10 Years Since The Bill

A booklet published on the 10th anniversary of the passing of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill.

 
Compiled by Christopher Vine.
Layout and printing by Kevin Jensen.
With the generous assistance of the Nelson Arts Council, the contributors named in the compilation, Ross, and other people too numerous to name.

Printed on 100%, New Zealand made, recycled, chlorine-bleach free paper (except for cover).

Dedication

This publication is to recall the turmoil from the perspective of that for once not-so-sleepy-hollow, NELSON.

 
When agreeing to compile an anthology of thoughts, recollections and utterances, of those tumultuous months leading up to the passing of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in 1986, I had eckoned without the legacy of cuttings compiled in voluminous scrapbooks by that remarkable octogenarian, Bridget Francois (not to be confused with a much younger near namesake who has been actively involved in this 10-year-after project).

Mrs. Francois was simply one of the most humane and admirable people I have ever been fortunate enough to meet. After a lifetime spent in nursing and medicine, married for 17 of them to her adored first husband, Dr. Vincent Tothill, who was unashamedly gay, she was indefatigable in her support for the Bill, in writing letters, helping with the group in Nelson called ACCEPT (Human Rights For Homosexuals) and even though greatly incapacitated by arthritis, (she could only walk with great difficulty) she telephoned and lobbied in a fervour of irritation at the illogic and absurdity of the anti-Bill faction.

Most weeks I would pop in to her welcoming house in Harper St. as she sat in her antique chair surrounded by a welter of newspapers and cuttings, for a glass or two of Grandmother’s Ruin, (Robinson’s apple wine) and mull over the latest scenes in the drama. The collection of letters and articles etc., she gave to Carin, with the note,

"For Karen (sic). In years to come, these may make amusing reading, we hope."

For days I have been wading through this dossier with increasing fascination. As a sample of the way folk function, it has to be a treasure house of conflicting emotion, of reason and raving, of vitriol and virtue.

Every now and then, Bridget couldn’t resist in interjection of her own, written clearly, but a little shakily, in her 83 year old hand. Such comments as,

"He must be mad" (of a rigid Roman Catholic Priest),

And another,

"One of Nelson’s special bigots. He looks quite pleasant but obviously isn’t."

On one of the many full page advertisements taken out by the antis, where they had placed banner headlines saying, "The Future Is Bright", she had crossed out the last two words and inserted, "will be hell if you people have your say." Never one to mince words, she nevertheless wrote lucidly and without rancour, in marked distinction to many others.

One of these latter was a small squat and curiously Faginesque character (he would appreciate the literary reference, himself being a great quoter), Len Assheton-Harbord, known to Bridget as Len Assinine Hardcase, who claimed to know no homosexuals though he had spent many of his 80 odd years in the theatre, and whose venom poisoned the columns of the Nelson Evening Mail [now known as the Nelson Mail] with monotonous regularity. The Bill, (‘Fran Wilde’s Sodomy Bill’, as he liked to call it) was the perfect excuse for him to fill more column inches than ever before - he was a copious correspondent. Never one to hide his light under a bushel, he was fond of making references to his presumed glorious career in the movies. After his death, the Mail was presented with an obituary, which he himself had written, which ended,

“New Zealand, and indeed the World, is the poorer for his death.”

‘Nuff said. He could certainly provide accompaniment wonderfully, a talent he used to good effect in the silent movie days I gather. He seemed to have a great penchant for the word ‘sodomy’ although he was not alone in that.

One or two of the other protagonists in the battle waged with printers ink over these months, were A.C. Barrington, a member of the Riverside Community and staunch Methodist who was unceasing in his support for the Bill, as was that former missionary Eric Tyndale-Biscoe of Ruby Bay, a huge bearded man with a leonine cast of head who wrote with extreme care and thoughtfulness.

Among those on the other side of the battle lines were predominantly the Concerned Christians, whose secretary, Nicholas Oertly, an American of part Swiss descent, with a neatly trimmed Clark Gable moustache had settled in Nelson two or three years before the fracas started.

