Written By: - Date published: 3:16 pm, August 29th, 2008 - 57 comments
Categories: national, youtube -
Tags: grant robertson, national, stephen franks, wellington central
Here’s National’s Wellington Central candidate Stephen Franks giving his view on Civil Unions.
I’m not even really sure what to say about it. It might just be best to let Stephen Franks speak for himself…
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
“It might just be best to let Stephen Franks speak for himself ”
Very wise ..
a_y_b,
If you happen to know, what was this gathering?
It seems like an audience hostile to Franks, yet he said things that were going to be grossly unpopular. If nothing else, Franks has got cajones.
If it was a Labour gathering or a GLBT meeting, he’s a gutsy character. Looking from the other side of the coin, would an outspoken gay rights activist go into a Destiny church and call them all intolerant bigots?
I also think it’s disingenuous to show John Key with the quote superimposed over him. Would you think it OK for National to do the same to Helen Clark for quotes from people way down their party list?
captcha: Govern unfit
With all that diversity talk National made recently note that they didn’t trumpet their gay candidate Chris Findlayson…who would have made a far better candidate in Wellington Central than Franks.
No Scribe, most gay rights activists would choose their battles a bit more sensibly. So while Franks might have cajones (and yes, let’s cheer the bravery it takes to be intolerant!) he doesn’t have common sense.
for the record, it’s spelled cojones but in any case, I don’t think they’re what NZ politics is lacking at present. There’s no shortage of opinionated bigots, either; I’d say that as a group they are over-represented in parliament.
Well, at least he’s equal opportunity intolerant. He dislikes the Christians and the gays.
I’m just guessing – think it may have been the “meet the Wellington Central candidates meeting” hosted at someone’s flat:
http://3news.co.nz/Political/Story/tabid/419/articleID/66365/Default.aspx
Is he not allowed to have a view on civil unions then?
He is allowed to have a view, but only if it’s compatible with that of a_y_b and his/her mates in a Wellington central flat…
Monkey-Boy ‘Is he not allowed to have a view on civil unions then?’
Sure he is, and people are also allowed not to vote for him.
He’s a great ad for the National Party, old fashioned, narrow minded and best of all not scared to say what he thinks, unless that is he was getting ‘too excited’ or ‘mis-spoke’.
Rocket,
He’s #60 on the party list. Maybe we can peruse the Internet for interesting quotes from #60 on Labour’s list when it’s announced (assuming they even bother listing that many)
An excellent guy – he is extremely well regarded and will make an excellent MP when he wins Wellington Central on 18 October 2008. Of course we don’t know the context (but that never matters to you guys – I go to church with a few grumpy Catholics – I am pround to be one myself – and of course we are grumpy we have had to put up with Labour and their corrupt poodle for niin long years. (only a few more weeks to go.
On the other hand – well gays may whine – but i suggest that it is because their dear leader is about to be evicted from office – so when broken down (no doubt right out of context- I think Stephen Franks is right on the money
Of course he can have opinions! We all can. My opinion is that Stephen Franks should be banned from procreating in the interests of not raising intolerant children. And because he’s creepy looking.
Scribe why don’t you do that for all of Labour’s #60 list candidates ever and get back to us. Sounds like a fascinating research project and I’m quite sure you’ll make an excellent job of it.
A victory for straight atheists everywhere! Maybe Franks should insult MORE groups of people and thus grow his constituency??!
just a quick translation for those using Spanish words:
cojones – balls
cajones – draws
Scribe,
Are you aware that Key voted against the Civil Unions Bill?
Why shouldn’t he be associated with National Party anti Civil Union rhetoric?
Anita
From the Sydney Herald ….
“Clark appointed Peters foreign minister in 2005 in return for support of her Labour Party minority government.
The pressure to suspend him comes at a bad time for Clark’s government, which needs the support of New Zealand First for legislation it wants to pass before voters go to the polls.
Peters has been a controversial figure in the government for his outspoken attacks on Asian immigration before becoming foreign minister and for his confrontational style with the media.”
Are you aware the Helen Clark supports Winston Peters ?
Why shouldn’t she be associated with his outspoken attacks on Asian immigration ?
hs it’s time you came up with a new handle. higherstandard is just not appropriate when you’re commenting at the level of burt and scribe.
hs,
huh?
I pointed out that, like Franks, Key voted against the Civil Unions Bill. Key leads the party for which Franks is a candidate and has not criticised Franks attitude toward homosexuality and civil unions.
Any chance of an example which bears some similarities to my point?
But, to be clear, if Clark and a Labour MP voted the same way on a conscience vote – yes I think it is reasonable to associate her with what that MP says unless she has overtly distanced herself from it.
Sorry Anita my point may have been lost on you.
I was suggesting that you were drawing along bow to suggest that Key shares Franks attitudes towards homosexuality and civil unions.
I wouldn’t expect he even knows what Franks attitudes are nor really do we from this video – it would be analagous to taking video of Cullen’s Rich Prick outburst in the house and concluding that he detests anyone with money.
hs,
We know that Key voted against Civil Unions, his attitude seems pretty clear.
I’m not saying we should attribute Franks’ comments to Key. I am saying that Key is associated with those comments.
Fair enough Anita I’ll accept that, I was taking a more strict version of association.
….. like the Prime Minster being associated with WP lying to the public and parliament.
highrestandard – my typing is getting worse
Doh
hs,
It’s a bad day when you can’t type your own name
Atina
hs:
No – as a minority party, NZF supports NZLP rather than the other way around. She does support him in the matters associated with his portfolio.
No – if you look at the details of the coalition agreement from 2005 (I’m short of time so haven’t looked up the link). NZF and Peters have freedom to speak on matters outside of his portfolio area(s) without being constrained by cabinet collective responsibility. That was put in to allow Winston to talk about matters like immigration without having Labour associated with them (or vice versa).
Boy some people (like JK) are desperate to try to associate HC with WP – such a pity that these inconvenient facts get in the way.
Lynn
Perhaps you should read back through my discussion with Anita.
So this would be an example of Franks’ alleged top notch thinking skillz then?
From what he says in the clip, one of his objections to the CUB was that it was somehow analogous to allowing him to marry his dog. Or that if the bill passed then there could be no objection to his doing so. ok.
Perhaps Scribe or Monty or HS could save the conservative side of the debate from epic embarrassment and point out what is missing from Fwanksie’s widdle analysis.
Perhaps a direct question of why he opposes the Civil Union legislation and what are his views on homosexuality ?
Why don’t you ask him at his blog ?
hs,
Oooh – if you’re going to do that you could also ask him why he tried to change the Human Rights Act to explicitly make discrimination against homosexuals legal!
Why don’t you ask him at his blog ?
Because I was asking you HS. Do you know what the great big problem is with his argument?
I don’t really give a shit what Franks would say. He made that argument, either as a pander to fundies or because he thinks it is a good argument. In either case, that tells me all I need to know about Mr Franks. No further information from him is required as far as I’m concerned.
I am interested in how widespread his misunderstandings are, so that’s why I asked some conservatives that hang around here.
Can you help me out, or would you just like me to to tell you what is so obviously retarded about Mr Franks stupid argument? But surely you know why bestiality is not comparable to homosexuality?
I think the whole debate about sexuality is a subject that has no place in politics. Dividing society on “they are not tolerant to my views on sexuality” or “I’m not tolerant to their views on sexuality” on highly emotive issues is the lowest form of political manipulation.
If you really want to root out the true sexual weirdos then remember (in the context of consenting adults) the only true deviancy is abstinence.
burt,
The problem is that parliament passes legislation which controls how we express out sexuality. When politicians are looking to legislate our private lives their attitudes become really significant.
Burt, Did you mean “If you really want to root out the true sexual weirdos then remember (in the context of consenting adults) the only true deviancy is enforced abstinence.”?
ie priests, prisons, children of christians/moslems doing it because it is expected of them rather than a commitment they have have made on their own volition?
Hey monty – I would almost consider betting a grand on Franks not winning in central. I reckon TAB would put at higher odds than Samoa 13+ NZ this wednesday.
And thank god for that.