The blogosphere is teeming with views about Christopher Pearson’s Weekend Australian piece. I don’t want to rehash the arguments here, here, here or here. Rather I want to focus on something different. In the Pearson article we see this.
The ANZ’s Stephen Ries replied first. “ANZ does not advertise on any opinion-type websites that may cause offence or segregate any individuals or group. In this instance our advertising was placed through an automatic advertising placement service and once we were alerted to the content we removed our advertising.
“The removal of our advertising should not be viewed as a violation of free speech; it’s simply that we choose not to advertise on blogs that do not align to our organisational values.”
At face value that is fair enough. You can defend people’s right to have an opinion but you shouldn’t have to pay for it too. Fyodor says something similar here.
But …
If ANZ have such a policy, seemingly a sensible policy, why have ‘an automatic advertising placement service’, don’t they know the internet is a strange and dangerous place?
If ANZ have such a policy, of not offending people and ‘we choose not to advertise on blogs that do not align to our organisational values’, I suppose, of promoting diversity etc. why did ANZ give $100,000 to the ALP?
Here is the ALP’s view on gay marriage.
CHRISTIAN LEADER 1: The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission have recently made a recommendation that the definition of de facto marriage be extended to include homosexuals. Would your party reject these attempts to undermine marriage?
KEVIN RUDD: I have a pretty basic view on this, as reflected in the position adopted by our party, and that is, that marriage is between a man and a woman.
PETA DONALD: Kevin Rudd ruled out recognising same sex marriage or civil unions. But under a Federal Labor Government, gay couples might be allowed to register their relationships.
My bad – Rudd isn’t prime minister anymore, so let’s have a look at Gillard.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the Australian Labor Party remain committed to maintaining the definition of marriage as currently set out in the Marriage Act as being between a man and a woman.
ANZ also gave $100,000 to the Liberals – they’re opposed to gay marriage too.
So ANZ chooses to withdraw advertising from people who publish opinions that the law of the land, with bipartisan support, should remain the law of the land while funding those very people who choose to keep the law unchanged. The ANZ needs to explain why giving money to political parties, who have it within their power to promote the very diversity they claim to support and yet do not do so, is preferable to giving money to civil society.
The two firms I worked for also gave equally to the political parties in the US. It’s seen differently in the sense that they are funding the political process in the country and I’m sure the ANZ would sue the same argument too.
The gay community is a small but fairly affluent section of the population. You don’t want to be seen pissing them off or they take their business elsewhere.
I can understand their predicament, which is don’t piss the customer off with for ancillary reasons.
JC.
8 Feb 11 at 12:06 am
They also still advertise in Fairfax and News Limited papers, both of which I am sure have ran pro and anti-gay marriage op-eds. My guess is it is exactly this: “don’t they know the internet is a strange and dangerous place.” If they get a complaint about a randomly placed ad, rather than determining if it is really damaging to have that website associated with their brand, they just pull it.
AJ
8 Feb 11 at 12:12 am
Large corporations he world over these days are just cowards. They play to the leftwing tune and there’s hardly a firm in the west that would stick its head up from the rest of the pack.
I recall the brainwashing sensitivity training sessions we had to go through in order for the firm to buy protection in case it was sued and they could say they had a strong “diversity’ policy.
JC.
8 Feb 11 at 12:18 am
They are cowards. Look at the BBC (not a real business, granted) forever apologising for the antics of the Top Gear crew. Do the people care that they gently mock towel-heads, spicks and Eurotrash?
Nope.
C.L.
8 Feb 11 at 12:26 am
A good post. I’d hope that the Nile types and more hysterical glf grouping alike, would converse, rather than waste precious time and effort on the futile attempt to stifle out the other sides viewpoints rather than considering and responding to opposite concerns (fears?) on an issue in a good faith, constructive way.
paul walter
8 Feb 11 at 4:03 am
“Do the people care that they gently mock towel-heads, spicks and Eurotrash?”
Mexicans. You ought not piss off the Mexicans.
.
8 Feb 11 at 7:43 am
Pikeys too
Yobbo
8 Feb 11 at 9:04 am
I’ll wager that your average homosexual doesn’t give a shit whether an ANZ ad appears on Pearson’s article.
False sensitivity is the curse of our age.
Rococo Liberal
8 Feb 11 at 9:07 am
Muehlenberg’s article not Pearson.
Yes, it seems so. People are upset about the comments thread not the post itself.
Sinclair Davidson
8 Feb 11 at 9:16 am
Isn’t the gay marriage thing a bore?
It would all be so easy if the gay lobby would just realise that the easy solution is to amend the law so that the word marriage is replaced by the word ‘family union’ or soemthig of the sort. Spouse or partner could tyhen be defined as someone who has entered into ‘family union’ with someone else. The rules about who could enter into a family union would exclude polygamy and incestuous relationships.
Marriage as such would then be a social issue. If the gay community can convince us over time that their unions should be called marriages, then over time we will accept that appelation. If they can’t, then tough tits.
Rococo Liberal
8 Feb 11 at 9:47 am
A company with a gay rights policy or a religious outlook ought to be shunned by the market.
Shut up and make some damned money.
“False sensitivity is the curse of our age.”
Indeed. Gay people will often take the piss out of themselves beyond a mincing PC twit’s wildest nightmares.
.
8 Feb 11 at 10:20 am
Firms should occupy whatever market niche they think will earn a profit.
Sinclair Davidson
8 Feb 11 at 10:23 am
You’re saying that as positive economics. I’m throwing light on asset valuation.
.
8 Feb 11 at 10:25 am
Wow there is some nonsense being written about this, particularly the ludicrous claim that this is a secondary boycott under the Trade Practices Act.
A prominent example of this silliness:
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/02/05/of-secondary-boycotts-free-speech-and-revenue/
Skepticlawyer concludes:
Two problems with this analysis:
1. There is no such thing as the Trade Practices Act. That Act is defunct, and is replaced as of 1 Jan by the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
2. More substantively, the relevant provisions of the CCA dealing with secondary boycotts (45D and 45E) both require intent:
- under s45D, it’s only a secondary boycott if the conduct “is engaged in for the purpose, and would have or be likely to have the effect, of causing substantial loss or damage to the business of the fourth person”.
- under s45E, it’s only a secondary boycott if the conduct ” is engaged in for the purpose, and would have or be likely to have the effect, of causing a substantial lessening of competition in any market in which the fourth person supplies or acquires goods or services”.
There is no claim that the advertisers yanking their ad money are doing so either to cause loss or damage to any person or to cause a substantial lessening of competition. Rather, they are doing so to avoid harming themselves, and they are completely free to do so.
There is absolutely no secondary boycott involved here.
I would have posted this comment on skepticlawyer’s blog, but she has cut off comments.
I’m not a competition lawyer, and maybe I’ve missed something, but her legal analysis seems to be way, way, way off base.
Tillman
8 Feb 11 at 1:41 pm
Sinclair raises a good point. Next time the ANZ should give $200,000 to the LDP, which supports same sex marriage, and give nothing to the major parties who are fat on taxpayer funding.
TerjeP
8 Feb 11 at 1:42 pm
45D seems to be sort of valid.
.
8 Feb 11 at 1:52 pm
No wait I take that back.
.
8 Feb 11 at 1:53 pm
I think they do actually, otherwise they wouldn’t have pulled the ad. Despite claims to the contrary by our leftwing friends, large corps are hyper sensitive to any of this sort of criticism.
It’s also an easy calc. to make to figure where they stand.
By and large the gay community is pretty affluent. Why would the ANZ want to be associated with a website that could be construed as being anti-gay (and of course I know ONO isn’t).
JC.
8 Feb 11 at 2:01 pm
If somebody can show how 45D or 45E applies, I’d be grateful.
I can’t work out who the first, second, third and fourth persons are. The fourth person must be the affected blogs, but how you would go about establishing the ex-advertisers had the “purpose of… causing substantial loss or damage” to any such blog is beyond me.
There simply is no secondary boycott.
In any event, I think there’s a strong constitutional argument that the CCA is an illegal statute (joke).
Tillman
8 Feb 11 at 2:01 pm
Pearson’s original article contains this nugget:
Problem is that you can not, by definition, have an “incidental victim” of a secondary boycott. The statute says you must have the purpose of damaging the victim; if the harm caused is only incidental, then it is not, as a matter of law, a secondary boycott.
Tillman
8 Feb 11 at 2:03 pm
Why doesn’t the bank get really serious and only accept the accounts of people who believe in gay ‘marriage’?
C.L.
8 Feb 11 at 2:05 pm
Sinclair
I have a good friend, who was involved in Jaguar’s withdrawing sponsorship of Stephanie Rice, for her “suck of that faggots” tweet. One night, the issue was raised in company, among whom were several gays/lesbians; every single one of them was horrified and furious at Jaguar’s actions.
