So who is lying?

October 14th, 2011 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

has blogged on the now well publicised accusations over what was said and denied at the Rainbow Wellington election forum. A number of Party candidates and supporters have all accused ACT candidate of getting it wrong.

Well to para-phrase Mandy Rice-Davies, they would say that, wouldn’t they. But Green MP Kevin Hague has backed Whittington’s version of events. Now unless one subscribes to Labour’s mad theory of a vast right wing and non-labour left wing conspiracy, I think we can trust as an honest witness.

With that in mind, Jordan may regret the title of his blog post – a clarification for some liars out there.

Does this mean he is calling Kevin Hague a liar?

I get a mention also, which I need to respond to.

This has been amplified today by that well known defender of the rights of queer people, David Farrar, on his blog KiwiBlog, and by Whittington himself in a media release.  The result is this Stuff story “Labour accused of homophobia cover-up” by Andrea Vance.

Now the reference to me as a “well known defender of the rights of queer people” is obviously meant to be sarcastic and imply I am insincere when it comes to this issue, and just using it to score political points.

I think my record stands for itself. I have blogged in supports of gay issues such as civil unions, gay marriage and gay adoption on scores and scores of occasions. I actively lobbied in favour of the Civil Union Bill, assisting Tim Barnett with it.  I blogged in 2004 how great the Civil Unions Bill party was to celebrate, and how great it was to be a very small part of helping something positive happen.

Unlike many in Labour I have been willing to criticise MPs from my own party on these issues. At the time of the Civil Unions Bill I blogged somewhat critically of some of the speeches from MPs against, including National MPs. The following week my public criticisms were raised in Caucus (so I am told, I don’t attend of course) by some of the MPs I had criticised, asking for something to be done to shut me up.

Also just last year I blogged quite harsh criticisms of a Cabinet Minister for comments which I thought were taunting a gay MP. It actually turned out (once I saw the video and wasn’t just going off the NZPA report) that I had misinterpreted the comments, and it was a fairly good natured exchange, so I actually was unfairly critical of the National Minister. But again, note I was publicly critical.

So even though Jordan was using the term sarcastically, I think I have been consistent in my advocacy on gay rights. Perhaps my crime is actually being heterosexual and a National supporter – after all how can a straight right winger be anything but insincere on gay issues?

Farrar’s allegations are nonsense.  He (and Whittington) are lying when they say that Grant and Charles denied Trevor’s ‘tinkerbell’ stuff.  They did no such thing.

Well let me quote Kevin Hague:

Green MP Kevin Hague, who was also at the meeting, backed Mr Whittington’s version of events. “My sense was that Charles and Grant were denying that Mallard and Cosgrove had abused Chris Finlayson in a homophobic way.

Also Jordan and Grant’s version of events are not even backed by Chauvel himself. In the Herald he said:

Mr Chauvel said he had never heard anybody refer to Mr Finlayson by that name “and if I did hear it, I would tell them that was unacceptable”.

So Charles was denying anyone had ever said it. So now the list of liars is Stephen Whittington, myself, Kevin Hague and Charles himself.

They would have been stupid to. The remarks were well covered at the time.  We told Trevor what we thought. Making slurs like that in Parliament is totally unacceptable.

They were well covered at the time. Do you know why? Because I blogged about them. Off memory there was no publicity around this until I highlighted this. No one in Labour did anything about Trevor and Clayton until there was adverse publicity.

And don’t think it was only the three times it has been recorded in Hansard. Hansard only records comments if made in a speech or if an interjection is responded to. I understand Trevor and Clayton has yelled out Tinkerbell to Finlayson on numerous occasions – but as Finlayson ignored them they do not get recorded.

So good on Jordan and others for telling Trevor (and hopefully Clayton) to stop. But did you say anything publicly like I have with National MPs?

What they denied is that Mallard is homophobic. They are right.  Trevor has been a staunch defender of social liberal causes and was a key player in the fight to decriminalise homosexuality in the 1980s. His voting record on queer rights issues is perfect.

I tend to agree that Trevor is not homophobic. He is just someone willing to use homophobic comments to attack other MPs. It’s much the same with Winston. I don’t think Winston really hate Asians. I think he just knows it is effective to bash Asian immigration, so does it to be popular.  I note Jordan has not said whether or not he thinks Clayton is homophobic.

In terms of the argument that someone can not be homophobic because they have a perfect voting record on queer right issues. By that logic, Senator Larry Craig can’t be homosexual because he has a perfect voting record against queer rights. I think behaviour counts as much as one’s voting record.

So my message to Whittington and to David Farrar is: stop lying on this point.

I trust Stephen’s integrity, just as I trust Kevin Hague – a gay Green MP who politically has nothing to gain by backing up the ACT candidate’s version of events. And then add onto that the fact that Chauvel has said he has never heard anyone refer to Finlayson by that name, and I am very comfortable with what I have blogged.

Jordan would do well to stop shooting the messengers. If only he spent as much time condemning the remarks publicly when they were made, than denying they were denied.

For someone who is a social liberal, David sure does spend a lot of time stirring up nasty stuff.

I love this Orewellain view of the world. If I was a Labour activist who criticised a National MP for denying homophobic comments from other National MPs, I would be trumpeted as the good guy, and the National MP would be the nasty guy.

But no God forbid that I criticise a Labour MP/s because in the heat of a debate they made the wrong call and embarrassed by the mention of these homophobic comments by colleagues they tried to bluff it and deny said comments had been made.

I can only conclude that criticising a Labour MP for anything at all, is automatically nasty stuff.

On that note I’ll talk about why I did the series of posts on . It is not because he is gay as Charles has suggested, or because some mythical polls show him leading in Ohariu and Peter Dunne has put me up to it.  It is because I received information (from a number of sources, including people in his own party) that revealed he was doing shameless self-promotion to a degree that was deceptive.

In the past I have been complimentary of Charles, such as when he was moved to the extended front bench, noting:

Chauvel was a no brainer.  … Chauvel to environment is logical and what I predicted. He is one of the few MPs who understand the complexities of the ETS etc.

And before the reshuffle I said:

But a couple of others would also be contenders on merit for the front bench, or at least the front row of the cross-benches. Charles Chauvel and Grant Robertson would be the two strongest contenders. …

I also blogged in favour of his private members bill on credit reform going to select committee.

Charles is not the only MP who is a self-promoter. All MPs are (by necessity) to some degree. But I think where most MPs are under-graduates, Charles seemed to be well on his way to a PhD in it, so I called him out on some of his practices. No conspiracy, no , nothing to do with Ohariu. At the end of the day if you don’t write letters praising yourself and send them out to people, then there is no way I can be sent a copy of them to blog about it.

UPDATE: Whale Oil has blogged that the video of the House shows Chauvel was present when Mallard used the term, and sitting just three seats along and one back from him.

UPDATE2: The Secretary of Rainbow Wellington has released his summary of the meeting based on his detailed notes. Tony Reed’s summary states:

The Banks issue was taken up further and the Labour MPs reminded us of his homophobic actions in the House when Chris Carter came out as the first openly gay MP. Stephen agreed this was wrong, but in turn accused Labour MPs of making homophobic remarks about Chris Finlayson, a charge which was hotly denied.”

I won’t hold my breath waiting for an apology for being called a liar.


28 Responses to “So who is lying?”

  1. East Wellington Superhero (1,142 comments) says:

    Funny how some people would rather catch Chlamydia than be accused of being homophobic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. thedavincimode (8,131 comments) says:

    Rhetorical question. No response required.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. East Wellington Superhero (1,142 comments) says:

    Also, this whole thing seems like a cliché gay lovers tiff writ large.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Inventory2 (12,376 comments) says:

    Jordan Carter has really gone out on a limb on this one. Last night on Twitter he was running a novel defence; that Mallard’s comments were not homophobic; they were merely stupid. I doubt that Trevor would be especially pleased at that!

    In the meantime, I have put up a poll on the issue at Keeping Stock. With the proposition “The “Tinkerbell” interjection was…”, it offers the following choices:

    *All of the above
    *Harmless fun

    Responses so far are well spread, but interestingly, no-one has chosen the final option.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Murray (8,822 comments) says:

    Fine, we can all call Chris Carter Tinkerbell now, he says its not homophobic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. adze (2,133 comments) says:

    If I had heard someone call a man “tinker bell” I would assume it was an attack on his manhood, ie. Calling them insipid, a wuss, or possibly effeminate. I wouldn’t immediately assume it was a homophobic slur. But I wouldn’t put that past the duck.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. East Wellington Superhero (1,142 comments) says:

    What does homophobic even mean these days? It is just a stupid line that gay folk level at those who disagree with them.

    I my experience of high school, people got mocked for being fat, asian, a meat-head rugby player, American, Maori, from a poor suburb, stupid, gay, whatever. It was because teenagers can be arseholes sometimes and pick on those people who are different – as opposed to a specific ‘fear of gay people’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Murray (8,822 comments) says:

    Hey the prick is guilty of physical assult in parliment, why is it such a stretch that he has commited verbal assuault as well?

    Why does it need to be classified as something particular?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. alex Masterley (2,046 comments) says:

    Isn’t Parliamentry TV wonderful!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Manolo (22,012 comments) says:

    These queens are really queer, aren’t they?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Murray (8,822 comments) says:

    Saves on buy those bloody Teletubby videos for the kids Alex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Johnboy (20,828 comments) says:

    If explaining = losing you have lost bigtime David. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. insider (938 comments) says:

    “Chauvel was a no brainer…”

    how prescient you were DPF…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Mark1 (110 comments) says:

    JB, there are always exceptions to that rule and this is one of them. This is just DPF booting Labour into total submission.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Rosa19 (27 comments) says:

    interesting how these issues have rolled left to right etc over the years … “In the early 1970s, when this movement emerged, Labour was dominated by social conservatives. It was a National Party MP, Venn Young, not a Labourite who in 1974 introduced the first bill to liberalise the laws on same-sex activity. Prominent Labour MPs denounced Young’s bill and argued that homosexuality was a perversion. The Labour caucus was still so anti-gay that they purged former Agriculture Minister Colin Moyle from their ranks on the slightest suggestion he was gay. And it was National who had the first out gay MP, Marilyn Waring, well over a decade before Labour’s out gay MPs started appearing…”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Jane Dylan (1 comment) says:

    Jordan Carter’s blog is illogical and shows the depths to which some Labour-ites will stoop. It is great to see young liberal candidates like Stephen Whittington highlight this important issue. He represents the future of ACT and as a result their future looks very bright.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. barry (1,233 comments) says:

    same old – same old. Whenever queers get into trouble its a real cat fight – accusations and counter accusations and claims of lies and of course the big claim – “your all queer haters…”

    and how so right that last one is.

    I wish theyd jst go away and shut up and leave the rest of us normal people alone.

    You see no matter what the laws say – you cant actually force anyone to like anything – and most people dont like queer males or masculine lesbians. And no – I wont tolerate them – I dont like them….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    We must realise that gays like Jordan are the only ones able to take offence at supposed
    homophobic comments. They have the “poor me” right to decide selectivly what is offensive.
    Kinda like Ms Mutu can decide what is racist because she had a non white parent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. rajy (2 comments) says:

    First of all, I was at this meeting from start to finish so let me just clarify this.

    Jordan Carter wasn’t there for question time when all this happened so it’s a bit rich of him to post a blog on what happened. But then again, he’s a smug lil leftie who’s too far up his own ass to realise what goes on in the world around him.

    This all came about as a result of a question that my friend Shane put forward to the ACT candidate about classic libertarianism and Don Brash etc, Whittington responded and gave an example of Mallard making homophobic remarks. At this point Grant raised his voice and said “That’s a lie….” followed by a personal attack on John banks, Chauvel during all of this time was providing background noise about Mallard not making those comments and this never happening.

    How do I remember all this? because when Grant made that remark about the tinkerbell comment being a lie, I heckled saying ‘bollocks’ and was almost about to get up from my seat. Grant and Chauvel kept on denying this and raising their voices over Whittington’s until the Maori Party representative said that they needed to stop the personal attacks.

    It’s funny to see Grant and Chauvel denying all of this when people in the room are disagreeing them. They’re trying to make it sound like they were talking about homophobia, they weren’t. It was a very clear and distinct answer on behalf of Robertson and Chauvel, they outright denied that those comments were ever uttered in the house.

    So there you go. Robertson and Chauvel are filthy liars who don’t deserve to be in the House if the only way they’re trying to save their own behinds is by questioning the integrity of the ACT candidate when it was only them spewing forth the lies and personal attacks.

    They also attacked Peter Dunne but that’s a tale for another day ;p

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Lucia Maria (4,196 comments) says:

    Jordan Carter is still blogging?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Mick Mac (1,254 comments) says:

    bereal (848) Says:
    October 14th, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    On to it in one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. reversespin (101 comments) says:

    DPF – “….mythical polls show him leading in Ohariu.”

    Chauvel has been trying to establish this myth that he is ahead in Ohariu for a while. And once again, he is full of it.

    I-predict has him on 7c for winning Ohariu. Even Shanks is ahead of him on 12c.

    If he and his supporters, pollsters or canvassers are so confident – why don’t they put some money on it?! They would make a fortune!!! 1000% return in 6 weeks!!

    They know what everyone else in Ohariu knows…….he ain’t gonna get close. Saying that you are ahead in the polls doesn’t make it true…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Pete George (24,828 comments) says:

    reversespin – recently Chauvel claim something I though he couldn’t possibly know and he said “I’ll post the link if you like”.

    I asked him to post the link and he responded with “I’m just a good judge of character”. So basically he lied about having proof.

    I suspect he will think he’s “a good judge of polls”. I doubt Labour would waste resources running polls in Ohariu, the result there is relatively inconsequential to them in the overall scheme of things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Michael (1,065 comments) says:

    Note to Mr Carter, Robertson, and Chauvel – when in a hole, stop digging.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Grendel (1,064 comments) says:

    the attacks on Dunnes hoardings are up as well. they are graffiting them rather than destroying currently. drawing a joint in his mouth and changing his name to peter DunnHill, and calling him MP for big tobacco.

    since it only happens to the National and UF hoardings, its clearly a labour or green supporter doing it.

    when will the parties come out and state that they want none of their supporters doing this, and if they hear of anyone doing it they will report them to the police, supporter or not?

    its becuase even though they have plausible deniability and are not ‘officially’ endorsing it, you know they count on it as part of their campaigns. it would be interesting to see the different budgets of the left vs right in terms of requirements for replacement hoardings. i expect the nat, act and UF candidates have to spend more of their money on replacements than on actual campaigning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Bogusnews (437 comments) says:

    Labour really just don’t get it do they.

    It reminds me of what things were like in the dying (literally) days of the Clarke administration. Everything that could go wrong did. Even when they wanted to use the Telecom break up to divert people from Cullens lack lustre budget it was balls up with the info being leaked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Put it away (2,883 comments) says:

    Orwellian logic all right. It’s so twisted back upon itself that it’s likely to collapse into a singularity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Shunda barunda (4,189 comments) says:

    This is what I get out of this.

    1.If you live in Wellington, are interested in politics and frequent trendy Wellington bars, you have to be gay or a metro-sexual.

    2.Gay people seem to be extremely precious and need to be treated differently to everyone else otherwise they are prone to having their extremely thin skin damaged.

    3.People don’t know what a ‘phobia’ really is.

    4. People that think that these ‘gay issues’ are real ‘issues’ are either gay, or live in Wellington.

    5. These events are almost religious in nature, this whole event reads like an internal church squabble over correct ‘doctrine’ and in my opinion is powerful evidence that the social liberal agenda is more based in a type of ‘religious’ devotion to a set of liberal morals more rooted in ‘oughts’ and ‘ought nots’ than any logical progression of human rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote