Graham Young admits gay activists brought him to his knees

Apr 16, 2019

Who would have thought that gay activists could have sucked dry Graham Young’s rivers of advertising gold:

While On Line Opinion may have contributed to some small softening of political debate, that would be impossible to detect compared to what social media has licenced.

In 2010 we were the subject of an advertising boycott, organised by gay activists, which destroyed the business model of the site. (Read the full details here.) Our sin was that we published this article by Bill Muehlenberg as part of a feature containing 25 articles on gay marriage, 75% of which were in favour of it.

But to activists 75% is not enough. It has to be 100%, so in a technique, since used by organisations like the Australian Conservation Foundation, and Sleeping Giants, our advertisers were targeted to pressure us to stop publishing anyone who disagreed with the activists. $17,000 income from advertising in the month of November 2010 went to virtually nothing in January 2011.

The same thing is being done to Rugby Australia over Folau, but instead of protecting his human rights, RA is caving in.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=20260&page=0

He gives a lot of credit to these gay activists for their actions. But stop for a minute and think about what he’s saying.

These activists approached his advertisers with a simple request not to advertise on his site, and they made an informed decision not to place their brand amongst the content he chose to publish.

Short of taking credit for the distasteful content his advertisers chose to avoid, be blames homosexual people for daring to take exception to homophobic content he published.

If there ever were the monthly thousands pouring into the On Line Opinion coffers that Graham Young claims, the fault lies at his feet for not having done the necessary risk analysis to cater for the day he might not have the loyalty of his most profitable advertisers. After all, they’re only trying to protect their brand from being tarnished by the toxic content he was publishing.

And that’s exactly what Qantas is doing by not wanting to have their brand tarnished by the homophobia emanating from Rugby Australia’s midst.

Hark Graham: Don’t be surprised when your pro-gay advertisers object to your homophobic opinion.


POSTSCRIPT

After I published this article Chrys Stevenson contacted me and brought to my attention the following extract from her 12-Feb-2011 blog MY FREE SPEECH FIASCO, which paints a different reality to that which Grahan Young believes occurred:

So, when I heard that Graham was being persecuted for publishing an anti-gay marriage article by Catholic conservative, Bill Muehlenberg, I was outraged.  I disagree with everything Muehlenberg said in the article, but, in the cause of free speech, I supported his right to put his point of view, and Graham’s right to publish it.  Muehlenberg’s article is highly selective, makes some ridiculously broad assumptions and is clearly biased.  On the other hand, it is reasonably well written and, while being critical of what he sees as homosexuals’ proclivity for infidelity, he doesn’t (in my view) directly vilify GLBTI people, either as individuals or as a group.


The story I heard, initially, was that someone had taken offence at the article, complained to some of the advertisers on the site (specifically IBM and ANZ) and that these companies had removed their ads – at significant financial cost to Online Opinion.


Impulsively, I contacted Graham and offered my support.  I also did a quick survey of articles about same-sex marriage on Online Opinion and found that pro-gay articles far outnumbered anti-gay articles.  There was no question of anti-gay bias.


Graham then made me aware of an article about the incident on the gay online journal, SX.  The story suggested the problem was not so much Muehlenberg’s article, as Graham’s failure to remove an offensive comment, by ‘Shintaro’ on another article which suggested that gays should either stay in the closet or be murdered.  Graham protested that he hadn’t removed the comment because it had been taken out of context.  He provided me with the link and I satisfied myself that the person who posted it was not advocating violence at all; he was pro-gay and anti-violence and the comment was intended to show where the anti-gay rhetoric in the discussion could lead.


Now, in high dudgeon at the injustice of it all, I posted a comment on SX defending Graham and Online Opinion and I wrote an email to a number of influential bloggers and columnists suggesting that they join me by writing in Graham’s defence.


Graham emailed back saying, in effect, “Nice email, but the facts are wrong.”


It seems that in my rush to play the part of Crusader Rabbit,  I hadn’t done my homework on the issue thoroughly enough, and Graham had (quite rightly) assumed that I had.  The advertising, it seems,  wasn’t lost because of the comment mentioned on SX, it was withdrawn because of another comment altogether.  This comment read:


“It’s interesting that so many people are offended by the truth. The fact is that homosexual activity is anything but healthy and natural. Certain lgbt’s want their perversion to be called “normal” and “healthy” and they’ve decided the best way to do this is have their “marriages” formally recognised. But even if the law is changed, these “marriages” are anything but healthy and natural. It is, in fact, impossible for these people to be married, despite what any state or federal law may say.”

Posted by MrAnderson, Thursday, 25 November 2010 10:09:39 AM


A gay reader brought the comment to Graham’s attention and asked for the reference to the ‘perversion’ of LGBT people to be removed.  Although Graham did not agree with the remark, he felt that it was a view which was commonly expressed among a minority of Australians, which did not incite violence, and which would have been acceptable (if widely condemned) in a parliamentary debate.  Given his commitment to free speech, Graham refused to delete it.


Having been rebuffed by Graham, the reader then decided to complain to the site’s advertisers.  Someone within IBM (it is not clear whether it was the same person) also complained to their management.  As a result, IBM and the ANZ decided to withdraw their advertising from Online Opinion and a number of other advertisers followed.  Sadly, as Online Opinion is part of an advertising co-operative, this meant that other bloggers also lost a substantial amount of their income, despite having nothing to do with Graham’s editorial decisions.


Now I was in a quandary.  In fact, I felt like I’d been hit with a ton of bricks.  All day I’d been sending supportive emails to Graham and shouting loudly from my ‘freedom of speech’ soap-box.  He thought I was an ally.  I thought I was an ally!  Now I realized I’d gone off half-cocked and, with this new information to hand, I felt I couldn’t defend Graham’s actions.  I felt sick, conflicted and embarrassed.  OK, I felt stupid.  I’d emailed all these people and said ‘stand up for freedom of speech!’  Now, if I was to be true to my own moral compass, I was going to have to write back to them and say, “Given new information to hand, I’m no longer standing up for free speech.”  I wished that a large black hole would just open up and consume me right then and there.


When I told Graham that I could no longer speak out publicly in his defence, he said I didn’t understand what free speech means.  Perhaps he was right.  I support free speech within limits, but not untrammeled free speech.  Perhaps that’s a terrible cop-out.  Perhaps it is ideologically unsound.  All I know is that every ethical atom of my being was screaming at me that I couldn’t defend the right of anyone to call a gay person perverted.  Nor could I support the decision not to delete a comment which was not only highly offensive, but, given the weight of expert medical and sociological opinion, patently untrue.


https://thatsmyphilosophy.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/my-free-speech-fiasco

Gladys Liu: anti-transgender, anti-marriage equality, and an unrepresentative Liberal candidate for Chisholm

Oct 26, 2018

The Age (October 26 2018) reported the Victorian Liberals have announced Gladys Liu as their candidate for Chisholm:

The Victorian Liberals have chosen a party activist and business consultant to contest the Chisholm electorate, presently held by Julia Banks, who controversially announced plans to quit parliament after going public with bullying allegations.

Gladys Liu was preselected late on Thursday evening for the federal seat in Melbourne’s east, which includes the suburbs of Box Hill, Chadstone and Mount Waverley.

Gladys Liu

Gladys Liu

The Guardian (July 12 2016) reported of Gladys Liu:

“A Liberal campaigner in Chisholm has been credited as masterminding an anti-Labor smear campaign focused on the anti-bulling Safe Schools Coalition and marriage equality.”

Guardian Australia has reported messages on Chinese social media site WeChat orchestrated by the Liberal Gladys Liu that included strong opposition of Safe Schools and same-sex marriage.

Liu said many Chinese people didn’t want the next generation “destroyed” by “rubbish” like transgender identity and believe same-sex marriage is “against normal practice”.

The 2017 ABS Marriage Equality Postal Survey returned a 62% YES vote in Chisholm:

 

ABS Marriage Equality Postal Survey Chisholm

Neos Kosmos (Oct 27 2017) reported of Chisholm MP Julia Banks:

Federal Member for Chisholm Julia Banks declared her unequivocal support for same-sex marriage this week, saying that the most disturbing aspect of the ‘no’ campaign was the view that “only a marriage between a man and a woman will ensure the protection of children”.

Ms Banks said the fact that two loving people are not able to have the equal rights at law that millions of Australians enjoy in loving marriages, was “about standing for equality for all, regardless of gender, race, sexuality or ethnicity.”

The Liberal MP, who holds one of Australia’s most marginal federal seats, and one with a diverse multicultural electorate, added that marriage equality was about “equality before the law” and that respectful debate on the issue was vital and a “cornerstone” of Australian values.

If Gladys Liu is the best the Liberal Party can come up with to represent the views of the voters in Chisholm, one of Australia’s most marginal federal seats, then they have failed badly in their choice of candidate.


A response to Rabbi Daniel Rabin on marriage equality

Sep 6, 2017

Rabbi Daniel Rabin posted the following on Facebook:

Was a great experience to chat with some of the Year 12 students at Bialik College today and discuss homosexuality in Judaism and issues surrounding same-sex marriage and the upcoming postal vote.

Some of the things we talked about was the great sensitivity and emotion surrounding this topic and the need to be incredibly mindful that there are differences of opinion in this regard.

People on both sides need to respect the differing views.

It is totally unacceptable to denigrate, insult or hurt others because they don’t share your opinion.

