We ask this question seriously; check this out, from Voxy.co.nz:
Charles Chauvel MP, is a list Member of Parliament for the Labour Party. He is the shadow Attorney General and Spokesperson for Justice. He is also the co-chair of the Rainbow Labour Committee within the Labour caucus. The purpose of this Committee is to promote the agenda of the homosexual lobby group within the Labour Party and .Parliament. He has also been chairman of the AIDS Foundation.In a letter to the secretary of Right to Life dated 6th August, on the same sex marriage Bill of his colleague Louisa Wall MP, he wrote;"Please provide me with a copy of the Right to Life New Zealand Inc"s articles of incorporation so I can satisfy myself of its mandate to comment on this issue."Mr Chauvel"s letter was in reply to a letter from Right to Life presenting our Society"s case for protecting marriage as being exclusively between one woman and one man. A similar letter had been sent by Right to Life to every other Member of Parliament.Right to Life is appalled and disappointed that a Member of Parliament should see fit to challenge the right of any organisation to make comment on a Private Member"s Bill soon to be debated in Parliament. The Bill seeks to redefine marriage to include a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman.Mr Chauvel"s letter is an attempt to silence Right to Life. It is a threat to the freedom of speech, which is a hallowed tradition in a democratic nation and is guaranteed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights, 1990. Section 14 states, Freedom of Speech, "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and opinion of any kind in any form."It is alarming that this threat to a fundamental human right should be made by a person who is the Labour Party"s choice for Attorney General, should the Labour Party be elected to govern this nation. Right to Life will not be deterred from its defence of the institution of marriage and will vigorously oppose attempts to redefine marriage as to include two men or two women. Right to Life reserves its right as an incorporated society to correctly interpret its aims and objects to include the defence of marriage, an institution in which children are conceived and nurtured for the enrichment and continuance of society. This is an important life issue.Right to Life respects the right of the homosexual lobby group to be heard in its promotion of same sex marriage. Right to Life and those who defend marriage and oppose it being redefined ask only that our right to free speech be respected.
Whether one agrees with them or not, Right to Life's views on the issue of same-sex marriage are as valid as those of Charles Chauvel. So why is Chauvel seeking to suppress them?
Right to Life asks the same questions; read on:
Mr Chauvel"s letter raises several important questions:Does Mr Chauvel"s threat to Right to Life"s right to comment on a Bill soon to be debated in Parliament, have the support of the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour caucus?Is it the objective of the Rainbow Labour Committee to stifle free speech and opposition to the same sex marriage Bill of Louisa Wall?
Given the events of the last week, we reckon that we can safely say that Mr Chauvel's letter would not have the support of the entire Labour caucus; surely Su'a William Sio and Damien O'Connor would oppose it! But it would be interesting to find out whether Chauvel had briefed his leader, and just what David Shearer's response was if advised.
And the second question posed by Right to Life is along the lines of a comment we made when we blogged about Louisa Wall's Bill a few weeks ago. Those who support the Bill run the risk of alienating those who are undecided by virtue of their heavy-handed advocacy.
We believe that Charles Chauvel has committed a major blunder here. He would have been better to have either shut up, of if he felt that he had to comment, issued a media release disagreeing with Right to Life's opinion. But by demanding that Right to Life prove whether or not it is qualified to comment, he has been exposed as a bully, and worse, as a bigot. There is little difference in what he is suggesting from what Maggie Barry was vilified for just a few short weeks ago.
Disclaimer: We are not, nor have we ever been members or supporters of Right to Life, or of any other anti-abortion or pro-life organisation.
10 comments:
It could be a standard request from Labour's justice spokesperson to determine whether organisations have a right to speak or campaign on issues.
Do you know if he's asked the same of the organisations campaigning and petitioning against asset sales?
I think Charles question is reasonable in this case. Right to Life is ostensibly an organisation formed around the abortion issue. It's not a natural person. Does Right to Life have in their charter specific mention of the defense of traditional marraige, i.e. do the members know and have they agreed to this particular focus. So is it a comment representative of the organisations members, or merely an office holder abusing their position to comment on things that the organisation and the members do not have a position on?
Having said this, does Charles ask the same question of other organisations lobbying on any issue that is not obviously related to their purpose?
Mr Chauvel is in danger of becoming a pompous twat!
"Please provide me with a copy of the Right to Life New Zealand Inc"s articles of incorporation so I can satisfy myself of its mandate to comment on this issue."
Please explain how you can go from that quote to your passive-agressive question about Chauvel being a bigot? It must be a very convoluted chain of "thinking", but please go for your life.
Right for Life are shrieking and wailing. Their laughable over reaction has me thinking there's something behind this. Where are their articles of incorporation?
Not sure Chauvel's comments would qualify as bigotry, more an intolerence of a dissenting view. Which is just as bad.
I'm sure if we go through the constitution of many pro groups we will not find a specific reference to support of this issue - but that won't stop Chauvel from supporting them.
MikeNZ
Pete George makes a good point and I'd like to know that answer!
My thoughts are, What do you expect?
1. He's a lefty-liberal.
2. He's Labour.
3. He's Homosexual.
Closing down the opposition is 2nd nature, also they'll be keeping stock :-) to further attack/ignore/denouce and obstruct those who they can later.
It's what the left do.
MikeNZ
How is it "closing down debate" to politely ask who these people are? They can do and say what ever they like. Me thinks you ladies do protest too much. What are they hiding?
Eddy C,
Mr Chauvel asked about Right to Life's manadate to speak, not who they were.
It took me less time, about 1 minute, to search the register of incorporated societys to confirm that RTL is an incorporated society with surprise surprise rules, than it would have to dictate and send the letter which I2 quotes.
If Mr Chauvell had troubled himself to get himself off his ample backside and do some basic research he would have found what he wanted and not needed to demonstrate to the world at large that he is a pompous twat.
"Mr Chauvel asked about Right to Life's manadate to speak, not who they were."
That's false.
I don't agree with everything you say all the time but I do enjoy your writing.
I have to say I found this one a little strange too. It seems a reasonable question to ask and if RTL has an issue with it, why? It's not seeking to stop them from talking, Chauvel can't do that - obviously.
Asking for them to show their mandate when they say they speak on "behalf of" people is a reasonable enough question, whether he's asked on other issues before or not.
RTL can send some pretty vile stuff, it's natural an MP might be cautious. But I think you've gone a little far to say he is seeking to breach their rights to freedom of speech.
Would their failure to demonstrate to him that which he asked for, prevent them from public comment? No, of course not.
Why've you gone a little over the ledge on this one? You're normally pretty reasonable.
Post a Comment