So to the correspondence. Though certainly not complete, the collection includes, besides many articles culled from magazines and newspapers, nearly 200 published letters, mostly from the Nelson Evening Mail, the breakdown as I estimated, having been some 69 anti, 19 on the fence, and 93 for the Bill; not all that far removed from the vote in the House which was 49 to 44 with 2 not voting.

The first scrapbook begins with a letter from Philip Woollaston, then our MP and now Mayor of Nelson, written to Bridget.

"It is refreshing to hear the voice of reason and tolerance in this matter" (of her views).

Contrast with Assheton-Harbord,

. . . Sick, sad perverts, choosing abomination . . . they spread their filth over the world . . . hidingtheir degradation under the word Gay . . . a . . . disgusting Bill which would legitimise buggery . . . voting in favour of filth, sodomy, fellatio, and other nameless horrors . . .

A propos of the last phrase, a writer responded by admitting that,

"Mr Harbord has me licked." His letter was not published!

Another opined,

"Whilst it may be poetic justice for homosexuals to infect each other, it is quite another to kiss a spinster aunt and transmit the disease."

Ignorance was rife.

Assheton-Harbord again.

"Distortion of a delightful adjective as a euphemism for the vile filth of sodomy"

against Barrington’s

"The fear that what we so readily accuse others of may be deep in our own subconscious . . . it is neither a sin nor an illness . . . God made them different, perhaps we should say, special."

Another Methodist, the Superintendent of the Nelson District,

"We do not jail people for adultery, which arguably causes more social disruption than homosexual practices."

In lighter vein,

"Sir, There’s a new disease in town. It’s called Hysterical Homophobia. Watch out for it. It’s dangerous, contagious, and it’s striking people down in large numbers. It’s proving resistive to treatment and the prospect for its sufferers seems poor. Stalwarts of the nuclear family appear particularly at risk. Symptoms vary between fundamental narrowmindedness to an intolerance of manner towards minority groups, and many people appear to go through a sexual identity crisis. The name again is Hysterical Homophobia, or a fear of getting closer to men. Be on your guard, it could be the ruination of the All Black scrum!"

Of the Balclutha signatories [of the anti-Bill Petition], 3,500 out of a population of 4,000 signed. Bridget’s comment was,

"Obviously a lot of children signed. Really, isn’t the Petition a farce."

And again,

"Can the objectors to the Bill think of nothing but sodomy? Certainly some homosexuals indulge in it as do heterosexuals, but it doesn’t occupy 24 hours of their day. Like the rest of us, they have to earn a living, and many have made, and are making, a valuable contribution to the world, even as beloved doctors."

Remember her first husband was a doctor and also gay.

A 14 year old school girl writes,

"Several boys in my class started yelling things like, ‘Gays should be shot’. I was ready to shoot them by the time the discussion finished. Homosexuals cannot help the way they are. Do people really think they like being taunted and have people yell things at them."

And from the Listener,

"In the homosexual world, I have met some of the finest, most caring, and tender people I have ever known, many of whom have been in relationships with the same person for years."

One of the main financial supporters of the [anti-Bill] Petition was Keith Hay, "God’s Carpenter", who claimed to have known nothing about gayness for his first 70 years though it didn’t stop him pontificating once he had heard about it.

His diatribes brought this response,

"Prejudice against homosexuals, as with most other prejudices, born of the most hateful and thorough ignorance . . . the name caller rarely tells us anything new about the person whom he would seek to denigrate, but often speaks volumes about himself."

Barrington again,

"I should like to hear Concerned Christians concerning themselves with many vital issues, instead of demonstrating their immaturity, timidity, and extremely limited appreciation of the Christian Faith."

And from Alexia,

"Mr. Oertly would do better to apply his religious zeal to the horrors of rape and incest. The responsibility for which lies solely with the heterosexual male."

