[bpsdb] I intended to publish this two months ago and didn't get around to it, but given the recent kerfuffle about the Daily Mail's stance on HPV, I thought I'd drag it out of the archives. It's about fundamentalist "group" Christian Voice, the HPV vaccine, and freedom of speech, and it touches so many of the recurring crank themes out there. The story starts with an innocent, inoffensive little advert in the New Statesman, and includes probably the funniest ever smackdown by the Advertising Standards Agency.
I've reproduced the advert below, and it's pretty standard nonsense about how society is apparently going to hell, hoodies are going to murder us in our sleep, and it's all the fault of non-believers. Which is odd, because as far as I can tell by almost any objective measure Western society has been steadily getting healthier, wealthier, better educated, more liberated, safer and more comfortable since, well, people knew what "Western" meant. But anyway:
Click to enlarge advert.
One line in particular caught the attention of the Advertising Standards Agency. "Now we have the disaster of teenage infertility. Every government initiative, including the HPV vaccine, will increase it..." Now that is, as the ASA would put it, a statement of fact open to substantiation. And so the agency got in touch with the group, and said (and I'm paraphrasing slightly here): "Evidence or STFU!"
Christian Voice responded, arguing somewhat pathetically that, "the claim was an expression of their opinion, and that their right to express that opinion was protected by The Human Rights Act 1998. Christian Voice provided a link to a page on their website, which they said gave evidence of the failure of the government's Teenage Pregnancy Strategy."
The unsung heroes of the Advertising Standards Agency were rather unimpressed, noting in their ruling that the website was irrelevent to the claim made, that no valid evidence had been provided, and that the Human Rights Act does not allow people to make false claims in advertisements. They didn't actually say "WTF?", but I reckon they were tempted.
Instead, they delivered the following, hilarious ruling: "The ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Principles), 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness)."
Now bear with me, and I'll explain why that line is so funny. The ASA are referring to violations of three clauses in the advertising code. Violating clause 3.1 means that evidence wasn't provided by Christian Voice, 7.1 means that they basically lied, and 2.2 means that the advert was irresponsible to consumers and society.
In other words, the ASA's ruling can be interpreted as saying that Christian Voice were a bunch of immoral liars. If you're reading this and you work for the ASA then get over here, because I want to kiss you.
Christian Voice's response can only be described as a hissy fit. Naturally they went to the Daily Mail who gleefully publicised their sad little case since it ticked the pro-Christian and anti-vaccine boxes on their editorial check-list (the British version of course, I'm not sure if they published it in Ireland). They also produced a weird rant on their website, under the bizarre headline "ASA OUTLAWS PREDICTION AND OPINION."
Arguably their most valid complaint against the ASA - and by most valid I mean not quite as obviously invalid as everything else they say, is the following:
"The officials demanded ‘robust, scientific evidence that the HPV vaccine caused infertility in teenagers’, missing the point that it is the encouragement of promiscuity in Government teen sex initiatives which spreads the infections which do the damage, not the vaccine."
Well then why single out the vaccine in your advert? And where is the evidence that the introduction of the HPV vaccine increases promiscuity to begin with? It's also worth point out that the ASA ruling simply states that the advert can't be shown "in its current form", so why not just remove the reference to the vaccine altogether?
But then, with tedious inevitability, Christian Voice leader Stephen Green starts ranting on about freedom of speech: "It is preposterous for the ASA to think they can outlaw Christian freedom of speech and free expression of opinion."
This of course is the same Stephen Green who sued the BBC for blasphemy, who upon the abolition of blasphemy laws in 2008 threatened that Christians would have to "take matters into their own hands" if people said anything that might offend God or Christ. In other words this odious little creature, a man who believes that husbands should have the right to rape their wives at will believes in freedom of speech only when it applies to him. He is a disgrace, to fellow Christians and to human beings in general.
http://layscience.net/trackback/481
I (somewhat foolishly) clicked the link to see how Stephen Green justifies rape within marriage. The answer is, of course, he doesn't. But the page that link directed me to was full of the most unbelievably scary stuff - a bizarre 'demonstration' of how the UK government has been enacting laws and policies contrary to the ten commandments. The bit that made me laugh out loud, and then rush to the loo to vomit, was where he cites the repeal of the death penalty as evidence that the UK government is breaking the sixth commandment - 'thou shalt not kill'. I feel 'odious little creature' is overly generous...
