ASA Adjudications

Coherent and Cohesive Voice
PO Box 655
Haywards Heath
West Sussex
RH11 9AT
Number of complaints: 51
Date:18 July 2007
Media:National press
Sector:Non-commercial

Ad
a.   An ad in The Times, for a religious pressure group, was headlined "SEX". The text stated "Freedom of conscience? Freedom of religion? Not any more. Now the Labour Government are going to decide what is and isn't acceptable, and then they are going to force their views onto you. Until last week it appeared that the Government were taking seriously the concerns expressed by religious groups about the Sexual Orientation Regulations.  However, the Government has now fast-tracked identical Regulations in Northern Ireland, ignoring all such representations and setting an unworkable precedent for England, Wales and Scotland."  A heading stated "So what do the Government's newly proposed SEXUAL ORIENTATION REGULATIONS do? A list of questions, each with a ticked box beside it, stated "Force all schools to actively promote homosexual Civil Partnerships to children (from primary school age) to the same degree that they teach the importance of marriage? Force a printing shop run by a Christian to print flyers promoting gay sex? Force a family-run B&B to let out a double room to a transsexual couple, even if the family think it is in the best interests of their children to refuse to allow such a situation in their own home? Make it illegal for a heterosexual policeman, fireman or member of the Armed Forces, to refuse to join a Gay Pride event promoting the homosexual way of life?"  The text continued "All British people should live together respectfully and peacefully but they should not be compelled by law to act against their conscience.  It is not too much to ask of the Government that individuals are left with the freedom to make their own minds up as to what sexual practices are acceptable and what aren't.  We call on the Ministers with authority on this issue, Meg Munn and Ruth Kelly, to protect the long cherished freedom of conscience in this country, by adding a simple clause to the Regulations: 'Nothing in these Regulations shall force an individual to act against their conscience or strongly held religious beliefs'."  Further text invited readers concerned by the issue to write to the named Ministers, and gave their addresses.  At the bottom of the ad text stated "Placed by Coherent and Cohesive Voice, a network of hundreds of Christian leaders in the UK representing hundreds of thousands of voters."

b.   The same ad appeared in the official magazine of the House of Commons, The House Magazine, with an additional invitation to readers to write to Peter Hain at the House of Commons.
Issue
1.   The Civil Service Rainbow Alliance, the Fire Brigades Union, the National Secular Society and members of the public objected that ad (a) was inaccurate and misleading because it misrepresented the Government's proposed changes to the legislation. They challenged whether the claims made about the effects of the new regulations could be substantiated.

2.   The Fire Brigades Union and members of the public objected that ad (a) misleadingly implied that it represented the views of all Christians in the UK.

3.   The Civil Service Rainbow Alliance and members of the public objected that ad (a) was offensive, because it suggested that regulations aimed at protecting people from discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of sexual orientation were harmful.  Several complainants objected that the headline "SEX" was offensive, because it reduced the identity of gay people to one thing.   

4.   The Civil Service Rainbow Alliance and members of the public objected that the statement "... setting an unworkable precedent for England, Wales and Scotland" in both ads was misleading and could not be substantiated.

5.   The Civil Service Rainbow Alliance and members of the public objected that ad (a) was inflammatory and likely to provoke homophobic behaviour.  Some of the complainants feared that religious groups would be seen as sanctioning violence and prejudice towards gay and bisexual people.

6.   The Gender Trust and members of the public objected that ad (a) was offensive to transsexual people and likely to incite hatred towards them.

7.   The Gender Trust and members of the public objected that the reference to transsexual people in ad (a) was misleading because the proposed regulations related to sexual orientation and not to gender.

8.   The Civil Service Rainbow Alliance objected that ad (b) was inaccurate and misleading because it misrepresented the Government's proposed changes to the legislation.  It challenged whether the claims made about the effects of the new regulations could be substantiated.

9.   The Civil Service Rainbow Alliance objected that ad (b) was offensive, because it suggested that regulations aimed at protecting people from discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of sexual orientation were harmful.

10.   The Civil Service Rainbow Alliance objected that ad (b) was inflammatory and likely to provoke homophobic behaviour.



The CAP Code: 2.2;5.1;7.1;8.1;11.1;3.1

Response
Coherent and Cohesive Voice (CCV) said the Government had failed to answer concerns from Christian organisations about consultation documents for the proposed Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) for England, Wales and Scotland.  Following the unexpected publication of the parallel SORs for Northern Ireland (NI), CCV said they drafted the ad after legal analysis of both the consultation documents and the NI regulations, with input from several barristers and solicitors, including a senior QC and a former parliamentary draftsman.  The Lawyers Christian Fellowship confirmed that they had orchestrated legal input.  CCV pointed out that the ad was placed through a reputable agency and that The Times had approved it before publication.  They said they had no plans to use the ad in public in future.  CCV asked that the ad be considered as a whole and said individual sections should not be viewed out of context.  They said they were confident that, when read objectively, the ad fell well within the CAP principles and guidelines.  They argued that it constituted a genuine request to the Government to consider rational concerns expressed by thousands of people about the manner in which the SORs were drafted, and the need for them to be amended to protect freedom of conscience and freedom of religion for Christians.

CCV asserted that the focus of the ad was clearly on legitimate and reasoned concerns about legislation, and not on criticising homosexuals or transsexuals as people or stirring up feeling against them.  They said the ad was drafted carefully to avoid unnecessary rhetoric and that efforts were made to avoid personalising the comments.  They asserted that, as Christians, they opposed all unjustified discrimination including on the grounds of sexual orientation, but, notwithstanding that, they held legitimate concerns about the need to protect the freedom for Christians to follow the Bible's teaching that homosexual practice was wrong.  They argued that the whole thrust of the ad was the call, emphasised by its large font size, for the Government to adopt a clause that stated "Nothing in these Regulations shall force an individual to act against their conscience or strongly held religious beliefs".

With regard to their claim that the SORs would "force all schools to actively promote homosexual Civil Partnerships to children (from primary school age) to the same degree that they teach the importance of marriage", CCV said by the date of the ad there had been no legal decision or undertaking that schools that actively promoted marriage would not be liable to a legal challenge if they failed to promote Civil Partnership to the same degree.  They referred to clauses in the NI regulations relating to discrimination and detriment, which, they argued, would mean that a homosexual pupil could complain that a school's teaching that marriage was the right relationship for families, when he/she personally could not be married, meant that his/her sexual orientation was being perceived as wrong.  CCV also referred to a case brought against a school in Canada with similar laws.

With regard to their claim that the SORs would "force a printing shop run by a Christian to print flyers promoting gay sex", CCV said the NI regulations stated that a service provider such as a printing shop would be discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation if a person approached them to print flyers promoting gay sex and they refused but would be prepared to print material relating to marital (heterosexual) sex.  They said they knew of three Christian printers who had been asked to print material relating to homosexuality.  They said in other jurisdictions Christian printers had been taken to court for failing to print homosexual material.

Regarding the claim that the SORs would "Force a family-run B&B to let out a double room to a transsexual couple ... ", CCV responded that although transsexualism was not explicitly covered by the regulations, if a male transsexual, who dressed as a woman, shared a room with another man it would constitute homosexual behaviour and the B&B owners would therefore be acting unlawfully if they refused them a double room on those grounds.

CCV said their claim that the SORs would "Make it illegal for a heterosexual policeman, fireman or member of the Armed Forces, to refuse to join a Gay Pride event promoting the homosexual way of life", was based on a case where nine firemen were disciplined for refusing, some on the grounds of conscience, to hand out leaflets at a Gay Pride event.  They explained that because attendance at such an event was treated as a service to the public, to refuse on the grounds that you thought it wrong to specifically attend a Gay Pride rally would be illegal.

