A More Civil Debate
I’m pretty sure The Australian didn’t become an Onion-style satirical website overnight, except that might be the best explanation for how dumped Labor MP Robert McClelland was quoted in a story about a speech he gave to the ACL. This is the speech that PM Julia Gillard withdrew from because Jim Wallace said some pretty dickish things about gay people, that smoking is more healthy than a “gay lifestyle.” Apparently it hadn’t occurred to her until that point that Jim Wallace actually makes a living saying dickish things about gay people. That’s like pulling out of a KKK event because you found out the grand wizard had told a black joke this one time.
Anyway, the former Attorney-General Robert McClelland, obviously a subscriber to the the ACL’s blatant up-is-down-and-black-is-white approach to reality, decried the tone of the debate about gay marriage, which he said was “un-Australian.”
During his speech Mr McClelland lamented the “rapid deterioration in the quality of political debate”.
“I have found the personal vilification that has come into parliamentary debate and public debate to be more than unseemly. It is un-Australian.”
Mr McClelland said people should “play the ball and not the man”.
“You can always get a line by vilifying someone, abusing someone, attacking an organisation but at the end of the day you’re going to be judged on what you’ve achieved,” he said.
Yes, why not judge the ACL on what they’ve achieved with that $2 million per year budget of theirs? If only there was a way to see how much the ACL has focussed its attention on addressing the problems Christ might have been concerned with, or on frivolous crap like trying to use the law to discriminate against gay people, like a graph or something like that.
He described Jim Wallace as a “fair-minded man” and said the ACL was communicating “decency of character.” If only that handful of dirty gay ferals protesting outside knew how totally reasonable Jim Wallace is! For example, he supported the Labor Government’s removal of 84 pieces of discrimination against gay people. Isn’t that enough? (Actually, the ACL asked for amendments and didn’t get them, so it’s a bit of a stretch to say the ACL supported the changes.)
Just in the last week, Jim Wallace has spoken at length about his own personal involvement in trying to convert people from gay to straight, which is an abusive and discredited practice that all psychological organisations have recognised as such. In a speech to mostly young worshipers at Bridge Church in Richmond, Jim Wallace used quotes from Leviticus, Romans and Corinthians to argue that gay people are morally evil sinners on par with thieves, liars and adulterers, and that gay people suffer from “shameful lusts”. The ACL’s chairman Tony McLellan was let loose on Lateline, telling the ABC program that the proponents of gay marriage are motivated by Satan. That’s just in the last week, remember.
It truly says something about this organisation that, despite all their bitching about mean gay activists “demonising” the ACL and other gay marriage opponents, they can casually and quite literally demonise supporters of gay marriage, and then without a hint of shame go back to complaining about how they’re being vilified. As my friend Sam Butler frequently points out, you won’t find any examples of pro-equality campaigners Alex Greenwich, Rodney Croome, Shelley Argent or Geoff Thomas saying anything even vaguely nasty, let alone anything as offensive as the stuff the ACL regularly puts out.
There’s a part of me that sees their point about how the words “homophobe” and “bigot” are thrown around too much. Although I do think that a statement like “gay people are motivated by Satan” is textbook bigotry, when the debate descends to name-calling we’re not doing anything to persuade the many good, not-bigoted folks who for whatever reason are just not quite there on gay marriage yet.
American author and ethicist John Corvino has an excellent series of videos addressing various arguments against gay marriage, and in one of them he explains why it’s unhelpful to simply slap the “bigot” label on everyone who doesn’t support marriage equality. The word “bigot”, he argues, is one we should use carefully, because when you label someone a bigot you’re cutting off the dialogue, when what is needed is more productive dialogue, not less.
So yes, it’s wrong to instinctively put down all opponents of marriage equality as unreconstructed bigots. However. It’s not a competition between which side has used its power to hurt the other side most, because we all know who wins that argument. And really, even the most unhelpful “hey hey, ho ho, homophobia has got to go!” activist-types on the pro-gay side have never argued that Jim Wallace deserves fewer legal rights than they do, only the same rights. That’s the difference.
Australia is meant to be the country of the fair go for everyone, and the ACL does practically nothing else but campaign against the fair go. Their contribution to public life has been lobbying for a system in which some people are more equal than others for no good reason. A system in which gay Australians have all of the same responsibilities that come with living in this country, but not all of the same rights.
I’d call that un-Australian.
“The word “bigot”, he argues, is one we should use carefully, because when you label someone a bigot you’re cutting off the dialogue, when what is needed is more productive dialogue, not less.”
————
This may apply with your old Aunt Nelly who’s never met a homosexual and has heard some awful things from the minister at her local Anglican church. If you know she has a good heart and an open mind, productive dialogue may be possible.
I would argue vociferously, however, that productive dialogue is not an option with the Australian Christian Lobby and their ilk. Their fundamentalism is intractable. They simply will not/cannot see anything which challenges their preconceptions. When a study shows plainly that they are wrong, they will either cherry-pick the bits that seem to support their view, label it biased, or ignore it. They see the world through a fundamentalist filter. They are impervious to reason.
I would argue – vociferously – that the only response to such people is to call them out loudly for their bigotry and expose them as often as possible to public ridicule. We will *never* change their minds about homosexuals and gay marriage. We can only hope to marginalise them as the fringe group of ranting right wing loonies they are.
