Prime Minister's tolerance has limits

The Prime Minister says some groups should be marginalised. In the last edition of Express, Helen Clark suggests there should be limits on freedom of thought. When asked if the government was "worried about the level of homophobia" in New Zealand, she replied: "We legislated against hate crimes. It is a very small minority point of view and I think, through continuing to set the tone of tolerance, acceptance and diversity, you just have to further marginalise such people. Hopefully one day nobody will think that way." While the question was loaded, the logical implication of her answer is that legislation should be used to determine acceptable thought.

Maxim maintains that a free society is one in which ideas can be thought, expressed and debated without fear. While inciting hatred cannot be condoned, freedom of religion, expression and thought, are foundational to a liberal democracy.

The Prime Minister also expressed concern about Maxim's submission on the Care of Children Bill. She was asked by the Express if she agreed with a statement in Maxim's submission; that same-sex parenting "satisfies the desires of parents ahead of the needs of children" and that "it is wrong for the state to encourage it." She said, "Rubbish! That is absolute rubbish! It won't have any impact on the bill." Is making a submission that counters the PM's view a waste of time? A public submission process, if it is to be of value, must not be subject to the Prime Minister's agenda.

Power always has the potential to intimidate. Helen Clark also appears to question the right of a private manufacturing company which supports Maxim, to sell products to a government department. She said, "I think more should be known because [government department's] commercial decisions are not only affected by product. I would not support the Maxim Institute in any shape or form."

Is the Prime Minister inferring that such a company's political views must agree with the government? This is serious stuff.

Is this a David and Goliath story? Maxim views these remarks as a sign that we are making an impact and we appreciate your continued support towards our work. Read the full interview. (Ex Express Newspaper 11-24 February 2003)

Civil Union Bills about to be unveiled?

The government plans to introduce shortly two Civil Union Bills. If passed they would have the effect of reducing marriage to no better than any other relationship.

The first Bill will allow anyone - either same-sex or opposite-sex - to register their relationship as a "Civil Union" with the state. The second Bill will write the terms "marriage", "husband" and "wife" out of more than 100 pieces of legislation, and give to all relationships the same rights and benefits as marriage.

In the name of human rights and equality the Bills will give homosexual partners the same rights as married people. It is argued that it is discrimination to deny them the same benefits enjoyed by married couples. However, this move is the latest attack in a campaign to destroy the foundational place of marriage which provides a socially approved context for sexual relations and raising children.

Implementation of the Bills will remove the place of marriage as a privileged institution because of its role in creating social stability. Marriage would be deliberately marginalised as a private arrangement of little consequence.

Passing the Civil Union Bills would be a move to provide rights on the basis of sexual preference. The state however, has given married couples privileges (not rights) in recognition of the special-ness of marriage. Because of the benefit of marriage to society it is the only sexual relationship that the state properly has an interest in.

As a new Associate Minister of Justice, David Benson-Pope is expected to takeover sponsoring the Civil Union Bills from Lianne Dalziel. The Prime Minister says the legislation is ready to go and hopes that it can be passed by the end of this year. If you would like to receive regular email updates on the Civil Union Bills, send a blank email to: civilunions@maxim.org.nz

Maxim Forum 2004 - Political Correctness: end of an error?

The need for a public discussion on Political Correctness in New Zealand couldn't be more urgent. Increasingly our freedom to think independently and hold views different from those in power is coming under threat.

An outstanding mix of local and international speakers will inform and surprise you, including: Leighton Smith; Cecilia Lashlie; Bruce Logan; Frank Ellis from Leeds University, England; and Peter Wood, Boston University, USA. The Maxim Forum will be held in Christchurch, on 20 March, and in Auckland, on 27 March.

Read more information and register online. For additional enquires, call Mary Davidson tel. 09-627 3261

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK - Thomas Jefferson

"That Government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."