Re: The answer is, of course, he doesn't.
Sadly I can assure you he does, almost exactly halfway down complaing that: "It also introduced an offence of "marital rape," drafted by the Law
Commission, unknown in the Law of God, and in conflict with the
marriage service of the Book of Common Prayer, where the promises given
by a man and woman to each other establish a binding consent to sexual
intercourse."
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
I felt sick after reading that. Stephen Green is a horrible horrible man.
Sorry, I should have written 'which, of course, he doesn't succeed in justifying'
Ahh! Oh God no, of course, the sick little man.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
I knew they were a creepy, hate-filled organisation, but the rape-within-marriage thing is a step further than I thought even they would go. If any other Christians would like to organise some kind of protest against them, or engagement with churches to point out how extremist they are, please let me know.
ASA smites Presbyterian?
You may happen to like their decision, but this is mission creep by the ASA. Political advertising is specifically excluded from their remit.
And with good reason: having the ASA govern political advertising leads to a rather bizarre legal situation. It would be completely legal for Christian Voice to publish those claims in their own magazine. And it would be completely legal for Christian Voice to write an article making those claims and for a magazine to publish that article. But it's illegal if Christian Voice pay to have the claims published in someone else's magazine, as that's an advert.
The reason for the ASA is that false advertising is fraud -- when you're selling something. Christian Voice aren't.
Christian Voice are advertising their charity, and selling membership of it.
As for the point about political advertising, that's rather debatable. They exclude <i>"complaints
about non-broadcast ads, where where the purpose of the ad is to
persuade voters in a local or general election or referendum."</i> The ad above could only very tenuously be linked to persuading voters, it's more about getting publicity and donations for the charity. I can't see any concrete basis for it to be excluded under that rule.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
> Christian Voice are advertising their charity, and selling membership of it.
Arguably, yes, but the falsehood does not lie in the description of their charity. If anything, that bit is accurate: here is an example of the kind of false accusation we will spend your money on if you join. Besides, the same thing can be said of political parties: they are, among other things, selling membership. And columnists, who are selling papers. And commentators on TV, who are selling advertising. They all have freedom of speech, including the freedom to be wrong.
> As for the point about political advertising, that's rather debatable.
It is, yes. Which in itself is a problem, as these organisations should have properly defined remits. I'd say that Christian Voice are clearly trying to influence voters in elections, even if there's no specific election going on right now. And there's no way on Earth the ASA would have investigated a political attack against the Government in an advert placed by the Tories or Lib Dems or Amnesty or Greenpeace. The correct way to deal with these things is for the Government to respond to the claims (or choose to ignore them), not to have an arm of the state ban them.
Besides, if the claims were really covered by the ASA's remit, that would apply to Christian Voice's own magazine as well. That would hardly be a valid defense for someone making dodgy claims about their carpet-cleaning service or whatever: that the claims are printed and distributed in their own magazine at their own expense. An advert's an advert.
I'm a Christian. I have a voice. It isn't Stephen Green's "Christian" voice; as a general rule he says what I would not.
His odious little "charity" speaks for very few people (they keep very dark the actual numbers) and his unpleasant views receive attention only insofar as they are unpleasant - which is what sells newspapers. He's rent-a-mouth.
So write what you like about CV: now that I've added you to my feed I'll see it and applaud.
"I'm a Christian. I have a voice. It isn't Stephen Green's "Christian" voice; as a general rule he says what I would not."
Indeed - what strikes me about the likes of Stephen Green is how bitter, twisted, venomous and above all un-Christian they come across...
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
In other words this odious little creature, a man who believes that husbands should have the right to rape their wives at will believes in freedom of speech only when it applies to him. He is a disgrace, to fellow Christians and to human beings in general.
boediger