Stephen Franks & ACT support homophobia?

I was stunned to see in this media release from Rainbow Labour, news of an attempt by Stephen Franks to weaken human rights protections, in relation to the Relationships (Statutory References) legislation passed by Parliament last night.

Franks apparently proposed repealing sections of the Human Rights Act that makes sexuality a prohibited ground of discrimination in the areas covered by the Act.

Franks' amendment was to repeal section 21(1)(m) of the Human Rights Act, which makes it illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

"Rodney Hide voted for the Civil Union Bill, and declared he was a supporter of the right for gay people to be recognised by the law. This is what one would expect of a party which calls itself the 'liberal' party," said Rainbow Labour Co-Chair, Michael Wallmannsberger.

In contrast, Stephen Franks has shown that he stands for the right of employers to fire employees because they are gay, for landlords' right to evict gay and lesbian tenants and for drivers to refuse to allow two men holding hands to get on a bus or into a taxi.

"All New Zealanders deserve a fair go", said Michael Wallmannsberger.

"It's not fair to allow people to discriminate against someone in areas of public life on the grounds of an irrelevant prejudice."

"Despite being a lawyer, Stephen Franks clearly doesn't understand the Human Rights Act. He paints himself as the champion of the caterer and taxi driver who have to provide services to gay people. But he conveniently ignores the gay taxi driver who has to take the fare of someone like Stephen Franks, despite his views", said Mr Wallmannsberger.

"It is disappointing that ACT has now joined National, NZ First, United Future and The Maori Party in the club of parties whose politicians are prepared to attack lesbian and gay people for political gain", said Mr Wallmannsberger.

Is this more evidence of ACT's "liberalism" perchance?

This should be unbelievable conduct. Franks is nuts.

 

Comments

[Mike Collins]

You and Rainbow Labour have lost the plot Jordan.

You can not label someone homophobic because they stand up for their version of free speech. Franks is not scared of gay people nor would I imagine he has anything against them. What he is concerned about is the stifling of opinion of those that do.

You (and I) might not like the fact that people are intolerant of others but that doesn't mean the state should legislate to stamp out intolerance. If people want to be bigots let society judge them for that. If people don't want to hire because someone is gay don't force them to. Go out and picket their store and make sure everyone knows they aren't hiring on that basis.

This is a freedom of speech issue as Stephen sees it. It is entirely consistent with Classical Liberalism although it might not be the sort of bleeding heart lefty liberalism that you are so used to.

[Jordan]

No, it is not a freedom of speech issue Mike. That is the myth and the mistake.

The Human Rights Act applies in carefully defined situations; it does not apply to private relationships and so on. Do you and does Stephen support removing race or gender from the human rights legislation too?

If you do, fine - mad but consistent.

If not, then homophobia is the only comment that applies.

[Mike Collins]

I can not speak for Stephen but I can assure you that I don't think the state should be forcing anyone into any type of behaviour, no matter how abhorrent it is.

If someone didn't want to hire someone because they were a woman or because they were black the state should not force them to. I wouldn't agree with that choice and I would be one of the first people to picket and raise awareness of the decision among the community.

We run a dangerous risk by defining what is acceptable behaviour in this regard into legislation. By defining something you are defining what it isn't. There is a lot more behaviour that is not covered by the HRA but by virtue of not being covered is seen as less important. The best way to moderate this sort of intolerance is community pressure. People have to live in a society. The HRA in a way absolves people of their responsibility to be vigilant against such behaviour.

Back to your core issue Jordan. You know what homophobic actually means so it is intellectually lazy of you to label Stephen Franks and ACT that way. You should know better than that.

[Mike Collins]

Sorry that should read "The state should not be forcing anyone to act in a way they normally wouldn't even if that behaviour is abhorrent"

[Tony]

Franks is an odd man. Full of promises, I'll vote for this, I'll vote for that, only to renege based on the strangest of reasons. I believe ACTs fundamental problem is that they are split between the classical liberal, and the morally conservative (i.e Newman). If they were a liberal party like they claim, I think they'd be much more successful than they are. Forget the moralising crap. The fact that only 5 of their 9 MPs supported Civil Unions is a case in point. I quite like Rodney, but I think because of the above, they are going to disappear into oblivion.