In May 1985, the Listener’s Monty Holcroft, in his editorial wrote,

"In New Zealand, where consenting adults may be sent to jail, the mere mention of homosexuality creates an emotional atmosphere. The reaction is so widespread that individuals should not be blamed for it; it comes form a deficiency of understanding, a failure of compassion, which has its source deep in the national character."

A few days later, in submissions on the Bill to a Select Committee, the Catholic gay support group, Ascent, argued that,

"The assumption that homosexuality was a chosen or learnt form of behaviour and that the law was an effective deterrent to such a choice were demonstrably wrong. A choice to adopt ahomosexual orientation was clearly against all rational self interest yet there was a substantial minority of reasonable, often very intelligent men and women who made that ‘choice’ in every generation."

This was the sticking point with MP Nick Smith when he declined to support the anti-discrimination Bill recently, claiming that gayness was not innate, but chosen perversely.

Lloyd Geering, on the 25^th of May 1985, wrote,

"The sexual orientation of the vast majority of both heterosexuals and homosexuals is not a matter of choice . . . The traditional Christian treatment of homosexuals now takes on the appearance of the cruel persecution of a minority by an intolerant and unenlightened majority."

Golden Bay had a say, through Peter, who wrote,

"I begin to feel rage at the prejudice of labels. The rage, the terror, the helplessness of a human being reduced to mere labelling . . . I wonder, is this how a Jewish person felt in Nazi Germany?"

Belinda of Nelson wrote,

"I suspect that many who have signed the Petition did so before simple facts and calm reason had managed to surface through the murky flood of hysterical alarmist theories and errors thrust upon them by vociferous opponents" (of the Bill).

It was about this time, six months or so after the storm started to brew, that a number of Salvation Army members began to voice their dissent from the ‘Sallies’ promoting the Bill. In Wellington. 22% voiced their reservations. Public meetings abounded, mostly against the Bill. A big one in Nelson was addressed by Braybrook, MP, and was attended by both sides. Of it, he said,

"The only good public meeting had been in Nelson, where people had been prepared to listen to one another in a civilised manner."

This contrasts starkly with a much smaller meeting organised by ACCEPT about the same time, which had letters threatening to disrupt it sent by the pastor of the Church of Latter Day Saints, in Blenheim.

"So at about 6.30 on the 7^th of June, we will have gathered all the Concerned Christians of Nelson and Blenheim . . . to block the roadway and impede your progress."

In fact, this meeting passed quite peacefully, with a Police presence it is true, but none of the promised disruption took place. It was well attended, and speakers included Helen Clark, Prof. Jim Robb, (Chairman of the Homosexual Law Reform Society), and several local lesbians and gays. I felt at the time it was a bit of a watershed in what had until then seemed a position of retreat and now this was our Dunkirk as it were, and feelings ran more resolutely.

Not all meetings passed so smoothly. A councillor of Waitemata City, Gary Taylor, wrote of a meeting of Antis there,

"I was deeply disturbed by the manifestation of bigotry, narrow mindedness, misinformation, crowd manipulation, and self righteousness that I witnessed that night from people professing to be Christian."

Also during the winter of 1985 was held a Bigot Busters Conference in Wellington to which some of the ACCEPT group went. It was understandably a fairly fraught business, with very heated debate, particularly on the age of consent. Had 18, or even more 21, be deemed an appropriate age of consent, then the passage of the Bill would have been a pretty foregone conclusion, and many who had fought desperately over the years to seek legitimacy for gays, felt that once the principle was established, then later amendments could reduce the age to parity with heteros. Opposed strongly to this was the view (which had caused previous attempts to produce saner legislation in earlier years to founder) that as a matter of dignity no gays should allow themselves to be given less status than the straight community. The meeting was quite bitterly divided on this, but eventually a majority stood by parity with straights. I well remember Alison Laurie’s passionate espousal of this viewpoint, and when I hear disparaging remarks about lesbians, I am mindful of the fierce support that they gave to the Bill, though they had far less at stake.

Time was also given at this conference to the thorny matter of AIDS which had caused banner headlines a couple of years before and was of course, pardon the phrase, a Godsend to the bigots. The arguments have been well rehearsed since and need no elaboration. I doubt that anyone could reasonably argue now that legalisation has worsened the position.

