Dirty Tricks

Somebody is running a dirty tricks campaign against John Banks, and he’s accusing Labour, who deny any knowledge. By “dirty tricks” he means people are quoting him verbatim and citing their sources.

In the interests of “dirty tricks”, I shall quote John Banks at length (verbatim from the Hansard).

[Trigger warning for homophobic douchecakery]

Speaking to the house why he was voting against the Human Rights Act:

I am diametrically opposed to the proposed supplementary order paper of the Minister of Consumer Affairs. I believe that the amendment will further erode the standards and the values on which the true society of New Zealand is based. It will add impetus and encouragement to the permissive society, which is working systematically and expertly to blur the difference between right and wrong. As a consequence, many of our young people are unsure of standards of behaviour that used to be clear-cut.

Which moral principle will be next to fall victim to the permissive society? Twenty years ago, homosexual practices were considered completely abhorrent. Now they are regarded by some as not only acceptable but also fashionable. The thinking of some people has become so warped that it defies common sense, and, indeed, the lessons of history. What used to be called self-indulgence is now called self-fulfilment. What used to be called pornography is now called art. What used to be called depravity is now called creative self-expression. What used to be called disgusting is now called adult. Where will the anti-family homosexual lobby draw the line?

Along the way those people corrupted a term that once meant lighthearted, carefree, cheerful. I refer to the once pleasant word “gay”. Now it is a word that we do not use in front of children. Those people have their own society, their own values, and their own literature—most of it obscene. I was recently sent unsolicited a copy of a publication called Fire: Freedom of Interpersonal Relationships and Expression—a catchy title with a frightening message. The authors want to legalise, among other things, sodomy with very young children, incest, and, would one believe, sex with animals. They also want to curtail the power of the censor. It is no wonder. I would be very happy to table the document after I have finished speaking.

Is that what we mean when we talk about the decent society? The homosexual lobby is highly vocal, well organised, powerful, and sinister. Because of my stand I have been sent a bomb, blood-filled syringe, used condoms, and foul pornography, and I have also received death threats. That garbage is not important. It does not deter me. The lobby’s most significant single victory was to shift the debate from behaviour to identity. They label anyone who does not agree with them as an opponent of their civil rights. That is just a clever and dangerous smokescreen.

The gay activists also deliberately or mistakenly claim that homosexuality is genetic. There is no conclusive medical evidence to support that claim. But there is evidence that homosexuality is behaviour learnt and developed by association. If we take the genetic theory to its logical conclusion, child molesters could soon be seeking amnesty on the basis that they were born paedophiles.

There are few real homosexuals. A recent Time magazine put the number of homosexuals at about 1 percent. Although politically more effective, 10 percent is often quoted, for obvious reasons. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner also uses creative accounting in claiming that opinion polls favour non-discrimination. Even the Government Statistician has declared the polls to be invalid. She would do better to restrict herself to administering the law, rather than joining the lobby to change it.

The lobby’s rhetoric subverts language by monopolising all those good words such as “justice”, “inclusive”, and “tolerance”, and attributes the disparaging opposites such as “unjust”, “exclusive”, “intolerant”, and “prejudiced” to those people who sincerely think differently. That is abuse, not argument in politics, or argument anywhere else. Sad to say, for some who have not thought the issues through clearly, it has become convenient to adopt the mantle of sophistication by supporting the permissive society.

Some members of the House believe that there are critical votes in supporting the trendy line when they could be better served by letting their consciences truly guide them. I want to thank publicly the host of people who have offered their full support by mail and telephone for my stand. They are the good people of New Zealand. I am convinced that they represent the silent majority of the decent society. In 1987, 880,000 people petitioned Parliament to say an emphatic “No” to homosexuality. But the homosexual lobby somehow convinced the majority of members of the House to say “Yes”. It was a decision that I am sure time will prove disastrously wrong.

Now we have a supplementary order paper that is sponsored by the Minister of Consumer Affairs that again wants to say “Yes” to allowing overt homosexuals to be put in positions of authority as of right—in youth clubs, in Bible classes, and in scout groups. If the supplementary order paper succeeds—and heaven forbid that it will—I warn the House that Parliament would be making another disastrous mistake.

I do not object to homosexuals as people. I have employed many of them over many years. However, I consider that their sphere of influence must be limited. They should not be put in charge of vulnerable young people who could take a step toward or away from homosexuality. A finding-out pamphlet issued by the New Zealand AIDS Foundation and endorsed by the Ministry of Youth Affairs truly alarms me. The pamphlet counsels young people who have doubts about their sexuality to visit a homosexual club. I wonder for what purpose—to be pushed over the edge; to take a step that they could regret for the rest of their lives? People at an impressionable age should not be exposed to a homosexual climate. They should be shielded from it.

I know that the Minister of Youth Affairs was also very concerned about that propaganda. Some members of the House openly encourage permissiveness and the rapid lowering of standards. A great number of members prefer to look the other way and allow it to happen. It is time to call a halt to a muddled infatuation with liberalism. What will be the next barrier of the decent society to fall? What is the next target—bestiality? There are already people who practise and covertly encourage that depraved behaviour. Will it soon be regarded as normal?

The monstrous evil of paedophilia is growing. There are already tours to Thailand and other countries to indulge in child sex. Will the next aim be to popularise it in New Zealand—to make paedophilia fashionable? Already, individuals have written to my office seeking to make paedophilia legal. I repeat: what will be the next target? That is a question that members of this House should be carefully asking themselves.

I refuse to be part of the bid in this House to give a rubber stamp of approval for what I believe is wrong—socially wrong, morally wrong, and wrong before God. I also refuse to court publicity and popularity by looking the other way.

During the Committee stage I shall move an amendment seeking an exemption for the armed forces and the police against some provisions of the Bill. We must not allow discipline, operational efficiency, or the level of co-operation between those services and the public to suffer. Similarly, we must not allow a situation to develop whereby homosexuals could misuse their positions to promote their own cause, especially amongst vulnerable young recruits.

A couple of points: When people pull you up for your shit from last time you were in parliament, you don’t accuse them of playing “dirty tricks”. You own your shit, and explain how you’ve changed since then — unless you actually haven’t, in which case you’re free to defer and hide from what you said, so long as you know that we know you’re a total arseface.

Secondly, I know this was a long time ago, but I have a small correction. You say “In 1987, 880,000 people petitioned Parliament to say an emphatic “No” to homosexuality.” Let me insert a wee addendum: “In 1987, 880,000 people (many of whom either didn’t exist, or were coerced or bullied by the Salvation Army into signing) petitioned Parliament…” Better? Better.

Advertisements

One thought on “Dirty Tricks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s