• 115
  • 11834
Image for Coffee with Wendy Francis

Coffee with Wendy Francis

One of the most outspoken opponents to any and all LGBT causes in Australia is undoubtedly the Australian Christian Lobby.

And with her controversial tweets amid her constant campaigning against same-sex marriage and gay parenting, the ACL’s director in Queensland Wendy Francis has earned herself no shortage of enemies within the LGBT community.

Same Same’s Brisbane editor Chad St. James sat down with Wendy to have a few burning questions answered.


First, I have a confession. A few months ago when I was caught up in the emotion of the LNP watering down civil unions and announcing that they would be changing surrogacy rights, I was among those who put Wendy Francis’ number on my social networks, resulting in her getting abusive phone calls and emails. While I take the rights of myself and of my fellow brothers and sisters in the LGBTIQ community very seriously, looking back now perhaps I could have dealt with it a little differently.

It was later through a reply from an email that I sent to the Australian Christian Lobby, that a polite dialogue was exchanged between Wendy and I, and we both decided to sit down and have coffee, and clear the air so to speak.

I had a lot of questions that both myself and many members of the LGBTIQ community wanted answered, and contrary to what I might have imagined, Wendy was more than willing to answer them.

Over a couple of hours sitting in a cafe, the two of us chatted and for the very first time I saw very human side to a woman who has been one of our most stringent opponents to marriage equality. I also gained a better understanding of her motivations, and I won’t deny that it was one of the most surprising coffee dates I have had a long time.


Let’s set the record straight. In the past there have been tweets and quotes attributed to you that may have not actually come from you. One example is the famous tweet:

“Children in homosexual relationships are subject to emotional abuse. Legitimising gay marriage is like legalising child abuse.”

Can you share what happened there?

At the time I was running for the senate and Family First. We had a contract PR person, that contract PR person was also working for others at the same time. I was in Townsville from the office when that tweet was made. I immediately pulled it back but not in time for it not to have gone out and cause damage.

I was very young in the media and had no idea what to do. So I kept on getting rung up about it and the media would keep asking me different questions in a different way. I have to say I didn’t do well because I became confused with some of the questions.

The main offending bit was that legalising same-sex was like legalising child abuse. I do not believe there is a grain of truth in the idea that legalising same-sex marriage is like legalising child abuse. But I think the best place for children is in a situation where they are with their biological parents, that’s what I think.

They were saying to me, well do you think it is all right for children to be brought up in a homosexual marriage? Well no, I actually I don’t… then they would say do you think that is child abuse? Well, no I don’t.

But I think the very concept of child abuse is always linked to sexual abuse, well in my mind it is anyway. That was the real tragedy of that whole tweet. If the staff at the office had tweeted legalising same-sex marriage is taking a way a child’s right away to have a mother, then I probably wouldn’t have been so upset about it. But I was livid and really, really upset about it. My children were upset about it. Because it certainly inferred sexual abuse I think. So that just unforgivable. But I don’t think I handled the media well afterwards. But looking back I don’t think I know how I could’ve avoided it.

I can 100 percent promise you, I had nothing to do with that tweet. I hated it, I absolutely hated it. I wished I hadn’t been out of the office so I could’ve been there. I immediately sort of went into melt-down mode wondering what it was all about.

“I had nothing to do with that tweet, I hated it, I absolutely hated it.”

I was fuzzy with the responses afterwards, not really knowing what to. I had all these people advising me what to say. I had people ringing me saying “you should really go with that, that’s a great comment” and I was saying I can’t possibly go with that, it’s an awful comment. Then when further tweets came out from Wendy Francis ACL – I think that’s the one – tweeting things about Penny Wong and all these people, because there was this previous bad one, it made this one more believable. But if anybody had done any research they would have straight away seen that it was fake account. It was pulled within 24 hours of it being up. There were bloggers absolutely crucifying Wendy Francis again, and I don’t think they would’ve jumped on it if it hadn’t been for the previous one that was still a doubt in everybody’s mind.

But because the first one was such a disaster, when the next one came out I had Sunday Mail ringing me and saying “can we just have a comment on what you’ve just said about Penny Wong?” And I was like “okay, what did I say about Penny Wong?” I was trying to think back in my mind, had I said anything about Penny Wong. Poor Penny. I hadn’t said anything. But as I say, that one was pulled pretty quickly, but not before the whole hatemail and everything started again. It was just a nightmare.

I have to say I hate Twitter. Facebook to me is more personal, even with you, Chad. I first met you on Facebook and I knew you were a real person, there were other friends on your page, I felt like I could relate to you. But with Twitter it’s awful, you don’t even know who anyone is and they can say the worst things about you. So I very rarely tweet anything but it’s really funny when I do, because most of my followers on Twitter hate me. I can just tweet “I scrambled eggs” and I’ll get something back, bad. I wouldn’t tweet that anyway. I don’t think anyone is interested on what I had for breakfast!

I quite like Facebook. I feel as if I can control that. I like dialogue, I like people to disagree with me. I don’t have any problem with that. But when it becomes vitriolic, I think then we’ve stepped over a line that should not be stepped over. On Facebook if people are arguing a point and 100 percent disagreeing with me, I think that’s great. It’s fine. But if they start calling me names or defaming anybody else, I just un-friend them. It’s easy. But you can’t do that with Twitter.

I don’t react well to abuse, and I think you’ve been part of it. I’ve had phone calls from outside Parliament House and I answered every call that I could. Some went to voicemail. I kept on answering because I wanted to talk to you, I wanted to talk to whoever was shouting at me to say “you don’t know me, please talk to me.” My husband was in the room saying “why do you keep answering the phone?” And I was saying “because they are ringing me.” Whether they want to talk to me or not I wanted to talk to them.

I was going to come into Parliament the night of the civil partnerships legislation. And Peter didn’t want me to go in because he didn’t think it was safe. In the end, well I’m glad I didn’t. I shouldn’t feel that way. I shouldn’t be at home thinking I’m glad I didn’t go in, that it obviously wasn’t safe. I don’t think that’s right. But I did answer every call that I possibly could and the ones that went to voicemail were pretty awful. I recorded them and kept them, because I need to start making a bit of a file because this could get out of hand.

You’re open to people getting in contact with you as long as they’re mature, diplomatic and approachable?

Yes. Absolutely. I don’t believe I am right 100 percent of the time. I have strongly held views, some of them are defined by my faith and some of them are defined by research, scientific evidence and biology. I don’t believe I’m right all the time and there’s been a lot of times in my life that I’ve changed my views on things, and I am still happy to do that.

What does the Australian Christian Lobby stand for?

It stands for being a voice for values. We see that there is a value set, that Australia has traditionally been built on, and that is the Judeo – Christian heritage. And that’s like a lot of the west has been built on that as well. And the some of the policies that we have, if you look at what is at the heart of them its things from the Christian faith such as “do unto others as you would have them to do unto you” and the good Samaritan.

