SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

“Homophobia”, “Islamophobia” and the “incendiary comments” of the French Archbishop

by Leave a Comment

American neuroscientist and neo-atheist, Sam Harris, according to a report in The Times (25/04/13)  “has gone as far as to suggest that there can be no such thing as “Islamophobia” – a hatred akin to racism – any more than there can be Christophobia or Conservativophia. He sees the accusation as a way of silencing critics of religion. To him Islam is a dangerous force on the planet today and it is his job to say so.”

If it’s true that “Islamophobia” is nothing more than a meaningless epithet, then what about the epithet “homophobia“?

[For a detailed analysis of the term “homophobia” see https://www.spcs.org.nz/2007/the-term-homophobia-its-origins-and-meanings-and-its-uses-in-homosexual-agenda/]

Times contributor, David Aaronovitch, makes it very clear that he believes that “homophobia” is a real and meaningful term.  He criticises the Archbishop of Lyons (France) for likening homosexuality to incest and declaring that “[The French] Parliament has decided to change the meaning of the word “marriage”. Aaronvich calls such comments “incendiary talk aimed at preventing non-Catholics from enjoying equal rights” and has, in his view “helped to create an atmosphere of homophobic violence.”

“Homophobic” violence is presumably caused by “homophobia” – literally meaning “irrational fear (phobia) of homosexuals”. However, “gay-rights” activists are now admitting that the word “homophobia” does not mean this when they apply it to describe a person. They claim it is merely a neutral descriptive term to apply to all those persons who oppose the claimed “human rights” of homosexuals such as “rights” to get married and thereby share in all the benefits bestowed by the state on those heterosexuals who are married, and is not a term of abuse. This claim is disingenuous. Anyone who has tried to express their views opposing “gay marriage” or raise concerns over claimed “gay” adoption “rights”, are regularly howled down by homosexuals as being “homophobic”.

If Sam Harris is correct that there is no such thing as “Islamophobia”, and Aoronovich does not dispute this, then on what basis should we accept the claim that “homophobia” means anything at all. Aaronvich asserts that violence against homosexuals is fuelled by “homophobia” and then blames the honorable Archbishop for contributing to “homophobia” by his alleged “incendiary” comments.

The term “homophobia” is an oxymoron. Those opposed to same-sex ‘marriage’ – including the estimated 1.4 million French who marched against the bill in March, are clearly not fearful of homosexuals.

To suggest crimes committed against homosexuals can be blamed, even in part, on the Archbishop’s statements or to any arguments voiced by those objecting to same-sex ‘marriage’ legislation, is without any basis. If radical elements such as French neo-Nazi skinheads infiltrate a genuine family-friendly protest, to commit crimes, then mainstream participants from pro-traditional marriage groups cannot be  blamed for such crimes.

If Islam, as Harris asserts, is indeed “a dangerous force on the planet today” then one can understand why he states that “it is his job to say so”. He rejects the accusation that in doing so he is “Islamophobic”.

In New Zealand our rights to freedom of expression, involving the rights to expression of robust opinion, is preserved in section 19 of the Bill of Rights 1990. If a person expresses the view that ‘HIV/AIDS is a dangerous threat to mankind and is linked clearly to the promiscuous lifestyle of many homosexuals and the unhygienic use by drug-addicts of  needles’, homosexuals will accuse him of being a “homophobe”. If a person expresses their genuine belief, whether based on the Bible or Koran or not, that marriage is between a man and a woman; why do homosexuals label them “homophobic”.

Sam Harris’ words in relation to “Islamophobia” apply equally well to the use of “homophobia” by homosexuals.  The accusation is used by homosexuals as a weapon – a way of silencing critics of the case for homosexual ‘marriage’.

It is certainly queer reasoning that would attempt to prove that white is black and black is white; by the use of invective!

