I must say that I was shocked by that, because it seems to go against many fundamental principles of a democratic state, and in my opinion, it's an extremist behaviour. Gay activism is good, but anybody, any group of interest has to respect some basic rules, that are the pillars of democracy.
First of all, it's an attack on the freedom of thinking. Everybody is allowed to think what they want whether you like it or not. To boycott somebody in order to make him think what you want is not desirable because it doesn't allow to have a free opinion, and is also stupid: it doesn't work, and I would say it even comfort the thinker in his position. It has to be banned because the freedom of thinking is the basic need of a democracy. Everyone should also be allowed to express this opinon, especially on the political scene, and therefore to support politicians who bring the ideas on the scene. Some people supported prop8, some gay people supported the campaign against it. I don't see why only one side should be allowed to support the campaign and then suffer the consequences of the financing.
The kind of gay activists that put names, adresses, or any informations that they put on blogs/sites/maps etc are using the same means that they are trying to ban when used against the gay community. What if the supporters of prop8 were putting the names of every gay guys and girls that supported the no on prop 8 on a map? It would be considered as intolerable, and it is all the same intolerable to do that to prop8 supporters.
The informations laws are made to give an idea of the ammounts that are recolted, and show the lobbies that supported a campaign, not to punish some people to pay for their ideas to be voted. What was done with the informations found by this way is clearly an abuse of this law.
The gay community needs arguments, needs to convince the people, in order to obtain some rights. The boycott seldom give any results, for it comforts the people in their position, it strengthen the opposition instead of installing the dialog that is needed.
4 comments:
I do agree with your point, but have you ever faced the Republican, conservative right-wingers in the USA? Not to put down all Americans, but some of them talk so much about their religious beliefs that they convince themselves even more about them; it's hard to get people to change their minds. Reason and logical arguments do not work with them. Only God appearing and saying "being gay is okay" would change their minds.
Also, a boycott is also an expression of one's opinion... if you have freedom of speech and expression, you also have to live with the consequences of you practicing that freedom. So if you vote Yes on Prop 8, then people have the right to boycott your business/products.
Not to bring up a tit-for-tat situation or anything, but is a boycott as bad as getting your marriage rights revoked?
Having said all that... I don't really agree with the boycott, and I don't agree with harassing Prop 8 supporters either. I think Prop 8 will be overturned to return marriage rights to gays in California in the near future.
In a way I agree with you on the fact that boycott is a personnal decision, and of course it's normal that you do not want to buy at someone that voted against your rights, but the thing that really shocks me is the publication of the names and adresses etc, that doesn't seems right to me at all.
Of course it's easier for me to criticize as I'm not as involved as the people in california, and I didn't see my rights revoked. However, I think that getting to emotional and acting this way is not the right thing to do.
I will make a post about my position on gay marriage in general one of these days.
You make a good argument. There needs to be "fairness" and equality on both sides of the campaign, so that not only one voice is heard. This is democracy.
Now, I believe boycotting is more of a personal and organizational choice. The proponents of Prop 8 are free to boycott gay financers, but you're correct that you will ironically get the view of intolerance. Tolerance is something that should work both ways. Both sides should be free to boycott whatever they choose, as that's considered a freedom of speech/expression (though I agree that boycott isn't exactly an effective means of protest).
I personally boycott the cafe in my school because they charged me 5 cents for a plastic spoon. They lose my business is all, nothing more.
Rather than boycotting and protesting, gay activists should perhaps delve more into the legality of a law that removes the rights of a minority. While this is underway, it'll be interesting to see what the result will be.
Boycotting businesses because of something they are still doing can be a fair way of trying to persuade them to do something different. But to boycott them for something that is already done is useless. They cannot undo it.
As for individuals, to publish their names because you disagree with what they did is an attempt to discourage them from exercising their democratic rights by either encouraging people to harass them or by putting them in fear of harassment.
Post a Comment