Right is more “politically correct” than Left

Marriage equality CEO’s will not be silenced, quite rightly:

“It has utterly nothing to do with political correctness,”  Australian Super chair Heather Ridout told AFR Weekend.

“It is too much about politics and not about the actual principle here. What we need is a debate about the substance of the issue, not a debate about whether people are being politically correct.

Tim Reed, the chief executive of accounting software firm MYOB, said gay law reform was an important workplace issue and crucial to Australia’s competitiveness, which meant business did have a role to play in the debate.

Another high-profile chief executive, who did not want to be named, said he knew there would be some political backlash before signing up to the campaign but was surprised at the reaction.

“Canberra is totally out of touch. John Howard would argue that corporates should not wade into this but I think we are way past this. As a large employer I don’t think we can afford to stay silent on this issue,” he said.

Business Council of Australia chief executive Jennifer Westacott said it was unfair to call on big business, which supported the government’s tax reforms, to take a broader leadership role but then criticise it for speaking on non-economic issues.

But Minister for The Closet, Peter Dutton will not be cowed either:

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton will launch a fresh attack against chief executives who urged Malcolm Turnbull to put the legalisation of same-sex marriage to a parliamentary vote.

In a speech to a Liberal Nat­ional Party state council meeting in Cairns today, Mr Dutton will single out Qantas boss Alan Joyce for joining more than 30 high-­profile executives in penning a ­letter to Mr Turnbull.

“Tens of thousands of customers and staff who fly with a company like Qantas, for example, would have strong views about an issue like gay marriage. Both for and against,” Mr Dutton will say.

“This is what makes the decision of a CEO or a board to spend shareholders’ money — not in pursuit of a greater return on capital or a better service for customers — but on a personal agenda, particularly galling.

“And the issue here is not gay marriage, it is activism with other people’s money. And where does it stop?

“Alan Joyce, the individual, is perfectly entitled to campaign for and spend his hard-earned money on any issue he sees fit. But don’t do it in an official capacity and with shareholders’ money.”

Mr Dutton’s speech describes a “modern phenomena” where one side of the argument attempts to “beat people in to submission”.

“The other side of this coin is the reality that some companies are morally coerced into supporting campaigns in fear of being ­extorted by an online social media push to boycott their product. It is unconscionable.”

How is signing a petition using shareholders money?

“Political correctness” is not a label that can only be applied only to the Left. Political correctness is simply someone aiming to influence the boundaries of acceptable civil society discourse and it applies as much the Right. Cripes, totalitarian regimes of the far Right are the most politically correct of all: criticise the Fuhrer and it’s off to Dachau for you!

For instance, anyone who reads The Australian regularly will know that it strictly polices its definition of what those boundaries should be – no pooftas, no renewables, no Labor, private ownership, free speech so long as it promotes the right to bigotry over liberalism etc – and it attacks and bullies anyone or anything lying outside of its definition of what is righteous.

Peter Dutton and his alt-Right mates in the Coalition share this obsessive political correctness in their enforcement of a very narrow set of values that has long passed its use-by date in the community. Thus Dutton’s attempt to shut down the free speech of progressive CEOs, even as he attacks 18c, would be hilarious if weren’t actually happening.

Coalition hypocrisy is the end point of twenty years of inconsistent ideology. Since the rise of John Howard, Coalition liberalism has been increasingly laissez faire economically and increasingly restrictive socially. This suited the values of conservatives of the day but it also made sense as a political winner because the uncertainties generated by economic freedom were shored-up by the reassurance of social continuity.

But beneath that the globlisation of liberalism still changed Australian society. Our kids have grown up with total freedoms and whole generations now have no eye for colour or sexuality. High immigration diversified culture and we recruited all manner of international CEOs too. Equality is no longer a choice, it is embedded as identity. Just as it should be.

At the same time, however, Howard’s ideological blend attracted younger Liberals that were the most obsessive social troglodytes of their own liberalising generations, as well as the most pro-business (as well as anti-market).

So today the Coalition finds itself woefully out of touch on both economic and social challenges. Markets are being destroyed by a business rent-seeking riot that it won’t stop, and social progressiveness is a tide that it stands in front of like King Canute.

