Other formats

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

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Vol. 37, No. 18. July 24, 1974

Does Kirk need dredging?

page 5

Does Kirk need dredging?

Caricature of Norman Kirk

Rob Muldoon has recently criticised the Gay Liberation Movement for its "antisocial" behaviour. It appears that, instead of operating through the "proper channels", its members have been shouting, trying to hold forums, demonstrating, and carrying on in a most unorthodox fashion. Other movements working against oppression are, by the same criteria, unspeakably unorthodox. It is interesting, therefore, to examine what is meant by using the "proper channels", and what results can be expected. The Homosexual Law Reform Society, for instance, have been doing so for a long time—and these respectable people have now said they've had a "gutsful" of Labour's inaction. Gay Liberation members occasionally revert to using the "proper channels", such as organising opinion polls, discussing proposals with the political parties, or Writing To Your MP. Marty tried writing to Norman Kirk. His three-page letter began:

"I am utterly appalled at your ignorance of what homosexuality is. I am quite willing to accept that one in your position does not have the time to become an expert on every subject: nevertheless, you are required to ensure that the facts you are using to decide any case reflect the opinion of the respected and accepted body of experts in the given subject. This you have not done."

The letter criticised Mr Kirk's statement that he would not support any move aimed at treating homosexuality as "normal"—

"....a height of seven feet is 'abnormal'. An IQ of 120 is 'abnormal'. The capabilities required of being Prime Minister are abnormal...."

The letter went on to describe current medical opinion on homosexuality: that it is harmless, that there is no connection between homosexuality and pederasty, and that it is not regarded as being outside the range of "acceptable deviance", which is the range of "normality" which psychiatrists consider acceptable and not ill or faulty. It continued:

"Once you have read these things...you will find yourself in a difficult position...I do not know, Mr Kirk, whether you will have the moral courage to stand up and admit that you were wrong..."

He also discussed the effect of Kirk's attitude:

"Most important, do not think that it is your laws which are oppressing homosexuals—certainly not the one which prohibits male homosexual acts, nor even all the marriage, loan, taxation, testimony and inheritance laws which discriminate against homosexuals. No Mr Kirk, it is your attitude, sanctified by the law: the public pressure which is daily wrecking thousands of lives up and down this country, causing beatings, blackmail, nervous breakdowns, sometimes suicides."

And the final sentence: "Imagine, Mr Kirk, being told not to show love for your wife in public. Think about it."

So it went through the Proper Channels. One more citizen had exercised his right to influence political decisions by communicating with the head of the elected body. Or had he? What had happened when the letter finally arrived within the sacred office? The following reply, signed by one, Norman Kirk, arrived two days later:

Image of a letter from Norman Kirk
Prime Minister Wellington

Dear Mr Pilott,

Thank you for writing and supporting Government's decision taken in Caucus not to promote legislation at present liberalising the laws governing homosexuality. The decision was made after a very full debate and with no dissent.

It has been suggested to the Homosexual Law Reform Society that it may care to test the climate once again by promoting a further petition. As I have explained, my personal view is that the time is not opportune for an amendment to the law in this field.

Yours sincerely,

We may give Mr Kirk the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has the intelligence to know whether a letter supports or opposes him; and there was nothing whatsoever in this letter to suggest that anything less than a drastic overhaul of many laws is required. The solution is quite obvious. Kirk does not read people's letters. There is some under-secretary who skims through every letter, decides whether it's for or against, and pulls out the appropriate form as a reply. Kirk only has anything to do with it when he signs the reply—unless, of course, they have a rubber stamp to do that. No wonder even the HLRS is getting fed up with the treatment doled out by the Labour Party. The Proper Channels is just another term for the Red Tape Curtain, and Piggy and Kirk know it.

The situation is grim enough for Gay Liberation, who have long been aware of politicians' lip-service, paid especially by those out of power; but it is tragic for all the other movements, and the sincere, conservative, powerless people who have really believed that the Proper Channels are an open means of communicating with the authorities and getting things done. Because if Norman Kirk is a Proper Channel, it's about time he was dredged.