Piers Akerman: Stop being Yes men and consider the fallout
ARROGANCE, closed-mindedness and intolerance have marked the whingeing and bitter campaign waged by supporters of the Yes lobby in the homosexual marriage debate, Piers Akerman writes.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
ARROGANCE, closed-mindedness and intolerance have marked the whingeing and bitter campaign waged by supporters of the Yes lobby in the homosexual marriage debate.
Westpac, Qantas and the NSW Law Society, along with some of the nation’s largest corporations, are among the many organisations in Australia that have been exposed as grotesque bullies — and there is still a month to go before this unnecessarily nation-dividing exercise is exhausted — to no apparent gain.
Last week a revolt by well-grounded legal academics and mainstream lawyers obligated the NSW Law Society to retreat from its virtue-signalling overreach on the issue, and concede that it may not have had support throughout the legal profession for homosexual marriage.
Sydney solicitor Robin Speed, who stood resolute in the face of viperous criticism from the large queer community within the legal fraternity, deserves congratulations for having the courage to face down those who wanted to steamroller all opposition to his position.
Mr Speed, president of the Rule of Law Institute, is a founder of Sydney law firm Speed & Stracey. His taskforce will now advise the Law Society council and its president Pauline Wright on ways of protecting freedom of speech, conscience, thought, expression, assembly and “other essential freedoms and rights”.
Apparently “essential freedoms and rights” were not at the forefront of the society’s collective mind when it issued a fatuous statement claiming blanket support for the Yes campaign by its membership.
Same with Westpac, which emailed perhaps 10,000 of its 40,000 employees urging them to support homosexual marriage and then back-pedalled on the notion.
It’s easy to understand why Middle Australia thinks this whole brouhaha is a confabulation driven by wealthy individuals living in the inner urban suburbs of the major cities who aren’t faced with real issues such as soaring electricity prices, the erratic jumps in the price of petrol, the scarcity of affordable housing and the threats to employment posed by increasing automation.
It was interesting, however, to see how quickly the same people approvingly remarked upon the actions of former prime minister John Howard in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre, as the extent of the Las Vegas slaughter by a madman with access to the full suite of weaponry available in the US was revealed.
Mr Howard — said many of the commentators pushing the same-sex marriage barrow — had shown courage in restricting the types of firearm available to Australian.
That would be the same fellow who a week ago wrote an open letter warning he was gravely concerned about the plebiscite and the lack of protections for freedom of conscience, speech, parental rights and religion.
Mr Howard renewed his challenge to the Coalition and the Prime Minister to publicise the draft legislative protections before the ballot ends in November. This was in vivid contrast to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who has been restating ad nauseam his view that the Yes case must prevail, and reminding the electorate that he and his inseparable wife have sent in their surveys firmly marked Yes.
Mr Howard is correctly sceptical about Mr Turnbull’s claims that everything will be all right after the fact, noting that while it was “common ground” that if the Yes vote succeeded “the people’s verdict should be respected and Parliament support an amendment”, there was “less generosity of spirit if the outcome is a No vote”.
“Bill Shorten has said that his party will not accept such a result. Nor will the Greens,” Mr Howard said.
“This contrast highlights just how important it is for the government to spell out, before the postal survey is completed, what steps it will take to protect parental rights, freedom of speech, and religious freedom in the event of same-sex marriage becoming law.
“The case for these protections is compelling, given the experience of other countries in the wake of those countries changing their laws.
“This issue must be addressed before the survey is completed; leaving it as something to be taken up only in the event of a Yes vote prevailing is the equivalent of saying that it does not matter very much.
“If a Yes vote is recorded, there will be overwhelming pressure to move on, legislate as quickly as possible. There will be scant opportunity for serious consideration of protections in the areas I have cited. Very likely, those raising such matters will be met with a chorus of put-downs, and accused of attempting to frustrate the verdict of the people.”
RELATED VIDEO
Mr Howard said if the protections were not revealed “people will not have been fully informed when they cast their votes”.
“This does not bode well for the capacity of the current national Parliament to enact any effective protections of the kind that will be required if our marriage laws change,” he said.
“Same-sex marriage will not be the end of this debate.
“As the Safe Schools debacle showed, there are education activists ready to introduce classroom material regarding gender issues unacceptable to the mainstream of Australian parents. These activists will use a change in the definition of marriage to renew their push. Parents are entitled to know what steps would be taken to ensure that this does not occur.”
Mr Howard was mocked when he was PM by the same inner-urban Australians who now regard him as a hero on firearms — and now they mock him for his position on same-sex marriage. It is, however, the same man and the same intellect with the same commonsense speaking.
On the current issue, as with gun control, Howard should be heeded. The nation prospered under his wise leadership and his wisdom has not diminished since he left office.