[Craig Ranapia]

Jordan -

Ever advertised for a gay flatmate? I have, so I guess that makes me guilty of "heterophobia" as opposed to being someone who would like to choose - and be upfront about my choice - about who I share my home with.

[Antarctic Lemur]

Yes Jordan... does Rainbow Labour receive money from the Government? I'm sure they discriminate based on sexuality - clear violation of the HRA.

[Antarctic Lemur]

Unless you retract your title, it looks like that jordanscandals.blogspot.com blog i mentioned is edging closer to reality...

[Craig Ranapia]

BTW, Jordon, I can't find the Rainbow Labour press release condemning Winston Peters' genuinely "homophobic" smear of Jim Peron as a child pornographer & paedophile apologist under the cloak of Parliamentary privilege.

And I realise I'm not only heterophobic, I must also be suffering from 'internalised homophobia' (along with David Young and Marilyn Waring) because I oppose civil unions in favour of genuine marriage equality for gay and lesbian New Zealanders.

[Tony]

Don't know if I'd call Franks homophobic: misguided perhaps, lacking logic, intellectualy confused, intellectually complicated, but not neccessarily homophobic (maybe he'd prefer that label, because the altnenatives aren't great!)

Homophobia is often misunderstood. Eugene Moore is very good at explaining it in a way that people can understand - and it doesn't mean being afraid of gay people!

Craig - just because someone doesn't comment on one bad thing, doesn't mean they shouldn't comment on another bad thing.

[Mike Collins]

Quite right Tony. But by not commenting on one thing and commenting on another it suggests an agenda is at play.

Come on Jordan change your intellectually dishonest title of this blog.

[Antarctic Lemur]

Your title is pretty shocking. Aren't you running a political campaign against this man?

[Craig Ranapia]

Tony -

In my lexicon, 'homophobia' is a psychoanalytical term that has a limited, but useful, meaning and it's not 'any point of view that Rainbow Labour happens to disagree with.' Ironically, the moralistic right is equally good (bad?) at flinging around the pseudo-medical jargon when they don't have much of an argument either.

[Craig Ranapia]

AL -

To be fair to Jordan, he's been perfectly upfront elsewhere about his partisan affiliations and biases (and I'm not using the term in its pejorative sense) including the fact he's Marian Hobbs' campaign chair. Surely, his astoundingly well-informed, politically savvy readers don't need to be reminded of them every other post. :)

[Antarctic Lemur]

Marian Hobb's campaign chair! Heavens! Fortunately he'd never let his obvious political bias in this matter impact his otherwise careful judgement :-)

[Gooner]

Jordan, perhaps you could place in context Stephen's attempt at repealing the section, in relation to the bill? I haven't looked at either new law in any detail.

Knowing Stephen, he would not have suggested it without careful thought and I'm sure he would have considered the impact and purpose of the new law(s) when suggesting the change. I am absolutely certain your 'homophobic' slant is bunkum.

[dim]

If Franks is innocently pushing for a change in legislation purely out of his liberal ideology - and not for the purposes of cornering the anti-gay vote - then this seems like a curious crusade to embark on. There's a million other issues out there in which the government legislates private behaviour (the criminalisation of certain drugs springs readily to mind) that seem far more pressing than discrimination on the basis of sexuality. I'd love to hear why he chose this specific issue to take a stand on.

[Gooner]

Exactly my point dim. Stephen doesn't shoot from the hip. He is considered and thoughtful. I want to know his reasoning and I might try to find out so that I can change the Rainbow Warriors to Rainbow Woofters.

[dave]

Jordan, I was stunned to see your posting. The title of this blog posting is appalling. Describing Franks as homphobic is misguided. Saying Act supports homophobia is one of the most stupid thing you have ever said on your blog.

You are entitled to free speech just as much as Franks is but expect to be criticised if you do silly headings like that.

