Reader comments · Transport for London ban on anti-gay adverts put in doubt by Court of Appeal ruling · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Transport for London ban on anti-gay adverts put in doubt by Court of Appeal ruling

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I don’t like bringing race and gender into it, but if that bus ad had said “Not black! Ex-black! Post black! and proud of it! Or “Not a woman…!
    If these people aren’t gay as they claim, then they’re heterosexual. A member of a majority group, and their slant is an attack on a minority group.
    If their claim is serious, then what they’re in a way declaring is “Not gay! I’m straight! “Get over it!”
    Yet its not us that need to get over anything, all we want is to live in peace and to enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else. It’s those who declare themselves “ex-gay” who have something to get over. And that’s the fact that they’re homosexual and there’s nothing wrong with it.

    1. Midnighter 27 Jan 2014, 1:28pm

      Or as Senator Ernie Chambers pointed out to an “ex gay” advocate, another word for enjoying both same-sex and heterosexual sex is “bisexual”.

      Suppressing an aspect of your sexuality is not the same thing as changing your sexuality: Christians don’t consider celibate priests to have been “cured” of sexuality, they consider them to be exercising a choice to devote this part of their lives to God.

      1. As I’ve said before, you can wear coloured contact lenses – but you haven’t ‘cured’ the colour of your eyes. You’re stuck with what you were born. Some people have blue eyes; get over it!

  2. We should do all we can to ensure that the High Court will reject the demands of the deluded loony Christians of “Core Issues”. What these loons are seeking to do is to actually undermine our value and dignity. Following the passing of the Same-Sex Couples Act, they want us firmly demoted back to the level of second-rate citizens. They wish the message to go out, on London buses and via every other means at their disposal, that we are only sexual perverts who have freely chosen to be homosexual, when all of us, and the majority of rational heterosexual citizens, know that that is not the case.

    What these loony religionists are up to is pernicious and vicious. But that’s how religionists have always behaved, isn’t it.

    We have to keep fighting them.

    We must not be passive.

  3. That There Other David 27 Jan 2014, 1:27pm

    If I see this advert on the side of a bus I will vandalise it. That’s all I’m going to say.

    1. Midnighter 27 Jan 2014, 1:31pm

      Yeah, would be easy enough to get some red paint and erase the “NOT” “EX-” and “POST-” parts :-D

      1. Pete (Nottingham) 27 Jan 2014, 2:53pm

        You sir, are a genius.

    2. My thoughts exactly – a ladder and a can of spray paint – done and done –

  4. So the courts have agreed with a homophobic group who wish to incite hatred. Disgusting. Further proof that some in the courts (those who have made this decision) are homophobic.

    If these adverts ever go up again, someone should take legal action against TFL for hate speech.

    As Mike said, and I’ve said before, imagine it saying “not black, ex black, post black and proud.”

    The original adverts were produced to try and stop people from being homophobic. These adverts are only there to incite hatred against gay people. To make people homophobic. No other reason.

    1. Midnighter 27 Jan 2014, 1:48pm

      I agree with you over taking action against TFL if they were stupid enough to post these again.

      Since the fundies lost the challenge over free-speech which would have given them a legitimate right to spread their hate, my understanding is:

      1) TFL are not legally obliged to consider their posters favourably on equality grounds and can reject them.
      2) TFL ARE legally obliged to consider these posters unfavourably on equality grounds (and would IMHO be daft if they set out to appease a vocal minority with what the vast bulk of their customers would recognise as hate-speech.

      On the postiive side, there are several parts to their challenge, and they’ve lost others: this is not a final judgement just an allowance for a second look and only concerns whether Boris acted according to correct procedure. Even if the way he acted was deemed unlawful, it still may turn out that there are other ways the Mayor could legitimately block it.

  5. What a huge pity this christian so-called ‘charity’ is prepared to waste yet MORE money on what amounts to a vindictive campaign against gay people. What a huge pity it isn’t doing what most of us assume is the role of a ‘charity’ – collecting money and giving it to worthy causes. Instead, as is the case with many christian charities, they appear to exist purely for the promotion of their religion and to provide a tax-free income for their officers. What a pity the government of the UK continues to allow religious charities to exist, seemingly, simply to attack gay people. The Charities Commission is a law unto itself and needs URGENT investigation …….

    1. Midnighter 27 Jan 2014, 2:32pm

      Yep that really gets to the heart of it: instead of doing something positive and constructive to help people, these “Christians” choose to spend their money on actively harming others by:

      – pursuing what amounts to a hate campaign which ignores medical evidence and professional consensus by falsely positioning homosexuality as an aberration
      – by pushing illegitimate practices which are known to cause significant and lasting harm to those individuals

      It is bad enough that religions ignore evidence and peddle lies as matter of routine, but it is unacceptable when they do so in manner which expressly causes harm and helps no one.

