Coffee with Wendy Francis

www.samesame.com.au
  • 115
  • 5
  • 5765

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
  • jason1990
  • gayambassador
  • meezon04
  • dracon388
  • brodes13

Comments

www.samesame.com.au arrow left
28759
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

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.

CeeAy

CeeAy said on the 29th 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!

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.

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 ;)

will_h

will_h 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

There are 14 more comments. View them all