Rice’s contrition, apologies, and a realistic appreciation of the context of the tweet were enough to outweigh punishing such a young, incredibly talented women so cruelly. My friend in the know was having none of that, even demanding, “just what makes you think that your sex lives, and identities, gives you any more insight into how a business is run, and the smarts that go into making investment decisions, or revoking”.
Basically, the gays/lesbians were told in no uncertain terms that not only was that issue not about them, but their arguments showed they were too ignorant of commerce to be taken seriously at all!
Peter Patton
8 Feb 11 at 11:39 pm
Was Ken Parish being sincere when he wrote that? If so, what a complete and utter girl!
Peter Patton
9 Feb 11 at 10:54 am
WTF is all this crap about poofs not being more promiscuous than straights? ROFLMAO. Oh, luvs, clearly ANZ pulled the money, not for any ideological reason, but because they realized they’d be sponsoring – and thus encouraging – wilful ignorance and its wider distribution.
Peter Patton
9 Feb 11 at 10:59 am
JC
I also happen to know of at least 2 Sydney-based gay organizations who have donated to the NSW National Party!
Peter Patton
9 Feb 11 at 11:03 am
I doubt they are more naturally promiscuous than straight men. It’s more that men in general are just far more promiscuous than women are.
Gays don’t have to deal with the whims of women, so their desire for casual sexual contact is much more easily fulfilled.
Yobbo
9 Feb 11 at 11:07 am
Bullshit like Valentines day and ‘three months salary if you really want a long term relationship’ etc…
.
9 Feb 11 at 11:10 am
There’s no gay version of “The Rules”
Yobbo
9 Feb 11 at 11:12 am
Of course the advantage of being straight is that most women aren’t as concerned about looks as they are about emotions.
So to have success with women you don’t have to spend hours in the gym or doing your hair, you just have to know how to push the emotional buttons.
Gays don’t have it so easy. The only real way to impress a man is to be good looking.
Yobbo
9 Feb 11 at 11:18 am
Gays don’t have it so easy. The only real way to impress a man is to be good looking.
Not true. There are all sorts of gay men, Yobbo, apart from stereotypical queens, like bears, leathermen, etc.
dover_beach
9 Feb 11 at 11:24 am
Sure Dover, but still the primary reason that someone might like say “Bears” is because of the way they look.
Yobbo
9 Feb 11 at 11:33 am
Yobbo
You have cottoned onto the secret code here. It is not that poofs are more naturally more promiscuous than straights, just 50% of those straights. The other 50%, share the same promiscuous nature of the poofs, by virtue, of much closer traits they share, such as XY chromosome.
Peter Patton
9 Feb 11 at 12:50 pm
Yobbo pretty much nails it, at least in a Pareto senes. In fact, my readings of Yobbo’s opinions on a rainbow of topics, has persuaded me he is the blogospehere’s Pareto man. He can get 80% of the truth in 20% of the words of his neares rival.
Some of the differences between poofs – and note this deliberately and absolutely does NOT include lezzies:
While gay men better looks and physiques than straight men, but straight men need more money and power.
Peter Patton
9 Feb 11 at 1:03 pm
And I would love to see some empirical research on the straight man’s marginal rate of substitution of fun-bag size for IQ.
Peter Patton
9 Feb 11 at 1:05 pm
Steve Sailer is v good on the difference between gays and lesbians
http://www.isteve.com/lesvsgay.htm
jtfsoon
9 Feb 11 at 1:08 pm
Yobbo
There also is a much more nuanced transition between picking-up to emotionally committed relationship/love among poofs, with much less overlap of the importance attached to different qualities. Poofs readily exchange the physical stuff privileged in short-term affairs, for qualities much more identifiable in straight relationships.
Peter Patton
9 Feb 11 at 1:10 pm
Steven Pinker said that the behaviour of gay males shows us what male sexuality really looks like without the contraints of having to deal with women. (and vice versa for lesbians).
daddy dave
9 Feb 11 at 1:15 pm
Well you hardly need Steven Pinker to tell you that. Also, as with so much human behaviour, we culturally take these largely biologically-determined differences, and reinforce them by much larger magnitudes than than exists naturally, because it facilitates harmony and order, more than the anxiety and disorder. For example, I know some completely filthy lesbian freaks. They are just fabulous; especially their earnest debates about the optimal scent of a ladies [insert only word banned on Catallxy].
Peter Patton
9 Feb 11 at 1:22 pm