Activists muzzle free speech

A month ahead of the November 7 deadline for the return of same-sex marriage survey forms, John Howard’s call for fundamental protections to be guaranteed is proving prescient. Mr Howard wants the Turnbull government to spell out what steps it envisages to protect parental rights, freedom of speech and religious freedom in the event of a change to the Marriage Act. Two new developments underline the need for such protections.

Most loyal workers like to be in step with their employers’ corporate culture, which is why, however good at their jobs, many Westpac and St George bank staff on the No side would feel uneasy about an email from a staff networking group telling them to vote Yes. The email claimed, erroneously, that doing so would prevent 3000 suicides a year. Australia recorded 2866 suicides in total last year, without a breakdown of the reasons. While the bank distanced itself from the email, it supported “marriage equality” in an open letter last year — a stance highlighted in the staff group email.

In Hobart, the Wrest Point Casino and another venue denied Catholic Archbishop Julian Porteous a platform to support the No campaign. As a private entity, the casino is entitled to let its spaces as it sees fit, although it canned the arrangement after contracts were signed and the fee paid. Initially, the University of Tasmania also refused to provide a venue, but it reversed its position yesterday. As a publicly funded institution committed to the free exchange of ideas, it was the right call.

The Australian is concerned about the lack of legislative detail as regards changing the Marriage Act. The difficulties experienced by the church in Hobart in finding a venue for a No campaign rally prompt the question: how free will opponents of same-sex marriage be to express their views if the law changes? Balancing public, personal, legal and religious concerns was always going to be difficult, which is why, as Mr Howard says, vital details should have been thrashed out by now.

Voters are being asked whether they want the law changed without seeing the fine print, which is why we cannot endorse such a proposal sight unseen.