"Gays aren't mainstream New Zealanders" - Brash

From Morning Report this morning:

PRESENTER:  No, I just want to pick up on something else here.  You talked about civil unions.  Does that mean you do not regard gay people as mainstream New Zealanders?

BRASH:  Well they’re clearly not, they’re a small minority of people, but let me be clear.  I made it very clear in the debate on that issue that I thought this should be dealt with by referendum because it’s a big change in the civil institutions of society.  I also said that in the referendum I would vote for it because I have no problem with same sex couples committing to live together faithfully as heterosexual couples do.

PRESENTER:  You simply don’t regard gays as part of mainstream New Zealand?

BRASH:  Well they are clearly, by definition, a small minority of New Zealanders...

PRESENTER:  And they can’t as well be part of what you describe as mainstream New Zealand?

BRASH:  Pardon?

PRESENTER:   They cannot, as well as being part of that minority...

BRASH:  I’m sure some of them absolutely are.

PRESENTER:   Dr Brash, do you understand that many might say that you’re trying to create or turn the clock back in your view of what mainstream New Zealand society is?

BRASH:  Well I don’t accept that, Sean...

I was speechless with anger at these comments this morning. There is a BIG difference between being a minority (which of course gay people are) and not being part of mainstream New Zealand.

One thing you could say about the National Party in the 1990s was that it was consistently liberal: on economic policy and on social issues (more or less), passing human rights legislation and improving the legal position of "minorities" in NZ, including homosexuals. A proud record, more or less - now to be thrown away in the service of a desperate party's ambitions for power.

It now seems we should be prepared for rabid social conservatism, mixed with radical economic liberalism, if National comes to power under Don Brash.

How can he honestly say he believes that gay people aren't part of the mainstream?

How can he try and imply that something like civil unions - supported by a broad majority of Kiwis in all the polls on the matter - is pandering to minorities? Silly me, I thought it was about having one law for all, and treating people equally under the law.

Any sympathy or tolerance I was capable of holding for the idea of a National government (and it was minimal enough, let me tell you) is gone this morning. This guy is sitting in white picket fence land, and is prepared to stoop to the lowest of vitriolic, reactionary political tactics in order to keep his fingernails in touch with the premiership.

Sometimes you think that, as a country, we've got to a point where minorities aren't going to be vilified for political gain.

Then, someone like Brash pops up, and reminds you that the tactic of appealing to the dark side of human nature is always going to be a goer for conservative parties desperate for power.

Comments

[ZenTiger]

Gays are a small minority of people, so are ACT voters, so are Maori. Being a small minority doesn't make you mainstream, if mainstream is defined as "typical" or "average".

That's not to say minorities are not a vital and deserved part of the NZ tapesty. For goodness sake, it sounds as if you want minority to mean majority. It doesn't.

[Jordan]

Being a minority doesn't NOT make you mainstream, which is rather the point.

Everyone's in a minority of some sort. What I object to is the picking out of particular ones where some social prejudice exists, as a way of generating political support.

Gays are no more a majority than old white men. Neither should be stigmatised for things which are just part of who they are.

[weizguy]

Homosexuals clearly are part of the majority. In most things, they are no different to the rest of us. They pay tax like the rest of us, work like the rest of us, and consume like the rest of us.

To state that they are not mainstream New Zealanders makes me wonder what Don's definition of mainstream New Zealander is...

Brash's support of the referendum was simply a cynical dollar each way.

[Jordan]

Brash was asked by another interviewer what a mainstream NZer is. He couldn't answer. Clearly not a Maori or a gay person, though - I wonder who's next. A union member? A woman?

[ZenTiger]

Brash was asked an opinion on Civil Unions. He obviously should have replied "I'm not allowed to have an opinion on this kind of minority in case my opinion is interpreted as a means for generating political support. If enough people feel the same as I do, then they might vote for me, and majority would rule, which oif course is wrong and the fatally flawed part of democracy that really irks me and others, especially minorities."

Well, can I ask you about old white men? Winston Peters wants to raise the superannuation amount - what is your opinion on that"

"Hmm, yes, I doubt we will offend Jordan Carter if I say that is clearly unaffordable. But, to express an opinion on clearly another minority is very mainstream of me. Can I just say that mainstream NZ should pay a bit less tax, or does that imply a minority will suffer?"

[ZenTiger]

The issue is not if a person is mainstream or not, but that every-one is treated fairly and has the same opportunities.

