Anyone pondering the difference between UK and US conservatives might want to consider this story:
Now bear in mind that Boris is a member of the Conservative (large C) Party AND is currently running for re-election. Can you imagine a Republican saying something like that in an election year? Admittedly Londoners are a cosmopolitan lot, plus we’re expecting a few million tourists in a few months for the Olympics and I doubt Boris wants to deal with the potential international bad publicity but still, it’s a refreshing viewpoint to come from our very own Upper Class Twit.
What I also find amusing is the reaction of the Labour candidate and lifetime demagogue Ken Livingstone, desperate for something to be outraged about:
So despite the ads getting blocked before they went out, Ken’s view is that Boris should have blocked them even earlier. Damn you, Boris, for not going back in time to prevent this!
And then there’s the Liberal Democrat mayoral candidate, Brian Paddick, who said:
Yes, a gay Christian former policeman is in the running for the job (although he’s turning into a perennial candidate, this being his third run at it). I freaking love London.
I don’t have a particular debate unless you want to talk about the ability of the mayor’s office to veto such things, but given the intersection of electoral politics, fundamentalist religion and homosexuality this seemed like the inevitable place to put it.
Ha, when I first read this article I was just drafting an extremely angry email to the TFL. I was all irate and ready to accuse them of all manner of evils. I’m glad Boris sorted it all, but I was left with a whole lot of pent-up anger Might just have to find some other poor unwitting bigot to unleash it all on!
I’m conflicted here. While I don’t support the concept of “curing” gay people, isn’t there a free speech issue involved, too? The article doesn’t really address that.
Yes, but the previous Labour government criminalised speech inciting racial and religious hatred, so it’d look a little awkward for a Labour candidate to come to the defence of homophobic speech.
We in the UK don’t have an entrenched constitution with a bill of rights, the nearest proxies are the Universal Declaration, European conventions and the Magna Carta.
In no country in the world does free speech actually mean the right to say whatever, to whoever, in any circumstance.
And given the history, I’d argue that something implying the “curing” of homosexuality should come under hate speech.
In the US, there might be tolerance of many anti-gay messages, simply because it is a popular viewpoint, but reverse the message to “we can make you gay” and it would probably fall foul of obscenity rules or something like that.
From time to time, the DC Metro runs ads on one side or another of controversial political or social issues. It’s always taken the position that courts have held that transit agencies are not permitted to refuse such ads. Congress once attached a rider to a bill that forbade transit systems from accepting ads for marijuana reform, but that restriction was struck down.
What leeway should countries have regarding fundamental human rights before those in other countries are allowed to consider it a morality issue? Does this same principle apply to same sex marriage and women’s rights?
Can you furnish me with a cite to the times when anti-gay ads graced American city buses?
Because the only difference between the US and UK that this thread really exemplifies is how facile an understanding most Brits have of the United States.
Quite. We don’t allow Nazi’s to promulgate their hatred or Islamists to incite hatred of gays either.
There are free speech concerns but looking at how the 1st Amendement has worked to allow Corporations to buy even more political influence than they have already I’m much happier with the more pragmatic British approach.
The people who wanted the ads are perfectly free to raise a legal challenge and people prosecuted under hate speech legislation get their day in court all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights if they want.
The issue isn’t so much that buses can’t have ethical standards, it’s that the government can intervene to ban something that passed the company’s guidelines.
I’m aware that free speech isn’t consequence free speech. However, those consequences should not be coming from government.
Might just have to find some other poor unwitting bigot to unleash it all on!
WE DONT HAVE 1 IN TH UK