McVicar’s homophobia

Written By: - Date published: 9:49 am, January 20th, 2013 - 90 comments
Categories: you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: ,

Remember the great crimewave that followed legalisation of homosexuality in the mid eighties?

Neither do I but Garth McVicar may remember otherwise. In his submission to the select committee on Louisa Wall’s marriage amendment bill, McVicar has declares [full submission]:

I see the marriage ammedment bill as being a further erosion of what
I consider to be esential basic values and morals that have stood the
test of time for centuries. Furthermore the bill represents a further
decay and erosion of the traditional family [mother & father] that
society has ben founded on. While many of the proponents of this bill
also decry the escalation of child abuse, domestic violence, violent
crime and corresponding prison population they fail [or choose to
ignore]to see the connection of the social demise caused by the
policies they promote and the outcomes.

While much good work has been done recently to reduce crime and
ensure better treatment of victims this bill has the abilty to
destroy that good work.
The marriage ammendment bill will not benefit society at all and will
ultimately have detremetal effect on crime at all levels.

Y’get that? All his good work will be undone by Teh Gayz! Frankly this submission is the work of a paranoid and perverse mind. But are we really surprised? This after all, is a man who came out in support of a child killer, and who may well be funded by private prison lobbyists.

It would be funny if it weren’t for the influence this creep has gained by exploiting crime victims families.

90 comments on “McVicar’s homophobia ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. millsy 1
    20 January 2013 at 10:03 am

    Nasty, but predictable. I knew the guy was homophobic in some way, shape or form.

    The underlines the fact that Louisa Wall’s bill MUST pass. This is just like the 81 Springbok tour. The old order v. the new generation. If the bill fails, it is un-reconstructed bigoted, racist, homophobic neanderthals like McVicar, McCroskie, Rankin, the SPCS, Ken Orr, Laws, Prosser and the like who win, and they will have the confidence to seek to destory the rest of the social and sexual freedoms we enjoy, like abortion, divorce, the ability to consume alcohol in premises with the opposite sex, sex outside of marriage, women being able to vote, etc and so on. They want to turn this country into an Islamic-style theocracy like in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

  2. The Al1en 2
    20 January 2013 at 10:09 am

    Dinosaur stuff.
    Party at mine on extinction day.

    Are his comments not hate speech?

    • Murray Olsen 2.1
      20 January 2013 at 6:22 pm

      Everything McVicar says is hate speech. He hates a world where Maori can call Pakeha men by their christian names, where they can live in the same towns, and where they can look a Pakeha in the eye. He is nostalgic for a world where his type had status because of their skin colour and their ownership of a bit of land. He is a scum sucking dinosaur and I cannot understand why the media give him any prominence whatsoever. What worries me even more is that there are people below the age of 70 who agree with some or all of his views.

  3. QoT 3
    20 January 2013 at 10:31 am

    He has a point, you know. I do totally fail to see a connection between allowing loving couples to marry on an equal footing with other couples and raise children together in a loving, committed family unit … and the “erosion of the family”.

    I now invite responses from any hetero people who feel that their personal ability to love, commit, and raise children will be irrevocably damaged by the knowledge that Adam and Steve or Wilma and Betty are able to do the same thing.

    • kiwi_prometheus 3.1
      20 January 2013 at 3:27 pm

      Why do you limit it to couples with no explanation of why? Aren’t you discriminating against consenting adults who want to be in a marriage with more than 2 participants or less that 2? If so, how does your definition of what marriage is justify your discrimination and violation of their ‘rights’, QoT?

      • QoT 3.1.1
        20 January 2013 at 4:02 pm

        Still mimicking Family First’s talking points, k_p? Interesting.

        Maybe you could explain why exactly the same argument doesn’t work for the current situation. If I can legally marry one man, why not two?

        • kiwi_prometheus 3.1.1.1
          20 January 2013 at 4:34 pm

          Still mimicking pro gay marriage talking points, QoT?

          “If I can legally marry one man, why not two?”

