Written By: - Date published: 5:47 pm, September 22nd, 2008 - 80 comments
Categories: Social issues -
Tags: bigotry, civil unions, gay rights, grant robertson, stephen franks, wellington central
National’s candidate 
for Wellington Central, Stephen Franks, is having a wee cry on his blog today over Agenda’s decision to air that embarrassing Youtube clip where he complains about “grumpy Christians and whining gays” and compares civil unions to marrying your dog.
Apparently he’s been “cited out of context” by “the militant gay media” and his Labour opponent Grant Robertson, a man who “makes a feature of being a gay activist” and “mentions it at every opportunity.”
Franks’ only crime, he’d have you believe, is that he tells it like it is. “In a PC world”, he laments, “PC opponents gain weapons from such plain speaking.”
Now Franksie’s been playing this shtick for a while and it’s starting to wear thin. ‘I’m a classical liberal,’ the excuse goes, ‘I just happen to vote against gay rights for highly principled reasons that nobody else understands, and I’m constantly getting misquoted saying bad things about gays because I’m a plain speaker.’
Problem is, you can only run that line for so long before people start to recognise a pattern of bigoted behaviour as the behaviour of a bigot.
See Stephen, Liberals don’t compare civil unions to marrying your dog, even in jest. They don’t describe the gay community as “riddled with pathologies“. And they certainly don’t try to amend the Human Rights Act to make it legal for landlords, employers and taxi drivers to discriminate against homosexuals.
There’s no “militant gay” agenda out to get you Stephen. They’re just responding to your attacks on their community, and your going on like this does make you look rather silly. Is it really so hard to admit that you’re just not that fond of the gays?
[Hat tip: Russell Brown]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Anita,
McDonald’s or Foodtown shouldn’t be able to refuse employment to someone because they are Maori, gay, female or all three.
But should, for argument’s sake, a Muslim school be able to refuse employment to someone who lives a lifestyle incompatible with Islam?
Scribe: Yes, and your initial comment was classic pot-kettle-black. Irrelevant in this context, unless you believe Tane is Grant Robertson, or someone else of similar civic standing. Just distracting from the actual issue at hand.
I don’t know Stephen Franks personally, and as such I can only judge him from his publicly-held positions. So I don’t personally know he is a homophobe, but his statements indicate that in all likelihood he is one. That’s fine – his right to be so; our right to know about it.
I agree that opposing civil unions or gay marriage in the isolated case doesn’t make one a prima facie homophobe. However there are three other issues here:
1. Your appeal that `some homosexuals opposed the CUB, after all’ is fallacious unless you look at the reasons for their opposition. Many, for instance, opposed it because it created a separate category for gay marriage rather than allowing queers access to the same cultural status as straights. That’s quite the opposite of what you imply. If you can find a significant body of queer opinion which is arguing `we don’t want the right to be joined in a relationship similar to marriage because it will harm NZ’s notional family unit’ then I’ll grant you this point. Good luck.
2. Stephen Franks’ grounds for opposing the CUB on the basis of a comparison between homosexuality and bestiality the what’s at issue – not the fact of his opposition to it, the justification. The belief that homosexuality and bestiality are in any way comparable is an explicitly, unambigouosly homophobic position – like the assertion that homosexuality and paedophilia are comparable. You are free to hod these positions if you choose – but be advised that they are homophobic positions, and people have some justification in considering you to be homophobic if you hold them.
3. In the context of Stephen Franks’ attempts to repeal provisions in the BORA which generally preclude discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, I don’t think his statements here should come as a surprise or a shock to anyone. They are entirely consistent. The comparison of sex with (or love for) a dog to sex with (or love for) another human being of the same gender makes his view quite crystal clear: homosexuals are animals. His view that queers shouldn’t have the rights afforded all other humans is also crystal clear: homosexuals are not humans.
So you tell me: does he seem homophobic, or not?
L
“Scribe
I assume you’re referring to the attempt to have girls under 16 notify their parents before they have an abortion. Can you please list other medical procedures 12-year-old girls should be allowed to have without parental knowledge and/or consent.”
Personally I’d have anyone above 12 have final say on what happens to their body. You do realize it’s blatantly obvious that the only reason you want parental consent is to try and prevent more girls from having abortions. At least be honest, you don’t give a fuck about their health, hell your looking to use pregnancy and child birth as a punishment, you practically have no moral ground to stand on.
Its also fairly hypocritical that you claim that a parent should have complete control over a 12-16 year old, hell 16 year old’s can move out of home and disown their parents (another freedom that family fist is highly aggrieved about) yet a 12 to 16 year old should not have complete control over a fetus that is only human but the most tenuous of reasoning.
“Scribe
Heck, they can’t even get vaccinations to help stop illness without consent, yet a process that increases the likelihood of drug/alcohol abuse, depression and suicidal tendencies, not to mention physical complications, shouldn’t need permission?”
Flawed ideological agenda pushing research. Most teenage girls who get pregnant engage in multiple high risk behaviors, and its that that raises the likely hood of depression. The researches need to establish causation, but even if they did it could probably be solved by you bloody bible bashers leaving others the fuck alone and stop trying to guilt trip them into your religion.
Personally I don’t like abortion, I just think its a greater evil for force my beliefs on someone else.
Scribe,
Franks wants it to be legal for McDonalds and Foodtown to refuse employment to someone because they’re gay or have an illegitimate child.
He’s a lovely man.
Want to give me more detail?
Drinks alcohol in non-work related contexts (e.g. a family dinner) no the school shouldn’t be able to discriminate.
Wears tshirts with pictures of the Virgin Mary on it to school while employed as a teacher? The school should be able to set an appropriate dress code (no representational art, no religion symbolism, whatever) and enforce it.
Anita,
Franks wants it to be legal for McDonalds and Foodtown to refuse employment to someone because they’re gay or have an illegitimate child.
I’ve never liked Franks. If this is true (and I doubt it is), that’s just another reason.
What if a teacher at a Muslim school is openly gay? Should the school be able to dismiss him/her?
KITNO,
You’re right, I don’t want girls to have an abortion. But if they’re under 16 (note UNDER 16), at the very least I want them to consult with their parents and be given full information from health professionals on the development of the foetus and the possible flow-on effects from having an abortion.
If a girl has an abortion and suffers from physical or mental problems, which is very likely, at least the parents might have some inkling why that is.
fetus that is only human but the most tenuous of reasoning
Funny how you went from “a fetus that is only human but the most tenuous of reasoning” to someone fully human, without any outside intervention.
Flawed ideological agenda pushing research.
Shame for you that the research, conducted in New Zealand, was led by a pro-choice atheist. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK now require doctors to discuss the possible impacts on mental health with women seeking abortion, so it’s obviously much deeper than the agenda-driven claims you make.
You do realise that the reason why pregnant girls under 16 don’t have to consult their parents about an abortion is to protect them from their parents don’t you?
“Flawed ideological agenda pushing research.
Shame for you that the research, conducted in New Zealand, was led by a pro-choice atheist. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK now require doctors to discuss the possible impacts on mental health with women seeking abortion, so it’s obviously much deeper than the agenda-driven claims you make.”
Girls who get pregnant are more likely to engage in multiple high risk behaviours. These include drugs, binge drinking, promiscuous sex, abusive boyfriends and crime. A large part of the reason people get into those kind of situations and lifestyles is because they engage in very little long term planning and evaluation of previous actions. They live here and now, with very few long term goals. I think than having and abortion weighing on their conscience (the guilt from which is a social construction from you lot) is much less of a factor than abusive boyfriends and sustained heavy drug use.
You’re right, I don’t want girls to have an abortion. But if they’re under 16 (note UNDER 16), at the very least I want them to consult with their parents and be given full information from health professionals on the development of the foetus and the possible flow-on effects from having an abortion
Any response to my criticism that parental notification is just another way to force a teenage girl not to have an abortion?
The only way I could accept parental notification is if it occurs after the abortion, and even then I don’t fully support it.
Why is the development of the foetus relevant for any reason other than to guilt trip a girl out of having an abortion? You might have some more creditability if anti abortion campaigners didn’t have such a long history of misrepresenting the facts on this issue.
And if its for the parents to decide what’s best for their daughter, why shouldn’t the government be able to decide what’s best for you?
This is all regardless of the fact that a girl getting pregnant under the age of 16 is likely to be the result of very bad parenting in the first place.
You not really one for harm minimisation though are you?
Draco,
Yes, and I find it strange — nay, crazy — that young girls can make a massive decision like this without parental input.
As much as some people might like to downplay abortion and its impact, this isn’t the equivalent of getting a filling at the dentist.
2. Stephen Franks’ grounds for opposing the CUB on the basis of a comparison between homosexuality and bestiality the what’s at issue – not the fact of his opposition to it, the justification. The belief that homosexuality and bestiality are in any way comparable is an explicitly, unambigouosly homophobic position – like the assertion that homosexuality and paedophilia are comparable. You are free to hod these positions if you choose – but be advised that they are homophobic positions, and people have some justification in considering you to be homophobic if you hold them.
I’ve always found this one of their most laughably weak talking points, only for bandying about amongst themselves or on fox news. Simple simple reasoning, is it consensual? Yes, then its fine. No, it’s not fine. Animals cannot consent, simple as that, but still they try pull that line, its beyond belief almost.
Scribe – you are a Neanderthal. I recall you were the main pain in the arse on the abortion thread too. Why don’t you f*ck off back to your theist cave and your daddy-god and let the rest of us get on with living as grown adults? F*ckin pathetic…
[Tane: Lay off the personal attacks Sod. I don't want to have to ban you again.]
Robinsod,
Sorry. I thought blogs were places where people discuss ideas. My mistake.
Don’t worry; I’ll pray for you
[lprent: It is, and the 'sod is lucky that Tane got to him first. I think that you'd probably have to pray pretty hard. ]
Scribe – Your first comment on this thread was facetious little remark and I countered it with something deserving. So just relax, we’ll get our guns out and shoot some unitarians… BANG.. BANG.
I’m relaxed, Quoth. I’ll pray for you and the unitarians as well.
“Scribe
September 23, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I’m relaxed, Quoth. I’ll pray for you and the unitarians as well.”
I’ll have some of my gay friend pray for you next time they are having anal sex.
Thanks KITNO. Much appreciated.
KITNO: Well, the logical flaw is present in the very language of the clip – the question (put by Franks) is `if two people love each other, why can’t they be married?’
Two people. Then he goes and uses an example containing one person and one non-person. And wonders why he gets shot down in flames.
Incidentally, I think it’s amazing how some of you lot make people like Scribe (sorry, Scribe, you’re in the gun here as a bigot for defending Franks) seem progressive and compassionate. The dude wants to deny people the same rights as others based on the teachings of an old book, and yet you guys (Sod, QtR and KITNO) make him seem reasonable.
And then you wonder why people give social liberals such a hard time.
L
Thats your perception, not ours.
KITNO: Thank you, Captain Obvious.
L
Sorry, just looks like some of the righties these days think that saying something makes it true.
Scribe, You didn’t really answer this question:
You sort of said that you don’t understand how someone sees a difference between a fetus at different stages of development, but that is nowhere near the question I asked. Which is about policy and what we should do, given we don’t agree with each other.
Repeating that we disagree is pointless, unless you think, like the Taliban, that your revealed truth just, must, be law. Please don’t be offended, I’m asking, not accusing. And bear in mind that pro lifers say some truly terrible things about pro choice people, simply because they disagree.
In answer to your question about Muslim schools, no, I don’t think they should be allowed to sack someone just because they are gay. If the person is teaching the courses as the school wants, in the way they want, then I see no reason to fire them. But I’m open to argument, though not if the school receives one cent of government funding. Do you disagree?
Scribe,
Here is the SOP containing Franks’ attempt to make discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and marital status legal.
Scribe:
Jesus Scribe – did you read what I said?
I said that the law is the way it is to protect the girl from her parents. I’m pretty sure that a girl would go to her parents if she was in a loving and supportive home. If she was pregnant to her father from rape she would probably have second thoughts. Think the father would be overly supportive of the police becoming involved as well or do you think he may be inclined to go further than rape?
Laws like this allows those kids in such abusive situations to get the help that they need.
Pb,
Pro choice folk say that a person should be able to follow their conscience, given that there are these unresolvable, honestly held differences of opinion.
Stepping outside of your personal opinion about the status of a fetus, what’s wrong with that from a policy point of view?
Sorry, didn’t mean to dodge the question. I’ll be honest and say that I struggle to step outside of my personal opinion, though I empathise with couples who find themselves facing an unwanted pregnancy.
From a policy point of view, I think it’s indefensible that women and girls seeking abortion aren’t required to give informed consent. I understand that it would be very difficult (ask Bill English), because of the ideologies of people on both side of the debate, but abortion must be the only major surgical procedure that doesn’t require informed consent.
Hope that answers the question (though not sure it does).
And bear in mind that pro lifers say some truly terrible things about pro choice people, simply because they disagree.
I agree. I find that disappointing. And let’s not forget pro-choice people have some pretty nasty things to say about pro-lifers too.
Scribe,
Actually all women undergoing an abortion are required to give informed consent, for example here is Capital Coast DHB’s process description.
I think the issue you’re referring to is that what English wants to be included in the “informing” part of informed consent is different from what is currently included.
well this thread is a bundle of larfs. why dont you lot just accept the legislation and move on. Freaks like Franks are always going to try and make some mileage about others sexuality but that is to be expected in a conflicted personality. just ignore him!
randal,
Which legislation?
Franks and his more senior National mates have a clear agenda of moving toward a more socially conservative New Zealand.
If she was pregnant to her father from rape she would probably have second thoughts. Think the father would be overly supportive of the police becoming involved as well or do you think he may be inclined to go further than rape?
Is there a less likely way to get pregnant than a girl being raped by her father? I can think of one — circa 2008 years ago.
There will be incredibly rare circumstances when a parent shouldn’t be informed. Health professionals and social workers should have limited discretion to make that decision. Notifying parents should be the default position, unless there is adequate reason. And “Mum will be mad” is not adequate reason.
This isn’t cheating on a test at school. It’s not shoplifting a packet of chewing gum. Abortion is as serious as a heart attack.
Anita,
Women are giving consent, but I wouldn’t call it informed. All medication prescribed comes with a list of side effects; women getting abortions are given full and frank information about the impact of abortion.
When he was Minister of Health, Bill English devised — with representatives from both sides of the fence — a booklet. Ministry officials basically refused to distribute, with the idea eventually being scrapped.
Franks and his more senior National mates have a clear agenda of moving toward a more socially conservative New Zealand.
But if they’re voted in, hasn’t the public given them a mandate to do so?
I’m sceptical that they would have the numbers to bring about any real change in terms of social issues. There are social conservatives in National, but not enough to change things like abortion.
Thanks for your reply scribe.
“And “Mum will be mad’ is not adequate reason.”
How about, “Mum and dad will be real mad, girl might well get a beating, be removed from school and forced to carry the pregnancy against her will”
How rare do you think that situation would be across many different cultural groups?
I don’t know, but I’d say it would be a sizable percentage of the few abortions that are performed under the circumstances you are concerned about.
Scribe: It’s not necessary that you consider it to be informed. What’s necessary is that the clinicians in charge consider it to be informed. It comes back to the central question I asked (and which was never answered) in the original epic-length abortion thread: who is more qualified to oversee the process of abortion than clinicians vetted by and affiliated with of the Royal Australia and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists? In specialised situations like this we (as a society) delegate discretion to recognised experts such as these. If you can satisfy me that there’s anyone better-qualified, I’ll back them. Until then, I’ll be taking their medical expertise over your religious beliefs any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.
L
Scribe: “But if [National]‘re voted in, hasn’t the public given them a mandate to [implement a more conservative social agenda]?”
Yes, on the assumption that they’re reasonably transparent about their intentions. At present there’s tension within the National party on this one.
L
Lew,
My religious beliefs agree with my pro-life stance, but as I’ve said before, one needn’t be religious to be opposed to abortion.
It comes back to the central question I asked (and which was never answered) in the original epic-length abortion thread: who is more qualified to oversee the process of abortion than clinicians vetted by and affiliated with of the Royal Australia and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists?
The RANZCOG usually follows the lead of their British counterparts. I hope they do so on the topic of the mental health impact of abortions, because in the UK they are now requiring that women be warned of the mental health risks associated with abortion.
Pb,
How rare do you think that situation would be across many different cultural groups?
I don’t know, but I’d say it would be a sizable percentage of the few abortions that are performed under the circumstances you are concerned about.
I don’t know either, so won’t hazard a guess. I think parents who would beat their teenage daughter are pretty unlikely to take her out of school and force her to carry on with the pregnancy. Those two responses seem incompatible to me.