Home > Religion, Atheism, & Hollywood, Social Issues, The Body Politic > The NZ Taliban – quietly safeguarding our morals

The NZ Taliban – quietly safeguarding our morals

From Whangarei,


Guesthouse refuses to let gay couple sleep together

Acknowledgment: The Dominion Post – Guesthouse refuses to let gay couple sleep together


Bigots/owners of the Pilgrim Planet Lodge refused to allow a same-sex couple, Paula Knight and Jane Collison to occupy the same room. Ms Knight and Ms Collison are a same-sex couple.

According to local Taliban morals-police, Ms Karen Ruskin,

Why do they assume that we have to change our standards, our values, to accommodate behaviour that is sodomy?This is our home, we are not a big motel.  In our home, where our grandchildren are, where our guests are, we don’t want sodomy.”

Acknowledgment: IBID

Now, it occurs to me that Morals Enforcer, Ms Ruskin (and her husband – I assume they are a married heterosexual couple) seem to be a bit confused about basic biology and more specifically, human anatomy.

Sodomy requires at least one penis to be involved. I’m assuming (again) that neither Ms Knight or  Ms  Collison packed one with their toothpaste, spare knickers, and phone recharger?

So – no penis = no sodomy?

Point two. I hate to be the one to break it to the Christian Morality Commissars, Mr and Ms Ruskin – but it’s well known that heterosexual couples do engage in sodomy. At least one ‘member’ (*snigger*) of a heterosexual couple has the prerequisite anatomical appendage: a dick. (No, not Aaron Gilmore. Not this time.)

So – one penis = sodomy.

Now call me the government Minister in Charge of the Bleedin’ Obvious – but if  Whangarei Wowser, Ms Ruskin (and her hubby, who also, I’m assuming once more, is in possession of a functioning penis) are so fixated on preventing sodomy from taking place under their roof – wouldn’t the appropriate policy be to ban all males from their Humble Heterosexual  Hostel?

Kinda stands to reason, really.


Penis = sodomy

No penis = no sodomy

So in reality, lesbian couples, single woman, post-op transgender-women,  and eunochs – should all be welcomed guests.

Unfortunately for  Mr Ruskin he’ll  have to live in the garden shed. Remember, he’s got a penis. And people with penii (correct plural?) tend to get up to mischief. Like sodomy.

That’s the problem with religious (?) moralists who take it upon themselves to look after our morals and mind our business – they often don’t think things through properly.

Now, unfortunately, I can already hear a chorus of conservatives and (some) assorted right-wingers who will be bleating the old mantra,

It’s their business – they should be able to do what they like!”

These are usually the same conservatives and assorted right-wingers who demand the abolition of the Treaty of Waitangi, asserting that there should be one law for all.

One law for all – except when  right wingers and conservatives demand the right to discriminate against anyone for anything.

Back to the local agents for Moral Correctness – the Ruskins.

I guess I won’t be staying at their Happy Hotel for Hitched Heterosexuals. After all, I have a penis (or I did, last time I looked).

And considering the number of times various right wingers have urged  me to “go fuck myself” over the years, the very real risk of me sodomising myself is  worth considering.

So the Ruskins will be safe from my penis.

I bet they’re relieved.


The Ruskins’ webpage promoting their motel doesn’t refer to a blanket ban on bumming (aka, sodomy), so I’ve taken the liberty of correcting that oversight,



Pilgrim Planet Lodge – no sodomy please.



= fs =

  1. Citizen Gee
    11 May 2013 at 4:28 pm

    My initial reaction was that the motel owners have a right to choose who they want as guests.

    However, there is no mention made on their website that same-sex couples are excluded, nor was there any condition put upon the two women paying for a room at that lodge, when they booked. There was a clear contract between the motel owners and the couple, without any conditions laid down.

    The motel owners are therefore in breach of contract.

    I’d sue their fundamentalist arses off.

    I know I’d be none too pleased if I booked a room from that motel (or any motel for that matter), rocked up at 3am in the morning, and was told I couldn’t have the room because of yada yada yada. Fuck that.

    The Ruskins should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. This is rude behaviour to their clients and uncalled for.

    I’m also worried – what are they saying to overseas visitors arriving on their doorsteps, having booked a room and then told they can’t sleep together because they’re gay? That’ll screw our tourism image abroad won’t it?

    This is not cool.

  2. Citizen Gee
    11 May 2013 at 4:30 pm

    One other thing. I travel across the top half of the North Island on a regular basis. I doubt I’ll be staying at the Ruskins any time soon. They’re just too weird for me. What’s with their obsessing over sodomy?

  3. 11 May 2013 at 4:43 pm

    They would rather cheat the couple by renting out TWO rooms??? They object to gays… but don’t mind openly stealing money???

  4. HR
    11 May 2013 at 4:58 pm

    Jeez.. To think perverts like those motel owners walk amongst us..

  5. Brendan Grant
    11 May 2013 at 5:36 pm

    This is in violation of the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 44, part 1.

    It shall be unlawful for any person who supplies goods, facilities, or services to the public or to any section of the public—
    (a)to refuse or fail on demand to provide any other person with those goods, facilities, or services; or
    (b)to treat any other person less favourably in connection with the provision of those goods, facilities, or services than would otherwise be the case,—
    by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.


    They provide a service, they can not discriminate. They should have thought about that before starting the business in their home or even at all. You wouldn’t refuse somebody if they were Maori, Chinese or Indian. So why are these people different.

    • 11 May 2013 at 6:52 pm

      You’re absolutely right, Brendan.

      As well as the illegality of the Ruskin’s behaviour, I wanted to illustrate the utter absurdity of their homophobia. (As if prejudice can be anything but absurd…)

  6. Carl W
    12 May 2013 at 12:25 am

    I am just appalled that these people can behave so horribly to other humans. I do my best to not assume that fundamentist christians are not all women-hating (read the bible’s anti women content), self-rightious individuals who make brazen assumptions about other people’s values based on thier outdated and tired stereotypes – but this makes me think it is them who is in need of a good burning in hell. Sorry to hate on them, but I am SO frustrated with narrow minded zealots!

  7. K
    12 May 2013 at 6:23 pm

    Lulz the title of this post!

    Seriously, this motel/hotel is just SCREAMING to be used for an orgy. Ah, the thrill of illicit sex that you may get caught in the act of…made even more thrilling by the preachy disapproving atmosphere and the need to sneek around. They have practically dared you to : ) ??

  8. Patti (Yaya) Sobieski
    4 June 2013 at 5:05 pm

    Ms Ruskins lacy bonnet might be tied up too tight…and, well c’mon, I mean really, Pilgrims Planet Lodge?! – sounds like the Mayflower meets Star Trek.

    • 4 June 2013 at 5:44 pm

      Heh heh heh… Interesting imagery there, Patti… 😀

  9. Leah
    13 June 2013 at 12:25 am

    June 11 2013


    ‘Privacy concerns’ of no concern now
    B& B owners accused of discrimination want outcome made public

    The Whangarei bed and breakfast owners accused of acting illegally after offering a lesbian couple twin beds want the outcome of the Human Rights Commission complaint made public.

    Mr and Mrs Mike and Karen Ruskin say they have nothing to hide, and if the outcome is kept private it will be because the complainent, Jane Collinson, will not allow it to be shared.

    Her fiancee Paula Knight – who made the original room booking and began the public slandering of Mr and Mrs Ruskin – has now pulled out of the Human Rights complaint process and says she will not attend mediation.

    “It is farcicial to speak now of ‘privacy concerns’,” a family spokesperson said. “Ms Jane Collinson had no qualms in destroying the family’s privacy and attempting to discredit their business by making their Human Rights complaint public.
    “She chose to publically share her complaint against the family and identified all their contact details to media, some of which did not hesitate to also breach the families privacy, going so far as to put photos of their home in newspapers and on website. The worldwide coverage that followed meant anyone with an internet was able to judge, slander and personally attack the family and their business, all while no wrong-doing had been proven.”

    The family believes that it is only just that those who felt qualified to pass judgement in public on this ‘privately-laid’ case hear the result as they are entitled to the full story.

    That includes Labour MP Louise Wall, who told gaynz Mr and Mrs Ruskin were ‘disingeous’ and making use of a ‘loophole’ in the law and should not be allowed to run a business in New Zealand.

    “The Ruskin’s never made this public nor encouraged public debate and opinion. However they see it as an opportunity to work alongside the homosexual community to clarify for New Zealanders how equal rights can be shared by all of us, particularly when whatever ethics we chose to live by differ.”

    Mediation has been set down by the HRC for July 3.


  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: