05 September 2008

Why the Family Party is just so wrong

From a press release:

"Family Party Candidate for Northland, Melanie Taylor, is concerned over The Edge FM competition being held nationwide at 4.30pm today.

The station is encouraging girls to publicly kiss for about 20 seconds, with one girl/girl couple winning a trip to Melbourne to see Katy Perry, singer of the hit song "I kissed a girl and I liked it."

This follows this report in the Press about the contest.

Shouldn't the Family Party care about actions where people really get hurt?

No it shows itself to be oppressed, shame filled and judgmental.

Some simple points:

1. It is not a crime for two girls to kiss in New Zealand, never had been. It is not sex. It is not dirty, it is an expression of affection and love.

2. Most men (especially when you exclude gay men) and quite a few women like it. If you don't, then look away.

3. Why do you think it is acceptable for young children to be smacked in public but not for young women to kiss in public?

4. Many families believe that kissing is acceptable and positive, just because you teach that it is shameful and that children should grow up feeling shame about their bodies, doesn't mean the rest of us should buy into this abusive philosophy.

Leave peaceful people alone, let women snog in public and get concerned about something that hurts people you busybody ayatallohs!


Stephanie said...

Urgh. Now imagine the outcry if it had been boy on boy action!

ZenTiger said...

The cry of the liberal was "what goes in in the bedrooms is no concern of ours"

Now, it is "what goes on in public doesn't stop people from looking away".

I understand your point LibertyScott, but I'm wondering if you have ANY limits on non-violent action in public, like:

1. Sex
2. Role play bondage sessions
3. Simulated Rape
4. Singing Loudly at 2am.
5. Blocking public access for unapproved protests, gala events, parades, fairs.

Assume consenting adults in all of the above scenarios.

Anonymous said...

Well Zen if you want to keep "public ownership" then be prepared top suck it up every now and then....cos horror....these people are as 'public" as you are..

ZenTiger said...

Public ownership implies shared decisions James; not "I'm doing anything I want and stuff everyone else".

The issue here is not the girl on girl action per se, but that the radio station was promoting this in a public place. Why couldn't they hire a private venue? What happens when they promote simulated rape just to get their ratings up? Again, this isn't about freedom, this is about commercialism to promote a business.

If this is a public place, where the public are able to take up the offer of looking at the antics of these fun loving girls, then is their implicit permission to take photos and pop them up on facebook and the web to use them however they want in the future?

If these girls want to make use of their public ownership, do they need to get used to the fact that they have given up their property rights to their privacy then? Certainly, their photos are now being posted around the blogosphere and probably print media, and presumably without explicit permission.

How far does it go in either direction?

What are your answers to my question? I'm not talking about your Nirvana of selling everything off to a few rich monopolists, but how far can people's rights go in public?

Anonymous said...

If you have public ownership Zen then thems the braeks you must endure....support private property rights and be at peace. ;-)

Public ownership and genuine individual rights are in conflict....a Libertarian would know that...you seem unarmed however...

ZenTiger said...

Pretend the government is a corporation that owns the currently public property James, and see where that gets you.

Your opinion that the public must put up with anything that happens in public because it is public property still does not hold. Read my previous comment for a reason.

Public ownership and genuine individual rights are in conflict.

No, because genuine individual rights need to be protected by the government. You still can't kill slaves on private property, no matter how much they consent.

What you are getting confused over is that contracts of consent can affect more than the two parties making it. Whether that happens on public or private land, we all have an interest, and a moral obligation, in guarding the freedoms of others.

Anonymous said...

I hate "kissing" couples gay or straight - especially at sporting or musical events. People are there to watch the event, not to be kissing each other.

It's a distraction and it's often the ugliest damn couple in the arena that want to smooch.

Keep your ass at home if your priority is to be kissing on someone. Watch the game or whatever on tv. Stadiums are guilty by pushing this practice with "kiss-cams".

And that is my humble opinion LS ;-)

Anonymous said...

. ..."You still can't kill slaves on private property, no matter how much they consent."

Oh dear....you really said that?


ZenTiger said...

Yeah, yeah. Like you never make flamboyant statements James.

I'm still interested in your response to my questions. Come on, make an effort.

Libertyscott said...

Good to have heated argument. Now to take points one by one:

Zen's first post: Situation 4 is the tort of nuisance, Situation 5 is the initiation of force, so neither apply. The other 3 should be dealt with by other individuals ignoring or expressing disapproval. Frankly if 2 people want to shag in public that's their issue, but I'll tell them to go somewhere else. If they were in a park with no-one else along then who should mind, if they were in a crowded place they would have many disapproving (and some approving), but I would expect commonplace to prevail. Threatening behaviour is unacceptable.

The obvious solution is for property owners to have some control over the footpaths outside their property - not absolute, but because it is their access to their property. In exchange they would have responsibility to pay for it.

Zen's second comment: It was kissing NOT simulated rape. Kissing is innocuous and it speaks volumes to me about "values" the Family Party finding that offensive, but not smacking children in public. I am obviously not saying this is you, and if it were simulated rape I fully expect the station would face boycotts of companies advertising with it, and advertisers pulling ads. The market CAN work with this sort of thing. If the Family Party suggested that for this kissing contest, I would oppose it, but regard it as legitimate protest by choice.

I agree about the photos. I believe there is a right to take photos of anything public unless it is threatening, i.e. upskirt shots that are non-consensual.

Ruth - I can fully respect your view, I saw this happen today inches away from me in a shop. However, for me it is people who don't wash (rampant in the UK), whose odours pollute my olfactory glands!

Conclusion: I clearly will agree with James that the longer term answer is private property rights. E.g. shopping malls are a perfect example, as they should be able to set their own rules for behaviour.

Zen is right though that the state must protect individual rights, which are the rights of people to act without initiating force. The interesting grey area are those cases - not of anyone snogging - but legal acts that are culturally unacceptable in public. This is like the t-shirts that offend some, swearing, "indecent" exposure and indeed smelly people.

By and large there are laws banning "indecent" exposure and "offensive behaviour" that the Police use with caution. The Police could arrest far more people for these than ever happens, and perhaps the balance for now is if the Bill of Rights ensures that there isn't abuse in applying those laws.

In most cases people may do these things not seeking an audience, but just on the spur of the moment - often drunk. When people DO it in a threatening way it is another story, and clearly a role for the criminal law.

The radio station had every right to hold a contest that encouraged women to kiss. Kissing is a benign and positive act, and I'd rather children saw people kiss than hit each other, argue or denigrate one another. It remains telling to me that the Family Party finds the awful humiliating spectacle of children being smacked, slapped and spanked in public to be a "right" they fight for, but women kissing is an abomination.

I find that so incredibly perverted, and it has nothing to do with a mild prurient interest in watching attractive women snog. I'd defend men doing the same and don't want to watch that.

Anonymous said...

What LS said Zen....

I love it when Im spared all that typing! ;-)