You know you mean shit when you’re “those people”

And this time, “those people” are same-sex couples who want the right to adopt.

From the mouth of our glorious leader himself:

“But realistically it’s just not the biggest issue that we face. I know it’s important to those people, but they’re a very small group,” he said.

Because the rights of same-sex couples are only of interest to same-sex couples.  The rights of children to be raised by their parents, even if their parents are deviant non-heterosexuals, is only of interest to aforementioned deviant non-heterosexuals.

It’s not a human rights issue at all.  It’s not an issue with cross-party support at all.

So it’s not a priority.  And our Government is all about having clear priorities.

That’s why they’ve consistently abused urgency to pass a shitload of not-actually-urgent laws which, Mr Key, only affect a very small group of people.

Like the 90-day fire-at-will bill which, you’ll all recall, we were told was specifically only going to be used by a small number of employers who just need flexibility to test whether they can take on additional workers.

Or the Video Camera Surveillance Bill which, you’d have to hope, only applies to a very small group of Police investigations, and which was so urgent it had to be passed asap.  And then waited for nearly two weeks before it actually, you know, came into force.

Or the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill, which was certainly urgent, and certainly affected a lot of people, but which the government hadn’t actually finished writing the amendments yet.  But still had to be debated before anything else.

And let’s not forget how seriously National and ACT took the need to push through tax cuts for the top 10% of New Zealanders – tax cuts which have contributed to the fucked state of our government’s books now.  I’m sure those tax cuts were very important to “those people” too.

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn, to whom I am indebted for his excellent backlog of useful posts, has more on our government’s use of urgency to pass whatever it has decided is currently A Thing Which Needs Passing.

So, if you’re rich?  If it gives a core group of National supporters, like employers, more power which they apparently don’t actually need to use because, um, shut up?  If it makes the government look Tough on Crime?

Fuck yeah, get that shit on the agenda.

If it’s just a piffling basic human rights issue which is supported by multiple parties across the House?  Fuck off, scum.  You’re just “those people”.  You’re a group John Key doesn’t even need to waste energy using inclusive language for.

Seriously, next time that fucker shows up at a gay pride event so he can get his smug little grin on with some drag queens to show how cosmopolitan and progressive he is, can someone PLEASE just pie him?

H/T to @ShakingStick 

2 comments

  1. Moz in Oz

    can someone PLEASE just pie him?

    Cow pie?

    I mean, he *did* say that those are not a problem…

  2. Mr Wainscotting

    Ugh. I fucking hate this line from people like Key. “We’re more focused on fixing the economy,” is the usual refrain (and one I’ve heard from Key before), which would only make sense if we were asking Treasury to amend the adoption act. But we’re not. We’re asking the Prime fucking Minister (if ever I’m elected to that position, that’s what I’m amending the title to), the guy who’s supposed to oversee *all* of the issues. There’s an entire parliament there, that is more than capable of dealing with more than one issue at a time.

    It’s a giant red flag, to me, that says “we don’t really want gay rights, but we don’t want to openly oppose them.” You can bet when it does come time to vote on any legislation (which will be watered down with “compromises”) it’ll be a ‘conscience’ issue, and National will get to save face and say, “see? Those two people voted for it. National are your friends :) :) :)

    While I don’t like to attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity, being referred to as one of “those people” (and it’s happened to my face) really does make me feel like shit. Oh, I’m sorry. I won’t take up too much of your precious time with little things like human rights. You go ahead and rush your asset sales out without allowing for too much scrutiny.

    And that’s leaving out all the snarky comments about how the remit supports the slightly less conservative amendment of extending the 1955 adoption act to include civil unions, rather than the actual reform that we’re after — what about de facto couples, or whāngai and birth parents who still want to be involved in their children’s lives?