Labour's Rainbow policy: a clarification for some liars out there

I've always been proud that the Labour Party has been in the vanguard of pushing an equality agenda in New Zealand.  Our record in government during the 2000s was good, with most Labour MPs voting in favour of civil unions (compared with 3/27 Nats), and a range of improvements in other areas under way. Our role in bringing about the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the 1980s is a matter of record.

This progress comes from our commitment to equality, and our belief that everyone has the same rights, no matter what their sexual orientation is.  This is a view that is nowadays widely shared in New Zealand society, and that is good.

Labour has released the policy document which you can read here: http://www.ownourfuture.co.nz/rainbow

It tackles what might be summarised as the rights agenda, the respect agenda, and an international agenda to help make the world a safer place for people of different sexual orientations.  We will move on equal relationship law and tackle the vexed issue of adoption, which goes far beyond the question of whether gay couples can adopt and needs a thorough look.

Of course, with any issue like this there are some tricky politics.  I was at a Rainbow Wellington public forum last night where the ACT Candidate in Wellington Central, Stephen Whittington, referenced some dumb comments Trevor Mallard made in Parliament a while ago, calling the (openly gay) Attorney General Chris Finlayson "Tinkerbell".

This has been amplified today by that well known defender of the rights of queer people, David Farrar, on his blog KiwiBlog, and by Whittington himself in a media release.  The result is this Stuff story "Labour accused of homophobia cover-up" by Andrea Vance.

Farrar's allegations are nonsense.  He (and Whittington) are lying when they say that Grant and Charles denied Trevor's 'tinkerbell' stuff.  They did no such thing.

They would have been stupid to. The remarks were well covered at the time.  We told Trevor what we thought. Making slurs like that in Parliament is totally unacceptable.

What they denied is that Mallard is homophobic. They are right.  Trevor has been a staunch defender of social liberal causes and was a key player in the fight to decriminalise homosexuality in the 1980s. His voting record on queer rights issues is perfect. 

So my message to Whittington and to David Farrar is: stop lying on this point.

Farrar's other comments are much more low key.

• The quote from Ashraf was a jumble of nonsense which he was horrified by and which he apologised for at the time, and in any case he is leaving Parliament at this election.
• The reason our policy talks about the care of children issue is that adoption is complex and problematic from a whole set of different directions. It isn't just about gay adoption and I don't think it would be right to try and make it so.

For someone who is a social liberal, David sure does spend a lot of time stirring up nasty stuff.  Today's post is not the first example.

As for Stephen Whittington:  Steve, I don't know if you're gay or not, and I don't care either way, but next time you make a fuss about what happens at a public meeting, you might want to make sure you have your facts right.

And to both - this is a pretty sad attempt to cover up and distract from the question at the Rainbow Wellington forum that kicked this all off, which is about the views that a certain Mr John Banks holds on issues of homosexuality, and the things he did and said about it in the 1980s.  Or perhaps the distraction is from Tau Henare's homophobic remarks to Charles Chauvel the other week in Parliament?  Either way, sad.

Update - Fri 14 Oct, 4.40pm:

Trevor in Stuff this morning acknowledged that he should never have made the "Tinkerbell" remarks, which is true and good.

Out of the Rainbow Wellington meeting, Tony Reed (who is RW Secretary and isn't a candidate for any political party!) has the view that Grant and Charles did deny that Trevor had made homophobic remarks. Their argument is that they denied he was homophobic.

This begins to sound very much like dancing on the head of a pin, and I can't judget it as I wasn't there.

I stand by the key points I made above in the body of the post:

• Trevor should never have said what he said in Parliament, and it is indefensible that he did it.
• Grant and Charles wouldn't have defended it
• Trevor isn't a homophobe, and Grant and/or Charles were right to say so

If anyone else who was at the meeting and isn't affiliated to a political party has a view of what happened, I'd be interested to hear it.

I've never defended homophobia anywhere and I'm not defending it now.  I don't like seeing my friends dragged in the mud for things that they haven't done or haven't said.  There is more than enough in what people have said and done to keep political debate going.

Comments

[Chris Miller]

Post title implies that people are lying about the Rainbow policy specifically. I thought the comments being made were regarding hypocrisy, in that Labour has a strong pro-LGBT* stance but Trevor used a slur - two years ago, and IMO "The remarks were well covered at the time. We told Trevor what we thought. Making slurs like that in Parliament is totally unacceptable." is pretty much all the comment that needed to be made.

[SHG]

Explaining is losing. Another own-goal.

[Mike A-X]

Really? The big question was about what John Banks "said and did...in the 1980s"? Labour *wants* to have meetings about things said and done in the 1980s? Really?

[Graeme Edgeler]

The "some of my best friends..." defence? Really?

If a pakeha person calls a Maori person a n!@@3r they are racist, even if they voted for the Human Rights Act, every piece of treaty settlement legislation, called for increased funding of Maori development, are a staunch support of Wananga, and voted the right way on every other legislative indicator of non-racism you can muster.

I'm surprised this is so difficult.

[rjs131]

So Jordan, Phill Goff cant be held to account for stuff he got up to in the 1980's in selling assets but an ACT candidate must be held to account for comments from his leader? And if sucsh adoption rights were so important, why did Labour try everything in its power to support compulsory student unionism and prevent that bill being drawn from the ballot? Why is making students join a student union more important than that?

[Mark]

Cover up!

Kevin Hague has now come out confirming what Whittington has claimed. Do you really think the public will believe you (a Labour candidate) over Whittington AND Hague (two people from opposite ends of the political spectrum)?

"Lie" is an evocative word because it implies a deliberate attempt to mislead - Whittington and Farrar don't appear to have done that; you and your mates Robertson and Chauvel have.

[The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell]

The shorter Jordan:

"Your homophobes are worse than our homophobes".

[M Pearle]

So Kevin Hague is lying too?

"Green MP Kevin Hague, who was also at the meeting, backed Mr Whittington's version of events. "My sense was thatCharles and Grant were denying that Mallard and Cosgrove had abused Chris Finlayson in a homophobic way.

"The impression I had was that they were denying that he said it.''

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5781365/Upset-over-Mallard-comment

[M Pearle]

The Secretary of Rainbow Wellington has released his summary of the meeting based on his detailed notes. Tony Reed’s summary states:

The Banks issue was taken up further and the Labour MPs reminded us of his homophobic actions in the House when Chris Carter came out as the first openly gay MP. Stephen agreed this was wrong, but in turn accused Labour MPs of making homophobic remarks about Chris Finlayson, a charge which was hotly denied.”

[Jordan Carter]

Thanks for the comments folks.

It's a very fine distinction as to what the two Labour MPs were responding to.

I do not believe that they would have tried to deny the remarks that Mallard made, since they're on the public record and have been scrutinised, criticised and rejected by many (including Grant and Charles).

If they responded to deny Trevor being homophobic, which I completely endorse (the man hasn't got a homophobic bone in his body), then that's what I would expect them to do.

If there was some confusion between the two, which is what the differing accounts seem to indicate, then I can't resolve that since I wasn't there. Tony Reed, Kevin Hague, Stephen Wittington, Grant Robertson and Charles Chauvel were there at the time and all have differing accounts.

I don't agree and don't accept that Grant or Charles would have tried to deny what Trevor had previously said. Trevor shouldn't ever have used the word "Tinkerbell" and directed it at Chris Finlayson, and he has acknowledged that in the media today.

Does that make him a homophobe? I don't think it does, and he isn't one as far as I'm concerned.

[QoT]

To be honest, Jordan, this is sounding very much like the classic "Don't call white people racist, just say they "said racist things", because god forbid we hurt white people's feelings!" derail. To be brutal, in a country with our suicide rate amongst queer youth, I have no time for "but just saying a homophobic thing doesn't make a person A Homophobe" hair-splitting.

[Chris Miller]

But... but... QoT, being called racist or homophobic is TERRIBLE! It's even worse than racism and homophobia!

Seriously guys, the defensiveness is worse than the original comment. Just apologise instead of desperately trying to convince everyone he's not a homophobe.

[Jordan Carter]

Chris, I'm not going to apologise for responding to Grant and Charles being trashed over something they didn't say.

QoT, fair point of view. As I've consistently said, what has upset me is Grant and Charles being accused of denying the comments were made, which they did not. Maybe that's too fine a distinction for politics. If so, I plead guilty to that.

[Patrick Collings]

Except, Jordan, all non-Labour accounts of the evening suggest they did deny Mallard made the comment... including from the event organiser.

I look forward to your apology to those you called liars.