Revoking Privileges from those Voicing Opinions Contrary to Yours

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alyopsis

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Posts
114
Forgive me if this has already got a run or is slightly off piste vis a vis location. I'm sure I will be corrected.

A few news sites over the last day or two have raised the possible banning of Senator Anning from the Chairman's Lounge for his charming chit chat about Christchurch and people who aren't like him.

Now I have never been in a Chairman's Lounge but I figure that's no loss if there's a chance I might have to smile at the good Senator at the next table. I'd rather hang with the high vis Y riff raff in the Qantas Lounge.

But we all have personal views. On senatorial matters I could cheerfully ban one Sarah Hansen Young from ever been seen or heard in public again, but we are all entitled to our opinions, even if they are off.

Is it appropriate for a business like Qantas to start banning customers because they voice their opinions totally unrelated to the business ? Should Senator Anning's bank ask him to bank elsewhere ? Should Coles cancel his Flybuys account ? Should his vet tell him to take his dog elsewhere ?

If the Senator was relentlessly bagging Qantas, they might have a point, but I believe he is quite keen on parking his cough in a Qantas J seat.

I'm gay in a quiet mind my own business way. I have never flown Emirates because of how the UAE governments treat gay people. I've always been a bit ho hum about the Qantas / Emirates tie up because of this and the irony of Mr Joyce been one of the drivers of this hook doesn't escape me. But it is a commercial decision. I've never boycotted Qantas over it. Even if I think it's slightly off.

Perhaps, respectfully, rather than mulling over membership lists, Qantas should concentrate on getting people from A to B on time and think about improving the dinners on the 6.30pm out of MEL. Core business.

As for the Senator, I suspect he will fade from public view once the election is over and once he has to start paying for his own flights I reckon Mr Joyce will be seeing far less of him on his planes. A win for everybody.
 
Personally I think most if not all businesses should have a "no cough" policy. While I'm generally a fan of the right to free speech I'm also a believer if the right of others to say you can go and spouted your bigoted rubbish elsewhere.

I'm also a fan of the quote that "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept". The fact that Senator Anning is allowed to say it doesnt mean anyone has to accept it, indeed I think as both individuals and business we not only can but should speak out against this sort of hateful speech.
 
Forgive me if this has already got a run or is slightly off piste vis a vis location. I'm sure I will be corrected.

A few news sites over the last day or two have raised the possible banning of Senator Anning from the Chairman's Lounge for his charming chit chat about Christchurch and people who aren't like him.

Now I have never been in a Chairman's Lounge but I figure that's no loss if there's a chance I might have to smile at the good Senator at the next table. I'd rather hang with the high vis Y riff raff in the Qantas Lounge.

But we all have personal views. On senatorial matters I could cheerfully ban one Sarah Hansen Young from ever been seen or heard in public again, but we are all entitled to our opinions, even if they are off.

Is it appropriate for a business like Qantas to start banning customers because they voice their opinions totally unrelated to the business ? Should Senator Anning's bank ask him to bank elsewhere ? Should Coles cancel his Flybuys account ? Should his vet tell him to take his dog elsewhere ?

If the Senator was relentlessly bagging Qantas, they might have a point, but I believe he is quite keen on parking his **** in a Qantas J seat.

I'm gay in a quiet mind my own business way. I have never flown Emirates because of how the UAE governments treat gay people. I've always been a bit ho hum about the Qantas / Emirates tie up because of this and the irony of Mr Joyce been one of the drivers of this hook doesn't escape me. But it is a commercial decision. I've never boycotted Qantas over it. Even if I think it's slightly off.

Perhaps, respectfully, rather than mulling over membership lists, Qantas should concentrate on getting people from A to B on time and think about improving the dinners on the 6.30pm out of MEL. Core business.

As for the Senator, I suspect he will fade from public view once the election is over and once he has to start paying for his own flights I reckon Mr Joyce will be seeing far less of him on his planes. A win for everybody.
It's an interesting topic and I'm sure there will be different opinions. Part of me agrees with you about his right to make statements that don't relate to the business but then I also think that by banning Anning a company can make a statement about the standards we should be accepting (hopefully just not virtue. signalling).
 
