An example of this occurred yesterday when National’s caucus decided to vote against legislation that would criminalise conversion therapy. Despite a number of National MPs previously saying that they supported such a law, the blue “team” weren’t even allowed a conscience vote on the matter and had to block vote to oppose the bill going to select committee.
In fact during the subsequent debate the National Party looked as foolish as Bomber Bradbury does going on about parents being jailed for five years if they try to pray the gay away.
Yesterday, Newshub reported:
National MPs defend vote against conversion therapy Bill, despite saying they support a ban
Labour MP David Parker says he held out hope National would support a Bill that would ban conversion therapy right up until Thursday's vote.
National was the only party to vote against Justice Minister Kris Faafoi's Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill, which easily passed with support from ACT, the Greens, the Māori Party and Labour, which holds an absolute majority on its own.
Earlier this year National leader Judith Collins said the party didn't hold a position on conversion therapy, the pseudoscientific practice of changing or suppressing a person's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. Former leader Simon Bridges said in February he was concerned banning it would be an attack on free speech and "cancel culture".
How exactly is a bill that's designed to protect young vulnerable people an attack on free speech? Likewise, how exactly is a law that's designed to safeguard young and mentally impaired people some sort of cancel culture? It seems Bridges is just saying whatever topical words that pop into his head…mainly because National would appear prejudiced and out-dated if they were to provide their actual reasons for opposing this worthwhile legislation.
After Collins looked it up on Google, she came out against it - and the rest of the party fell into line.
Bridges told The AM Show on Friday they're all for a ban, but won't vote for the current Bill for one reason.
"We support the intent fully, we wish we could get behind it. We have one major concern and by the way Kris Faafoi, the guy behind it, can't and won't explain it at any level. I've looked through the law really closely and it comes down to this - the Bill will criminalise, as it's written, good parents for being parents.
Bridges claiming that the bill will criminalise good parents just goes to show what a complete idiot he is. The legislation specifically states that it’s an offence to perform a conversion practice on someone aged 18 or less or those who lack the mental capacity to make decisions about their own health and wellbeing. It will also be an offence to perform a conversion practice on an individual that causes serious harm.
Obviously good parents allow their children to self-identify. Similarly, a good parent wouldn't use conversion therapy to cause their child serious harm, so they won't be prosecuted.
Bridges says puberty blockers pose risks parents might not be aware of.
"The experience offshore - if you take the UK, what the courts over there are now saying are these medical treatments are innovative and experimental and there are long-term risks and consequences. We want a parental exemption, and if we get that actually we will be fully on board."
Clearly parents shouldn't be allowed to use drugs to try and change a persons sexual orientation against their will. Similarly, if a person has decided to use medication to help their body change, then parents shouldn't be allowed to interfere simply because they don't agree with their child's new identity. An exemption here is therefore unwarranted.
Of course deluded parents are often the ones who believe they can convince their children not to self-identify. By wanting an exemption here, the National Party is in effect saying the science is wrong and that people can simply choose not to be gay if their parents are homophobic enough to resort to interfering in a young persons decisions about their own body.
The naysayers to this legislation are relying on the general public having little understanding of what conversion therapy is, or a working understanding of what the new law will mean in practice. They’re also claiming that the Attorney General, Human Rights Commission, Review Tribunal and the Courts of New Zealand will act outside of their remit to facilitate the prosecution of people who don’t deserve it.
National's lack of faith in these institutions is well-documented. However it’s Judith Collins’ association with a number of bigoted dogmatists that should be ringing people’s alarm bells.
Not only did Crusher recently come out in support of antagonist Rachel Stewart when the well-known TERF lost her guns and licence because she’d threatened to kill someone...National’s current leader also utilises the services of Ani O'Brien who is a member of a group ironically calling themselves Speak Up For Women. This hatful organisation often conducts vicious online attacks against transgender people because they oppose gender self-identification.
It would therefore be fair to conclude that National has voted against this legislation not only to placate their puritanical supporters and gain public attention, but also because their leader is trying to score Brownie points with her TERF buddies. God forbid that Crusher actually believes what SUFW stands for, because that should preclude her from ever making any legislative decisions within our halls of power, particularly when we’re talking about legal decisions concerning some of the most vulnerable and persecuted people within our communities.