The Petition continued to be circulated, often in schools, though Principals usually denied knowledge of it. I know of at least some pupils who were intimidated into signing it on the hoary grounds that,

"If you don’t sign it, it proves that you are a poof."

An analysis by the Dominion newspaper found considerable grounds for concern from a carefully selected sample of the 800,000+ perported signatures eventually presented to Parliament in a ceremony that to some smacked of a Hitler Youth parade, all uniformly dressed with red sashes and complete with cheer leaders. Of the 179 names picked, 7 said they had never signed, 2 were geriatrics who were non compos mentis, several 14 year olds, and 68 who could not be traced or were overseas. Not a very reassuring sample. And it is a moot point (and will probably always remain so) whether this, the biggest petition in New Zealand’s history, backfired on its organisers, and actually helped the passage of the Bill. The Government Committee which received it declined to give it special recommendation which is close to a vote of no confidence in its reliability. Here in Nelson, we gathered at Bridget’s to scrutinise the local pages as best we could and found many signatures seemingly in the same handwriting, including some signed "Brigitte Bardot".

The tirade from Assheton-Harbord continued unabated.

"Fran Wilde and her legions of lost ones and cohorts of the damned, that sad, sorry collection of sexual perverts who flaunt their filth under the distortion of the gay community ..."

(He was getting rather repetitive by this time.).

Barrington commented wryly,

"Perhaps Mr. Assheton-Harbord had suffered from some form of emotional rejection that had made him so bitter and so sour"

and an Anglican minister railed,

"Sodomy is still sodomy. I have no wish to lead my family to Sodom or to lead my parishioners to Sodom, or to find that those responsible for leading the Anglican Church should wish to lead it into Sodom."

There is no doubt that the word had an unholy fascination for some people!

On a calmer note, the Bishop here wrote

" . . . but the stronger ones convictions about a given issue, the greater the temptation to despise opponents and to claim divine sanction for ones own intolerance."

The Evening Mail had an excellent editorial.

"Such moral apostles . . . cloaked as guardians of ‘righteousness’ depreciate the diversity and worth of humanity by politicising dogma."

Two correspondents from Brightwater put their differing views.

"It was rarely met with in my young days. I was only once pestered by a sod. He went away with a few less teeth."

And from a woman this time,

"I once thought Christianity was about love and understanding but I now see it as hate, ignorance, conceit and bigotry."

From Gisborne came the prophecy that a new religion was imminent, called Haydonism, membership of which will be compulsory for all citizens over the age of five.

"All adherents will be required to salute the flag six times a day and attend Church five times a week. All women will require their husbands permission to walk outside the front gate and solo mothers will be abolished."

And more in the same satirical vein.

One particularly nonsensical letter drew from Bridget the comment,

". . . an ex-ward maid of mine, a kindly little soul, but very ignorant, brought up in a Catholic orphanage and never married."

And in answer to allegations that children of 12 were signing the petition Concerned Christians replied

"They are covered in the Bill, therefore they have the right to be considered old enough to understand the Petition."

An argument which logically should include the right of an infant to make submissions on matters of concern to it.

The local group, ACCEPT, had tiny resources compared to the Hay millions, but it did conduct a survey of local GP’s to find their attitudes. Of the 43 canvassed, 23 answered, 19 supported the Bill, 1qualified this by requiring 21 as the age of consent, and 3 were against, which in the face of it was quite encouraging. It would have been even more valuable had a larger number responded.

The meeting has already been touched on , but local service clubs and groups such as Marriage Guidance were offered speakers, a couple, both male and female, and these were quite useful in promoting our views, though it’s impossible to say what attitudes, if any, were changed. Posters were designed and stuck, (with a particularly potent glue, a real good stick-‘em-good mix which proved very hard to remove), so telegraph poles were adorned with these flyers for a very long time. This stuff was provided by Fraser who should be mentioned as someone who really put his job on the line in coming out so forthrightly. He was invaluable also in being so far removed from the gay stereotype - most folk do not connect driving a bulldozer or being a contractor with that ‘fearful mob’.