Those sort of things are built into the Australian psyche, the whole good Samaritan, going a further mile, all of those things are from a Christian heritage. As we moved as a society away from being just Christian, and I don’t begrudge that, I think as we have had new immigration from other countries. In Brisbane for instance we celebrate Ramadan, we celebrate Buddha’s birthday, we celebrate Christmas. So we have this really good multicultural link, but as we have moved away from any one faith-base then we’ve got a bit of a void of where our values are based. So for me that is what I believe the Australian Christian Lobby is doing, seeking to keep us on track with the value system that has stood us in really good stead.

What does Wendy Francis stand for?

Wendy Francis is a mum and a grandma, a wife. I have always felt strongly about justice issues, I also feel very strongly about children. I think as our society has changed, one of the things that have changed for me the most is that we used to do whatever we do was on the best interests of the child. I think that’s changed, I think it’s now very “me”.

Mind you, I have to say I think your generation is turning that around a little. I think your generation is sick of that. I think it’s the baby boomers who are a much more me generation. We’ve had it very good. We’ve all got houses, and now houses are out of reach for a lot of the younger ones. I think that “me, me” has impacted how we look outwardly.

So for Wendy Francis, I think a lot of my motivation is coming from getting back to what is best for children. If we look at what is best for children, then I think that’s going to be what’s best for society.

Since Wendy Francis and the Australian Christian Lobby are about protecting the children, how do you as an organisation and a mother protect young LGBTIQ people?

For me, the sorts of things I’ve have been involved in. I can’t think how many years ago now, but I started the outdoor advertising should be G-rated. That doesn’t distinguish between any children. I think all children should be protected from sexuality until they’re old enough to process it.

I think outdoor advertising is getting better. Even if you look at the Sexpo ads. The Sexpo ads used to be horrendous. So over-sexualised and a woman used as an object, just disgusting. Whereas this year I don’t want them there at all. I actually don’t want Sexpo ads in there. Because I don’t think kids should have to see it. But I have to say they are so much better. So much more discrete.

I want to make society a better place for all children. All children need to be protected and that’s my big focus.

  • 1
  • 2

Comments

www.samesame.com.au arrow left
28759
Adric Hunter

Adric Hunter said on the 28th Aug, 2012

It's a pity that the child abuse tweet still came out of her office, and still represents the views of the ACL membership, whether her personal view or not. It still demonstrates the sort of people they are.

Zepol23

Zepol23 said on the 28th Aug, 2012

whats with the pic, is she touching you or hesitating. awks.

JarrodJ

JarrodJ said on the 28th Aug, 2012

Can anyone tell me why the fuck people who say "Marriage is only between a man and a woman" are also the people who bring the issue of children in to discussions of same-sex marriage?

CeeAy

CeeAy said on the 28th Aug, 2012



Definition of a bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ

I agree, just because a person has differing views to someone else does not make them automatically a bigot.

In Wendy Francis' case she is certainly a bigot. I have no problem if she wants to have those views (even if I find them utterly distasteful), it is after all a free country. However, where I do have a problem is when bigots like her impose those views on other people and thereby wish to deny basic humans rights to the group they are bigoted about. Australia is a secular democracy not so?

I do not think demanding your human rights as a minority group can ever be classed as bigotry - even if we do demand them forcefully and will not give up until we get them.

CeeAy

CeeAy said on the 28th Aug, 2012



Fully agree. It is good to speak to those who are polar opposite to your view and especially good to speak to those that are hell bent on denying you your human rights.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu a stalwart of human rights and a very open minded Christian leader has increased his criticism of conservative attitudes to homosexuality within his own church, equating homophobia with racism. Tutu has said that in future anti-gay laws would be regarded as just as wrong as apartheid laws.

crazzymikey

crazzymikey said on the 28th Aug, 2012

she is vile and so is her entire party and what they stand for. I am not fooled by this - however thanks Chad for what you have tried to accomplish. If any part of this women wakes up to reality and what it really is to be a human being then perhaps you may have made a real difference in the world.

Chancethegardener

Chancethegardener said on the 28th Aug, 2012

Am I the only one who thinks this was a horrible "interview"...?

So many better questions could have been asked and the interview could have been much more structured than it seemed to be, at least by this account.

Wendy waffled on and on and on and Chad let her. At times she barely made sense. She didn't really say anything at all of note or exception. It's as if both Wendy and Chad tip-toed around all the tough issues that would have potentially made this a great meeting of minds from opposing sides.

For all of you who now want to give Wendy a hug, shame on you.

She represents one of the most vile and insidious bodies that make a lot of young gay people doubt and hate themselves for feeling things they can't help but feel. All the while they hide behind the veneer of, "I don't hate gay people, but ".

I think this interview, coffee date, group hug fest - call it what you may - could have been handled a lot more professionally and seriously than it actually was. The questions asked of Wendy were pedestrian and read like they were written by a member of the ACL themselves.

It was one of the most vapid interviews I've read in a long while, and I read a lot of Murdoch press, so that's saying something!

mark_

mark_ said on the 28th Aug, 2012


The Fairfax press isn't much different from the Murdoch press.

CeeAy

CeeAy said on the 28th Aug, 2012

Sorry Chad, no disrespect, but I have got to agree with Chancethegardner - she should have been dragged over the coals and pushed to explain her bigotry. Instead she had a platform to explain her preference for Facebook over Twitter (yawn) not to mention the other points she slid in about how she is not such a bad person but regarding gays tra la la ......indeed crazymikey she is VILE!

chadstjames

chadstjames said on the 28th Aug, 2012

Am I the only one who thinks this was a horrible "interview"...?

So many better questions could have been asked and the interview could have been much more structured than it seemed to be, at least by this account.

Wendy waffled on and on and on and Chad let her. At times she barely made sense. She didn't really say anything at all of note or exception. It's as if both Wendy and Chad tip-toed around all the tough issues that would have potentially made this a great meeting of minds from opposing sides.

For all of you who now want to give Wendy a hug, shame on you.

She represents one of the most vile and insidious bodies that make a lot of young gay people doubt and hate themselves for feeling things they can't help but feel. All the while they hide behind the veneer of, "I don't hate gay people, but ".

I think this interview, coffee date, group hug fest - call it what you may - could have been handled a lot more professionally and seriously than it actually was. The questions asked of Wendy were pedestrian and read like they were written by a member of the ACL themselves.

It was one of the most vapid interviews I've read in a long while, and I read a lot of Murdoch press, so that's saying something!

wow. Okay then, so would it have been better that I went in there name calling and accusing her of bigotry. People wanted to know where she was coming from with her views and I believe that was achieved. People believe she is against same-sex rights to surrogacy, turns out she is against surrogacy as a whole. Why is she against same-sex marriage? Because she believes it is between a male and a female with the purpose of procreation and this belief comes from her religious beliefs.

While I don't agree with her, I believe she answered the questions. While you sit here criticizing me, perhaps you should also add what questions you would have asked, because I'm actually really curious to know as to what they are.

chadstjames

chadstjames said on the 28th Aug, 2012



Oh and what good dragging who over the coals would have achieved? I think she explained her so called "bigotry" quite well. It stems from her religious beliefs and the idea that a child should have both their biological mother and father.

As I've said, while I don't agree with her beliefs, they are hers none the less. Of course being on the opposite end of the the debate, would any of us ever be pleased and content with any of her answers? I highly doubt it.

Chancethegardener

Chancethegardener said on the 28th Aug, 2012

I'm not going to turn this into a pissing contest around who would have made the better interviewer. Nor would I condone lulling Mrs Francis into agreeing to a coffee date in order to call her names and scream, "Bigot," at her. Conducting these sorts of exchanges with decorum and candour is paramount, but that doesn't mean that asking tough questions ought to be thrown out the window in the name of being amiable.

My point was the exchange that happened between the two of you hasn't added anything to what is already on the public record. Those who have followed the debate closely and have been abreast of the ACL's arguments against gay marriage (and their take on homosexuality in general, which is in and of itself worthy of condemnation) haven't been further enlightened by the outcome of this interview.

Personally, I think you missed several opportunities over the course of this exchange to challenge Mrs Francis on how well thought-out her position is on all matters gay. She was giving you "enough rope" with several of her responses during the interview and you declined to pursue them further in every instance.

Such a wasted opportunity.

chadstjames

chadstjames said on the 28th Aug, 2012

I'm not going to turn this into a pissing contest around who would have made the better interviewer. Nor would I condone lulling Mrs Francis into agreeing to a coffee date in order to call her names and scream, "Bigot," at her. Conducting these sorts of exchanges with decorum and candour is paramount, but that doesn't mean that asking tough questions ought to be thrown out the window in the name of being amiable.

My point was the exchange that happened between the two of you hasn't added anything to what is already on the public record. Those who have followed the debate closely and have been abreast of the ACL's arguments against gay marriage (and their take on homosexuality in general, which is in and of itself worthy of condemnation) haven't been further enlightened by the outcome of this interview.

Personally, I think you missed several opportunities over the course of this exchange to challenge Mrs Francis on how well thought-out her position is on all matters gay. She was giving you "enough rope" with several of her responses during the interview and you declined to pursue them further in every instance.

Such a wasted opportunity.

yet you fail to provide any more questions that I should have asked. My intentions with this interview was to find her personal stance on things, what her personal beliefs were etc. And I personally felt that was achieved.

But since as you say it was such a wasted opportunity. Please organise an interview with her, ask those questions that you feel I failed to ask and enlighten us all.

Chancethegardener

Chancethegardener said on the 28th Aug, 2012

You succeeded very well in establishing what Mrs Fracis' beliefs were. If that was your sole aim then you fulfilled it fully. But what have you achieved in that process? No new information, no insight and no revelations. That's the travesty in this situation, having being handed Mrs Francis' opinions on a silver platter to question as you saw fit.

If you need anyone to point out the specifics of how this interview could have been conducted better then, in all honesty, perhaps you weren't up to the job in the first place.

It's clear from your responses that no matter how specific my criticisms are you'd still take umbrage with them. Therefor I wont enter into what is tantamount to a pissing contest around them.

The content of this interview is being billed as a scoop of humanistic insight into the gay marriage debate by this very website, when in actual fact it is a droll and indolent approach to a serious topic.

I'll leave it at that from here on in. Best of luck in the future.

chadstjames

chadstjames said on the 28th Aug, 2012

You succeeded very well in establishing what Mrs Fracis' beliefs were. If that was your sole aim then you fulfilled it fully. But what have you achieved in that process? No new information, no insight and no revelations. That's the travesty in this situation, having being handed Mrs Francis' opinions on a silver platter to question as you saw fit.

If you need anyone to point out the specifics of how this interview could have been conducted better then, in all honesty, perhaps you weren't up to the job in the first place.

It's clear from your responses that no matter how specific my criticisms are you'd still take umbrage with them. Therefor I wont enter into what is tantamount to a pissing contest around them.

The content of this interview is being billed as a scoop of humanistic insight into the gay marriage debate by this very website, when in actual fact it is a droll and indolent approach to a serious topic.

I'll leave it at that from here on in. Best of luck in the future.

Yet you still fail to provide exactly what it was that I failed to do. And I challenge you yet again go out organise an interview and come back. See this the problem it's so easy for people to point fingers at other people's so called failures, yet they are unwilling to do a single thing themselves.

Fahed

Fahed said on the 28th Aug, 2012

^ I agree, step up to the plate Chance. Actually, I would honestly do this and interview her, but I have no people skills and I tend to be passionate around argument so I'll probably offend her without meaning to.

I also just want to say: finally. I hope this represents a corner turned. We need to be smart and real, and stop being so scared. Otherwise we'll be treading the same steps over and over for the rest of our miserable existences.

dublinlulu

dublinlulu said on the 28th Aug, 2012

Interesting read, Chad, thanks! But, I've gotta say, I disagree massively with everything she says and I dislike her. As Matt said, that tweet of hers was vile to the point of being unforgivable, I think. Well done to you for sitting down and chatting with her though! Not sure I could've done it and kept a level head, in all honesty! :-)

CeeAy

CeeAy said on the 28th Aug, 2012

Oh and what good dragging who over the coals would have achieved? I think she explained her so called "bigotry" quite well. It stems from her religious beliefs and the idea that a child should have both their biological mother and father.

As I've said, while I don't agree with her beliefs, they are hers none the less. Of course being on the opposite end of the the debate, would any of us ever be pleased and content with any of her answers? I highly doubt it.

Sorry this is long but you wanted questions so here goes:

Chad, this is not meant to be a "let's get Chad" or that you aren't any good at interviewing - all I am suggesting is that you could have taken this golden opportunity to drag her over the coals to account to the gay community and the rest of Australia. By this I do not mean calling her names, being rude to her or calling her a bigot. Not at all - this would only detract from the purpose of the interview. I also don't think there is any need to call her a bigot as an insult - we all know she is one - she does a good enough job at making that clear - but hey that may be one of the first questions that I would ask her: "Some people call your a bigot and what is you response to that?" A perfect intro to the interview :)

Some things I would love to ask her:
An interview is a fluid thing thus depending on the interviewee's reactions, remarks and claims these will open doors to probe and challenge and get her to account for her views that deny a significant minority group basic human rights. Is this not the biggest issue here? Her religious beliefs are neither here nor there (believe what you want - if she wants to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, who am I to say she can't - cool for her. If she believes her God, her religion, is against gay rights - fine by me). The point, as I said in a previous post, is that she wishes to impose those beliefs on a minority group and thereby deny me my basic human rights. This is outright discrimination - I thought there were laws against that! Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is justifiable why? Because it is her "religion" - you got to be kidding! How does she see that squaring with the fact that Australia is a secular democracy? Huge question surely!?!?

