Australian Party declines to name agency behind ‘homophobic’ attack ad
Bob Katter’s Australian Party has declined to name the ad agency behind its controversial attack-ad on politician Campbell Newman.
Australian Party spokesman Scott Barrett said that an agency had been used to make the ad – which has already prompted more than 300 complaints to the Ad Standards Bureau for being homophobic – but would protect its identity “in the name of commercial confidence”.
Barrett also declined to name the stock image supplier for the ad, which features two still shots of gay men among doctored clips of Newman.
The Australian Party obviously create ads like this to generate free news coverage the likes of which they are currently receiving. But I’m pretty sure (and hopeful) they will never be taken seriously as a party due to such horrible ads, regardless of how much coverage they receive. What an awful message and viewpoint – a downside of a free media but i’m sure it will only strengthen resolve against them.
And to think Suzanne McGill participated in this interview recently on the safer schools programto tackle bullying and homophobia http://www.abc.net.au/local/au.....450139.htm
Even if she was stood down because she “did not seek nor obtain permission for external voiceover work as required in accordance with ABC policies”, it interesting that she cannot be stood down for endorsing discrimination. After all she chose to do the voice over job in the first place, on the basis of the lines alone. It would be also interesting to know if the script included an indication of the accompanying visuals.
someone name and shame?
On a related note… There is an inherent contradiction of public entities (state and federal) acknowledging the costs of discrimination (by funding equity and diversity training and prevention) but not being willing to take federal policy action to resolve it by ending discrimination.
Purely as one example, Defence has Mandatory Equity and Diversity Awareness Training including Sexual Orientation Awareness, which “focuses on attitudes towards homosexuality, estimates on homosexual representation in the community, the invisible barriers of homophobia and heterosexism, the impact of hiding sexual orientation, the fear of disclosure, and the implications on the Defence mission.”
Reference: http://www.defence.gov.au/fr/ARE/training.htm#6
Not sure who the agency is that produces this training.
When Jason Clare, Minister for Defence Materiel, appeared on Q&A he noted that “I think most Australians still think of marriage as between a man and a woman. I think what you can do is you can keep that but you can still recognise the importance and the special nature of a same sex relationship.”
Reference: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3163803.htm
I wonder if Jason Clare has done the training. I think not.
This week there is an Internet meme showing the separate “black” and “white” bubblers. The modern labels on the bubblers are “marriage” and “civil” unions. Caption: “Separate but equal wasnt equality in 1962. It’s still not equality in 2012.”
Look at what goes into suicide prevention, mental health and education programs, as well as workplace training, learning and development. Look at the cost of lost productivity due to bullying as a result of sexual preference. Workcover NSW, for example, even identifies that workers who are a minority due to their sexual preference can be at risk of bullying. See page 8:http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.a…..k_2054.pdf
Wouldn’t a more effective way for the Government to achieve cultural and social change be to cease endorsing discrimination and allow same-sex marriage and equal rights?
ASB fails to act on homophobia http://offsetart.com.au/blog/p.....homophobia
it is so unethical that this ad agency can remain concealed. Agencies are frequently put in the spotlight for disguising their agenda, and it should be the case that all people, brands, companies and political parties are held accountable for their work and the messages they convey to the wider public.
I think Ms McGill has been treated unfairly by the ABC and the chattering classes. While she may have breached an outside work clause in her contract, is it reasonable for an employer to insist on such a clause for part time / casual staff? Most people cannot live on a part time income.
Such a clause seems like an unreasonable and possibly unlawful restraint of trade.
Employers do not own us and do not have to condone or even be aware of what we do outside our employment obligations. The ABC does not own her voice. It is hers to use as she wishes. The idea that she is owned 24/7 by the ABC is fundamentally flawed.
Like many employees, McGill is not required to believe in or endorse what she puts her voice to. She did not break the law and cannot be held responsible for the finished ad. The agency producer is responsible for that.
The ad itself is repugnant, but the hysteria about this is PC preciousness lacking common sense.
Scott Barrett is obviously in charge of the creative for the campaign. Is he therefore not responsible for the creation of the ad?!