54. Like the circumstances that led them into State and faith-based care, some of the abuse and neglect that Takatāpui, Rainbow and MVPFAFF+ survivors experienced during the Inquiry period was underpinned by homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and other forms of discrimination against people with diverse sexualities or gender identities.

55. Takatāpui, Rainbow and MVPFAFF+ survivors experienced the full spectrum of types of abuse and neglect reported to the Inquiry. This chapter describes how survivors were subjected to targeted abuse focused on their Takatāpui, Rainbow and MVPFAFF+ identities. It also explains that some children and young people in care, primarily boys and men, were targeted for abuse due to being perceived as homosexual by others.

56. Takatāpui, Rainbow and MVPFAFF+ survivors experienced abuse and neglect in all the State and faith-based care settings the Inquiry investigated. This chapter describes the unique experiences of abuse associated with conversion practices in psychiatric care and faith-based care settings.

Types of abuse and neglect experienced by Takatāpui, Rainbow and MVPFAFF+ survivors in care

57. Part 4 of the Inquiry’s final report, Whanaketia – Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light, explains all the types of abuse and neglect reported to the Inquiry, including:

• entry into care, which caused trauma
• psychological and emotional abuse and neglect
• physical abuse and neglect
• sexual abuse
• racial abuse and cultural neglect
• spiritual and religious abuse and neglect
• medical abuse and neglect
• solitary confinement
• financial abuse and forced labour
• educational neglect.

58. Set out below are the specific ways that survivors experienced targeted psychological, physical and sexual abuse focused on their Takatāpui, Rainbow and MVPFAFF+ identities in State and faith-based care.

Targeted psychological, physical and sexual abuse focused on Takatāpui, Rainbow and MVPFAFF+ identities

59. Takatāpui, Rainbow and MVPFAFF+ survivors told the Inquiry that they were targeted due to their sexual orientation or gender identity and experienced identity-specific abuse in State and faith-based care.

60. Intersex survivor Sharyn Shepherd, who had started menstruating by the time she was admitted to Kohitere Boys’ Training Centre in Taitoko Levin in the 1970s, told the Inquiry that because she was “obviously feminine”, she became a target and was sexually assaulted by peers[36] several times before staff recognised what was happening:

“They would rape me. I think part of it was to explore me because I looked different. I had something between my legs but it wasn’t like theirs ... [Staff] eventually put me in my own room … they could see I was a victim.”[37]

61. A survivor from Hokio Beach School near Taitoko Levin described another resident who would dress as a girl and was a “favourite” for the other boys.[38] Survivor Phillip Laws reported sexual abuse by three other boys at Hokio Beach School, who were subsequently placed in secure.[39] In his case file, the social worker wrote he “had advertised his previous homosexual experience” and that they would monitor his behaviour moving forward.[40] This implied that he was culpable in his own abuse.

62. The Inquiry heard evidence of intolerance to variations in expressions of gender identity, especially by boys and young men. In May 1985, a social worker noted that a boy in foster care “is playing with girls at school and is taking make-up to school in his school-bag. It is hoped that this more male activity [playing soccer] may bring out the better side of [the boy]”.[41] In February 1986, the same social worker wrote that:

“… there was some concern [expressed by the school principal] that his feminine tendencies … were seen at school. They were feeling that perhaps [the boy] should be placed in a foster home away from his sisters”.[42]

63. Diverse gender expression was also (sometimes wrongly) assumed to be related to sexuality. In 1969, the principal of Miramar Girls’ Home in Te Whanganui-ā-Tara Wellington recorded his concerns about the “Effect of Feminine Influence on boys” who were temporarily placed in the residence:

“With the slightly older boys there is a strong tendency for them to develop marked feminine attitudes and habits … [four boys aged between 8 and 11 years old] left the Girls Home with probably more problems than when they came. It got to the stage where they wanted to spend their spare time cooking, sewing, and playing with dolls etc. This same effect is noticeable with the younger boys where perhaps it is not quite so harmful, but I wonder about the influence this could have on later homosexual tendencies”.[43]

64. Gloriavale Christian Community taught against any diversity of sexuality or gender identity that was not cisgender heterosexuality. Survivors experienced or witnessed attempts to change sexual identity, which involved demonising such identities. A survivor from Gloriavale told the Inquiry her bisexuality was seen by the community as “an evil thing, a sin”.[44] Her attraction to other girls was punished by “a spanking with a leather belt”.[45]

Abuse due to being perceived as homosexual or effeminate

65. Strict gender roles were rigorously enforced in care settings, which reflected societal attitudes and beliefs. Survivors who were perceived or labelled as homosexual (whether they were homosexual or not) or did not adhere to socially accepted “masculine” or “feminine” behaviour were targeted.[46]

66. The Inquiry heard that this risk was especially acute in single sex settings such as boys’ social welfare residences and boys’ schools, which included hierarchical peer-on-peer abuse, macho cultures and pervasive violence.

67. Boys and young men who were considered gay or whose behaviour was associated with femininity were subjected to physical and verbal abuse by their peers.[47] One survivor, who was placed in Ōwairaka Boys’ Home in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland when he was 12 years old, told the Inquiry that “[if you] had slight indications of being gay, you were in deep trouble”.[48]

68. Survivor Rawiri (David) Geddes, who was in Ōwairaka Boys’ Home during the 1970s, witnessed the abuse of another boy based on his perceived sexuality:

“The kingpin had told everybody this boy was a homosexual and all I remember is the young boy being put on to the ground, held down, and the boys taking the rake and raking it straight down his back.”[49]

69. At Hokio Beach School near Taitoko Levin and Kohitere Boys’ Training Centre in Taitoko Levin, weaker and smaller boys, and those perceived as effeminate were often the targets for abuse.[50] A Ministry of Social Development Report described the culture of Kohitere Boys’ Training Centre as macho, “competitive, tough and anti gay” with punitive and violent staff.[51] When boys at Kohitere Boys’ Training Centre did try to disclose abuse, they were told to toughen up and not be a sissy.[52] Māori survivor Hone Tipene (Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Hine, Te Rarawa) told the Inquiry that he was bullied and abused by other boys, who called him homophobic slurs.[53]

70. The Inquiry also heard from survivors about homophobia in faith-based residences and orphanages. This manifested in a range of ways, including children being scolded for touching other children of the same gender in friendship.[54] Survivor Ann Thompson was placed in two Catholic orphanages, first at St Joseph’s Girls’ Orphanage run by the Sisters of Mercy in Te Awa Kairangi ki Uta Upper Hutt and at Nazareth House in Ōtautahi Christchurch. While at Nazareth House, she told the Inquiry she would get ‘thrashed’ if she was “seen talking to or holding hands with another girl. They said it was rude and dirty.”[55] Several survivors were punished for sleeping in the same bed as their siblings, as this was perceived as homosexual behaviour rather than children being comforted by the presence of a family member.[56]

71. On their first night at St Joseph’s Girls’ Orphanage, English and Māori survivor Rexene Landy (Tahawai), who was 4 years old at the time, slept in a bed with her sister because she was scared. In the morning, when a nun found them, Rexene said they “just got dragged out as ‘filthy lesbians’ and bash, bash, bash”.[57]

Conversion practices were used to ‘cure’ or ‘fix’ Takatāpui, Rainbow and MVPFAFF+ survivors

72. Takatāpui, Rainbow and MVPFAFF+ survivors told the Inquiry about their experiences of conversion practices in State psychiatric care and faith-based care settings.

73. The Inquiry uses the term ‘conversion practices’ to describe a range of interventions based on the shared belief that a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity and expression can and should be changed. The term ‘conversion therapy’ is not appropriate because these practices are not therapeutic.

74. The type of conversion practices survivors were subjected to varied between psychiatric settings and faith-based settings, and were often accompanied by other forms of abuse, particularly psychological and emotional abuse.

Conversion practices in psychiatric care settings

75. During the first half of the Inquiry period, homosexuality was pathologised and classified as a mental illness that many medical professionals believed could and should be treated.[58] This resulted in some Takatāpui, Rainbow and MVPFAFF+ survivors being subjected to medical abuse in the form of conversion practices.

76. Survivors explained that, once they disclosed their sexuality to staff members or medical professionals in psychiatric settings, attempts were sometimes made by these institutions to convert them to heterosexuality. The Inquiry found that in psychiatric settings, the most common conversion practice experienced by survivors was being subjected to aversion techniques in the form of electric shocks. Survivors talked about the traumatising experience of receiving ‘treatments’ to ‘fix’ or ‘cure’ them, sometimes without their informed consent.[59]

77. New Zealand Māori survivor Joshy Fitzgerald (Te Arawa), who was at Tokanui Psychiatric Hospital, located south of Te Awamutu, as teenager, told the Inquiry that staff tried to “shock the gayness” out of him: “And then while I was there, I … had three lots of electric shock treatment and I was about 15”.[60] Joshy said no one talked to him about being diagnosed with anything, but that once he mentioned he was gay “everything changed”:

“That’s when they did the electric shock treatment. I wasn’t diagnosed with anything that I can remember … I received the electric shocks because I was gay.