Labelling someone homophobic because of a stand based on the relationships bill is akin to the nutty "ugly faces of homophobia" Express cover was - but I guess you were probably quite happy with it, just as you - as I was - appalled at the Herald's "a world without gays" heading.

You of all people realise what homophobia is, so why misuse the word - and then do it again. Not even Rainbow Labour used the word "homophobia" in its media release.

You imply that just because Stephen Franks was alleged - yes alleged, from your perspective - to have said something you didn’t approve of, therefore all the other ACT MP's share the same views by association - which of course is bullshit.

And that is why the title of this blog post is just daft

[Tony]

Call a spade a spade and people want it called a shovel. Go figure! If people act in homophobic ways then they should expect to be called homophobic. It seems to me that in Jordan's opinion Franks actions in opposing the Civil Union Bill and Relationships Bill are homophobic, and that others in the Act caucus, mainly Newman - are equally so. Therefore the title makes perfect sense.

It constantly surprises me that no-one points out that the so-called 'defenders of freedom and free speech', otherwise known as Act and Act supporters, are constantly encouraging people to 'change your title' 'you can't watch that movie – (Franks to Hobbs on 911)' 'we shouldn't fund that type of art' (Coddington), ,telling individual childcare centres, run by autonomously by boards elected from the parents of attending children that they shouldn’t have the freedom to choose whether or not their kids use playdough (Newman).

I think if the Act party were true to their values and principles, instead of being so moralistic and popularist, they would be a much more successful party.

[Craig Y]

As with his earlier outburst against a
hypothetical hate speech ban, during the
final stages of the Civil Union Act debate, his other outburst renders Stephen Franks an incontrovertible neo-conservative. He shouldn't be in an allegedly classical liberal party, and his outbursts are to blame for alienating centre-right social liberals from that party. Unfortunately, Prebble's tolerance of populism flakery led to excessive leniency on the likes of Franks, and he needs to get the message that pursuing his social conservative enthusiasms is to the cost of his party's very survival.

If any of Jordan's respondents are ACT members, then consider that Rodney Hide, Heather Roy, Deborah Coddington and Ken Shirley are both good parliamentary performers and supportive of individual freedom issues. As for Franks and Newman, they should be told to stop distracting the electorate with side-issues and concentrate on fiscal responsibility and
government accountability, which is what the centre-right is supposed to be there for.

[looke]

I don't think so Craig. Stephen Franks is a very grounding force in ACT.

[Jordan]

You people make me laugh sometimes.

I did not call Stephen Franks homophobic. I know people who have worked with him closely in Parliament, and there is no indication of homophobia in a personal sense.

I said that his attempts to remove people from the Human Rights Act on grounds of sexual orientation amounted to supporting homophobia and I stand by that, because that is precisely what they would achieve.

If he was moving amendments to remove sex as a grounds for discrimination, I would accuse him of supporting sexism - and I would be right, as I am in this case.

Face it guys. Some of the things your side of politics does are pretty bloody nasty and as Tony says, deserve to be called as such.

I have no fear in doing so.

[Gooner]

What absolute bollocks. You are blinded by your faith.

[Jordan]

So do you think that the Human Rights Act should be abolished, Nick?

If so why?

If not, do you support removing sexuality as a prohibited ground of discrimination?

If so, explain why that isn't homophobia.

[Gooner]

The HRA is toothless in its current form as is the Bill of Rights Act. Do I favour abolishing it? I haven't given that any consideration. I would certainly like it amended.

As for supporting sexuality as a prohibited ground of discrimination, a law is only as good as its enforcement procedures. You can't police discrimination and its current enforcement procedures, including the HRC 'appointees', are a joke.

It is a huge leap in logic to say that by supporting its repealing, one is scared/paraniod of homosexuals (homophobia). I can't follow that one Jordan.

[Jordan]

You're probably taking too literal a view of what homophobia means. Think about it a little more broadly. Why pick on this group in particular? What motivates the focus on gay and lesbian New Zealanders as people who should be removed from human rights protections as opposed to women, or Maori, etc?

