Push to wipe the homosexual slate clean
It has 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 the men convicted for actions that have subsequently been legalised.
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 aligned the country’s legislation with its moral compass, bringing to an end criminal convictions for men engaging in consensual homosexual sex acts.
But convictions such as sodomy and ‘‘keeping place of resort for homosexual acts’’ laid before then still brand an unknown number of gay men with a historical stigma.
Last week, a parliamentary select committee meeting took stock of a petition urging the Government to restore the ‘‘mana and dignity’’ of those convicted.
It is the result of years of work for campaigner Wiremu Demchick, who has become some- thing of a ‘‘lightning rod’’ for the cause. Well-connected with the rainbow community, Demchick knows many people who were ‘‘terrified out of their minds’’ seeing their friends convicted for consensual acts.
His petition, signed by 2112 people, was received positively by the committee, which is now seeking public submissions.
‘‘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’s previous comments 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.’’
The Ministry of Justice 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.
Adams said that 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 Party leader Andrew Little agreed it should be handled case by case.
‘‘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 initiate a request for a pardon.
Green MP Kevin Hague, who presented Demchick’s petition to Parliament in July, said they were not looking for ‘‘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 to Hague.
‘‘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 Parliament always had the potential to be precedent setting.
‘‘These offences should never have existed, it should never have been against the law for people to express what their natural identity was.
‘‘If there are other immoral laws, it would be great to actually expunge those convictions too.’’