NUIG suspends Legion of Mary college society

Zamboni

You have got to love this
Bravo! NUIG Bravo!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1205/491018-nuig-legion-mary/

Zillah

Slightly conflicted. Legion of Mary: bad. Anti-gay propaganda: bad. Free speech: good.

I'm ok with this in the framework of formal society recognition being a privilege and necessarily an explicit acceptance of the college code of conduct.

Links234

Zillah wrote: »

Slightly conflicted. Legion of Mary: bad. Anti-gay propaganda: bad. Free speech: good.

I'm ok with this in the framework of formal society recognition being a privilege and necessarily an explicit acceptance of the college code of conduct.

I don't think there's anything to be conflicted over, they were offering 'reparative therapy' which is a seriously harmful practice. That's not free speech, that's offering a service that is dangerous, fraudulent and is known to cause significant harm to those who undergo it.

Sarky

It's pretty well established in NUIG that if your society breaks the rules, your society is in serious trouble. I'd never seen it happen against discriminatory crap like that before, but I've seen some pretty swift and decisive action taken against other misdemeanours like the books not quite adding up or even the AGMs not sticking to the rules. Discriminatory bigotry is, frankly, more serious than dodgy finances.

Glad to see they take such a dim view of this stuff. So are any friends I was talking to recently who were involved in the LGBT soc.

Sarky

Links234 wrote: »

I don't think there's anything to be conflicted over, they were offering 'reparative therapy' which is a seriously harmful practice. That's not free speech, that's offering a service that is dangerous, fraudulent and is known to cause significant harm to those who undergo it.

Exactly. It's on the same level as advertising cross-burnings or heroin shoot-up sessions in the college bar. That dog won't f*cking hunt, monseigneur.

Links234

Sarky wrote: »

Exactly. It's on the same level as advertising cross-burnings or heroin shoot-up sessions in the college bar. That dog won't f*cking hunt, monseigneur.

I'd liken it more to offering religious "healing" services instead, like if your child was sick, don't go to the doctor, come to us! We'll pray 'em better! It would similarly be offering a service that is harmful and has no benefit.

Cabaal

Links234 wrote: »

I'd liken it more to offering religious "healing" services instead, like if your child was sick, don't go to the doctor, come to us! We'll pray 'em better! It would similarly be offering a service that is harmful and has no benefit.

Worked for that Russian family just fine who had that baby! oh wai......

Corkfeen

Legion of Mary receive funding from college,not sure if there's any college that would be comfortable with funding such practises. They're free to do whatever they want but not under the guise of a college society. Any society which encouraged self-hatred in any way, would be liable to be suspended.

Benny_Cake

Hardly surprising under the circumstances. It'd be interesting to know if the Legion is distributing this guff generally, or if it's a solo run by the NUIG group.

irishgrover

maybe I'm missing the point here? What have the done that it so wrong/unexpected?
I read the poster on the RTE website. It's not exactly incitement to hatred. It's basically suggesting that they will assist in developing chastity, so gay people will not act on gay thoughts, and presumably eventually supress all sexual thoughts or identity, or miraculously turn into heterosexuals or priests or anything other than gay people who participate in any physical sexual activity.... ...which is pretty much in line with catholic teachings... What is the reason for the suspension?

Zillah

irishgrover wrote: »

maybe I'm missing the point here? What have the done that it so wrong/unexpected?
I read the poster on the RTE website. It's not exactly incitement to hatred. It's basically suggesting that they will assist in developing chastity, so gay people will not act on gay thoughts, and presumably eventually supress all sexual thoughts or identity, or miraculously turn into heterosexuals or priests or anything other than gay people who participate in any physical sexual activity.... ...which is pretty much in line with catholic teachings... What is the reason for the suspension?

Such practices have been shown to be very unhealthy from a psychological point of view.

Anyway, it is discriminatory propaganda. If a society published posters advocating that, say, black immigrants, should hide their skin colour and learn to look and behave more Irish you can bet your ass no one would bat an eyelid at them being shut down. Believe it not but telling people they should be ashamed of who they are and learn to pretend to be like the majority is fairly bigoted behaviour, whether it is hiding behind religion or not.

