NZ’s proposed ‘tranny’ laws go back in the closet ? for now

Caption: “All I want is my right to share change rooms with little girls to be recognised by the government”.

Well, it looks like Labour in New Zealand are at least a bit smarter than their counterparts here in Tasmania.

Despite overwhelming public opposition to their proposed amendments to Tasmania?s births, deaths and marriages laws, Labor are pressing ahead. Meanwhile, in New Zealand, the COL may be quietly putting almost identical changes on the back burner. Quote:

Internal Affairs Minister Tracey Martin announced today that the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill will be deferred to deal with problems caused by the select committee process. End of quote.

Just as in Tasmania, the New Zealand bill is an underhanded, undemocratic power grab by tranny activists using the Trojan horse of same-sex marriage to force their delusions on society at large. Quote:

?The Bill began as a simple measure to update the previous legislation and develop new digital and online channels to access births, deaths and marriages information,? says Ms Martin.

?However, significant changes were made to the Bill by the select committee around gender self-identification and this occurred without adequate public consultation. This has created a fundamental legal issue.? End of quote.

That was the big lie of the same-sex marriage debate, of course: ?It?s only about letting gays marry?. It was never about just that, but those people bold enough to point out the slippery slope we were being shoved down were, as usual, shouted down as ?bigots? and ?homophobes?. Now that they?re being proved right, New Zealand?s coalition, at least, is fudging about and tucking the legislation away like an inconvenient penis, until they figure out how to slip it in the backdoor. Quote:

The Minister said that no-one would lose any current rights from the delay of the Bill and she wanted to make it easier for people to formally acknowledge their identified gender.

?I fully support clarifying this process, but we have to make sure that democratic principles are followed. Given the significance of the changes, there has been inadequate public consultation.?

Changes made at the select committee introduced clauses allowing individuals to change the sex on their birth certificate via an administrative process based on self-identification. This is a substantial change from the current Family Court process that requires evidence of medical treatment.

?The self-identification clauses were added at Select Committee, after submissions on the Bill closed, meaning stakeholders may have missed an opportunity to comment,? the Minister said. End of quote.

There?s no ?may have? about it. Just as it was done here in Tasmania, ?stakeholders? ? meaning everybody ? were kept completely in the dark while a few mendacious chicks-with-dicks were handed the keys to the girls? change-rooms. Quote:

?I acknowledge that the current process presents barriers to individuals changing sex information on birth certificates. These include financial barriers associated with Births, Deaths and Marriages fees, and the costs of obtaining medical evidence or legal representation.

?The Family Court process can also be time consuming and present dignity barriers for some applicants. Many individuals find the court process adversarial and intimidating and the medical evidence requirement invasive. End of quote.

Certainly not as invasive as some hulking beefcake in a dress whipping his todger out in front of a bunch of girls in the locker rooms at the local swimming pool. The assumption that changing your sex should be easy ? in Tasmania, the proposed process is to just fill out a simple statutory declaration and pay a fee ? is bizarre. Even legally changing your name is a more onerous and expensive process. Trannies can bleat all they like about ?equal rights?, but the plain fact is that they want special rights: rights that trample all over actual women’s rights.

So, is all this talk of ?deferment? an excuse for doing nothing and hoping it will go away? Or are the Coalition of Losers just going to try and be sneaky? Quote:

The Minister said that while this legal process was undertaken, she would lead work to make practical improvements to the current process?

?I intend to initiate work to mitigate some of these barriers in the short-term, this may involve engaging with stakeholders to test mitigation proposals and how the process can be improved. End of quote.

scoop


The bill shouldn’t be ?deferred?. It should be killed stone dead.

29%
×