Boris bans anti-gay ad from London buses.

[afleitch]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/12/anti-gay-adverts-boris-johnson?commentpage=last#end-of-comments

"The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, intervened to prevent a Christian advertising campaign from promoting the idea that gay people can be converted to heterosexuality.

Just days before the posters were due to appear on buses in the capital, Johnson ordered his transport chiefs to pull the adverts booked by two conservative Anglican groups following outrage among gay campaigners and politicians saying that they were homophobic. The adverts were booked on behalf of the Core Issues Trust whose leader, Mike Davidson, believes "homoerotic behaviour is sinful".

His charity funds "reparative therapy" for gay Christians, which it claims can "develop their heterosexual potential". The campaign was also backed by Anglican Mainstream, a worldwide orthodox Anglican group whose supporters have equated homosexuality with alcoholism. The advert was due to say: "Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!"

Johnson, who contacted the Guardian to announce he was stopping the adverts within two hours of their contents becoming public, said: "London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance. It is clearly offensive to suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses."

His main rival in next month's mayoral election, Ken Livingstone, said Johnson should never have allowed the adverts to be booked. "London is going backwards under a Tory leadership that should have made these advertisements impossible.

"They promote a falsehood, the homophobic idea of 'therapy' to change the sexual orientation of lesbians and gay men.""

---

Now before anyone chimes in with FREEDUMUFSPEECH, it is worth noting that a public advert in the UK falls under the remit of the Advertising Standards Agency which doesn’t forbid evangelising, but does set rules on making false claims. It recently upheld a complain against a church that advertised that ‘prayer worked’ when it came to recovering from illness because there is no proof that it does. It also contravened standards set that; "Marketers should take account of the prevailing standards in society and the context in which a marketing communication is likely to appear to minimise the risk of causing harm or serious or widespread offence." (Principle 4 of The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing) which is slightly less direct.

[politicus]

Its a false claim, so I think its fair, that they are not allowed to advertise it in public.

[afleitch]

Just on this topic, this week Dr Robert Spitzer, who’s study had been cited by anti-gay groups as evidence that ‘ex-gay’ treatments work publically requested a retraction of his study confirming that it could “only be considered evidence foe what those who have undergone ex gay therapy say about it, but nothing more.”

And there-in lies the issue at hand. People who have undergone such treatment say that it works despite studies suggestion that such claims are hokum. Those who undergo such treatment usually undergo it in a religious environment and those who provide such services are almost exclusively religiously based. What then happens is that people who put on a public face of saying that it worked often then admit later on that it didn’t, that they suppressed it or continued to struggle before finally accepting themselves for who they are. To give an example of this way of thinking, we all know that Scientology’s claims about psychiatry is hokum. We all know that their extra-terrestrial claims for the causes of human suffering is hokum. But those who sign up to it will tell you repeatedly that it’s true and that it works…until such times as they leave the religion and confirm that it’s hokum.

What also surprises me is that what people call ‘ex-gay’ but is really just them masking or suppressing their sexual orientation isn’t particularly impressive a claim. Gay men and women have been covering up their sexuality for millennia just to get by. The whole scheme is propagated and often ran by closet cases who continue the charade to hide their own secrets. This is then supported, often unconsciously by people who attribute anything to their belief no matter how improbable and rely heavily on personal testimony which can often be nothing but a charade.

[dialectical fetishist]

First good thing he's done so far then

[Communists For McCain]

Well it's the UK.  I don't know your laws on speech and expression so I won't yell out "FREEDUMSPEECH!" or that this is unconstitutional.

The whole "ex-gay" thing is pretty funny though.  I mean what do these people think being gay is like an addiction or something?  That gayness comes from looking at too many pastel colors or something?

Then again, if the US had standards such as this, it would be illegal for people to rant about Obama's "communist" agenda.  Something that brings me more entertainment than watching an episode of Family Guy or South Park.

[Californian Tony]

Well it's the UK.  I don't know your laws on speech and expression so I won't yell out "FREEDUMSPEECH!" or that this is unconstitutional.

Especially considering there's no such thing as a constitution in the UK.

[President Marokai]

Well it's the UK.  I don't know your laws on speech and expression so I won't yell out "FREEDUMSPEECH!" or that this is unconstitutional.

Especially considering there's no such thing as a constitution in the UK.

Truly one of the best things about the UK.

[dialectical fetishist]

Well it's the UK.  I don't know your laws on speech and expression so I won't yell out "FREEDUMSPEECH!" or that this is unconstitutional.

Especially considering there's no such thing as a constitution in the UK.

Truly one of the best things about the UK.

You don't know how good having a bill of rights is until you've lived in a country without one...

[politicus]

Well it's the UK.  I don't know your laws on speech and expression so I won't yell out "FREEDUMSPEECH!" or that this is unconstitutional.

Especially considering there's no such thing as a constitution in the UK.

Truly one of the best things about the UK.

You don't know how good having a bill of rights is until you've lived in a country without one...

True. The UK can be surprisingly authoritarian for a country with such a strong liberal tradition.

[You kip if you want to...]

Well it's the UK.  I don't know your laws on speech and expression so I won't yell out "FREEDUMSPEECH!" or that this is unconstitutional.

Especially considering there's no such thing as a constitution in the UK.

Truly one of the best things about the UK.

You don't know how good having a bill of rights is until you've lived in a country without one...

True. The UK can be surprisingly authoritarian for a country with such a strong liberal tradition.

Yeah, our government could do anything, literally anything it wants (on paper). (As long as it doesn't bind a future parliament).

[Sibboleth]

Especially considering there's no such thing as a constitution in the UK.

There most certainly is a Constitution, it's just that it's never been written down into one coherent document.

[So the Heroes Fall]

I'd say it's actually pretty appropriate as it's banned on buses, which are owned by the city, it's not as if it's being banned on private billboards.

[Secretary Polnut]

Especially considering there's no such thing as a constitution in the UK.

There most certainly is a Constitution, it's just that it's never been written down into one coherent document.

or constitutional 'conventions'

[A cowboy always follows his beard]

Ex-gay treatments do work, it's just more often than not it fails.

[London Man]

I'd say it's actually pretty appropriate as it's banned on buses, which are owned by the city, it's not as if it's being banned on private billboards.

Actually they're owned and ran by private sector companies, but are regulated by Transport for London.