How about there are many agnostics and many atheists in Australia so why should they be subjected to her religious views? In addition, there are many practicing and non-practicing Christians in Australia that support gay rights. How about asking her about this and how she squares that with her desire to deny us our rights and impose her views on everyone in that secular democracy? After all we are not living in a theocracy! Maybe it should be pointed out to her that: In the 2006 Australian Census, 18.7% of Australians (or 3,706,555 people) described themselves as having "no religion." A further 2.4 million (11.9%) did not state a religion (or inadequately described it). So just over 30% of Australians did not state a religious affiliation in the 2006 census. The 2011 census showed that the percentage of people declaring no religion had risen to 22.3%, to become the second largest category. (source Wikipedia). According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 25% of Australians do not believe in a god or gods.

How does she explain that a deeply catholic country like Spain has had gay marriage enshrined in their law since 2005 - where nearly 70% of the electorate supported the law. A very Catholic country co-existing with gay marriage. Why is Australia so different?

How about asking her how she squares her beliefs with one of the most famous senior living Christian leaders, Archbishop Desmond Tutu's views on gay rights and his push for a more liberal view on gay rights?

How about asking her what she thinks about the statement of the Archbishop that he believes that within the Christian church, attitudes to homosexuality are too conservative and his equating homophobia with racism.

How about asking her on the Archbishop's statement that in future anti-gay laws would be regarded as just as wrong as apartheid laws.

Coretta King said in 1998: "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice … But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”… I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people." What comment does Wendy Francis have on the above?

That's my 5 cents worth!

chadstjames

chadstjames said on the 28th Aug, 2012

If you look at page two of the interview she quite clearly states in her belief and reasoning for her campaigning and I address the democracy question.

Saying people call her a bigot and asking her thoughts on that at the beginning of the interview would have instantly got her guard up. And personally I thought there was better questions then focussing on the same old crap.

I think she quite clearly justifies her reasoning, the issue here is people just don't agree with it.

I'm not saying I do, but going around with the same old question people think she's a bigot would have got the same old answers.

I wanted her stance on same-sex marriage and reasoning behind it, she answered, I wanted her views on surrogacy, she answered it, I wanted answers on those tweets, she answered it, I asked for her beliefs on democracy and how she believes she has the right to campaign against what we feel are our own human rights, she answered that as well.

As I said I don't agree with alot of her views but she has justified them from her own personal beliefs. Rather then focussing on how many think of her and the ACL as bigots, it sheds light on where they are coming from and more importantly the issues that we on the other end of the spectrum have to tackle if we expect to win our battle for equality. Dragging her through the coals would not achieved that and the result would have been a I believe and she believes debate.

Wonderland

Wonderland said on the 29th Aug, 2012

If you look at page two of the interview she quite clearly states in her belief and reasoning for her campaigning and I address the democracy question.

Saying people call her a bigot and asking her thoughts on that at the beginning of the interview would have instantly got her guard up. And personally I thought there was better questions then focussing on the same old crap.

I think she quite clearly justifies her reasoning, the issue here is people just don't agree with it.

I'm not saying I do, but going around with the same old question people think she's a bigot would have got the same old answers.

I wanted her stance on same-sex marriage and reasoning behind it, she answered, I wanted her views on surrogacy, she answered it, I wanted answers on those tweets, she answered it, I asked for her beliefs on democracy and how she believes she has the right to campaign against what we feel are our own human rights, she answered that as well.

As I said I don't agree with alot of her views but she has justified them from her own personal beliefs. Rather then focussing on how many think of her and the ACL as bigots, it sheds light on where they are coming from and more importantly the issues that we on the other end of the spectrum have to tackle if we expect to win our battle for equality. Dragging her through the coals would not achieved that and the result would have been a I believe and she believes debate.

Her and the ACL ARE bigots and we shouldn't call them out on it over and over and over again??? Why pussyfoot around that awful aspect of her and the other ACL mongrels??

So coz you know where her bigotry comes from, it's ok? Or becomes more palatable than when it would be bigotry that didn't have religious roots?
She is relying on religion to justify her disgusting behaviour and somehow people seem to accept that. Is religion above criticism???

We know what needs to be tackled: the secular aspect of many western countries should be protected with laws. None of this religious shit should be seeping through in our society. That is the discussion we should have and I can assure you, gay rights will fall automatically in place.

CeeAy

CeeAy said on the 29th Aug, 2012

Chad, it is not simply a case of some people disagreeing with her views, it is MUCH more than that. These are human rights!

You have your interview approach and I have mine. Got to say though that I think mine is more interesting and more challenging :). One thing I know for sure is this: people or groups who wish to deny human rights to anybody get it full throttle from me - politely but very firmly – an unrelenting questioning to justify the indefensible. They need to leave that interview or discussion feeling battered by their own arrogance and discriminatory stance. Their arguments need to be challenged in no uncertain terms. They need to be exposed for the bigots they are. I still would have opened with the bigot question by the way – I don't care if it got her back up and if she stormed off – would have said even more about her. I don't think she would have stormed off somehow. These religious guys think they have this untouchable stance as it is connected to their "god" – amazing superiority as if with divine appointment they go forward.

Have a cool rest of your day.

mark_

mark_ said on the 29th Aug, 2012

^
Wow! So much self-righteous anger!

I never like to criticise anyone else's performance unless I can verify that I can do a better performance.

Besides… is this Wendy woman really SO tremendously powerful? You're behaving as though she has entered all your houses and stolen all your purses!



.

Barrin

Barrin said on the 29th Aug, 2012

Wendy Francis is married. If we're to be equal to her then surely these afternoon teas are inevitable.
Meanwhile, Sydney Anglicans getting women to 'submit' to their husbands might sour the equali-tea... One lump or two Archbishop Jensen?

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/men-and-women-are-different-and-so-should-be-their-marriage-vows-20120828-24yo6.html

Wonderland

Wonderland said on the 29th Aug, 2012

^
Wow! So much self-righteous anger!

I never like to criticise anyone else's performance unless I can verify that I can do a better performance.

Besides… is this Wendy woman really SO tremendously powerful? You're behaving as though she has entered all your houses and stolen all your purses!



.

No, that's called passion but I guess a sarcastic person would call that 'self-righteous anger'.

mark_

mark_ said on the 29th Aug, 2012

^ You'll get a hernia if you can't direct your 'passion' into the right direction. It's pointless directing your 'passion' at Chad.

Wonderland

Wonderland said on the 29th Aug, 2012



http://i34.tinypic.com/14k8l52.jpg

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 29th Aug, 2012

Interviewing this woman is akin to interviewing a lamington and then being suprised it informs you it's a cake

MyBoyFreindIsGay

MyBoyFreindIsGay said on the 29th Aug, 2012

Since when do Christians have a say in my life?

I was not Christened, my BF is a Buddhist.

These lobbys never touch on humans, they only touch on rules of how humans should behave under their religion.

Pfft more old dust and sanity napkins..

MyBoyFreindIsGay

MyBoyFreindIsGay said on the 29th Aug, 2012

Also I believe children need to be protected.
Under what guise does this protection come? and to what ends does it serve?





Fahed

Fahed said on the 29th Aug, 2012



+1. This is the point I think.

I think CeeAy's list of 'questions' not only overlap with the interview that was actually done (I'm sorry but they do, except where you quote various people and ask her to comment on the quotes), but more importantly, they miss the point entirely.

If I had conducted the interview I would have asked follow-up questions from the answers that she gave challenging her beliefs. It is not that her beliefs are wrong, but rather that they went unchallenged. To enter into a discussion challenging beliefs, it is necessary to be willing to admit upfront that you might be wrong, and I think it's important to recognise that we might be wrong. Based on this interview, it's impossible to say who might be wrong as no real discussion on the subject arose. If there is a problem with this interview - that is it.

She said herself that she would like to engage in discussion, so if she has a problem with her beliefs being challenged it's easy enough to point out that it is not a discussion in any real sense of the word if each side states their beliefs and then they both go away without engaging with the topic. I hope, based on what I've read here, that if this was politely raised in response to any issues she had, it would be enough to engage her in discussion.

Having said all of this, I don't believe there is anything fundamentally wrong with this interview. It was a good interview, and it was interesting, and (somewhat) informative, and I think Chad did a great job. I wouldn't mind seeing an interview with a different aim as well, but maybe it's wisest to break the ice gently. It already sounds like she feels she's been ambushed and abused enough. More importantly, as others have pointed out earlier, she's not really that powerful so I'm not sure that the effort would be warranted. If we could convince the whole ACL of something it might make a difference, but probably not.

What is (undeniably) significant about this interview is that it represents compromise, minimal conflict interaction and a little bit of understanding - and that is already decades ahead of what some people have been proposing.

I'm now 2c poorer you ungrateful whores ;)

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 29th Aug, 2012

I think that what this " interview" did successfully do however, was succinctly paraphrase her campaign brochure

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 29th Aug, 2012

She could print the entire thing and use it as pamphlet to promote herself to her " people"

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 29th Aug, 2012

you're adorable when you tantrum

mark_

mark_ said on the 29th Aug, 2012

I'd like Chad to interview that other lamington, Hetty Johnston

Fahed

Fahed said on the 29th Aug, 2012



Baby, you have no idea ;). That wasn't a tantrum though, it was humour. You need to stop perceiving emotion in my posts - they're all stated in a monotone.

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 29th Aug, 2012

I think Chad should take some advice from Jack Kerouac in that "It ain't watcha write, it's the way atcha write it." The interview isn't bad and it isn't good in my opinion, it's ordinary. Yes some of Wendy Francis' opinions and beliefs could have been questioned further yet the main problem with this article is that it's just not written well.

CeeAy

CeeAy said on the 29th Aug, 2012

Wow! So much self-righteous anger!

I never like to criticise anyone else's performance unless I can verify that I can do a better performance.

Besides… is this Wendy woman really SO tremendously powerful? You're behaving as though she has entered all your houses and stolen all your purses!

Guilty as charged, I feel very comfortable about being self-righteous about my human rights.

You don’t need to have done something in order to criticise it – you can’t be serious here? Criticism in a broader context is an assessment, review or questioning of someone or something. The first thing that tyrannical regimes or oppressive systems do is block criticism by blocking free press, blocking freedom of speech as criticism is unwelcome – understandable as it is an essential part of a free world.

It is not about Wendy Francis being powerful or not – she represents the ACL plus the whole twitter debacle was topical, so sure it is good to speak to her. What I said is applicable to anyone who rejects gay rights.

Reducing gay rights discussion to the same level as “stolen purses” – wow that’s a first - I sense your intellectual processing capacity has now well and truly been exceeded!

If someone doesn’t like criticism then I suggest they get out of the kitchen.

BeeTee

BeeTee said on the 29th Aug, 2012

"I don%u2019t have a lot of gay friends.... I talk to my hairdresser" - Wendy Francis always was, still is and always will be a horrible person.

CeeAy

CeeAy said on the 29th Aug, 2012



I am a little confused: her beliefs are not wrong??? Wow her beliefs deny us our basic human rights and they are not wrong? How do you conclude that? If, according to you, her beliefs were not wrong why would you want to challenge them as you say you would like to do?

will_h

will_h said on the 29th Aug, 2012

From a purely journalistic point of view - it was not a great interview. It's an interview with a high profile name, of little substance. This angers/upsets the readers. You are no Ray Martin - but don't despair. You're also not in your fifties, a literary success, or a respected journalist.

The reason readers are so angry is that they could have got the same result by interviewing their casually racist, homophobic great aunt, who might love their boyfriend but refuses to see him as anything but a 'good friend/influence'.

As others have said, you failed to ask any substantial questions that may deliver 'news' we are yet to hear. Your worst journalistic sin is that you fail to ask any follow up questions - it's almost like you're not listening to the responses, and you've gone in with a pre-determined list of questions. It's insulting to the readers, and rightly so. I've done it myself - but not in such a catastrophically, politically important manner. If SameSame didn't publish pieces such as yours, I wouldn't read it. But similarly, if SameSame didn't publish replies such as mine, no one would either.

Without getting Mrs Francis offside, you could have probed deeper.
For now, you've left her with the taste of blood in her mouth - because you've shown our weakest, nicest, humanitarian side - the side (dont forget) that the ACL - the organisation Wendy represents, will have no hesitation in exploiting when it comes to their totally unfounded and significantly minority views.

I have no doubt you had good intentions, but I dare say this was driven far more by ego than by the greater good. For that reason, I hope you will have better judgement in the future.

Fahed

Fahed said on the 30th Aug, 2012



I'm confused as well. Your comprehension of English was perfect when you read the line about challenging her beliefs, but then what happened when you read the line(s) about which beliefs were wrong? I never said anything about whether or not her beliefs were wrong. In fact I explicitly stated that from this interview it's impossible to draw any conclusion about who is right and who is wrong because the issue was not engaged with. Moreover, if I state that her views need to be challenged, how on earth could you have read the first sentence any other way? Or were you hoping to point out that I was logically inconsistent by misreading what I wrote? I'm confused what the purpose of your post was?

But since you've broached the subject, I can happily say I disagreed with just about everything she said. I had good counter agruments all ready to go, as I'm sure most of us would (most of what she said was not exactly new to us). I'm just not all that upset that the counter arguments weren't used. Meanwhile...

From a purely journalistic point of view - it was not a great interview. It's an interview with a high profile name, of little substance. This angers/upsets the readers. You are no Ray Martin - but don't despair. You're also not in your fifties, a literary success, or a respected journalist.

The reason readers are so angry is that they could have got the same result by interviewing their casually racist, homophobic great aunt, who might love their boyfriend but refuses to see him as anything but a 'good friend/influence'.

As others have said, you failed to ask any substantial questions that may deliver 'news' we are yet to hear. Your worst journalistic sin is that you fail to ask any follow up questions - it's almost like you're not listening to the responses, and you've gone in with a pre-determined list of questions. It's insulting to the readers, and rightly so. I've done it myself - but not in such a catastrophically, politically important manner. If SameSame didn't publish pieces such as yours, I wouldn't read it. But similarly, if SameSame didn't publish replies such as mine, no one would either.

Without getting Mrs Francis offside, you could have probed deeper.
For now, you've left her with the taste of blood in her mouth - because you've shown our weakest, nicest, humanitarian side - the side (dont forget) that the ACL - the organisation Wendy represents, will have no hesitation in exploiting when it comes to their totally unfounded and significantly minority views.

I have no doubt you had good intentions, but I dare say this was driven far more by ego than by the greater good. For that reason, I hope you will have better judgement in the future.

Oh ffs.

Fahed

Fahed said on the 30th Aug, 2012

^ Wow I've been really angry lately. CeeAy and Will I'm sorry about the way that post was made. I think I need to take a day off to lie in the sun and contemplate the world at leisure... practice my face-binding karate wrestling moves.

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 30th Aug, 2012

Also take some Ritalin and get laid

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 30th Aug, 2012

From a purely journalistic point of view - it was not a great interview. It's an interview with a high profile name, of little substance. This angers/upsets the readers. You are no Ray Martin - but don't despair. You're also not in your fifties, a literary success, or a respected journalist.

The reason readers are so angry is that they could have got the same result by interviewing their casually racist, homophobic great aunt, who might love their boyfriend but refuses to see him as anything but a 'good friend/influence'.

As others have said, you failed to ask any substantial questions that may deliver 'news' we are yet to hear. Your worst journalistic sin is that you fail to ask any follow up questions - it's almost like you're not listening to the responses, and you've gone in with a pre-determined list of questions. It's insulting to the readers, and rightly so. I've done it myself - but not in such a catastrophically, politically important manner. If SameSame didn't publish pieces such as yours, I wouldn't read it. But similarly, if SameSame didn't publish replies such as mine, no one would either.

Without getting Mrs Francis offside, you could have probed deeper.
For now, you've left her with the taste of blood in her mouth - because you've shown our weakest, nicest, humanitarian side - the side (dont forget) that the ACL - the organisation Wendy represents, will have no hesitation in exploiting when it comes to their totally unfounded and significantly minority views.

I have no doubt you had good intentions, but I dare say this was driven far more by ego than by the greater good. For that reason, I hope you will have better judgement in the future.

this sums it up rather nicely.

Chad could not have paraphrased it better himself

NewFarmer

NewFarmer said on the 30th Aug, 2012

Chad, it is not simply a case of some people disagreeing with her views, it is MUCH more than that. These are human rights!

You have your interview approach and I have mine. Got to say though that I think mine is more interesting and more challenging :). One thing I know for sure is this: people or groups who wish to deny human rights to anybody get it full throttle from me - politely but very firmly – an unrelenting questioning to justify the indefensible. They need to leave that interview or discussion feeling battered by their own arrogance and discriminatory stance. Their arguments need to be challenged in no uncertain terms. They need to be exposed for the bigots they are. I still would have opened with the bigot question by the way – I don't care if it got her back up and if she stormed off – would have said even more about her. I don't think she would have stormed off somehow. These religious guys think they have this untouchable stance as it is connected to their "god" – amazing superiority as if with divine appointment they go forward.

Have a cool rest of your day.

Could you please paste some links to your published interviews?

chadstjames

chadstjames said on the 30th Aug, 2012

I'll say this one final time, because with all honesty I find some of the personal attacks that are happening on here towards myself and others kinda repulsive.

Previously I had come head to head with Wendy by passing out her number on facebook, while it was public domain, by giving it out it resulted in quite a few people calling and emailing her abuse. That I don't condone because I don't really think it helps overall and whether you like to admit it, Wendy is still a human being with feelings and emotions.

My motivation with having coffee with her, was not to debate, but to simply get where she was coming from with her beliefs and opinions. While some of you follow what the ACL do quite closely there are also quite a few that don't and in simple terms this was providing those lesser educated on the topic with where she comes from and some of the controversies surrounding her such as that tweet.

For example I've had people come up to me and say she's against same-sex surrogacy, when in actuality she is against it as a whole. That's just one example of the things I wanted to get to the bottom of.

While I understand there are people who would have interviewed her differently, that is their prerogative, I went into the interview with my own motivations. However, I want to encourage each one of you, since it's quite evident some of you are seeking answers to questions that I did not ask. Get in contact with her. She is very approachable, but all I ask is approach her with the same respect you would expect one to have with you.

gayambassador

gayambassador said on the 30th Aug, 2012

good article chad. It often takes more guts to sit down face to face one on one with those who oppose us instead of hiding behind usernames and the relative anonymity the internet can provide. Personas are sometimes created in the media that are very different when we meet people personally. Wendy is a product of an unenlightened society and christian culture and not really knowing any gay people except a hairdresser. This latter is telling. Your contact with her....watching the real life story of Prayers for Bobby are the sorts of things that have the potential to change her understanding. After reading your article I am going to add one more thing to my article 15 things I've learnt about discussing homosexuality and Christianity No.16 Rationality and clarity rarely come out of anger. Usually it is nothing more than reaction and more intense emotion.

gayambassador

gayambassador said on the 30th Aug, 2012

I'll say this one final time, because with all honesty I find some of the personal attacks that are happening on here towards myself and others kinda repulsive.

Previously I had come head to head with Wendy by passing out her number on facebook, while it was public domain, by giving it out it resulted in quite a few people calling and emailing her abuse. That I don't condone because I don't really think it helps overall and whether you like to admit it, Wendy is still a human being with feelings and emotions.

While I understand there are people who would have interviewed her differently, that is their prerogative, I went into the interview with my own motivations. However, I want to encourage each one of you, since it's quite evident some of you are seeking answers to questions that I did not ask. Get in contact with her. She is very approachable, but all I ask is approach her with the same respect you would expect one to have with you.
Hi Chad....Possibly this other article of mine Hate
Begets Hate is also relevant here http://gayambassador.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/hate-begets-hate.html

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 30th Aug, 2012

Trial by Same Same is just like trial by Facebook

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 30th Aug, 2012

Me thinks Wendy Francis is starting to feel guilty over the discrimination that we GLBT people in Queensland now face thanks to her and the LNP.

Barrin

Barrin said on the 30th Aug, 2012

Maybe we should apply professional journalistic standards to all posts. That'll learn em!

mark_

mark_ said on the 30th Aug, 2012



I wonder if we're more bitchy than all those twitterers who forced this botox bimbo into hospital overnight?

http://www.news.com.au/news/charlotte-dawson-in-hospital-after-twitter-attack/story-fnejlvvj-1226461640456

http://images.2dayfm.com.au/2012/08/29/796242/CharlotteDawson395xHeight.jpg

CeeAy

CeeAy said on the 30th Aug, 2012



No worries - didn't think your post was that bad (although I'm still confused :D ) - no need to apologise.

CeeAy

CeeAy said on the 30th Aug, 2012



You got to be kidding right? I mean come on. I have to be a journalist in order to question something? I have to have previous interviews published to be credible? I was talking in the sense that, that would be my style of interviewing - neither better nor worse - which I personally think would make a more interesting article.

CeeAy

CeeAy said on the 30th Aug, 2012

Fair comment. You had your motivations and objectives for the interview and from your perspective they were met.

Chad, no disrespect or a personal attack was intended towards you & if you felt so from me I apologise.

Light-Beerer

Light-Beerer said on the 30th Aug, 2012

If Fatty Vautin interviewed Wendy Francis- it would have read exactly like this interview

Sirius

Sirius said on the 30th Aug, 2012

Thanks for taking the time to bring us this Chad. I'd love to say that Wendy's comments were in some way enlightening to me, sadly they are not. It is the same hateful rhetoric that we always see from the Christian right, but hidden behind a pretense that is hard to argue against and on the surface seems reasonable. In this case the rights of children.

We see this same crap from other right wing positions. ie The boat people debate, but the pretense they use is protecting our boarders from potential terrorists, or stopping people smugglers. But the reality is that this is another hateful, small minded position.

This trick is ageless and has been used throughout history to support great atrocities. If you have an unreasonable or unpopular position, you link it to a fact that is hard to argue against. That way opponents need to argue against the fact, instead of the real issue. There is a great example of this in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar written over 400 years ago (Act 3, Scene II. Antony's speech at Caesars funeral).

Undoubtedly Wendy is personable and comes across as a reasonable fair minded individual, who may have good intentions. However her intentions, her motivations or even whether or not she is a good person is irrelevant. At the end of the day the only thing that matters are her actions and the consequences of her publicly expressing her views.

The reality is they are discriminatory and incite hate. Wendy went to great lengths to tell us how she wasn't responsible for those twitter comments. She would have us believe that she is the innocent victim of some overzealous staffer and the media. I tend to beleive that she knew nothing about it as she claims. However that doesn't make her innocent. Regardless of Wendy's intentions, her position inspires this type of hate, gives it a voice and makes it seem just that little bit more reasonable. When she is directly confronted by the hate she inspires it takes her by surprise but instead of realising that this is a consequence of her actions, it is rationalised away with comments like she made above.

I think we really need to think twice about giving people like Wendy a voice in a forum like this. We are not immune to believing some of the rhetoric these people espouse. The fact that some of it sounds rational makes it dangerous and in my view could contribute to the internalised homophobia problem that already plagues our community.

chadstjames

chadstjames said on the 30th Aug, 2012

Thankyou for the apology.

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 30th Aug, 2012

I wonder if we're more bitchy than all those twitterers who forced this botox bimbo into hospital overnight?

http://www.news.com.au/news/charlotte-dawson-in-hospital-after-twitter-attack/story-fnejlvvj-1226461640456

http://images.2dayfm.com.au/2012/08/29/796242/CharlotteDawson395xHeight.jpg

I wonder when Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard will go to hospital.

They get bullied all the time

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 30th Aug, 2012

I wonder if we're more bitchy than all those twitterers who forced this botox bimbo into hospital overnight?

http://www.news.com.au/news/charlotte-dawson-in-hospital-after-twitter-attack/story-fnejlvvj-1226461640456

http://images.2dayfm.com.au/2012/08/29/796242/CharlotteDawson395xHeight.jpg

Has she had the same cheek implant procedure as Madonna?

http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/cm/cosmopolitanuk/images/JE/or_7d587543127806591526238.jpg

Kaleb

Kaleb said on the 30th Aug, 2012



Maybe not but I suspect despite having such beautiful blonde hair they both dye their roots black for some reason :eek:

shaz2012

shaz2012 said on the 30th Aug, 2012

Chad, I appreciate you taking the time to sit down and chat with Wendy as it must have been hard to do. Thank you for respecting her enough to listen to what she had to say and conducting this interview in a mature way.

(Here is the school teacher coming out in me... One thing I noticed was that there are a lot of terrible grammatical errors in this interview/article. Are these ones that Wendy has typed out herself or are they copied down from your coversation with her? I if the latter is the case it would be great to fix up as many of these as possible as I think the mistakes take away a little from what she is saying. They sometimes make her look silly in an unfair manner). Thanks

Wonderland

Wonderland said on the 30th Aug, 2012

I wonder if we're more bitchy than all those twitterers who forced this botox bimbo into hospital overnight?

http://www.news.com.au/news/charlotte-dawson-in-hospital-after-twitter-attack/story-fnejlvvj-1226461640456

http://images.2dayfm.com.au/2012/08/29/796242/CharlotteDawson395xHeight.jpg

Only you would find pleasure in someone's suicide attempt.

If the smurfs were looking for the worst version of this fella: you're the one!

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/20300000/Grouchy-Smurf-the-smurfs-20323804-460-345.gif


http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m399ovO97v1qjh26a.gif#nasty%20gif

Wonderland

Wonderland said on the 30th Aug, 2012

Chad, I appreciate you taking the time to sit down and chat with Wendy as it must have been hard to do. Thank you for respecting her enough to listen to what she had to say and conducting this interview in a mature way.

(Here is the school teacher coming out in me... One thing I noticed was that there are a lot of terrible grammatical errors in this interview/article. Are these ones that Wendy has typed out herself or are they copied down from your coversation with her? I if the latter is the case it would be great to fix up as many of these as possible as I think the mistakes take away a little from what she is saying. They sometimes make her look silly in an unfair manner). Thanks

Welcome!

As it happens, SS already has a resident spell checker. :D

mark_

mark_ said on the 30th Aug, 2012



Am I as nasty as Wendy?

mark_

mark_ said on the 30th Aug, 2012



What makes you think that? Does it come across in Chad's coffee interview?

Wonderland

Wonderland said on the 30th Aug, 2012



I'm in two minds about that.
Don't know if Wendy gets pleasure out of someone's misery.
I know you do.

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 30th Aug, 2012

I'm in two minds about that.
Don't know if Wendy gets pleasure out of someone's misery.
I know you do.

You don't know Mark in person so how can you make that judgement?

Being critical doesn't mean a person isn't empathetic and compassionate.

mark_

mark_ said on the 30th Aug, 2012

.... gets pleasure out of someone's misery.
I know you do.

:p free psycho-analysis over the internet! How much do you charge per hour for face-to-face sessions?

Matt Akersten

Matt Akersten said on the 30th Aug, 2012



Hey thanks for this shaz, that's my fault actually, it was transcribed by Chad very quickly after their chat and I should've done a better job at checking for errors. I tidied it up a bit tonight. xx

Wonderland

Wonderland said on the 30th Aug, 2012

You don't know Mark in person so how can you make that judgement?

Being critical doesn't mean a person isn't empathetic and compassionate.

Can't help yourself, can you?
You don't know me but that never stopped you from judging me.

You don't think that heartless comment gives away anything about the persona behind mark_? :rolleyes:

Wonderland

Wonderland said on the 30th Aug, 2012



You got the psycho part right!

Are you prepared to pay my travel costs?

Can you maybe lay into other people you've never met face-to-face for a change coz you are getting on my nerves with your half baked assumptions.