Free speech is always bound by what it is socially acceptable. This debate is only about who it is that gets to set those borders.

Comments

  1. drsmithyMEMBER

    Anyone found any genuine Liberals supporting this as an example of why we don’t need Government legislation and regulation around discrimination ?

  2. What about cousin marriage? Cousin marriage should be illegal – particularly considering how likely the offspring are to be disabled and then be eligible for Medicare.

    It is a bit rich for CEOs to pretend they care about gay Aussies when they deny gay and straight Aussies a job by printing 457 visas like mad. And what do the CEOs have to say about the real estate bubble or privatised electricity grids? Oh yeah, nothing.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      What about cousin marriage?

      Having befriended many Tasmanians whilst working at Cloudbreak, Id just like to say a few words in their defence The Tasmanians I know have all been Wonderfull and mostly competent, Special People,…in spite of their unfortunate genetics and questionable procreation habits and traditions.
      These people are admirably devoted to family life.

      Woody Alan on the other hand is completely beyond the pale. That “man” raised her from a child as her father!
      If ya dont think that guys a 100% Creep, then your more progressive than me.
      Good films though.

    • Whilst we might joke about Tasmanians and cousin marriage, it was far more common in royalty, and we know how that turned out….
      The best studies of cousins marriage has actually been the Pakistani population in the UK where over half of marriages are between cousins. And the results are either alarming or not much to worry about (they contradicted each other).

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        Well it won’t be going on in my family!
        All my cousins are Ugly,….and blokes!
        ?

      • Jesus Christ! Over 50% of the Pakistanis in England wed their cousins!

        That is what I mean by cousin weddings. It should be illegal.

      • Cousin marriage among the Muslim Lebanese of Melbourne (and I assume Sydney) is fairly common and they will even bring over first cousins from Lebanon to marry.

  3. I feel about this a bit like how I feel about the Coopers ad.

    Who cares what. a bunch of CEOs think? It’s not like they’ve earned moral authority through their action or their companies.

    It’s just a bit awkward for the Libs because they assume the CEOS are their besties. After the last election where they got so little money from the BCA and their mates, they should have worked out that the BCA is not on anyone’s side.

    But it shows how thin skinned the Libs are on the issue. All Dutton needed to do was say ” they’re entitled to their opinion” and mutter words like “mandate” (hahahah!) and “plebiscite”.

  4. Dutton has no idea how many of the hosties on Qantas flights are gay. If he did, he would probably wear latex gloves and a face mask on every flight to avoid getting cooties. Or take the bus everywhere instead.

    This now makes me wonder – maybe the high-speed rail thing that gets aired out again and again and again is all about actually building a mode of transport that the pollies can use to go Melbourne-Syd-Bris-Canberra without getting gay-germs from the air cabin crew?!?!

  5. Jake GittesMEMBER

    Dutton is a special case: he is a reactionary and very stupid. He is taking up a crusade he can’t win but appeals to similarly entrenched prelapsarian types.

  6. Business Council of Australia chief executive Jennifer Westacott said it was unfair to call on big business, which supported the government’s tax reforms, to take a broader leadership role but then criticise it for speaking on non-economic issues.

    Exactly. I don’t think I’ve ever heard an LNP MP tell the BCA to stay out of the debate when it comes to pretty much everything else.

    Personally I think Dutton is positioning himself to be the successor to Turnbull – burnish his hard tory credentials so when the inevitable coup comes he’s the one they turn to (Abbott being way too unpopular). Of course, I’d be pretty confident that he’d be just as unpopular, if not moreso, than ol’ Tony.

  7. When it comes to gay marriage they care about their fellow Australians. When it comes to offshoring jobs and doing their fellow Australians out of a job, not so much.

    Virtue signalling hypocrites, and that’s coming from a marriage equality supporter.

  8. “free speech is always bound by what is socially acceptable”. Hmmmm, oxymoronic use of the word free? Now i know why traditionalists are concerned, and rightly so.

