‘Gay’ Bill Clauses ‘anti-freedom’ (Press, 22 April 1986)

On 22 April 1986, Ruth Richardson, a National Party member of Parliament for Selwyn, expressed her opposition to parts of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill during its committee stages in Parliament. The contentious issue was Part II of the bill, which aimed to make it unlawful to discriminate against individuals based on their sexual orientation. Miss Richardson argued that this provision would impose a specific moral viewpoint, asserting that it suggested no sexual orientation should be valued above another. She emphasised that individuals who held beliefs opposing homosexuality would be compelled to act in ways contrary to their convictions, even though such actions would not constitute criminal behaviour as typically defined. She drew parallels between the proposed law and coercive regimes in Islamic or Soviet nations that enforce conformity of thought through state power. According to her, the authors of this part of the bill aimed to criminalise normal social behaviours that they disapproved of, a move she deemed inappropriate in a free society. Richardson defined a free state as one that tolerates minority viewpoints, highlighting that tolerance should extend beyond only those attitudes regarded as acceptable. She warned that the bill represented an abuse of legislative power by attempting to endorse specific moral perspectives, which could ultimately undermine the values it sought to promote. Richardson stressed her belief in freedom, stating that it does not entail denying others the right to disapprove of homosexuality. She cautioned against the illusion that law could serve as an effective moral educator and suggested that state endorsement of a particular moral doctrine could lead to a decline in societal moral standards and respect for the law. In contrast, Labour MP R. J. Northey contended that the bill would still guarantee individuals the freedom to express their opinions on homosexuality, including any negative sentiments. He argued that the passage of Part II would not restrict free speech, allowing people to voice their beliefs freely, even if those beliefs were contrary to the aims of the reform.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand