Campaigners tread a fine line in persuasion
Do It In A Dress Day illustrates risks in hyperbole, says Martyn Goddard
WHEN Craigburn Primary School in Adelaide planned a Do It In A Dress Day to raise money for girls’ education in Africa, they thought they would get about $900.
Male students and teachers decided to wear frocks to school. It was the kids’ idea.
But they hadn’t planned on getting quite so much help from Cory Bernardi.
“In the midst of a debate about the safe school gender ideology program, the redefinition of marriage and attempts to de-genderise society, it seems this school is playing into a political cause rather than an educational one,” Senator Bernardi said.
“Why are we suddenly encouraging boys and male teachers to wear a dress?”
Suddenly, a modest school fundraiser became a national issue. Within 10 days, it had raised not $900 but $300,000, enough to educate 1000 girls. The money was still rolling in.
Do It In A Dress is an international fundraising campaign run by a Ugandabased charity, One Girl. They may never have heard of the same-sex marriage survey, but it also follows a No campaign ad in which a woman claimed her son was told by teachers he could wear a dress if he wanted to, a claim debunked by the school and the state’s Education Department.
The No campaign’s moderate slogan — It’s Okay to Say No — sits uncomfortably with many of the more extreme statements made by its leaders, such as Senator Bernardi, Tony Abbott and Tasmanians Eric Abetz and Guy Barnett.
“So if the law of the land is changed to legalise same-sex marriage, schools will be obliged to teach gay and lesbian sexual activity in the classroom,” Mr Barnett said, to be rapidly told by Tasmanian Education Minister Jeremy Rockliff and the Premier that he was wrong.
The example of One Nation, Sydney’s Fred Nile, the Greens and the Democrats shows it’s not all that difficult for sectional political players to get the support of 10 per cent or so in the electorate. Few manage to get much beyond that.
And they find it’s not hard to get media coverage. A few provocative statements will usually do it. It doesn’t much matter whether the facts support them or not.
But in a campaign like the present one, they are not only speaking to those who may vote for them in a parliamentary election. They are speaking to everyone. And the effect of such provocative positions on the majority who are not hard-Right conservatives is likely to be different. The Craigburn Primary School experience shows that.
All the polls show a large majority of the population supports marriage equality. All the Yes campaign has to do is ensure its supporters actually vote. It does not need to convince large numbers of its opponents to change sides.
The No campaign has a much more difficult task. It must not only get out its own vote but convince marriageequality supporters, and a great many waverers, to oppose the proposed law change. And they can’t afford to so offend potential Yes voters to the point they take part just to oppose the hyperbole. They must counter, not feed, the notion that if Bernardi, Abetz, Abbott and Barnett are against something, it must be pretty good.
Their claims may fire up their own narrow base, but it is the effect on the rest of the electorate that really matters. A recent Essential poll showed 63 per cent of Yes supporters said they would vote, compared with 33 per cent of No supporters.
It seems likely that overreach by No campaigners supporters may have had a part in this.
It looks suspiciously as if one of the best things the Yes campaign has going for it is the No campaign. Martyn Goddard is a public policy analyst based in Hobart. He has lived in a same-sex relationship for 37 years.