Q+A – Sunday, March 10 @9am on TV ONE
March 9th, 2013 at 5:33 pm by Kokila PatelQ+A returns for 2013 this Sunday. We speak to the Government’s Mr Fix It, Steven Joyce, about the deals with Novopay and SkyCity, and question how committed the government is to creating new jobs.
Also on the programme, should marriage be solely between a man and woman; we hear from a gay couple who question why they’re being treated as second class citizens. We debate the same-sex marriage bill with Labour MP Louisa Wall and Conservative Party Leader Colin Craig, and ask if gay couples should be able to adopt.
On the panel this week is political scientist Dr Raymond Miller, publisher Ian Wishart, and former Labour party candidate Josie Pagani.
Join host Susan Wood and political editor Corin Dann on Q+A at 9am this Sunday on TV One
Related posts:
- Q+A 11 March 2012
- Colin Craig says Kiwis will flee to Australia to escape gay married couples
- More stupidity
- March on Sunday at 2 pm
March 9th, 2013 at 5:37 pm
I think I’ll go fishing instead if the tides are right!!
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 5:45 pm
So, they’ll be a lesbian couple crying that they are second class citizens.
Then Louisa Wall will wade in
Then Colin Craig (having been set up).
Seems fair.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 5:45 pm
Susan Wood..??
FFS, is that dopey commie bimbo still around?
Colin Craig should know better than to step into a trap like that.
As if he would ever get a fair shake from Wood or the rest of the progressive arseholes who run the mainstream media in this country.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 5:59 pm
On thing is for sure is that Colin Craig well be a lot more decisive than Shearer. He will not um and ah and certainly will not sit on the fence.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 6:07 pm
‘…So, they’ll be a lesbian couple crying that they are second class citizens…..Then Colin Craig (having been set up)…”
Correct imp.
When gay marriage first hit the newspapers in Australia, they had pictures of 3 couples :
2 60 something lesbians, who looked like they wouldn’t hurt anyone, and said as much.
2 gay blokes who were imaculately dressed and groomed, standing outside a former Qlder style home in front of a white picket fence. Talking about how pleasent live was ‘amongst young aussie families, who all liked them very much.’
2 attractive, homely, 30ish lesbians, who both looked ‘fertile’ that most blokes would take home to their mums. They talked about love, house and home.
All contrived by the media! My bet imp is that you’ll see two attractive lesbians – minus tatts, piercings, and crewcuts!
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 6:19 pm
They don’t fool you do they Harriet.
As soon as they get what they want they’ll be walking around in leather chaps with their bottoms hanging out won’t they.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 6:56 pm
.More indepth and from the horses mouth. The wizard Spoonley will be on to tell us what Auckland is like as the population increases.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 7:20 pm
Wat, they wear ass-less leather chaps underneath their gingham dresses. Tricky dyke bitches.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 8:13 pm
Wat, The Jerry Springer Show comes to mind!
“…Marriage is being defined down to the level of essentially non-procreative homosexual emotional relationships….”
And if you can call that ‘equality’ and a ‘victory’ Wat – then your short a few!
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 9:47 pm
Geez, mention homos and Colin Craig and all sorts of fundie freaks come out of the closet…
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 1:34 am
Susan Wood now hosting Q + A?! Oh noooh, is that the way “current affairs” are heading at TVNZ now? I was at first going to have a look at it and get up early. Knowing that Wood will host it ensures I can without concerns to “miss” anything sleep in. They must have lost the last bits of talent within their staff.
Also why does this same sex marriage topic get flogged endlessly? Also what is new on Novopay and Sky City? Joyce has well rehearsed his lines on this, it is a waste of time, while there is no opposition member questioned alongside him.
It sounds like there will be nothing new to discuss, the same predictable panel feed-back, and Wood is the last one who would ask any hard – let alone SMART questions.
Why is there no debate on the welfare reforms at all? It has been before Parliament since September, there are some illegal bits in the bill, there are half baked ideas and policy proposals, and the Minister is being let off by a rather useless Jacinda Ardern not doing her job.
And what about the economy, energy policy, SOE sales approach, transport, housing and what else is much more important than endless flogging of emotive stuff like same sex marriage and adoption rights?
Journalism in NZ is worse than in many 3rd World countries.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 6:41 am
I’ll be watching it with an open mind and judging it on what happens, not on preconceptions (“An opinion or conception formed in advance of adequate knowledge or experience, especially a prejudice or bias.”)
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 7:20 am
Pete George, no you wont. You will be looking for an excuse to try and claim the moral high ground, based on YOUR preconceptions about the topic.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 7:58 am
Funny Kea, you’ve just used an excuse to whinge based on YOUR preconceptions.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 8:00 am
Based on my observations, not preconceptions. Get off your high horse and come join the humans
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 9:17 am
I expect General Rumblefuck Joyce will generally rumble on about nothing in particular and fuck all will change for the better cos he s more reactive than proactive when it comes to job creation….
SHOW ME THE JOBS!!!
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 10:10 am
David You have remarkable tolerance to let Black with a Vengeance continue to pollute this blog
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 10:17 am
Harriet, you were so on the money…
“All contrived by the media! My bet imp is that you’ll see two attractive lesbians – minus tatts, piercings, and crewcuts!”
Susan Wood: thought she was actually very good. She was fair and butted in on Louisa and pressed home some points. Garner and Espiner take note.
Colin Craig: He was also very good, polite, yet firm, and comes across as balanced and informed.
Ian Wishart: Great line to Pagani, “If you shut up and listen you’ll hear.” Good shut down. Wood also drew her to task when suggesting aall religious people were fringe (which she immediately tried to back peddle on). BAM! rat-trapped.
This was a good debut for Q&A 2013.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 10:23 am
I think Susan Wood was very fair in the debate between Colin Craig and Louisa Wall – certainly a lot fairer than many hosts. Colin can speak well – he certainly does not have the ums and ahs that David Shearer has.
However, he could do with some media training on how to deal with an aggressive rude dyke who continually spoke over him. He should have a look at Ian Wishart and how he handled Josie Pagani when she tried to talk over him when he raised the issue of male homosexual promiscuity.
[DPF: Don't use dyke as a perjorvative term please]
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 10:23 am
I thought Pagani was uninformed or nasty trying to dismiss those opposing the marriage bill as fringe nutters, many ordinary people have genuine reasons to oppose.
But I think Craig’s claim that the tide of opinion is turning against the marriage bill is poorly informed or tryinjg to talk up something that isn’t there, the tide had already moved significantly for it when you see the change in MP support for it versus the civil union bill.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 10:31 am
“But I think Craig’s claim that the tide of opinion is turning against the marriage bill is poorly informed”
Then why are the homosexual militants like Louisa Wall so opposed to a binding referendum? If they were confident that would win they would go for it as that go not help but benefit their deviant agenda.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 11:36 am
Ian Wishart raised some very good points. Q + A showed some balance by having him on the show. Pagani did not like it when he exposed the dirty little secrets particularly about male homosexuals. He would have really upset her if he pointed out the risk to adopted teenage boys if the “marriage” broke up. The risk might not be either adoptive “parent” but their boyfriends in the case of a breakup.
EXPLODING THE MYTHS ABOUT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
In the interests of provoking genuine informed debate on the same-sex marriage issue, IAN WISHART examines some of the popular myths about being gay and the ‘right’ to marry
http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=3328
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 11:59 am
Here’s an analysis of this morning’s programme.:
http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/analysis-tv1s-qa-2013-return
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 12:13 pm
iMP, read your analysis, thanks. Disappointing that you include a petty comment about someone’s weight though.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 12:15 pm
And here’s another analysis of the programme:
http://www.gaynz.com/blogs/redqueen/?p=2975
I do concede that Colin Craig is a more moderate voice than Bob McCoskrie, but I’m afraid Wishart really put his foot in it, raving about public relations the way he did on the panel. Why couldn’t they find a real journalist instead of that tragic tabloid gutter glossy mac-editor? I think Louisa did well and countered most of his points.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 12:22 pm
Chardonnay, dude, stick to the facts…play the ball, not the man (shouldn’t be too hard for you):
Vote:http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=3333
March 10th, 2013 at 12:24 pm
Rodders, it was not meant as a put down, I made that clear, its a genuine query? She seemed like a different person, so is there a Lange/Donna Huata issue going on here?
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 12:24 pm
And for the original PR “blueprint” as they themselves called it…
Vote:http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=3335
March 10th, 2013 at 12:26 pm
Chardonnay/Red Queen, the link isn’t there. ??? Did the Bloggy censors nail you?
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 12:36 pm
Rodders, I’ve deleted the query, as I don’t want to cause Ms Wall any offense which was never intended.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 12:44 pm
iMP – Good call (credit where credit is due).
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 1:05 pm
The programme is now posted at TVNZ. Have a look here: http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a/2013-03-10-video-5364499
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 1:18 pm
@ Harriet
“All contrived by the media! My bet imp is that you’ll see two attractive lesbians – minus tatts, piercings, and crewcuts!”
How right you were, not a butch lesbian in sight except for (perhaps) Louisa wall.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 1:19 pm
Bugger…thanks, iMP, that should be
http://www.gaynz.com/blogs/redqueen/?p=2945
…anyway, here’s my take…
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 1:23 pm
Ian mate, you’re a liability to your side of the debate, let’s face it. Merely regurgitating your earlier column isn’t sticking to the McCoskrie/CC game plan insofar as it preaches “compassion and restraint.” Importing tired and hackneyed US conspiracy theorist drivel like the Hunter/Madsen report, the miniscule to nonexistent NZ “exgay” movement, the HIV issue and other brown herrings is just oddball. And even you acknowledge you’re not part of the mainstream media in your advertising.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 1:28 pm
… Under “the law”, you will no longer be allowed to express an opinion about same sex marriage. The very debate we are having today will become illegal. If you wish to complain when activists within the Ministry of Education use it as a springboard for indoctrination of your children, you could face legal action yourself. All debate about the morality or legitimacy of same sex relationships will become illegal. Your right to hold an opinion and discuss it in terms of free speech will have been stripped from you.
… this is really about shutting down your right to have an opinion on homosexuality forever. Once this law passes, people who challenge it – even in churches – could be prosecuted, and homosexual lifestyles will be taught alongside heterosexual ones from pre-school upwards, because a failure to do so could open an educational institution up to prosecution.
Vote:– http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=3328
March 10th, 2013 at 1:32 pm
I have always found Louisa Wall to be an aggressive person and she again showed it on Q + A by butting in or talking over another speaker on quite a number of occasions. Susan Wood pulled her up on that once. She must learn to give other speakers/panelists a fair crack of the whip. It seems to me that it’s her way or the highway, fuck what anyone else thinks.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 1:38 pm
Oh dear. Is that because Louisa stood up to Colin C and corrected several inaccuracies in his statements?
As for Jacob’s comment, Wishart is stuck in the mid-eighties. OTT rhetoric isn’t doing the anti-equality side of the debate any favours.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 1:39 pm
Chardonnay….Kirk and Madsen’s game plan has rolled out across the Western world in exactly the way they laid it out…but you keep interviewing your keyboard…it’s your style and I’m well familiar with it.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 1:45 pm
” She must learn to give other speakers/panelists a fair crack of the whip.”
Perhaps, but political aspirants must be considered able to look after themselves. Colin was very good at not having all ums and ahs like Shearer but he needs media training how not to allow someone to talk over him in the hope that the public will be put off by someone being rude – some may consider it assertive.
Colin would have come off much worse if it was not for Susan.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 2:13 pm
In summary, there seem to be two very important clarifications by Wall in this morn’s Q&A on gay marriage…
1. 68% of celebrants (ie non-church or independent ones etc) are employees of the State and their declining to conduct a same-sex marriage would be an employment matter.
2. Churches cannot withhold the use of their hall (a good or service) for gay marriages. She is prob. wrong about this.
Here’s a transcript…
http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/wall-confirms-celebrants-church-halls-not-exempt-gay-marriages/
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Wall made the point that they can’t discriminate now, meaning presumably in theory that they are not supposed to withhold the use of their hall for a gay birthday party or a gay group’s meeting based on their sexuality, or withhold the use of their hall for a Mongrel Mob convention based on their race.
But in practice I’m sure they are not compelled to allow anyone who asks to use their hall.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Chard/Red Queen/Craig….a good rundown on your blog on Q&A, enjoyed. [OMGosh is this a fundy gaybo love-in?].
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 3:03 pm
iMP mate, I may disagree with you most of the time, but you’re not a bad sort really. And as I’ve said elsewhere, I found your earlier beautiful, heartfelt article about your mum’s descent into dementia to be one of the best descriptions I’ve found about that particular personal tragedy in the lives of many adult children. How is she, by the way?
In terms of the Hunter/Madsen strategy, Wishart fails to mention that homosexual law reform and our own Human Rights Act were passed before that. And I’m afraid that the advance of LGBT rights is caused by the overwhelming weight of medical and scientific evidence on our side of the debate, despite amusing fix-up attempts like the Regnerus charade. Honestly, did you ‘phobes really think that you’d hide the fact that Brad Wilcox (Social Science Research editor) is now a keynote speaker at the World Congress of Families meeting in May 2013? Oh, and Ian…at least I provide corroborating materials for my work, freely available as annotations for all that care to consult it- as opposed to engaging in facile cut and paste tactics that bear little resemblance to mainstream journalism.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 3:06 pm
Irony, thy name is Craig…I get criticised because my books have so many footnotes, carefully citing the work of others. You want to debate the whole pina colada, get yourself a copy of Eve’s Bite and bring it on.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 3:07 pm
Added to which, the service provision discrimination situation is this- if a given religious institution hires their premises out for secular activities, then they cannot legally discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation or any other of the attributes within the Human Rights Act as it stands. As for giving fundie public registrars, wedding cake makers, hotel owners or wedding photographers special rights to discriminate on the basis of service provision and accomodation when it comes to sexual orientation, the Human Rights Act 1993 forbids that and will continue to do so even if the Marriage Equality Bill is not passed.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Yes, but footnotes that cite other conspiracy theorists or fringe organisations to promote your arguments don’t count, Ian. They’re virtually all name-checked from Junk Science Central c/o Colorado Springs or the Deep Southern United States. At least my stuff cites mainstream, reputable scientific and medical sources published in peer reviewed journals. And I wouldn’t waste my money on your conspiracy drivel, mate.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 3:26 pm
Chard. Unfortunately Mum’s speech has declined in the last month and she is now unable to string actual sentences together, so that seriously affects the ability to communicate verbally. It is very frustrating for her, but mercifully, she forgets even the frustration rather quickly. They say most communication is body language anyway. Ironically we used to have theological arguments about the validity of “speaking in tongues”…she’s very good at it, now.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 4:02 pm
You’ll find Craig that the studies I cite in Eve’s Bite on gay male promiscuity, or whether sexual orientation is born or made, etc, come from gay academics, not the Christian right.
Whilst I realise you rarely allow facts to get in the way of an ad hominem rant, hence your refusal to read, nonetheless I do do my research:
Examples:
Bell, Alan, and Weinberg, Martin (1978). Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among
Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster
Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health, ed. Robert P Cabaj and Terry S. Stein;
American Psychiatric Press, 1996
Martin Dannecker, Theories of Homosexuality, Gay Men’s Press, 1991
Sexual Behaviour in Britain, Wellings, Field, Johnson & Wadsworth, published in 1994 and
based on interviews with 20,000 men and women
If You Seduce A Straight Person Can You Make Them Gay?, ed. By Dr. John De Cecco; New
York: Harrington Park Press, 1993, pgs. 129-130
“Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children? Findings from a Longitudinal
Study of Lesbian Families” by Susan Golombok, Ph.D., and Fiona Tasker, Ph.D. in Developmental
Psychology, Vol.32, 1999, No. 1, pp 3-11.
