A Rejoinder to Stephen Franks

Welcome to the Institute for Liberal Values of New Zealand.

Institute library - browse our extensive collection of articles and opinion papers.

Find out about famous liberal-minded thinkers.

Read about the latest events involving liberalism.

Find a liberal book to read away from the computer.

The latest thoughts from Institute writers.

The following is the third in a series of discussions between Jim Peron and Stephen Franks. The first two parts can be found in Any Excuse in a Storm and A Reply to the Diatribe from Stephen Franks.

Opinions one doesn't like are always diatribes, aren't they. So be it.

I will respond to the points Mr. Franks made and then note the points in my "diatribe" he ignored. In his situation, I might have ignored them as well.

Reply 1

Mr Franks says that I alleged he never fought the censorship board. He then mentions that when others have "wanted more powers and discretions" for the censors he opposed them. He said he opposed efforts by National to "increase censorship." All well and good. But exactly what did I say?

My exact words: "I'm glad Stephen is worried about such censorship. But I've never seen him make any effort to abolish the censorship board." Mr. Franks did not actually reply to what I said at all. There is a difference between opposing the extension of the powers of the censors and abolishing them.

There are many areas where conservatives oppose censorship but they don't oppose it in principle. New hate speech laws would extend the powers of the board. Conservatives might oppose that especially if they were concerned it would be used against them. But using such laws against people they don't like doesn't worry them. Abolishing the board ends those powers. Conservatives would oppose that. If Mr. Franks has tried to abolish the board I don't know about it and he didn't mention that effort in his reply. I will thus assume that my original allegation still stands. He has not yet advocated abolishing the censorship board. If he does, I'll applaud him for it.

Reply 2

I asked why Mr. Franks did not earlier express his concern about this bill being used as a precursor to a "hate crime" law. He replied by saying he was concerned and voiced that concern. Except the evidence he used was that he wanted the "the State" to remain "neutral" and a clause inserted in the bill saying the State did not favour gay relationships.

Mr. Franks has confirmed what I said in my "diatribe". My exact words: "In fact the last time I spoke to him about the Bill he didn't voice this concern at all. His concern then was equally absurd. He was worried that the law would be used to "legitimise homosexuality". He then wanted a clause in the bill saying it was neutral on the issue."

I noted that these are two different clauses. I argued that he wanted the first clause and then abandoned it for the second clause. I said that I felt he wanted the clause knowing it would be rejected allowing him to placate liberals and conservatives both. He placates liberals by saying he really, really wanted to vote for the bill but couldn't do so without his clause. He knew the clause would be rejected allowing him to vote against the bill satisfying conservatives and his own personal views.

From what I can see, his rebuttal is almost a rewording of what I said. That's not a reply. That's an admission.

Reply 3

I said that his press release concentrated on aspects NOT in the bill. I mentioned specifics. His reply ignored them. The reply instead concentrated on other things that are not in the bill, such as his claim that it does not indicate "the commitment or qualities that merit State favour". But then he admits the laws regarding marriage don't do that either. This doesn't worry him because of the "cultural and historic" definition for marriage. I hate to burst his bubble but when I read what opponents to civil unions say about marriage they can't actually agree on what are those "cultural and historic" elements.

I've read one opponent of Civil Unions show how marriage is different by defining specific aspects only to read another opponent of Civil Unions ridicule the "important" aspects mentioned by the first and replacing them with a different set of aspects. I suspect marriage is like obscenity: no one can actually define it but they know it when they see it. The problem for anti gay marriage advocates is they have to define marriage in such a way as to exclude gays. That's pretty tough. The only thing they can really resort to is using procreation but then they have problems with the fact that many straight couples don't procreate and many can't!

Franks claims that anyone "who wants the legal rights and obligations of marriage can just become a de-facto." Not quite true. I'm not an attorney but I did ask one immigration specialist about this. I was told that if a straight man from New Zealand married a non-Kiwi Immigration would give allow the woman into New Zealand taking the marriage certificate as a "presumption" of stability to the relationship. But a de-facto gay couple, for instance, would have to jump through extra hoops to "prove" stability. The married couple doesn't have to prove it. It is assumed for them. The gay couple, even if de-facto, must do extra work to prove it.

It is true that in New Zealand gay couples have many of the rights that married couples have unlike the United States. But they don't have the same rights. Now if gay couples, as Franks seems to imply, already have many of the same rights of married couples then why is there any controversy?

If Mr. Franks doesn't like civil unions he could try to introduce a bill that simply allows gay couples to marry. But that's where the conservative has problems. They can't stomach the idea that gay couples be considered equally. And I'm convinced that this is the heart of the matter for him but that wouldn't sit well with the large liberal contingent in ACT.

As far as I can see Franks did not reply to what he called Allegation 1. His reply to Allegation 2 was to restate what I said thus admitting it was accurate. In Allegation 3 instead of pointing to bad aspects of the bill he again complained about other things that also weren't there.

Now my "diatribe" was a response to his press release. In that press release he argued that some people mentioned "hate crime" and that Jacquie Grant's shrill e-mail threatened opponents with "hate crimes". He argued that the bill was just another step in the direction of hate crime legislation. In fact he called the CUB an "opening ploy" implying that it was merely a precursor for some other agenda.

I argued this was absurd. I said the CUB did not mention hate crimes and if any such bill was introduced it should be opposed. He and I would be on the same side on that one. But to oppose the CUB because of a unrelated and non-existent bill is silly.

The heart of my "diatribe" was not the three allegations that Mr. Franks responded to at all. The main point of my "diatribe" is found in the two paragraphs immediately preceding this one. It was this main point that Franks never addressed in his reply. He concentrated on side points instead and even then he didn't actually refute them.

In my opinion the "diatribe" stands. But I'm happy for the readers to read the "diatribe", read the reply from Mr. Franks, and then read my rejoinder and make up their own minds.

Posted by Jim at 11:14 pm on November 26, 2004

All items in this journal reflect the personal opinions of the author and are not necessarily those of the Institute for Liberal Values or its Board members.

Previous (A Reply to the Diatribe from Stephen Franks) - Next (Why we should exclude religion from the public arena.)

Recent journals by Jim Peron: