Hypocrisy and vulgarity undermine Yes case

When a prominent same-sex marriage campaigner publicly threatens to rape his opponents, we are starting to see the vile hate speech so many claimed might tarnish debate on this issue. Yet the gross hypocrisy in this case is that the offensive and threatening abuse has come from a Yes case proponent who has been among those decrying a public vote because it may see gays targeted by such invective. Benjamin Law is a gay activist, Fairfax Media columnist and regular ABC commentator. He has joined campaigns against a plebiscite on same-sex marriage on the grounds the debate could be harmful. A petition he was associated with suggested the public debate could increase “the risk of violence and harm” to gay people. Or, as he put it more succinctly on Twitter, “F. k this entire plebiscite shit cauldron makes me so furious and anxious. Can only imagine how young queer kids across Australia must feel.” While his crassness does not seem to have dissuaded the ABC, Fairfax Media or the same-sex marriage lobby from associating themselves with his utterances, they should be gravely concerned by his hypocrisy.

Last month he tweeted: “Sometimes find myself wondering if I’d hate-f. k all the anti-gay MPs in parliament if it meant they got the homophobia out of their system.” In later tweets he argued his terminology did not refer to rape but was a Gen Y term for sex with someone you hate. Whatever his juvenile gibes or justifications, Law has undermined his own credibility and that of the Yes case. It is precisely this sort of crude and hateful language that is likely to push voters away from the gay marriage cause. This is the latest transgression from Yes advocates who have abused and denounced their opponents during the past year. If the Yes case succeeds in the postal survey it will be despite their aggressive and divisive campaigning rather than because of it.

The national broadcaster last month offered counselling to staff members who might suffer “trauma” or even face threats including of “sexual violence” during the gay marriage debate. Yet rather than distance itself from Law, it provided him with a one-hour radio platform yesterday to promote an essay on the Safe Schools program that has already won endorsement from Labor senator Sam Dastyari. It is impossible to ignore the double standards at play here: one rule for the so-called progressives and another for their opponents. We can only imagine the outrage and condemnation if a No campaigner had issued such profane threats. Yet the Yes campaigners continue to argue — as they have for more than a year while prolonging and intensifying this debate — that the act of having a public debate will expose gay people to damaging verbal attacks.

Parliament is rushing to pass laws that will ensure the postal survey campaigns are constrained by truth and good taste in a similar way to election campaigns — although that horse may have bolted. More to the point is proposed laws on gay marriage itself and protections for religious freedom. Former prime minister John Howard is right to say voters deserve to see these before they cast a postal vote.