Queer by Choice, by Dr Vera Whisman
Journal of Homosexuality
Frontiers, 4-19-96, pg31
Harmful to Minors: The Perils Of Protecting Children From Sex by Judith Levine (arguing in favour of pedophiliac grooming IMHO)
Girlfriends magazine, citing Dr JoAnn Loulan
The Construction of Homosexuality by Dr David Greenberg
Off Our Backs by Jennie Ruby
Apples & Oranges by Jan Clausen
Reviving The Tribe by Eric Rofes
http://www.gaynz.com/aarticles/anmviewer.asp?a=1556
The Advocate, 9-5-95, p43
I could go on and on…I was very careful to cite gay commentators and researchers…just so clowns couldn’t make the kind of accusations you have.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 4:34 pm
Well done Ian. I hope those who have not made up their minds will check your link about the dishonesty of the PR campaign by media savvy homosexual activists.
http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=3335
As you pointed out on Q+A stability, monogamy, commitment are very rare amongst homosexual men. I know there are key parties with heterosexuals as well as open marriages but they are extremely rare compared with male homosexuals.
Note also how they upset a few by cutting some very long term links with NAMBLA
I hope those with an open mind read you link. Again well done.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 8:38 pm
To Ian Wishart
Thank you so much for appearing on the show. It was a delight to see a non socialist on the panel, you did an outstanding job.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 9:20 pm
In regard to celebrants, this is the take from someone on the Select Committee.
s.29(1) will still state that no celebrant is obliged to marry any couple, and the Human Rights Commission (who would consider any discrimination-based complaint) are clear that this means exactly what it says. There were only a very few submissions concerned about the situation of celebrants who were not church-based.
s.29(2) has been added because quite a few churches and church-based celebrants were very anxious that the existing s.29 would not be sufficient to protect their freedom of religious expression. It’s intended to give the greatest reassurance we could to them.
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2013/03/05/family-first-own-goals-and-desperate-measures/
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 9:24 pm
The information in the Investigate link put up by Jacob Cohen is not accurate.
– http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=3328
The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill includes an end to a past law against impugning the status of a marriage by repealing s56 which made it an offence to deny the validity of a marriage. Thus anyone, including religious groups and integrated schools are able to question the validity of same sex marriage.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 11:33 pm
That’s a little disingenuous given the time that article was first published…had MandM not raised it, and Investigate followed it up and published that article last year, s56 might have remained.
Vote:March 11th, 2013 at 1:02 am
Then “no longer accurate”.
I suppose when raising the issue of problematic consequences of legislative change – to raise reasons to object to the change, there is always the chance that those making the change will then make adjustments to their legislation to assuage that opposition.
The alternative challenge would have been to have originally proposed that the legislation be amended to repeal section 56, to insist that the wording of marriage in the ceremony and the certificate is retained (appears so), and to maintain and the expand the guarantees to celebrants as in Section 29 (1) and (2).
The other factor is locations/venues for same sex marriages – the situation appears to the same as exists now for civil unions (church religious use locations can be refused, not necessarily halls rented out to the public).
Vote:March 11th, 2013 at 1:05 am
iMP, it is registrars who are employees of the state not celebrants.
Vote:March 11th, 2013 at 8:28 am
Yup…general rumble rumble fuck all change.
No jobs plan. Defer decisions.
Nice grilling by Corin Dann. Probably get told to soft serve interviews from now on. Especially when he managed to elicit the spiteful hurt schoolboy look from Key.
Vote: