Boris bans bigoted bus ad

[Alan H]

Mimicking Stonewall's 'I'm gay - get over it', ads, a religious organisation called the Core Issues Trust, who offer treatment to gays to 'cure' them, had intended to put up some bus ads this coming Monday that read:

There was fury when this leaked out yesterday with calls for complaints to the ASA. However, Boris has jumped in and banned the ads:

Anti-gay adverts pulled from bus campaign by Boris Johnson

Should such ads be banned?

[Alan C.]

I would say yes on the grounds that it's making a false claim that you can become "ex gay".

[Nick]

Yes, they should. Good ol' Boris!

[Dave B]

I agree that they should be banned as well, unless the victims of clergy abuse can have ads saying, "Lock up paedophile priests!" or similar.

I could have understood something to counter the BHA bus campaign, in a similar tone.

Conservative Anglicans, eh? Is that another name for religious fascists?

[Fia]

Hmm, cue loads more bleating about religious persecution. And the hoohaa has got their odious message across to a far wider audience than London, at very little cost. Win for the Core Issues Trust and cohorts.

Should they be banned? Probably

[Emma Woolgatherer]

Ooh. You know, I'm not entirely sure.

My first reaction was to think that Boris was wrong to ban the adverts. I'm against censorship. I don't believe people have the right not to be offended.

My second reaction was to agree with Alan C and Peter Tatchell: Boris was right to ban them, not because they're offensive but because they mislead.

But the ads read: "Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!" There's something underneath that that I can't read, but I think it's just a couple of URLs. As far as I can tell, there's no direct claim in the ad itself that homosexuality is an illness that can or should be cured, or that either of the organisations concerned (Core Issues Trust or Anglican Mainstream) is able to "cure" homosexuality using therapy, or even that it offers such therapy. Just a declaration that someone (or "some people", to echo the Stonewall ads) used to be gay but isn't/aren't any more and is/are proud. There's nothing actually false about that, is there? Sexual orientation can change. So in what way are they misleading? (Or at least, any more misleading than your average bus advertisement?)

So I think I'm back where I started. No, the ads shouldn't have been banned.

Incidentally, what if it were possible to change someone's sexual orientation? See "Turning Homosexuality On and Off", by John Tierney, TierneyLab blog, New York Times, December 11, 2007.

Emma

[Emma Woolgatherer]

Mimicking Stonewall's 'I'm gay - get over it', ads, a religious organisation called the Core Issues Trust, who offer treatment to gays to 'cure' them, had intended to put up some bus ads this coming Monday ...

Does the Core Issues Trust offer such treatment? I can't access their website because of bandwidth limitations being exceeded, but Google tells me this: '... Core Issues Trust does not offer so-called “Reparative‟ or "Conversion‟ therapy but does offer support to individuals conflicted in religious and sexual identity ...'.

Emma

[Alan H]

I thought they did, but, as you say, their website is down at the moment.

[Dave B]

I thought they did, but, as you say, their website is down at the moment.

Is it being stuffed by people trying to access it and make their opinion known I wonder?

[Alan H]

I'm really not inclined to go through it all, but it does come across as a bit vague as to whether it provides the therapy, is a directory of those who do or whether it just supports those not happy with their sexuality. I did find this, though:

CORE works with people who voluntarily seek to change from a “gay” lifestyle to a gender-affirming one. This is sometimes referred to as a “sexual re-orientation” process.

It all depends on what they means by 'works with'.

More here if anyone wants to dig.

[Dave B]

"re-orientation" could be construed as brainwashing without further explanation!

[Tetenterre]

There were a couple from Anglican Bigotstream on R4 "Sunday" today. They managed to convince me that Boris was right.

Incidentally, what if it were possible to change someone's sexual orientation? See "Turning Homosexuality On and Off", by John Tierney, TierneyLab blog, New York Times, December 11, 2007.

Somehow, that immediately brought back images of Liutnant Verkramp's "remedy for miscegenation" in Tom Sharpe's Indecent Exposure (which has to be one of the funniest books I've ever read).

[animist]

Ooh. You know, I'm not entirely sure.

My first reaction was to think that Boris was wrong to ban the adverts. I'm against censorship. I don't believe people have the right not to be offended.

My second reaction was to agree with Alan C and Peter Tatchell: Boris was right to ban them, not because they're offensive but because they mislead.

But the ads read: "Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!" There's something underneath that that I can't read, but I think it's just a couple of URLs. As far as I can tell, there's no direct claim in the ad itself that homosexuality is an illness that can or should be cured, or that either of the organisations concerned (Core Issues Trust or Anglican Mainstream) is able to "cure" homosexuality using therapy, or even that it offers such therapy. Just a declaration that someone (or "some people", to echo the Stonewall ads) used to be gay but isn't/aren't any more and is/are proud. There's nothing actually false about that, is there? Sexual orientation can change. So in what way are they misleading? (Or at least, any more misleading than your average bus advertisement?)

So I think I'm back where I started. No, the ads shouldn't have been banned.

Emma

so would a BNP advert be OK with you if it avoided outright racist lingo and just talked about patriotism?

[Emma Woolgatherer]

so would a BNP advert be OK with you if it avoided outright racist lingo and just talked about patriotism?

There is a difference between saying that the ad shouldn't have been banned and saying that I'm OK with it. I'm not OK with it. I'm certainly not OK with the two organisations responsible for it. But they are legal organisations, and should be allowed to advertise on London buses as long as the advertisements adhere to the relevant Advertising Code, and the rules of Transport for London. Similarly, I'm not OK with the BNP, but as long as it is a legal organisation it should also be allowed to advertise as long as it adheres to the relevant codes. I'm in agreement with Roy Greenslade on that.

The Core Issues Trust/Anglican Mainstream advert had already been cleared by the Committee of Advertising Practice, so evidently they thought that it adhered to the 12th edition of the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (CAP Code). And the advertising agency believed that it adhered to Transport for London's own policy (as the "There's probably no God" ad was deemed to do). If the campaign had been allowed to run for the planned two weeks, we could still have had a debate about the issues, but the two organisations wouldn't have been able to complain that they had been censored. And talking of dodgy organisations claiming persecution:

Spoiler:

Emma

[animist]

so would a BNP advert be OK with you if it avoided outright racist lingo and just talked about patriotism?

There is a difference between saying that the ad shouldn't have been banned and saying that I'm OK with it. I'm not OK with it. I'm certainly not OK with the two organisations responsible for it. But they are legal organisations, and should be allowed to advertise on London buses as long as the advertisements adhere to the relevant Advertising Code, and the rules of Transport for London. Similarly, I'm not OK with the BNP, but as long as it is a legal organisation it should also be allowed to advertise as long as it adheres to the relevant codes. I'm in agreement with Roy Greenslade on that.

The Core Issues Trust/Anglican Mainstream advert had already been cleared by the Committee of Advertising Practice, so evidently they thought that it adhered to the 12th edition of the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (CAP Code). And the advertising agency believed that it adhered to Transport for London's own policy (as the "There's probably no God" ad was deemed to do). If the campaign had been allowed to run for the planned two weeks, we could still have had a debate about the issues, but the two organisations wouldn't have been able to complain that they had been censored. And talking of dodgy organisations claiming persecution:

Spoiler:

Emma

ok, fine. I agree that Core Issues is a legal organisation and that they have been censored within the purview of the lordship of Boris. On the other hand, they are free to advertise elsewhere and no doubt do in many publications etc, so cannot claim to be unable to express themselves. Boris is presumably responding to Ken L's challenges that he has not done enough for LGBT rights, and I dare say that he is looking for votes. But I suppose I think that BNP and Core, when it comes down to it, do want to discriminate against certain harmless minorities, and that as such it is reasonable to ban them from advertising on public transport. Actually, I feel a bit odd about public buses being used at all in this way - for pushing ideological causes like gayness, atheism, Xianity or whatever: at least with a commercial advert you know that it does not reflect the views of Transport for London.

Anyone else feel differently now that Emma has bravely stuck out for free speech? I think I agree with her and Roy Greenslade that the BNP, Core etc should not be hounded from all forms of the media if they follow the rules

[Alan C.]

animiat
Anyone else feel differently now that Emma has bravely stuck out for free speech? I think I agree with her and Roy Greenslade that the BNP, Core etc should not be hounded from all forms of the media if they follow the rules

I'll stick with what I've already said.
It's right that they should be banned on the grounds that it's making a false claim that you can become "ex gay"

[animist]

animiat
Anyone else feel differently now that Emma has bravely stuck out for free speech? I think I agree with her and Roy Greenslade that the BNP, Core etc should not be hounded from all forms of the media if they follow the rules

I'll stick with what I've already said.
It's right that they should be banned on the grounds that it's making a false claim that you can become "ex gay"

that is very contentious, ie that it is false or even that they are claiming it; they are pretty clever, I think. This reminds me of the debate on burka banning; it is one thing to allow burkas in genuinely public places (the analogy here would be allowing Core Issues to advertise in the media considered as a whole), but another to prevent particular enterprises (like Transport for London in this case or shops etc in the case of masked customers like burka-clad women) from making their own rules over custom they don't want

[thundril]

If bigots feel obliged to yield to the limitations placed on their bigotry by the generally agreed laws, then that must be a good thing. I say let the BNP, homophobes, god-squadders and whoever else speak out within the rules, and let us all campaign to keep those rules humane.

[animist]

And talking of dodgy organisations claiming persecution:

Spoiler:

Emma

I trust a latter-day Jesus would not vote BNP - he may be overrated by some (b/millions) but the poor soul had some taste!

[ASHEd]

I don't understand this "ex-gay" thing.

Our perception of our sexual orientation "may" change varying degrees through-out our lives but I don't think it can be as strong as "ex-gay" I mean why do we have just "ex-gay" why not "ex-straight"? Why is it one-sided?

My own perception has changed over the years, but as far as I've known the actual feelings have never changed.
I'm asexual (this has always been, I've never wanted sex, never really felt sexually attracted to people) but I can see people who are aesthetically pleasing. Should I be made ex-asexual? What are they going to do? Use rape?