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.