Peel denies censorship claim
The Peel hotel has rejected claims a patron was banned from the venue for posting a negative online comment about the hotel’s owner running for Liberal Party preselection.
La Trobe University nursing student Eric Le Roy told Southern Star he was told by security staff in the early hours of Sunday July 11 he was no longer welcome at the Collingwood gay nightspot unless he deleted a post on The Peel’s Facebook site which labelled McFeely’s decision to run for the Liberal Party as ‘shameful’.
Le Roy, who frequents the bar weekly, claims a security staff member recognised his photo from Facebook and stopped him as he left the bar.
“I was told if I wanted to come back in that I would have to delete it,” he said. “I said I wouldn’t delete it because I have the right to say what I think and not to support the Liberal party.”
Le Roy said he was then told he wouldn’t be allowed back in the venue in future.
Peel owner Tom McFeely told Southern Star he had spoken to the venue’s security and bar staff and no one was aware of the incident.
“My official comment would be that this is fabricated, I have spoken to everyone and they don’t know about it,” he said.
“This is a democracy … I would prefer that people use the Peel [Facebook] site for personal rather than a political debate, that’s where we post our scene photos and event listings up, but I guess he can say what he likes.”
I would like to ask [Le Roy] to come and see me directly to talk more about this, because as far as I can tell, my staff don’t know anything about it.”
McFeely is seeking endorsement as the number two Liberal Party candidate for the Northern Metropolitan Region upper house seat in Victorian Parliament.
The Victorian division of the Liberal Party is set to meet on August 1 to make a decision.
Eric –
I have found never to assume conspiracy. The bouncer might well of been a supporter of Tom’s that acted without his knowledge. I have always found it best to give people the benefit of the doubt until they act otherwise.
If Tom were to get rid of all those that wanted Same-Sex Marriage the Peel would have a fifth of the people that attend.
Tom- The term Marriage means a lot to the community. I want it as does a majority of the community. I can see it is always easier to argue for something else, but I and others want this symbol of recognition. It is a hard fight. Others have fought and won and so will we. Let us be bold and brave. Let us be leaders. Catholic Spain got it. One of the most religious places in Europe got Same-Sex Marriage who’s religious leader says all sorts of horrid things about us.
If some individual politicians did not have the courage and conviction in these countries, then it would not of happened. If they were not so bold and brave, nothing would of happened. It is time for change. Marriage is the highest recognition of a relationship by government. Whilst that is the case I seek to have what my brother has. I seek equality in the way the State and the community see my love for my partner. I and the majority of the GLBTQI community seek Equal Love.
Dave,
I couldn’t agree more. Unless we’re fighting for full equality and nothing less, no compromises, we’ll only ever get crumbs. But I think it’s also wrong to rely just on the Greens. We need to rely on each other to do something about it, like we always have. But not just marriage equality, a movement against homophobia generally. So we can not just be legally equal, but free of all kinds of discrimination and harassment.
Tom,
Too funny for words? The reason I’m not contacting you is because I am quite happy to have this conversation in public, just like you have your Liberal party dreams out in public.
OK, so you know the incident happened at about 4:30am on Sunday morning on the 11th. You check the security footage and see if you can’t see three guys being called back as they leave and walk south down Wellington St. I have no interest in making stuff like this up. Plus I have two witnesses who were right there with me when it happened. The bouncer is number 88. After that, you left a message on your southern star article on which I commented, you said I was ‘welcome’ at the Peel. Remember?
So I went back to the Peel, seeing if that was actually true, and I recorded a 5 minute discussion that I had with the bouncer in which he repeatedly admits (by implication) that he did what I claim. In the conversation I am asking him why he did what he did, and he is asking me why I complained. The first thing he does is pull me aside and ask me why I complained, so he actually initiated the thing but I anticipated that he would so I had my phone on ‘record’. If there was some way I could post it online I would then people could hear it, but I don’t think that’s possible.
As for the $500. Why not just donate it to a charity anyway, as a gesture of good faith from The Peel. To the ALSO foundation. I have contacted you Tom. I am contacting you right now. I contacted you via a southern star journalist. Respond as you so please. It’s not my job to sift through security footage. You can do that, and you WILL see the incident. I don’t know why you haven’t thought of this earlier.
Dave –
Again, I must refer you to my press release on this issue. I WANT the rights and benefits that are enjoyed by our “married” male and female couples around the country. I just don’t agree that we NEED the word “marriage” included at this current juncture. The political arena is currently uncomfortable with the thought of anything that includes the word marriage. I understand and respect their views although I would argue those views are skewed. Surely Dave, recognition is more important than terminology.
You say we may have to wait years for legislation to be put through. I disagree. Times are changing. However, will be waiting longer if we as a community stubbornly insist on using the word marriage.
Tom- Thank you for the time of making a detailed reply.
I guess we have to agree to disagree on this. British Politics is very different to Australian Politics. Civil Unions is not on the agenda of either Federal Labor or Liberal. It will have to be Marriage only in Australia if it is to have any chance of passing.
You openly not supporting Same-Sex Marriage damages the cause as politicians can point your way and say “Look the Gay community does not support it”.
If we go down your path our community will be waiting over 20 years before it could be put on the agenda of either party. Our political parties are simply not the same as those in the UK.
I am with former High Court Judge Kirby on this. The time for Same-Sex Marriage to be raised is now. That is why thousands have protested in the streets. The Greens are the only party that advocates openly for our rights. It is a party those that seek human rights such as Same-Sex Marriage are getting behind.
If we were to adopt the approach Tom, homosexuality would still be illegal in Australia. You would not of been able to run your fantastic iconic business the Peel Hotel. You would not of had the opportunity to run for office. It takes brave politicians to stand up and say enough is enough. They are lacking in Liberal and Labor.
Hi Eric
It’s Tom here again. Why won’t you back up your claims and contact us here at The Peel?
Why? Because it’s too funny for words! My security recognised YOU from facebook!! They hardly recognise ME! Tell you what; I’ll donate $500 to your favourite charity if you even have the integrity to contact us and go through the security footage with us!
Dear Dave
I think you miss the point love. NO main political party is supporting any legislation that includes the word marriage – apart from the greens who find it very easy to support almost anything as long as they don’t have the responsibility of actually getting it through parliament. I am a realist. If you had taken the time to read my press releases you would see my views on this. And, if you are not already aware, myself and my partner are in fact legally recognised under British law. Part of me understands why some politicians on both sides of politics have an issue with the word marriage based on their individual relegious beleifs. I disagree, but respect their views. What I don’t understand is why an aethist prime minister also objects. Is she just plain homophobic?
Lets walk this path of recognition one step at a time. I think it is fantastic that the legislation on the UK may now be ‘amended’ to include the word marriage. Having the word marriage in the initial legislation would simply not have passed. As a gay man I want the same rights and benefits as my straight freinds, and frankly I don’t care what name they put to the legislation, just as long as it happens.
As I always say…… it’s a democracy. Vote for whoever you like, just don’t let yourself be bullied into voting a particular way just because of who you are; where you live; or what community you belong to. We’re not sheep, we’re individuals.
I ask you all to consider what are the qualities of politicians that you see in the media?
Would a politician fudge the truth? Do you think a politician is sneaky? Are the good ones excellent sales people? Do they make you feel good about the product they have. Do they look honest and well presented? Could a politician set someone up to further their cause of persecution? To attack critics.
I struggle with all this when I look at Tom McFeely. He does not dream the dream of Equality as I see it. I just know his dreams are not of my rights as a gay man. It is not of our rights as a community.
We need a strong advocate for our community in the Liberal Party. We need someone will not advocate against us but for us. I do not want someone who may use the office to attack us, to say we should not have some rights.
I want a person who can dream the dream of equality for all of our community. I think Tom McFeely is clearly not that person.
I am not sure I trust a Liberal Candidate who seeks to use his power to advocate against Same-Sex Marriage.
If it is trust Tom McFeely wants, then I do struggle to trust him. This issue makes me question why security footage was not released right away. I really question Tom a bit more now. The allegation might not be true, but I honestly struggle with him.
Every society has had a ceremony of some description to recognize that two people are in a committed relationship to each other. Same-Sex Marriage has been documented in Pre-Modern Europe, Ancient Rome, and Imperial China. Even Jesus affirmed a Same-Sex couple http://www.whywouldwe.net/site…gay-couple . To think the Church owns Marriage is very wrong. It does not and never has. The community has always owned it. I think the case for Same-Sex Marriage has not been made to all in the GLBTQI community. It has just been thrust upon people assuming they all would say