          Monogamy is a requisite in the current understanding of “marriage”, therefore no polygamy.

          • QoT 3.1.1.1.1
            20 January 2013 at 4:47 pm

            Yes, k_p. Well done! So now you, as the person constantly talking about polygamy, have the burden of explaining why changing the gender portion of the legal definition of marriage automatically endangers the monogamy portion.

            (You might also like to have a word with the many cultures on this planet who do not include “monogamy” as a “requisite” of marriage).

            • kiwi_prometheus 3.1.1.1.1.1
              20 January 2013 at 4:58 pm

              No QoT, the burden is YOURS.

              Geeze you really are squirming around aren’t you?

              “why changing the gender portion of the legal definition of marriage automatically endangers the monogamy portion.”

              You’re not “changing a portion”, you are redefining marriage that leaves no argument for monogamy or any other kind of limitation if you bother to actually consider what you are trying to do. How do you come to the belief that you are only changing a “portion”.

              That’s just bizarre but not surprising coming from a Feminist.

              “(You might also like to have a word with the many cultures on this planet who do not include “monogamy” as a “requisite” of marriage).”

              Not interested in your multicult crap, QofT.

              Go to the NZ public then and say “hey us gay marriage advocates are actually redefining marriage to allow for polygamy and even marrying yourself, but I’m sure you will all still give your whole hearted support to us because its all about the freedom to love who you want!”.

              Good luck.

              • QoT …
                20 January 2013 at 5:06 pm

                Dude, do you understand how much you pwn your own argument when you spend this much time whinging that marriage is a big special unique institution … and then dismiss all other cultures’ and historical periods’ alternative definitions as “multicult crap”?

                If I’m squirming it’s because it hurts to laugh this hard.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                20 January 2013 at 6:10 pm

                You’re not “changing a portion”, you are redefining marriage that leaves no argument for monogamy or any other kind of limitation if you bother to actually consider what you are trying to do. How do you come to the belief that you are only changing a “portion”.

                Err, read the legislation. It is changing a portion.

                Your argument, such as it is, is that any change made implies that any other change could be made.

                But so what? That has always been the case. The fact that a change has been proposed, and other changes made previously, confirm that. You’ve got nothing k-p. Nothing at all.

          • Populuxe1 3.1.1.1.2
            20 January 2013 at 6:54 pm

            [IB: In case you missed it, you’ve been banned until next Saturday (26th) for accusing an author of lying]

          • xtasy 3.1.1.1.3
            20 January 2013 at 11:34 pm

            kp – you appear to be “married” to a degenerate mindset.

        • kiwi_prometheus 3.1.1.2
          20 January 2013 at 4:49 pm

          Please stop avoiding the question and answer it.

          Here I will put it to you again, QoT

          “Why do you limit [marriage ] to couples with no explanation of why?”

          • QoT 3.1.1.2.1
            20 January 2013 at 4:57 pm

            Because that’s the law change on the table, k_p. Don’t you read newspapers?

            Sure, there’s a really interesting conversation to be had about family structure and alternative relationship styles, but the simple fact is this: you don’t give a fuck about alternative relationship structures. You’re exploiting them to derail the current moves towards marriage equality.

            You want to derail this entire societal debate away from the simple fact that there are loving, committed same-sex couples in this world who deserve the same legal recognition as two hetero flatmates getting hitched for the student allowance benefits.

            You’re only bringing up polygamy because your team’s previous arguments, i.e. “why can’t I marry my dog”, have been definitely laughed off stage.

            That’s why I’m not answering your piece of shit “question”, k_p. Because I’m not playing your sad little homophobic game.

            • kiwi_prometheus 3.1.1.2.1.1
              20 January 2013 at 5:10 pm

              “That’s why I’m not answering your piece of shit “question”,”

              It’s a very straight forward philosophical question, QoT.

              You can’t give a reasoned, coherent reply, that’s why you aren’t answering it.

              Your argument is seriously flawed, unsalvageable. As a result it will damage/undermine the institution of marriage if it wins out.

              Therefore gay ‘marriage’ would be socially corrosive.

              • QoT …
                20 January 2013 at 5:21 pm

                I won’t answer a bias, derailing question … ergo gay marriage is socially corrosive.

                I fucking love how you think logic works.

              • fatty …
                20 January 2013 at 7:19 pm

                Therefore gay ‘marriage’ would be socially corrosive.

                Can you please detail possible corrosive outcomes to society?
                Just list them 1-5, from most corrosive to least…

                Didn’t think you could…lame again KP

              • xtasy …
                20 January 2013 at 11:39 pm

                “Socially corrosive” is a bad mentality and mob mentality, like some hating minority or other groups for gender and sexual orientation, looks, race, colour, culture, mindset, personal opinion, political views, dress habits and whatever else may come to mind.

                kp, you are constantly seeking to pick arguments with many here, just to create division and diversion from what really matters.

                Get a life, you apparently have none, as you come to a forum that largely disagrees with you, that does not share your views, and that apparently goes up your nose.

                Some never learn, I am afraid, so for your own well-being, take a “get a life pill” tonight.

  5. vto 5
    20 January 2013 at 10:51 am

    When I saw this in te paper this a.m. it induced cringe and head-shaking. He is off the planet. Rather timely in a tiny wee way given the recent bash I’ve had at this issue. But it highlights the difference in approach to the issue, imo.

    The approach suggested the last couple of days by me was imo positive to the hetero marriage group and neutral to the gay marriage group (all rights equal etc), whereas McVicar here is completely negative to the gay marriage group and neutral to the hetero marriage group. Hopefully the subtle but real difference is apparent.

    Anyways, to those who made the homophobia accusation, here is your real villain. And believe it or not I’m on your side. Society does not need neaderthals like this, but it has them like it has extremists at the ends of every political spectrum.

    Fight the good fight.

    Out. Summer is calling.

    • One Tāne Huna 5.1
      20 January 2013 at 11:02 am

      “the hetero marriage group”

      To be clear – you are referring to the group who want to have their own “hets only” definition of marriage, am I right?

      I think they’re a tiny minority (now you’ve excluded Garth McVicar perhaps you need a smaller phonebox) who don’t own the institution of marriage and therefore have no business demanding anything.

      I’ve yet to see any kind of rebuttal.

  6. muzza 6
    20 January 2013 at 10:56 am

    Don’t get caught up in the blatant distraction that is GM and his comments, which are timed/designed for emotive purposes, to keep the fires stoked!

    What is needed is to see GM and co as the *faces/mouths*, of those, who allow them the vehicles/platforms of public view.

    If anything, his comments are so ridiculous that perhaps some will begin to question his, and the SST’s operational function!

    • QoT 6.1
      20 January 2013 at 11:15 am

      Just checking, muzza, is this your actual opinion or part of your personal research project?

      • muzza 6.1.1
        20 January 2013 at 11:57 am

        Now, now Queenie, Felix and McFlock have branded me, so if you have faith in their conclusions, then you will be able to answer your own question, with confidence.

        http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-20012013/#comment-575834

        In case you missed my question above, take a look – It requires an urgent assessment, there could be innocent victims, digesting unnecessary amounts of self doubt/hatred while you deliver a verdict on the *abuse*!

        • QoT 6.1.1.1
          20 January 2013 at 2:23 pm

          You’ve been branded by nothing but your own unequivocal statements made at another blog, muzza.

          • muzza 6.1.1.1.1
            20 January 2013 at 3:29 pm

            I think you will find that is not entirely accurate QoT (yourself aside), there were explicit accusations of bigotry.

            My comments elsewhere have nothing to do with the accusations, which were made by Felix/McFlock, here, on The Standard!

            • QoT 6.1.1.1.1.1
              20 January 2013 at 4:04 pm

              Well I guess you’ve got a cast-iron defence ready, muzza – your bigoted statements were probably just part of your social experiment, right?

            • felixviper 6.1.1.1.1.2
              20 January 2013 at 8:34 pm

              muzza, the trouble you’ve run into is that as soon as you admitted that you’re here in the capacity of an experimenter, there’s absolutely no reason for anyone to take anything you say as an honest opinion.

              You made your bed, so you can lie in it (which it’s now quite reasonable to assume you’ve been doing all along.)

  7. mike e vipe e 7
    20 January 2013 at 11:00 am

    I thought he would have advocated for gay people to have their honeymoon in prison!

  8. Policy Parrot 8
    20 January 2013 at 11:20 am

    SST = Sexually Sentencing Types.

  9. Nick 9
    20 January 2013 at 11:49 am

    Garth McVicar is an idiot – I agree that the media shouldn’t give him oxygen on this or anything else he has to say.

    • Roy 9.1
      25 January 2013 at 11:04 am

      On the other hand, the media showing him up as an intolerant old bigot can only help to make more people realize that he should not be listened to on any subject, including sentencing of criminals.

  10. NickS 10
    20 January 2013 at 11:58 am

    Urge to verbally flense rising…

    And what’s worse, homosexuals are at higher risk of being the victims of crime due to homophobia, but hey, I guess teh gays can’t ever be the victims right?

    • Roy 10.1
      25 January 2013 at 11:16 am

      I’d hazard a guess that McVicar would not campaign for longer sentences for people who bash gays.

  11. NZ Femme 11
    20 January 2013 at 12:04 pm

    I’m totes going shopping for matching balaclavas for me and my honey.

  12. PlanetOrphan 12
    20 January 2013 at 12:56 pm

    Sounds like McVicar is repeating his Nazi Transgendered mothers’ , delusional lies.
    Hiding from his/her Nazi past ….. it’s amazing that the kids of those people can never face the truth.

    • xtasy 12.1
      20 January 2013 at 11:44 pm

      McVicar plays the naughty Vicar at night, blowjob here and there, and in return, but keep it hush hush, please. Naughty Vicar, always in the confession box.

  13. tracey 13
    20 January 2013 at 1:30 pm

    i think this will damage his so called victim crusade in the minds of average kiwis. does this mean he wldnt campaign for a victim.og gay bashing… or would he assist the defence with provocation arguments?

  14. kiwi_prometheus 14
    20 January 2013 at 3:10 pm

    Gay ‘marriage’ is socially corrosive.

    In your revision of the definition of marriage you lot a destroying it.

    As I’ve pointed out before, what argument do you have to stop polygamy, brother marrying sister or grand ma and her grand daughter?

    After all according to you lot its all about consenting loving adults asserting their rights.

    One nutter on here gives polygamy the thumbs up. I watched a university student of philosophy acknowledge that yes it is acceptable for an individual to marry them-self according to the pro gay marriage argument, though she thought it would be a bit of a joke – but then gay ‘marriage’ is a joke.

    Of course none of you can give a reasoned response.

    That’s why you need and love McVicar – you can wail, sob, beat your chests, pull your hair, scream “FUCKING BIGOT!” – make yourselves out to be the righteous defenders of good – demonise anyone who isn’t “On board”.

    All to hide the fact your concept of marriage is a philosophical car wreck.

    • Descendant Of Sssmith 14.1
      20 January 2013 at 3:45 pm

      You mean if we don’t support a Catholic / Anglican / Presbyterian definition of marriage there’s something wrong with us.

      I’m quite comfortable with broader definitions of marriage than that – in simple terms it’s a public declaration of commitment that also engenders some legal rights.

      That’s hardly a philosophical car wreck.

      To try and pretend that a Christian-like definition is the only acceptable one for a modern multi-cultural world is nonsense.

      Marriage existed before Christianity and the Anglican Church for example predominantly rose out of a need by those in power to re-define the definition of marriage away from what it formally was – even though it was quite common for royalty to have mistresses.

      Here’s some examples of different marriage customs:

      http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/marriage_in_non_western_societ.html

      While in general you can argue that New Zealand society was significantly based upon thinking gained from a Western Christian ethic some aspects of that have been found wanting ( e.g. the right to beat your wife and children for discipline) and many other parts of our society have come from non-religious thinking and in some cases from standing up to the abusive power of religious leaders.

      The religious bigots, like you label McVicar ( I have no idea if he is religious and it’s a long time since someone’s name indicated their profession – otherwise I’d be shoeing horses) would have us remain in a frozen time warp of stupidity – no different from the Taliban or those who think mountains are ancestors or spirits whatever part of the world they come from.

      Remove the religion out of marriage and there’s no reason why two men or woman can’t marry each other any more than there was no reason I couldn’t marry my wife when I don’t have a religious bone in my body.

      Of course the religious bigotry that abounds should be objecting to that too or is my marriage somehow acceptable even though I think god is a crock of superstitious shite.

      • RedLogix 14.1.1
        20 January 2013 at 3:59 pm

        Indeed if there is one thing more remarkable than anything else in human society it is the enormous range of forms families can and do take.

        Personally I’m one of those ‘nutters’ kp refers to … I’ve very little time for the institution of marriage as defined in traditional terms. What we’ve learnt in the last few decades about human sexuality and genetics, strongly suggests that the idea of lifelong, single partner heterosexual monogamy is a very poor idea indeed.

        Personally I can see the next century marked by a lot more flexibility around family structures.

        • kiwi_prometheus 14.1.1.1
          20 January 2013 at 4:38 pm

          Its all ready incredibly flexible.

          High divorce rates, kids not being raised in a stable home with their biological father and mother.

          What a mess, and you obviously think it is ‘absolutely fabulous’.

          • TightyRighty 14.1.1.1.1
            21 January 2013 at 10:52 am

            You believe though that a loving couple, consenting adults, should not be allowed to marry? What about the same legal rights as a normally married couple even if it isn’t “marriage” by the same name?

        • kiwi_prometheus 14.1.1.2
          20 January 2013 at 4:39 pm

          “What we’ve learnt in the last few decades about human sexuality and genetics, strongly suggests that the idea of lifelong, single partner heterosexual monogamy is a very poor idea indeed.”

          [ citation needed ]

          • QoT 14.1.1.2.1
            20 January 2013 at 4:47 pm

            *snort* Oh, someone thinks he’s clever. But you’d do a damn sight better demand other people’s credentials if you weren’t constantly shooting off without providing any of your own.

          • RedLogix 14.1.1.2.2
            20 January 2013 at 5:27 pm

            At this point I could introduce some interesting ideas; but I doubt kp would read any of them.

            the critical factor in such cases is the emotional cost of admitting that the decision to buy the stock, adopt the belief system, or make whatever other mistake is at issue, was in fact a mistake. The more painful it is to make that admission, the more forcefully most people will turn away from the necessity to do so, and it’s safe to assume that they’ll embrace the most consummate malarkey if doing so allows them to insist to themselves that the mistake wasn’t a mistake after all.

            http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/the-road-down-from-empire.html

            Personally kp I’m a fairly vanilla and boring old white male het, whose been a one partner at a time sort of bloke all my life. But looking back I’m not all that convinced it was the best thing I could have done with my life, and the evidence I can see about me … as you can see for yourself kp… there is plenty of evidence that the ‘standard monogamous nuclear family’ model is fraught with failures.

            Do I have a set of ready-made answers? No. But I do have a bunch of questions and a curious mind.

      • kiwi_prometheus 14.1.2
        20 January 2013 at 3:59 pm

        “You mean if we don’t support a Catholic / Anglican / Presbyterian definition of marriage there’s something wrong with us.”

        Why do you assume that all opposition is religious in nature? I’ve put it to you that the pro gay marriage argument allows a free for all – that’s a philosophical argument not a theological one.

        “I’m quite comfortable with broader definitions of marriage than that – in simple terms it’s a public declaration of commitment that also engenders some legal rights.”

        So you give polygamy 2 thumbs up? Along with someone marrying themself? Or Grandma marrying her grand daughter?

        Your definition of marriage certainly allows for it.

        “That’s hardly a philosophical car wreck.”

        Yes it is – it makes a complete nonsense of the concept of marriage.

        Funny how the pro gay movement gets enraged and defensive when opponents claim polygamy will be allowed next. Because they know the public would reject them if they declared it was all sweet.

        But here is another pro gay marriage number seemly giving the thumbs up to all kinds of bizarre arrangements as “marriage”.

        • RedLogix 14.1.2.1
          20 January 2013 at 4:02 pm

          You’re strawman construction crew is going to be demanding double time…

          A cursory examination of the huge range of family structures found in the thousands of various cultures in the world show that people are remarkably adaptable … while at the same time are quite sensible about avoiding breeding with excessively close relatives.

          • kiwi_prometheus 14.1.2.1.1
            20 January 2013 at 4:46 pm

            So you are all for polygamy and grandma marrying grand daughter?

            “avoiding breeding with excessively close relatives”

            Why do you believe marriage must necessarily involve a sex act?

            You lot claim defining heterosexual sex as the only type acceptable to marriage is descriminating towards gays.

            So you want to be more ‘inclusive’, redefine marriage to include homosexual sex acts.

            But what about people who don’t want to have sex at all but want to get married. Surely that is discrimination, a violation of their right to get married?

            So remove sex from the definition of marriage all together.

            • RedLogix 14.1.2.1.1.1
              20 January 2013 at 5:33 pm

              So you are all for polygamy and grandma marrying grand daughter?

              Polygamy is defined as one male, multiple females and reflects a power structure not a family one. There are other forms of polyandry and polyamory that are equally possible. None of these are impossible, indeed there is every reason to think humans evolved for millions of years using a multi-male, multi-female mating system .. as do our closest genetic relatives the two chimpanzee species.

              As I’ve said before, the vast majority of human societies seem to have also followed an instinct to avoid having sex with their very close relatives. No-one here is suggesting anything different and it’s an utter strawman of the worst kind to keep bringing it up.

              Why do you believe marriage must necessarily involve a sex act?

              What you are now talking about is a form of relationship that is more about friendship, property management and social form. Marriage can of course be completely asexual … but in that case why are you concerned about the sexuality of the couple?

            • felixviper 14.1.2.1.1.2
              21 January 2013 at 9:25 am

              “Why do you believe marriage must necessarily involve a sex act?”

              RL has already addressed this, but I think I should remind everyone that a few months ago k_p’s primary argument against gay marriage was that marriage was all about procreation.

              btw, he never did answer my question “where do babies come from?” but I assure him the answer isn’t “marriage.”

      • xtasy 14.1.3
        20 January 2013 at 11:40 pm

        I met a fair few “Christians” – and honestly very many were just out-right bigots and hypocrites.

    • QoT 14.2
      20 January 2013 at 4:04 pm

      Gay ‘marriage’ is socially corrosive.

      [citation needed]

    • The Al1en 14.3
      20 January 2013 at 5:10 pm

      I did ask the other day and I’ll ask again, if having multiple partners were legal, would you object to homosexual polygamy, and if so, on what grounds?

    • Populuxe1 14.4
      20 January 2013 at 7:06 pm

      “Gay ‘marriage’ is socially corrosive.”

      Capitalism is socially corrosive: true. People used to say mixed race marriages were socially corrosive, as it turned this is false. As is your statement.

      “In your revision of the definition of marriage you lot a destroying it.”

      That’s like saying no longer treating wives as chattels or getting rid of prima noctu, and outlawing concubinage destroyed marriage. Hollywood divorces have inflicted more damage on marriage than gay marriage ever possibly could.

      “As I’ve pointed out before, what argument do you have to stop polygamy, brother marrying sister or grand ma and her grand daughter?”

      Straw man and slippery slope fallacy in one. The number of people who want polygamous or polyandrous marriages is so slight as to be irrelevant. And generally speaking incest is generally frowned upon because consanguineous relationships often lead to genetically damaged children.

      “After all according to you lot its all about consenting loving adults asserting their rights.”

      Yes it is.

      One nutter on here gives polygamy the thumbs up. I watched a university student of philosophy acknowledge that yes it is acceptable for an individual to marry them-self according to the pro gay marriage argument, though she thought it would be a bit of a joke – but then gay ‘marriage’ is a joke.

      Of course none of you can give a reasoned response.

      That’s why you need and love McVicar – you can wail, sob, beat your chests, pull your hair, scream “FUCKING BIGOT!” – make yourselves out to be the righteous defenders of good – demonise anyone who isn’t “On board”.

      All to hide the fact your concept of marriage is a philosophical car wreck.

    • Copperhead 14.5
      21 January 2013 at 8:49 am

      Im sorry Mr Prometheus, but own goal again, the only chest beating going on is by cavemen like you who are afraid of teh big bad gays. Get out of the house and join the 21st century.

      Edit, this was directed at kp above, not sure how it got here

  15. Galeandra 15
    20 January 2013 at 3:18 pm

    peanut hammer

    • kiwi_prometheus 15.1
      20 January 2013 at 3:23 pm

      Is that for the pro gay marriage and polygamists on here?

      • locus 15.1.1
        20 January 2013 at 9:37 pm

        Oh bravo kp, but I do rather think it was directed at the many rational well reasoned comments that have taken apart your feeble and unpleasant rhetoric

      • xtasy 15.1.2
        20 January 2013 at 11:43 pm

        NO, it seems to be a “hammer” meant to hit the top of your skull to re-arrange some braincells in need to have a reality check, perhaps, I only presume, it is well-meant too by the way.

  16. Dr Terry 16
    20 January 2013 at 3:30 pm

    Marriage, I thought, was based upon “love”, and is there a difference if it happens to concern a gay couple? Clearly, McVicar is, then, opposed in this instance to such loving relationship. (I am sure there is no shortage of real evils for him to oppose with such ardent vigour!).

    How much do people know about this man? He is a long-time Hawkes Bay farmer whose formal education stopped at the age of 16. He has no qualifications in law. psychology, or criminology. He is not a “beast with horns”, but a quite pleasant fellow (“decent bloke”), a man of good old “family values” (which are so often questionable!) who possesses “natural intelligence” which does not spare him from delusional ideas. He is (God spare us!) undoubtedly “well-meaning”, (just misguided).

    He founded the Sensible Sentencing Trust in 2001, promoting harsher court sentences and penal policies in the belief that this will reduce crime, popularising the notion throughout the country. A number of commentators have pointed out the close connection with the National and ACT parties on (punitive) policies of law and order. McVicar acknowledges a “close regular contact with Don Brash, and the SST often works with the Christian Right.

    Professor John Pratt of Victoria University says SST leads to the puruit of penal policies to win votes rather than reduce crime or promote justice”. A recent commentator wrote, “What Mr McVicar stands for isn’t really clear, but it certainly has nothing to do with justice”. CJ Shian Elias has stated that she believes NZ has developed “a pervasive culture of blame”.

    Enlightened justice reformer Kim Workman of “Rethinking Crime and Punishment” offers a more evidence-based approach to criminal justice in NZ (with analyses of the social context and causes of criminal activity). He says, “Victims become trapped in their grief by the SST and are unable to ever reach peace. These victims are being filled with this retributive agenda from McVicar and from politicians trying to oust one another to be tough on crime. It’s just alienating and full of hate.”

    It is reported that 50 international studies involving over 300,000 offenders concluded “None of the analyses found imprisonment reduced recidivism . . . Longer sentences were associated with an increase in offending” (a view ignored by SST).

    McVicar produced a book for which he employed a ghost-writer, Michael Larson (whose name appears not on the cover). He happily confesses “I haven’t read the whole book through” (though we must charitably suppose him literate).

    Now in full grandiosity McVicar presumes, with absolutely no evidence, to connect gay-marriage with criminal conduct. What will come next??

    • kiwi_prometheus 16.1
      20 January 2013 at 3:38 pm

      “Kim Workman of “Rethinking Crime and Punishment” offers a more evidence-based approach…

      …He says, “Victims become trapped in their grief by the SST and are unable to ever reach peace. These victims are being filled with this retributive agenda from McVicar and from politicians trying to oust one another to be tough on crime. It’s just alienating and full of hate.””

      Excuse me, but where is the evidence for the above personal opinion?

    • QoT 16.2
      20 January 2013 at 4:07 pm

      Don’t forget, Dr Terry, he’s also a blatant hypocrite. Longer sentences! Harsher penalties! Oh, wait, not for white businessmen who get “frustrated” and stab other people to death, that’s different.

  17. The Pink Postman 17
    20 January 2013 at 3:40 pm

    To tell the truth I am fed up to the teeth with McVicar and his Fascist monkeys. I ask again where the hell does he get his money.Has he ever worked for a living ?

  18. millsy 18
    20 January 2013 at 5:04 pm

    KP should piss off to Saudi Arabia. Im getting tired of people like him who thinks that people should be dictated to about why they should marry, sleep with etc and when.

    And what is wrong with polyamory? Not for everyone, but it seems that those that pratice it do all right. Same with open marriages and swinging.

    His foot must get tired of kicking down all those bedroom doors all the time.

  19. kiwicommie 19
    20 January 2013 at 6:33 pm

    He is fairly old, hope this dinosaur pops off soon. Hopefully he takes a few evangelicals with him.

  20. karol 20
    20 January 2013 at 6:39 pm

    Interesting post by LudditeJourno on her past encounter with Mr SensibleSentencing. I guess McV’s criminality-inducing-gaydar isn’t that good.

  21. Populuxe1 21
    20 January 2013 at 7:25 pm

    Why are all my comments going into moderation?

    [lprent: you’re listed as having a week ban. Presumably from Irish. ]

  23. xtasy 23
    20 January 2013 at 11:53 pm

    So the growth in crime is to be blamed on gays or homosexuals being “an erosion” to society???

    Whoa!?

    I actually stated my views on Wall’s bill before, and I do not see the bill as a high priority. I feel the present arrangement under the law is sufficient, but I am otherwise not affected and not too concerned about the bill as such.

    What pisses me off though is, that some go on about all this being some “threat” to society.

    There are a heck of a really serious threats of causing harm in society. I see no harm being committed by homosexuals, who generally obey the law as heterosexuals.

    Any person disputing that is an IDIOT, a BIGOT perhaps, or any other kind of extreme, possibly FASCIST bastard, that should the hell shut up and not get any bloody media attention.

    Sadly we have a shit media, tending to give too much attention for all kinds of jerks, but real issues are not looked at, not reported about, not even noticed, so the society continues to be dumbed down, which is really bloody incredible, in an age where the internet is meant to provide for more freedom and information.

    Please prick my skin with a pin, so I know I am awake and in the real world, I am starting to think this is just another endless nightmare.

  24. paul andersen 24
    21 January 2013 at 3:50 pm

    in a way, main stream media have done the right thing and reported mcvicar’s remarks, give him enough rope and he will hang himself( and that would be poetic justice!!!)

  25. McFlock 25
    21 January 2013 at 4:48 pm

    Lol
    SST are disowning his comments.
    I wonder if that’s genuine, or whether garth is putting on another hat to disown whet he said without a hat?

  26. PlanetOrphan 26
    22 January 2013 at 11:44 am

    Time to start the “I’m Married to a Maggot” campaign …..

    Everyone in NZ who is Married to a Maggot is Welcomed by the GAY community.

    Change your life for the better today
    Divorce the Maggot and live free !!

Links to post