In that regard, it shouldn't matter if you are gay, Maori or an ACT voter, and it doesn't to most people. When it does, the policies are criticised or support is rallied and that is the way it should be.

It seems to me you are looking for any excuse to take offence, but of course you are welcome to. Defining what is "mainstream" and if it actually matters might be a worthy question if it requires people to think it through...

[Gooner]

Jordan, did you tape the interview to get an exact transcript? Why did you cut Don off at that last para?

"What I object to is the picking out of particular ones where some social prejudice exists, as a way of generating political support."

He didn't pick anybody out. He was asked a question by a radio journalist and answered it. You could say Plunkett picked out gays knowing he *might* get a response from Brash and if so shame on him.

[Chris]

Jordan, could you provide me with some evidence that Muldoon was homophobic?(as you claimed on DPF's site).

[Stephen Cooper]

This is pretty outrageous stuff. I actually think Brash may be getting a little senile; he didn't seem to grasp the point when he was being interviewed by Simon Dallow on Agenda either.

If he has such inflexibility of intellect in the debates not only Clark but every other Leader will make toast out of him.

[Jordan]

I listened to it carefully on the audio archives provided by RNZ.

He gave similar response to the Maori issue as raised by Sean.

ZenTiger - just think through the motivation behind his choice of targets. And don't be cute or impute pleasantness where it does not exist.

[Chris]

Jordan, stop overreacting man. I see where you're coming from, but let's not forgot he also said:

"I have no problem with same sex couples committing to live together faithfully as heterosexual couples do"

Doesn't sound too homophobic to me.

If you define mainstream as "the majority", then homosexual folk are clearly not in the majority. National has made it clear they'll be campaigning for the votes of "the mainstream". Doesn't mean homosexual aren't welcome, it doens't mean they hate them, just means they're not the particular focus of National's campaigning. That's fine, thats a strategic decision on their part, and the results will tell the story.

I think you should respect Brash's social tolerance here - he has a good record (save the CUB debacle) of being consistent here.

[weizguy]

Shame on the media for asking a question that might cause embarrassment...

[Gooner]

Outrageous? What, having an opinion?

Make toast out of him? Nice try Stephen. Don't think so. The Labourites will clasp at anything I s'pose.

Jordan, in your other post you mentioned 69% wanted a tax cut. That is, therefore, mainstream. Why is your party ignoring us?

[RWDB]

mainstream: adj. "Representing the prevalent attitudes, values, and practices of a society or group: mainstream morality."

The prevalent sexual practice is this country is heterosexuality. Therefore homosexuals quite clearly aren't part part of the mainstream. Duh. That doesn't make it bad.

The mainstream mode of transport in this country is the motorcar. Limousines aren't part of the mainstream. Does this make limos bad? Am I an anti-limousine bigot for saying this?

It's nothing but Sean Plunkett playing petty stupid semantics. He is being pathetic, and so are you.

[Adolf Fiinkensein]

Jordan you are wasting your time trying to huff up s storm where there is none. Can't you get used to the fact that the vast majority of NZers are tolerant of people who are perceived to be different in one respect or another. Yous seem to want everybody to accept that there are no 'differences.' Get used to the fact that homosexual people are different. Maori people are different. Beneficiaries are different. Newly arrived immigrants from whatever country are different.

Don brash understands this and so does 'mainstream new zealand' They will vote accordingly. Dr Brash quite rightly has identified Labour as being 'overly focused' on these groups of people. Naturally, those people who consider themselves 'mainstream'or 'ordinary' feel left out. You blokes set it all up, not Brash. So don't squeal just because the opposition has pinged you for your own political ineptitude. You made the mistake of swinging the pendulum too far, too fast, too 'in your face' and it's coming back to bite you on election day. Pretty simple really..

[Adolf Fiinkensein]

Jordan you are wasting your time trying to huff up s storm where there is none. Can't you get used to the fact that the vast majority of NZers are tolerant of people who are perceived to be different in one respect or another while you seem to want everybody to accept that there are no 'differences.' Get used to the fact that homosexual people are different. Maori people are different. Beneficiaries are different. Newly arrived immigrants from whatever country are different.

Don brash understands this and so does 'mainstream new zealand' They will vote accordingly. Dr Brash quite rightly has identified Labour as being 'overly focused' on these groups of people. Naturally, those people who consider themselves 'mainstream' or 'ordinary' feel left out. You blokes set it all up, not Brash. So don't squeal just because the opposition has pinged you for your own political ineptitude. You made the mistake of swinging the pendulum too far, too fast, too 'in your face' and it's coming back to bite you on election day. Pretty simple really..

[Anita]

Chris,

Re: Muldoon and homophobia

Colin Moyle - need anyone say more?

[Peter FitzPatrick]

Once again the straights just don't get it.

Imagine Brash had said that Jewish New Zealanders were not part of mainstream NZ society and the reaction it would have caused.

[stephen]

Are you reading my mind, Peter? That's exactly what this Jewish New Zealander was about to say. And there are more gay men in NZ than Jews, I'm sure.

The whole idea of a "mainstream New Zealander" is bogus anyway -- except as dogwhistle code for "real New Zealander". Which is why Jordan's annoyed. And so am I.

[Steve]

What part of morning report is the interview with Mr Brash in? May have to listen to the full thing..

As for mainstream, well I know the connotations aren't exactly good, but I've always thought of myself as not an 'average' or 'typical' NZer... a little arrogant I know, but I like to think I'm better than that ;) Stereotypes and labels can be messed with, all you have to do is define them to suit...

[Jordan]

Adolf - the fact he is understands the utter opposite. It is the Labour Party which

a) acknowledges we're all different

b) accepts all of us as having equal rights, and

c) is prepared to campaign for this and make policy on this basis.

Brash on the other hand, wants to force everyone in to his white middle class stereotypes of how they should be, or how they should behave. There is no tolerance for difference; just the "mainstream" at all costs. No acknowledgement of the hugely different lived experiences and realities that make up our country.

It's not an accident, you know, that the National conference delegates were white, middle class to upper crust, and older. That is who they stand for. The contrast with a Labour conference, which has that element along with every other part of New Zealand in the room, could not be starker.

Under Brash et al, gay men like me simply become forgotten people again, or worse, scape goated in desperate efforts to pull votes.

It's fucking disgusting.

Peter Fitzpatrick and Stephen both make the point quite well. If Brash wouldn't say the same thing about Jews, then he shouldn't be saying it about homosexuals.

[Jordan]

And Adolf, I might add: both prostitution reform and civil unions were conscience votes. All parties had members which voted for one or the other.

[Tony]

RWDB mainstream: adj. "Representing the prevalent attitudes, values, and practices of a society or group: mainstream morality."

Hmmm, you use this to argue that because only a small portion of the country is homosexual they aren't mainstream. I'd use this definition to argue that homosexuality is mainstream, because homosexuality does fit in with the prevent attitudes and values of society. Every major poll showed over 50% support for the Civil Union Bill, and even higher support for homosexual law reform.

Homosexuality, in 21st Century New Zealand, is part of mainstream society. It's part of the new New Zealand. Unfortunately the National Party is still stuck in a 20th Century view of what mainstream New Zealand is.

I just never thought Brash would stoop that low.

[Gooner]

Sure Tony. Then as I say 69% who want tax cuts are mainstream. Why is Labour ignoring the mainstream?

[Jordan]

Is tax cuts anything to do with people's fundamental human rights?

[Chris]

Jordan, I still want evidence about Muldoon and homophobia.

Anita - what about Colin Moyle? There's no evidence Muldoon did what he did because of any antangonism towards Moyle because he was gay, but rather because he was drunk, Labour was baiting him, and he stepped over the line.

[Chris]

How can Brash be homophobic if he says: "I have no problem with same sex couples committing to live together faithfully as heterosexual couples do."????

[Lucyna]

Tax cuts - fundamental human rights - absolutely!

[Impartial Pundit]

Being part of a minority in any sense does not make you not mainstream.

However, I would not be surprised that there are more bigoted/homophobic heterosexual people than there are homosexual people and non-discriminatory heterosexual people combined. O what a mouthful.

Bottom line: Brash pre-meditatedly said these comments because he knew that this would amount to political capital. Yes, he is stooping very low. But two months from an election he will do anything, lick Hitler's excrement to get into power. And it might just swing the pendulum his way, seriously.

[Chris]

Jordan - saw your reply on kiwiblog. Your solitary piece of evidence is the Moyle affair? You must have something else, surely. The moyle affair was an unsavoury indicident that didn't reflect well on anyone - including Moyle and Rowling. But there's little evidence to suggest Muldoon's actions were motivated out of homophobia, rather by alcohol, behaviour in the house, stress, etc.

[weizguy]

By your definition, the rich aren't part of the mainstream either - so why are national and ACT 'overly focused' on them?

