Martin Hanson: Inclusivity, or a new authoritarianism?

When Stuff Sports headlined Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson’s disappointment at Manly’s seven rugby league players refusing to wear the rainbow pride jersey because it was in opposition to their religious beliefs, there was scarcely a ripple of dissent, let alone any attempt at critical analysis of the issue in the New Zealand media.

Mr. Robertson was not the only one to be disappointed. I was, too, but for a very different reason.

LGBQT politics can be a minefield for the unwary, and I’m fully aware that the Woke Police will be waiting in the bushes to ambush me. So I’ll start by putting my cards on the table to avoid any misunderstandings.

As a heterosexual with two grown-up children I have to admit that as a teenager I regarded homosexuality as unnatural and disgusting. Such views were the cultural norm, reflected in its illegality at the time. Naturally enough, I unconsciously absorbed these attitudes.

But as I grew up I became aware that in all societies, throughout recorded history, a minority of men are attracted to other men, just as a minority of people are left-handed. I began to wonder if homosexuality was as ‘unnatural’ as I had believed. Eventually, evidence and logic prevailed, and both the U.K. and New Zealand have decriminalized it.

Some religious zealots state that one’s sexual orientation is a ‘choice’, to which one must ask why 95 percent of people must be predisposed to ‘choose’ to be attracted to the opposite sex.

Research shows that genes and pre- and post-natal environmental factors influence sexual orientation. The simplest evidence comes from studies of monozygotic twins, which are genetically identical, and dizygotic twins, which are not. When sexual orientation is compared, similarity of sexual orientation is higher in pairs of monozygotic twins than in pairs of dizygotic twins, showing that genes play a role.

But genetics is not the sole determinant, because not all pairs of monozygotic twins have the same orientation.

This is why I believe it to be morally wrong to discriminate against people because of who they are.

At the heart of the issue is the distinction between ‘tolerance’ and ‘respect’. To tolerate the views of others means that one is not obliged to agree with them, still less ban or ‘deplatform’ them, no matter how ignorant one considers their views. And one is most certainly not obliged to respect views one considers obnoxious, such as the Radical Islamic teaching that death should be the punishment for apostasy, adultery, or homosexuality. In a liberal society nobody has the right to require respect for all beliefs and practices. On the contrary, we have a right, and indeed on occasions a duty, to mock them.

This is why I take issue with Grant Robertson. Unlike him, I believe that no one should be forced to publicly endorse a political view they do not hold. Imagine how those condemning the Manly players would feel if they were compelled to wear slogans declaring “Jesus saves!” or “Allah is Great!”

I would go further, for even if I were one of the rainbow community, I like to think that though I would wear a rainbow jersey voluntarily, I would most definitely refuse to do so under duress. Compulsory conformity is the way to totalitarianism.

Historically, homosexuals have been punished and discriminated against for their sexuality, but I think it’s fair to say that apart from rearguard action from conservative religions, the battle is effectively over.

So, perhaps it is time to regard people who are the products of religious brainwashing as victims rather than perpetrators.

Whichever way you look at it, it’s clear that ‘diversity’ doesn’t appear to include diversity of thought.

Martin Hanson is a retired King's College science teacher and author of school textbooks, who now lives in Nelson.