to his days of campaigning for repeal of homosexual law reform. He said consideration needed to be given to “the legitimacy of homosexuality and the extent to which the law should protect and promote homosexuality.” “It is wrong to lie though not necessarily illegal,” Capill continued, by way of example. “However, it does not follow that there should be laws recognising and approving the right to lie. Not all that is wrong needs explicitly to be banned. Yet, what is wrong should not be protected or worse still, promoted. Evil should never be called good.” What about the children, Capill wondered. Same-sex relationships are a threat to children, he suggested, but provided no evidence. “The current debate is seriously flawed in that it does not probe the effect that these new relationships might have on children. It is assumed that same-sex couples, for example, can raise children without any appreciable negative impact on the lives of children.” Capill called for unbiased scientific studies to be done on the worthiness of same-sex parenting before such a thing should be allowed, but then went on to say that if such studies showed no negative effects on children, he would still object. “Even if studies show that no harm ensues (something which is highly unlikely), there is the question of the rights of the child,” he wrote. “New Zealand has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is submitted that it is one thing for adults to consent to live in a homosexual relationship, but quite another to impose that controversial and immoral relationship on children.” The nastiness continued with an attack on the nature of same-sex relationships themselves, with Capill questioning whether same-sex couples are even capable of love and commitment. “While such couples may claim to have ‘feelings' for each other, the nature of the relationship is totally different to those established in heterosexual marriage,” he wrote. “For example, the biological possibility of procreation is entirely missing. Thus, there should be no provision in law which would take precedence over one's biological family.” Capill said that recognising the property rights of same-sex couples “may well open up many Family Protection type actions by family members who feel that their share of an estate should not go to a homosexual partner, for example. This is a likely result given the transient nature of many of these relationships. Why should a blood relative be over-looked simply because, for example, a mid-life crisis relationship develops for a few years?" "When the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was introduced, various groups and many individuals warned that the homosexual community had an agenda to undermine traditional values," Capill concluded. "Sinister forces have been at work for a very long time to destroy the family." But other forces were at work that would soon destroy Capill. Some were within his own party, and some were entirely of his own making... Chris Banks - 14th April 2005