One of the things I am loving about not being affiliated to any party is that I can criticise my own 'side'. It is a liberating thing.

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?!?!?]

We have still not decided who we will give our party vote to so tonight's mission is to finally work out which party we are voting for. Our previous list of potentials has been whittled down to:

• 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?

Supporters of Labour Candidate for Wellington Central, Grant Robertson, have published this video to provide evidence that Stephen Franks, the National Candidate for the same electorate, is “homophobic.” I remain unconvinced; in fact, I suggest that a careful analysis of the contents show that, if anything, Robertson is the bigoted ideologue. Unlike Robertson’s supporters, I will endeavour to argue for my position.

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)

Te Atatu Pony Club's grounds share a boundary with Auckland's busy North Western Motorway. Last night Matt and Sheridan were up at the Pony Club helping to set up jumps for this weekend's One Day Event (ODE).

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.

A few weeks ago someone gave me a copy of this interview with John Key. Now the first thing to note is that the article was published by Gaynz.com. Gaynz.com are not a terribly reliable media outlet, and Madeleine would say that they are beneath the term “media outlet”. Hence, much of what is written may be highly inaccurate. (The fact Gaynz.com have removed this article and I had to link to it indirectly through a liberal Anglican site perhaps speaks to some of the above.) Despite this, if John Key did say these things, how would one respond to them? I will endeavour to do this in this post.

1. Key states he voted against civil unions because the majority in his electorate were opposed it.
This is clearly an inadequate stance, suppose that same-sex sex is wrong, contrary to the laws of God. If this is the case, Key is suggesting that he would follow the beliefs and will of the majority over the beliefs of an omniscient, all knowing, perfectly-good God. This is irrational to say the least. The mistaken views that are popular are more authoritative than the decree of God.

On the other hand, suppose there is nothing wrong with same-sex sex. Suppose that discriminating against such unions is on par with discriminating against inter-racial unions. Then Key is suggesting he would follow the racial prejudices of the majority even though he abhors this prejudice himself.

Such a position is bizarre. For my part I expect legislators to be people of integrity and have the courage of their convictions to stand against evil and injustice even when it is unpopular to do so.

2. Key dismisses the argument that “civil unions undermine marriage” in a far too cavalier manner. Though I myself do not endorse this argument, I believe a critique of it should be based on an accurate and fair interpretation which must also be a valid argument. Key’s is neither. Key responds by saying, “I have been married for 22 years and the fact that a gay couple may choose to have a Civil Union would have absolutely no impact on my marriage to my wife”. But that is not the issue. Opponents of civil unions claimed it would undermine the institution of marriage not that it would under mine one particular person’s marriage.

Of course Key is not alone in dismissing the arguments of others simply by a cavalier caricature, but this fact does not alter the spuriousness of doing so.

3. Key states “I don’t care what people’s sexual preferences are” and states that a persons sexual preference “is their business and their business alone.” Several things can be said here; first whether Key cares about an issue is irrelevant. The issue is whether certain actions are right or wrong and this is not determined by Key’s personal feelings.

Second, if a person’s “sexual preferences” are “their business alone” why does he have no problem with the State solemnising and legally recognising a person’s sexual union. If it is no one else’s business then why is it the states business?

Thirdly, contrary to what Key says, a person’s “sexual preference” is relevant. Some people prefer little children; by definition this is a sexual preference. If Keys’ trite sounding slogan were correct, this is their business alone and no one else’s.

Similarly Key notes that “We have friends who are gay and lesbian, just as we have dozens of friends who are heterosexual.” This may be true but it is beside the point. The fact that you know people who do something does not mean the State should endorse their activity through recognising and solemnising it. I have had friends who sleep around and regularly get intoxicated. Does that mean that the government should set up state funded clinics for those who want casual sex or provide tax payer funded alcohol?

4. In discussing the origins of same-sex attraction Key states “I believe it is innate. I am not an expert in these areas but I have had all these religious groups in my electoral office trying to argue that this is learned behaviour, personally I believe that is crap.” It is not just religious people who make that claim (and not all religious people do anyway). Socially liberal New York University Sociologist, Dr David Greenberg, in his book “The Construction of Homosexuality” concluded that homosexual conduct is socially learned. He based this on a huge survey of cross-cultural studies. This work may be mistaken, but I think Key is reaching if he thinks his credentials warrant writing off such research as “crap” because of what his consciousness tells him.

