Revoking Privileges from those Voicing Opinions Contrary to Yours

[Deleted member]

I thought that CL access was automatic for all Federal Politicians?

Which is a problem for QF, if you make one rule for all, how can you exclude one ?

 

[Pushka]

Even so, QF have the right to revoke it if they come to conclusion that a certain CL behaviour reflects badly on the airline.

Well that’s the part I can’t agree with. Excluding a politician when all politicians are granted access, simply because they express a certain point of view, is not on. What will be the next reason to exclude someone who has been granted access by virtue of office?
What is that saying? “I disagree with what you say but will defend to death your right to say it”

While most of us here might detest what this politician has said, he has not committed any type of crime. Having an opinion that others don’t agree with does not constitute bringing an organisation into disrepute.

 

[Denali]

His "charming chit chat" was hate speech and incites race and religion hate.

Im OK with standing on the side that says its not OK and support businesses not extending complimentary benefits to him or any other person that sprouts his bullshit.

I remember about 25yrs ago reading the book Denying the Holocaust and many people chose to ignore the deniers and let them have their platform and here we are, 2019 and there are naz_ flag carrying white nationalist in the streets and race hate pollies in Parliament. No thanks.

 

[TomVexille]

I thought that CL access was automatic for all Federal Politicians?

It's certainly not a benefit. That QF appear to have extended the invitation to all lately does not mean they have to.

From my point of view, just as the senator is entitled to his view, QF are entitled to refuse to do business with the senator as long as they don't beach anti-discrimination law.

 

[Pushka]

I detest what he said however if the access to CL is granted to all Politicians then excluding someone because of what they say, and who did not break any laws in doing so, and he didn't do that, sets up a really nasty precedent that can get ambushed by anyone's political agenda who is "in control" of granting such access.

 

[mrsterryn]

For an invitation only community /club etc they should be able to retain the right to review their members and withdraw the invitation if the person or persons no longer meets the criteria
If the Chairman's lounge does have such set criteria .
Would they then have to invite him back if his status changed e.g. became CEO of a very important company ?Or would his current actions ban him forever or until the media outcry went away?
As someone said above be mindful of anti discrimination

Shame there isn't a clause that said "dropkicks can't sit here " cause I think there is a long list
Ok way to early to try and be coherent

 

[boomy]

What is that saying? “I disagree with what you say but will defend to death your right to say it”

While most of us here might detest what this politician has said, he has not committed any type of crime. Having an opinion that others don’t agree with does not constitute bringing an organisation into disrepute.

So where’s the line? Can someone say absolutely anything they like just because they are in parliament? We’ve been there before and it ended badly for millions of people so I must disagree with your quote, freedom of speech should not be defended to death, there should be a line.

Regardless if a crime has been committed or not, QF as a private business have full rights to draw their own line of morality. We often see other businesses revoke sponserhip deals and privileges taken away from celebrities who make all kinds of racist comments. Dirty politicians should get similar treatment.

 

[vetrade]

The criticism I have of Joyce is that he is using his position as an airline executive to be a political activist threatening consequences for those he does not agree with. His personal opinions about matters unrelated to running QF should be put aside (as other people running businesses do on a daily basis in the interests of being seen to be non-discriminatory) as it could be construed that he is abusing his position of power.

Joyce banned a WA farmer from flying with QF because he did not agree with gay marriage and now we see him trying to strip CL priveleges from Anning but I think his reach has already extended well beyond what is reasonable. I think it is time that the QF board told Joyce to pull his head in but that's not going to happen.

 

[Denali]

.....
Joyce banned a WA farmer from flying with QF because he did not agree with gay marriage a....

The WA farmer that assaulted a QF employee at a workplace function?

 

[Pushka]

So where’s the line? Can someone say absolutely anything they like just because they are in parliament? We’ve been there before and it ended badly for millions of people so I must disagree with your quote, freedom of speech should not be defended to death, there should be a line.

Regardless if a crime has been committed or not, QF as a private business have full rights to draw their own line of morality. We often see other businesses revoke sponserhip deals and privileges taken away from celebrities who make all kinds of racist comments. Dirty politicians should get similar treatment.

As soon as you draw a line you are making a personal judgement. Which of course is what we do on a personal level. But that isnt what democracy is all about.

Whose line of morality is Qantas using anyway? Do the shareholders agree? There are lots of dirty politicians, as long as they hold a position in the Government as an elected member then my thoughts are that regardless of what we think about them, withdrawing that access based on their legally made comments, is an act of discrimination, in this case, political.

 

[opusman]

(Big) companies act politically all the time. You're a bit naive if you think they don't.

 

[Deleted member]

So where’s the line? Can someone say absolutely anything they like just because they are in parliament? We’ve been there before and it ended badly for millions of people so I must disagree with your quote, freedom of speech should not be defended to death, there should be a line.

Regardless if a crime has been committed or not, QF as a private business have full rights to draw their own line of morality. We often see other businesses revoke sponserhip deals and privileges taken away from celebrities who make all kinds of racist comments. Dirty politicians should get similar treatment.

So, who draws the line? the Militant left? the extreme right? who is to be the final arbiter?
IMHO if you force people underground, then you're not silencing them, just removing them from public view.

 

[eastwest101]

I think the more pertinent question is why there is a CL at all, sure as a business QF has the right to run an exclusive "club" that, lets face it, is purely there to curry political favour, I don't think shareholders in QF see any benefit from a CL so I think its probably a good idea if shareholders feel strongly about it then they could ask some questions about it or attach some agreed preconditions to QF management.

I think the statement that "the standards you walk by are the standards you accept" is a bit simplistic but worthy of further considering. I think the whole concept of the CL is very peculiar indeed, and if translated to other industries and/or companies, would raise all sorts of questions, would it be acceptable for Banks to offer interest free loans to politicians? What about power companies, can they offer discounted electricity plans for politicians or political parties? Same questions about Private Health Insurance, advertising and media companies etc etc The answer is no and the description of such offers would be described as corruption.

If Qantas and other airline management/leadership want to play politics they can first of all get shareholder approval for it, then either be transparent about their political donations, or resign from their positions in the airline and run for parliament themselves. They are probably better off trying to work out how to keep their respective airlines profitable, competitive and running smoothly.

 

[Deleted member]

Let's not forget, While CL membership is about position as we know, Pollies, CEO's and the like, BUT it is after all l(ultimately) inked to spend!
Senator Anning actually spent a shed load in travel last year according the the SMH, it would be a bit rich to reward one of your biggest (Govt) spenders with a black ball on CL membership.
im not advocating any specific position here, just pointing out the conundrum

 

[drron]

The WA farmer that assaulted a QF employee at a workplace function?

Yes he was charged with assault for giving AJ a pie in the face.The fellow that threw an egg at julia Gillard but missed was charged with assault.
but the lad who egged Anning is a hero.

 

[eastwest101]

Let's not forget, While CL membership is about position as we know, Pollies, CEO's and the like, BUT it is after all l(ultimately) inked to spend!
Senator Anning actually spent a shed load in travel last year according the the SMH, it would be a bit rich to reward one of your biggest (Govt) spenders with a black ball on CL membership.
im not advocating any specific position here, just pointing out the conundrum

Well if its going to be about spend - then given the high percentage of politicians in the CL then the spend is courtesy of the Australian government and hence - Australian taxpayer, so anyone that pays more tax than benefits received is entitled to their percentage membership of the CL then.... I'l slip my application in and see how I go....

 

[TomVexille]

Yes he was charged with assault for giving AJ a pie in the face.The fellow that threw an egg at julia Gillard but missed was charged with assault.
but the lad who egged Anning is a hero.

Still assault for mine

 

[DC3]

I thought that CL access was automatic for all Federal Politicians?

… and not by invitation?

 

[vetrade]

(Big) companies act politically all the time. You're a bit naive if you think they don't.

I was talking about "apples" and you take the discussion off on a tangent to one about "oranges" and I'm the one who's supposedly naive when you apparently can't even comprehend the discussion point???

The discussion was about using executive power inappropriately in the pursuit of personal agendas unrelated to the business's operations. Companies regularly act politically where the politics affects that business directly or, even more broadly, the sector in which it operates. There is nothing inherently inappropriate about that and, it could be argued, they could be negligent in their duty to shareholders if they failed to do so.

In this case, Qantas, the business, IMO has been used inappropriately by Joyce to press his own personal point of view when it has nothing more than a very tenuous relationship to the business of flying planes, at best. In other contexts such an abuse of power has the potential to put you on the slippery slope to all sorts of inappropriate consequences, including corrupt practices.

 

[Pushka]

… and not by invitation?

That too. But all Feds are given access.