Reader comments · Peter Tatchell: ‘Anti-gay London bus advert ban wrong’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Peter Tatchell: ‘Anti-gay London bus advert ban wrong’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. These ads are no more permissible than allowing someone to sell a magic rock that will cause hair growth. It is nonsense, founded in lies, to extort the gullible or vulnerable.

    The ban is absolutely right.

  2. Their advert re-enforced the idea that being gay is a choice, which if you have therapy, could be changed.

    I think it was right that the advert was banned. Can you imagine if the tables were turned again saying you can be cured of religion, that lot would have done whatever they could to get that kind of advert banned.

    The only thing that I am quite annoyed about is the fact that the judge has given them leave to appeal the judgement.

    1. Actually it implies that Gayness is a disease/sin/abnormal

    2. You can be cured of religion. You just need to read some science books.

      I think Peter is right on most of what he says. Although the danger in this case was that although they didn’t make the claim directly on the ad I presume there was a contact for their group included so people could then be harmed by them at a later date.

      I don’t think it should have been banned purely for being offensive. We are adults and sticks and stones etc.

      Also I want to retain my right to be offensive about religion.

  3. Dave North 22 Mar 2013, 3:40pm

    One of the key components that those opposed to gay people use is that they determine that being gay is a choice.

    This ad bolstered that idea.

    Science shows otherwise.

    Ergo. The ad deserved to be pulled.

    And as for Peters ascertion that “In a free society there is no right to not be offended”

    Perhaps so, but there is also a right not to get gay bashed by thugs who take the ads message on board that being gay is a choice.

    1. Especially the inclusion of the term “post-gay”, that’s the worst of them. It strongly implies being homosexual is a short term phase that we all just get over when we grow up, and that all we need is a ‘little push’ to be normal again.

    2. However, the ad was not banned for being dishonest, it was banned for being offensive.

      1. top point

  4. No. Even aside from the bigotry (and these adverts are pure lies. NOT misleading – lies. They were making a false medical claim and pushing an idea that is not only wrong but actively harmful

    “Tobacco is healthy” so why should we allow an equally misleading, damaging and ridiculous advert?

    Tatchel’s stance that “free speech” means hate speech doesn’t apply to any other minority – I don’t see why we should hold up our hands to be victims of this

    Hate speech like this is why so many of our youth feels broken and sick and is driven to suicide. I care more about our lives than some bigots right to lie and be given a massive platform on which to do so

    1. half a line was missing: we wouldn’t allow an advert saying “tobacco is healthy” so why should we allow this?

    2. Yes I agree and I think it should have been banned for being false but it was banned for being offensive which I don’t think is the best reason.

  5. Sorry Peter, on this one you are WRONG!

  6. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Mar 2013, 4:02pm

    Though I agree with free speech even if it offends, an ad such as this has no evidence to prove it’s claims. In fact it’s been condemned by legitimate medical and scientific organisations and has done a lot of harm to gullible, insecure people and some instances of suicide. Sorry Peter, I can’t agree with you on this one, not when people’s lives and mental health are in the balance.

    1. The ad has caused people to commit suicide?

      I don’t remember reading about this..

    2. Higher than average rates of suicide are the result of being treated as second class citizens, being demeaned on a regular basis and yes, being hated. This treatment being actively promoted by many (by no means all) religious organizations among others. Substitute ‘Christian’ for ‘Gay’ in the ad and guess what the response would be.

  7. Peter is wrong on this one as it’s an issue of false advertising, not free speech.

  8. No, I disagree very strongly (and it’s rare that I say that about Mr Tatchell). There is an important distinction between offensive speech and harmful speech which I think he fails to make: legitimising conversion therapy is harmful, in many ways. The harm would be less subtle, but far less profound, if the ads had said “gay people are evil and deserve to die”.

  9. I think Peter is right the wording was not offensive. That said many morons oou there wouldn’t understand this careful play with words and what this vile group is about. I am please the ban was upheld.

