Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Omega, Apr 13, 2012.
What about Gays on buses?
I knew there was a reason Boris Johnson was one of the few Tories I find tolerable. I'm shocked those adverts were ever approved.
Yeah they were talking about this on LBC yesterday, pretty ridiculous in this day and age they got as far as they did but at least Boris was on the ball. At least the ads never actually made it onto the buses.
Not to be cynical, but it's probably helped Boris's campaign.
Boris doesn't exactly have a great reputation on gay issues though does he?
Apparently the guys behind the posters are going to take legal action against Boris for "unlawfully" banning the posters. Could get messy.
It's a bit backward that the Humanist Whatever can put up a banner that point blank says the outcome of all religion is terrorism, but a Christian Whatever can't ask gay people if they'd like to have a go at not being gay anymore. British freedom of speech is laughable.
From what I know about it (I could be wrong, I can't be bothered to check it up) the people who are supposed to adjudicate on the advert's content (i.e whether it's covered by it's freedom of speech entitlement) have passed it. They say it's fine but the company behind the buses (Transport for London) are a private affair (or a public/private partnership) and so can take custom on their own terms and have decided they don't want it on their buses. A decision that gets made by the mayor, I assume.
That's pretty much spot on, and the Christian guys (i'm not sure of the groups proper name) are sueing both TFL and Boris. Can't see how it will work though, surely it's up to them whether or not something goes on their own bus.
I'm not comfortable at all with a mayor being able to decide that one side of an argument gets a platform, but the other side doesn't.
There seems to be a trend, from what I've seen anyway, in the media of taking a more firm stance on the pro-gay marriage/anti-church thing and it seems to me as if Boris has just jumped on this bandwagon. I know up here there has been a fair bit of protesting in favour of gay marriage, not so sure about in London, with parts of the media giving it a fair bit of positive attention.
One thing about the mayor making the decision I suppose is that he's a public official and so theoretically available to public scrutiny over his decisions. So if you disagree with his decision or handling of it you can challenge him/not vote for him e.t.c
I think I'm right in saying that they were claiming they can "cure" gays as well, which surely is a scientific claim. The ASA routinely ban adverts from religious groups claiming their products can cure ailments because they're blessed or whatever on the grounds of no supporting scientific evidence. But there's no more scientific evidence for church-run programmes successfully expelling "the gay demons" then lip salve with Mother Theresa's head on it curing hepatitis or an exclusive set of rosemary beads curing cancer, is there?
Why does one get passed and not the other?
Well that BS isn't it really. It's about what "london" is seen to be supporting and clearly one advert is supporting tolerance and the other is describing homosexual people as ill and in need of treatment. It;s not as if Boris has banned the group for existing or advertising is other means he doesn't have control on.
Oh scratch that, I should have read up on it before I asked the question. The first article I found on the BBC website has the ASA quoted as saying:
So I'm assuming they would have pulled the ex-gay stuff anyway like they do with the miracle cure (and other) stuff on grounds of misleading the public I suppose.
I agree with Hancock's worry about freedom of speech though especially when you read what Transport for London said about their decision to refuse the advert request "We do not believe that these specific ads are consistent with TfL's commitment to a tolerant and inclusive London". Which really does state that their platform (a public one that only they control) is only open to their own point of view.
the media like to give it air time because generally a) it works people up on both sides and b) if they want to come across as liberal they can slant it more positively in that direction (or in the case of trollop like Fox News the other way). Plus I'd disagree that the whole debate has an Anti-Church slant to it, certainly it's presented that the Church is opposed to Gay Marriage so clearly if you feel Gay people should have the right to be married and not just have a civil ceremony then you are anti-church at least on that matter. I've not seen one Pro-Gay Marriage spokesperson say they wish to dismantle the church or had the arguement presented that gay marriage in anyway affects the likelyhood the church can continue to exist. It;s only the church that says that Gay Marriage is the apocolypse in fabulous form.
Again this is BS. You might as well say that Neo-Nazis should be allowed to advertise on the tube simply because otherwise London Transport are "Taking Sides". Why should anyone be forced to carry a message they either dislike or don't want to be associated? I doubt the Daily Mail is going to accept a full page advert from Peter Tatchell no matter what he wants to pay for it. Where's the difference?
He allowed one group to tell one group what they believe is wrong, but won't allow them to say it back. On what planet is that BS? Have you even seen the advert? It doesn't say anything about gay people being ill and in need of treatment, it says that it's possible to stop being gay IF YOU WANT TO. I'm not saying that's true, I'm saying that's not offensive to point of it needing to be censored from public view, where as "God Probably Doesn't Exist" or whatever the Humanist one said is perfectly fine.
I never said it wasn't about what London is seen as supporting, I said it made me, personally, uncomfortable, that one opinion gets a platform for being popular and cool, and they other one gets vetoed by a politician because it's an unpopular opinion. It's still an opinion, if ANYONE should be allowed to make political statements on public transport (and, for the record, I don't think they should be), then EVERYONE should be allowed to.
That's such a ridiculous exaggeration though. No one's talking about adverts that are calling people bad, like something neo-Nazi would be. Have you seen the banned advert? It looks like this;
What part of that is homophobic? It isn't calling gay people bad, it isn't saying gay people should be cured, it isn't saying homosexuality is a disease, it's just saying a rather stupid and unpopular opinion that some people have with no overt or even invert intention to hurt, offend or upset anyone. It's actually trying, in it's own deluded way, to help.
The comparison between the Daily Mail and TfL isn't a fair one as the DM are solely a private business and so take custom on their own terms (within the law) where as TfL are a public body. And so if Boris Johnson uses his power as Mayor of London and chairman of Transport for London to veto a 'Christian' advert on the basis of a "commitment to a tolerant and inclusive London" days after allowing a pro gay advert (These adverts in question were in response to a Stonewall advert: "Some people are gay. Get over it."). It is a bit like allowing a state sanctioned opinion to be heard and stymieing an unpopular one.
It's got to be worrying or contentious at least hasn't it?
Well, you might have a point if Boris had said that what they believe is wrong. However since he said he didn't want London to be associated with that message. He also said it was offensive to gay people which given the responses I've seen about the adverts it clearly is.
did I post the article? I'll let you guess if I saw it or not before posting about it.
Hang on a minute all those car ad's never show anyone filling up with petrol so clearly neither should I!! It's a an advert for a GAY TREATMENT CENTRE therefore what ever wording of the advert is it is an advert for a centre for curing people of "gay".
We're not talking about another poster though. We're talking about whether this poster is offensive, which it clearly is, and whether that means Boris or the bus company has a point about not wanting to be associated with that message, which they do.
That's the BS though. It's not being vetoed because it's unpopular. Unpopyular hints that in some way the message simply is disagreeable without basis where as gay groups have said it offends them. Offensive and unpopular are two different things. Plus it's a whole other degree of snobbish BS to suggest that it's "cool" to be pro-gay and that the only reason why a message of sexual tolerance could possibly deserve and receive space for advertising. Som on that basis all the "kick racism out of football" signs are in fact simply cool because it promotes being pro-tolerance not because it has a positive message.
Again, the bus are run by London Transport and are seen by thousands of tourists. Is it really the image London wants to project to people that we think gays should go off to a treatment centre to rid themselves of their terrible affliction? Seriously, we roll our eyes at the americans for doing this sort of thing.
Probably the biggest BS of all. So Neo-Nazis should be able to put up adverts pointing to websites saying Jews should be exterminated and that Black people are monkeys and have those wander around London? No, of course it isn't. Why not use a little common sense. Some messages are simply not appropriate to be published over a government run transport system. Had no one complained, especially if the people being told they need to be cured, then clearly there's no issue.
no it isn't an exageration, the advert is FOR A GAY TREATMENT CENTRE. Which part of that isn't really clear here? Is it just advertising that some people stopped being gay? No, it's not. It would help your point if it did but actually it advertises aexactly what you a re bout to say it doesn't. the wording in itself may not be the most offensive thing ever but what it is actually proting is.
[/quote]What part of that is homophobic? Is it calling gay people bad? No. Is it saying gay people should be cured? No. Is it saying homosexuality is a disease? No.[/QUOTE]
Is it saying gay people should be cured? yes, it is as it goes and so really that where everything about your point falls down. Not only is it saying Gay people should be cured it's advertising that they in fact can cure them.
Yres, a public body. A body that is for everyone. The Daily Mail can print whatever opinion it wants because you CHOOSE to buy it. The London Buses go round and round London regardless of whether you even use them. Tfl have MORE reasons to consider the message they would appear to endorse on their vehicles because they serve everyone not just those who choose to believe one thing or the other. I mean isn;t this all f*cking obvious? I feel like I'm either missing the point or that people who I think generally a intelligent people are simply willfully missing the point about why a government backed company shouldn't promote a divisive message simply to look clever.
Like I said unless you can't see the really blindlingly obvious reason why a public body would not want to be associated with that kind of message then yeah, sure why not.
A real hazard to society, and even more dangerous when someone has closed all the windows, therby preventing escape.
Poster is hilarious, in that it says get over it like a homosexual would, no need for that flamboyant exclamation point. I'd like to meet these ex gays though, I'd like their advice on how I could stop being hetrosexual.
Separate names with a comma.