Your so called “safeguards” offer no long term protection. What happens to those safeguards in the future if the Greens hold the balance of power? Or is that what is really going on – you won’t change the law because you want it to be easy to eradicate smacking long term in New Zealand?

I am not fooled. Courts are primarily directed by the black letter of the law not promises to not enforce it made by past governments. This government has a chance to offer parents protection that a future government will find harder to undo and it will fail if these “safeguards” are all it does.

Promises to not enforce a law that criminalises smacking are not good enough. If the government does not wish for parents who lightly smack their children for the purposes of correction to be prosecuted then it must change the law now, before the possibility of a new government arises.

Regards,

Madeleine Flannagan

The Hon Murray McCully emailed me (I suspect generically) this morning in response to my first email, Dear Cabinet,. The above is a response, sent to all members of Cabinet, to Mr McCully’s email to me which is pasted below,

The Prime Minister has announced that the Government is introducing safeguards to give parents comfort they will not be criminalised for lightly smacking their children.

The safeguards follow the Citizens Initiated Referendum on smacking. The referendum result reinforces the message that New Zealanders do not want to see good parents criminalised for a light smack.

To give parents comfort that this will not happen, Cabinet has agreed on a number of measures. These are:

The Police and Ministry of Social Development chief executive will lead a review of Police and Child, Youth & Family policies and procedures, including the referral process between the two agencies, to identify any changes that are necessary or desirable to ensure good parents are treated as Parliament intended. The Commissioner of Police and Ministry of Social Development chief executive will seek an independent person to assist in the conduct of the review and will report back by 1 December 2009.

We will be bringing forward the delivery of the report from the Ministry of Social Development chief executive on data and trends and the effect of the law change from the end of the year to late September/early October. The Minister of Social Development will table the report in Parliament.

The Government will invite Police to continue to report on a six-monthly or annual basis for the next three years on the operation of the law, and invite Police to include data on cases where parents or caregivers say the force used on the child was reasonable in the circumstances.

If future Police data indicates a worrying trend, the law will be changed to ensure that good New Zealand parents are not criminalised for lightly smacking.

The Government believes the law is working as intended, but we want to give parents an assurance that a National-led Government will continue to monitor the way the law is being implemented.

RELATED POSTS:
Dear Cabinet,
Fisking Margaret Mayman: The Flawed Moral Theology on the Smacking Referendum
Fisking Ian Hassall: The Arbitrary Ethical Reasoning on the Smacking Referendum
No Defences Permitted for the Accused
MandM Smacking Label

I just clicked on the offending article; if the title doesn’t give you a hint, Fashion tips to avoid First Lady blunders, I can tell you it has virtually nothing to do with anything John Key has done in his thus far short stint as Prime Minister, in fact he only gets a mention to frame the context the fashion tips fall in! The whole piece essentially reduces Bronagh to a barbie doll and is reminiscent of an era where the wife was just an accessory.

One also wonders at the term “First Lady” liberally sprinkled throughout the piece too. Is the Obama-McCain virus sweeping the media turning epidemic? New Zealand doesn’t have a first lady, the only time I can recall that term being used in NZ politics was the last time the virus hit, when Clinton visited and PM Shipley’s family was suddenly “our first family.”

The article is way out of line. Especially in the financial crisis we are facing, wearing one’s “purple Adrienne Winkelmann jacket” only once is the faux-pas, not the reverse. While the rest of the country faces the prospect of having to tighten our fashion budgets to Rachel Hunter’s haute couture line from the Warehouse, the Herald’s suggestion that Bronagh sports “diamond belts” and a specially commissioned “silver fern diamond brooch” because her husband “is loaded after all” is more than a little Marie Antoinette.

Of course the worst thing about this piece is the massive offense it must have caused Mrs Key. Its one thing to have one of your girlfriends quietly tell you they think your outfit is not your best look but when one of the biggest papers in the country takes it on themselves to have a raft of style-critics taking your look apart piece by piece and patronizingly telling you how you could look sexier complete with instructions of how to copy Katie Holmes, see last sentence below, it is outrageous,

“She’s an attractive woman with a good figure, she could definitely be more adventurous with her clothes.

“We would accentuate her legs and waist, changing her tomboy look into a slightly more feminine and sexy version,” she said.

Whitcher also plumped for slightly darker hair, cut in a bob, topped with a plum lipstick for a confident look.

In the two pages of fluff the Herald tried to pass off as journalism, I note there was no mention of PM John Key’s repeat offending with the blue tie that has featured in almost every media appearance he has been in the past few weeks. Was this an oversight? Of course not. He’s male.

Matt and I have been involved in things political for a good 13 years, to a far lesser degree than the Keys of course. In that time while Matt has had to endure the odd comment about his “snappy dress sense” it was me that bore the headlines “Madeleine Richards on Murder, Feminism and Her Sexy Legs” on the front cover of the student mag at Waikato University, with weeks of letters to the editor commenting on the length of my skirts and how hot my legs are. It was me that has had editors writing comments on my figure – “ooh she gained weight” “has she lost weight?” – speculating what I eat, super-imposing my face on strippers jumping out of cakes and discussing my breasts. It was me that had to endure being woken at 6am by a call from a national radio program asking me live on air my thoughts on MP Pete Hodgson’s comments on my weight. It is me that currently is the subject of a poll on my “hottness” where people have speculate as to ‘how good a ride’ I am.

Until we stop paying lip service to the lie that we don’t judge people based on how they look and that men and women are treated equally in the political arena Bronagh Key can unfortunately look forward to more of the same.

Portfolios outside Cabinet:
Peter Dunne gets Minister of Revenue and Associate Minister of Health.

Policy Concessions Include:

• Maintain the policy, research and advocacy role of the Families Commission whilst seeking to achieve administrative efficiencies between the operations of the Families Commission and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner.
• Reducing elective surgery waiting lists by greater utilisation of private hospital capacity, in a planned way where this cannot be met by the public hospital system;
• Progressing the long-term medicines strategy for quality use of pharmaceuticals in the health sector, Medicines New Zealand, including the role Pharmac should play in that strategy.
• Support Public Private Partnerships for major roading infrastructure developments where these are deemed to be the preferred options regionally and nationally, such as the Transmission Gully highway.
• The government notes that United Future has been committed to income splitting as a key part of their tax policy and agrees to support appropriate legislation to First Reading in Parliament.
• Proceed with the establishment of a Big Game Hunting Council as part of a national wild game management strategy with a view to it becoming a statutory authority.
• And the government acknowledges United Future’s ongoing support and interest in the development of the Seniors’ Gold Card, the Community and Voluntary sector, and advancing the interests of the disability sector.

Most of it is the usual centrist stuff *sigh* but I will comment of the standouts.

The Families Commission was a dumb idea and it has been a dumb bureaucratic nanny-state money-gobbler, just like the Children’s Commission, ever since. So ugh! to that policy.

Income splitting is a positive move to lowering taxes but it adds complexity to the tax laws and does not benefit enough people. Lowering the top tax rates as the government are planning to to 30% would make the need for income splitting largely redundant.

Two Maori Party MP’s get portfolios outside Cabinet:

Dr Sharples gets Maori Affairs Minister, Associate Education Minister and Associate Corrections Minister.
Tariana Turia gets Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, Associate Health Minister and Associate Social Development Minister.

Policy Concessions Include:

• National offered a review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act to see if was working and whether there were any better alternatives.
• National will drop its opposition to the Maori seats and in turn, the Maori Party would drop its pursuit of entrenching the Maori seats and a group will be formed to look at constitutional issues including Maori representation.

Good on the Maori Party for pushing the Foreshore and Seabed Act issue. It is a shame to see that National has not framed the issue in terms of the affront to due process and instead is talking about all New Zealander’s being able to access the beach, as if that is somehow more important than human rights.

I am relieved to see there is no deal to entrench the Maori seats. The status quo of race based representation is abhorrent enough.

I stumbled accross this on The Standard and I have to say I agreed with it.

Well, most of it.

Definately did not agree with the last line…

And of course John Key was right that a government without a clear direction being pulled all over the show by competing agendas would not be good for the country, especially in a time of economic uncertainty and there is the fact that what he was speaking of and what the Standard are referring to do differ somewhat, in that he only needs a two headed monster to govern and one of the 5 heads is really a two headed monster in its own right, but Tane does have a point….

Moving right along.

Taken from: Careful of them monsters, John by Tane.

It’s amazing to see how quickly John Key got over his fear of five-headed monsters once it came time to cobble together a government, and more amazing still how quickly the media chose to forgive and forget.

You’ll recall that just two weeks ago the media couldn’t get enough of John’s line that having a government composed of:

“all sorts of different parties” with “competing interests” would not be in the best interests of New Zealand during a period of “difficult economic times to manage”.

But, silly me, they bought that one when it was Helen Clark’s coalition options in question. Now that it’s John Key, it turns out what was irresponsible just two weeks ago was actually “smart” and “inclusive” all along.

They’re a funny bunch, our right-wing media.

[I am sorry but if the media is "right-wing" then what on earth am I? Maybe a better question is what does that make The Standard?!?!?]

National 59 (46.8%)
Labour 44 (34.6%)
Green 10 (8.1%)
ACT 3 (2.6%)
Maori 4 (2.4%)
United Future 1 (0.5%)
Progressive 1 (0.2%)

• John Key is New Zealand’s new Prime Minister
• Helen Clark is standing down
• Labour will be in opposition with a new leader
• NZ First and Winston Peters are gone
• Roger Douglas is back
• National List MPs include up to Conway Powell number 59
• Labour List MPs include up to Stuart Nash number 36

(Special votes may affect some of the above a little)

Extract from: So who AM I voting for? (the election blog, part 3)

Basic Human rights/freedoms
There are some bottom line human rights and liberties that should always be protected. They’re sometimes called “first generation” human rights. Whatever you call them, here are the big basic things that no government anywhere should neglect, and which no state has any right to diminish. These are the non-negotiables, the rejection of which means that you’re simply morally deficient and unfit to be in power.

Right to life
Christians believe that human life is sacred. Humanity is made in the image of God, and as such taking life is a serious matter. Prima facie, we have a duty to not kill. That is to say, if there are no other factors to consider, then killing human beings is always wrong. Some times, of course, there are other factors to consider. Sometimes people are attacked (or their families, friends etc), and in the course of defending themselves they kill the attacker. This is rare, since self defense usually does not require killing anyone, but sometimes it happens. Sometimes this happens not merely on a personal level, but a national one, where your country is attacked by another. Here too, most of us recognise that although we may not want to kill anyone, that may be an unavoidable outcome of defending our country.

Even in the controversial case of abortion, many conservative Christians accept that – although it is a terrible thing to have to do – there are cases where the very existence of the unborn child poses a clear and imminent threat to the life of the woman carrying the child, and removing the child at an early stage of gestation involves ending the life of that child. It’s the doctrine of double effect – you save life and prevent both mother and child from dying, but a consequence of this is that one of them dies. A more controversial example still for some Christians is the issue of capital punishment. Here, while we have a prima facie duty not to kill people, a person is deemed to have done something so terrible that they give up their right to life itself, and they are put to death.

None of these scenarios, of course, involves rejecting the right to life, since the right to life imposes only a prima facie duty. But it is still a duty, and the fact that there are a few rare cases where we can take life should not allow us to trivialise this right or duty. For that reason, abortion should be regarded as prima facie wrong (even if there could conceivably be isolated cases where it is permissible), and not merely wrong but such an abridgment of human rights that it ought not be permitted.

Similarly, because of the value of human life, most forms of euthanasia are likewise not permissible. I say “most forms” because there are some forms of euthanasia that are arguably not killing, or which are sufficiently indirect that they are not morally on par with killing (such as withdrawal of extraordinary means, or death as a double effect resulting from pain relief). Firstly then, I think that any party that has a permissive policy on abortion or euthanasia has a big black mark against it when it comes to being a party worth voting for. I know of only two parties in the election race who pass this hurdle, namely the two Christian parties: The Kiwi party and the Family Party.

[Support for Abortion is illiberal; any liberal who supports it is inconsistent. Don't agree? Then read our series and post a reasoned rebuttal.]

Free speech
The right to freedom of speech means that if I want to say it, and if I am able to say it, then I must be free to say it and the state should not prevent me from doing so. As with the right to life, this is a prima facie right, and there are limits on what I can and cannot say. Sellers are not allowed to mislead people about products and services they sell, for example. I am not allowed to defame somebody: Say things that are not true or reasonable to believe and which damage another person (for example, I cannot spread rumours that a local retailer is a paedophile in order to get people to come to my store instead). But the right to free speech means that it is wrong for the state to censor or inhibit the propagation of any point of view in society.

