No Wrong Turn

January 30th, 2013 at 4:31 pm by David Farrar

Idiot/Savant at blogged:

At the moment several African governments are progressing virulently homophobic legislation. There’s Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” bill, which would impose the death penalty for homosexuality and require reporting of homosexuals to the government. And in Nigeria there’s similar, though less brutal, legislation, which would (among other things) outlaw LGBT support groups.

Today Labour’s tried to move a motion expressing Parliament’s condemnation of this bigotry:

National vetoed it. 

I think this tells us exactly where National stands on gay rights. They’ll send John Key along to the Big Gay Out, but at their core they’re simply bigots, no different from Family First or the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

Idiot/Savant goes feral and sanctimonious so often, I’m not even surprised anymore. I doubt anyone takes his denunciations too seriously but in case they do, I thought I’d point out how operates.

A motion by a individual MP is basically never scheduled for debate or voting on. To have an MP’s motion considered, you need to seek permission of the House, and it takes just one individual MP to object to leave being granted. So if you want your motion voted on, then there is a process in place to ascertain in advance that the Government is happy for it to be put (so long as without debate). Basically you discuss it with your party’s whips, they discuss it with the Government whips, and they check with the Leader of the House. This process is widely known and is there precisely so opposition MPs can get non-controversial motions considered. The Government has actually been very accommodating of the rights of the minority through things such as negotiating extended sittings rather than forcing urgency on the House.

Now if we look at the draft Hansard for today, it says:

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I seek leave of the House to move a motion without notice and without debate about Cyclone Evan.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: I move, That this House express its acknowledgment and support to the peoples and Governments of Samoa and Fiji after Cyclone Evan wreaked havoc on these islands just before Christmas last year, and in particular convey its condolences and sympathies to Samoa’s head of State, His Highness Tuiatua Tupua Tamasese Efi, Prime Minister the Hon Tuila’epa Aiono Sailele Malielegaoi, members of Samoa’s legislative assembly, and the people of Samoa for the loss of five lives, and to the families of the 10 people still missing when floodwaters drove through settlements in the Apia township, dragging people, homes, vehicles, and personal property out to sea and destroying power, water, and other infrastructure, including food crops, and note that for many families it is the first-time experience of losing literally everything, and acknowledge the resilient response of families, people’s organisations, and Governments in both the islands and in New Zealand to aid families and friends in need.

Motion agreed to.

[Continuation line: Chauvel motion]

POINTS OF ORDER

Motion Without Notice—

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move members’ motion No. 4 in my name, without debate.

POINTS OF ORDER

Motion Without Notice—

 Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is objection.

So Sio had no one object to his motion, but Chauvel did have an objection. Why? It’s simple. Sio followed the process and did his homework by letting the whips know in advance. Chauvel did not. If Chauvel had done the courtesy of letting the whips know in advance he was going to seek leave, then almost certainly he would have got it I suspect. So I/S should direct his rant towards MPs who grandstand rather than follow the process.

People may not be aware but if an MP seeks leave, the whips have only around two seconds to object. You don’t have time to read the motion and decide after a minute’s contemplation. This is why it is well known amongst MPs that you inform the whips in advance of your desire to put it to a vote, and the whips check with the Leader of the House.

I find it appalling that I/S uses the failure of an Opposition MP to follow the process, to label the Government as bigots. It’s pathetic.

Tags: , ,

25 Responses to “No Wrong Turn”

  1. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    Chauvel claims he informed all parties.

    https://twitter.com/charleschauvel/status/296452914191413248

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    It is an error. There is no Savant in his nom de plume.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. David Garrett (7,289 comments) says:

    And the tens of thousands of members of the Sensible Sentencing Trust are all bigots because Garth expresses a personal view that “marriage equality” may well have some unintended consequences…righto…

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    If you want to start expressing condemnation towards the African continent, then there are rich pickings to be had. Why they would think that this one issue is the one most worthy of attention, I have no idea. The daily horrors are beyond belief.

    They had nothing to say about the far worse attrocities that occurred under Mandelas rule (and continue on today.) Against all that, homo rights are a side issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. David Farrar (1,895 comments) says:

    If CC has copies of emails to the Whips then it would be good to see them.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    I am very liberal on the whole homo issue. But I have to say, our more conservative friends make some strong arguments. Homosexual rights are not a burning issue and get far too much attention (from both sides). I would make the observation that often these issues are raised by lefties trying to score political points, rather than by homos themselves, who seem rather reticent by comparrison.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    So instead of vetoing anything to do with Africa, National vetoed “members’ motion No. 4 in my name” which as far as they knew could have contained anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    And the tens of thousands of members of the Sensible Sentencing Trust are all bigots because Garth expresses a personal view that “marriage equality” may well have some unintended consequences…righto…

    I don’t believe that’s the only basis for I/S’s claim. He also expressed concern over the attitude of the Trust toward manslaughter victim Pihema Cameron, attributing the Trust’s support not for the victim, but for the person accused of the murder to racial differences.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    If CC has copies of emails to the Whips then it would be good to see them.

    Sure, agreed.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Fentex (978 comments) says:

    For those of us untutoured in parliamentary procedures, if no one was informed or no steps taken to prepare for his motion what was Chauvel referring to when he said…

    I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move members’ motion No. 4 in my name

    What was Members Motion No. 4 if no preparation was done for Chauvel speaking up? What was, and how could he refer to it if it wasn’t prepared beforehand, Members Motion No. 4?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Archer (208 comments) says:

    I think I’d prefer the Government/National veto this sort of motion even if notice had been given. What a waste of time. Cyclone Evan’s affect on our Pacific neighbours is reasonably acceptable, given we probably are/will be helping out in practial steps to. But to make motions about proposed legislation in Uganda and Nigeria… really? nothing more important for Labour to talk about?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Fentex: all motions possibly up for discussion (including members’ motions) are listed on the Order Paper.

    Member’s motions are commonly placed on the order paper with no intention of ever actually being moved or debated. Just seeing it in writing it a way to make a point, or congratulate someone for something.

    The preparation beforehand being talked about is not the process of preparing and filing the motion, which was done, but of actively seeking out people from the other parties (the whips) and letting them know: this motion in my name, I’d really like to have it voted on on this occasion, and not just sit on the order paper until it drops off in a week(?).

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. burt (8,272 comments) says:

    There is a good reason I/S won’t allow comments ……

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    I suspect that if Chauvel had tried to introduce a motions affirming that puppies are cute then National would have vetoed that also.

    Why does National hate puppies?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. David Garrett (7,289 comments) says:

    Graeme: Idiot Savant (whoever the hell he is; you “beltway” chaps probably know) may “attribute” the views and motives of SST members to anything he likes. I think most would agree that I am very familar with the trust and its doings…and for that matter its members – or at least some of them.

    I have met only a few men in my life who genuinely don’t seem to notice – much less care – what race other people are. Garth McVicar is one of those people. The Trust has many Maori members, some of them holding executive positions at one time or another. Ironically, many of the Trusts Maori members are not victims but the family members of criminals who wish to balance the evil their sibling has done. I have personally heard Garth on many occasions assuring such women – they are usually women with a ratbag brother – that they (the siblings) have nothing to atone for, and that their brother’s wrong is not theirs.

    So this Idiot fellow can say or think what he likes…he clearly knows as much about SST and its membership as that other clown with the tattooed arms (“Bummer” is it??) who does a lot of sniping on blogs but runs away if one ever seeks to physically front him.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Fentex (978 comments) says:

    Member’s motions are commonly placed on the order paper with no intention of ever actually being moved or debated. Just seeing it in writing it a way to make a point, or congratulate someone for something.

    But they are placed there before debate and discussions begin for MP’s to read?

    If so then it’s not exactly true to argue MP’s and their whips had no opportunity to review motions before someone asked leave to move them and therefore must deny them promptly on a principle of not having an opportunity to consider them beforehand.

    Though it remains true the motion wasn’t defeated (so no party can be said to have voted against it) as it was blocked from being brought forward.

    Though I don’t find it convincing to argue that motions should only be permitted by prior agreement and whips can’t be held responsible for enforcing a friendly agreement it ought be so. It seems to me that if it’s properly notified in the paperwork and brought up in the chamber then peoples reactions to it are fair game for observers decisions and characterisations of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. IHStewart (388 comments) says:

    A couple of observations. Chauval and Idiot / Savant are both grandstanding the legislation has been sitting on the Ugandan Parliaments inbox for ages. The Speaker who is a silly bitch picked it up and then went further and deeply offended the Canadian’s who suggested it was a bad idea. Incidently the bill as it now stands does not proscibe the death penelty, it has been reduced to life in prison not much of a improvement. Ugandan President Museveni has made it very clear Uganda won’t be dictated to on this issue by the West and in the same breath said it was not a legeslative priority. I think that it is safe to say Uganda has taken the view that aid money is more important than homophobic legeslative stupidity.
    Now Chavaul should have been aware of both the reduced sentence and the position of Museveni and given that Shearer should be an African expert I am amazed this was ever contemplated.
    Uganda might well decide that it has no choice but to demonstrate its independence if parliaments / parliamentarians around the world follow the Chavaul example.
    By the way Kea you are a fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Just like “the human right” to a job or to housing, the arguement of “rights” for homosexuals is just bullshit.

    Homosexuals have no more access to a ‘right’ to be queer than I have access to the ‘right’ to be addressed as ‘Sir’ .

    I think its all about not being happy with themselves and thus they need some external acknowledgement of their state of sexuality. Frankly I couldnt give a flying fuck about someone elses sexuality unless it impinged on me. However with all this pressure in parliament and in the media Im starting to get a bit pissed off and I have some sympathy with the african states.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I don’t care about your sexuality barry, so long as what you do is with other consenting adults. It’s not about a right to be queer any more than there could be a right to be straight. Those are just states of sexual existence. What is important though is that no one discriminates against you on the basis of your sexuality, gay or straight, in the same way that no one discriminates against you on the basis of your race or gender. No one is seeking special rights for homosexuals: just the same rights enjoyed as those with other sexual orientation

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. cha (4,019 comments) says:

    Nice, Scott lively and his hate get a pass.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    I am appalled at the Ugandan legislation. There are real issues for people with alternate sexualities around the world, and it is with some disgust I observe the virulence on the issue of governments redefining marriage when there are real gay men iin other places getting beaten up and imprisoned just for banging other dudes. First world problems indeed. If Western gay communities put half as much effort into campaigning for human rights in the third world as they do wanting a magic certificate with a special word on it from the government, the world would be a lot safer and freer for nancyboys everywhere.

    I suspect the Shovel incident was simply crossed wires. I hope he tries again and does it properly this time.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    Isn’t the NZ parliament supposed to debate NZ legislation? If they’re going to debate legislation in the parliaments of other countries then they’re going to be very busy.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. simonway (387 comments) says:

    I have met only a few men in my life who genuinely don’t seem to notice – much less care – what race other people are. Garth McVicar is one of those people.

    Must just be coincidence then that his “anti-crime” stance turns into a “pro-murderer” one when the criminal is white and the victim is Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Mark (496 comments) says:

    I/S is the bigot. His hatred of people who are not like him is clear to see.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    Let’s clarify matters and hope that Charles’ next call for standing in solidarity with the Cameron administration, which has commendably suspended all foreign aid to Uganda due to audited evidence of massive financial corruption amongst the Museveni regime, will be endorsed by the government, David. Can we expect more assertive denunciation of the Museveni regime from Minister McCully as well as Mr Hague? Whatever happened to standing by our traditional ally, the United Kingdom?

    And as for those ‘phobes that think Uganda is getting a raw deal, might I point out that the murderous and draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill in their Parliament is nothing more than a massive diversionary tactic intended to divert attention from domestic rorting of Ugandan oil revenue by the corrupt governing National Resistance Movement. Let it also be noted that polygamy isn’t illegal in Uganda (which last tried to ban it in 2005 but left it alone due to conservative Muslim pressure) and neither is marital rape. About the only positive thing Museveni has done is get rid of the abhorrent Lords Resistance Army guerillas in the North, albeit not without torture and use of child soldiers on both sides. Unfortunately, the LRA is still active in the basket case state of Congo nextdoor.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote