The National Gay Rights Coalition

How has the NGRC come to grips with these and other manifestations of adverse social pressures?

Part of the answer, as I have already indicated, is that member groups of the Coalition had been encouraged to take the initiative in contacting offending parties. But over and above this very important facet of the matter, the NGRC has established itself as a weighty, authoritative and credible voice in speaking on behalf of gay rights, in detecting discrimination and in protesting false stereotyping. Whether picketing a party conference, making submission to the select committee on the Human Rights Commission, protests against the John Inman "Are You Being Served?" stereotype, or making written representations to the Minister of Justice in Iran, the NGRC is and is increasingly know to be a watchful guardian of gay rights and interests.

The formation of the NGRC injected a new spirit of confidence into the gay rights movement, as a result of which has grown and diversified. In addition to the emergence of groups in new centres, referred to earlier, a sure sign of confidence are the new styles of groups. I have already mentioned Country Network and the Parents of Gays group promoted under the aegis of CHE. The Gay Teachers Union has been joined by an alliance of Gay Health Workers. Counselling and aid services have matured with experience, with specialist ventures in the direction of gay alcoholics and gay prisoners. All this represents a realization of Gay Liberation's hope that the movement would have room for special interests, emphasises and problems. And, because they are found within a framework which embraces low-key socializing as well as fairly high-pitched political activism, there is the sense of the movement being able to absorb the diversity without becoming unbalanced. One telling measure of progress is the willingness of government and private agencies alike to make referrals where appropriate, to the specialist gay agencies.

But, for my money, the NGRC's biggest success to date is in the field of education and public relations. The gay community has been presented to New Zealand as a social force which won't just go away and which is prepared to demand the rights it has too often been denied. 1977 was the year of the pink triangle. A quarter of a million homosexuals were liquidated by the Nazis and for them the pink triangle assumed a significance analogous to that of the yellow Star of David for the Jews. The pink triangle has thus become a symbol both of the destructive pressures to which gays are subjected and of the determination of gays and their supporters to expunge the idea that homosexuality is shameful. The mark of shame has become a visible affirmation of gay pride and self-respect. And it has, significantly, lent its name to the NGRC's newspaper whose first issue appeared earlier this year.

Last year's election campaign focussed around the theme that, at a time when the magic formula 'economic recession' seemed destined to excuse almost anything. Human Rights Cost Nothing. The NGRC co-operated with university sociologists in Wellington, Christchurch and Hamilton in the matter of detailed attitude surveys in four electorates. In all four cases there was very large support for law reform and substantial support for including sexual orientation as well as sex in the Human Rights Commission legislation.

18. Prospect But what of the months and years ahead?

In the years to come there can be little doubt that the Gay Rights movement will grow, for even should it achieve one of its primary aims, of law reform, there is a long road to hoe in terms of educating the public so that Gays are freed from both direct and indirect persecution. In terms of the organisation itself there is the important question of the participation of lesbians in the, so far male dominated, Gay Rights movement. This last aspect is not only important for the growth of the movement, but is vital in pursuing the goals that stretch beyond those of repeal.

Finally, I believe the Gay Rights movement must examine its own structure. So far its growth has been very much on a self-help principle: gay responsibility for gay liberation. As Charlotte Bunch remarked during her recent visit: "We have to fight for us cos we're all we have."

In my judgement, the self-help principle was the right one for a movement finding its feet. But I wonder whether it still is. Gay self-affirmation may result in a insular, separatist attitude which excludes straight co-workers - simply because they are straight! A movement founded upon a conviction of the arbitrariness of categorizing people by sexual orientation must come to grips with its adherence to a principle of membership which selects - by sexual orientation! On reflection I'm inclined to think Charlotte Bunch was wrong. We don't have to fight for us cos we're all we have; we have to fight for us cos we're worth fighting for. And if we're worth fighting for, we're worth fighting for no matter what the sexual orientation of the fighters.

Chris Parkin