Human Rights Commission and political correctness

Eradicator Wayne Mapp has his eyes set on the political correctness of the Human Rights Commission.Don Brash gave him this portfolio because of this speech Mapp delivered in June, saying he resented politically correct laws regarding prostitution and civil unions and wants to remove advocacy roles of Commissions such as the Human Rights Commission. He says the HRC is "an organisation that has a set of values pretty much divorced from the mainstream". He also says :

The Human Rights Commission sees advocacy as its primary goal. It is the most cherished institution of the politically correct, precisely because its mandate is the agenda of the politically correct. The question can be asked – has the expansion of the advocacy role of the Human Rights Commission done anything to enhance human rights, or rather does it cause distrust of institutions that ought to be respected?

The Commission's responsibilities do include advocating and promoting respect for, and an understanding and appreciation of, human rights. However, decisions on rights neglected to any group the Commission advocates for are only enacted in law if it is politically expedient to do so.

In other words, political expediency influences decisions to amend legislation surrounding human rights, which is why the Civil Union Bill did not amend the Marriage Act to include gay couples despite the recommendation of the Commission, and is why Georgina Beyer's Gender Clarification Bill has been given the chop.

The Commission wanted to amend the Marriage Act to include gay couples, as to not to do so is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and in breach of International Human Rights law. Never mind that this view was "divorced from the mainstream". Never mind that the International Bill of Rights does not mention sexual orientation. Never mind that the Marriage Act was not changed due to "political expediency".Perhaps this is the kind of advocacy that Dr Mapp wants to eradicate.

The Commission notes the group most at risk from human rights abuses are children, followed by the disabled. But what is it doing to address and promote issues surrounding these groups? Perhaps this is a question Dr Mapp should be asking if he really cares about the direction of the Commission.

As an aside, the Maxim Institute has a list of conscience bills and the voting record of MPs. Bills included are the Civil Union, Relationships, Prostitution Reform, Death With Dignity, Sale of Liquor and Care of Children amendment. You can even play MP and indicate how you would have voted and see which MPs agree with you on all six bills.

Strangely, just one MP voted the same way as I would have on all six bills. A chocolate fish will be sent to the first person who can correctly name that MP.