Like any group of people sharing particular demographic markers, those of us who have been lumped together in the ever-expanding LGBTQIA+ acronym find ourselves often spoken for by people who have no business speaking for us. 

 The allure of saviourism has certainly proven far too tempting for the Green Party, which is yet to find a minority group they don’t want to patronise. With the notable exception of Jewish people. 

The once environmentally focused party now spends much of its time on the pageantry of superficial social justice activism through which it covers itself in moral smugness without achieving very much at all. 

Unfortunately for us “alphabet people”, the Green Party has asserted a kind of ownership over us and appointed itself as political spokespeople for our “needs”. They call us their “rainbow whanau”. A lovely name for a kindergarten, in my opinion, but somewhat inappropriately juvenile for describing adults who are sexually attracted to those of the same sex. 

Green MPs can always be found front and centre monopolising attention at Pride events. They take up space with an entitlement that is unmatched by other political parties and have been vocal in criticising the rainbow credentials of centre-right MPs. The ownership they assert over the “rainbow community” is rarely challenged despite the protestations of the many people who belong to it and don’t vote Green. 

 In previous years, the Greens’ condescension at Pride has been a source of irritation for my friends and I. However, this year I question how they have the gall to show their faces at all. 

It is easy to forget, in a liberal country like ours, that homosexuality is still illegal in many territories around the world. Just a few days ago, the Houthis in Yemen sentenced 13 homosexual men to death, by stoning or crucifixion, and many more to brutal punishment. Laws against homosexuality and hatred of gays are commonplace in countries under the control of Islamist terror groups such as Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah. Being gay in such territories is incredibly dangerous. 

It has been quite baffling to see the Green bark-at-every-passing-trendy-cause Party defend and advocate for these very same rebel militia groups and terror organisations. Since the beginning of this term of Parliament, the party’s number one priority has been Middle Eastern conflict, which can only be excused given the affluence of its voter base and relative lack of problems to address locally. Greens have cosplayed with keffiyeh scarves, shouted inflammatory Hamas slogans at rallies and redefined the meaning of “genocide”. 

If they had remained in the realm of advocacy for the Palestinian people, this would not compromise their right to attend Pride events. However, the Green Party has actively defended Hamas and the Houthis in the debating chamber at Parliament. Leader Marama Davidson even excused the Houthis’ attacks on civilian and freight ships, saying: The Houthi have stated that their attacks on shipping are in response to Israel's bombardment of Gaza and will only stop when a ceasefire is reached.” 

 When these groups are still putting homosexual people to death, how can the Green Party be such staunch supporters of them? 

 Of course, the Greens may argue for nuance and claim that they can support Hamas and the Houthis without supporting their murderous anti-gay policies. But that would require us to not to play by the very “rules” the Greens enforce. For example, Shaneel Lal, who worked with the Green Party on the Conversion Therapy Bill said: “I am confident I speak for the community when I say I never want to see the people who voted against banning conversion therapy at Pride again.” 

Shaneel Lal does not speak for “the community”. In fact, I know many lesbians, including myself, who disagree with Lal on just about everything. And many of us in “the community” would have voted against that Bill ourselves as it enables the neo-conversion therapy wave that sees young gays and lesbians “transitioning away the gay". 

In a slightly different example, in 2015, then Prime Minister John Key was booed on the stage of Big Gay Out not because he had demonstrated anti-LGBT sentiment, but because of his government’s much-protested Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TTPA). 

The Greens are always frothing to wade into a pile-on when other MPs have views they disagree with. Davidson had no time for former MP Simon O’Connor’s support of the US Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v Wade, which had held that the US Constitution generally protected the right to have an abortion.   

“He needs to apologise for creating distress and exploiting the distress of people whose lives will be damaged, whose wellbeing and mental and physical wellbeing will be damaged because of this abhorrent decision in the US. 

“Poor, poor form, really insensitive, and just not reading the room at the very least ... why celebrate something that is actually going to cause distress and harm for people's lives and wellbeing?" 

As Chloe Swarbrick says let’s “unpack” that. 

How would the Greens react if a government MP expressed support for a fundamentalist Christian group in the United States that was anti-gay? Even if that support was based on matters other than homosexual rights? 

We all know they would be in their boots and all calling for resignations. 

So why do the Greens get a pass for supporting Islamist political militias who literally murder gays? 

As far as I’m concerned, they can put down the rainbow flags and faux-allyship until they stop supporting bloodthirsty organisations who would push me off a building for being in a loving relationship with my partner. Their performative virtue signalling means nothing while they dedicate time in our Parliament to advocating for anti-gay slaughterers. 

But of course, my opinion won’t matter to the Greens because I am just a naughty lesbian who doesn’t vote for them (anymore), disagrees with their rainbow pronouncements, and rolls her eyes at corporate rainbow washing.