Being assaulted for your beliefs is wrong, whether you’re Alan Joyce or Andrew Bolt

IF you were horrified at Alan Joyce being hit with a pie for his beliefs, you must also condemn the glitter assault on Andrew Bolt, writes Gary Nunn.

If you believe people should not be assaulted for their views, then that should apply as much to Andrew Bolt (above) as it does to Alan Joyce. (Pic: Andrew Henshaw)

THE two men exploded into the building so fast, you couldn’t quite make out the weapon in their hands.

They concealed their faces with ominous and gutless masks and hoods. Hurling themselves towards a woman innocently taking a selfie with a man at a book launch in Melbourne last night, violence ensued.

The weapon was an impotent can of shaving cream and some glitter. The target was conservative commentator Andrew Bolt. But, no matter what your politics, neither of these facts should blind you from seeing this attack for exactly what it was: deplorable.

It was deplorable for three reasons: it was stupid, cowardly and potentially dangerous.

Mind-blowingly stupid because it happened less than 24 hours after a hostage situation took place in the very same city. In nearby Brighton, the attack by Yacqub Khayre, before he was shot dead, left one innocent man dead. Islamic State have claimed responsibility.

Cowardly because the men hid their identities and fled when Bolt retaliated.

Alan Joyce has a pie pushed in his face by Tony Overheu. If this offended you, you should also be offended by the attack on Andrew Bolt. (Pic: Supplied)

And potentially dangerous because, as news breaks today that two Australians were killed in London’s terrorist attack, people are on edge about further attacks both here and in the UK. Police shot to kill within eight minutes in London. Anything that looks this threatening — and you only need to watch the CCTV footage to see that this did — is playing with fire. This could’ve backfired catastrophically.

But it was just a “harmless prank to show bigots don’t win”, some are claiming on Twitter as I write this. The irony of this statement is, if you try to shut down the debate like this, it’s you that’s the bigot.

Now, I did not wake up this morning expecting to defend Andrew Bolt. I’m a gay mocha-sipping cycling fanatic. I disagree with most of what he says but, like Voltaire, will defend to the death his right to say it, without facing intimidation and threatening behaviour. Bolt even offered an almost magnanimous apology for fighting back.

Those on the Left defending this “harmless prank” had very different reactions when Qantas head Alan Joyce had pie thrown on his face by devout Christian Tony Overheu. The two incidents are strikingly similar — both seemingly innocuous. Lemon meringue pie and glitter are the most innocent of weapons. But it’s the cruel intention behind both acts: to humiliate, infuriate, provoke and ultimately crush or censor those you disagree with.

Joyce at the time said he had every intention to press charges “to send a message that this type of behaviour isn’t acceptable.” Overheu faced court today, with charges of common assault, damaging property, trespass and giving false details to police. Bolt, too, is appealing for anyone with information about his glitter bomb attackers to contact Victoria Police.

CCTV image of people in sinister masks attacking Andrew Bolt. (Pic: AAP)

I saw lots of discussion at the time of Joyce’s pie attack, that this was one of the clearest ripostes to anyone who claimed a plebiscite on marriage equality would entail respectful, polite debate. Turnbull claimed he had better faith in the Australian people to have an adult debate about the issue. If it had gone ahead — which, thank the gay lords it did not — a lemon meringue pie could’ve been the least of our worries. Resorting to public humiliation is a low, low tactic.

The further irony here, is that this kind of hypocrisy plays straight into the hands of those who disagree with the Left: that it’s one rule for them and another for everyone else (“champagne socialists.”) That they’re dogmatic (Bolt has called his attackers “left wing fascists”). That they shut down healthy debate by belittling, shaming, humiliating, silencing and censoring.

This is not what the Left represents in my mind. These people do not speak for me. ‘Left wing fascism’ should always be the kind of oxymoron that comes from extremism. Being on the Left, for me, represents the kind of social liberalism and empathy that is severely lacking here. It undermines the very values those like me hold dear, by being on the Left. When the echo gets too obnoxious, it’s time to leave that chamber.

Glitter bombing has a chequered recent history. When GetUp!sent an envelope full of glitter to Liberal MP Craig Laundy for his opposition to same-sex marriage, it felt like a fun and appropriate way to protest the LNP ignoring the will of the people it’s supposed to represent (independent polling consistently shows a clear majority support it.) But the stunt backfired when a staffer mistook it for a suspicious substance and six police cars and six fire trucks were called to the scene, in what felt a little like an over-reaction for this nonviolent protest.

Australian feminist Germaine Greer was glitter bombed in person in 2012 in New Zealand, by a group of protesters unhappy about an article she’d written about trans women three years earlier.

There are better ways to protest than this, especially at times of heightened fear of terror. If you want to protest with humour, indulge in some satire.

If you want to do it seriously, organise, march, join a political party, start a Change.org petition, persuade, debate — but most importantly of all: listen.

Otherwise, the only echo in your chamber could be one of glaring hypocrisy.

@garynunn1