I remember when I was walking to get the first shock done and asked, ‘Where are you taking me’? The male staff member said, ‘We’ve got to get this gay out of you’. I said, ‘Well, it’s not something that I choose to be’. There was this talk with me, but it was really short and that’s when I knew I was having it for being gay.

I just had the three sessions of electric shock treatment and then nothing was ever said. I had no choice in whether to receive the electric shocks … I don’t remember a lot after the ECTs. It’s like it wiped my memory. The three or four months before the ECT, I don’t have any memory.”[61]

78. NZ European survivor Peter Saffill, who spent time at Tokanui Psychiatric Hospital, shared the story of his friend whom he described affectionately as a “queen”, who was subjected to multiple instances of electric shocks. Peter described getting hold of his friend’s medical files and reading the following:

“And in the file, it said … question, ‘Are you still a homosexual? Are you a homosexual’? ‘Yes’. ‘Shock treatment’. Question, ‘Are you a homosexual’? ‘Yes’. ‘Shock treatment’. This went on for quite a while. So, ‘Are you a homosexual’? and [my friend] said, ‘I don’t know’. And I cried and I cried, and I cried. [My friend] didn’t say, ‘No’, he said, ‘I don’t know’, and that was the first sign of him not being able to hold out anymore.”[62] 

79. Peter is also gay, but he did not receive any ECT. He did see the debilitating impact it had on his friend through the attempt to erase part of his identity: “And I sat there and watched my friend become a vegetable, couldn’t talk to me, couldn’t play, couldn’t do anything.”[63] 

80. Survivor Mr Invictus[64] described the experiences of an acquaintance who was taken to Carrington Psychiatric Hospital in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland and later took his own life. Mr Invictus said that staff:

“…put him in a room, probably with a couple of attendants, and they showed him pornographic films between males or something or other. When [he] would get some pleasure out of looking at [the film], [the staff would] give [him] some kind of shock treatment.”[65]

81. Other types of medical equipment, as well as drugs that produced nausea and inhibited sleep, were used as part of conversion practices. For example, an appendix to the 1962 annual report of Kingseat Hospital in Karaka states that a unit was organised at the hospital to conduct behaviour therapy, where three homosexuals had been treated.[66] A room was “painted black with all light sources blocked” and “when the patient became anxious a tape was played decrying the activities for which they sought treatment”.[67] The second phase of the ‘treatment’ involved “prolonged wakefulness” through the administration of methedrine – another term for methamphetamine – and apomorphine, delivered every four hours.[68]

“With the appearance of guilt and depression the tape and the attitudes of the Nurses and Medical Staff changed from a critical derogatory one to a congratulatory and optimistic approach. At this time the patients felt that they were able to handle their problem.”[69]

82. The annual report noted that one of these patients was subjected to slightly different techniques:

“The last homosexual treated was under treatment for only 12 hours. Here, the aversion was not produced by electrical stimulation or nausea as had been done in the other cases, but by a feeling of depression and hopelessness produced by personal criticisms while under the influence of Lysergic Acid. Various masculine members of the staff adopted a critical, disparaging role, while some feminine volunteers from the staff adopted an optimistic encouraging role. With the distortion of the patient’s time sense, he felt the treatment had extended over a period of perhaps a week.”[70]

83. The 1962 annual report showed that aversion techniques at Kingseat Hospital in Karaka were used with both homosexual patients and perpetrators of sexual abuse against children, without making a distinction between these groups.[71] This highlights the harmful societal attitudes at that time that associated homosexuality and paedophilia.[72]

Conversion practices in faith-based care settings

84. Within some faith-based care settings, Takatāpui, Rainbow and MVPFAFF+ survivors experienced conversion practices that aimed to change their sexual orientation. Conversion practices within faith-based care focused on the psychology of those in care through methods such as counselling and involved reinforcing the moral authority of religious leaders and the church. Survivor Craig Watson was subjected to conversion practice at 12 years old in a Baptist church and was taught that “homosexuality was not just wrong, but an abomination … you are no longer human, but a piece of filth below humanity and you would be better off being dead than being gay”.[73]

85. Survivor Mr UB, who is Māori (Ngāi Tahu) and Tongan fakaleitī, survived two instances of conversion therapy, one that was initiated by the church and one that was initiated by his school.[74] Both of these instances happened within Pālangi faith environments.[75]

86. The report “As a kid, I always knew who I was”: Voice of Takatāpui, Rainbow and MVPFAFF+ survivors, An independent research report to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions has more detail on conversion practices.

Footnotes