‘Flagrant denial of human rights’

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33873, 19 June 1975, Page 9

‘Flagrant denial of human rights’

Dr G. A. Wall’s proposed amendment to the Crimes Amendment Bill has been described as “a flagrant denial of the basic human right to hold and express whatever opinion one wishes.”

The Canterbury Council for Civil Liberties has expressed this opinion in a statement, and has also said that the proposed amendment strikes at the heart of the right to free association.

“In section C of his amendment, Dr Wall calls for the prosecution of anyone who invites any person under 20 years to join any organisation that has as its aim, dr as one of its aims, the propagation or promotion of the view that homosexual behaviour is normal.” This violated the human right to free association, says the statement. By striking at the right to express reasonable opinions. Dr Wall’s amendment stood

in contravention of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and was impermissible under international law.

"Evidence suggests that Dr Wall’s publicly stated position on homosexuality is a minority view, and that he is trying to get this personal view accepted as public pOlI icy,” the council says. This represented a direct threat to democratic rights in general and the rights of opinion leaders in particular, because teachers and researchers would not be able to express their opinions freely. They would not be able to publish their findings, and so debate would be stifled. The amendment would condemn groups actively ingaged in support work with homosexuals,” the council says.