Debating homosexual marriage is "hate speech" (?)
The usual intolerance of dissent that characterizes the Left below. They just KNOW all the right answers and everyone else should shut up. Stalin thought the same.
The writer is commenting on a proposal to have a popular vote on whether homosexual marriage should be allowed in Australia. The Left are showing how antidemocratic they are by opposing the idea. The people are not fit to make decisions affecting their own lives, apparently
Here's a question that, on the face of it, seems refreshingly simple to answer: should public money be used to promote hate speech?
And at first glance the answer would appear to be "no, obviously". But when you think about it a little bit more deeply, the answer becomes: "Seriously? Still no, for all sorts of legal and moral reasons. Why are you even asking this? Do you need a hug and some quiet time?"
However, it's the question which the Coalition party room is going to be inexplicably struggling with this week as it decides whether or not the $160 million plebiscite on whether or not to legalise same sex marriage should be even more expensive by using even more public money to fund publicity campaigns for the Yes and the No cases.
The problem that the No case, and by extension the federal government, have with funding such a campaign is that it would encourage activity which is arguably illegal.
In 2013 the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 was passed, meaning that it is illegal to discriminate "on the basis of sex, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, breastfeeding, family responsibilities, sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status."
This little problem, incidentally, is why there was a push to suspend our anti-discrimination laws for the duration of the plebiscite - an option which was immediately ruled out by Attorney-General George Brandis in February, who pointed out that "There are very obvious practical problems with that, among them... that most anti-discrimination laws in this country are laws of the states, not the Commonwealth."
The fact that a No campaign would appear to be arguing for something which is prima facie illegal is just one more problem for those seeking to prevent same sex marriage being recognised in Australia, along with the enduring problem that there's no sane reason to deny Australian citizens equal rights because of their sexuality, and the fact that those most strongly advocating the No case are not exactly the most charming, persuasive and charismatic people the country has to offer.