  10. I agree with free speech.
    I do not, however, agree with lies.

  11. Sorry Peter, but no. Not this time. Stop trying to belly-crawl like a dog to these people and lick their boots. This isn’t an issue of free speech, as others have said, it’s advertising a therapy which has been shown to be harmful.

    1. Like others here I think Peter has got this one completely wrong.

      1. Dan Filson 22 Mar 2013, 5:36pm

        But I defend his right to argue the free speech line. We are, at times, over-sensitive. However the peddling of the myth that cures for bing gay work needs to be stamped on. We cannot permit bogus medicines like snake oil being peddled.

  12. But where do you draw a line on ‘freedom of speech’? If a far right group wanted to place an ad which said, “Bring Back Slavery” and claimed justification because the bible condones it … would that be ‘acceptable’? Don’t you think thousands would, rightly, be DEEPLY offended? With freedom of speech comes great responsibility. Religions seems to ignore that because they are ‘spreading god’s word’. Actually, the only thing they spread is division and hatred.

  13. “The organisation that placed the adverts, Core Issues Trust, promotes the false idea that gay people can turn straight. However, the adverts did not directly make this claim.”

    Claiming to be “ex-gay” or “post-gay” seems to me like quite a direct way of making this claim. Anyway, since when did anyone have freedom of speech in advertising?

    1. Agree. Sometimes I think Peter waves around the ‘FREE SPEECH’ banner like he’s an American in the Youtube comments section.

  14. It has to be wrong to try selling something that has a proven link to depression, self-loathing, and at worst, suicide.
    The dignity of human beings should be of a greater value than that of freely displaying abusive comments in public.

  15. Totally totally disagree with Tatchell

    I found it deeply offensive. Not gay and proud. Not black and proud. Not Jewish and proud. Not female and proud. Not disabled and proud!

    It couldn’t be more offensive. Offensive lies. Here was a twitter wave when this was mooted. Look at these comments. Look at the comments when the story broke. LBGT people are outraged that our buses could carry such a demeaning message.

    Not in my city.

  16. Tatchell when you get it wrong, you really do get it wrong.

  17. Ad ad for skin bleaching cream –


    Would that be okay Tatchell? I respect what he’s done for our equality, but sometimes I think he’s got a screw loose.

    1. Surprisingly, they do exist !

      1. Exactly freedom of choice for people

      2. I know they exist. But the BNP don’t make them, nor use the following logo to advertise the product…..


  18. I understand Mr Tatchel’s a la Voltaire attitude, that does not mean I accept it. I wonder if he would be so accommodating if he saw adverts on the same buses from the same people calling in to question his beliefs re homosexuality . If you think Peter the equivalent of an Amrican “first amendment” would work in UK society then look at how the Christian Right wing over there constantly use this to skew the argument by spreading lies. Do us all a favour and STFU p.s your faux naïf attitude doesn’t wash with me mate

  19. Now I’m reminded why I very rarely agree with Peter Tatchell on issues as this. While I am a big advocate for free speech and free expression. There are limitations. This is one of those cases. When the very existence of a group of people is called into question, how can their basic human rights be protected?
    Being gay is who we are. It’s not a coat we can take on or off. Ever.
    ‘Ex gay’ is basically someone ignoring their nature. Suppressing their “natural” perfectly normal human desires. Gay people do not find the opposite gender, sexually attractive. If they do, then they’re not strictly gay, but bisexual. So “ex gays” are either suppressing, or they’re bisexuals, choosing only to embrace part of their human nature.
    There are as many ‘ex gays’ as there are ‘ex white’ people.

  20. Peter, you are wrong.
    This is NOT an issue of free speech it is harrassment by advertising using a false premise, a pure lie by a hate group using religion as a cloak to abuse and harm.
    Their are laws preventing false and misleading advertising in public and this is one of them.
    This is not about offence (although it is offencive _ because it is designed to harm) but it is slander and false and quite simpley if used against any other natural minority the CI would be told in no uncertain terms to F Off – no appeal.
    Let them throw their money away (less to cause trouble with) – I hope the Appeal Court makes them pay costs to Boris when they loose.

