There's a totalitarian crock at the end of these activists’ rainbow

Israel Folau has asked for donations to fund his legal fees. Picture: YouTube.

The brave new world is upon us. Freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of speech are all under threat from hypocrites.

They selectively choose to support their tribe rather than the principle in any given circumstance, with the latest example GoFundMe’s decision to refuse its service to Israel Folau.

Defenders of that decision (and I am one) will accept that Folau’s campaign breached the company’s terms of service and therefore the company was perfectly entitled to remove the appeal from its platform.

However, an important point to note is that the denial of service had nothing to do with it being a legal case or being related to religious belief but because it challenged the rainbow-hued vista of company management.

It said as much in its written statement: “As a company, we are absolutely committed to the fight for equality for LGBTIQ+ people and fostering an environment of inclusivity.

“While we welcome GoFundMes engaging in diverse civil debate, we do not tolerate the promotion of discrimination or exclusion.”

Fighting allegations of discrimination with more discrimination is the modus operandi of hypocrites and it is all too apparent in those who choose to make a virtue of flying the rainbow banner.

It raises the question: How is the refusal of service for Folau’s fundraising any less discriminatory than the celebrated baker who refuses to cater for a same-sex marriage?

It’s not, and that’s why those of us who recognise upholding principle is an important part of defending our freedoms accept the decision of GoFundMe, just as we would defend the right of the wedding cake maker or anyone else to exercise judgment and conscience in providing private business ser­vices.

That doesn’t mean we can’t be critical of those determinations and debate them publicly, but surely the services a private company chooses to supply, and to whom, is a matter for it.

Of course we have sensible exclusions from this under the law but, by and large, the general principle holds true — but only for one side of the political debate.

When publishing company Connor Court went to its usual printer, McPherson’s, for its 2016 book, Stealing from a Child: The Injustice of ‘Marriage Equality’, it was refused service due to the subject matter and content.

My guess is McPherson’s management only read the title and didn’t have a clue about the actual content, but the author, David van Gend, defended the company’s right to make the decision it did. Van Gend said: “… It is within their right as a private company to discriminate against people like me on ideological grounds … We are not like some people who would take anti-discrimination action. We do not think those sort of laws are worthy of a free society and we do not use them.”

Not everyone shares van Gend’s views but in this instance he is right.

It was a similar reaction when commercial television networks or taxpayer-funded public broadcasters refused to carry advertisements supporting traditional marriage.

My own experience includes dealing with a range of companies that have politely explained they share a different political outlook to mine and would prefer I sought another service provider. Personally, I appreciated their honesty and courtesy, and simply went somewhere else.

These examples all demonstrate a refusal of service and a rational response by those who celebrate a free society. Contrast that with the experience of Perth photographer Jason Tey. He agreed to photograph the children of a homosexual couple but explained that the couple might be more comfortable hiring someone else because of his religious objection to same-sex marriage.

Simply for voicing that fact, and despite agreeing to do the job, he found himself hauled before West Australian state-based tribunals facing discrimination charges.

Tasmania’s Catholic Archbishop of Hobart, Julian Porteous, was the subject of a similar complaint by a rainbow activist in 2015 for distributing a don’t-mess-with-marriage booklet upholding the Catholic view of marriage as a “heterosexual union between a man and a woman”.

And this is the essence of the dilemma we must now deal with. In this brave new world of competing rights we have to choose a side or side with principle. Only the latter will defend and protect the innate freedoms so many take for granted. The determination of the political left, and in particular the rainbow activists, to make tolerance and freedom a one-way street has all the hallmarks of an emerging authoritarianism that should concern us all.

Those of us who do celebrate freedom of thought, expression and speech know that it means we need to defend the right of others to make statements and perform actions with which we disagree. But defending their rights is an important part of defending our own.

Cory Bernardi is a senator for South Australia.