CCV claimed that the approval of the NI Regulations set an unworkable precedent for England, Wales and Scotland because politicians believed it would be extremely hard to work a law which rendered harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation illegal, which was what the SORs did in NI.  They said politicians in the House of Lords were cited in the Government consultation into the NI SORs as arguing that "while the concept [of a harassment law] sat more easily in the employment sphere, it was extremely difficult to define what constitutes violation of dignity in terms of goods or service provision".  They said the NI SORs were intended to have broad parity with the England, Wales and Scotland regulations.

CCV said they used the headline "SEX" to summarise the subject of the ad, the Sexual Orientation Regulations, due to lack of space.  They maintained that the focus of the ad was on sexual practices because the SORs did not solely address the issue of orientation.  They argued that the pertinent issue from a Christian perspective was that they addressed sexual relationships outside marriage and that sex was therefore the main subject of the ad.  They said the headline also served to draw readers' attention to the ad, so that they would read and consider the one request made to the public.  They also said they had always sought a full and frank two-sided debate on the issue.  
       
The Times said they took their obligations under the Code very seriously and that their view was that the ad was not likely to cause serious or widespread offence to their readers.  They argued that the assertions and supporting statements made in the ad were entirely of the type that could be found in the editorial sections of some national newspapers.  They added that they had received only three complaints about the ad.

The House Magazine (House) explained that they were the magazine for MPs and peers and they actively encouraged discussion and debate around legislation, regulation and matters of public policy.  House said they believed the subject of the ad was acceptable for their audience, although they accepted that some might argue that its content was neither logical nor an accurate or unbiased representation of the debate around the regulations.  They explained that MPs and parliamentarians received lobbying material from a wide variety of sources, material that was often presented in stark terms and highlighted a one-sided interpretation of a public policy matter.  House maintained that their readers' role as policy-makers meant that all shades of the policy argument could and should be presented to them and that they could view those arguments without taking personal offence or being incited to act in a particular way.  House said they believed that, given their unique status, their readers were sufficiently able to identify well-argued debates and poorly-substantiated arguments, and were unlikely to take offence, nor to respond to what some might see as the inflammatory interpretation of a matter of public policy.  House added that in response to some readers' questioning of the ad's content they had published a feedback article written by an MP that rebutted the advertisers' claims and voiced support for the proposed regulations.   
Assessment
1., 7. & 8. Upheld
The ASA obtained legal advice.  We noted the Government had issued a Consultation Paper on the proposed laws for England, Wales and Scotland in March 2006, but had still not put forward draft regulations when the ads were published.  Regulations were introduced in Northern Ireland in November 2006, but as part of a different process.  Although both sets of regulations would ban discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation, we understood that it was not accurate to describe them as "identical".  

We noted CCV's reference to discrimination and detriment clauses which could lead to a school being required to teach about civil partnerships if they taught about marriage.  We considered, however, that that would have little or no practical application at primary school age.  In addition we noted that in its March 2006 Consultation the government indicated that it was minded to use the existing statutory and non-statutory framework and not the regulations to address the issue in teaching.  We considered that the regulations were unlikely to force schools, either primary or secondary, actively to promote Civil Partnerships in teaching.

We noted the Regulations would make it unlawful for a printing shop to refuse to print flyers promoting gay sex only if the refusal was discriminatory, i.e. because the printer was willing to print flyers that promoted heterosexual sex.  We understood service providers were entitled to refuse to provide a service (e.g. on grounds that they did not print material of a sexual nature, or material promoting sex outside marriage/civil partnership) as long as they were not discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation.  

We noted transsexuals were those who had changed their gender roles and that that would not affect their sexual orientation.  We also noted the proposed regulations did not relate to gender reassignment; that was dealt with in sex discrimination legislation which had not (yet) made it unlawful to discriminate on grounds of gender reassignment in the provision of services.

We noted that although the regulations would make it unlawful for a public authority to discriminate against a person on the grounds of his sexual orientation, they would not make it illegal for a heterosexual police officer, firefighter or member of the Armed Forces to refuse to join a Gay Pride event, which was no part of their public functions.  We understood that it was part of a firefighter's core responsibilities to attend public events to distribute fire safety advice to the community and that the firefighters referred to by CCV had been subject to disciplinary action by their employer.  They were not disciplined for refusing to promote homosexuality.

We noted the Ministerial Answer of Lord Rooker in the House of Lords on 13 December 2006 describing the four examples (given in the ad) as incorrect insofar as they applied to the NI Regulations.

We concluded that the ad exaggerated the effect of the proposed regulations and was likely to mislead readers of The Times.  We considered that although a parliamentarian readership would be likely to be aware of the content of the proposed SORs, the claims exaggerated their effect.  We concluded that the ad was likely to mislead readers.

On these points, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Not upheld
We noted the reference to concerns expressed by "religious groups" in the introductory text.  We also noted the ad stated "Placed by Coherent and Cohesive Voice, a network of hundreds of Christian leaders in the UK representing hundreds of thousands of voters ".  We considered that readers of The Times would understand that the Christian Church in the UK was made up of diverse groups and that not all Christians would share the views of the leaders in question.  We concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead readers.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

3. Not upheld
We noted CCV's claim that the ad emphasised freedom of conscience and freedom of religion and did not criticise homosexuals as people, and their argument that the headline "SEX" would draw attention to the ad and was a reference to its subject matter.  We acknowledged their concern that the proposed regulations might impede their freedom to follow the Bible's teaching about homosexual practices.  We noted The Times' argument that such assertions could be found in editorial material throughout the national press.  We considered that although many readers would disagree with the implication that religious freedom of conscience should be given precedence over the legal right for gay and bisexual people to be treated without discrimination, they would, nevertheless, understand that CCV were expressing their views about the regulations and accept that they were entitled to do so.  We also considered that the headline would be seen as an eye-catching reference to the SORs discussed, and not as reducing the identity of gay people to one thing only.  We concluded that, although some might object to the views expressed in it, the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clause 5.1 (Offence) but did not find it in breach.

4. Not upheld
We considered that, in the context of an ad by a pressure group that opposed the regulations, the description "unworkable precedent" would be seen as CCV's opinion.  We concluded that the claim was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 8.1 (Matters of Opinion) but did not find them in breach.

5. Not upheld
We noted CCV's argument that the focus of the ad was not on stirring up feeling against homosexual people but rather on their concerns about the proposed legislation.  We also noted the ad stated "All British people should live together respectfully and peacefully".  We considered that the tone of the ad was not inflammatory and that people would see it as representative of the views of some Christians.  We concluded that the ad was unlikely to be interpreted by most readers as condoning or inciting homophobic behaviour.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Social responsibility), 8.1 (Matters of opinion) and 11.1 (Violence and anti-social behaviour) but did not find it in breach.

6. Not upheld
We noted transsexuals were those who had changed their gender roles and that that would not affect their sexual orientation.  We noted the ad made reference to a transsexual couple in relation to the SORs.  We considered that the claim displayed a lack of understanding about transsexuals but although it suggested some Christian families might consider a transsexual couple in relation to the SORs, we considered that it did not denigrate transsexuals.  We concluded that the reference was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or to condone or provoke hatred towards transsexuals.   

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Social responsibility), 5.1 (Offence) and 11.1 (Violence and anti-social behaviour) but did not find it in breach.

9. & 10. Not upheld
We noted House's readership comprised MPs and peers and that in their role as policy-makers they were accustomed to receiving lobbying material that presented political arguments in extreme terms.  We also noted House published a feedback article that voiced support for the proposed regulations.  We considered that although some readers might object to the views expressed in the ad, because they would read the magazine as part of their role as politicians, few would be inclined to take personal offence.  We concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or to be interpreted as an incitement to homophobic behaviour.

On these points, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Social responsibility), 5.1 (Offence), 8.1 (Matters of opinion) and 11.1 (Violence and anti-social behaviour), but did not find it in breach.
Action
We told CCV not to repeat the ad in its current format.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)

back | top