  21. CH Brighton 22 Mar 2013, 7:09pm

    The reason these adverts were banned is not just what they said but that they were deliberately intended to be insulting and harmful. The wording carefully considered to inflict harm. It had nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with bigotry and the use of religion as a cloak beneath which to hide deep-seated hatred. At the very least I think Mr Tatchell is misguided here.

  22. Peter is wrong here! I think it is time he retired! Tatchell doesn’t represent my views, or the large majority of gay people that i know! He is all for himself! He is a moron! I wish pinknews, would stop giving so much free press! There are many other LGBT rights acitivists out there. Who represent the views of many more gays and lesbians etc. Than what Tatchell does! Give them more of a platform!

    1. Why do so many gays dislike this man?

  23. Peter Tatchell makes some serious and fair points. Whether the Court of Appeal agrees with him, for the reasons that he gives or for others, remains to be seen. Where he falls into error is in failing to appreciate the nuances of the Judge’s decision. She acknowledged the inconsistency in TFL’s treatment of Stonewall and of The Core Issues Trust but went on to consider the various policy documents that should have been taken into account by TFL and their broader obligations when making her own decision. As an aside I always find the “no one has a right not to be offended” line overly simplistic. The right to freedom of expression is not and has never been absolute. It is necessarily qualified. I’m not trying to stop Christians from believing what they want to but it must be right that the state acts to prevent them from using their religion and freedom of expression claims as a shield behind which they are trying to cause harm.

  24. Guglielmo Marinaro 22 Mar 2013, 8:27pm

    Again and again I have read about this Core Issues advert being banned. It has not been banned. What was decided was that Transport for London was not going to carry the advert. They had no obligation to do so. I can submit adverts for anything that is not illegal, from creation “science” to pyramid therapy, but I cannot make any advertiser run the adverts: the decision to accept or reject them rests entirely with the advertiser. There is nothing to stop Core Issues from buying their own private bus, adorning it with their advert for bogus “therapy”, and driving it around London.

  25. I admire Peter Tatchell greatly; he has advanced the cause of gay rights for many years at very great personal cost.

    Those who criticise him should remember that the freedoms they enjoy and take for granted today would at one time have seemed completely unattainable; within living memory, Alan Turing was prosecuted and hounded to death just for being gay. The massive changes in recent years didn’t just happen by accident, they were fought for by people like Peter.

    That said, I’m afraid that Peter has got it totally wrong on this occasion. :-(

    It’s NOT about free speech; the Core Issues Trust has NOT been prosecuted or lost the right to say what it thinks. It can still advertise in the Mail, the Telegraph, on a fleet of billboard vans or any other platform that finds its views acceptable.

    TfL just decided, quite rightly, that it simply wasn’t a suitable message to be plastered all over its buses in our capital city, and that’s really all there is to it.

    1. Guglielmo Marinaro 22 Mar 2013, 9:52pm

      Quite. I really don’t know why Core Issues didn’t try somewhere more suitable to place their advert, e.g. one of those mags that carry adverts for crystal balls and clairvoyants who will help you to win the lottery.

  26. Peter Tatchell is missing the overall, broader, historic premise of this advert – which does need to be banned. It’s message directly and indirectly affirms the belief that being ‘Gay’ and further (LGBT) is linked to being sinful. And thus sets out to use Christian Religious ideology of ‘curing’ people. This is not ‘Free Speech’ but a deliberate attack of LGBT community. It would effect and detriment peoples’ lives on viewing it. If not on that day of seeing the bus go by – but the underlying message could settle in a person memory and at their most vulnerable experiences of ‘coming out’ bite their head off like a tiger. I admire much Mr. Thatchell’s passion and work around liberty, justice and equality. not this time.

  27. The more the Christians squeal, the better it is! The ads would have been an even more positive result for GLTBI people. Sure such ads are upsetting to us but the final result is another nail in the coffin of religion! The more extreme the fundies are, the less that anyone listens to them.

