The debate featured panelists Stephen Franks, Tim Wikiriwhi, Matthew Hooten and Hana O’Regan and an active studio audience, including Matt and I, who were expected to comment and ask questions from the floor (which we did).

Our thoughts from inside the program are here.

The audience, who comprised a range of commentators, Members of Parliament and even activist John Minto, were expected to comment and ask questions, which we dutifully did. Who knows if we’ll make the editing room cut, or how what we said will play on screen (it always feels different in the moment to how it looks on air I find)  – one way to find out I guess!

The debate will screen on Marae tomorrow morning, Saturday, 6 Feb, from 8:00am – 9:30am on TV One.

Here is a brief rundown of our thoughts:

• Speaker of the Day goes to Stephen Franks for presenting the best case and for managing to use terms like “fake treaty”, “bogus” and “spurious” whilst still managing to come across calm, pleasant and reasonable.
• The Most Inflammatory award goes to Tim Wikiriwhi – you can read his transcript at Not PC. The award was for his  student-politician-styled-delivery coupled with claims later on in the debate that there had not been a single past injustice towards Maori, which earned him shocked and awed hissing. (That aside his message was good and his historical claims were fascinating.)
• Best Impersonation of Peter Dunne award goes to Matthew Hooten for trying to take the middle ground and please everyone whilst effectively saying nothing but sounding profound.
• The Loonie Leftie Why–Didn’t–Her–Over-Sized–Tiki–Explode? award goes to Hana O’Regan for (and it was hard to pick a winner from the many incoherent and internally inconsistent examples she had on offer) arguing for the confiscation of property  (tax dollars) to support the promotion of Maori language “because it is beautiful” [so too is the NZ countryside] citing the Treaty as justification for said confiscation of property (I kid you not!). We both called her on this in the Q&A.
• Funniest Moment was when the producer decided that our paper voting forms didn’t look so good on camera so had the audience pretend to push invisible electronic voting buttons and to vote multiple times so that the camera could grab a range of shots. Shane Taurima, the host, completely lost it with laughter when he delivered the instructions to the audience to push the green button for the affirmative and the red button for the negative “on the small electronic device you see before you” and he had to re-shoot it. (Then they decided to have us vote with the paper ballots).

I must note that at the beginning of the debate the audience was asked for a show of hands as to who was for the motion and who was against it. At the outset less than 5 people were for the motion. This is an important consideration to factor into the voting results announced at the end of the debate. As Stephen said to me afterwards, I think the for’s won it as they gained votes and the againsts lost them.

RELATED POSTS:
Maori and Pakeha are Not Partners to the Treaty of Waitangi

As Matt once commented, “Christians should be very concerned with people who will sell out their commitment to liberty before they would side with a Christian [or a moral viewpoint typically ascribed to a Christian]. Such people cannot be relied upon to defend my rights at all.”

Matt was alluding to the so called principled liberals whose principles dissipate the minute they encounter someone who shares most of their views but whose moral code differs from the narrow point of view they define their liberality by.

If you ask them to defend their views and offer a critique they cannot. I doubt they know why they hold their views they just know they are supposed to so they just repeat their mantra.

Their blind adherence to the “correct” moral views are not based on principle or reason, if you point out a flaw in an argument for one of their sacred cows they intolerantly froth and deem you to not be a member of the club. They will jump on the “correct” side regardless of whether the arguments used are sound.

This bigoted intolerance from the right is not completely reserved for Christians; anyone secular daring to voice a flaw in an argument advanced by the sacred cows of the-state-must-endorse-gays-movement is also slammed as illiberal.

Look at all the fuss and bother over David Garrett’s comments on paedophilia [note the comments were NOT on homosexuality, learn the difference between an analogy and an identity claim]. In Real Bigotry Versus Mere Opinion Blair Mulholland notes:

Today’s Herald has two separate stories dealing, in a roundabout way, with the issue of homosexuality.

In one, we have an elected official actively condoning violence because some of his constituents regard having their town labeled a “gay capital” as an insult.

In the other, we have a barrister, who was not an elected official at the time, pointing out that, in his view, both homosexuality and paedophilia are unchangeable psychological phenomena.

Guess which elected official has had their head called for?

Seriously, this is bullsh*t. The blogosphere, and I am looking at you too David Farrar, needs to get their priorities straight… so to speak. A small town Mayor says it’s allright to give Jeremy Wells the bash for a comedy piece he did ten years ago and we shrug our shoulders. A new MP makes a crude observation about human behaviour and the crowd demands crucifixion.

It’s not acceptable.

Consider Lucyna’s argument in Finding Socialists in the Darndest Places, she cites Lindsay Mitchell‘s argument that one spots a socialist by their walk, not their talk or the ribbons they wave.

Want proof of how support for homosexuality turns liberals into lefties?

Compare Blair Mulholland, who says he is “more attuned with the Libertarianz” than ACT’s, endorsement for Wellington Central with Cactus Kate’s, one of the last, self-proclaimed, bastions of complete right-wing bias, hero worshipper of ACT’s Rodney Hide.

Blair’s endorsement:

Stephen Franks was worth about ten regular National MPs when he was last in parliament, so if you put him in their caucus he will kick some arse. My wholehearted endorsement for the National candidate here.

Cactus Kate’s are here, here and here:

Grant, You are the only Labour candidate I am endorsing at this election

and:

With great humour I see all the National Party candidates are now MP’s and yet none of the Labour candidates made it through. Oh dear. Crying a river. With
such a vicious swing Nationwide to National that result was a fait accompli.

Well done Sam, Aaron, Simon and Nikki. I hope all your dreams come true. And Grant Robertson who managed despite this massive swing to Toryism, to upset
Stephen Franks in Wellington Central. Brought a wee glow to the cheeks.

For the benefit of our overseas readers, Grant Robertson was the Labour (left-wing) candidate and Stephen Franks was the National (right-wing) candidate in the Wellington Central electorate in the recent NZ election.

Robertson is a unionist and state services flunky from way back; a hard-core left wing activist. As an example of what I mean, when he was National President of NZUSA he organised an activist training conference and invited and sponsored a speaker who advocated vigilante assaults on the private property of those they disagreed with.

Franks is a former ACT Party MP (more right-wing than National), is a Classical Liberal, has years of experience as a lawyer working in NZ’s top law firms, is considered across the political spectrum as being one of the sharpest, most competent and most ethical MP’s in recent times. Franks is secular and, from conversations I have had with him, does not share my view that homosexual conduct is immoral or that abortion, far from being liberal, is homicide.

So, I ask you, why would the uber-right wing Cactus Kate be pleased to see Robertson trump Franks? I asked her that and as yet she has not answered. As she moderates her comments, she has seen my questions, so I must assume the silence is deliberate.

I speculate, with good reason, that the answer is Robertson is gay and that to the socialist-liberal being gay forgives every other flaw; especially when Franks, during the NZ debate to have the state endorse gay relationships through the passage of the Civil Unions Act, made some critical observations on some of the reasons advanced by the defenders of the Bill.

This of course renders Franks a homophobic hate-filled conservative (liberals by definition are pro-everything gay, no matter how inconsistent it renders them and will turn and blacklist their own in heartbeat at the first sign of a betrayal) and elevates the statist Robertson to the position of the better candidate. [I am reminded here of Matt’s blog: Bigotry as Tolerance: Homophobia as Orwellian Double Speak.]

Right-wing socialists loudly claim to be principled yet to avoid being associated with a perceived affront to their moral values they would sell their freedom on the basis of knee-jerk ignorance, straw-men and stereotypes.

So now I turn to Glenn’s latest offering where he suggests that the state has no role to play in endorsing any relationships. Something liberals have always claimed on every other, non-homosexual, issue. This is a concept I endorse accross the board. Marriage existed for centuries without the help of the state. State endorsed marriage is a fairly recent phenomena.

Extract from: Homosexuality and Socialism?

It might seem like a very odd connection until you consider… well, actually no matter what you consider it still seems like an odd connection, but in the recent song and dance about Proposition 8 in California, that very odd connect has been reinforced yet again. I’m sure that there are plenty of homosexual people who don’t choose to identify as socialist, so don’t take me to be saying that they all do. But when it comes to the public scrap about marriage, for some of them the red comes to the surface quicker than you can drop a hat.

As evidenced here, here, here, here and in many many other places, some outspoken homosexuals actually believe the following slogan:

Marriage is a civil right.

Now let me very clear what’s being said here. They’re not saying that they have the right to live together as a couple. They already have that right in California, and it was not under threat. They mean legal marriage, and I don’t mean a relationship that is legally permitted (again, they already have this, which is why Keith Olbermann is lying in the second link above when he says that all homosexuals in California who opposed proposition 8 want is the ability to be “a little less alone in the world” by having a relationship”), I mean a relationship that is created by law. What they are actually saying is this:

I have a basic right for the government to create a type of legal relationship and to confer upon my relationship the status of being one of those relationships.

Excuse me? There exists no such civil right, for anyone – homosexual, heterosexual…. or otherwise! What kind of nannyish rubbish is this? The government does currently create such a relationship and confer upon many heterosexual relationships the status of being one of those relationships (and it refuses to do so for others – e.g. close relatives, relationships with more than two people etc, which is why Representative Anthony D. Weiner is lying in the third link above when he says “We are not going to rest at night until every citizen in every state in this country can say, ‘This is the person I love,’ and take their hand in marriage”). It’s like thinking that the right to bear arms means that you have the right to arms, that is, the government has the duty to buy you a gun!

If I stood up in public and said that my wife and I had a civil right to a free house from the government, what would you say? And how crazy do you think I would look if I went further and said that if the government did not provide one then it was somehow displaying hatred or contempt for me or for my relationship?

I’m a conservative Christian, and I take very seriously the teaching of the Bible. So if you tell me that I have no choice and I must accept the fact that all marriages must be state-endorsed, then obviously I’m going to think in terms of my traditional understanding of marriage, since I don’t want the government creating and then endorsing things that are immoral. We’re going to clash and war over that. But here’s a radical thought: If you want to get married then get married, and let’s not let the government have a part of it at all!

But what about incest, polygamy etc? Well firstly, people in the USA are already legally permitted to have sexual relations with multiple people and commit adultery. If you think that’s so horrific, then support a law banning it. And incest is already illegal, so the question of incestuous marriage isn’t an issue. The act is banned. Let’s just say that anyone can get married, as long as they don’t commit any acts that are themselves illegal (like incest or marrying a minor or any other illegal sexual practices). Enter into whatever property contracts you like, regardless of sexuality.

Issues of sexual practices are determined on their own (e.g. the notorious “anti-sodomy law” issue in Texas). But the suggestion that you have a civil right for the government to come into your bedroom and give you a nice certificate and pat your relationship on the back (so to speak)…. Please don’t do that to my language. “Rights” are important things, and you’re dragging that word through the mud when you use it like that.

(This is to say nothing of the misleading claim that currently, different individuals have different rights based on their sexuality. They don’t. No individual is excluded from getting married in California based on gender, race, or sexual orientation. That’s why emotive comparisons to interracial marriage being banned just have no substance.)

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)