Planetalk wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

b747400erf wrote:

This was an attack because of their viewpoint on gay marriage.

Seems to me public company CEO should not be bringing their personal opinions (particularly on controversial topics) to the forefront.
Public stance on non business topics potentially harm an enterprise particularly of about such controversial social issues when there are clearly going to be substantial slice of the population that legitimately can hold opposite views. Suppose a topic for a non-av thread.

Oh dear. In what way are gay rights 'controversial'? I'm also intrigued to know your legitimate reason for holding opposite views? And please, not a book written in the iron age.

In most enlightened societies gay rights are now accepted by the majority as a good thing, and businesses can play a positive role in reducing stigma, which has to be a good thing right?
They will gain more business than hey lose from a few bigots with strange obcessions, most people couldn't care less. Why should they? Seems strange to go around getting worked up about another group of people finally getting the rights the rest of us always enjoyed after thousands of years of persecution. How does it affect you? It's love, love is great!




Thank You.

I hope that old retarded wrinkled christian taliban gets some jail time.
Kudos to Mr Joyce for keeping the cool.
As a gay man I strongly believe that gay men/women in similar positions to that of Mr Joyce can and should advocate for gay rights and spread the message that we gay people are equally successful in whatever professional background and that sexual inclinations are irrelevant to a career. He is a shining example of that.

Lighten up. Everything doesn't have to be some political/gender/race/religion issue.

.[/quote]

Except in this case it totally is.

The pie thrower will appear in Perth's Magistrate Court on 7th June 2017. Not only will he appear on charges with this but also a previous offence for giving false details to police. Today police upgraded the pie throwers charges to common assault, trespassing and damage

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western ... d52b6b04a1

While that maybe your opinion in Australia one cannot have a same sex marriage, marriage is defined in Australian Federal law as "the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life". The same law does not recognize overseas marriage arrangements that are not between a man and woman. The ACT did for a short period of time have same sex marriage laws, but the federal government overturned that in court.

There have been numerous attempts to have bills to enable sane sex marriages at a federal level, none have passed parliament. So I think it is fair to say that this is a topic with no clear agreement in Australia.

The politics of the Federal parliament have frustrated the will of the overwhelming majority on same sex marriage in Australia.

Good on Joyce using his prominence on this issue for himself and huge number of QF staff!

Seems to me public company CEO should not be bringing their personal opinions (particularly on controversial topics) to the forefront.
Public stance on non business topics potentially harm an enterprise particularly of about such controversial social issues when there are clearly going to be substantial slice of the population that legitimately can hold opposite views. Suppose a topic for a non-av thread.

[/quote]

Of course they should. They should do all they can from their position in order to promote the advancement of civil and human rights.

The less you talk about such issues, the more they become (or remain) controversial and stigmatized.

"Normalizing and positive-affirming behaviour", just like Alan Joyce does for gay rights by being open and transparent, is what we people need in order to advance humanity.

Planetalk wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

b747400erf wrote:

This was an attack because of their viewpoint on gay marriage.

Seems to me public company CEO should not be bringing their personal opinions (particularly on controversial topics) to the forefront.
Public stance on non business topics potentially harm an enterprise particularly of about such controversial social issues when there are clearly going to be substantial slice of the population that legitimately can hold opposite views. Suppose a topic for a non-av thread.

Oh dear. In what way are gay rights 'controversial'? I'm also intrigued to know your legitimate reason for holding opposite views? And please, not a book written in the iron age.

In most enlightened societies gay rights are now accepted by the majority as a good thing, and businesses can play a positive role in reducing stigma, which has to be a good thing right?
They will gain more business than hey lose from a few bigots with strange obcessions, most people couldn't care less. Why should they? Seems strange to go around getting worked up about another group of people finally getting the rights the rest of us always enjoyed after thousands of years of persecution. How does it affect you? It's love, love is great!

Would you consider it acceptable to oppose equal rights for other minority groups, perhaps based on race? If not why is his different? I'm afraid progress is going to happen and you'll very much be on the wrong side of history.

I think they should avoid making comments controversial issues. its like a CEO being involved in politics not good for company. a company caters for people of different opinions so its very important that the CEO keeps his focus on giving value to shareholders and appreciate the diversity of people Qantas offers a service.

Alan Joyce is known for engaging publicly in "social" "debates" which are not strictly part of his remit as the CEO of a publicly listed company, not just same sex marriage but also gender equality and minority and indigenous rights.

Some regard his public advocacy on these issues to be controversial, and it is something that he regularly faces questions on, including at the breakfast in question on Tuesday. He has been stead fast in his defence of his contributions to public debate.

Joyce says - correctly - that large company's possess phenomenal power in the political sphere, much greater than any private citizen. Corporations use this power all the time to lobby on matters such as regulation and tax policy. They owe it to their shareholders to maximise returns by influencing the political system in their favour. Joyce argues that this is not enough though, and that in addition to the interests of their shareholders company's should also be mindful of the interests of their people, their customers, and the communities they serve. This means sometimes using your public power to advocate on matters that are important to your employees and customers.

Joyce has come under criticism for this approach, but he is doing so from a fundamentally moral perspective and for that I can give him nothing but respect.

zeke wrote:

While that maybe your opinion in Australia one cannot have a same sex marriage, marriage is defined in Australian Federal law as "the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life". The same law does not recognize overseas marriage arrangements that are not between a man and woman. The ACT did for a short period of time have same sex marriage laws, but the federal government overturned that in court.

There have been numerous attempts to have bills to enable sane sex marriages at a federal level, none have passed parliament. So I think it is fair to say that this is a topic with no clear agreement in Australia.

I wouldn't confuse the inaction of a right wing murdoch controlled government with the wishes of the majority of people.

And frankly, supporting civil rights is the right thing to do. The progression to equality is inevitable now, but unfortunately some dinosaurs will slow it down. In a few years they'll look just as ridiculous as those who held back civil rights in the 60s.

I'm always amazed that people for some reason think it's ok to hold back on gay rights, that it's OK to discriminate, that people shouldn't 'impose their views on people who disagree'. Why is it different to other minority rights? It makes me very sad that people will throw gay people under the bus while accepting equal rights everywhere else as a given.

oldannyboy wrote:

Of course they should. They should do all they can from their position in order to promote the advancement of civil and human rights.

I think the CEO should be able to promote any personal or political agenda they want on their own time using their own resources. One however a CEO of a public company should have the fiduciary duty to the owners.

There is no bill of rights in Australia, the only rights in the constitution is the right to vote, protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms, the right to a trial by jury, freedom of religion, and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency.

Mr Joyce has zero chance of doing anything that will change the Australian constitution. The process would involve getting approval by the Parliament and then be put to People in a referendum. They cannot even get same sex marriage past parliament.

Planetalk wrote:

I'm always amazed that people for some reason think it's ok to hold back on gay rights, that it's OK to discriminate, that people shouldn't 'impose their views on people who disagree'. Why is it different to other minority rights? It makes me very sad that people will throw gay people under the bus while accepting equal rights everywhere else as a given.

You need to understand what you are posting, there is no such thing as gay rights, or married rights, or single rights, or minority rights in Australia. The rights a person has in Australia are very limited (just posted them). The terms rights and discrimination are different.

For example one has the right to vote in Australia, but there is no legal right to have any particular sexual preference or relationship in Australia. But it is not legal to discriminate based upon one sexual preference or relationship status in Australia.

zeke wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

I'm always amazed that people for some reason think it's ok to hold back on gay rights, that it's OK to discriminate, that people shouldn't 'impose their views on people who disagree'. Why is it different to other minority rights? It makes me very sad that people will throw gay people under the bus while accepting equal rights everywhere else as a given.

You need to understand what you are posting, there is no such thing as gay rights, or married rights, or single rights, or minority rights in Australia. The rights a person has in Australia are very limited (just posted them). The terms rights and discrimination are different.

For example one has the right to vote in Australia, but there is no legal right to have any particular sexual preference or relationship in Australia. But it is not legal to discriminate based upon one sexual preference or relationship status in Australia.

Zeke, I think you might want to expand your views and take a look at the meaning of civil and human rights in a much broader sense, as well as in terms of context. You might also want to consider the concept of making an advancement on civil and human rights through contextualized and meaningful beavioural change. The fact that Australian law is such (for the time being) is irrelevant to the discussion. Laws can be changed. And thankfully society changes all the time. What was legal and acceptable 50 years ago in some countries (racial discrimination for example) is no longer so thankfully, and positive change has happened because of personal engagement on the part of individuals, not by some random magic chemistry.. QF's CEO is an individual who is personally engaged in bringing forward advancements in the field of gay rights in what is still -in some areas at least- essentially a somewhat conservative society, and for this he should be praised and not criticized, for any sort of human and civic advancement is inherently beneficial to a democratic society in its entirety.

Regards,

Danny

zeke wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

I'm always amazed that people for some reason think it's ok to hold back on gay rights, that it's OK to discriminate, that people shouldn't 'impose their views on people who disagree'. Why is it different to other minority rights? It makes me very sad that people will throw gay people under the bus while accepting equal rights everywhere else as a given.

You need to understand what you are posting, there is no such thing as gay rights, or married rights, or single rights, or minority rights in Australia. The rights a person has in Australia are very limited (just posted them). The terms rights and discrimination are different.

For example one has the right to vote in Australia, but there is no legal right to have any particular sexual preference or relationship in Australia. But it is not legal to discriminate based upon one sexual preference or relationship status in Australia.

I know exactly what I'm posting about thank you, I have friends who work in gay rights groups in Australia from my time working in development organisations in Fiji, and I expect I've spent a lot more time talking about his issue with people it affects than you have. Straight people can get married, gay people cant. As usual you're arguing semantics rather than the fundamental point to try and muddy things. This is discrimination, and it is wrong. Or shall we call it a 'de-facto' right? It's interesting you seem more upset about a CEO promoting civil rights, than someone assaulting them for doing so.

CSR is a big thing in business, and it can do serious harm to a company to be seen not to be behaving in a just manner. Now since you think everything should boil down to economics, I imagine the shareholders are pretty happy, I would think Qantas' tie ups with PRIDE for example have brought them huge amounts of goodwill and a lot of sales, so yes even reducing human rights to a fiduciary value as you wish, he's doing the right thing. I certainly haven't heard about shareholder protests against it? Because Australians support it. Maybe leave them to it hey?

It's so ugly seeing people in privileged positions trying to prevent the progress of human rights. Businesses are part of society and in return for society providing them with law, order, infrastructure, a skilled workforce etc. etc.they have a part to play in improving society f they wish, because they have a reach and power few can claim.

oldannyboy wrote:

zeke wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

I'm always amazed that people for some reason think it's ok to hold back on gay rights, that it's OK to discriminate, that people shouldn't 'impose their views on people who disagree'. Why is it different to other minority rights? It makes me very sad that people will throw gay people under the bus while accepting equal rights everywhere else as a given.

You need to understand what you are posting, there is no such thing as gay rights, or married rights, or single rights, or minority rights in Australia. The rights a person has in Australia are very limited (just posted them). The terms rights and discrimination are different.

For example one has the right to vote in Australia, but there is no legal right to have any particular sexual preference or relationship in Australia. But it is not legal to discriminate based upon one sexual preference or relationship status in Australia.

Zeke, I think you might want to expand your views and take a look at the meaning of civil and human rights in a much broader sense, as well as in terms of context. You might also want to consider the concept of making an advancement on civil and human rights through contextualized and meaningful beavioural change. The fact that Australian law is such (for the time being) is irrelevant to the discussion. Laws can be changed. And thankfully society changes all the time. What was legal and acceptable 50 years ago in some countries (racial discrimination for example) is no longer so thankfully, and positive change has happened because of personal engagement on the part of individuals, not by some random magic chemistry.. QF's CEO is an individual who is personally engaged in bringing forward advancements in the field of gay rights in what is still -in some areas at least- essentially a somewhat conservative society, and for this he should be praised and not criticized, for any sort of human and civic advancement is inherently beneficial to a democratic society in its entirety.

Regards,

Danny

Very well said sir it's a very strange argument that because a particular right doesn't exist, it is a private matter only. As you say, where on earth would some societies be now if we'd always taken that approach? I assume Zeke is in favour of the progress made in racial and women's rights, which required people taking a stand even where it was difficult, be we all owe them a debt.

oldannyboy wrote:

The fact that Australian law is such (for the time being) is irrelevant to the discussion. Laws can be changed. And thankfully society changes all the time. What was legal and acceptable 50 years ago in some countries (racial discrimination for example) is no longer so thankfully, and positive change has happened because of personal engagement on the part of individuals, not by some random magic chemistry.. QF's CEO is an individual who is personally engaged in bringing forward advancements in the field of gay rights in what is still -in some areas at least- essentially a somewhat conservative society, and for this he should be praised and not criticized, for any sort of human and civic advancement is inherently beneficial to a democratic society in its entirety.

You agree with me that it is a fact in Australian law, and then have a go at me ?

I made it very clear that there is a difference between a RIGHT and discrimination, one cannot use the terms interchangeably. One of the very good things that Australia has going for it is it does not have these RIGHTS in law. What it does have in law is effective anti-discrimination and equal opportunity laws, which has brought about the wonderful multicultural nation it is. Any person from any background, gender, religion, sexual preference can be anything in Australia, everyone is equal under the law.

Saying "gay rights" means you are saying a select group of people should have recognition and protections under the law which is EXCLUSIVE or ABOVE others, no one else has special RIGHTS. Australia does not play that game, everyone has the SAME rights. I am dead against any group being excluded or advanced at the expense of others. Your view is that people from a particular sexual preference should have rights that are exclusive, which I strongly do not agree with.

zeke wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

The fact that Australian law is such (for the time being) is irrelevant to the discussion. Laws can be changed. And thankfully society changes all the time. What was legal and acceptable 50 years ago in some countries (racial discrimination for example) is no longer so thankfully, and positive change has happened because of personal engagement on the part of individuals, not by some random magic chemistry.. QF's CEO is an individual who is personally engaged in bringing forward advancements in the field of gay rights in what is still -in some areas at least- essentially a somewhat conservative society, and for this he should be praised and not criticized, for any sort of human and civic advancement is inherently beneficial to a democratic society in its entirety.

You agree with me that it is a fact in Australian law, and then have a go at me ?

I made it very clear that there is a difference between a RIGHT and discrimination, one cannot use the terms interchangeably. One of the very good things that Australia has going for it is it does not have these RIGHTS in law. What it does have in law is effective anti-discrimination and equal opportunity laws, which has brought about the wonderful multicultural nation it is. Any person from any background, gender, religion, sexual preference can be anything in Australia, everyone is equal under the law.

Saying "gay rights" means you are saying a select group of people should have recognition and protections under the law which is EXCLUSIVE or ABOVE others, no one else has special RIGHTS. Australia does not play that game, everyone has the SAME rights. I am dead against any group being excluded or advanced at the expense of others. Your view is that people from a particular sexual preference should have rights that are exclusive, which I strongly do not agree with.

Erm, no, I think he's saying that one group shouldn't be singularly picked out for discrimination. Are you saying that introducing aw to enable gay people to get married would somehow give them exclusive rights that advance them at the expense of others? This is the point, gay people are still discriminated against long after most other minorities have at least been put on a (theoretically) equal footing. May I just ask, do you actually condemn the person who assaulted Mr. Joyce.

This is where your argument is flawed, merely putting something into law does ont make it so. Discrimination does not disappear with the flick of a pen. It requires huge societal change, and possibly new laws to be introduced before there is true equality. While 'discrimination' as a concept is illegal, in reality, the state itself continues to discriminate. Something may be law now, so what? that doesn;t make it right. Is your argument that anything allowed by law or outlawed in any place in the world is therefore proper for all time. Slightly bizarre if I may say so. In this circumstance, it is quite right that progressive business leaders and companies take on the role the state should be perfrorming and use the presence they have to push society forward. Do you have any evidence the shareholders of qantas are upset with this strategy. As I said, I strongly suspect it has earned significant sales, so you should be in favour no?

By the way the sentence I've bolded is complete nonsense. Are you not aware of the continuing huge problems faced by aboriginal people in Australia, and the culture of casual racism and sexism that blights the country? Or you just don't care because it doesn't affect you? You call it a game, it really isn't a game to people who aren't in your fortunate position to scoff at those trying to do something to change things.

Planetalk wrote:

Are you saying that introducing aw to enable gay people to get married would somehow give them exclusive rights that advance them at the expense of others?

There is no right to marriage or a marital status for anyone under Australian law. Everyone is treated the same.

Planetalk wrote:

. May I just ask, do you actually condemn the person who assaulted Mr. Joyce.

I am very consistent in that I do not think anyone should operate outside the law, or take the law into their own hands. There are many laws I do not agree with, for example in Australia it is legal to take your own life, but it is illegal with their euthanasia laws to seek medical assistance to do so. Personally I think that should be an individuals choice to seek medical assistance, in my view it would save lives as people with mental illness like depression could be helped.

Planetalk wrote:

While 'discrimination' as a concept is illegal, in reality, the state itself continues to discriminate.

The state does not discriminate.

Planetalk wrote:

Do you have any evidence the shareholders of qantas are upset with this strategy.

It does not matter what you or I think. This goes back to my previous point, no one should operate outside the law or take the law into their own hands. The corporations law is already clear on the responsibilities of office holders of public companies, by law primarily they have fiduciary duty to their shareholders.

Planetalk wrote:

Are you not aware of the continuing huge problems faced by aboriginal people in Australia, and the culture of casual racism and sexism that blights the country?

I have been very fortunate to have been to spent time in a number of very remote and regional areas of Australia, I have had a number of holidays in Australia where I have chosen to drive long distances away from it all. I have been across Australia via the Nullarbor Plain, I have been through Western Australia from the desert in Balgo to remote communities in the north like Oombulgurri, through the northern territory to Titjikala and across the Strzelecki Desert into Queensland. I have been places that many urban Australians have never seen.

I know first hand there is a large difference in the levels of support and services between the city and regional and remote areas. It is actually with that knowledge and experience is one of the reasons I have such a black and white view of these issues. Living in the urban areas regardless of your martial status, sexual orientation or gender Australians have a very good quality of life, access to good jobs, good social protections, good healthcare, and cheap access to legal services. I would wish the people in rural and remote areas could enjoy the same quality of life as those in urban areas, and is one of the programs that QF does support which I think has a lot of merit. I am also very supportive of the way QF promote issues like breast cancer and the way it sponsors national sporting terms and the Sydney Mardi Gras.

Wait a second. From a security standpoint, this is very serious. Does QF not provide an Executive Protection Agent for him? If not, it should become a very important need. This could have been much more serious had the pie been laced with poison. I know it seems funny, but coming from a EP background, I am shocked to say the least. If he did have EP, the agent failed something serious.

zeke wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

The fact that Australian law is such (for the time being) is irrelevant to the discussion. Laws can be changed. And thankfully society changes all the time. What was legal and acceptable 50 years ago in some countries (racial discrimination for example) is no longer so thankfully, and positive change has happened because of personal engagement on the part of individuals, not by some random magic chemistry.. QF's CEO is an individual who is personally engaged in bringing forward advancements in the field of gay rights in what is still -in some areas at least- essentially a somewhat conservative society, and for this he should be praised and not criticized, for any sort of human and civic advancement is inherently beneficial to a democratic society in its entirety.

You agree with me that it is a fact in Australian law, and then have a go at me ?

I made it very clear that there is a difference between a RIGHT and discrimination, one cannot use the terms interchangeably. One of the very good things that Australia has going for it is it does not have these RIGHTS in law. What it does have in law is effective anti-discrimination and equal opportunity laws, which has brought about the wonderful multicultural nation it is. Any person from any background, gender, religion, sexual preference can be anything in Australia, everyone is equal under the law.

Saying "gay rights" means you are saying a select group of people should have recognition and protections under the law which is EXCLUSIVE or ABOVE others, no one else has special RIGHTS. Australia does not play that game, everyone has the SAME rights. I am dead against any group being excluded or advanced at the expense of others. Your view is that people from a particular sexual preference should have rights that are exclusive, which I strongly do not agree with.

I can see how moot arguing back with you over this is. You are saying utterly nonsensical things my friend. Advancing human rights (in general, not just for gays) does nothing to reduce the rights of others. No 'selected group' acquisition of rights ever damaged the rights of others. The end of racial discrimination did not diminish the existing rights of white people. Granting the gay minority the right to marry their companions does nothing to reduce the rights of heterosexuals. Or so I thought.... And clearly in Australia everyone is NOT equal as far as rights go. Certainly not.

oldannyboy wrote:

I can see how moot arguing back with you over this is. You are saying utterly nonsensical things my friend. Advancing human rights (in general, not just for gays) does nothing to reduce the rights of others. No 'selected group' acquisition of rights ever damaged the rights of others. The end of racial discrimination did not diminish the existing rights of white people. Granting the gay minority the right to marry their companions does nothing to reduce the rights of heterosexuals. Or so I thought.... And clearly in Australia everyone is NOT equal as far as rights go. Certainly not.

None of what you are saying makes sense in the Australian context, Australia has its own system that works very well.

The Australian family court already treats a defacto relationships and marriage the same, you don't even need to be married in Australia for the government to recognize your relationship, a man and woman or a gay couple could be in a defacto relationship without being married and still go through the family court property settlement etc. No one is permitted to discriminate nor is anyone excluded based upon marital status or sexual orientation. All of this is achieved without empowering a group of people with "rights" because of the sexual orientation, it is equal treatment.

I am not sure where you are from, but what you are saying is out of context for Australia. That is why it is a political non issue that gets debated and never results in anything. Meanwhile significant issues like the quality of life between urban Australians and those in rural and regional areas don't get addressed because the public debate is tied up over the commonwealth definition of the word "marriage".

Moderators, can you close this thread as it's gone way off track.