Is it appropriate for a business like Qantas to start banning customers because they voice their opinions totally unrelated to the business ? Should Senator Anning's bank ask him to bank elsewhere ? Should Coles cancel his Flybuys account ? Should his vet tell him to take his dog elsewhere ?

But they are not talking about banning him from the airline. They are simply talking about revoking his membership of an invite only club. So quite unlike the other examples you have cited.
 
Probably better off retaining his membership... before the turkey is lynched in the more populated airport areas
:eek:
 
Is it appropriate for a business like Qantas to start banning customers because they voice their opinions totally unrelated to the business ?

Yes, totally inappropriate for a business to be taking actions like that, they are not the moral police.

It also highlights the hypocrisy of Qantas/Joyce, waving the rainbow flag whilst doing business with a govt airline of a country where the 'rainbow' is a crime.

Qantas is not consistent.
 
It's a slippery slope imho.

While Annings statement are genuinely abhorrent, they are seemingly within the bounds of free speech

If you ban him, do you also ban
Pauline Hanson
George Christinsen
Mark Latham

Even
Michael Daley after his pub comments
 
^ But as woodborer said, they’re not banning him from anything which was paid for or anything earned via status ... they’re just taking him out of the exclusive free “people we like” club.
 
Australia has a history of banning people who have conflicting views. IMO it shows the narrow-mindedness of some folks in power.
 
I didn’t realise getting CL was as easy as finding 19 people to vote for you in an election.

Not condoning anything that Sen Anning said but he has been legally elected as a senator with 19 primary votes plus all the preferences harvested from hither and yon, I don't agree with the current electoral system either but until it's changed we will continue to see weirdos elected by the flawed system as it currently exists.
 
don't agree with the current electoral system either but until it's changed we will continue to see weirdos elected by the flawed system as it currently exists.

The 19 is a bit of furphy.
I suspect the vast majority of LNP and Labor senators didn't get any more BTL votes.

Reality is he was #3 on the ON ticket with no chance of actually getting elected, just got promoted after the High Court rulings.

Given the Federal (and NSW) systems have gone to optional preferential voting (ie. No group tickets) I think we'd be better off getting rid of Below the line voting altogether - the main reason for going below can now be done above.
 
Freedom of speech means that people have the right to voice an opinion that you might agree with or completely and abhorrently disagree with. But more and more it seems that such Freedom of speech is being shaped into a one way direction.
 
The fact that he actually did say it suggests freedom of speech is alive and well?

Freedom of speech doesn't mean everyone else has to respect and not challenge what you say.
 
The fact that he actually did say it suggests freedom of speech is alive and well?

Freedom of speech doesn't mean everyone else has to respect and not challenge what you say.
Sure but it seems there are completely non related consequences lining up for saying it. So not freedom at all.

True freedom of speech of course means your comments are open to scrutiny. And there is never a place for attacking the person not the comments.
 
Freedom of speech means that people have the right to voice an opinion that you might agree with or completely and abhorrently disagree with. But more and more it seems that such Freedom of speech is being shaped into a one way direction.

Nothing new, using freedom of speech to promote racist views been done for years. At least here in Australia the vast majority still rejects these views.

I have no problem with reviewing the Senator’s CL membership. QF is a private business and their obligations are first and foremost to the shareholders. It’s not uncommon that a business would like to distance itself from people who make racist comments. CL is “by invitation only” FF status and QF have full rights not to invite someone who reflects badly on their business.
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Nothing new, using freedom of speech to promote racist views been done for years. At least here in Australia the vast majority still rejects these views.

I have no problem with reviewing the Senator’s CL membership. QF is a private business and their obligations are first and foremost to the shareholders. It’s not uncommon that a business would like to distance itself from people who make racist comments. CL is “by invitation only” FF status and QF have full rights not to invite someone who reflects badly on their business.
I thought that CL access was automatic for all Federal Politicians?
 
I thought that CL access was automatic for all Federal Politicians?

Even so, QF have the right to revoke it if they come to conclusion that a certain CL behaviour reflects badly on the airline.
 
The fact that he actually did say it suggests freedom of speech is alive and well?

Freedom of speech doesn't mean everyone else has to respect and not challenge what you say.

I agree, I disagree strongly with some of the far left, I don’t think that those involved should be banned from doing things like invitation only airport lounges. I prefer the polite disagreement road.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top