Source

The Times 25 April 2013

Leave off prof. Let the devout do their thing. By David Aaronovitch

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/davidaaronovitch/article3748011.ece

 

‘Same-sex marriage’ bill and its negative impact on children under Adoption laws

by Leave a Comment

Media Release 26 March 2013

Petition to Attorney-General: Re ‘Same-sex marriage’ bill and its negative impact on Adoption Act 1955

The Society (SPCS) has sent a petition to the A-G, the Hon. Chris Finlayson, calling on him to fulfil his legal duty under s. 7 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) to inform parliament that the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Bill is in breach of BORA with respect to not only its “Consequential Amendments” relating to the Adoption Act 1955, and its removal of the terms “husband” and “wife” from at least 14 Acts of parliament – both replaced by a new definition of “spouse” (to include SSM couples); – but also in its amendment of the Marriage Act 1955 to allow same-sex couples to be granted marriage certificates.

SPCS contends that same-sex marriage (SSM) is an oxymoron and that the A-G must inform parliament that it is not authorised to enact meaningless legislation. The bill, if passed, would authorise the state for the first time to grant special “rights” to same-sex couples once they are labelled “spouses” under SSM, to both legally a adopt a child and become its adoptive parents; whether that child is unrelated biologically to both adults, or biologically related to just one of them. By law both homosexual’s names would have to be recorded on the Adoption Order. Of course heterosexual married couples under current law can adopt in parallel situations and this serves the public good and the child’s best interests – to have both a mother and father.

For the state to grant to two homosexuals in a SSM the right to adopt a boy or girl, and for both to be designated in law as his/her “parents” (to the exclusion of his/her birth mother), is not in the best interests of the child and is in breach of BOR. It denies the inherent right of the child to have (ideally) both a mother and a father.

A birth mother ‘Louisa’, for example, in such cases could be acting as a commercial surrogate for two married homosexual men, ‘Chis’ and ‘Peter’, neither of whom provide sperm material, and she may well be in a formal lesbian relationship (civil union or marriage) or an informal one (de facto). Sperm could be provided by another homosexual man ‘Tim’, known to ‘Chris’ and ‘Peter’ and ‘Louisa’ from among the wider so-called “Rainbow Community”.

For the purpose of the Birth Certificate Louisa’s name is required by law to be entered as the child’s mother and any female partner she has must be entered as the other “parent” too. At the point an Adoption Oder is granted to Chris and Peter, both these homosexual men would become the “adoptive parents”. Now the child has two ‘daddys” and two ‘mummys”, or looked at another way, a ‘male mummy’ and a ‘male daddy’ AND another ‘female daddy’ and a ‘female mummy’. This what the child will eventually have to come to terms with and communicate to her teachers, friends and peers.

Such complex absurdities that make a mockery of, and degrade the true concept of “mother” and “father”, are common-place in the homosexual community world-wide, where lesbians often refers publicly to their female marriage partner as their husband (and vice versa) and homosexual men refer to their married partners as their wife (and vice versa).

The universally understood concept of fatherhood and motherhood embodied in article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and article 23(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICPR), both of which NZ is a signatory to, involves a child’s parents being a mother (male) and a father (male). Of course an adoptive mother and/or father is consistent with these conventions (whether biologically related or not); but not the concept of two same-sex ‘married’ persons both being parents of a child and living as “spouses” with the child.

The proposed amendments to the Marriage Act 1955 in Louisa Wall’s legally flawed bill, discriminate against heterosexual married persons on the basis of their marriage status, and/or on persons based on their religious belief e.g. that marriage is ordained by God as limited to a man and woman (see petition to A-G).

The Quilter v. Attorney-General ruling [1998] by the Court of Appeal, determined unequivocally that same-sex couples are not discriminated against in terms of marriage under the Marriage Act 1955.

Auckland Family Lawyer Norman Elliott has expressed serious misgivings (NZ Herald 11/03/13) over the bill with respect to its impact on the Adoption Act 1955, stating:

“As well as allowing adoption by married couples the present act allows an individual person to adopt a child, although there are restrictions on a male adopting a female child. There are children living in families where the parent figures are same-sex couples, one of whom is the legal adoptive parent.

“Because this situation is allowed under the law it might be suggested it is only a small step to allow both adults to become adoptive parents. A mother or a father bringing up a child on their own is common in our society. That is very different however from a child having two legal fathers or two legal mothers, the consequence of same-sex adoption…. It would be irresponsible of Parliament and an injustice to children to approve a change to long-established adoption law on the coat tails of a change to marriage law. Such a change should only come about after due parliamentary process and full public debate.”

Parliament must be informed by the A-G that the proposed bill championed by Louisa Wall breaches BORA in a number of areas and cannot proceed due to aspects of its meaningless content. Adopted children ideally deserve as of right – both a loving mother and a loving father.

Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (Contact: spcs.org@gmail.com)

‘Same-sex Marriage Bill’ renders terms “husband” “wife” and “spouse” meaningless

by Leave a Comment

Media Release 24 March 2013:

The SPCS has petitioned the Attorney-General, Hon. Chris Finlayson, to fulfil his legal and moral obligations to report to Parliament forthwith under s. 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BOR), on ALL aspects of Labour MP Louisa Wall’s legally flawed Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill that in any way breach BOR in terms of its amendments to the Marriage Act 1955. SPCS contends that the bill blatantly discriminates against persons based on their “married status” and “religious belief” and furthermore, because its concept of “same-sex marriage” (SSM) constitutes an oxymoron *, parliament must reject the bill. See: https://www.spcs.org.nz/2013/open-petition-to-attorney-general-to-strike-down-marriage-definition-of-marriage-amendment-bill/

The Government Administration Committee has significantly altered the bill since it was introduced to parliament, so that it now includes dozens of “Consequential Amendments” (under Schedule 2, Part 1) to 14 separate Acts of Parliament – involving the replacement the terms “husband” and “wife” with “spouse”; “husband and wife” with “spouses” or “married couple”; and “husband or wife” with “either spouses”. By amending the Marriage Act so that “marriage”, currently restricted to couples comprising a male and female, includes same-sex couples too, it seeks to radically redefine (in effect) the terms “spouse” and “married couple” to include SSM, thereby rendering the traditional terms “husband” and “wife” and “spouse” and “married couple” (based on opposite sexes), meaningless in law. For example, ss. 24(3) and 366(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 (1961 No 43) currently state:

24 Compulsion

(3) Where a woman who is married or in a civil union commits an offence, the fact that her husband or civil union partner was present at the commission of the offence does not of itself raise a presumption of compulsion.

366 Comment on failure to give evidence

  • (1)[Repealed]

(2)Where a person charged with an offence refrains from calling his wife or her husband, as the case may be, as a witness, no comment adverse to the person charged shall be made thereon.

The Bill (see Schedule 2), if passed, will replace “husband” with “spouse” in s. 24, so that the status of a married (heterosexual) woman’s true spouse is no longer referred to as a “husband” in law, but rather as a ‘spouse’ – a term redefined to include both individuals involved in any same-sex. The distinctive and unique meaning of the terms “husband”, “wife” and “spouses” (as involving opposite sexes in a traditional marriage union) is under direct attack and made meaningless.

If passed, the bill will replace “his wife or her husband” with “his or her husband or wife” in s. 366(2). This additional negation of the meaning of “husband” and “wife” renders the terms meaningless, because it would define in effect, each “married” same-sex member in SSM as either a “husband” or “wife” in law. This is an absurdity, and a fundamental attack on those persons who have become “husband” and “wife” under the Marriage Act 1955. This blatant manipulation and corruption of language by a redefiniton of the status of those married under the Principle Act, constitutes discrimination against those having married status under this Act. It constitutes a serious breach of their human rights under s. 19 of BOR (see s. 21 (1)(b)(ii) Human Rights Act 1993) to be free from discrimination. Additionally, it discriminates against all those who hold religious beliefs that “marriage” involves only a man (husband) and a woman (wife).

Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (“SPCS”) (Contact spcs.org@gmail.com)

(*Oxymoron: A figure of speech in which incongruous or seemingly contradictory terms appear side by side)