By your definitions, the mainstream is a very small place - defined as those people who fit best in that vacuous "Are you Normal" television programme. If we are excluding people from the mainstream because of one characteristc, I doubt anyone is actually part of it.

Bob isn't mainstream because he is gay.
Hone isn't mainstream because he is Maori.
George isn't mainstream because he earns over $100K per year.
Jan isn't mainstream because she receives the DPB.

How small is this mainstream really?

[Jordan]

That is precisely why it's objectionable. I could try and vilify everyone who earns over $60k (including myself, i.e. doing a Chris Finlayson) as being a minority and therefore out of touch with "mainstream New Zealand", but that'd be dismissed as class warfare rhetoric.

It's all about where you draw the lines, and to what end. Brash chose his because he knows there's a level of racism and homophobia among Labour's base, and he wants their votes.

[ZenTiger]

Still looking for any excuse...enjoy your misery.

Create some placards that say "Brash said he'd vote for Civil Unions" but that's not enough.

"Brash said issues like this were important" but that's not enough.

Brashes definition of mainstream does not fit with mine ... and that's not good enough.

[stephen]

Why the focus?

Dogwhistle politics.

It's this campaign's equivalent of Nixon's silent majority.

[rightkiwi]

Oh dear. The greatest minority is the individual person, and the right is meant to defend that minority against the tyranny of the majority. This is why we do not accept the legitimacy of ridiculous tax rises just because the majority wants them. Brash must have been poorly prepared for his interview.

[Craig Ranapia]

Stephen -

I think there must be a lot of *senile* politicians around, because there's a lot of people who tend to let lost in Sean Plunkett's snarling, barking, "you've said two words that's enough" near-monologues. I wouldn't be surprised if this rumour I've heard is true: a good number of senior ministers won't go on air with Plunkett, unless it's absolutely unavoidable.

Jordan -
As for 'dog whistle politics', give me a break. What were your lot doing when Clayton Cosgrove was predicting "riots in the street" following Orewa 1, and screeching "racist" at anyone who would listen? I sat through the third reading debate of the CUB, and wanted to gag as every speaker in support bent over backwards to say they thought people like you and me are unfit to enter into civil marriage? (Equal rights? Yeah right...)

And if you expect me to believe that Labour isn't going to go on the campaign trail and exploit every fear and anxiety of 'mainstream New Zealand' through carefully coded appeals — anyone who supports tax cuts doesn't care if Granny dies in the gutter, if you support the abolition of Maori seats you must be a member of the National Front, and anyone who dares even suggest that nuclear power is worth a grown-up debate must be a whore of Amerikkka — you're tripping.

And, Jordan, I'll remind you of this post the minute the Labour attacks on Tariana Turia and the Maori Party as 'haters and wreckers' & 'dangerous extremists' start up again. And believe me, folks, they will.

[Craig Ranapia]

BTW, Jordan, a small usage note: Don't put things in quotation marks followed by a name unless you're actually QUOTING what someone REALLY said.

[Gooner]

Spot on Craig! It is Labour which is playing 'divide and rule' politics.

[Chris]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question - How can Brash be homophobic if he says: "I have no problem with same sex couples committing to live together faithfully as heterosexual couples do."????

[Jordan]

Craig, the comparison is not valid. There are people among the Maori Party who want to divide NZ white against black. Calling them for what they are is perfectly reasonable.

How that relates to trying to stigmatise gay people is a little beyond me. The only comparsion would be if Brash had focused an attack on gay men who engage in unsafe sex, spreading HIV/AIDS, or something like that. He appears to be writing off a WHOLE GROUP of people for no reason other than political gain. You're not clueless. You know why he's doing it.

[Gooner]

You might wait a long time Chris. Jordan accused Stephen Franks of being homophobic a while ago and I obtained and posted here the select committee notes which refuted that. There was no retraction then.

[David Farrar]

Dr Brash, from what I saw, said that some gays are part of mainstream NZ - "I’m sure some of them absolutely are."

It was a answer to what was a stupid leftish question. Any question which asserts an entire group of NZers are part of or not part of a mainstream, reflects collectivist thinking.

[Gooner]

As I said David, the extract was cut short. He may have said that at the end where there are 3 ..., but we don't know. I do not accept Brash is trying to write off gays. I don't think he is that bigoted, conservative, or stupid!

[Craig Ranapia]

Gooner -

Sorry, I need to make myself clear. I wasn't saying that National isn't pushing people's buttons, but I was objecting to the canting hypocrisy flowing from some on the left. Jordan knows better than most, or he should, that Labour has it's own brand of 'dog whistle politics' that will be worked harder than a drag queen's favourite stilettos.

[Whig]

The line of questioning was definitely of the "have you stopped beating your wife?" variety. I thought Brash answered well. I wouldn't call gays, or for that matter, libertarians or fundamentalist Christians part of New Zealand's mainstream either. Stop with the beatup already.

[tim barclay]

It is the Labour Party the stigmatises gays and other minority by politicising sexuality and race putting the issue in lights coming up with some programme and then irritating the majority with their special treatment. The Labour Party is just as homophobic as the National Party except for one thing the Labour Party wants to politicise things to get votes.

[David Hodo]

Let's have a debate about these issues, Jordan, instead of you censoring everything that doesn't accord with your narrow world view.

Jordan wrote: "There is a BIG difference between being a minority (which of course gay people are) and not being part of mainstream New Zealand."

and

"How can he honestly say he believes that gay people aren't part of the mainstream?"

The attached articles demonstrate just how out of step with the mainstream gays actually are:

http://gayconspiracy.co.uk/homopsychology.htm

http://gayconspiracy.co.uk/gayhealthrisks.htm

As gay spin doctors Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill make clear: "the campaign [to normalise and mainstream homosexuality] should not demand explicit support for homosexual practices, but should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme."

Hence, the Civil Union scam is packaged as "It's all about love, commitment and equal rights" precisely because gay activists know full well that most New Zealanders would find nothing romantic in the notion of sticking one's tongue in another person's rectum ("rimming") -- somthing which -- according to a 1970 Kinsey Institute (hardly a hotbed of homophobia)study found that 89 percent of respondents regularly engaged in.

Jordan also wrote:

"How can he try and imply that something like civil unions - supported by a broad majority of Kiwis in all the polls on the matter - is pandering to minorities?"

That's why Labour was prepared to put the matter out to referendum, of course.

Jordan also wrote:

"Silly me, I thought it was about having one law for all, and treating people equally under the law."

Prior to the passage (sic) of the Civil Union Act, gays had precisely the same right to get married as any other New Zealander -- to someone of legal age, not a close relative, and to someone of the opposite sex.

The fact that someone elects to pursue an alternative sexual preference that precludes them entering into a marital relationship, thus resulting in their feelings being hurt, is no grounds at all to change the law.

Society considers three kinds of sexual behaviour: [1] preferred (monogamous marriage) -- because it provides the ideal environment for raising children; [2] tolerated (pre-marital sex, infidelity, private masturbation, homosexuality) -- because these behaviours, while not socially endorsed, will occur to seome extent anyway; and [3] prohibited (bestiality, necrophilia, incest, pedophilia, public masturbation) -- because these behaviours are deemed highly destructive to social order.

Pre-Civil Unions, gays had tolerance. What they were actually seeking was public endorsement of their sexual behaviour. Now, evangelical homosexuals have the victory they seek. A strong argument can now be made for the claim that homosexuality is normal, natural behaviour, and functionally equivalent to heterosexuality -- because Nanny State says so. Equal emphasis coming up in the sex-ed curriculum, anyone?

Since heterosexuality arises out of the nature of gendered reality, it's nonsense to treat homosexuality as an equally valid lifestyle choice. The best gays can hope for is tolerance, and if they try to go further, once Joe Average catches on there will be trouble.

[David Hodo]

Jordan wrote: "Is tax cuts anything to do with people's fundamental human rights?"

The right to be protected against theft is not a fundamental human right?

[Craig Ranapia]

Whig -

Indeed. I'm a Groucho Marxist: I don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member. :) And my partner and I have a pretty long list of 'gay issues" that are (shock horror!) awfully mainstream — I want to know that my partner's grand-neice and -nephew (wonderful kids) come out of school with a real education and qualifications worth the paper they're written on, that if I ever have to call 911 I get help not put on hold, that if my tumour ever goes on the march I'm not going to be left to die on a waiting list in drag, and that my partner and I both have some real financial security in retirement.

All very "mainstream" concerns in anyone's book, one might think. And those are the questions both Labour and National are going to have to answer, not jerking off with Sean Plunkett.

[Peter FitzPatrick]

gayconspiracy.co.uk

Seriously folks. Grow up.

Even the Catholic church accepts that people are born with innate homosexual tendencies these days. Its not a controversial point except with fundamentalist evangelicals who also believe the world was created in 7 days and we're awaiting a bunch of horsemen to lead in the apocalypse.