I have seen signs of “Stop the Fags” posted around and I think that is disgraceful. I have written previously, in particular about the Jewish community, that we need to be accepting and inclusive of all Jews regardless of their sexual orientation. Signs like these can cause vulnerable people to take their lives.

At the same time, if someone does not support the marriage act changing, don’t immediately call them homophobic or assume they are being hateful or bigoted.

I encourage civilized conversation on both sides and hope we can live our lives with mutual respect, courtesy and care for one another.

Rabbi Rabin is president of The Rabbinic Council of Victoria.  On September 4 the RCV issued this statement (incorrectly dated September 9):

Sep 4 2017 - RCV statement supporting No vote on marriage equality postal survey

Daniel Rabin is also the rabbi at the North Eastern Jewish Centre (NEJC) in Doncaster.  I grew up in Doncaster and attended the synagogue there in the 1980s and 90s.  I went to Sunday school there and had my bar mitzvah there.  The religious community there was a big part of my life and that of my family for many years.

I also attended Bialik College in the early 1980s.

When I was at the NEJC and at Bialik I was struggling with my sexuality.  I had been struggling with it since around 1979, and the struggle continued for 16 years until 1996.  During this time I had no support, no positive role models and no one to tell me that I wasn’t broken, wasn’t an aberration, wasn’t an abomination and wasn’t abnormal.  I was also incessantly bullied on my perceived sexuality for most of my school years.

After I came to terms with my sexuality I stopped attending NEJC, withdrew my financial support and stopped active religious observance because I was repulsed that part of the Orthodox religious service was to read a passage from the Torah that said men who slept with men were an abomination and that the penalty for doing this was their life, or words much to that effect.

Words can hurt, even if they are token.

In 2017, the rabbi of my former synagogue has told students at my former school that people, people like him, who oppose equal treatment of all citizens under the law of Australia should not be considered homophobic, or assumed to be hateful or bigoted.

That’s fair enough.  He is perfectly entitled to express those views.  However simultaneously he should not be surprised when people, people like me, look at the words he uses and wonder how he could not possibly be seen to be homophobic, or assumed to be hateful or bigoted.

What Rabbi Rabin is doing is in effect asking for the law to treat people in a heterosexual relationship in a manner that advantages them over people who are in other types of legal, consensual relationships.  His arguments and his logic are spurious, drawing from speculation, fear-mongering and deliberate misinformation.

Rabbi Rabin is welcome to practice his faith and to express his religious obligations within the sphere of Halacha and the remit of his responsibilities as both a congregational rabbi and the president of the Rabbinical Council of Victoria.  However he is not welcome to interfere in the lives of people who wish to enter into civil marriages, especially those people who are not doing so in an Orthodox Jewish context.

To my mind, it appears as bigotry when I see religious leaders using their faith to treat as lesser or deny certain people the same rights they enjoy under civil law.

To my mind, it does appear hateful, not to mention deceitful and disingenuous, when religious leaders imply or infer that children raised by both biological parents are more deserving of their parents than children of adoptive, same-sex, gender-diverse and other parenting configurations.

To my mind, it does appear homophobic when religious leaders use their authority to spread misinformation, lies and deceitful propaganda about homosexual people, the relationships we have, the indignities we endure, and the intolerance and discrimination we face.

Rabbi Rabin asks for respect.  He forgets that respect is earned, not demanded.  At present, while Rabbi Rabin asks for people, people like him, to deny me the right to marry the man I love, the man I want to have look after me in sickness and in health, the man who I would give my life for, I feel little respect for his views.

Rabbi Daniel Rabin could learn a few things from those who want to remove discrimination under the law, not enforce it.  He may be a teacher of Torah, but he is yet to become a teacher of humanity.

 
Postscript – September 7 2017

Rabbi Daniel Rabin has issued a personal apology on Facebook for the RCV statement:

I accept this apology and call for the RCV to withdraw their statement and issue a similar apology for the hurt and insensitivity of their actions.


Salvation Army = HATE

Apr 13, 2017

Star Observer: SALVOS COLLEGE ALLEGEDLY STILL ‘BULLYING’ LGBTI STUDENT

Salvos = HATE


More homophobic abuse by Paul Winter tolerated by J-Wire publisher Henry Benjamin

Sep 29, 2016

On an J-Wire article about the offensive Bill Leak “Waffen-SSM” cartoon, Paul Winter again pours more fuel on the fire of bigotry and intolerance:

20160924-paul-winter-jwire-homophobic-abuse

How much more of Paul Winter’s hate is J-Wire going to permit?

Would it permit anti-Semitic vilification?  Holocaust denial?  Anti-Zionist sentiment?

All comments are moderated by publisher Henry Benjamin, so he knows exactly what is appearing on his site.

Not good enough.


STOP THE HATE NOW!

Mar 6, 2016

From: Michael Barnett
Date: 6 March 2016 at 23:23
Subject: Extreme homophobia in the Jewish community in Australia
To: Robert Goot <president@ecaj.org.au>
Cc: ….

Dear Robert,

I wish to remind the ECAJ that there is an extreme homophobia that exists in the Australian Jewish Community.

It’s name is Paul Winter and it’s name is Robert Weil.  These are the names of it’s public face.  There are many more names that do not dare show their face.

These people are vile humans and they claim their superior perspective.

I am sick of reading their filth and hatred toward people like me. Every time I read one of their posts I feel like vomiting.

Tonight Paul Winter has just spewed this bile:


Paul Winter says:

March 6, 2016 10:10 pm at 10:10 pm

Comparing the Nazi persecution of homosexuals to that of their persecution of Jews is false and hysterical. Homosexuals, communists and various other groups were discriminated against and were even killed. But the Nazis selected only two groups for extermination: the Jews and the Gypsies. The extermination of the Gypsies was nowhere near as thorough or as sadistic as the extermination program that Jews were subjected to.

Nobody wishes to persecute people because of their sexuality. Nobody in their right mind would want a regime to drive a person to suicide as that genius Alan Turing was. But nobody in their right mind either would acquiesce to same sex marriage or for same sex couples to raise children. That is not being homophobic, but simply recognising that we do not need to change the marriage laws in Australia where homosexuals have equal rights and that no man can be a mother nor a woman a father, role models children need to develop in a healthy way.

Complaining about a persecution that does not exist – unlike in mohammedan realms where homosexuals are publicly hanged or thrown off tall buildings – is merely a ploy to gain social goals that the LGBTIQ cohort does not need or deserve. We do not need to change to make Trotskyites deriding society as heteronormative feel comfortable. We do not need rainbow or colour me purple days at schools where students fling their difference in the face of their heterosexual peers, who then, like true cry-bullies, complain about objectors denying them a safe space. Mutual acceptance and all round respect is called for.


I have been reading Paul Winter and Robert Weil’s filth in the pages of the Australian Jewish News and on J-Wire for years and IT IS ENOUGH.

You are the head of the ECAJ and I am wondering what the fuck your responsibility is if it’s not to feed your ego and that of the other jellyfish that cannot muster up the courage to denounce extreme homophobia in the Jewish community.

Now you may guess I am angry.  Yes, I am fucking outraged.  I have been a victim of this shit for decades.

But let me go back to 1999.  That was the year that Rabbi Emeritus Ronald Lubofsky ripped me a new arsehole in the JCCV Plenum.

Let me tell you about Rabbi Emeritus Ronald Lubofsky AM.  In the 1970s this “man” used to teach bar mitzvah students at St Kilda Synagogue.  With two of his students he used to masturbate in front of them during their lessons.  These were 12 or 13 year old boys.  There may well have been more.  He took that secret to his grave.  Is he a hero of the Jewish community, this man who left me distressed in 1999 because he abused the trust I gave him and destroyed me in the most inhumane manner possible at the JCCV Plenum.

I am sick of the filth that people like Lubofsky, Weil and Winter dish up on gay people.  SICK OF THE SHIT.

Now you can delete this email, you can take legal action against me, or you can fucking show some spine.

I am over wankers like you doing sweet FA.  FUCK THE LOT OF YOU.

Speak out on those orthodox rabbis in the ORA, RCNSW and RCV who hate homosexuality and who want to deny Australians civil marriage.  Speak out on arsewipes like Winter, Weil and “Lubofsky the paedophile”.  Speak out on the bigotry, the intolerance, the hatred, the homophobia and the transphobia in the Jewish community.

STOP THE HATE NOW.

Michael Barnett.


Robert Weil on hate speech spree while Jewish community leaders remain silent

Jul 22, 2015

Jewish community “comic“, outgoing president of Caulfield Hebrew Congregation and serial homophobe Robert Weil today took yet another swipe at same-sex attracted and gender diverse members of the Jewish community by accusing them of unsubstantiated “bullying tactics” in a comment posted on J-Wire article Gay and Lesbian support group apply for JCCV affiliation:

Robert Weil alleging

Increasingly people who are intolerant of homosexuality are finding fewer platforms to spruik their outdated attitudes. The tragic part of what his intolerance does is promote higher self-esteem and anxiety issues in same-sex attracted and gender diverse youth, feeding into harmful behaviours such as drug and alcohol abuse, self harm and suicide.

The community leadership (eg JCCV, Caulfield Shule, ADC) needs to speak out against hate speech such as this.  They won’t accept hate speech against Jews, yet it seems hate speech by prominent Jews against gays is not noteworthy.

The standard the community walks past is the standard the community accepts.


%d bloggers like this: