Thursday, March 17, 2005

crazy, crazy, crazy.

The Christian Heritage Party wants to remove marital status as a prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act. In other words, if you are hiring people and you don’t want a married person , well, you can just employ unmarried people. If someone walks in with a ring on their fourth finger of their left hand and a marriage certificate as ID they are either hired or given the flick depending on your view of marriage.

The CHP, by releasing its statement, has shown that it stands for the right of employers to fire employees because they are married or unmarried, as the case may be, for landlords' right to evict tenants because they are married (or unmarried) and for drivers to refuse to allow two married people holding hands to get on a bus or into a taxi. By that I mean that if you are favourable towards marriage and the two married people concerned are not married to each other, you can tell them to naff off.

So what, most people would say, its only CHP, who are irrelevant anyway. No wonder even a decent smattering of Christians can't support the party, with positions like that.

But what if it was ACT's Stephen Franks who said it rather than saying that he wanted to repeal section 21 (1) m of the Human Rights Act reinstating discrimination based on sexual orientation.

This blogger, Jordan Carter would never express much of a concern about CHP's position as he did about Stephen Franks suggestion regarding sexual orientation, for reasons which are obvious.Franks is not suggesting that we discriminate based on marital status as well, is he?

But .. wait for it.. Franks is suggesting that as well. Stephen Franks also suggested a repeal of section 21 1 b of the Human Righs Act repealing discrimination based on marital status, so why isn't Jordan Carter and his his mates in Rainbow Labour up in arms about this discriminatory position?

I think the answer is obvious. Jordan and his friends in Rainbow Labour are more concerned about gay human rights than human rights in general. There is a view that if someone in a particular political party does not support gay rights - (or suggests weakening human rights provisions of gay people) then not only is that person in the party homophobic, then all MPs in that party are homophobic by association.

Go read his site - and read the comments. Read the heading as well.



Anonymous said...

Er, excuse me?

I'm a Labour supporter and I oppose all forms of discrimination, hate crime,ethnic cleansing and genocide*. Aren't you making rather a blanket assumption about an entire group of people?

It would be akin to me saying that all evangelical Christians support hardline monetarist economic policies, which isn't remotely true for anyone who knows the sociological literature.

As for Franks, the debate was over an end to relationship discrimination, not employment and accomodation discrimination. Those issues were resolved in 1993, twelve years ago.

*And have repeatedly stated my support for Ahmed Zaoui and ambivalence about the seabed and foreshore legislation.

Nigel Kearney said...

Good point Dave, this proves what I've always suspected. Stephen Franks hates married people.