It was disturbing to hear of “menacing,” “hostility” and different treatment towards an 18-year-old teenage Catholic student opposed to the Redefintion of Marriage Bill at the Select Committee this week. The accusations are:
- “Hostile and “menacing” towards submitters who are against the bill.
- Appallingly treatment by some MPs.
- Submitters called “homophobic.”
- 18-year-old Grace Carroll was left “humiliated, disappointed and frustrated by the experience.”
- Not the only person to complain.
- Rolling their eyes at the submitter.
- “A lack of common courtesy and respect”
Pro-bill supporters were treated well, but when her name was called the mood changed.
“The heavy air was charged with emotion and I am still astounded that I managed to walk towards that table and chair despite apprehension and feeling sick at heart at my different treatment and the apparent hostility,” she said.
She accused Green MP Kevin Hague of being “unsavoury and menacing” to her, calling her homophobic.
I have experienced this from Hague myself. The first and only time I ever met him, I passed a pleasantry as we were lined up together to enter an event. He was patronising, acerbic, mean and dismissive. We had never met, but he too called me “homophobic” and then utterly refused to speak as two human beings. I was shocked at his vehemence. Hague is such a dedicated factional advocate of the gay political agenda, I have no doubt his demeanour towards 18-year-old Grace Carroll was as she said it was. That is what I experienced. He is simply one of those liberal MPs who feels he is always right and is unable to engage with people that disagree with him with civility and without hostility. This is common among some liberal leaders, who assume a self-righteous position of dogma correctness. This is reiterated by his response to Grace Carroll’s quoting of Baptist preacher Martin Luther King, Jr.
“Even more outrageous is her [Grace Carroll] quoting Martin Luther King at the end. I am certain that my feelings would have been obvious at the time: co-opting words from the leader of the American civil rights movement, whose widow has been a vocal advocate of marriage equality, to deny civil rights to others is going to stir strong reactions.”
“Outrageous“? We see here the LIberal mentality at work. Martin Luther King Jr is OURS! You can’t use him, despite the fact that King was a Baptist preacher and would have been opposed to gay marriage. No matter, we’ll claim his widow. Good emotional celebrity currency. ”Co-opting” reveals an attitude of ownership. Carroll quoted a historic figure, Hague believes King is one of his movement’s martyrs and King’s words belong to a canon (in his head) of gay politics, martyrdom, victimization and holy untouchable righteousness. Who is co-opting whom?
By quoting King, Carroll is said to be “denying” civil rights. See how you cannot win?Everything one says is squeezed into the myopic worldview box of this thinking, and the mentality is to use this/or that semantics to elevate your position and denigrate those opposed. ”Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” It’s a simpler world if Conservatives are all “homophobic,” opposed to ‘equality,’ ‘civil rights, ‘ ‘human rights,’ etc. It makes your cause seem Holy and straight forward.
This is not helped by Hague’s bizarre reaction to Carroll mentioning the unmentionable… “virtue.” GASP! “[Hague] admitted he did express exasperation when she began talking about “virtue”…That makes my hackles rise . . . I find it offensive,” he said. Offensive? This is truly bizarre and indicative of how skewed the moral compass among some New Zealand leaders has become. What I find outrageous, is an older gay man being “outraged” with ‘hackles rising’ simply because an 18-year-old Catholic girl mentions “virtue.” That is truly disturbing.
I do respect Kevin Hague. He is an intelligent considered MP and usually speaks advisedly and with respect. But he has this thing; his devout commitment to the political gay agenda that informs almost everything he does, and he cannot understand (or tolerate) others who disagree with it. He is an extremist. It is obvious in his behaviour, body language and alleged words towards Ms Carroll (“homophobic,” that classic name-calling put down of all Conservatives, although he denies using the word). It is probable he was “menacing,” as claimed, displaying a measure of insecurity, fear or loathing (or all of the aforementioned) of a view opposed to his own. Isn’t that what Select Committees are for? To hear “the people” not rubber stamp the dogma of people like Ruth Dyson and Kevin Hague’s moral politics. In disagreement they seem to see only opposition, oppression and tyranny.
This is the great weakness of the gay political position: if you don’t agree with me, you hate me, you are hateful, and I am on the side of the angels, which makes you a devil.
Committee chair Ruth Dyson, another well-known liberal MP, said she was “disappointed [Carroll] has gone to someone like Family First which is not related to the submission process, instead of coming to us. “Someone like?” Carroll is free to go to whomever she wishes. This is not a Court. Dyson is simply disappointed the Committee is in for some negative publicity and would have preferred to keep the complaint in-house, where it could be buried and treated with contempt, or the ‘sinner’ subjected to appropriate ‘correction.’
Dyson said if people were “provocative,” they did get more questions from the committee, but it was not targeted in any way. By “provocative,” does she mean contrary to the liberal dogma?
Others besides Ms Carroll have pointed out the unequal treatment by the Committee of anti-bill submitters. Conservatives opposed to the bill get different treatment than pro-biller submitters. There was a measurable change in tone and atmosphere, even before she began to speak.
Dyson is totally wrong when she accused Bob McCoskrie another anti-bill submitter, of being “hostile.” His hostility was apparently because he “effectively link[ed] incest with gays.” This is rubbish. I have seen the video. Mentioning incest and homosexuality in the same conversation is not a causal link, and that was obvious. It demonstrates a level of paranoid thinking by some on the Committee who made the link in their own heads. Again we see the siege mentality, mentioning incest in the same statement as homosexuality is “hostile” to the liberal way of thinking. You must not say anything against our holy cause.
On his part, Bob McCoskrie said “he had never had a committee that was so hostile.” He said, “When the ‘for’ groups were submitting, they were asked good questions, they were asked to explain and were complimented on their research,”…When we opposed, the question line was very strong and targeted. It’s not a level playing field.”
Liberal intimidation and denigration is nothing new.
But can you imagine if a Christian group treated an 18-year-old gay person this way? There would be outrage, name-calling in the press, calls for support groups, a special room set aside with support, people hauled before the Human Rights Commission (once headed by Hague) blah blah blah.
That a NZ parliamentary select committee hearing such a sensitive issue has been accused of acting in this way, is outrageous. I hope a strong parliamentarian gets up and asks some probing Questions of the Day to point out this unacceptable behaviour. It has to stop.