Jack Yan on Vox

A follow-up on the gay marriage post

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:55:00 +1200

The following is a comment in response to the exchange from my earlier blog post on gay marriage in California. I believe it is important (for my own ego!) to address charges that I am prejudiced against gays or am a bigot. It is a pity that while I am open to seeing the other side of the argument in favour of gay marriage in California, as a heterosexual man I am already labelled (prejudged) as being incapable of that.
I am going to Lawcrawler to see if I can find this controversial judgement and will give my thoughts on it later.

T. G. C., I am reading your extract short of seeing the full judgement, and I find it somewhat unconvincing.
   Let me address one point: the article I posted is an article I posted. Simple. I do find it somewhat offensive that you and Madonna would attribute its position to me when even I have not done so. Yes, you may feel it has a personal endorsement by its mere appearance here. In that case your opinion of me is forgiveable. I can understand that the article inflames certain passions. However, it is my opinion that if the article were fair, then the judges in this case do not understand their jobs.
   A bit about my history, so at least we can get on the same page here. I have a fairly good grasp of the law as I am qualified with an LL B. I live in a country that was an early pioneer in homosexual law reform and has a proud tradition of embracing lifestyles that traditionalists would be appalled at. I could probably even find you two gay couples who would attest to my views on the subject that I would say most gays (here) would believe are reasonable and fair.
   My posting an article is for promoting understanding, certainly my own, and certainly, too, to contrast the way your country handles legal positions against the way my one does.
   Let me take one of your highlighted points:

we disagree with the Attorney General and the Governor to the extent they suggest that the traditional or long-standing nature of the current statutory definition of marriage exempts the statutory provisions embodying that definition from the constraints imposed by the California Constitution, or that the separation-of-powers doctrine precludes a court from determining that constitutional question

   Obviously without reading the statute I am less informed, but this is fairly true: in general, in most common law jurisprudence, courts to interpret laws in line with (state or federal) constitutions.
   Then, however, we have a conflict if the definition of marriage is codified, and this is perhaps the stem of the conflict more than anything.
   Traditionally, even when legislation is interpreted in the spirit of a constitutional document—a familiar argument here given the Treaty of Waitangi—it is not done by completely violating the wording of that legislation.
   To you and Madonna, it may be an issue of what the public wants, but if you have a Governor who keeps vetoing such bills, then I find it unconvincing that we rely on those bills in legal interpretation. In fact, this fact alone illustrates the law’s insufficiency at this present stage for those supporting gay marriage.
   The judicial task when faced with wanting to respect the will of the people and equal-rights doctrines in a constitution is to find third ways, clever exceptions that provide citizens with what they want without violating the legislation before them. This is a given in common law.
   While this means that gay marriage will take far longer to be recognized if this is the prevailing trend, law is something that takes decades to remould, but it should not be short-circuited.
   The law of negligence is a classic example in tort: probably most law students will recall this took decades before the landmark Donahue v. Stevenson case in 1928 and Lord Atkin’s classic judgement.
   Laws are slow, they are often reactive, but it is the system we are laboured with. An ideal world would be one without laws and with self-regulation between people acting with their complete free wills. I hold this to be an ideal and it matters, at the end of the day, little what definitions state about this word or that—but it does matter to me that while we have our current system, it is conducted fairly until the people decide on another system again.
   You bring up Perez v. Lippold. You are right that this is actually highly convincing and I thank you for reminding me of it. I do know a little about this case but there are some distinctions based on religion, the Fourteenth Amendment and constitutional interpretation, and these really helped the couple there. The respondent also presented some heavily biased opinion that the court saw through.
   There was indeed a law written in statute that barred the marriage of the couple in that case, one that was, admittedly, steadily eroded by the courts as it expanded the definition of marriage to increasingly more races.
   The court held (inter alia) that the sections in that legislation were too vague especially when it came to racial classifications—which was how ultimately it got around the interracial ban.
   You see, there was no legislating from the bench: the judge in Perez showed how lacking the legislation was, how it offended the basic tenets of the requirements of American law, and it was effectively a challenge to the legislature that: if you want to block us, revisit the law and redraft it if you dare. This I accept as this fight goes on all the time in a democracy.
   This is why I asked you and Madonna to find me the judgement, though since I haven’t heard back, I’ll have a trawl through Lawcrawler myself in a sec.
   Without clever methods of finding a way around fairly strictly worded statutes, I do believe from what little I know (yes, maybe I shall accept the ignorance charge) the judges crossed the line here.
   Contrary to your and Madonna’s biased views of me, I retain an open mind.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