If I want to print and distribute fliers telling people who I think they should vote for, or if I want to rent billboard space to do the same thing – no strings attached, it is something I have a right to do. Of course, nobody has a duty to promote or protect my views, so another person can refuse to use her private property to promote my views (e.g. if I leave comments on her blog she may delete them, because it’s her blog), but that’s an issue of that person’s private property rights, and it doesn’t mean I no longer have a right to free speech. What’s more, free speech doesn’t come with extra conditions.

For example, the state can’t say “sure, you can voice your political opinion and attack our policies, but if you do then you must wear this big bullseye so that people can identify you in public,” or “OK, so tell people that you’re opposed to our regime, but you’ll have to attach this big yellow star to the front door of your house so that our goons know where to look for you.” That’s not free speech because it’s not free. All it would do is discourage people from expressing themselves via intimidation or fear of reprisal.

Generally speaking, free speech exists in New Zealand, and few parties pose any sort of threat to it. As far as I know, none of the parties listed in this blog entry would threaten free speech. I haven’t listed the Labour Party or the minor parties on the far left, as they tend to fail just about every single criterion I present here. Free speech is no exception for Labour, who are responsible for the “electoral finance act” that I discussed recently. The act in effect does the same thing as would a law that says you can have free speech as long as you paint a bulls-eye on the door of your family home. Check out my earlier blog entry to see why.

Property rights
People have certain rights over their own property. What they earn belongs to them, and it cannot be taken from them without due process and given to others. The government cannot commandeer land that you own for its own projects, and if it requires land you own, you must be compensated at market value. This has implications for taxation as well. Prima facie, the government cannot tax you at all. Only after good grounds have been given for obliging you to pay tax can the government take money from you, and it must be transparently accountable to you for what it does with that money, and continually justify the level of tax taken. Remember, “thou shalt not steal.”

In addition to what we might think of as basic human rights and freedoms, there are a few other important principles of government that have in common the pursuit of justice and/or the reduction of corruption by state interference.

Separation of powers / due process
By “separation of powers” I mean that Parliament, while it has the authority to make laws, has absolutely no authority to enforce those laws, and no role whatsoever in the judicial process. It will respect the decision of the courts, it will not commandeer the police to do its bidding, and it will not influence the likelihood of a person facing (or not facing) charges, among other things. The Labour government and its ministers have blatantly violated each of these principles as I have noted elsewhere.

Small government / non intervention
This is really the broad principle underlying many of the rights and principles I’ve outlined here. In a pluralistic society, we all have our own agendas. Some will get married, others will not, some are happy with one type of school or educational method, some prefer others, some people might like one insurance company, some prefer others, some people take fewer risks, and so end up having fewer accidents and less accident related expense, some people make foolish choices and end up disadvantaging themselves and so forth. You get the idea. Small government means that the government does not intrude into private life, and it lets people make their own choices and bear responsibility for the consequences of those choices. People will save money or waste money depending on the options they choose, they will have more or fewer accidents, they will spend more or less on education, and so forth. Likewise, the government might not like the values that parents instill in their children, but it is not the job of government to raise children, that is the role of parents. Likewise again, the government might not like the fact that a court reaches a certain decision, but it is not the job of the government to settle cases, that is the role of the courts.

In the political tradition that I am partial to, namely the Christian classical liberal tradition, the role of the state is limited by the law of nature. It should only do what the basic precepts of the law of nature (that is, minimal standards of justice and upright living) require of it, and beyond this, it usurps the role of the private sector.

Safety net for the poor
Why am I listing this last? Doesn’t the Bible say more about caring for the poor than it does about free trade or property rights? Yes it does. It also says more about worshipping God in song than it does about free speech, but that doesn’t mean we should only vote for a party that promises to create taxpayer funded hymn singing squads. The fact that something is encouraged in the Bible does not automatically mean that we are justified in saying that the Bible advocates it as a duty of the government. Just about every time the Bible says anything at all about caring for the poor, it is clearly speaking about the duty that we as people have, rather than describing government spending programmes. I’m also listing it last to deliberately contrast myself from some Christians who (as far as I can tell) seriously believe that social justice just is wealth redistribution to the poor. Those who think this are somewhat selective in their reading of the Bible. For some reason none of them ever seem to quote 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12:

For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.

That being said, there does need to be a safety net for those who fall into genuine hardship. People who are genuinely unable to earn a living (or who are demonstrably doing all that they can to obtain work) and who have no other means of support should be assisted for as long as is necessary. Although by no means a desirable state of affairs, it’s like the Proverb says, “people do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his appetite when he is hungry.”

