National’s version of ‘human rights’
Un-fucking-believable. Appointing a homophobic bigot like Brian Neeson to the Human Rights Tribunal is like appointing Paul Henry to the Broadcasting Standards Authority! John Key may as well appoint hood wearing, cross burning Klansmen to the Human Rights Review Tribunal if Neeson is the new benchmark.
New human rights appointee criticised as anti-gay
A Labour MP is questioning the suitability of Brian Neeson's appointment to the Human Rights Review Tribunal because of his voting record against rights and protection for homosexuals while a National MP.
His was among nine new appointments by Justice Minister Simon Power. The others include former National Party candidate the Rev Ravi Musuku and former Act MP Ken Shirley.
Labour's state services spokesman, Grant Robertson, said he had "deep concerns" about Mr Neeson in particular, after blogger No Right Turn highlighted his voting record on conscience issues while he was an MP between 1990 and 2002.
Mr Robertson, who is gay, said Mr Neeson voted against provisions aimed at protecting homosexuals and Aids sufferers in the Human Rights Act as well as the Property Relationships Amendment Act which extended the same property rights to de facto and same-sex couples as married couples.
"That's not the sort of stuff you'd expect from someone on the Human Rights Review Tribunal."
Only the National Party of NZ could appoint a homophobic bigot to the ‘Human Rights Review Tribunal’, forget right wing ideoalogues like ACT MP Ken Shirley or the Reverend Ravi Musuku (who was explaining last election that all Prisoners needed was the word of Jesus to help them along) those two examples would be bad enough but as the ever brilliant Idiot Savant over at No Right Turn has pointed out, Neeson’s long history of bigotry is something that is utterly inappropriate
Brian Neeson's greatest hits
In 1991, during the committee stage of the Employment Contracts Act, Neeson voted to allow employers to discriminate on the basis of gender.
In 1993, Neeson voted to exclude sexual orientation from the Human Rights Bill (which became the Human Rights Act). He also voted to exclude AIDS and HIV from the definition of "physical health" in the prohibited grounds of discrimination, to allow health professionals and teachers to be sacked for being gay, to allow the armed forces and the police to continue to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, and to allow employers to "conscientiously object" to the requirement not to discriminate, effectively granting a licence for bigotry. Fortunately, he was unsuccessful on all counts.
On the Human Rights Act (third reading speech, 27 July 1993):
I voted against the amendments. I did so through a sincere belief that an exclusive group that chooses to behave in the way that it does [he is talking about gays - I/S] will get superior treatment under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I do not for one moment believe that any group that chooses to behave in the way that it does should have exclusive treatment in the way that it does. At the same time I do not believe that any group in society should be singled out simply because its members are known to behave in a certain way, and, because of that, are given the sack from a job or from any other area of society.
In my day I have employed many people and it has never come into my head that I should even ask somebody what his or her preferential behaviour is when it comes to sex or to his or her own sexuality---and I would never ask.
But at a time when someone behaves in an extreme way it is up to me to have the right to tell that person that that is not the way to behave, and it does not matter whether he or she is homosexual or anything else. I think that everybody would agree with that. When it comes to that particular point an employer should have the right to be able to turn around and say to someone: ``Enough is enough; that's not the way that you are going to behave in my premises or in my employ, whoever you are.''.
In 2000, during the committee stage of the Property Relationships Amendment Act 2001, Neeson voted against the extension of the law to cover de-facto couples and specifically same-sex de-facto couples, supporting several amendments at Committee which undermined the aim of the Act.
On families (debate on appointments to the Abortion Supervisory Committee, 30 August 2001):
Family life means a mother, or a woman, and a father---which equals a man---taking responsibility for their actions together. Today, we live in a very selfish ``me, my, and I'' type of world. We do not have a situation any more in which ``they, we, and us'' is very important---unless it affords some personal gain.
If this continues, and we continue to have a meltdown in family life, abortions will continue to rise, along with the problems we have every day with teenage suicide, and with our children out there, who do not know who the hell they are any more or what is real, what is up and what is down. All the fences that protected them in the past have been broken down, and today it is not women who have been set free, it is men who have been set free from responsibility. Many women who go into relationships find that when they get into a situation that a man cannot stand or take, he simply walks away from it. The law does not provide any remedy that does nearly enough to bring that person back to face his responsibility in any way.
On the Human Rights Amendment Act 2001 (Third reading speech, 11 December 2001):
The Human Rights Amendment Bill is probably one of the most dangerous bills that I have seen come into this House. It is not a bill that provides benefits to anyone. It is a bill of Orwellian proportions that takes away from people fundamental freedoms: the freedom of expression, the freedoms to think as one will, to speak as one will, and to do as one will, as long as one does not transgress the basic sensibilities and basic rights of any human being...
This document has nothing to do with rights; it has everything to do with social engineering and social control. This document is set up to make sure that the average New Zealander is watched over by Big Sister---not by Big Brother. We have gone beyond the protection of individual rights in the original bill---which I personally did not support even then...
So this hateful bigot who has a well tracked history of attempting to DENY human rights is now on the fucking tribunal reviewing human rights? Tell me this is some sort of sick, sick Joke. The Human Rights Review Tribunal has no moral authority whatsoever with a bigot like Neeson on it.
For the love of Christ, Neeson has intellectually argued AGAINST giving certain groups human rights, he is a human rights vandal NOT a human rights defender!
Disgusting decision National, disgusting decision.
Oh and while we are talking No Right Turn, terrifying to see now that Simon Powers streamlining of Court systems so that the abattoir conveyer belt style of justice becomes a defacto unemployment policy to move those charged directly into the shipping container prison cells has moved ever closer with Powers wanting to abolish 40% Jury trials for those he deems as already guilty.
How’s that ‘change’ feeling folks?