ACCEPT also sponsored a half page advertisment with a large number of signatures of local ‘worthies’ in support of the Bill.

The Petitioners didn’t quite have it all their own way. Prof. Campbell would chuckle delightedly as he described the way his wife Margaret had driven a particularly gormless petitioner from the door with cries of,

"Oh go away you silly little man, and find out something about the subject before bothering us."

Meetings were held regularly at the hospitable home of Dr. Hendrick Moller and his wife and usually half a dozen or more attended - anyone sympathetic to the cause was welcome, straight, gay, or anywhere on the spectrum. Names may elude me, but Carin, Ross, Fraser, Alan, Jane and Jane, Richard, Christopher, and Bill stick in my mind. There were certainly several others. To begin with, it seemed a rather forlorn business. The tidal wave of Petition seemed to inundate us and many gays I approached for help, felt it was hopeless. Bridget, in her sublime obstinacy, I personally found a great prop, and gradually we gathered more assurance even if it felt at times like whistling in the dark. The hate campaign rumbled on and Harbord and his ilk fulminated. In Wellington, Fran Wilde, who had the unenviable task of steering the Bill through, had a very hard time of it, including death threats.

So it was all rather a relief when, after delaying tactics, filibustering and a standard of debate from some Parliamentarians that would have disgraced a kindergarten (Merv Wellington - Minister of Education - was particularly apt to argue ad hominem), it came to a vote. Mr McGirr, of Concerned Christians,

"Fasting and praying will continue until midnight, by which time the Bill would have been passed or defeated."

The business was finally settled by that tiny, but sufficient margin, the 3 National MPs who saw fit to vote for it tipping the balance. It was, after all, a conscience vote, though you would hardly have known it as the division was almost on Party lines.

The Mail’s editorial patronisingly commented,

"A courageous Parliament has passed the . . . Bill. Their wish is not to legislate to encourage a rather sad sexual condition, but simply recognise a problem that exists, apparently without any cure."

A message praising with faint damns, but given the time and place, as good as could be expected. Funny how that ‘problem’ has produced such a disproportionately large number of original folk but still . . . maybe patronage breeds creativity.

After some of the dust had settled, George Gair, MP, who had rather unwillingly it would seem, been instrumental in saving the Bill at a crucial time, wrote to Bridget,

"Let us hope that some of the turmoil and divisiveness of recent months can now be put behind us and that New Zealanders will return to the more tolerant attitudes we like to feel are more typical of our community than the recent rash of zealotry we have seen on the one hand and bigotry on the other. A little bit of ‘live and let live’ would be the best salve for society’s wounds right now."

Nicholas Oertly wrote one last letter to Bridget on 26 July 1986. He ended,

"Our stand is based on the Word of God . . . for us this is the highest authority. In the end it is a question of faith and we are Christians."

He died of cancer at the age of 39, eight weeks later.

I make no apology of referring so often to Bridget Francois. Without her archive of material, this smallcompilation would have been impossible, (it would make a good sociological study, the effect on a small community of such divisions) so I think it proper to let her have the last word of this part.

"I consider other peoples sexual lives, so long as they are not hurting anyone else, to be entirely their own concern."

 
Some comments from local people about their feelings 10 years after, starting with the Very Rev. Charles Tyrrell, Dean of Nelson.

"I arrived in this country from England two years after the passing of the Bill and well remember the euphoria that still existed in the hearts of several friends. Euphoria that the first steps had been taken in the establishment of equal justice for homosexual persons had been taken by the State. As a Christian, I believe that justice is a God-given imperative. As we mark this significant anniversary, let us strive towards truth and justice for all, ensuring that every person is given their true worth, unconditionally."

Carin -

"It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. It forced all of us in the gay community to face both unexpected levels of acceptance and on the other side, the worst aspects of homophobia. It gave me a deep respect for all the gay activists who were part of this story."

