Emergency law proves free speech fears are justified
There is a very easy way for the same-sex marriage lobby to win next month’s public vote. Just prove you aren’t bullies.
Prove that you aren’t as intolerant as the gay-marriage thugs who last week attacked Christian students at Sydney University, pelting them with food, dye and glitter and overturning their table and tearing up their posters.
Don’t simply dismiss fears legalising same-sex marriage will license a wave of more bullying by politicians.
Don’t just scoff at fears we’ll get laws punishing priests who won’t perform gay weddings, bakers who won’t bake the wedding cakes or people who simply say they disapprove.
Such fears are not “complete red herrings”, as Liberal frontbencher Christopher Pyne claimed.
Former prime minister John Howard was right in attacking this deceptive nonsense: “Those campaigning for a Yes vote call any reference to these issues ‘red herrings’ or distractions. On the contrary, they are legitimate concerns.”
Leading Yes campaigners refuse to spell out how, or even if, they plan to protect freedom of religion and speech.
Last week the government, with Labor’s help, passed “emergency” laws limiting free speech during the plebiscite. What more do they plan? How safe is our free speech?