Speaker by Various Artists

Read Post

Speaker: John and Phil meet Bob

91 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • Craig Young,

    Thank you, George. A summary of who's at the latest Forum can be located at my earlier Gaynz.Com column, "Forum for Very Few Families" in the Politics and Religion section. In which I've been harping on relentlessly about the very real dangers of New Right welfare privatisation and outsourcing for economically marginal members of the LGBT communities, as well as highlighting the implications of the axis between ACT and the Christian Right that is develping over that issue.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 566 posts Report Reply

  • George Darroch,

    We need more of these kinds of adverts just so the self-appointed anti-PC crowd hoist themselves on their own petard

    I do think that New Zealand is somewhat advanced on that matter. The less suggestive of these images (fairly SFW) went up on 20ft billboards in public locations around Auckland and Wellington and I heard no outcry. I imagine Wendy Francis would be spluttering.

    In Phil’s case,I imagine it’s called ‘Know Your Enemy’. Most of these fundie wingnuts are hardcore anti-Labour types and the parliamentary party is more socially liberal than ever.

    I hope so, and I'm prepared to believe that. But realistically, I have no idea. Since his speech in which he stated that Labour had focused too heavily on social legislation at the expense of the rest, I haven't heard a firm word from him in public. The rest of his caucus I have much clearer ideas about.

    Anyhow, I'm glad to be having this conversation. I've got to run but I'll pop back later.

    WLG • Since Nov 2006 • 2264 posts Report Reply

  • George Darroch,

    Oh, and an event that Labour MPs definitely will be attending tomorrow: 25th Anniversary Celebration of the passing of Homosexual Law Reform in Wellington. To remind us that there is so much progress for good in the world (and of course, this should set the filthy fundies raging).

    WLG • Since Nov 2006 • 2264 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Young,

    Here's the Nats dilemma. The Christian Right are a loud, shrill, sectarian bunch who scare away normal voters, particularly highly educated urban liberal onces in vote-rich metropolitan seats. They're also quite small and don't have much institutional strength in terms of fake 'universities' endowed by televangelists, as is the case in the United States. By throwing inadequately monitored dosh at them to provide welfare services, certain Christian Right pressure groups get rewarded for trying to persuade their flocks to vote National.

    Two problems. A, does the NZ general public really go for this radical welfare privatisation idea?

    B, how will mainline but mixed churches react to the ACT/Family First axis in this context?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 566 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Craig Young,

    In Phil’s case,I imagine it’s called ‘Know Your Enemy’. Most of these fundie wingnuts are hardcore anti-Labour types and the parliamentary party is more socially liberal than ever.

    Hey, Craig, I don't if you're being disingenuous or just lying but you do realise this thing is being held in Mangere (hardly heartland Tory land) for a reason?

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to George Darroch,

    I do think that New Zealand is somewhat advanced on that matter. The less suggestive of these images (fairly SFW) went up on 20ft billboards in public locations around Auckland and Wellington and I heard no outcry. I imagine Wendy Francis would be spluttering.

    Come to think of it, St Matthews in the City has been pushing the envelope a bit, to the point where its billboards keep getting vandalised.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5420 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Hey, Craig, I don't if you're being disingenuous or just lying but you do realise this thing is being held in Mangere (hardly heartland Tory land) for a reason?

    It most certainly is - it's right next to the Airport. And McCoskrie does actually hail from the southern Auckland area. Not as strange as it seems, if you've ever been to the suburban DMZ known as Detroit's Eight Mile Road.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5420 posts Report Reply

  • Andrew Stevenson, in reply to George Darroch,

    I don’t begrudge the PM or Leader of the opposition meeting with their constituents. Everybody has the right to participate in politics, no matter how disturbing we find their ideas. Unfortunately, Russel Norman seemed unable to make this distinction. I hate the Exclusive Brethren with an absolute vengeance – my own grandfather was blocked from entering his brother’s funeral, but I do not think this disqualifies their right to act politically. The same goes for Family First and the Australian Christian Lobby. What is a problem is hiding that contact, and leveraging one group while pretending your views and positions are different.

    Well said Sir

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 206 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    I don’t begrudge the PM or Leader of the opposition meeting with their constituents.

    I think there's a difference between meeting with your constituents, and tacitly endorsing their bigotry by taking a starring role in their propaganda setpiece.

    But at the end of the day, Goff is free to meet who he wants, and we are free to judge him on it. And as someone who thinks family first's reactionary social and economic policies should make them persona non grata to the left, I certainly will be. Harshly.

    (But maybe he'll surprise me, and denounce their bigotry. And maybe Roger Douglas will rise from the dead...)

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1711 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Kumara Republic,

    It most certainly is – it’s right next to the Airport. And McCoskrie does actually hail from the southern Auckland area.

    Yeah, and I know plenty of gay and lesbian PI who ran as far and fast they could from South Auckland and their poisonously homophobic staunch Labour voting families and churches.

    I'm sorry, but AFAIC Goff and Key are as bad as each other; and this is every bit as vile as them deciding to allow members of their caucuses to attend Density's little jamboree a few weeks back. If Labour and National think pandering to homophobes is good electoral calculus, and folks around here are willing to cut one (or both) slack... well, we shall just agree to disagree and move on.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Young,

    Craig R:
    Uh yes, the event is being held in Mangere, but at the staunchly *palagi/paheka* LIFE Church, a Pentecostal megachurch. And with the exception of Destiny Church (who don't seem to be invited to this little shindig...), the Christian Right is pakeha dominated and full of wingnut buffoons who can't deal with the complexities of ethnicity in New Zealand society today.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 566 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Young,

    Somehow, given that welfare privatisation is on the Family First wishlist too, I suspect Phil definitely won't be signing up to that. He's also got a fairly good and mainstream social liberal voting record. For all Key's Cameronisms, does he?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 566 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Craig Young,

    For all Key’s Cameronisms, does he?

    Key voted against the Civil Union Bill.

    And in February this year, he was asked at the Big Gay Out whether he would still do so -- and when pressed on it by Steven Oates would only say that we'd have to read his fucking book to find out.

    If Key does have any moral convictions, it's unclear what they are. I find him quite depressing sometimes.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22756 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Young,

    Ah well, at least TVNZ and TV3 are ignoring McCruskit and this little Nuremberg number...

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 566 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Yeah, Russell, that was the day Phil Goff was was such a shining beacon of moral courage (Yeah, I'm being sarcastic.)

    Goff said despite what had been achieved in terms of gay rights there was still much work to do.

    "There is still discrimination in the community."

    Oooh, give Phil a cookie for stating the fucking obvious.

    Goff said Labour had long been the champion of gay rights, unlike some politicians, who he said would also speak today, who just "smiled and waved".

    Shall we just ignore the Labour MPs who crossed the floor to vote again Homosexual Law Reform (which was not a government bill) and had pressing engagements elsewhere when it came to the third reading vote on the Human Rights Amendment Bill? (Which was in the name of then-Associate Health Minister National's Katherine O'Reagan.)

    Meanwhile, I think it's pretty clear nobody considers marriage equality particularly important; but (to be fair) lifting the ban on same-sex couples adopting children is on its way out. Not quick enough for my liking, but it should happen with a fairly solid cross-party majority.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace,

    Craig, I bet John Key could become a paid up member of Family Fist, beat his children, excommunicate any gay relations he happened to have, and you would still vote National.

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3203 posts Report Reply

  • Tui Head, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    I don't think anyone in its membership would claim, if directly asked, that the Labour Party has a spotless record on queer rights. (Okay, probably some people, but I'm sure there are people that would claim ditto about National/ACT/whoever you like.) But it's a bit incoherent to claim that the National Party and Labour Party's positions towards and relationships with the queer community are identical, especially if when offered a concrete example where they aren't all you can say is "the guy responsible for PR for his party didn't spend a soundbite lambasting his party's failures". (Especially when it comes to MPs crossing the floor, which by definition is a failure of an individual rather than a party failure.)

    I'm as unhappy as you are about this particular situation and I think a lot of staunch Labour voters (which I have not been for the past two years) will also be unhappy, pending whatever Goff does say on Saturday. But National and Labour are, contrary to what cynics would have you think, not indistinguishable on most issues. You don't have to like either of them; but they're not the same.

    Te Whanganui-ā-Tara • Since Nov 2006 • 14 posts Report Reply

  • George Darroch,

    Hey, Craig, I don’t if you’re being disingenuous or just lying but you do realise this thing is being held in Mangere (hardly heartland Tory land) for a reason?

    If I might comment on the church it's being held at. The particular venue forms the southern branch of a network called Life, which has 5 churches over Auckland. They moved into this premises after expanding from their central venue, which is on Mt Eden Rd just down from the Powerstation.

    This particular building is large, and set up for conferences. Which isn't surprising, because for a long time it was the New Zealand Expo Pavilion and Conference Centre. It lay somewhat abandoned for a while, and during the early 2000s I knew it best for hosting a series of rather wild dance parties known as Industry. Anyhow, the reason I know so much about this church is that it happens to be the one my mum and sister attend. And although my mum is particularly active, she wasn't aware that it was taking place. In this case, it's just a convenient venue.

    WLG • Since Nov 2006 • 2264 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Oooh, give Phil a cookie for stating the fucking obvious.

    Oh, whatever, Craig. “The obvious” was rather more than the Prime Minister managed.

    For goodness sake, Key’s big promise from the stage at that event was that his government wouldn’t take away any rights that LGBT people already enjoyed.

    And then in an interview immediately afterwards he refused to confirm that he would vote in line with even the miserable promise he had just made to the crowd. It was either gutless or amazingly arrogant.

    I find myself completely unable to draw an equivalence between the two leaders’ positions there.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22756 posts Report Reply

  • George Darroch,

    Although the ideas being presented are entirely concordant with those of the church itself. Which is just like when Trades Hall is used by activist groups. It's how things are.

    WLG • Since Nov 2006 • 2264 posts Report Reply

  • George Darroch,

    Key voted against the Civil Union Bill.

    And in February this year, he was asked at the Big Gay Out whether he would still do so – and when pressed on it by Steven Oates would only say that we’d have to read his fucking book to find out

    Quite.

    WLG • Since Nov 2006 • 2264 posts Report Reply

  • Alex Coleman,

    <i>Not quick enough for my liking, but it should happen with a fairly solid cross-party majority.</i>

    So some Nats will cross the floor? Good. I hope they don't feel the wrath of their base.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 247 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    The only report so far from the conference is Key saying he would support another look at the law on euthanasia -- without, of course, saying whether it should be changed or how he'd vote on a bill.

    The report says nothing about whether the comments were in his speech or in response to a question, but they look like the latter.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22756 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to George Darroch,

    Ian Grant was recently handed a $2.4 million contract by the Government, without the least bit of due process or scrutiny. Many questions remain unanswered.

    And the ones answered make little or no sense…

    His resignation from the Government-appointed Families Commission was announced last Tuesday, just two days before the contract was revealed in the Budget.

    Bennett said this was a coincidence.

    “He had absolutely no idea that he was getting this contract so there was no correlation there, in fact when he said he was resigning I obviously knew he was but I couldn’t say to him ‘this was might look a little bit funny’ because he didn’t know so he had to resign at his own will and at his own timing,” she said.

    ‘this was might look a little bit funny’
    Indeed, was might.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • George Darroch,

    Craig, I bet John Key could become a paid up member of Family Fist, beat his children, excommunicate any gay relations he happened to have, and you would still vote National.

    Yeah, that's because he's a patched member.

    Most National Party members I've met have fairly clear ideas about how far the state should intervene in your bedroom, and how far it should reach into your wallet. If their party started walking seriously away from either of these, they'd reconsider.

    WLG • Since Nov 2006 • 2264 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.