Whether the government will be successful in its legal ploy to have the people responsible for #censusfail run a $122 million postal survey on marriage equality remains to be seen; the threshold for the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ power to collect “statistics” is fairly low. A successful court challenge appears unlikely.

But for every Australian of voting age, there’s a different issue — whether to participate in the survey, if it happens.

The pragmatic argument is that this is the shortest path to marriage equality; that a successful outcome will pave the way for a parliamentary vote before the end of the year. It’s an important consideration. 

But there are two objections to that: the delay beyond that timing is unlikely to be significantly longer — perhaps no more than two years; the chances of a successful parliamentary vote will increase after the next election as either the Coalition will win, and it might have changed policy on a conscience vote by then, or Labor will win, and the matter will be legislated rapidly. The odds are greater than 50-50 that change will come following the next election.

The other is that the vilification and smearing of LGBTI Australians, same-sex couples and, in particular, same-sex parents will inflict real harm on those communities. The nauseating attacks on same-sex parents in particular, as, in effect, child abusers are beyond offensive. Homophobic groups and politicians are already engaging in smears. However, that will happen whether individuals participate or not, so it does not have a bearing on whether to fill out the junk mail from the ABS and return it.

[A postal plebiscite is a bad idea — just ask Malcolm Turnbull]

The more important argument is the idea behind a plebiscite or opinion poll on the basic rights of a minority. Yes, we know the reality is that the idea behind it is that Tony Abbott wanted to delay and sabotage marriage equality as long as possible, and that Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership is too weak for him to allow a parliamentary vote. But let’s take the government at its word that this is about fulfilling an election commitment to give voters a say.

The argument that this is an election commitment is irrelevant — and governments routinely break election promises without apology. It is the idea of “giving voters a say” that is the crux of the issue. The core of what the government is doing — whether via junk mail or a fully fledged compulsory vote — is that basic rights are a gift from the majority of the electorate to a minority, that the decision to remove an impediment to enjoying basic rights is one that should be made by the majority of voters, nearly all of whom have their basic rights intact.

[This postal plebiscite bullshit is nothing but fear, wrapped in cowardice, inside stupidity]

Participation in this vote legitimises the idea that human rights have no independent existence, that they are not innate to individuals but are simply a present to be bestowed by the electorate — and thus could be withdrawn from the electorate.

It’s true that the 1967 referendum, in ending the constitutional prohibition on counting Aboriginal Australians in the Australian population, was in effect a conferral of a basic right of some kind to indigenous Australians, if only to be recognised as existing for electoral and census purposes. But that referendum was the only mechanism by which the overriding of a basic right could be ended, because it was embedded in the constitution. There is no constitution to change her; a parliamentary vote would suffice to reverse the discrimination implemented by the Howard government (without a plebiscite, tellingly).

Instead of being a “unifying moment” as the government insists, the postal survey is a deeply divisive moment, not merely or even primarily because of the abuse it has already unleashed. It is an intentional display of raw majoritarian power over the basic rights of a minority, the core message of which is that the latter have no innate rights, but only rights bestowed at the whim of the majority. There can be no ethical participation in such an exercise, unless you believe that rights are mere presents to be handed out only when we feel like it.