  28. I think on balance Peter is probably right and this should have been allowed -borderline though – “it was wrong but polite” just about sums it up.

  29. Seriously, who cares about what Peter Tatchell has to say these days?

    1. Once I discovered a couple of years ago what he had said in the past about the ‘positive nature’ of ‘child-adult sexual relationships’ (i.e. child sexual abuse) my admiration for him was shattered. When the issue was raised on PinkNews he posted to deny advocating what he had been previously advocating, rather than owning his comments from his Guardian interview in 1997 and admitting that he had been wrong. To me, it appeared that he was just brushing-off criticism and that gave an impression that he feels a lot of self-importance and self-righteousness. So, I for one certainly don’t care what he has to say anymore. He is a self-appointed spokesperson for the LGBT community so hopefully other spokespeople can come to the fore to represent our interests.

  30. Peter Tatchell 23 Mar 2013, 2:18am

    The bus adverts claim: “Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay & Proud. Get over it!” They don’t claim to be able to cure LGBT people. They are offensive but not misleading. Free speech means the right of others to say things we find offensive. Read my full analysis in the New Statesman:

    1. Luis Bergulio 23 Mar 2013, 8:48am

      Peter I disagree with you on many issues, but on this one I agree with you, ‘free speech’ must prevail in an open and democratic society. Ignore the right wingers from the gay community who shout you down on the Pink News Com boxes – they are not representative of the whole gay community, a lot of them have serious anger issues from childhood and need help. More and more I am realising it impossible on Pink News to discuss anything rationally. All the best on this one.

      1. Luis – Free speech also involves the exercise of responsibile influence. Democracy is not an inalieable right to promote every idea. We do not live in an a-moral vacuum.

        1. “Democracy is not an inalieable right to promote every idea. We do not live in an a-moral vacuum.”

          That is exactly the same argument that people who oppose same sex marriage use, you two are closer together in thought then you think.

          1. I agree, but “Free speech” is also contingent, i. e . . . dependent on the current values of the day.

          2. John K- that is such a stupid comment:

            “Free speech” is also contingent, i. e . . . dependent on the current values of the day.

            Supposing ‘society’ decided that child abuse was suddenly acceptable, would it make it so?

    2. “Core Issues Trust” who funded the advert are misleading the public on the issue of reparative therapies.

      Although “Core Issues Trust” may not be attempting to cure LGBT people as an oganisation, they are however claiming that sexual orientation can be changed through therapy.

      Most reputable mental health bodies refute this claim: RCP, BACP, UKCP

    3. ‘…The bus adverts claim: “Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay & Proud. Get over it!” They don’t claim to be able to cure LGBT people…’

      But it implies that ‘Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay’ is a FACT. Freedom of speech is important but it shouldn’t be used to peddle lies and hateful propaganda.

  31. Common sense 23 Mar 2013, 2:18am

    Well I agree with Peter. The right way to respond to things like this is answer them and engage in public debate about them. Not by banning them.

    1. The problem is people have shouted down anyone who disagrees with them with the tag ‘homophobic’ to prevent any discussion

  32. Fridge_Over_LAAAAAMP 23 Mar 2013, 6:27am

    With all due respect to Peter Tatchell, gay cure therapy is far too harmful to simply be promoted in the interests of freedom of speech.

    It’s like advertising someone shooting themself for medicinal reasons – misleading innocents into causing significant harm.

  33. What does “EX-GAY” mean in the ad if it is not making a claim that gay people can be deliberately changed through the bogus “therapy” based upon homophobia that Core issues trust promotes?

  34. WooHooooooooooooooo you have anger issues darling sort it out!

  35. Jock S. Trap 23 Mar 2013, 10:09am

    Completely disagree.

    Yet again Peter forgets what it’s like to grow up amongst religious hatred. He forgets his responsibility to the young, the vulnerable who need to know their feelings are natural. Not something that is cured. We do not have a disease.

    It’s not as simple as just putting ‘Ex-Gay’. It forgetting the reason people feel the need to change themselves because of religion hatred and pressure. It’s just wrong.

    These ads undo to much work. Feed too much negative. Too much misinformation. It is simply cruel and wrong to let such discriminatory messages out their to deliberately harm.

    I am Gay. I was born this way. I do not have a disease. I am not to be ‘Cured’. Nobody has the right to tell me I am wrong and un-natural esp someone who has chosen a religious lifestyle.

    Peter Tatchell wants to fight for progress but here he is taking us 4 steps back to focus on a religious belief system that promotes death at worst. That is not, Cannot be right by any Human Right Standard

    1. @Godless

      If you really were Godly, you would understand that all Gods creatures are of equal value.

      Calling people filthy, shows that you not only have no argument, but your “type” lost the moral high ground decades ago

    2. Jock S. Trap 23 Mar 2013, 2:38pm

      Actually you’ll find it’s idiots like yourself and religion that harms society and has no benefit to society.

      That’s why you bigots are in decline.

      I prefer to use my brain and think for myself not make vile excuse why I can’t. I know I’m happy with life. Sadly you can’t say the same being that you feel you have the right to be so judgmental.

      Being So bigoted and judgmental, like yourself, usually comes from being jealous of others who are perfectly happy with themselves and who we are.

      How’s that for ‘some morals’?


      1. Jock S. Trap 23 Mar 2013, 5:27pm

        Ha… first email indeed… what’s with that? It’s the same one I’ve been using for here for years.

  36. Another point seldom mentioned is that by mimicking the Stonewall red and black format, the CIT adverts could be seen as ‘passing off’.

    With a press advert you have time to study it and read the small print, but a bus advert may been glimpsed for only a few moments. It’s likely that many people would believe it was from Stonewall.

    The resulting confusion would dilute the genuine Stonewall message, or even make some people believe Stonewall was now offering a gay ‘cure’ instead.

    Quite apart from all the other objections, this misrepresentation was quite sufficient to justify the CIT advert being pulled.

  37. I heart you Peter, but i don’t agree with you at all over this. They are blatantly encouraging hostility to us, and it can’t be allowed.

  38. not only is tatchell misleading, following his bourgoise liberal ideology he is also contradictory. So he wants to deprive TfL of there freedom of choice to advertise what they?

  39. I sometimes wonder what planet Peter lives on. Sure, we all agree Freedom of Speech is a right we all cherish. Indeed many of us will have suffered a lifetime of abuse as we have spoken up for what is right and we haven’t been bullied into death or submission.

    Sadly, there are lots of us who haven’t made it this far. I know of one, and I’m sure a number on this thread will have friends and loved ones who could no longer take being on the receiving end of others right to freedom of speech.

    Being called fag, queer, bender, deviant, unnatural has been with many of us since childhood. I still get it from my neighbour despite being in my 50s and he a similar age.

    The bus ad was not an exercise in free speech. It was another example of hatred and intolerance and thankfully, TFL saw it for what it was and stuck up to the bullies.

  40. Just because something has not been scientifically proven doesn’t mean it’s not real. There are many people who have been through ex-gay therapy who say that it *did* work. Why should they not be allowed a voice in the public square?

  41. Peter Tatchell 23 Mar 2013, 11:26pm

    Sadly, many gay people on this thread want to impose the same censorship on others that was imposed on the LGBT community for many years = hypocrisy.

    Years ago, I fought against London Transport banning adverts for gay helplines and positive images of gay love. They said these were offensive. The same reasoning is now being used to ban the ex-gay adverts.

    Free speech means the right of others to say things we may find offensive.

    Read my full analysis in the New Statesman:

    1. “Free speech means the right of others to say things we may find offensive”

      Free speech also involves responsibility, it is not an inalieable right!. Free speech is also contigent, becasue you cannot separate it from the value base of the day, which means free speech will always be parital.

    2. The ads are not only offensive but more importantly they are promoting a lie, at best you could say it is making an entirely unevidenced claim that ex-gay people actually exist, it has never been legitimately demonstrated that sexual orientation can be deliberately changed.

    3. Peter, banning advertisement of the false statements like the one from core issues is not the same as banning advertisement of the gay helplines and positive images of gay love. And it is rather dishonest of you to trying to imply that there is valid link between the two in terms of principle.

      Of course in the judge’s opinion the whole issue came down to the slogan being able to “cause grave offence” to the gay community, simply because that’s what TfL and Mayor’s Office argued for as the reason for refusal, hence you automatically assumed that the argument must be about freedom of speech and the one’s right to be offensive.

      But the whole affair should have been treated as one of false advertising, but that would be a lot more difficult case to argue, for obvious reasons.

      The gay community felt strongly about the add but didnt object to it just because it was offensive, they objected to it because it was based on unchallenged lies motivated by pure homophobia.

  42. Peter Tatchell 23 Mar 2013, 11:30pm

    In don’t agree with the bus adverts but the words they used were not hateful, abusive, menacing or threatening.

    1. I disagree . . .

      Core Issues wanted to use the bus adverts to endorse and promote reparative therapies.

      I think you will find that most mental health bodies view reparative psychotherapies as hateful, abusive and threatening to the dignity of LGBT people.

      1. Can you read? He said the words they used were not abusive, not the therapy itself.

        God, some people really will go out of their way to miss the point.

        1. Read what I have said . . .

    2. Of course they are all those things Peter. You are so wrong defending this advert. get over it

    3. As it was a direct response to the Stonewall ads that were saying some people are gay get over it , what the words in the Core Issues Trust ad implies is certainly menacing, that gay people can be or have been be cured.
      As far as I know there are no gay people that have indeed become ex-gay people, they may have become celibate or they may be pretending to themselves and the rest of the world that they are no longer gay but there is no evidence that such a thing as ex-gay exists at all, there is exactly no legitimate, peer reviewed evidence that shows sexual orientation can be changed deliberately or that anyone is indeed ex-gay.
      What the Core Issues Trust ad implies is an abusive, menacing and unevidenced claim, in other words it’s an anti-gay lie which amounts to hate speech.

      1. Peter Tatchell, it seems, is arguing that if the lies (and you clearly conveyed why the slogan was one big fat lie) are not ‘ hateful, abusive, menacing or threatening’ than they can be displayed in public arena or on public property and be protected under the right to free speech.

  43. colonelkira 24 Mar 2013, 1:43am

    I honestly never thought I would live to see the day that I agree with Mr Tatchell! Bravo sir!

    1. Patrick McCann 25 Mar 2013, 2:09am

      Really, Daniel, that reply was worth typing???

  44. As much as I may not agree with Peter on this he has done a great deal to enhance the lgbt cause often as a lone voice. Disagree with him by all means but dont slag him off he’s a good guy

    1. Misguided on this occasion – on its face the advert was untruthfull and misleading and the underlying message was trying to advance a “Snake oil” type therapy which is dishonest, harmful, and does not work while creating damaging self worth issues ( sometimes creating a deep depression which results in suicide ). Granted, the words used are not in them selves offensive, but adverts work in conceptulisation, a mental picture and in that sense it is offensive because it is false and untrue and its promuligator is a hate group (Core issues Trust ) wrapped in a cloak of bigoted religiousity.
      Advertising which is false and which promotes a harm are to the best of my knowledge not legal in this country.
      Peter Thatchell needs to address that issue.

    2. “Disagree with him by all means but dont slag him off he’s a good guy”

      Pete S . . . surely you are not saying that Mr Peter T should be immune from free speech?

    3. Certainly I think Peter Tatchell is a marvel and has done much for equality over the years, but on this occasion his judgement is way off and he would have done better to keep quiet.

  45. I agree with Tatchell on this. But why don’t the authorities in London do what those in SF have done?

    In SF people have taken out adverts showing muslim homophobia. And the SF transit authority is giving all profits from the ads to muslim groups.

    The same thing could be done in the UK. Let the christian fascists show their ads, and give all the money they pay for the ads to gay groups.

  46. Well said Peter. Unless it actively incites violence or abuse I oppose censorship in ALL its forms.

    And, of course, we must remember some gay “offensive” material is still censored. Look at the recent (albeit unsuccessful) use of the OPA against a gay pornographer, for instance.

    You continue to rise in my esteem.

  47. We’re arguing amongst ourselves. This is exactly what our opponents want us to do.

    1. Yep this is further proof of the madness of the homosexual lifestyle

  48. Peter has unfortunately got confused. TfL has a corporate policy on what advertising it will not allow. One of those is:

    “The advertisement is likely to cause widespread or serious
    offence to members of the public”.

    Therefore the legal issue was simply, “was TfL acting within its powers?”. The judge said that whilst in some respects they acted outside their powers they were justified in doing so by the other powers they have (namely to ban adverts causing widespread offence).

    The judge did not say that Core Issues Trust can never run that advert anywhere in Britain.

    I have a lot of time for Peter Tatchell and I am sure he is intelligent enough to know that he has misrepresented the issue, which is rather disappointing.

    Corporations have policies to demonstrate their chosen morals. They don’t pretend to be the last word in freedom of speech.

    I for one am glad TfL choose not to run offensive adverts on buses, paid for by the taxpayer and in our eyesight every day.

  49. If you look at TfL’s corporate policy on advertising ( you’ll also see that they ban:

    – sexual content or nudity
    – lap dancing clubs
    – depictions of antisocial behaviour
    – matters of public controversy or sensitivity
    – political parties

    I wonder if Peter is aware of these gross attacks on freedom of speech by TfL? How can democracy survive if we are prevented from seeing buses with naked people on or UKIP’s next election campaign? I look forward to his next article…

  50. It’s not about silencing an opinion, Peter, it’s about silencing a destructive lie. There is a fundamental difference, and you can say that it does no damage to every person that has killed themselves as a result of a traumatic anti-gay therapy experience.

    1. For comparison, I wonder how you’d feel about an ad on a bus which said: “lobotomies – 50% off at Milburn Hospital. Guaranteed to work for any mental health problem, just call the number below to arrange an appointment.”

  51. Peter, there is a difference between free speak and spreading lies that have been proven to be wrong and dangerous to the people involved. Turin killed himself because of this type of therapy, tell him its not dangerous or hurtful.

  52. Leaving aside the fact it’s misleading advertising, hateful, and damaging to the welfare and self-esteem of a large number of people, both straight and gay …. I’d like to ask who exactly is going to perform this reparative therapy. All therapists have to belong to an accredited organisation – but none of the organisations to which they can belong in the UK allow them to suggest such a therapy, they consider it a matter of gross misconduct, as Lesley Pilkington knows. So, the only possible people who could offer such a therapy as unregulated non-professionals such as clergy or someone similar, doing so under the guise of some sort of religious practise — for which, there is, no possible biblical justification.

    Now, if I propose a slogan slating black people – is that ok Peter? You are wrong on this, and wrong on Section 5. Shortly the EU is to outlaw hate speech and crack down on hate crimes.

    1. Chill out Gully

  53. Pattacake 2 Apr 2013, 2:14pm

    Tatchell is one of the few in this movement who have any respect at all for genuine freedom or equal rights. Without a doubt most of the hysterical queer Nazis who read Stink News will want to censor all other points of view. That is typical of them.
    The LGBT movement is based on lies, there is no evidence that anyone is born homosexual and there is no such thing as homophobia. Why should you be allowed to promulgate falsehoods?
    Why should you arrogantly censor other, more educated people’s opinions?
    Therapy is a choice for the patient, and you have got no right to impose your control over other people’s lives. You are hypocrites when you talk about freedom. You are also bullies.

    1. so true

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.