One can only assume that such people are chosen because there is a political benefit perceived in doing so. No other rationale makes sense.

[PaulL]

I think Frank's point is that we shouldn't be attempting to regulate what people think, and shouldn't override freedom of association. He sees the Human Rights Act as doing this.

I see a parallel in the sexism space. We don't force Maori to give women equal rights on the marae. Why not? Seems to me a very similar area. We also force a range of people (nurses and the like) to undergo cultural sensitivity training, and thereby also force them to indulge this discrimination. So the argument that this is private business doesn't really apply.

I think that what Franks is saying is that there is inconsistency, and that he isn't really willing to extend the list of things that this act covers because it would become ridiculous. Therefore, he thinks it should be repealed.

That is a thought-through position, and while it might not be particularly politically expedient, nor one I necessarily agree with (not that I have another solution) it is not tantamount to homophobia.

(ps. cheap shots at Benson-Pope complained about - what would this post rate as? You can't have it both ways.)

[Mike Collins]

I've already said on this post that the state shouldn't be trying to regulate any antisocial behaviour be it on the grounds of gender, sexual orientation, age or ethnicity.

This is not because I endorse such behaviour, I hate it. It's just I don't think the HRA is the best way to stop it from happening.

The title of the post suggests you think Stephen endorses this behaviour, although on that you may disagree. You may think that Stephens actions amount to a support of homophobia but you know that he does not speak for the entire ACT caucus so why label the entire ACT team as supporting homophobia?

Tony - your idea of free speech is, well, limited. Where do you come up with the idea that state funding of bollocks art is free speech? If you had observed the arguments closely you would have found that no one objected to this woman making the art. They objected to it being paid for by the taxpayer.

Free speech in this context is a different issue. It is about the state not regulating what people can and cannot do (as long as they respect others rights to life liberty and happiness). The HRA restricts these rights. I believe society is more than capable of dealing with the behaviour we all find disturbing.

[Jordan]

But - does this not come back to the point RL was making, which is that he seems to have misunderstood how the HRA works?

The act only applies in a range of public settings. It doesn't apply to a range of private settings - to churches etc.

If the HRA applied always and everywhere, even I would have a problem with it. But it doesn't. That is why I have such trouble with his attempts to amend sexuality out of it. Parliament more than a decade ago decided that in the given areas discrimination should not be allowed, and that is mainstream international legal practice nowadays. Regressing on it is just bizarre.

[James]

The HRA is a politicaly correct creation designed to reign in Liberty and free thought under the guise of protecting "Rights". What it actually does is endower "Privileges" on certain people at a cost to others. Yes Jordan ,I for one would scrap the HRA by lunchtime and replace it with ....nothing!People already have all the rights protections they need,they are "The rights to "Life,Liberty",Property,and to pursue happiness as they see fit...with the rider that they respect and observe these rights in regard to every other person.These are our "Natural Rights",Rights we have becaue we are born human and so have a certain nature we must work within if we are to live and prosper.Govts only reason for being is to protect these Natural Rights and not to play favorites.Sadly Govts have pushed their way into other areas,Health,Education etc where they should not be and so become Rights violaters because they have to start favoring one group by penilising others,Genuine Rights go out the door and we end up in the dog eat dog Socialist mess we have today...The Right to Liberty IS the Right to discriminate! We all do it and its our nature to do so.We pick and choose with who we wish to associate and who we do not.When the State starts forcing people to deal with others that they have no wish to then we have tryanny and are justifyed in seeking to remove the State from that area of our lives.In a true liberal society every person would be free to discriminate against anyone else for WHATEVER reason they have...but not to step beyond the bounds of their own person or property and FORCE others to to submitt to their wishes.Everyone else in society can just bypass them and carry on doing their own thing...simple!

[Jordan]

The flaw is in your comment that "we pick and choose with who (sic) we wish to associate."