Richard -

"Homosexual Law Reform was a victory in the tolerance of difference. Its achievement was the work of those determined that minorities should feel ‘at home’ in their own home. The challenge 10 years later is to turn the tolerance of difference into the celebration of diversity. We can make this happen as well. It will enrich even further every New Zealander."

Peter -

"Law reform, coming as it did in 1986 merely legitimised beliefs and behaviour that I’d been born with so it didn’t mean much to me personally, but I still celebrated it as a human rights landmark."

Alexia and Sue -

"Ten years since the passing of the Homosexual law reform Bill, and has anything really changed I wonder? The promises inherent in the Human Rights Bill have not been honoured. It is still not possible for lesbians and homosexual men to marry, and thus legitimise next of kin status.
At my place of work, the mere suggestion that ‘family’ might include something other than Mum, Dad, and Children, that it could mean two women living together, or two men, sends everyone scurrying from the room.
Some shared reminiscings at the kitchen table, 10 years down the line reveals, perhaps, a little touch of cynicism.
But we all soldier on!
And we are all fabulous!
And we are all survivors in the battle against bigotry and ignorance out there.
So here’s to the next 10 years."

Henry -

"My early life was like going through a haunted forest, grey and sinister, fearful that somehow my sexual identity would be revealed and alone, I would loose family, friends, and job.
Law Reform helped me to come out, revealed to me a wonderful colourful world, free from the need for concealment. But this new world has also heightened my awareness of how much still needs to be done before we truly live in a society free from discrimination because of sexual identity. Each step along the way will have to be fought for and will be a cause for celebration."

Evin -

"Thank goodness for Law reform. Now we can take a Policeman home to share the bedroom rather than have them peering through the windows!"

David -

"I recall getting a job in a fruit packhouse. All went well until a few weeks later when I was asked to leave . . . three girls on the staff refused to work with me as I was gay. A Buddhist friend staying with me at the time said, ‘Anyone ruining another’s reputation in such a manner should be taken to court.’"

(We had to wait a further eight years for legislation to cover situations such as this to be passed, as the section covering this type of discrimination in the Homosexual Law Reform Bill failed to be passed with the rest of the Bill.)

And lastly a comment from the Mayor, who was Nelson’s MP at the time and supported the Bill throughout, Philip Woollaston.

"For me the most significant aspect of the tenth anniversary is that it confirms the view that to tolerate minorities and those who differ from the majority does not lead to collapse or the end of civilisation as we know it. In this respect at least we now live in a more open, tolerant and less fearful society that we did 10 years ago. That fact alone is cause for celebration."

Envoi.

"I’m going to miss not having Sodomy in the House on Wednesday nights."

(Note:- The Bill had been Debated in the House nearly every Wednesday night for the previous 18 months.)

 
Now it’s time to look forward rather than back. People no longer face imprisonment for up to 10 years for renting accommodation to a known gay couple and men don’t have much longer sentences hanging over their heads for living and loving together in the privacy of their own homes.
Times are better than they were, but there are still reports of violence perpetrated on gays in local schools. Prejudice is still alive and well.

As Trix and friends comment,

The Homosexual Law Reform Bill was great in principle but didn’t cover enough.
The [Human Rights Act] amendment was more important because it made discrimination illegal.
There is still lots of hidden discrimination, lots of complaints that don’t get to court for fear of intimidation or reprisal.
One example of something that is not OK is immigration and ‘marriage’ status - Immigration waiting period:

• married couples = nil
• defacto couples = 2 years
• same sex couples = 4 years

 
The compiler wishes especially to thank Carin for providing so much of the archival material, and for reading the proofs and giving them her imprimatur, and to Kevin for his technical expertise and the use of his electronic gizmos.

 
Return to the top of this page.

Home Page | Visiting Nelson | Coming Events | Helpful Contacts | Health Issues | About The Site | About Me | Links | Photos | Spectrum (Nelson) Inc.
Gay Information | Commemorative Booklet | Homophobia?? | Misc. Gay Writings