Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Rocks in your head

This letter was sent to Garnet Milne of the Campaign against Civil Unions site this morning by a newly appointed Human Rights Commissioner. Aside from the fact that it has more than 15 spelling and grammatical errors, it clarifies why this rock-head cannot be an impartial member of the Human Rights Commission Review Panel.
From: Jacquie Grant
Sent: Wednesday, 24 November 2004 11:07 a.m.
To: Garnet Milne
Subject: Re: civil unions
I think the Destiny rally says it all about the attitude of the Christian movement and it's intolerance.
I dont wish to get into a E Mail debate bit I will leave you with one thought; If as a lot of Christian people beleive Homosexuality and the Continium of sexuality was a matter of choice then can you really beleive given the treatement this group has recieved from society through the ages anyone would consiously make that choice then you have rocks in your head.
If you can accept that there is no choice and in (my case I can tell you I knew from my earliest thoughts I was somehow different) then you should be supporting us not trying to dsestroy us and that is what you do. I have known so many people through my years that have killed themselves because of the pressures from so called christian families it's no joke, and before you tell me that they are not christians let me tell you no matter what denomination / branch of christianity etc you are all the same.

I will debate these issues with you anywhere anytime but I think you are basically cowardly people and I do not expect to have that opportunity soon. Rest assured you will be taken to task at every opportunity for hate crime.
Jacquie Grant MNZM Member Human Rights Commission Review Panel

More later. What's Phil GOff or Margaret Wilson going to do about this when it hits their desks.

By all means, set up a debate. On one side we can have a man dressed as woman and on the other a man dressed as man. Perhaps a woman dressed as a man could be the adjudicator. Suggestions welcome - and it cannot be a politician for all you who would love to nominate her.


Anonymous said...

Ms Grant's comments were unfortunate. However, so was a certain twelve-year old's anti-CUB submission calling for the death penalty against LGBTs.

I'd be perfectly willing to condemn Jacqui if someone
on the anti-CUB dissociated themselves from that


Anonymous said...

She's a nut.
Doing her campaign no good obviously.

Notice how quickly certain gay activists move from gaining legal status to threats of control;
"Rest assured you will be taken to task at every opportunity for hate crime".

But then, "fundamentalist" attitudes are just scaremongering aren't they?

Greyshade said...

I assume the HRC review panel has no function beyond oversight of the HRC. The HRC may have set out to get a broadly representative panel (including the extremes) in which case Jacqui Grant may be appropriate. It's not obvious what this EMail was in reply to but presumably no review panel business as such (I would have thought the panel reported only as a panel and to the Commissioner). It might therefore be quite inappropriate to use the designation as though it was some sort of qualification.

Anonymous said...

Entirely inappropriate.

On National Radio, Ms Grant claimed that use of the title did not imply that it was representative of her views as a member of the panel, and it would not be reasonable to assume that it did.

I think this is very unfair: it is entirely reasonable that someone would assume that use of a title therefore implies that the views may be linked to being representative of that person's position.


Anonymous said...

Craig, I think a child calling for the death penalty against gay people is equally as despicable as Ms Grant's comments.

Greyshade, the email wasn’t in reply to anything, it was a rant from someone who hates Christians, and has a long history of doing so.


Anonymous said...

I seem to recall Graeme Lee making a similarly fraught decision when he appointed a fundamentalist Maori woman to the Film Review Board, with similar results.

Should Jacqui be reprimanded? Yes. Sacked? No.


Anonymous said...

you talk absolute crap.
If Gregory Fortuin had to be sacked/stand down as race relations commissioner then so does this woman.

Where is the rational balence in your thought processes?
Are you so willing to not be absolutely fair?

But then refering to a 12yr old as equal to an adult says it all.
any excuse to point score.

Anonymous said...

Okay, fair is fair.

So what do you lot think about the Campaign Against
Civil Unions and the shady past of the Reformed
Churches of New Zealand on these particular issues?

ie Pastors Richard Flinn and John Steenhof (ex...)
ie2 Yes, but why are they ex...??
ie3 Christian Reconstruction/Theonomy


Anonymous said...

One more spelling mistake for you Dave
"the Christian movement and it's intolerance"

should be "its intolerance"

Anonymous said...

Yes, there's a few more than the ones highlighted, a few commas have been missed out, a colon, and one or two full stops. Punctuation was never her good point.Must be all the drugs