The now legendary figure of Nelson Mandella was for one section of the population a terrorist who was responsible for the slaughter of many innocent people and was quite justly incarcerated. On the other hand he represented all that was honourable and just in the fight against tyranny in South Africa. I well remember a short but memorable conversation with a friend many years ago who was from South Africa. When I mentioned Mandella his only comment was that that men was evil and should never have been released. I make no judgment here. The situation is far from simple and the issues anything but clear cut, my only point being that a lot of what one believe is not necessarily based on fact but personal perspective and often the facts are secondary.
I was reminded of this by an article in the news regarding objections adult shops have regarding what they believe to be unfair treatment.
In this article they say that “THE adult-entertainment industry has declared war on the fundamentalist Exclusive Brethren sect for allegedly infiltrating local councils.” This is typical of the emotive statements in the article. What do they mean “infiltration”. Do they mean that they have stood for local council, campaigned and lobbied for support, completed the democratic process of gaining sufficient votes to gain a position on local council and taken up their post? Maybe we should look more carefully and we might find that Labour party members and Liberal party members have infiltrated state and federal parliament. And – heaven forbid – maybe an anti pokies independent has infiltrated the federal senate. If they want people on council to represent their views it is a simple matter of standing for election, lobbying for campaign funds, campaining and attempting to get sufficient votes to get elected.
No where in the article has any wrongdoing been proven. It is full of allegation without a shred of evidence. To be quite frank I do not agree with the group in question on many issues but I defend their right to represent those issues in whatever legal way they desire. In fact quite the opposite, what this lobby group is doing is attempting is to censor the Exclusive Brethren for no more reason than disagreeing with them.
I could go on but I think the point can be highlighted by simply quoting some of the emotive language in the article. “infiltrating local councils”, “bankrolling legal challenges”, “sanctioned bribery”, “refused him planning permission”, “infiltrated other morals groups”, “secretly being elected to local councils”, “moral agendas”, “entryism”, “decisions on moral matters have been compromised by this cult”, “Lithgow councillor Martin Ticehurst said he was disturbed”, “Councils should not be allowed to accept money from any activist group”, “It could be perceived as a form of bribery”, “The sect”.
Now I accept that in order to sell news it has to be dressed in emotive language, and that much of the language is contained in quotes but the apparent blind acceptance by this journalist of the assumptions behind this article is all too common in reporting of these and similar issues.
The bottom line here is that adult shops are being hypocritical in their attitude here. It is fine for them to thrust on society their moral code but dare anybody disagree with them then they are branded as sectarian, extremest activists and insinuations of illegal activity are alleged.
There is nothing in this article that indicates that the Exclusive Brethren have done anything illegal or immoral. In fact they appear to have done nothing more than exercise their democratic right. It appears to me that the adult shops are terrified that the democratic process is not biased in their favour.