    • How come you alt-Right guys never pay? Aren’t you all for individual responsibility and all of that?

      Or is that just for others?

      Why aren’t you concerned by your traditionalist attempting to shut down gay marriage free speech?

      • Basically I don’t care what CEOs have to say on a range of social issues given their obvious greed (as overpaid managers) and hypocrisy (from the 457 visa issue to bank CEOs blocking a bank royal commission) no matter how tenuous a link they try to draw between an issue and their business.
        They are not beacons of moral clarity or vision.
        In many cases, they are the exact opposite- expedient, greedy and disingenuous.
        I listen to them on business matters even if I dismiss most of what they say as self-interested claptrap.

      • i don’t pay because I don’t have to i guess. I enjoy your site for the most part so thanks for that, but it could do without the non economics related progressive issue pushing. And Dutton is not trying to shut down free speech, he’s not outlawing companies speaking out, merely calling into question whether its their role to leverage the power their shareholders’ company wields to push through an agenda unrelated to their core business … and he’s also rightly calling out the wider social malaise in our current society that means companies feel pressured to conform to left wing identity politics if they don’t want to be destroyed by left wing social activists like Getup.

        … and just as an aside, I recall 3-4 years ago Getup ran a poll for gay marriage support for 3 weeks which received a third the votes of what the neg gearing reform poll achieved in only a few days. And then a few days later Getup put out a statement saying that despite overwhelming support, they would not be pushing the neg gearing reform because it did not conform with their member’s interests. two faced vacuous virtual signallers – there is a reason Trump exists.

      • @squirell…

        Shareholders wrt C-corp machinations is a meme promoted by both Friedman and Jenson, back in the day, Jenson had to latter retract his statements. A C-corp has zero duty to shareholders as they are residual rights and not claims to property or assets.

        disheveled…. link upon request….

  9. ‘Free speech is always bound by what it is socially acceptable. This debate is only about who it is that gets to set those borders.’ – two lost elections, and every authoritarian instinct of the left is on full display hey? You cannot even fathom a world where your side does not get to decide? When it benefits the left’s pets, every social degeneracy is fine. Someone pushes back, and ohnoes, they are against the progressive arc of history and everything.

    And you trot out a bunch of CEO’s to push your point? Are you so gone beyond the pale that you get a bunch of CEO’s? Seriously,the left is trotting out CEO’s to make their point? Damn that is some role reversal hey.

    As an aside, is it not obvious that hetero couples are different from gay couples, mostly cause gay couples cannot make children? Hence the labels used to describe the 2 kinds of couples, would be different? Why are we pretending that they are the same thing?

    Should we do everything to ensure that gay people in society can live safe and happy lives, absolutely. But is a gay couple the same as a hetero couple, no, because the gay couple cannot make children, last time anyone checked.

    • Another freeloading parasite. I didn’t trot anything out nor do I run an agenda on free speech. I’m responding to an attempt to shut down free speech by Dutton.

      I’ve been quite happy to allow a debate on the blog by you guys. Indeed, I’ve copped a lot of flack for it from the inusufferable Left. But you’re showing that all you really are is bigots pretending at liberalsim.

    • It is not just gay couples that can’t have children. There are plenty of hetero couples that can’t make children, so don’t use that measure as your differentiator. And what of those that are not married but make children?

      This is not about making / not making children. It is about recognition, equal rights, respect.

    • “Should we do everything to ensure that gay people in society can live safe and happy lives, absolutely. But is a gay couple the same as a hetero couple, no, because the gay couple cannot make children, last time anyone checked.”

      So, if a hetro married couple fails to have children should they be forced to divorce?
      Or, if either a man or a woman is unable to produce are they now banned from marriage?

    • You cannot even fathom a world where your side does not get to decide? When it benefits the left’s pets, every social degeneracy is fine. Someone pushes back, and ohnoes, they are against the progressive arc of history and everything.

      I wouldn’t expect a reactionary to understand, because it’s against your fundamental beliefs, but most people consider equality in law to be a fairly foundational part of modern, civilised society.

      As an aside, is it not obvious that hetero couples are different from gay couples, mostly cause gay couples cannot make children? Hence the labels used to describe the 2 kinds of couples, would be different? Why are we pretending that they are the same thing?

      Should we do everything to ensure that gay people in society can live safe and happy lives, absolutely. But is a gay couple the same as a hetero couple, no, because the gay couple cannot make children, last time anyone checked.

      So you’d be in favour of preventing infertile heterosexual couples from getting married ? Should married heterosexual couples who don’t produce children within a reasonable timeframe have their marriages annulled ? Can you point to the part in the Marriage Act that talks about children ? Can you point to any country wherein a marriage must produce children to be considered valid ?

      You guys trying to justify your homophobia would be funny in its absurdity, if people weren’t being hurt by it.

    • “‘Free speech is always bound by what it is socially acceptable. This debate is only about who it is that gets to set those borders.’ ”

      Blood well put, Mr T!

      • Trump threw a brick through the Overton window. The PC chains are off.

        Marriage is society encouraging individuals to form relationships that bring it (society) maximum benefit. Homosexuality is less valuable to society than hetrosexuality. Just reduce your society to 5 males and females to understand why this is the case.

  10. Wow this issue really attracts the nutters doesn’t it!

    CEO’s commenting on this makes perfect sense to me. Anyone who’s worked in a large organisation recently will have experienced workplace policies with significant framework and education around gender equality, and protections from bullying, discrimination and harassment based on sexuality. It’s a bit absurd that this equality diminishes in a certain sense, once you leave the workplace.

    You could even argue it from a corporate self interest point of view. It makes it much easier to foster compliance with your framework of gender equality and non-discrimination if there isn’t some archaic exceptions outside the workplace.

    Anyway, on with the closet Nazi’s cries of “virtue signaling” and pointing wildly look over there —> at various other unrelated issues. The champions of free speech! (As long as you are not saying things that frighten them).

    • Believing that the ‘significant framework and education around gender equality, and protections from bullying, discrimination and harassment based on sexuality’ in corporations are actually honoured in the boardroom, and not just cynically used by HR to attract staff who won’t take maternity/paternity leave, and also to bludgeon lower-level trouble makers. I don’t even…

      • JunkyardMEMBER

        Yes, companies use a strong workplace policy to attract staff with similar values and to remove non-compliant staff.
        Did you have an actual point pertaining to the topic CEO’s commenting on gay marriage or are you just trying to prove my point by pointing wildly over there —->

  11. Dutton is doing a superb job of tossing little hand grenades around to keep everyone from focusing on the rent seekers wonder land that the government is really interested in.

    Dutton has lost control of the borders and is running an out of control immigration ponzi model yet barely is asked a question on that.

    The ease with which the frothers and flappers allow their tails to be pulled with the same old same old provocations is predictable.

    Rather than engage with Duttons get another 30 CEO’s to sign the letter and every time he pops up – ignore him but get another 30 to sign.

    He will eventually get the message – that no one is interested in what he has to say.

    And every time ask him why he cannot control the borders.

    And yes – all the CEO folk that hate the stealing of rainbows can sign their own letters.

  12. Seems like marriage equality vs marriage perversion.
    Dignity and respect won’t be found in perverting that which God has ordained, and society at large institutes, and democracy supports.
    Exercising freewill is not without consequence.

    • Who’s this DOG you keep referring to? Some fairy tale entity to scare the frail & elderly ?

  13. One would think the term – freeloader – is in violation of the stated rules…. anywho…

    freeloader
    ˈfriːləʊdə/
    noun informal derogatory
    noun: freeloader; plural noun: freeloaders; noun: free-loader; plural noun: free-loaders

    a person who takes advantage of others’ generosity without giving anything in return.

    A cursory examination of this term within the field of lexicosemantics, in its dialectical application, is blatantly inaccurate imo.

    disheveled…. one would reasonably think after all the years of submitting information, some which of is not just your everyday pub chat, recommend reading or listening to authors some might have not been aware of, et al, that I have engaged in giving – in return – . That it is not done in a financial sense is irrelevant… as not everything can be quantified by monetary methods wrt value.