Ahh... the joys of propaganda. Don't argue the question, argue the fear.

Ahh... the joys of propaganda. Don't argue the question, argue the fear.

Originally shared by Lev Lafayette

I'm shocked to discover that the 'No' campaign is entirely based around arguing about issues not actually about the survey in an attempt to manipulate people.
Who would have thought that they would stoop so low?

Secret documents reveal the No campaign's strategy to manipulate you

Step 1: talk about freedom. Step 2: talk about the children. Step 3: mention the 260 genders that will result from a Yes vote.

We’ve been told many times that the marriage equality plebiscite isn’t actually actually about same-sex marriage at all. Instead, what it’s “really” about is political correctness, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, gender fluidity, boys in dresses and potential marriage to national monuments. This is not accidental. As a Crikey spy has found out, it’s the No campaign’s central strategy.

Our tipster got curious after seeing a link to the website of No campaigners Coalition for Marriage on Senator Eric Abetz’s Twitter feed and decided to get inside information by volunteering to help. She was subject to a group induction/interview over Skype, and took some screen shots of the material they were sent.

They show that No campaigners are telling their volunteers to stick to the “slippery slope” line. As the document says: “The grassroots NO campaign engages people’s natural sense of caution and suspicion.” Doorknockers are given a script, including possible conflicts they will encounter and how to answer them, broken down into different age groups and their likely responses. Engaging this natural sense of fear, forms a free-floating basis of the No conversations. In their opening lines, doorknockers are encouraged to mention they are voting no because they “don’t trust what the government will do”.

The talking points also breaks down the likely views on same-sex marriage based on age.

The 18-to-25-year-olds are classed as “mostly yes”. The volunteer is encouraged to congratulate the householder on their democratic participation and applaud the compassion that makes them likely to vote yes. However, they are to be reminded that this is actually a question of free speech, which they will “feel later on if this is lost”. The notes sadly leave out the most difficult part of the argument for the doorknocker: how to make the connection between the two concepts less opaque.

People between 35 and 45 are described as a soft yes “mostly from compassion if their own children identify as LGBTQI”. Doorknockers are encouraged to again acknowledge their compassion, but also that these voters should be told to worry about their children “now” not “if” — again, our spy said the campaign didn’t really explain what that meant.

The No campaigners see the over-55s as the most likely to agree with them. Men in this bracket, according to the CFM, distrust the government, the LGBTQI lobby and “trendies”(well, who doesn’t?). Women over 55 are also suspicious of change and worry about the futures of their children and grandchildren. The main challenge is ensuring they translate that distrust and suspicion into a vote for No.

Under “general conversation”, volunteers are encouraged to use the full acronym LBGQTI — our spy told us that the Coalition believes the full acronym “scares” people. The talking points set out rebuttals to common Yes campaign arguments. If they say “all love is love”, doorknockers are to say “not all love is marriage”. And if the punter says it’s about equality, the response is supposed to be the not at all baseless and/or insane assertion that “we have equality between the sexes, this will include 260 new genders” (sadly the genders remain unspecified).

If they do receive sustained argument from someone whose door they have knocked on, volunteers are encouraged to wrap up the conversation, say that they don’t hate anyone, they’re just worried about freedom of speech and children’s education. If they think they’ve clinched support, they are supposed to invoke the same two non-marriage-related topics (kids ‘n’ freedom) to make sure that support becomes a No vote.



  1. I'm startled at how divisive this campaign has been, and how aggressive the Yes supporters have been; not just turning on their friends, but even against same sex couples who choose to vote No.

    When I've done investigations of my own, same sex couples I've encountered aren't interested in marriage - it means nothing to them, its heterosexual people who have been making all the noise.

  2. Kristopher Roebuck evidence?
    From my experience your statements about same sex couples whiff of BS.
    Remember also it was the Howard government that unilaterally de-legalised same sex marriage. Before that time the law was silent on the subject. The government is just wasting money at the end of the day parliament still has to vote and the arch conservatives will vote no regardless of the plebiscite as they have publicly stated when a referendum was originally mooted as Liberal party policy.

  3. My experience is that some do and some don't. Those that do should not be stopped simply because someone doesn't like it. As I am not affected it is not for me to decide how consenting adults wish to present themselves in society. The reality is that if no one is being harmed then the only fair answer is yes. Anything less and we start on the slippery slope of overbearing government regulation of everything that some group decides is offensive. The proposed burqa ban is another similar issue.

  4. For me the vote isn't about marriage per se but about correcting the downright nasty exclusions that result from the inability to register your relationship.
    For instance if your partner of decades is seriously ill or injured you may be excluded from their bedside and from any care decisions because you are not related.
    There are inheritance restrictions, restrictions in applying for joint financial instruments such as house loans, taxation restrictions, social benefit restrictions such as carers leave.
    The list goes on and on and all because one government changed the definition of marriage without any consultation of the people or consideration of ethics or fairness.

  5. All valid points Stephen Gunnell​


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Churchill Rd Raclette - Delendale Creamery

I am suddenly extremely angry.