Barnett Tim: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Barnett Tim: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17524] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 Following on from Larry Baldock I would like to point out to him and to the Committee that one does not have to condone violence; one merely has to encourage it. We have received very many pieces of correspondence on this legislation in the recent period. The worst that could be said about the correspondence we received in favour of the bill is that some people have used the word “marriage” rather than “civil union”. I think it is regrettable if they do that because we are not bringing in same-sex marriage. But the language used in a fair proportion of the correspondence against the bill has been quite extraordinary. I do not think any of it would condone violence but a lot of it would encourage violence. 
I would like to quote three short passages to the Committee from letters that I have received. They are also contained in submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee so they are on the official record of the House. The first is from a gentleman in Redwood in Christchurch who states: “These bills are short-sighted attempts to satisfy the desire of a very small minority. While everyone would be affected it is very obvious that the only people who really benefit from these changes are same-sex sick homosexual people who need urgent treatment rather than listening.” Then I turn to Mrs M A Collis of Timaru: “God created Adam and Eve—he did not create TWO Adams or TWO Eves!! In my thinking gay people are a blot on society unhealthy repugnant so why try to bring in a Civil Union Bill?”. Lastly I turn to a submission from an 11-year-old girl: “The Bible mentions that God gave the homosexuals over to a debased mind to do things which are not fitting being filled with all unrighteousness wickedness having evil minds to be proud violent boasters haters of God disobedient unforgiving unloving backbiters and whisperers. It also mentions that they are worthy of death”. 
That is the kind of language that we have been receiving from people who are opposed to this legislation. I cannot say that any one of those submissions condones violence. They come as close to endorsing hatred against a section of our community as I can imagine. Personally I have never supported hate-speech legislation. The Government Administration Committee is holding an inquiry on hate speech at the moment. I have a profound belief in freedom of speech. I think it is important that we have an inquiry on hate speech—not least because the United Nations has repeatedly stated in its audit of our human rights law that we do not protect people from hate speech in the way that many other countries do. So I think the debate is worth having but I am certainly not convinced that we should as a result label people such as those who have written those submissions as criminal. I do think that we as politicians elected to positions here need to reflect on whether that kind of language should be able to influence our minds towards a significant section of our community that absolutely has a recorded history—not only in New Zealand but worldwide—of being the victim of discrimination of the most hideous kind. 
I must end by pointing out that one of the four groups of people targeted in Nazi Germany for concentration camps—additional to the Jews the clergy and the gypsies or Romanies—was homosexuals who died in gas chambers in their thousands. That was no mistake. It happened because they were a group identified as a threat to that society just as some speakers in this Chamber and others claim that people like me are some kind of hideous threat to our society today.