Brian Shanahan

irishgrover wrote: »

maybe I'm missing the point here? What have the done that it so wrong/unexpected?

It's a pray the gay away type appeal. These kinds of thing are universally damaging, just read this.

Just put it to you another way, if there was a poster for a muslim organisation calling for the forced conversions of all christians put up around NUIG would you consider it acceptable? Because that is the level this crowd are working at.

Sarky

irishgrover wrote: »

maybe I'm missing the point here? What have the done that it so wrong/unexpected?
I read the poster on the RTE website. It's not exactly incitement to hatred. It's basically suggesting that they will assist in developing chastity, so gay people will not act on gay thoughts, and presumably eventually supress all sexual thoughts or identity, or miraculously turn into heterosexuals or priests or anything other than gay people who participate in any physical sexual activity.... ...which is pretty much in line with catholic teachings... What is the reason for the suspension?

You just need to have a quick read of the "Courage" project they were promoting. It explicitly makes out that being gay makes you somehow lesser, that it's an illness you can only cure with prayer. They even nicked the 12 steps program from AA to promote the idea that homosexuality is a scourge that will ruin lives, as opposed to the bigotry of religious conservative sh*tspoons which actually ruins them.

That might be ok for Catholic teaching, but 3rd level institutions require rather less discriminatory and bigoted spending of the money they give to their societies.

PopePalpatine

So, when can we expect David Quinn to portray these pricks as martyrs? :rolleyes:

Sarky

Patience. It takes time to sugar coat lies of that magnitude.

irishgrover

Yea, I hear what you are saying (Zillah and Brian), I'm just surprised that that people are surprised. Basically the concept that the practice of physical homosexual acts being evil/sinful is not a new one to the catholic church.
Is the bone of contention around the fact that the LOM are indirectly offering faith based services to "fix/control" the condition or is it the fact that they have this opinion in the first place.
If it is the former then fair enough (as per Links234) however if it is the latter (ie LOM and it's parent organisation are just a bunch of homophobic twats) then it's setting a bit of a precedent that may be difficult to control...

Penn

I'm expecting more of a "So, an LGBT society is allowed but not a Christian one? This is an attack on our faith. Also, children. Always children. This will affect children. Somehow." type of response from Quinn.

Sarky

irishgrover wrote: »

Yea, I hear what you are saying (Zillah and Brian), I'm just surprised that that people are surprised. Basically the concept that the practice of physical homosexual acts being evil/sinful is not a new one to the catholic church.
Is the bone of contention around the fact that the LOM are indirectly offering faith based services to "fix/control" the condition or is it the fact that they have this opinion in the first place.
If it is the former then fair enough (as per Links234) however if it is the latter (ie LOM and it's parent organisation are just a bunch of homophobic twats) then it's setting a bit of a precedent that may be difficult to control...

The former.

I think it's a fairly good bet that we all suspect the LOM have that opinion. They're welcome to it. Lord knows nobody else wants it. But if I may plagiarise a certain organisation that purports to be the world's only bastion of morality when they're not cooperating with global authorities on the rampant child abuse they enabled and then covered up;

There's nothing wrong with feeling that way. But acting on such urges, that's just wrong.

28064212

Free speech does not mean that NUIG must provide a platform for it

DapperGent

I love this stuff "... a more complete identity in Christ.". The stringing of words together in an unconscious parody of meaning and communication.

Sarky

Implying that gay people are incomplete. Classy, Legion of Mary. Very classy.

Zillah

Sarky wrote: »

Implying that gay people are incomplete. Classy, Legion of Mary. Very classy.

This isn't new. The formal, though not-often discussed, position of the Church is that atheists don't 100% count as people because without God we are not fully embracing our humanity.

Cabaal

Zillah wrote: »

This isn't new. The formal, though not-often discussed, position of the Church is that atheists don't 100% count as people because without God we are not fully embracing our humanity.

Not surprising,
Sure didn't the church once vote at the council of Macon in 584 if women could even be considered fully human,

The votes were decided 32 votes in favor of women being considered human and 31 against.

Links234

irishgrover wrote: »

Yea, I hear what you are saying (Zillah and Brian), I'm just surprised that that people are surprised. Basically the concept that the practice of physical homosexual acts being evil/sinful is not a new one to the catholic church.
Is the bone of contention around the fact that the LOM are indirectly offering faith based services to "fix/control" the condition or is it the fact that they have this opinion in the first place.
If it is the former then fair enough (as per Links234) however if it is the latter (ie LOM and it's parent organisation are just a bunch of homophobic twats) then it's setting a bit of a precedent that may be difficult to control...

A little thought experiment for you, imagine I'm running a society in NUIG, and I'm offering psychological councelling, except that I'm not any kind of psychologist, I just believe that lizards from mars are controling humans with moonbeams and in order to rid people of these moonbeams, I have to do something that is medically unsound and has almost universally resulted in lasting harm for the people that undergo it. Should I be allowed to offer these services?



Does my sincerely held belief that people are controlled by lizards from mars with moonbeams, a core part of my religious doctrine, bear any consideration as to whether I should be allowed to offer these services or not?

Sarky

Getting a surprising amount of news coverage from RTE, although they are taking pains to avoid mentioning the parts where the courage group explicitly labels gay people inferior.

irishgrover

Links234 wrote: »

A little thought experiment for you, imagine I'm running a society in NUIG, and I'm offering psychological councelling, except that I'm not any kind of psychologist, I just believe that lizards from mars are controling humans with moonbeams and in order to rid people of these moonbeams, I have to do something that is medically unsound and has almost universally resulted in lasting harm for the people that undergo it. Should I be allowed to offer these services?

Does my sincerely held belief that people are controlled by lizards from mars with moonbeams, a core part of my religious doctrine, bear any consideration as to whether I should be allowed to offer these services or not?

Hi Links234, with absolute respect, I don't need to take part in the experiment, as I have my own clear and unambiguous views on homosexuality, which I don't need a religion to castigate/endorse or in any other way shape my opinion.
My interest in this was purely from trying to ascertain what was the cause of the ban. Basically why allow the church itself (assuming there is an RC chaplain on campus) to exist as an entity on site, and and not a LOM society, when both have very similar/identical views on lgbt issues.
At what point does a religious, philosophical or political grouping "cross that mark", regardless of the validity or otherwise of their opinion.
but I do get your point.
thanks..

Zillah

irishgrover wrote: »

Hi Links234, with absolute respect, I don't need to take part in the experiment, as I have my own clear and unambiguous views on homosexuality, which I don't need a religion to castigate/endorse or in any other way shape my opinion.
My interest in this was purely from trying to ascertain what was the cause of the ban. Basically why allow the church itself (assuming there is an RC chaplain on campus) to exist as an entity on site, and and not a LOM society, when both have very similar/identical views on lgbt issues.
At what point does a religious, philosophical or political grouping "cross that mark", regardless of the validity or otherwise of their opinion.
but I do get your point.
thanks..

Societies on campus receive the privilege of official recognition and funding, and in return have the obligation to meet certain criteria. By publishing stuff like this they fail in their obligations, and therefore lose their privileges.

irishgrover

Zillah wrote: »

Societies on campus receive the privilege of official recognition and funding, and in return have the obligation to meet certain criteria. By publishing stuff like this they fail in their obligations, and therefore lose their privileges.

fair enough, fu(k 'em then

robindch

Links234 wrote: »

Does my sincerely held belief that people are controlled by lizards from mars with moonbeams, a core part of my religious doctrine, bear any consideration as to whether I should be allowed to offer these services or not?

Does your religion mandate any special headgear and have you applied for a driving license since taking up this sincerely held belief?

Links234

robindch wrote: »

Does your religion mandate any special headgear and have you applied for a driving license since taking up this sincerely held belief?

A tinfoil papal mitre

shruikan2553

The Christian related societies attract an interesting sort of people from what I've heard. The LOM is ran by the people in the pro life society who tried to take over the Christian society but were seen as a bit too hardcore so were kicked out and they decided to act like they were the Christian society during the pro life vote.