PS: if your face is really ugly, my rates go up 100%

simbo

simbo said on the 30th Aug, 2012

The thing that surprised me most was her comments about surrogacy, and the extrordinary level of assumption about other people's lives that she displays. And this has nothing to do with gay or straight (I have straight friends who have been involved in surrogacy arrangmenents) but has everything to do with how Wendy Francis' quite disturbing brain works. She can't possibly imagine that anybody could have an emotional reaction any different to what hers would be, so will quite happily campaign for legislation to enforce HER emotional reactions over anybody elses.

So that leaves her as a somewhat more polite and friendly, but still narrow-minded and hopelessly incapable of understanding other human beings, person.

NewFarmer

NewFarmer said on the 31st Aug, 2012



My point is how would you possibly know if the hypothetical interview you did would be more interesting? My suspicion is it would have elicited much more limited responses and been far shorter.

You presume that Wendy would have no answers to your questions and have been really stumped by them, or would have let slip something wildly offensive, which I doubt.

The woman has a point of view, she isn't going to change it or state otherwise because the person sitting across from her is ticked off.

I think it's one thing to question whether or not she is worth interviewing in the first place than it is to just presume you'd do a better, more hard hitting job because your proposed questions are angrier.

As Chad says, she's quite approachable, he took the initiative to interview her and got probably all she was going to give on the subject. The criticism of his interviewing technique is all a bit peanut gallery.

ZoeB

ZoeB said on the 31st Aug, 2012

She doesn't belong in the ACL.

Wonderland

Wonderland said on the 31st Aug, 2012

Mark_, they say when you look hard enough, there's always some aspect you will like of a person you dislike and they're right.
I have to say I like your new avatar! :p

Wonderland

Wonderland said on the 31st Aug, 2012



What do you mean by that?

CeeAy

CeeAy said on the 31st Aug, 2012

My point is how would you possibly know if the hypothetical interview you did would be more interesting? My suspicion is it would have elicited much more limited responses and been far shorter.

You presume that Wendy would have no answers to your questions and have been really stumped by them, or would have let slip something wildly offensive, which I doubt.

The woman has a point of view, she isn't going to change it or state otherwise because the person sitting across from her is ticked off.

I think it's one thing to question whether or not she is worth interviewing in the first place than it is to just presume you'd do a better, more hard hitting job because your proposed questions are angrier.

As Chad says, she's quite approachable, he took the initiative to interview her and got probably all she was going to give on the subject. The criticism of his interviewing technique is all a bit peanut gallery.

I no longer wish to enter into a discussion as to whether I would do a better job than Chad or not - in fact it was never about who is better - it was about the types of questions. My questions were listed not as a pissing contest - Chad chose his way of interviewing and I accept that. I suggested a different, more confrontational approach which is my sytle but not per se the only way - I would choose to take this approach as I do not want to give these types of bigots a platform to deliver unchallenged, discriminatory messages that they like doing to further their goals and push froward their anti gay rights agenda. Is this the only approach? Of course not.

You presume my questions would be asked with anger and aggression. I don't believe that is necessary either. They can be tough questions but calmly aksed and firmly debated. The power of the question is not that it gets shouted or stated with anger but rather the impact sits in the idea or concept presented in the question.

With all respect, you are looking at this too one dimensionally. I do not envisage a list of questions being fired off at the person with the hope that they stump her. As I said in my earlier post, an interview is a fluid thing and how it develops depends on the answers and reactions of the interviewee. I do not presume she will have no answers - you are the presumptuous one here. Trust me, these Christian lobby guys have heard all these types of questions and arguments before. They are prepared and they relish the opportunity to spout forth. Just as they are prepared so should we be as it too is our opportunity to expose their bigotry thus their message gets balanced against our message. Hopefully that way, right minded, decent people think about what is being said and see the ACL for the discriminators they are.

Trust me, I do not expect her point of view to change. However, we need to use interview opportunities like this to challenge and balance her message against our human rights message. It is often about getting our voice out there - crtically important in our our gay rights struggle.

mark_

mark_ said on the 31st Aug, 2012


Are you still talking about that botoxed bimbo?

Wonderland

Wonderland said on the 31st Aug, 2012



I bet it's always 'table for one please' for you.

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 31st Aug, 2012

Are you trying to put Mark in hospital with Dawsonitis

Wonderland

Wonderland said on the 31st Aug, 2012

They don't allow smurfs in hospitals

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 31st Aug, 2012

They'll hold him down and remove his twitter

Wonderland

Wonderland said on the 31st Aug, 2012

Is that what non-smurfs would call a penectomy?

CeeAy

CeeAy said on the 31st Aug, 2012

I love it - this thread has completely derailed!!

Wonderland & Light-Bearer: you guys are very funny!

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 31st Aug, 2012

It was still a lousy interview

CeeAy

CeeAy said on the 31st Aug, 2012

In one small move - thread firmly back on the tracks! :D

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 31st Aug, 2012

Have you ever met a lamington

mark_

mark_ said on the 31st Aug, 2012

lamingtons are meant to be eaten

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 31st Aug, 2012

So at no point did you feel the need to speak to it or ask it questions

Fahed

Fahed said on the 2nd Sep, 2012

^

+



I guess I just gave you more credit than I should have. We get it LB, you don't agree with her.

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 2nd Sep, 2012

It's not that I just disagree with her- but did you really for even one second, expect her to give any answers other than the ones she has given.

I'm confused by this interview. Not by the questions asked and the lack of follow up- but why it would even take place.
Would you think an interview with the Pope was ground breaking or an interview with George Pell.

These people - do not say these things because they are nasty and want to offend us. They say them- because they believe these insane things- and giving them a platform to spread their pestilent ignorance further- serves no purpose.

Fahed

Fahed said on the 2nd Sep, 2012

^ I'm confused by your reaction to this interview. Did you really think that anyone on this site, reading this interview is going to suddenly go 'Oh what a groundbreaking argument. I was wrong all this time and this woman knows better than I do!'.

You know that these people believe the insane things that they spit out (and more importantly, implied but not explicitly said in your post, you know that these people perceive themselves as acting in the interests of the greater good), but clearly, given the way people have treated her, not everybody else did. That was the point of this interview.

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe the punishment for being wrong should be virtual stoning. We're all wrong at some point or other. We need to get over it and be open to being wrong sometimes so we can learn how to be right.

More importantly, I can't accept the twisted logic in which Chad gets to be the victim of attack, or even me just because we're not mindlessly attacking those that we don't agree with.

Age difference notwithstanding, and in full awareness of the self-refuting nature of this comment: Grow the fuck up and get a filter.

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 2nd Sep, 2012

You were one of the ones that threw the first stone at " Chance"

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 2nd Sep, 2012

And as stated before. I am merely commenting as I'm a concerned citizen

Fahed

Fahed said on the 3rd Sep, 2012



I would hardly call telling someone to 'step up to the plate' throwing a stone.



It isn't the fact that you're commenting, but the way you went about doing it. You made it personal when it should have just been about the topic.

It doesn't matter anyway I'm over it.

There are 14 more comments. View them all