4. Key goes on to note: “I think we largely live in a secular society, I think there are many religions operating in NZ and it is in the best interests of the state to make decisions that are on a secular basis so they don’t discriminate. I’m no supporter of these hard right religions. [For instance,] I was never offered, I would never have accepted any financial support from the Exclusive Brethren. I met them as a constituency MP, as I would meet anyone as a constituency MP on constituency issues as I believe it’s wrong to discriminate.”

There is so much here it is hard to know where to begin.

(a) Key states “we live in a secular society”. This mantra is trotted out by politicians of the left and right continually, but it is spurious. The fact that society currently displays a trait does not mean it ought to display that trait, we currently live in a Labour led society, does Key think that means Labour ought to continue to lead?

(b) Key goes on to state he does not believe in discrimination. However, he then immediately notes that he does not “support hard right religions.” His position is contradictory; unless Key does not support any groups at all (which is clearly false he supports National) he is discriminating against these groups as he is supporting some but not others.

Moreover, legislation by its nature discriminates. A law regulates human conduct, it states that people who engage in certain actions will be censured (incarcerated or fined) while people who do not engage in those actions will not. This is discrimination. Contrary to what Key states discrimination in and of itself is a morally neutral concept. Some types of discrimination are wrong i.e. depriving people of their life on the basis of their race, and others are not, depriving people of liberty because they have committed murder. The fact that such an elementary and obvious point is lost on someone who seeks to lead the country speaks volumes for the intellectual and moral acumen of today’s politicians.

(c) However, Key’s core argument is “I think there are many religions operating in NZ and it is in the best interests of the state to make decisions that are on a secular basis so they don’t discriminate.” The argument here seems to be that because there are many differing religious groups in NZ, it would be discriminatory to base the laws on moral principles taught by only some of these groups. Hence legislation should be based on secular (i.e non-religious) values and ideals.

The problem is that if this argument is not sound. If it were, there is an equally sound argument for the claim that we should not base laws on secular values and ideals.

Consider: There are many secular philosophies operating in NZ. They disagree on all sorts of matters. Compare the Socialist Workers Party with the Objectivist Society, or both with the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists. Hence, if we follow Key’s logic, to avoid discrimination we need to base laws on “non-secular aims”.

In fact one can push this silly argument further, there are numerous different political parties in NZ, hence to avoid discrimination we should not base laws on the aims or values of any political party. Which means that if elected Prime Minister, Key will not support any National Party policies being implemented.

Does any of the above mean that people should not vote for National? Not necessarily. While Key is clearly mistaken on these issues, it does not follow that he is mistaken on every other issues. Moreover, it could be (lets face it, it is probably the case…) that the alternative to National will contain people who are more mistaken on more issues. John Key has a lot of faults but he has one big tick in his favour, he is not Helen Clark.

I will resist the urge the comment on the content of the recent taped conversations, well I might say *yawn* what political party does not contain MP's that have ideas about where they would like their party to head in the future, in fact to swipe my 16 year old's comments, there would be something wrong with an MP who didn't have such opinions. I want to briefly comment on the legality of taping politicians at political conventions - well taping conversations in general.

As you know I am currently completing a bachelor of law so I have some knowledge of how to find out what is legal and what is not and as it happens I have looked into this particular subject in some detail as, umm, lets just say, it has come up in conversation over the years.

Reports that National are seeking legal advice and may seek to pursue charges are unlikely to fly because the basic rule of taping conversations is to make sure you yourself are privy to the conversation, as long as you are you can tape away to your heart's content with no one else's knowledge or consent. It is 100% legal. Section 216 B of the Crimes Act 1961 is your 'how to' guide to tape conversations legally (of course ethically and morally it can be highly questionable). So whoever the secret taper(s) are in this instance they can sleep soundly knowing there will not be any knocks on the door from the constabulary or any legal bills coming their way over this matter at least.

For those of you who don't want to click the link to the Crimes Act the nuts and bolts are that you get into muddy water when you tape conversation you are not privy to or that you are just close enough to overhear but those having the conversation think you cannot hear them. If you have the desire to tape those kinds of conversations, join the police force and get a warrant, otherwise steer clear.

Murray certainly thinks so and I am inclined to agree from what I have heard so far from the man. Of course it could all be the way the media are reporting things but Key does appear to be pulling National more centrist and last time National were over there it was disastrous for them.

Sure, this time they are facing an incumbant govt which is steeped in scandal and so there will probably be some moderate Labour voters who might vote for what Murray has renamed National, "Labour Lite", but what of those on the centre right and further over to the right (as in correct) position?

It looks like we are left with voting National because its not Labour or jumping to ACT's two man band.