It is not so long ago when social justice warriors, morons, self-styled activists and Green MPs abused and boycotted a family-run company, Coopers Brewery, after its beer featured in a Bible Society debate between Liberal MPs Tim Wilson and Andrew Hastie, who held opposing views on same-sex marriage.
Get it clear, though Coopers partnered with the Bible Society to release a limited run of 10,000 cases of Premium Light beer printed with Bible verses to celebrate the Society’s 200th birthday, that was all they did. They did NOT sponsor the Bible Society’s video nor give permission to feature in the video.
The Bible Society backed up the statement, and told the ABC, “It’s true that they [Coopers] didn’t sponsor the video, no money changed hands, they weren’t consulted, that was entirely the Bible Society’s work”.
Well, who gives a shit? screamed the queers and Greens, they were offended. Gee, they love being offended. And by all that’s holy you do not offend a poofter, in fact you do not offend the easily offended. The ABC and Fairfax will be right at their door for a quote.
Actually, all journos loved it, what a target, jump right in, get quotes from pubs especially one where queers drink and have jerks talk about values.
Now people with the same mind-set are jumping on advertisers on the Bolt report on Sky news. Commenters on MM have been jumping back at the lily-livered human administrators who pulled the ads. Different ones are dealing with it differently telling the lily-livered administrators that they will no longer deal with them.
But it will end there unless further action is taken.
And one of the best ways is to get in touch with the various Consumer Affairs Tribunals.
They have certain rules how complaints have to be dealt with. If a complaint is dealt with in the way that the notorious Bendigo Bank deals with it, by blandly stating that they have values, then that is a legitimate complaint for the CATs.
In a case like this the complaint can run
A. My complaint was not dealt with properly. A fob-off letter mentioning vague unspecified values is not a proper response. I require an investigation.
B. On a wider note, it is no function of a company engaged in commerce to use its advertising power to actively negatively influence free speech. In such a case every citizen of the commonwealth is affected.
Similarly one may complain to the Human Rights Tribunals complaining that by influencing public broadcasters a human right to hear other opinions is being curtailed or influenced.