I think it would be highly relevant, important even, to acknowledge the fact that he is gay and ask him to publicly explain why, as a gay man, he does not support a bill that was seen as being mostly a gay rights issue
The critical word here is, as you've pointed out, 'seen'. Seen by whom? The media? The general public? Members of the political micro-culture? If I were Dr Smith and I was questioned about my sexuality in relation to the CUB (I have no idea how he voted - he may have supported it, for all I know), and presuming I didn't want to leap clear of the closet door, I'd simply say 'this bill has nothing to do with homosexual rights, and I do not intend to discuss my private life with the media' and present all the familiar arguments about why it isn't. So I guess it would be fairly harmless, but in my mind it's not fair game because it makes policy making less a matter of ideas and more a matter of personalities.
Dude, I love how they keep saying "Chris Finlayson, National's only gay MP..." Is there anyone who really believes that?
Actually I've often seen it formulated as National's only -openly- gay MP. Not that there aren't a fair few closet doors on Labour's side. Ruth Dyson, for example.
Actually, English pulls a lot of love from class of '04 because he was relentless on the NCEA thing.
Ah, I guess I kind of missed out on that vibe. The question is, as National leader, let alone as Prime Minister, do you think he would continue to show the stirling qualities displayed back then, or is it more a case of it being a big mess brewed up by the government and Bill was lucky enough to be the relevant opposition spokesman when it occurred?
Homosexual Law reform bill? Unfortunately, Clob doesn't seem to be too far away from wanting to repeal that...
In his heart of hearts, he might well, but he'd never seriously propose it, and even if he did his own party would shout him down. Even the homosexual law reform bill controversy, it must be remembered, was about repealing an existing law rather than introducing a new one, and there's always a slightly higher bar in terms of political capital to strike down a functioning law (even though, in legal terms, the difference is fairly slight). That's why discriminatory laws are usually weaselled in indirectly rather than through overt 'people of group X are banned from doing Y activity or having Z right' formulations - think the 90 day bill, for instance, which was phrased as intended to enable employers rather than disable employees.
Of course there is a wide perception among conservatives like Clarkson that homosexuals (or maori, or non-english speakers, or whatever) enjoy 'privilege', but they're usually spare on the details of exactly which acts of parliament enshrine this privilege, and presumably should be repealed.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: No Mr Brash, I expect you to die.
Date: 2006-09-17 07:13 am (UTC)The critical word here is, as you've pointed out, 'seen'. Seen by whom? The media? The general public? Members of the political micro-culture? If I were Dr Smith and I was questioned about my sexuality in relation to the CUB (I have no idea how he voted - he may have supported it, for all I know), and presuming I didn't want to leap clear of the closet door, I'd simply say 'this bill has nothing to do with homosexual rights, and I do not intend to discuss my private life with the media' and present all the familiar arguments about why it isn't. So I guess it would be fairly harmless, but in my mind it's not fair game because it makes policy making less a matter of ideas and more a matter of personalities.
Dude, I love how they keep saying "Chris Finlayson, National's only gay MP..." Is there anyone who really believes that?
Actually I've often seen it formulated as National's only -openly- gay MP. Not that there aren't a fair few closet doors on Labour's side. Ruth Dyson, for example.
Actually, English pulls a lot of love from class of '04 because he was relentless on the NCEA thing.
Ah, I guess I kind of missed out on that vibe. The question is, as National leader, let alone as Prime Minister, do you think he would continue to show the stirling qualities displayed back then, or is it more a case of it being a big mess brewed up by the government and Bill was lucky enough to be the relevant opposition spokesman when it occurred?
Homosexual Law reform bill? Unfortunately, Clob doesn't seem to be too far away from wanting to repeal that...
In his heart of hearts, he might well, but he'd never seriously propose it, and even if he did his own party would shout him down. Even the homosexual law reform bill controversy, it must be remembered, was about repealing an existing law rather than introducing a new one, and there's always a slightly higher bar in terms of political capital to strike down a functioning law (even though, in legal terms, the difference is fairly slight). That's why discriminatory laws are usually weaselled in indirectly rather than through overt 'people of group X are banned from doing Y activity or having Z right' formulations - think the 90 day bill, for instance, which was phrased as intended to enable employers rather than disable employees.
Of course there is a wide perception among conservatives like Clarkson that homosexuals (or maori, or non-english speakers, or whatever) enjoy 'privilege', but they're usually spare on the details of exactly which acts of parliament enshrine this privilege, and presumably should be repealed.