Gay grievance
New push for pardon
It is about "mana and dignity ... I would be shocked if there is not provision made for an official apology."
Petitioner Wiremu Demchick
It’s been three decades since gay men were freed from the threat of persecution, but the slate was never wiped clean.
That might be about to change, with a new push for an apology and pardon for men convicted for actions subsequently deemed legal.
But could this open a ‘‘pandora’s box’’ of demands from individuals convicted under laws which no longer exist?
The Homosexual Law Reform Act of 1986 brought to an end criminal convictions for men engaging in consensual homosexual sex acts.
But convictions for sodomy or ’’keeping a place of resort for homosexual acts’’ still brand an unknown number of gay men with a historical stigma.
On Thursday a select committee meeting took stock of a 2112 signature petition urging the Government to restore the ‘‘mana and dignity’’ of those convicted. The committee is now seeking public submissions on the matter.
It’s the result of years of work for Wiremu Demchick.
Well connected with the rainbow community, Demchick knows many people who were ‘‘terrified out of their minds’’ seeing their friends convicted for consensual acts.
‘‘I would be shocked if there is not provision made for an official apology,’’ Demchick said.
An apology would be a good step - an easy step - but a pardon would provide a ‘‘formal and sincere’’ acknowledgment of the harm done to each individual.
He agreed with Justice Minister Amy Adam that a ‘‘broad-brush’’ approach would not work.
‘‘But I do hope that this won’t be used as an excuse to do nothing about the situation.’’
Adams has been unable to provide an estimate of how many men were charged with homosexual offences, because there are no electronic records of offences prior to 1980.
From 1980 to 1986, when the law changed, 879 men were convicted of homosexual offences.
Nearly 80 per cent of these cases were sexual offences involving males under 16-years-old, still considered an offence today.
She said in a written statement that any ‘‘wiping’’ of past homosexual convictions would require a ‘‘case by case analysis’’.
Labour leader Andrew Little agreed.
‘‘Where there has been either predatory or exploitative conduct, they are separate from ... two consenting adults engaging in sexual activity.’’
He favoured leaving it to each individual to request a pardon.
Green MP Kevin Hague, who presented Demchick’s petition to Parliament, said it was not seeking ’’an apology or a pardon to anyone who was convicted for circumstances that would still be a criminal offence today’’.
It should be simple to distinguish, he said.
The summary of facts, a concise description of the crime provided to the courts by Police, should be ‘‘entered into the record’’ of each case.
The Government should first look to pardon men still alive today, which would have the ‘‘biggest impact’’, but posthumous pardons were also important.
‘‘The convictions for men that have subsequently died, would have cast a pall on their entire lives, and actually have repercussions for their families that will be rippling on into the present day.’’
As for opening a ‘‘pandora’s box’’, he said these offences should never have existed,
‘‘If there are other immoral laws, it would be great to actually expunge those convictions too.’’