If that were true then indeed there would be no need for any human rights framework. You seem to forget, James, that in many situations the comment is simply redundant. We may choose our friends and acquaintances, but we do not choose our tax man, the bus driver and so on. Think about it...

[Antarctic Lemur]

Gay groups which receive public funding, or are involved in one of the sectors specified by the HRA, are obviously breaching it.

Of course the HRA is so fluffily worded who knows which areas of society are regulated and which are not?

[Jordan]

Are straight groups breaching it too then?

[Antarctic Lemur]

Thats the point - the HRA is so wide with its definitions that its nearing pointless.

[James]

The flaw in your comment Jordan is that we don't get to pick our tax man because the Govt forces him on us! We do get to pick whether we have a particular bus driver or not because in the private sector which works (if allowed by Nanny) by consensual agreement we can continue to use a service or not depending on our on wants and requirements.If I don't like the guy who drives the bus I'm catching I don't have to get on his bus.I hope I don't have to point out the obvious fact that you may have to experience a negative encounter to shape your opinion thereafter.Try telling the taxman you will not be dealing with him again and see what happes.Think about that!

[Jordan]

Yes but that is the point, isn't it? We don't live in a fantasy world. We live in the world as it is. Nobody in the history of the world has ever been able to choose their taxman and nobody ever will. Ditto their police officer, their member of parliament (individually), their judge, their local City Council staff, their rubbish collector and so on, someone new at their work place. You seem to be ignoring the existence of power relationships and of collective institutions. Is that an ideological point that you are making deliberately, despite reality, or is it something else?

[Antarctic Lemur]

I see. So you think the Government has a right to interfere in any area of life which you determine has a 'power' relationship. Sounds like a post-modern take on Marxism to me.

What supernatural powers do you think the Government possesses which enables it to regulate 'power relationships'? Various governments have committed the worst atrocities known to mankind under the guise of correcting what their supporters saw as some sort of power imbalance.

[PaulL]

Jordan, any comment on Winston as reported here: http://www.hbtoday.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3627916&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=

Or do we just write him off as being beyond redemption, and focus on Franks and ACT because they actually care what people think about them?

[Millsy]

So, James, you wouldnt care if blacks are forced to piss in different toilets than whites.

Whites only beaches..
Whites only movie theatres..
Whites only schools..

Hey lets all have a hoe down - South Caroline ca. 1953 anyone?

[Brian S]

Millsy - Of course James would care. He would care especially if it was the case that such discrimination was sanctioned and enforced by government for it is not the government's business to do this. Similarly, it is not the government's business to tell us who we shouldn't be disciminating against. It might seem like you are protecting freedoms by enacting anti-discrimination laws, but, paradoxically, you can end up eroding it.

[Millsy]

So, Brian, and James, I take it that if a company decides to force black workers to piss in seperate toilets to white workers, you would fight to the death to defend that companies so called 'right' to do that.?

[Brian S]

Millsy - I would refuse to buy that company's products and do everything in my power to make sure that companies policies were exposed. I have the freedom to take offence at another actions, even if those actions are taken freely. The government's responsibility is to protect our basic freedoms of life, liberty, and property. If the black workers were enslaved to the company and not free to leave, then that is an issue for the government. And the correct response from the government is not to enact anti-discrimination laws but to jail the company directors.

[Brian S]

Millsy - In addition to my previous answer, if the company's toilet policies violated a freely entered-into contract between the employee and employer, then the employee would have legal recourse. Similarly, if the employee was not made aware of the toilet policies prior to being hired. However, if the company's toilet policies were clearly spelt out in the contract and the employee freely signed the contract, then there is no problem. In this case, no force is involved. Both parties are freely entering into an agreement. Should the employee violate the agreement, then the employer is entitled to take appropriate action.

