Australia: The LGBT blunder using Australian Banks
The boycott of Coopers Brewery beer in some fashionable bars of inner Sydney and Melbourne and the stream of abuse from gay activists forcing the famous family-run company to disassociate itself from a harmless and respectful video debate about same-sex marriage mark a pivotal change in the debate on freedom of speech.
Until now, the debate about same-sex marriage and freedom of religion and speech has been esoteric, academic and limited to the seemingly restricted targets of bishops, fundamentalist Christians, religious marriage celebrants and some service providers on the periphery of wedding receptions and cake-making.
What’s more, prominent Australians and celebrities speaking out in favour of same-sex marriage were not seen as posing any threat to mainstream lifestyles or providing any grounds for resentment among ordinary Australians not involved in the debate.
But the atmosphere and attitudes to the importance of freedom of speech are changing, due in no little part to the bravery of my late and esteemed colleague Bill Leak, coupled with the overstepping of reasonable limits by the Human Rights Commission and the punitive application of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which deals with race hatred, “offence” and “insult”.
The esoteric and legalistic, though perfectly reasonable, defences of previous breaches of the RDA never attracted the wide attention or sympathy for freedom of speech spurred by the Kafkaesque “process punishment” meted out to students of the Queensland University of Technology and The Australian’s Leak.
In those two cases the lack of freedom of speech was recognised as something that could drastically affect an ordinary person going about their daily life using social media, or serve to hide terrible truths.
Until this week the tactics of those supporting same-sex marriage had targeted groups and individuals who were not regarded as mainstream or ordinary, certainly in media terms, just church people or religious cranks or fanatics not attracting sympathy or popular support. But the parallels with the argument on freedom of speech and racial offence and support for same-sex marriage became vivid this week with the banning of a beer.
Previously, church leaders such as the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart, Julian Porteous, were pursued through the anti-discrimination processes for defending traditional marriage and subjected to months of questioning and criticism. Religious groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby were subjected to threats and forced to abandon venues for meetings after gay activists delivered death threats to hotel staff and e-bombed hotel websites with spurious “reviews” to force managers to shut their doors.
But all the troublesome priests of Tasmania and committed Christians couldn’t draw the same sudden and strong sympathy as the boycott of Coopers Brewery. Coopers, which also abandoned a ceremonial beer can to mark the 200th anniversary of the Bible Society, buckled to the boycott and signed on to Australian Marriage Equality.
The protest against Coopers and the brewery’s reaction both went beyond the pale. Coopers was caught in the middle, boycotted and abused by gay activists for being barely associated with the Bible Society, which hosted a tame video of Liberal MPs Tim Wilson and Andrew Hastie respectfully debating same-sex marriage and sharing a Coopers ale, and accused of cowardice by conservatives for giving in to threats.
Wilson, a campaigner for free speech as well as same-sex marriage, expressed surprise at the reaction. Hastie, who was hounded during the election campaign for his committed Christian views, blasted Coopers for giving in.
Whatever your view of the boycott and Coopers’ reaction — either craven or compassionate — there is little doubt that boycotting a beer over same-sex marriage has had the same effect of tapping into popular concern over freedom of speech as suing students for a lame joke. Abusing a brewer and threatening beer supplies seems to strike a deeper chord among the Australian public than a bishop being threatened over a school booklet on Catholic beliefs.
The other contributing factor this week to the linking of same-sex marriage with freedom of speech and popular resentment was the move by chief executives of some of Australia’s biggest companies to pressure Malcolm Turnbull to overrule his partyroom and introduce same-sex marriage legislation.
Given the Prime Minister’s present problems over 18C reforms, terrible polling, an energy crisis, a slow economy and the inevitable leadership speculation, the idea that a new push — possibly backed by one or two activists on the Liberal backbench — by the giants of corporate Australia would help him or change Liberal policy was far-fetched, to say the least.
Turnbull’s response on Thursday to the chief executives’ suggestion was immediate and predictable — there would be no change to policy, the Liberal Party had gone to the election with a plebiscite on same-sex marriage as its policy, Labor had blocked it, and there was no change. Anything else from Turnbull would have been leadership suicide and a huge boost for Bill Shorten.
Given that Turnbull was reacting to the big banks, Telstra, Qantas, Holden, IBM and a raft of other financial and accounting firms headed by people on large incomes, it wasn’t a difficult choice for him to make.
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton — now seen as the senior conservative Liberal and a long-term potential leader — was even blunter in his rejection of the chief executives’ suggestion. Bringing together the themes of highly paid corporate leaders, including banks facing a crusade for a royal commission, a lack of services for people in the regions and the need for businesses to concentrate on customers and economic concerns, he was able to make a political point at a consumer level on priorities and freedom of speech.
Instead of helping the government on the issues of industrial relations, cutting company tax, addressing threats to free trade or defending changes to penalty rates, the leaders of so many corporations were spending time and political capital addressing a social issue that is politically dangerous for the Prime Minister.
Having Holden, as it closes its manufacturing doors, AGL in the middle of an energy crisis, ANZ and CBA under pressure over financial advice, and Telstra, already hit with a customer backlash over support for same-sex marriage, telling the Coalition to deny voters a national vote promised at an election was never going to play well with the public.
Leak humanised freedom of speech and demonstrated its importance to the ordinary bloke, while religious freedom as an aspect of freedom of speech has been taken out of the churches and put into the bars and banks.
Turnbull reacted correctly and some of his ministers are sensing a shift in the climate of the debate on freedom of speech and same-sex marriage.