‘So these two hermaphrodites walk into a gym …’

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:33:45 +1200

I wish that was a joke, but it isn’t.
   I went to preview a New Dowse exhibition on transsexuality, intersexuality and the transgender community with its communications’ officer Mandy Herrick and coincidentally, was told by a friend last night about a situation at a gym in New Zealand.
   They had two intersexual (‘hermaphrodite’) clients and other patrons petitioned the owner to remove them, otherwise they would not pay their fees.
   Shame on us as New Zealanders.
   We go around saying how open-minded we are, scoff at other nations, point out how we had the world’s first transsexual MP—but no, when we confront intersexual people in our own neighbourhood, we do exactly what pre-US Civil Rights racists did when they hung out ‘Whites Only’ signs.
   For crying out loud, these two clients were born this way—and you’ll be even more shocked to learn that the gym opened itself to a human rights’ violation by cancelling the two people’s memberships.
   Imagine if they were taken to court and how much business they would have lost if word got out.
   Wouldn’t it have been better to have pointed out to the prejudiced clients that if they couldn’t accept the situation, then they could take their business elsewhere?
   Or go so far as to build an extra changing room and encourage more open-minded clients all round?
   I was pretty shocked that this went on.
   I am not prejudice-free and I will freely admit to thinking, ‘That looks a bit odd’—as I did when I looked at some of the work that the New Dowse will be showing. I don’t know anyone who has told me they are intersex, hence my surprise. Then again, I don’t go around asking. I get over it. I accept that this is part of God’s plan and everyone is created in His own image.
   And there is a clear right and wrong in this case. Hopefully as time goes by more of us will look at this story and equate it to the racism of earlier times.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Forget ageism, racism, sexism: which presidential candidate has used the least spin?

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:55:32 +1200

The reasons I haven’t been fully supportive of John McCain have largely been from GOP-voting friends who have met him. They speak of a man who seems empty with a cold handshake. McCain supporters might say that that is a sign of a man who hates political functions and prefers getting on with the job. I guess it could be seen both ways.
   He has been the butt of my own jokes. On television a couple of years ago, I asked the audience, ‘So what party is this guy with again? I can never tell.’ There has been a perception of McCain being not conservative enough and even in the lead-up to his party’s nomination for the presidency there were members of the religious right who felt the senator from Arizona could not possibly be their guy. Hence, former Gov. Mike Huckabee looked more palatable to them; while the technocrats could not fathom anyone like Huckabee getting the nomination.
   Examine McCain’s record and he’s a pretty consistent conservative, from his time in Congress (where he was a supporter of Ronald Reagan), so this perception may have been an invention of the media and his opponents. Remember, when he and George W. Bush were battling it out in 2000, things got dirty as both ran attack ads. McCain came off pretty terribly.
   In fact, when I looked at McCain’s record today I am not too sure why there may be some liberal support for him, although he might be able to use that to his advantage with the voting public. Unless people like George W. Bush have been even more staunchly conservative and have offended those liberals.
   While voting for the War on Terror Sen. McCain also had amendments to bills added, such as ensuring that the US did not engage in illegal torture of its PoWs. That is easily explained: if you were beaten up and tortured yourself over a five-and-a-half year period, you’d be pretty averse to seeing another human being go through the same thing.
   I write of him now not because I have suddenly picked up a GOP baton and figured he’s the best choice for President, but because he hasn’t really had any time in the limelight.
   The media are chanting either Obama or Clinton, although more seem to be wondering why Hillary Clinton is still in the race. She must either know she’s a fading cause célèbre, or the Clinton fear-mongering tentacles of Arkancide run deeper in the MSM than we can give them credit. Unless she has a genuine chance, prepared to come on stream if something happens to Obama.
   I have written about Barack Obama on this blog because being a minority I want to redress the balance of some of the racist tendencies of some MSM coverage. Politically I do not agree with him any more than I agree with many of the contenders for their parties’ nominations. From memory most of the candidates have a 60 to 70 per cent similarity with my views, which makes you wonder if they are just all saying the right things.
   I feel similarly when I defend John McCain. He is the subject of less media coverage (which is the bias here), and he is the subject of ageism as America goes around with this notion that only a younger person can be a dynamic president.
   This is not just a US phenomenon: the west loves the idea of a young, glamorous leader.
   The US’s finest hours have come from experienced, wise presidents, backed up by strong and wise first ladies. JFK did not live long enough, in my view, to have given the country a “finest hour” in his presidency, though he was inspiring; historical presidents such as Adams, Lincoln, Hoover and FDR were hardly young men.
   In this election, Americans need to consider not just the candidate’s stated position but what their past says about their characters—not what the MSM, attack ads and campaign lies say.
   They need to strip away the biases of age, race and gender as each principal candidate has suffered from prejudice of one sort or the other.
   They need to examine McCain’s 27 years in elected office, without the rhetoric, just as they need to examine Obama’s 12 and Clinton’s eight. (If Obama is inexperienced, according to Clinton, then what does that make her?) And if we are to consider Clinton’s time as First Lady of the country and of Arkansas as she wishes us to, then the record of Lt Cmdr McCain and later Capt McCain needs to be considered, too.
   Because the next four years are not about trying to restore Camelot in the White House: they are about putting a person in the White House that can only preach honour but has shown it.
   Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, what we foreigners want to see is trustworthy leadership. Honour begins at home, and who do you want saying, ‘The buck stops here’?
   If voters dislike spin then who has offered the least spin, the candidate on whom you can rely most? Or that other countries can rely on most: that America’s enemies will know their days are numbered, that America’s allies will know they have a real friend, and that those who fell out with America know that the nation will in fact consistently and genuinely stand for freedom and liberty?
   Men like me were brought up to admire the US for its service to humanity and freedom, and its opposition to Communism, and we want to admire it again. It should not be a country perceived as slogan-heavy and substance-free, yet the perception has shifted toward this since the 1960s. A candidate who resorts to such techniques does not necessarily fit in the 2008 scene and, sadly, that is how I perceive Sen. Clinton. If McCain is really a maverick, then he might shake things up as much as people hope Obama will.
   This should be a race between McCain and Obama, and the next months, hopefully, will reveal it is just that.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Jaguar dealers’ objection founded on skin colour?

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:58:35 +1300

This is not a popular view but here goes. In the United States, some Jaguar dealers are upset that the Ford-owned unit will go to an Indian company.
   Never mind that Tata is solvent and can afford greater investments on the cars. Never mind that Tata owns Corus—British Steel to us oldies. Never mind that Tata has promised to keep UK manufacturing jobs for both brands.
   No, these dealers are upset probably because Indians are not white. Not part of the old world or the new world, but, oh my goodness, they have different skin colour.
   European dealers are reportedly more relaxed as the most important element is not where the parent company is based.
   No one in American retail ever seems upset that Donna Karan is part of French conglomerate LVMH or that Stella McCartney is part of Gucci. No American consumer seems to jump up and down at the thought that Lamborghini and Bentley are owned by Volkswagen.
   These parent companies are well capitalized, have good management and a long history—just like the Tata Group.
   It smells like it’s down to skin colour to me.
   Sure Tata does not have a history of managing luxury brands, but did Toyota have one when it created Lexus?
   And when it comes to consumers, people are still going to buy Jags and Land Rovers for exactly the same reasons as before.
   For years, no one batted an eyelid when these brands were American owned. They were still considered English and never American, and that’s not going to change in 2008.
   It sounds like a few dealers don’t understand their consumers very well, motivated by some redneck element that’s hardly representative of Americans in general.
   They’d better give up wearing Polo Ralph Lauren at their country clubs then. Polo? Ain’t that some kinda Injun game?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The Life on Mars politically incorrect quotation post

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 10:41:21 +1200

Life on Mars meets Camberwick Green

One reason we love Gene Hunt, as played by Philip Glenister, in Life on Mars is the stuff he gets away with saying on prime-time TV. The excuse: it’s set in 1973 and he’s a mean-bastard cop. The reality: probably a backlash against political correctness. Here’s something no 2007 character could ever say, especially as it makes fun of gays:

He is a bum bandit, a poof, fairy, a queer, a queen, fudge packer, uphill gardener, fruit picking sodomite.

Or when attacking Sam, also with the usual homophobic comments:

You great, soft, sissy, girly, nancy, French, bender, Man. United-supporting poof!

In fact, anything blue seems to get a laugh:

I’ve come at this from more angles than Linda Lovelace.

Or the use of brand names:

What have you been eating? Pedigree Chum?

Or just famous people:

Wouldn't Nixon notice a van parked outside the White House?

Then, the other characters get their own back, like Sam:

Listen to me. I can just about handle you, driving like a pissed-up crackhead and treating women like beanbags, but I’m going to say this once and once only, Gene: stay out of Camberwick Green!

Or, in summarizing Gene Hunt:

An overweight, over the hill, tobacco-stained, borderline alcoholic homophobe with a superiority complex and an unhealthy obsession with male bonding.

But I still think Dirty Harry has the most politically incorrect line, despite Gene Hunt:

Harry hates everybody. Limeys, niks, hebs, fat dagos, niggers, honkies, chinks, you name it.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why the American version of Life on Mars has a chance.
I will miss this show when it finishes on Tuesday night in the UK.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Is this a gay-safe article?

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:42:55 +1200

[Cross-posted] I would not mind some advice on my latest motoring column for the next Lucire, from those in the gay community. From a racial minority’s point-of-view, I found shows such as Mind Your Language or the Chinaman gag in The Benny Hill Show to be hilarious. The reason is probably because the joke was not on the minorities portrayed, but on the ignorant Englishman. Yet these shows fall foul of the politically correct types—the PC thugs—who see us minorities as so weak that we need their defence.
I have written about the Audi TT, a car which I associate with female buyers. The new one, however, is more butch. The gag is that heterosexual men like me have a degree of homophobia, and we have tended not to buy a TT. All that changes with this new model.
Is the article appropriate? I hate toning things down for political correctness. That’s not the point. The point is to understand where the limits lie. Many gay men read Lucire, and the last thing I want them to feel is that the magazine is prejudiced when it is not. Read it here and then come back and let me know.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Remembering 9-11

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 21:31:40 +1200

[Cross-posted] A year ago, at this time, I was trying to get to sleep because I knew I would have to get up early to get to Ground Zero to join others commemorating 9-11. I got up around 6.30 a.m. and took the subway in to Manhattan, and met a woman who had travelled there from California. In fact, most of us had come a long way. I spotted two Australian caps among the crowd.
When 9-11 happened, it was 9-12. Here in New Zealand, I was woken up around 6.30 a.m. by Edward Hodges, who called me after he learned of the attacks. I had returned from New York only weeks before, so this was a surreal moment. But it never hit me: I tried watching the news, the commemorations, and I felt distant. Maybe it was my mind shielding me. That’s why, in 2005, I had to go.
Although I had one friend who was killed in London last year, on July 7, I lost no friends on September 11. The people who died were friends of friends. The boyfriend of one of my team could not get back into his apartment. A colleague’s ofﬁce had to be shut till the area was cleared. That was about it.
I still have pictures, when researching a story, of 9-11 itself, taken from Soho by friends. They showed the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers ablaze. I even had images of those falling to their deaths. I doubt I will ever publish them. But even then, it was still some event, some tragedy, in a foreign country. I must have had ice water in my veins.
But last year, it ﬁnally hit. I saw the ﬁremen at Engine Company 10 mourn the loss of their colleagues, and comrades from Europe came to join them. I saw the notes people had signed on memorial boards. I saw tears. An old man wore a T-shirt commemorating his son, a ﬁreﬁghter who perished in the World Trade Center. Cops were there: hard, big blokes who could have stared down crims had tears to contend with in their eyes that day.
It touched me because these were people like me. Of every race. Every creed. Every culture.
Condi started talking below, but it didn’t matter. I was already in the moment.

Where are we now? I remember doing business in New York was easy. People trusted you. Shook your hand. People were globally minded, thinking, ‘What borders?’ I can’t do business in New York anywhere near that readily any more. Suspicion ﬁrst. Get a cast iron contract. Weigh people down before you make them your friends.
The business environment in New York, which is all I really knew, changed drastically that day. That is what the terrorists robbed the US of: not its wealth, not its power, but its trust of cross-border dealings.
A friend of mine, who was a waiter in New York, told me that people were nice to him—a gay, black man—for about two weeks. After that, the mood soured. He was back to being just a waiter. But something was worse.
My Arab–American friends told of people reading Arabic-language newspapers, published in the United States by Americans, getting kicked out of restaurants and cafés.
There was something seriously wrong. And if we are to show the terrorists that they are insigniﬁcant, cowardly bastards, then I long for a return to the America I knew and started working with, and in, in the 1990s.

I still stand by my words written on September 11, 2001. If I had a blog then, these would be on it.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend