Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Newspaper of the Victoria University Students' Association. Vol 42 No. 19. August 6 1979

Gay Oppression

Gay Oppression

I propose to conclude with some kind of assessment of the progress made by the NG RC over the past two years and with my reflections about the challenges which lie ahead. But before I do so I would like to pause for a moment to deal with one out-standing question, not infrequently asked, namely What do gays need to be liberated from? What lies behind such a question is usually a certain incredulity that a liberal democratic society such as ours oppresses any minority, the gay minority not excepted.

My response to such a query proceeds on two levels. I have already drawn attention to the value we attach to sexual self-determination, and have already shown how difference in sexual orientation is irrelevant to the promotion and protection of that value. It should therefore be clear how negative and hostile social attitudes, attitudes which conspire to erode the individual gay's confidence in his or her own worth as a human being, constitute an oppressive climate in which to live, the more so because the effects of such attitudes are pervasive, difficult to pinpoint and almost impossible to prove incontrovertibly in any particular case. A different explanation is always possible.

But what of gays collectively? Here too there is ever present danger of discerning bias where none exists nor is intended. Nevertheless, the following incidents offer a sample of what, by any reckoning, is minority oppression. In Christchurch in '76 a spate of "queer bashings" reached such proportions that a Gay Defence group was mooted; only at this point did relations with the police in the city of the Hagley Park murder take a turn for the better. On the subject of the police Commissioner Burnside said, again in 1976, that any candidate for the force must be of "excellent character"; anyone who broke the law, including sections 140-142 of the Crimes Act, was not of excellent character and hence ineligible to join the police. So presumably lesbian policewomen are acceptable, while gay men can anticipate a miraculous character change when the law is reformed!

In 1972 a year's campaigning was necessary before the Auckland Star would accept a personal column ad giving the box number of the newly-formed GL group Five enlightened years later the NZ Listener would not accept NGRC ads it judged "in poor taste". The Christchurch Press prevaricated over NGRC advertising until the point fulness of insertion had passed. Napier's Daily Telegraph, the Manawutu Evening Standard, the Southland Times and the Taranaki Herald have all created problems about accepting advertising. Now in all cases these were simple ads announcing gays groups and or gay activities with, in the case of the NGRC ads, a statement of aims and support. In all except possibly one case that policy has now been reversed thanks to the representation of gay groups.

In 1978 pre-election statements on gay rights were planned for the five private radio stations. At the last minute these statements were declared contrary to broadcasting policy in relation to election coverage - though the two of the five who did broadcast the statements were apparently unaware of that policy!

In 1976 the Waikato University Library's application for a reprint collection on homosexuality was turned down by the National Library, apparently on grounds of quality not of financial stringency. And yet that collection had been given an award by the American Library Association.

In 1977, in relation to an incident involving Carmen, Mr Muldoon tells the world at large that it is worse to be homosexual than to display bias as the Speaker!

The raids on Auckland's "Backstage" club; the Social Welfare Department's disinclination to subsidise the Auckland Gay Welfare group; Amnesty International's decision that persons imprisoned on grounds of sexual orientation were not a proper concern of their organisation. Radio New Zealand's ban of "Sing If You're Glad to be Gay"; the pressure put upon Mr Highet and the newly-formed Film Commission to prevent financial support going to the 'Night Moves' film; the disastrous effect of an accusation of homosexual activity or involving sexual activity upon public life and career, seen in the case of Moyle and O'Brien in New Zealand, and of Jeremy Thorpe in UK; the campaigns of groups such as Concerned Parents Association, Catholic Home and School Associations, and the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards—and perhaps the editor of the NZ Tablet should be added to the list; the seizure of the Spartacus International Gay Guide by Auckland Customs as indecent; the failure to include the NGRC or any gay group representatives in the Human Rights Day seminar. And so the list could go on.

In recent weeks the most disturbing incident was the Government's willingness to offer public apology to Iran over an alleged death threat from New Zealand homosexuals which is quite without foundation. And only this week the Defence Council's announcement concerning homosexuals and the armed forces bears the ludicrous veneer of the bitterly serious.