      1. AND funded by tax-payers! If these ‘charities’ had to pay tax, I’d be fractionally less outraged.

        1. Midnighter 27 Jan 2014, 2:47pm

          Yep. See my note about Ernie Chambers above : he’s just introduced a measure to exclude religion in his state from tax exemption :-)

    2. truth, I agree that Core Issues Trust is a dubious charity – indeed I argued this at length in a comment a few weeks back.

      But the Charity Commission is blameless.

      Core Issues Trust is registered in Northern Ireland. That really _is_ a law unto itself – although NI charities law is being brought into line with the rest of the UK.

      When CIT received tax exemption there was no charities regulator in NI, and HMRC considered applications for charitable status. The new Charity Commission for Northern Ireland – totally separate from the Charity Commission – is grandfathering in all NI organisations with existing HMRC charitable status (so-called “Deemed List” orgs), of which Core Issues Trust is one. This grandfathering process means that there is no opportunity for substantive scrutiny of the charity’s claim.

      Getting the CCNI to take any action over CIT is going to be an uphill struggle, both because of the politics of NI and the bureaucracy of the current process.

      1. Thanks for that, Atlanta. Then it’s an even bigger disgrace. Protecting existing charitable status without any forward-going scrutiny? Outrageous and open to abuse and misuse. Charities are forbidden from engaging in political action. Yet so many regularly become embroiled in court cases which are directly linked to some political change – eg; in the provision of goods and services. If this latest case is not ‘political’, I don’t know what is. Before making any ruling about this TFL matter, the judge should have questioned what right Core Issues Trust has in even bringing the case …..

        1. sorry – misread your name …..

  6. Seems to me that this group of people are guilty of misusing the term Christian to describe themselves. There is nothing ‘christian’ about their shameful and hurtful campaign. They seem to be quite happy to spend large amounts of money to promote their brand of hate. I thought that Christ was about something totally different to what they stand for.

  7. I do wonder, if Parliament does go through with banning sexual orientation ‘therapy’, would that make the Core Issues Trust advert incitement to criminal activity?

  8. Ch Brighton 27 Jan 2014, 2:41pm

    The Core Issues Trust, it seems to me, is intent on undermining any and all social and political advances made by GLBT people. It’s a hate group working in alliance with other hate groups such as Christian Concern, the Christian Institute and Anglican Mainstream. We need to maintain our vigilance and ensure this organisation’s reasonable-sounding, quietly spoken weasel words do not gain any traction.

  9. One has to ask what is REALLY behind their agenda. I suspect it’s a lot more ‘personal’ than it might appear. If you had a doubt about your sexuality but suppressed it for years, perhaps you’d be convinced that you have been ‘cured’. The ONLY way anyone can assert that homosexuality can be ‘cured’ is if they, themselves, believe they have been ‘cured’. But, it is my belief that for ‘cure’, these people should use ‘suppress’. It’s the same as someone who wears coloured contact lenses saying, ‘blue eyes can be ‘cured”. No. You can ‘mask’ blue eyes but I’m afraid you’re stuck with that which you were born.

  10. If the Core Misuse Trust is ever allowed to display these adverts, I hope that Stonewall will sue the directors of the Trust for breach of copyright / design rights. Maybe bankruptcy is just the thing these bigots needs to help them to become post-bigots.

    1. I have to say that struck me the first time round – surely one group isn’t allowed to flagrantly rip-off (without permission) the easily-identifiable style of advertising of another group, is it?

  11. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Jan 2014, 4:32pm

    Whatever the final ruling is, let’s hope that TfL will not cave in to the bigots after seeing those wonderful StonewallUK ads on the Tube in the past week.

  12. Kelvin Beer-Jones 27 Jan 2014, 4:58pm

    If we all reported them to the Charities Commission then the Commission would have to investigate their charitable status. See:

    I don’t think a group whose sole purpose is to promote the destruction of a legitimate citizen qualifies as a charity.

  13. I say let them do it, let the public – 99% of whom will find this hateful – see them for the disgusting bigots they are. The whole endeavor will massively backfire on them and they’ll regret being given what they asked for. Give them enough rope and they’ll hang themselves.

  14. Commander Thor 27 Jan 2014, 6:49pm

    Provide penile plethysmograph response to male and female erotic videos before and after… Otherwise charge them with the Sales of Goods act.

  15. Erica Cook 27 Jan 2014, 9:13pm

    ex-gays don’t have pride. They gave that up when they decided to go against their own nature.

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.