The story’s not complete till someone’s been sacked

If I understand the News Ltd reasoning on people expressing themselves politically in their non-work time, without identifying their employer, in a way that can be demonised:

  • If you work for an organisation that is “taxpayer-funded”, you should be sacked for offending the Australian public, as represented by an American corporate media giant.
  • If you work for a private organisation, it should be contacted and made aware of what you’ve done until it’s embarrassed enough to sack you (or “put you on indefinite leave”).

Frankly, we need better industrial laws protecting people from being punished by employers for expressing themselves politically in public. If you do not identify your employer, it’s none of their damn business what you do in your spare time. What the hell kind of precedent are we establishing here? Do we really want bosses to have the right to sack workers who dare barrack for the opposing team? (“I’m sorry, but you were seen handing out Greens HTVs on election day. That does not fit with the values of our company, as expressed by the Liberal-voting board. GET OUT.”) Do we want your ability to participate in the political debate limited by what your boss tells you you can say? (“Mr Palmer has told me I can speak up on the mining tax as long as I’m condemning it.”) Do we want to live in a country in which the only views that can be vigorously expressed by those who want to continue to put food on their family’s table is the corporate-approved one?

What does this kind of thing say about our freedoms as Australians?


Ummm-marr! We’re gonna tell on you, Mr Stewart!

And what does it say about News Ltd “journalists” that they think it is appropriate to find out who you work for and try to get you sacked? The idea that they will contact your employer to complain about your legal, legitimate political expression and apply so much pressure that they buckle and you lose your job, that is offensive.

(Where’s a copy of The Courier Mail? Maybe Mr Stewart should see how well he can smoke that.)

Advertisements

11 responses to “The story’s not complete till someone’s been sacked

  1. First I looked at this and thought it was a bit of a juvenile stunt, but then I realised that he was making a serious considered point… with a juvenile stunt. But I’m sorry… how the hell does a 12 minute youtube video with pyrotechnics reminiscent of a Cheech and Chong sketch qualify as grounds for dismissal?

    Sheesh. QUT should take notes from the University of Minnesota – Morris, whose resident megablogger PZ Myers obviously inspired this stunt with his own “Crackergate”.

  2. The university’s actions are far more offensive than those of its employee. Once upon a time universities cherished freedom of expression. Now they are repressive institutions bent on stifling free speech in favour of their own grotesque norms.

  3. This just shows how far Universitys have morphed from progressive sites of free expression to factories pumping out the next generation of conservative wage slaves.

  4. Don’t forget, the university is also trying to protect it’s very, very, very, very lucrative international student business. You wouldn’t want to offend students who pay twice as much and up front now, would you?

  5. Who’s the freaked out, tofu munching Lefty who stole SB’s identity??

  6. Splatterbottom

    Phil, the ‘grotesque norms’ modern universities foist on their inmates include the relentlessly progressive PC agenda that permeates the social sciences, stifles debate and chills free speech. This recent episode is merely an example of the PC hypersensitivity to offending Islam that you find in such places.

    Rather refreshingly, this blog has some appreciation of the essential right to freedom of speech.

  7. This recent episode is merely an example of the PC hypersensitivity to offending Islam that you find in such places.

    Or, alternatively, it is an example of the University’s abject fear of a loss of revenue due to reduced enrolments – which is symptomatic of the corruption of principle that comes with our Universities’ slow surrender to pure capitalism.

    Either way it’s grossly offensive to the notion of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

  8. Careful, if you’re both criticising them, they’ll think they’re doing something right.

  9. You’ve got to remember that the people with the most influence within Australian universities these days have MBAs and not PhDs. This reaction was entirely expected.

  10. “Phil, the ‘grotesque norms’ modern universities foist on their inmates include the relentlessly progressive PC agenda that permeates the social sciences, stifles debate and chills free speech. This recent episode is merely an example of the PC hypersensitivity to offending Islam that you find in such places.” – SB

    As has been already pointed out, this is almost certainly a case of the conservative-financial agenda at work.

  11. News are just shitty cos he’s encroaching on their territory. Offending Muslims. And to think he included Christians inthe same target audience. That’s blasphemy.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s