I Don’t Care If This Offends Catholics
And yet the Advertising Standards Agency banned this ad as ‘potentially offensive to Catholics’:
The advertisement for Antonio Federici ice cream shows two priests who appear to be on the verge of kissing, with the tag line “We Believe in Salivation”. On the basis of six complaints, the ASA has banned the advertisement as potentially “offensive to Catholics”. This is the second advertisement from the firm that the ASA has banned. A previous one showed a pregnant nun eating the ice cream with the tag: “Immaculately conceived”.
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: “It seems our celebrations about the end of the blasphemy law were premature. The Advertising Standards Agency – which is elected by no-one and seems to be answerable to no-one – has reinstated the law unilaterally. Anyone who has seen the Antonio Federici ads knows that they are mildly humorous, in no way threatening, abusive or insulting. It is entirely wrong that these advertisements have been banned by such an unaccountable body, which needs to be reined in.”
Aside from the clear homophobia, I want to comment on the question of offence. It’s right that the National Secular Society should be worried about blasphemy being reintroduced into Britain by the back door, but it’s only a lesser function of the greater question about whether anyone in the country should be protected from offence. The ASA themselves said:
We noted the ad used the text “We Believe in Salivation” as a theme to refer to the taste of the product and to the image of the priests, who were portrayed in a seductive pose as if they were about to kiss passionately. We considered the portrayal of the two priests in a sexualised manner was likely to be interpreted as mocking the beliefs of Roman Catholics and was therefore likely to cause serious offence to some readers. We concluded that the ad breached the Code.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clause 5.1 (Decency).
Interesting that the ASA should choose, in bending over backwards (ahem) not to offend the sensibilities of SIX THEISTS, to legitimise homophobia. Something has gone horribly wrong in this society when religious homophobes should have their bigotry protected from offence - not discrimination, not violence but merely from gentle mockery. Offence doesn’t involved discrimination – protecting from offence doesn’t involve protection from incitement to hatred. Why on earth should there be any system in place in this country which allows for protection from ideas or images people (in this case SIX) just don’t like, even though they aren’t harmed by them in any way? The majority of Catholics after all don’t appear to have been remotely bothered.
Religions Can’t Avoid Equality
The government has been forced by the European Commission to withdraw its religious exemptions to sexual orientation equality legislation after a complaint by the National Secular Society:
The ruling follows a complaint from the National Secular Society, which argued that the opt-outs went further than was permitted under the directive and had created “illegal discrimination against homosexuals”.
The commission agreed. A “reasoned opinion” by its lawyers informs the government that its “exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for religious employers are broader than that permitted by the directive”.
The highly unusual move means that the government now has no choice but to redraft anti-discrimination laws, which is likely to prompt a furore among church groups.
In anticipation of a possible backlash from the commission, the government has already inserted new clauses into its equality bill. But even if the bill is jettisoned, future governments will be bound by the commission’s ruling.
Under the new proposals being drafted by the government, religious organisations will be able to refuse to employ homosexuals only if their job involves actively promoting or practising a religion. A blanket refusal to employ any homosexuals would no longer be possible.
Too right. It’s already quite mad that religious equality legislation has been passed, equating belief with inherent qualities like age, gender and sexual orientation. But to give an opt out to religion from the same equality legislation that affects everyone else is just appeasement – Peter Tatchell is right later in the article. That appeasement is fuelling the demands of all religious zealots in this country, in the belief that when push comes to shove they’ll be able to get away with not treating everyone equally based on who they are. The religious elements which take issue with this will simply have to grow up. The Christian charity, Care said:
“If evangelical churches cannot be sure that they can employ practising evangelicals with respect to sexual ethics, how will they be able to continue?”
They’ll have to join with the rest of the 21st century, in not discriminating against gay people, or they’ll face prosecution. It’s about time.
Thought for the Day
Until the apologists for religion are comprehensively shown to be, at best, deluded idiots or at worst manipulative power-mongers, we will never be free from their influence. They must be shown to be emperors with no clothes. You can’t do that by trying to talk to them on their own terms (“let’s have a bit of respect around here – these are deeply held beliefs and any challenged to them is unacceptably offensive”).
The present challengers of theology – Dawkins, Hitchens, Grayling et al – have taken the gloves off. And rightly so, in my opinion. I consider H.L. Mencken had it right when he said: “Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing.” And Thomas Paine said it even better: “The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.”
Does God Exist?
The National Secular Society reports on serious consequences for a member who ticked the wrong box:
“On Friday 18th September 2009 at 3.45pm I was confronted with a questionnaire which I understand was lawfully pinned to the wall on London Bridge railway station, platforms 1 and 2, inviting members of the public to participate by ticking the appropriate box.
The question, “Does God Exist?”, was very straightforward, and “No” was obviously the correct answer. I was particularly concerned that vulnerable people exposed to the alternative answers of “Yes” and “Probably” were at risk of exploitation by individuals who might attach a set of rules and obligations to those who hope that some super-being will take responsibility for their lives, or intervene in some other way.
I felt the offered answer “Probably”, to be particularly sinister. It was for this reason I chose to engage with the questionnaire and ensure that the correct answer was ticked.
As a result of responding to this questionnaire I was arrested by a plain clothes police officer. Two other plain clothes police officers were in attendance. I was informed that I had been seen ticking the correct answer on CCTV.
As I sat caged in the back of the police van I counted 6 police officers who were attending this incident, which was presented to me as being criminal damage. My tick was entirely within the specified “No” box, and the questionnaire was not damaged in any way.
Interestingly the arresting police officer spent much of his time ticking similar multiple choice boxes on a questionnaire of his own. I understand that I am required to pay an £80 penalty notice fine, or attend court. I am left with little choice but to ask that this matter be dealt with by the court. I await police advice about when and where I should attend.”