Far from being some sort of socialism, this has always been a part of a conservative or classical liberal outlook. John Locke gives his rationale for limited welfare in his treatise on government, book 1, paragraph 42:

But we know God hath not left one man so to the mercy of another, that he may starve him if he please: God, the Lord and Father of all, has given no one of his children such a property in his peculiar portion of the things of this world, but that he has given his needy brother a right to the surplusage of his goods; so that it cannot justly be denied him, when his pressing wants call for it: and therefore no man could ever have a just power over the life of another by right of property in land or possessions; since it would always be a sin, in any man of estate, to let his brother perish for want of affording him relief out of his plenty. As justice gives every man a title to the product of his honest industry, and the fair acquisitions of his ancestors descended to him; so charity gives every man a title to so much out of another’s plenty as will keep him from extreme want, where he has no means to subsist otherwise.

Likewise in biblical law, allowance was made for those in genuine need to receive something from the surplus of those with plenty. See Leviticus 19:9-10 – “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.”

This has particular relevance here because it is not simply moral instruction but law, and therefore enforceable by the authorities.

What should be pretty obvious in all this is that having basic safety nets for those in genuine need has little (if anything) to do with enormous wealth redistribution programmes to equalise all middle class families and give them advantages over people with no children. One other reason for listing this criteria last is that it really serves no value as a means of distinguishing between political parties in this election. There is no party that stands any chance of being in Parliament that does not meet this criterion in some way. Most parties go well beyond a safety net, and end up pursuing admirable ends by immoral means.

So how do these parties measure up?

National
I won’t say much about National, other than to say that they have painted themselves into a political corner. In order to attract Labour voters, they have become as much like Labour as its own supporters will let it, which is quite a lot unfortunately. Think enormous government, duplicating Labour’s massive welfare programmes, shaving tiny amounts off tax for most people, and calling it a change. There’s no principled stance on matters of human life that I can see, and little to redeem the party apart from the fact that they could be worse (e.g. they could be Labour). It does, however, have two redeeming features (I said there’s little to redeem them, not nothing). One, they aren’t Labour, and two, Stephen Franks (one of the finest politicians in this country, and a former ACT MP).

United Future
Ditto for United Future, but add to the mix a leader (Peter Dunne) who will literally support any other party no matter how bad, as long as it gets him leverage as a minister and coalition power broker. This is the man who was happy to prop up the minority Labour Government in exchange for a ministerial portfolio.

The Kiwi Party
The Kiwi party presents a strong Christian image, opposing abortion and the legal manufacturing of same sex marriage, but they are a bit of a political Frankenstein – sometimes appearing to favour a socialist state (when it comes to, for example, spending taxpayer funds on pre-marriage counselling), sometimes appearing to favour a more limited state (opposing the so-called “anti-smacking bill” as a government intrusion into the home).

There’s a statist approach to employment (and effectively job cuts), advocating raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, which is a big nod to leftist voters, and then they’re back in the lower tax camp by advocating income splitting for couples. On the whole they certainly seem to advocate more of a limited government/personal responsibility stance than the current government (additional policies like tax rebates for private health insurance bear this out). So while I like them when it comes to a few specific issues, on the whole I just don’t see them as having a particular political vision or unifying set of principles, and they fail quite badly in some cases when it comes to the scope and power of the government. An improvement? Sure. Will I vote for them? No.

ACT
On the whole, the ACT party score very well in regard to the principles that I look for in government, as outlined here. It’s such a shame that they do so abysmally poor when it comes to issues of human life. As a party perceived as being fairly extreme (only because most New Zealand parties contain so many socialistic elements that any party that lacks them appears very different and therefore extreme), it attracts extreme supporters, and like Labour it has managed to capture the affections of some young voters very hostile to Christianity. There’s great potential in what the party quite self-consciously stands for; individual rights and responsibilities, personal liberty, strong policies on justice and other things, but the fly in the ointment – terrible policies that lack regard for the sanctity of life and a support base that contains some crazies – is pretty distracting.

The Family Party
Lastly there’s the youngest of the parties that have my interest, the Family Party. OK, least important things first: I hate their party name. It gives the unfortunate and misleading impression that they want to benefit families and forget everyone else. There are people who wouldn’t vote for a party with a name like that. Their policy statements reveal that their concern is much broader than this, so they should have a different name. But that aside, I like what I see.

They’re the second explicitly Christian party. They have what I think are some great policies on taxation. They advocate removing sales tax on necessities like food and gasoline. Freedom of choice in education is a priority, a welfare policy designed to get people away from welfare, a clearly pro-life stance on abortion, and policies across the board that as far as I can tell line up very well with the values that I outlined at the start of this post. So what’s the drawback? Why am I not coming out in full force telling everyone that this is who I will vote for? The answer lies in a fairly embarrassing pragmatism. In order for a party to get into parliament at all in New Zealand’s electoral system, they must either have one candidate who wins an electorate seat, or they must win at least 5% of the party vote, and I’m not sure that the Family party will do this. If I knew that the party I vote for would definitely get into parliament, I would vote for them in a second. As it is, I still might do so, but my mind hasn’t been made up.

Ask me who I’m not going to vote for, however, and I’m as clear as day (they aren’t listed here).

• ACT – have Sir Roger Douglas, NZ needs him right now, they are the second most correct and most consistent out of the lot on the limited government and basic civil liberties and they have this fantastic 20 point plan but their inconsistency on life issues lets them down.
• Libertarianz – are the most correct and most consistent out of the lot on the limited government and basic civil liberties but their inconsistency on the life issues lets them down, [UPDATE:] however, they are the only secular party who at least would remove public funding for state-sanctioned homicide, as Libertyscott states below in the comments section, “one clear point Libertarianz holds is that private health care means you wouldn’t have to pay for other people’s abortions.”
• National – are not Labour so they have to be looked at seriously; if their policies were closer to their stated philosophy they would earn more admiration from us but they are still better than what we have and the ethical values of their people are closer to the Judeo Christian position than the other secular parties.
• The Family Party – Andy Moore called them the closest thing to a Christian version of ACT and I think he is right. They get things right on the life issues and fairly right on the limited government and civil liberties issues, certainly far better than the Kiwi Party or the Pacific Party and it turns out that the allegation they do not separate church and state is a falsehood promulgated by the Kiwi Party – definitely the best Christian option.

These are the four least nanny state parties that have the most going for them. Their success means a definite change of government and they are the closest fit to the biblical role of the state out of the lot – though all fall short.

We will not waste our vote. Votes for Christian parties or parties that will not cross the threshold have led to Labour continually, narrowly, winning elections because such votes are not counted. We will not contribute to this, so basically it will be ACT or National as the other two do not stand a chance.

At this stage we look like we will be voting differently but as we argue with each other that may change. Matt might see the light – well, I am still conflicted too truth be told. Not telling whose argument is whose but basically our wrestle goes like this.

A party vote for National is a vote for a change of government, you know you will bring in some social conservatives (horrid term that that is) and you might just help Stephen Franks make the list if he misses out in Wellington Central.

A party vote for ACT is still a vote for a change of government, you know you will bring in Roger Douglas and enhance the chances of NZ’s economy surviving the downturn if the number of ACT MP’s is decent and National needs them to form a government. A vote for ACT has the potential to pull National back to its roots and away from being Labour-Lite.

However, if there is a vote on a ‘life’ issue, ACT are more secularist and despite their principled ideology are inconsistent on life issues. As a Christian, can you in good conscience bring such people into parliament?

When you have no alternative, yes, as ought implies can.

But do you have no alternative? Is Labour-Lite really that bad when you consider the life issues as National are generally not consistent on them either?

The video opens citing Franks’ comments that he was tired of having to deal with “grumpy Christians and whiny gays;” the caption is put above the head of John Key and attributed to the National Party as a whole. This is clearly dishonest. Franks’ comments were made in a particular context; while he was on the select committee for the Civil Unions Act, he commented that he was sick of grumpy Christians and whiny gays appearing before the committee. To suggest from this that he is sick of gays and Christians in general is simply engage in inaccurate spin.

Moreover, to suggest that because Franks’ on one occasion, several years ago, was sick of them in a particular context means that it follows that the entire National party is sick of them in every context is a whopping non-sequitur. It is hard to take this kind of inference seriously except for the fact that many people actually appear to!

Turning to the video; Grant Robertson starts by responding to the arguments Stephen Franks gave against the Civil Unions Bill in parliament. After admitting that he has read the speech, Robertson does not provide any arguments against Franks’ reasons or offer any critique, he instead suggests that Franks’ arguments are “convenient” given the comments he made which “did not put the gay community in a positive light.”

Note what’s going on here, Robertson is suggesting that if a person utters comments that do not put the Gay community in a positive light, if such comments do not advance the PR agenda of homosexuals, then their argument can be written off. It apparently does not matter whether their arguments are well reasoned, sound or that the facts they cite may be true. The crucial consideration is whether everything they have stated is in the interests of the gay community.

If it is not then everything they say should be ignored and dismissed by members of parliament considering legislation. Apparently, the state should only listen to and consider the reasoning offered by those who advance the PR of the gay community.

This is not open minded tolerance, its close mindedness of the worst kind.

The other point about this opening comment on Robertson’s part is that it is clearly irrational. Robertson is responding to Franks’ arguments, not by showing there is anything mistaken about them but by insinuating he is really motivated by homophobia.

In other words, his response to a critique of government policy is to impugn the motives of the critic and attack his character. Grant suggests that Franks’ is homophobic but then immediately declines to mention or provide evidence of the charge despite the fact that he has put it out there. Moreover even if what Robertson claims of Franks were true, it actually does not address any of Franks’ arguments.

Even if people are motivated by hatred or fear in adopting a position, it does not follow that the position itself is mistaken or that the reasons they offered for its adoption were bad. If I, for example, were motivated by an irrational fear and hatred towards fundamentalists to publish books defending evolutionary theory that would not mean that evolutionary theory is based on an irrational fear of fundamentalism and that I had offered no reasons for this theory. The theory stands or falls on the evidence not the motives of its proponents. Hitler thought the world was round. Was he wrong because he was a monster?

Turning to the allegedly homophobic comments; Robertson cites Franks’ statement “I love my dog that does not mean I can marry him.” Some of Robertson’s supporters have claimed on the basis of this that Franks “compares civil unions to marrying your dog.” This way of interpreting Franks’ comments is of course easily turned into something homophobic, if Franks had actually suggested that a same-sex civil union is on par with marrying a dog, one could then suggest that he thinks that gays are like animals, and hence less than human with no civil rights.

The problem is that this is not what Franks’ said. He did not say that “civil unions are like marrying your dog” he said the fact that you love your dog does not mean you can marry it. In other words, he is stating that the mere presence of love is not enough to justify the state issuing a marriage licence.

As Franks himself clarified, he was not attacking civil unions per se, but the premise of one particular argument for civil unions; the premise that the state should recognise all loving relationships.

Now contrary to what Robertson and his supporters contend, there is in fact a world of difference between noting that one premise of one argument in favour of civil unions entails that one can marry one’s dog and the claim that all gays are dogs.

The reasoning of Robertson’s supporters seems to be this:

P. If one premise of one argument for P entails Q then P is analogous to Q.

But this is clearly false: the North American Man Boy Love Association has offered arguments for Gay rights which utilise premises that entail that paedophilia is a loving relationship between adult and child. Many gay people are aware of these arguments and reject them precisely because they have this implication. Does it follow that these gay people believe that all homosexuals are paedophiles? Of course not! They simply reject these particular arguments and ensure that those who defend ‘gay rights’ use other arguments that do not entail support for paedophilia. To suggest that anyone who rejected NAMBLA’s argument because of its absurd implications then believes that all gays are paedophiles is ridiculous.

Take another example, Grant Robertson supports abortion. Grant is also aware, I am sure, that one argument for abortion rights, proposed by Peter Singer, entails that infanticide is permissible. Does Grant admitting this problem exists with Singer’s argument mean that he thinks abortion is on par with infanticide and that he is ok with this? Clearly not. He simply concludes that this particular argument is flawed.

So contrary to Robertson’s supporters, Franks did not suggest either directly or by implication that “civil unions is like marrying your dog”.

Its interesting that when Franks’ points out that Robertson has confused a claim about a premise with a claim about a conclusion and has cited him out of context that the response is not an apology and retraction; instead Robertson’s supporters, boo, hiss, shout “shame on you” and continue to affirm the false claim Robertson makes against his opponent. No attempt is made to suggest the original allegation was inaccurate or apologise. These people apparently think that it is ok to accuse people of malicious intent without evidence or to back their claims up and that when the claims are refuted they simply maintain them anyway. Who is the bigot here? Not Franks.

Its worth noting that even if Franks’ had claimed that having “a civil union is like marrying your dog” it does not necessarily follow that this is offensive or “does not portray the gay community in a positive light.” It depends upon what respects Franks’ said they were alike. It is true, for example, that heterosexual relationships are like marrying ones dog in some respects as both, for example, occur on earth; both involve at least one human, both can take place in the 21st century, both can happen in the middle of the day etc. Of course in other respects they are quite different. Marrying a dog, for example, (if one consummated the union) violates the law of God whereas a heterosexual marriage does not. But the point is that whether saying they are alike is offensive depends on the way in which they are said to be alike.

Interestingly, even if one misrepresents Franks’ comments, it is clear that he only stated they were alike in that both were loving. Is this what Grant finds offensive? Apparently to say gay relationships are loving “does not portray the gay community in a positive light.” Would Robertson prefer that people said gay lovers hate each other?

Finally let me say some comments about Franks’ argument. While Franks refers to a person loving one’s dog, elsewhere he pointed out that a common premise utilised by defenders of the Civil Unions Act entailed that incestuous unions should be recognised by the State. In this he is absolutely correct; many people who defended the Bill did so on the grounds that:

(1) the government should not discriminate against any loving committed relationships;

The problem is that it is a fact that:

(2) incestuous and unions with multiple partners can be loving and committed;

However, [1] and [2] entail that:

[3] incestuous and multiple partner relationships should be recognised by the state.

Hence if one affirms [1], one is rationally committed to supporting incestuous marriages. Now despite howls and boos from Robertson’s supporters, it is difficult to see what is wrong with this inference. The argument form is clearly valid, it follows the form: all A’s are B, x is an A; therefore x is a B. To deny this form is to affirm that all things of a particular sort can have a property and also some can not, which is a contradiction. Robertson’s supporters may be suggesting that it is homophobic to not contradict oneself but I doubt they are that stupid.

Seeing the argument is valid, the objector needs to reject [1] or [2] as false. The whole point of the argument, however, is to show that [1] is false by showing the absurd conclusions it entails. Moreover, Robertson’s supporters in the You Tube clip clearly support [1] one of them asserts very loudly that something like [1] is true. So presumably their claim is that incestuous couples or polygamous couples never love each other, but that is clearly false. The only sensible thing then is to suppose they support [3], but then if that is the case, then why is it offensive to suggest that homosexual unions are like incestuous ones? They apparently see nothing wrong with incest.

The honest thing to do then would be to simply admit that this argument is a bad one and offer another one. But of course they do not. When an argument for civil unions is refuted, they resort to quoting out of context, character assassination and dogmatic assertions of the falsehood even when its mendacity had been shown.

It is then unwarrantedly claimed that Franks’ comment in one context applies to all times and places and are held in this absurd way by everyone in the National Party. Moreover, any other argument against their position is irrationally dismissed and ignored on the grounds that it does not further their political agenda to consider it. Apparently this is the type of activity that some Labour supporters consider open minded tolerance.

Matt (posted by Madeleine)

As Matt was one of the few parents who had turned up to help the club president asked him if he and Sherry would help her to paint out the graffitti tag that had appeared on the cross-country jump closest to the motorway.

They headed off with a can of paint and walked to the end of the grounds by the motorway only to discover they had brought white paint with them which wouldn’t do. Not keen to walk all the way back to the clubhouse for coloured paint they spotted a freshly painted red and blue jump with two paint cans not that far away. There wasn’t much left in either can so the President suggested they pour the little bit of the red into the blue and just paint the resulting colour onto the jump. Instead of purple the resulting colour was a dark blue – much better for covering tags than white.

They set to work and began painting the whole jump to make it seem like the tag was never there. At this point rush hour traffic was just starting to drop off so the motorway was still fairly busy. As the painting progressed they began getting toots and waves and yells and thumbs up from passing cars. A steady stream. Confused they kept painting. However, when they heard someone angrily yell “Labour” accompanied with the fingers they clicked. By the time they finished they were getting a constant stream of toots and waves from the passing traffic.

They went back to the clubhouse and told the parents who had arrived to pick up their kids and the other helpers and almost everyone laughed agreeably when one person joked you should have used the white paint to add an “N” to the jump because they were in Chris Carter’s electorate. There were one or two glares but the majority seemed, like the drivers, to be rather keen on the idea.