I am intrigued by their plans, they have some sort of idea that there is power in college societies.

Links234 wrote: »

A little thought experiment for you, imagine I'm running a society in NUIG, and I'm offering psychological councelling, except that I'm not any kind of psychologist, I just believe that lizards from mars are controling humans with moonbeams and in order to rid people of these moonbeams, I have to do something that is medically unsound and has almost universally resulted in lasting harm for the people that undergo it. Should I be allowed to offer these services?


Does my sincerely held belief that people are controlled by lizards from mars with moonbeams, a core part of my religious doctrine, bear any consideration as to whether I should be allowed to offer these services or not?

So you are starting a Scientology society?

jank

One would have thought to expect a University to be a bastion of free speech but like many other western institutions their modus operandi is more in the flavour of stopping people being offended and protecting themselves against unwanted attention rather than protecting one of the most important innate human rights.

The subject matter here is of course a manna to the audience but there are other examples around the world where societies or groups in universities offended someone or some group and were thus banned and/or censored.

Banning a society over a distasteful poster sets a deeply troubling president but I won't be alone in thinking Universities have long ago forgone their true rule of educating and challenging the minds of the young and future rather than placating them with modern day 'liberalism' where intollerance and other opinions (no matter how extreme) is not tolerated and one is not allowed to form their own opinion that flows counter to the ‘norm’.

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2012/01/student-atheist-society-in-censorship.html

The Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society (ASHS) at University College London has become embroiled in a censorship row with the university's student union over the use of a Muhammad-related cartoon on a Facebook page advertising its weekly drinks social.

The image is taken from Jesus & Mo, a well-known web comic that depicts the title characters engaging in theological and philosophical chats while propping up a pub bar. Consistently amusing, frequently thought-provoking and often heart-warming, Jesus & Mo is anything but savage and crass, with its gentle take on the absurdity of theological differences and underlying message that humans really ought to just get along providing the perfect antidote to the violent and illiberal censorship it aims to satirise.

It would, therefore, be somewhat ironic for someone to demand the censorship Jesus & Mo on the grounds that it is offensive, but that's precisely the mistake UCL's student union have made in response to the atheist society's Facebook page. Citing a "number of complaints" regarding both the depiction of Muhammad and the fact that the image shows him with a drink that looks like beer, the union contacted the ASHS president demanding that he removed the image as soon as possible.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/23/censorship-in-uk-universities

The students wore Jesus and Mo T-shirts with designs by a wonderfully acid British cartoonist, who wisely never discloses his real name. Jesus and Mo are holding a banner that says: "Stop drawing holy prophets in a disrespectful manner NOW!" Mo also has a placard that reads: "Religion is NOT funny" and is saying: "If this doesn't work, I say we start BURNING stuff."
The political hacks of LSE's student union, who are studying at a university that Sidney and Beatrice Webb founded in 1894 to promote "modern" education on "socialist lines," knew nothing of basic principles. They decided that the modern and socialist thing to do was silence freethinkers.
..
On the "occupy" left and establishment right, hardly anyone thinks that the ideal university education should be offensive; that the young ought to have their beliefs challenged in the most robust manner imaginable. If their beliefs stand up to the challenge, they will be strengthened. If not, they should change them. If students cannot take the smallest of challenges without running to authority with hot tears rolling down their cheeks, they shouldn't be at university in the first place.

Instead of producing confident students who can handle any argument you throw at them, universities are a production line for cowed conformists. Instead of being free spaces where ideas can be debated without restraint, universities have become like the private and public bureaucracies the young will go on to join: speak out of turn, or even wear the wrong T-shirt, and the bosses will make you suffer

Links234

jank wrote: »

Banning a society over a distasteful poster sets a deeply troubling president

Seriously jank, it takes some brass neck to claim that this is merely 'distasteful' when we already know that these posters were promoting "reparative (or ex-gay) therapy", a practice that is fraudulent, harmful and quite widely denounced. Not to mention it's plain disingenuous to try and deflect from what is a very serious issue.

The subject matter here is of course a manna to the audience

I'm not sure what this sentence means?

FinnLizzy

David Quinn is too busy spouting racial abuse about Nelson Mandela to notice.

Anyways, I'm the guy who originally took the picture of the poster in question, and I started out as a "haha, look at how out of touch these lads are" type post on Facebook and Twitter.

I never thought it would get all this attention, and even result in a society being suspended.

As a journalism student, it's been a great day for my portfolio I can tell you!

jank

Links234 wrote: »

Seriously jank, it takes some brass neck to claim that this is merely 'distasteful' when we already know that these posters were promoting "reparative (or ex-gay) therapy", a practice that is fraudulent, harmful and quite widely denounced. Not to mention it's plain disingenuous to try and deflect from what is a very serious issue.

I'm not sure what this sentence means?

I dont agree with the posters, doesnt mean I want the soceity that producted them banned from the campus. One has the right to be offended of course but that right should not be used to censor an opinion that one may have. Otherwise our right to NOT be offended is more important than the right to free expression. A university should promote an environment where free thought and expression can flourish and be challenged freely without big brother dictating terms. Instead we have administrators saying what can and cannot be said, in case someone is offended. My other examples where atheists were censored back up my claim.

jank

FinnLizzy wrote: »

David Quinn is too busy spouting racial abuse about Nelson Mandela to notice.

Really? What did he say and can you provide us with a transcipt to what he said?

shruikan2553

jank wrote: »

I dont agree with the posters, doesnt mean I want the soceity that producted them banned from the campus. One has the right to be offended of course but that right should not be used to censor an opinion that one may have. Otherwise our right to NOT be offended is more important than the right to free expression. A university should promote an environment where free thought and expression can flourish and be challenged freely without big brother dictating terms. Instead we have administrators saying what can and cannot be said, in case someone is offended. My other examples where atheists were censored back up my claim.

They aren't being censored or banned. The college just isn't funding a group that is making claims that there is something inferior or wrong about another group of students and removing its status as a society which they claimed was even dubious seeing as they didn't provide what their "aim" was.

If I put up posters as a society and claim that black/asian people are inferior then I will face repercussions. As students and staff of the university we are expected to represent it and the university do not want their names associated with anything like the above. The group are free to continue their homophobia outside of the university.

jank

shruikan2553 wrote: »

They aren't being censored or banned.

.

Em, yes they were.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The college just isn't funding a group that is making claims that there is something inferior or wrong about another group of students and removing its status as a society which they claimed was even dubious seeing as they didn't provide what their "aim" was. .

The funding issue is the get out clause here alright in terms of liability. However, if the group was self funded this decision would still have been carried out only this time the University might be open to a legal challenge.

shruikan2553

jank wrote: »

Em, yes they were.



The funding issue is the get out clause here alright in terms of liability. However, if the group was self funded this decision would still have been carried out only this time the University might be open to a legal challenge.

If I supply someone money and they start using it to promote genocide of everyone they deem inferior in town I have every right to stop funding them and kick them out of the group of those I fund. I did not ban or censor, they can do what they please but I want nothing to do with it. I also have the right to throw them off my property.

How well would that legal challenge go down? They refused to support hatred of a group? Guess I'll start up KKK Society and they have to agree or it is censorship

jank

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If I supply someone money and they start using it to promote genocide of everyone they deem inferior in town I have every right to stop funding them and kick them out of the group of those I fund. I did not ban or censor, they can do what they please but I want nothing to do with it. I also have the right to throw them off my property.

How well would that legal challenge go down? They refused to support hatred of a group? Guess I'll start up KKK Society and they have to agree or it is censorship

OK, you are going off tangent now and using emotive hysterical language to try and support your point which does the opposite. This poster was not promoting genocide, murder or killing of gays so using that to further your point is building the fabled strawman.

Turtwig

jank wrote: »

OK, you are going off tangent now and using emotive hysterical language to try and support your point which does the opposite. This poster was not promoting genocide, murder or killing of gays so using that to further your point is building the fabled strawman.

I think you might have missed s/he was using an analogy. (Not meant to be taken literally!)

shruikan2553

jank wrote: »

OK, you are going off tangent now and using emotive hysterical language to try and support your point which does the opposite. This poster was not promoting genocide, murder or killing of gays so using that to further your point is building the fabled strawman.

So there are limits to free speech?

Still doesnt change the fact I can do what I want with my money and property without it being censorship. In the case of the university it is to support students, turning students against each other is not in the best interest of the students or the university.

jank

Jernal wrote: »

I think you might have missed s/he was using an analogy. (Not meant to be taken literally!)

If that was the case then using the words 'genocide' and 'killing' makes it a poor anology to be used in this case. There is a reason why Godwin-ing is frowned upon on the net.

jank

shruikan2553 wrote: »

So there are limits to free speech?

Still doesnt change the fact I can do what I want with my money and property without it being censorship. In the case of the university it is to support students, turning students against each other is not in the best interest of the students or the university.

The primary role of a university is to educate and create an environment for open discussion where topics of all types can be discussed freely and be challenged.

When the administration of a University behind this example and others I posted (which have been summarily ignored it seems) create an environment where only some topics can be discussed while anything that causes offense to others be it gays, muslims, athiests, christians and so on is not tollerated and censored in some fashion.

The word educate is derived from the Latin word educe which means 'to draw out, to bring forth from within'. It doesn't mean conform or to mould into a view that sits comfortably with authorities.

Peregrinus

Back in the late middle ages, when I went to college (which was not in Galway), in my very first fresher's week there was a stall from the Legion of Mary. It was staffed by people who clearly were not college students, and I don't recall it attracting much passing trade. In the ensuing years I saw neither hide nor hair of the Legion on campus - no meetings, no posters advertising meetings, no activities of any kind, no representation at the meeting of other societies, no letters to the college papers, nothing. I got the distinct impression that the Legion had no presence on campus; they turned up at Fresher's week in the hope of attracting new members for what I suspect was a praesidium based in one of the city centre churches. I don't know, but I doubt that hope was realised. Somehow, I don't see the Legion having much traction with the student demographic - not even with that sector of the demographic that finds, say, Youth Defence an appealing prospect.

Reading the RTE report linked in the OP, I think something similar has been going on in Galway. The Legion would like to have a presence on campus. To that end, they applied for recognition from the College. In support of their application they may have inflated their membership figures a teeny bit but, sure, we've all done that, haven't we? Then the College came back to them looking for a bit more info which, apparently, they never got around to providing. As you don't, when you're being very half-hearted about something.

And then this blew up. And this put the Legion in a sticky position because, truth to tell, they're not really what you'd think of as a College society at all. They're more of an outside group, trying to establish a presence in the College, but they probably don't have the kind of support within the student body which would justify treating them as a college society, with the access to facilities and funding that that entails. And with their application now being scrutinised in a fairly critical way, given their recent antics, this could only end one way. "Concerns about the lack of clarification contributed to the decision to suspend the society."

And they seem to have accepted the inevitable. They don't appear to be challenging their derecognition; they didn't even turn up at a meeting with the College authorities to consider the question. Their only reported response has been to apologise for any hurt caused. They know a lost cause when they see one.

All of which means that I think its probably a mistake to analyse this in terms of freedom of speech. The Legion's distasteful opinions may have attracted attention to them, but what really dooms their case to be recognised as a college society is that they are not, in truth, a college society.

Pherekydes

Links234 wrote: »

I'm not sure what this sentence means?

I'm guessing he means the A&A regulars subscribe to the gay, leftie, liberal agenda.

MrPudding

jank wrote: »

One would have thought to expect a University to be a bastion of free speech but like many other western institutions their modus operandi is more in the flavour of stopping people being offended and protecting themselves against unwanted attention rather than protecting one of the most important innate human rights.

The subject matter here is of course a manna to the audience but there are other examples around the world where societies or groups in universities offended someone or some group and were thus banned and/or censored.

Banning a society over a distasteful poster sets a deeply troubling president but I won't be alone in thinking Universities have long ago forgone their true rule of educating and challenging the minds of the young and future rather than placating them with modern day 'liberalism' where intollerance and other opinions (no matter how extreme) is not tolerated and one is not allowed to form their own opinion that flows counter to the ‘norm’.

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2012/01/student-atheist-society-in-censorship.html


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/23/censorship-in-uk-universities

Whilst I agree with you that freedom of speech is very important, it is not without limits. I also agree that banning a society for a distasteful poster can set a bad precedent, but I don't think that is the case here.

The two examples you give are interesting, but I think it is possible to distinguish them from the LoM issue. There is a distinction between a belief and an aspect of a person's nature. This is a distinction that you will have seen being made here quite frequently. Most people believe that it is perfectly ok to attack and ridicule a particular belief or even a character from history that is no longer around to be offended. The issue is, as can be seen in the two examples you have given, that some people are incapable of separating the belief from their person, and certain organisations enable this behaviour by taking the action you have highlighted above. This type of behaviour I do not agree with. This enabling of offence taking is wrong and could lead to a place where freedom of speech is severely curtailed.

However, suggesting that a person is somehow inferior, incomplete or in need of being "fixed" is very, very different from saying a particular belief is a bit silly. This is particularly the case when the aspect of the person in question is something that is not chosen, as in their sexuality. Do you think, for example, that it would be acceptable for a university to distribute posters suggesting that people with learning difficulties were inferior and that they were offering a service to pray them away?

MrP

smacl

shruikan2553 wrote: »

So there are limits to free speech?

In Ireland, yes. Incitement to hatred is illegal, and rightly so in my opinion.

MrPudding

smacl wrote: »

In Ireland, yes. Incitement to hatred is illegal, and rightly so in my opinion.

Even in the US, where free speech is considered to be extremly important, there are still limits. The importance of free speech cannot be over emphasised, without it all the other rights we have become more difficult, if not impossibe, to secure. But, even given this importance, it is still qualified.

MrP

Peregrinus

But there is a serious issue here, I think. From what I've seen, the offending leaflet doesn't say "pray away the gay", and it doesn't say that being homosexual is to be defective, or to be less, morally speaking, than being heterosexual.

Sure, it says "Courage", and in this context "Courage" makes my hackles rise, because I have a certain view of what they do. But can the Legion of Mary be held responsible for my perceptions of, and reactions to, the Courage organisation? If this is an issue of freedom of speech, then surely we have to focus on what the Legion says? We can't hold them accountable, or restrict their freedom of speech, on the basis of what other people have said - can we?

Nothing that I've seen in the (partial) photographs of the offending leaflet says that people can "become straight" through prayer, or indeed through any means, or even that they ought to become straight. It says that gay people, like straight people, are called to chastity. Whether you agree with that or not, it doesn't look like hate speech to me. And it also says that gay people can "move beyond the confines of the homosexual label to a more complete identity in Christ". Again, not hate speech - most of us dislike being constrained by labels and seek to move beyond them. And it offers support in all that. SFAIK, Courage does not claim to change anybody's sexual orientation, does not claim that this is possible, and does not claim that this is desirable.

Basically, it seems to me, this leaflet is saying that, just because you're gay, that doesn't mean you have to shag, and we can help you to not shag. You may think that's b*lls, but I struggle to leverage it into hate speech.

The concerning thing here is Courage, because we do have reason to think that what Courage can be harmful, and of course what it does is targetted at gay people. But I'm not sure that the best way to approach this is to try and shoehorn every favourable mention of Courage into the category of "hate speech".

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure, it says "Courage", and in this context "Courage" makes my hackles rise, because I have a certain view of what they do. But can the Legion of Mary be held responsible for my perceptions of, and reactions to, the Courage organisation? If this is an issue of freedom of speech, then surely we have to focus on what the Legion says? We can't hold them accountable, or restrict their freedom of speech, on the basis of what other people have said - can we?

Possibly not, although as per your previous post, this may not even be a freedom of speech issue. As to whether Courage are guilty of hate speech, from their website they certainly talk about treatment to overcome the homesexual condition which I imagine many people would consider hateful. Whether openly promoting an organisation that incites hatred is in itself incitement to hatred is more questionable. Personally, I wouldn't think so, though I would consider any person or organisation doing so highly offensive.