[James]

Brian S has summed up my position on this issue to a tee and Im impressed! Well said! Millsy... once again you demonstrate a sad lack of ability to think outside of a one dimensional square!!!!:-).Why oh why would "black" people stay in a job that requires them to use seperate toilets from "white" people??? If I was them I'd say "Fuck this shit, Im moving on to another job!",Which is the most powerful tool they have, "The "Right " to Liberty, meaning they can take their skills and use them elsewhere and deny them to the racist bastard they used to work for.In a free market people can be as Racist,sexist or imoral as they like but are not free to evade the judgements of other people who may choose to take their business elsewhere because they don't like your views.The market system has its own feedback loop built in and it works well! Jordan... its you who is fighting reality.If your nanny state was not interfering as it does(and does not need to) people would sort out these issues without all the red tape and bullshit Helen and her cronies want to smear on it.The relationships you refer to are forced ones which in most cases don't need to exist! The state has a legitimate role to play in society and no sane person would object when its agents engage in these tasks but all this other crap...? No thanks!

[Craig Y]

Antarctic Lemur- if you're talking about the NZAF, it gets cash to insure that gay men have access to health promotion information about HIV/AIDS, as well as environments that promote optimal safe sex and therefore act as a fiscal benefit.

Without incremental costs related to primary health expenditure, there would be considerable downstream expenditure on hospital bed occupancy, pharmaceutical
purchase and consumption, wear and tear on medical equipment and staff time renumeration. Therefore, if the NZAF gets delegated primary health funding, it actually ends up saving the government money.

It all makes perfect fiscally responsible sense, which is why a sterling centre-right PM like the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley, and paragon of fiscal responsibility Hon Ruth Richardson, had no trouble voting for the HRA in 1993, or supporting the NZAF throughout the nineties.

Craig Y

[Tony]

Brian - so the employee has legal recourse- but what if the judge happens to agree that blacks and whites should piss in different toilets? And several of his neighbours thiks he should piss in a differnt toilet, in fact, these nasty bastards shouldn't even be working in a job where white people are. Your market logic doesn't work in the real world, it simply leads to the potential for those who are not able to defend themselves to be scapegoated and discriminated against. I'm really please that you feel you have the power to be able to leave a job if people were making fun of you or beating you up because your a man, or gay or whatever you are, but not everyone has your strength of character. That's why we have anti-discriminations - to protect the volunerable.

[Tony]

Brian - so the employee has legal recourse- but what if the judge happens to agree that blacks and whites should piss in different toilets? And several of his neighbours thinks he should piss in a different toilet, in fact, these nasty bastards shouldn't even be working in a job where white people are. Your market logic doesn't work in the real world, it simply leads to the potential for those who are not able to defend themselves to be scapegoated and discriminated against. I'm really please that you feel you have the power to be able to leave a job if people were making fun of you or beating you up because your a man, or gay or whatever you are, but not everyone has your strength of character. That's why we have anti-discriminations - to protect the vulnerable.

[resistantsoy]

I think Tony's comments really underline the heart of the matter... that the HRA is there to (LEGALLY) protect the those who face disrcimination.
Nothing less will suffice to protect justice.
The idea that consumer boycotts will protect those who suffer completely arbitrary discrimination, be it homophobia, racism, sexism etc., better than the force of law is completely ridiculous.
The most successful boycotts have had power because the discrimination affected a significantly large section of the community, ie. the Montgomery bus boycott, salt tax boycotts etc.
Would you rather have the law to protect you, or the limited boycott of a small minority?
I suspect that those who suggest the latter have had little experience with either discrimination or boycotts.

[Brian]

Tony & ResistantSoy - The State has a duty to protect basic freedoms of life, liberty, and property. If a judge happened to agree that blacks and whites should piss in different toilets, then that judge, being an agent of the state, is not upholding our basic freedoms and deserves what's coming. James' point, and my point, is that the protection of our basic freedoms is all we need from the government. That, together with the feedback controls that naturally operate in a free market, should protect us. You might like to reflect that discrimination has been at its very worst when sanctioned and enforced by governments (Jews, Blacks, Gays, etc). These governments failed in their basic duties. It is harder to see, however, that when governments engage in anti-discrimination that that can also have a corrosive affect on our freedoms. I do accept, however, that in certain exceptional times the government may have to compromise certain freedoms in order to protect freedom in general.