Until recently, the ACL has relied on the civility of its opponents to maintain its position of power in parliament. Just look what has happened since Wallace’s wackiness has been far more critically (and uncivilly) dealt with in the media and online. He and his organisation have become a national laughing-stock – only *assisted* by McLennan’s delicious drivel about the devil on Lateline last week!
So yes, there is clearly a place for calm, rational, reasoned, evidence-based, civil discussion with people of good will. For the ACL and their little friends, however we would simply be wasting our collective breath.
I know exactly what you mean Chrys. But I’m not saying we should refrain from calling them out on their bigotry because we’re trying to convince each of them personally. I quite agree that it’s a waste of time thinking you can convince the most hardened anti-gay fundamentalists – you can only convince the people who occupy the space in-between them and us. Jim Wallace et al will hate gay marriage long after it’s settled law in this country, they’ll be angry about it for the rest of their lives and when they die they will die angry.
What my argument is, I guess, is that calling the ACL bigots and dismissing their view as homophobic isn’t helpful in winning those persuadable people over to the good side. We have the advantage in this debate in that we can put forward a positive case that appeals both to people’s hearts and to people’s heads. The other side has one powerful weapon in their arsenal – fear. We definitely could slag off opponents of gay marriage as bigots but it’s much more effective to use the best weapons in our arsenal, which is our arguments and our personal experiences and our visibility in the world.
That’s not to say we can’t point to the horrible, nasty things the ACL says and does. Of course we should continue to hold them to account and make people embarrassed to be associated with them. Nobody should ever get a pass for saying gays are motivated by the devil, that gays are shameful, that being gay is immoral, that gay parenting is a crime on par with the Stolen Generation, that being gay is worse than smoking – the best disinfectant is sunlight. But we shouldn’t generalise so much about the reasons why people oppose marriage equality that we end up being as negative and fear-driven as the ACL is.
I agree that a variety of approaches is the best strategy. I am not advocating that the only argument for same-sex marriage should be to hurl insults from the sidelines. I also write articles which use scholarship to refute the lies of the anti-gay buffoons. But I do not believe we should tiptoe around the words bigot and homophobe.
Ridicule and marginalisation of hateful rhetoric and narrow-minded knuckle-headedness are a legitimate response and we have seen political figures and churches rushing to distance themselves from the ACL in the wake of this strategy. Of course, the ACL are a huge help by continuing to make outrageous, ham-fisted remarks in the media. Personally, given the effort they put in, I feel duty-bound to help them in their quest to make themselves public pariahs.
The ACL are just the Westboro Baptists in suits. Their message is no different, “God Hates Fags” – why then should our response to them be different to that of Fred Phelps and co.? To respond differently, seems to me to be taken in by the ACL’s paper thin veneer of respectability. I prefer to tear the veneer away and show them up for exactly what they are.
I agree with Chrys, Why is it that we have to be respectful, but they seem to be allowed to say hateful things and we must always be so polite, I really am over taking the “high road” with these people. The ACL should be outed for what they are bigoted homophobic right wing nut jobs. I really like what you have said about explaining to good people who may not know all the facts, the ACL know the facts and then ignore them or lie about them.
*Tony McLellan*
I would also like to say, this is personal. My son tells me he see a difference in his friends when the ACL etc, say the terrible things they say about LGBTI people. He is gay and he says it ok for him because he has me to help and support him, but many of his gay friends are not so lucky and are either not out to their families, have been rejected or their families are not there to help fight against this sort of rubbish. If the word gay was replaced with black, as Chrys has written eloquently written about before, then calling them bigots would be the right thing to do. We need to have respectful conversation with people who are open to such things. One can not have respectful conversation with a group who think my amazing and loving son is evil and is going to hell, because of the way he was born.
Hi Carol, I’m sorry I haven’t responded to your comment earlier. I used to get emails when new comments came in, not sure if I changed the settings.
I know how frustrating it is – I’ve been watching the ACL and their ilk for years now and I’ve definitely noticed that they’re getting worse. It’s only very recently that they’ve had any real push-back for the hurtful things they’ve said.
I think probably it’s more frustrating and upsetting for you, because it’s always easier to deal with personal attacks when they’re directed at YOU specifically. When it’s your own child who’s having this shit put on them? I don’t know what that’s like. My own parents are really supportive of gay rights but they’re not engaged in the issue as much as I am, so most of what they hear about the ACL et al comes from me.
Obviously, we should call out bigotry when it happens, and when we do use the word “bigot” we shouldn’t let that stand on its own. It should be followed up with all of the reasons showing why they are bigoted and why their extreme views make them unacceptable as public spokespeople. I think the reason they continue to moan about “demonisation” is part of a “shoot from your weakness” strategy. They’re trying to muddy the waters by trying to make it seem like there’s hatred on both sides, thus negating any criticism aimed at them.
The point I want to make is that we can’t make them stop this nonsense strategy, but we can make the vast majority of Australians see through their nonsense. (And most people, I think, can see through their BS.) We do that by setting a higher standard for ourselves than we would expect from them. It’s not fair and it takes an awful lot out of people, but we’re the good side here, our arguments stand up on their own. Theirs are fear-based and rely on people being misinformed, distrustful and afraid of change.