The floodgates open…

Isn’t it funny how a single tweet can paint a thousand words?

First of all, as Justice Minister, would it not be right and proper for Andrew Little to refrain from voicing his opinion on matters like this? “Love is love’ was an unnecessary addendum to the announcement of the expunging of a historical conviction. It shows his blatant bias, which is inappropriate for a Justice Minister, regardless of his private beliefs. This is a case of the application of the law. Nothing more.

Secondly, in the?full announcement, he states this: quote.

?Three decades ago, Parliament reformed the law so gay people could live their lives without fear of unjust criminal prosecution. But for all of that time, some men have lived with the stigma of a historical criminal record for being gay before reform,? Andrew Little said.

?By unanimously passing the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Act 2018, Parliament confirmed the criminalisation of gay people was a historical wrong that needed to be fixed.

?I am delighted that the first two applicants have had their records cleared. Those men can now move on with their lives, knowing the state has acknowledged they should never have been convicted, and now they legally never were. end quote.

They have lived for the last 3 decades without any fear of criminal prosecution. While there is nothing wrong with expunging their past criminal convictions, let’s not pretend they have been living in terror until today.

And as a matter of interest, Andrew, how does your little ‘Love is love’ mantra apply in the Islamic world? You know, where instead of an apology from the government, they get thrown off buildings? “Love is love’ there too, you know.

The next problem with this is obvious. Now that all criminal convictions for homosexuality have been quashed, there will be a raft of compensation claims. People will dredge back over up to 50 years to find evidence of how they were hard done by as a result of their conviction. And there will have been injustices. There are injustices within the legal system all the time. You only have to look at the story of the brilliant Alan Turing to know that life for a homosexual used to be very tough indeed. But that is the way things were back then.

There will be cases of homosexuals who were put through electric shock gay conversion therapy. There will be cases of people who lost their jobs because they were gay. There will be a myriad of reasons why homosexuals need compensation – even though they have been able to live a completely normal life for more than 30 years.

And we, the taxpayer, will be picking up the tab. Once again.

The problem with rewriting history is that it is a Pandora’s Box. Yes, homosexuality used to be a crime, and now it is a crime no longer. Slavery used to be acceptable and now it is illegal. In medieval times, women were not allowed to own property. There is a myriad of examples of things that happened in history that we do not see as acceptable today. Should we compensate the descendants of slaves for their treatment?

We should not be compensating anyone for convictions that were applied under existing laws at the time. Homosexuality was against the law back then. We cannot change that, and if we go down the road of offering compensation for what were legal convictions, the possibilities are endless. This is a Pandora’s Box that should remain firmly shut.

But watch this space. The floodgates have been opened and this government will probably embrace it with as much taxpayer’s money as they possibly can.

I do not believe that we should ever try to rewrite history. Our history is what we got us to where we are today, in a tolerant and open-minded society. Let us not try to rewrite it. Let us just be proud of how far we have come.