UK cinemas refuse to play Lord's Prayer ad in front of Star Wars

seamus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, interestingly enough, when bus companies in New Zealand refused to accept the "There's probably no God" ads a few years back, the Humanist Society of New Zealand (who had sought to place the ads) brought a discrimination case before the NZ Human Rights Review Tribunal. (They were not successful.)

Have you got any more info on this?

All the info I can find is that the bus company(s) accepted the ads, then reversed their decision. A human rights lawyer agreed it was discriminatory and would represent the group with the human rights review tribunal, but then the trail goes dark. I can't find any indication that it ever went to the tribunal or what decisions were made.

From the data available it looks more like they decided to save their money and spend it on billboards rather than lawyers. But a link or two would be much appreciated.

Akrasia

robindch wrote: »

I'll accept it's "extraordinary" when religious leaders allow cinemas to show what they want within church buildings.

The church didn't seem so opposed to censorship when they were campaigning to get the Life of Brian and The Meaning of Life banned

frostyjacks

This guy articulates it better than I can.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/22/banning-lords-prayer-cinema-star-wars-christianity

"The bigger point, though, is that in a free society peaceful religious speech should not be banned from public spaces. And here it is worth distinguishing between two very different forms of secularism – that which seeks the separation of church and state at an institutional level (bishops out of the House of Lords, for example), which I agree with; and the attempt to eradicate religious discourse from the public realm, which is anti-free expression and important to resist. Indeed, traditionally, free religious speech is the canary in the cage of a free society."

magicbastarder

a cinema is not a truly public realm, though; it is a building you pay to get into, and which discriminates against a major part of the population (i.e. those under 18), so that analogy isn't very useful.
that said, i don't have a major ideological issue with being exposed to the lord's prayer in such a way (with the caveat that my toes may still not have uncurled by the time the movie was over), but i fully understand the cinema's stance; there would have been major complaints if they'd broadcast other forms of prayer, so they choose not to entertain religious ads.

ScumLord

I'm sure someone in the church thought this was going to be a great way of saving some poor souls from the evil corruption of the force turning innocent children into heretic jedi.

What's supposed to be the point of religious advertising? It's not like the ad will introduce anyone to religion. It's not like the ad is going to convert a Muslim, Jew or Atheist. Is it just a pat on the back, a wink and a nod to Christians? Is it to try and make someone who's about to watch a film feel guilty because the film is an affront to religious dogma?

Penn

frostyjacks wrote: »

This guy articulates it better than I can.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/22/banning-lords-prayer-cinema-star-wars-christianity

"The bigger point, though, is that in a free society peaceful religious speech should not be banned from public spaces. And here it is worth distinguishing between two very different forms of secularism – that which seeks the separation of church and state at an institutional level (bishops out of the House of Lords, for example), which I agree with; and the attempt to eradicate religious discourse from the public realm, which is anti-free expression and important to resist. Indeed, traditionally, free religious speech is the canary in the cage of a free society."

Well then you must have serious flaws in your argument.

a) A cinema is not a public space. It's a business and the proprietors of the business do not have to provide a platform for religious speech

b) It is not an attempt to eradicate religious discourse from the public realm, but rather to treat all religions and secularism equally by not featuring any pro or anti religious adverts

c) Free religious speech has limits, as does all free speech. The cinema has the right to choose what adverts are displayed as some adverts may potentially lose them customers.

d) There is also freedom from religion, which means people should not be forced to sit through prayer in a place where prayer would not be expected, such as, oh, I don't know, a cinema perhaps.

frostyjacks

Penn wrote: »

Well then you must have serious flaws in your argument.

a) A cinema is not a public space. It's a business and the proprietors of the business do not have to provide a platform for religious speech

b) It is not an attempt to eradicate religious discourse from the public realm, but rather to treat all religions and secularism equally by not featuring any pro or anti religious adverts

c) Free religious speech has limits, as does all free speech. The cinema has the right to choose what adverts are displayed as some adverts may potentially lose them customers.

d) There is also freedom from religion, which means people should not be forced to sit through prayer in a place where prayer would not be expected, such as, oh, I don't know, a cinema perhaps.

Of course a cinema is a public space. If members of the public are gathered somewhere, whether paying or not, it is by definition a public space.

It's not a religious service that was to be shown, just a 60 second advert. They got plenty of free publicity now anyway.

Daith

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's not a religious service that was to be shown, just a 60 second advert. They got plenty of free publicity now anyway.

A ban on religious advertising would include a relgious advert yes!

Good thing they got publicity! Hadn't heard of them before now. New thing is it?

robindch

frostyjacks wrote: »

Of course a cinema is a public space. If members of the public are gathered somewhere, whether paying or not, it is by definition a public space.

So my dinner table is a "public space" too because "members of the public are gathered" there?

:rolleyes:

Bristolscale7

Frosty, if you make the cinema show the turbo-christian advert then the homophobes have to sell their cakes to the gays.....

Penn

frostyjacks wrote: »

Of course a cinema is a public space. If members of the public are gathered somewhere, whether paying or not, it is by definition a public space.

It's not a religious service that was to be shown, just a 60 second advert. They got plenty of free publicity now anyway.

No, a public space is a social space that is generally open and accessible to people. Roads (including the pavement), public squares, parks and beaches are typically considered public space. (Source: Wikipedia)

A cinema is a privately owned business which provides a service to members of the public by permitting them entry to their private facility for said service. While members of the public are there in large numbers, it is not a public space, as the owners have the right to refuse admission or remove you from the premises (except on the grounds of discrimination, obviously).

And I agree they get plenty of free publicity now. Almost as if they knew that if their advert was denied they could complain to the media and get it plenty of free publicity.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Of course a cinema is a public space.

err, no its not.
Try go into a cinema with a DSLR and take photos. The owners of the cinema are within their right to tell you to get the hell out and if you refuse they can all the police.

Now try to take photos on a public street with a DSLR, its perfectly legal. No business owner can stop you.

If members of the public are gathered somewhere, whether paying or not, it is by definition a public space.

Utterly clueless nonsense, you could not be more wrong.

A cinema requires payment for entry into the screens, it is by no stretch of the imagination a public space. It is also private property, as such the owner can restrict or close the space as they see fit and its 100% legal for them to do so.

frostyjacks

Penn wrote: »

No, a public space is a social space that is generally open and accessible to people. Roads (including the pavement), public squares, parks and beaches are typically considered public space. (Source: Wikipedia)

A cinema is a privately owned business which provides a service to members of the public by permitting them entry to their private facility for said service. While members of the public are there in large numbers, it is not a public space, as the owners have the right to refuse admission or remove you from the premises (except on the grounds of discrimination, obviously).

And I agree they get plenty of free publicity now. Almost as if they knew that if their advert was denied they could complain to the media and get it plenty of free publicity.

I'm only going by the definition in Irish law, "any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise"

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0003.html#sec3

I'd rather watch the banned advert than a trailer for a new Ben Stiller or Adam Sandler movie.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm only going by the definition in Irish law, "any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise"

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0003.html#sec3

I'd rather watch the banned advert than a trailer for a new Ben Stiller or Adam Sandler movie.

Which is it exactly?

You've claimed a cinema is a public SPACE, but the act you refer is about a public PLACE...not public spaces.

You appear to be very confused about the two, they are VERY different things.

Public Space:

A public space is a social space that is generally open and accessible to people. Roads (including the pavement), public squares, parks and beaches are typically considered public space.

Public Place:

(o) any open place to which the public whether upon or without payment for admittance have or are permitted to have access

A cinema can never be a public space because its private property...unless the state own it and declare it a public space of course or the owner declares it a public space at which point they'd loose some legal rights to it.

The Randy Riverbeast

frostyjacks wrote: »

This guy articulates it better than I can.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/22/banning-lords-prayer-cinema-star-wars-christianity

"The bigger point, though, is that in a free society peaceful religious speech should not be banned from public spaces. And here it is worth distinguishing between two very different forms of secularism – that which seeks the separation of church and state at an institutional level (bishops out of the House of Lords, for example), which I agree with; and the attempt to eradicate religious discourse from the public realm, which is anti-free expression and important to resist. Indeed, traditionally, free religious speech is the canary in the cage of a free society."

You're against the idea of a free society remember?

Stealthfins

Fck it they can post their advert on my Facebook page if they like...

As long as the money is right....

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

Which is it exactly?

You've claimed a cinema is a public SPACE, but the act you refer is about a public PLACE...not public spaces.

You appear to be very confused about the two, they are VERY different things.

Public Space:


Public Place:


A cinema can never be a public space because its private property...unless the state own it and declare it a public space of course or the owner declares it a public space at which point they'd loose some legal rights to it.

In either case, it's members of the public paying money in the knowledge that they'll be exposed to a barrage of adverts. I don't see how an advert should be banned unless it's actually offensive, instead of what persons unknown may find offensive (at least give them the chance to see it first).

the_syco

frostyjacks wrote: »

In either case, it's members of the public paying money in the knowledge that they'll be exposed to a barrage of adverts. I don't see how an advert should be banned unless it's actually offensive, instead of what persons unknown may find offensive (at least give them the chance to see it first).

They're not banning it, they've just chosen to not display it.

frostyjacks

the_syco wrote: »

They're not banning it, they've just chosen to not display it.

It's a ban. That's how all the media are reporting it, unless they're all wrong and you're right.

David Cameron and Stephen Fry have criticised the move. Even Dawkins, Mr.Atheist himself. has criticised the ban,

"I still strongly object to suppressing the ads on the grounds that they might ‘offend’ people. If anybody is ‘offended’ by something so trivial as a prayer, they deserve to be offended.”

I think a bit of humble pie-flavoured popcorn will be eaten soon (at the usual exorbitant price).

kylith

frostyjacks wrote: »

In either case, it's members of the public paying money in the knowledge that they'll be exposed to a barrage of adverts. I don't see how an advert should be banned unless it's actually offensive, instead of what persons unknown may find offensive (at least give them the chance to see it first).

A) it hasn't been banned and It's their cinema; they get to decide what adverts to show and since they have a blanket 'no religion, no politics' policy and this is a religious ad...

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's a ban..

Its not a ban,
The advert is available on whatever other medium they choose to release it on, the cinema have simply chosen not to display it within their private property.

Banning it would be ensuring that it can't even be shown or sold..

You know, like the catholic church did with Life Of Brian years ago in Ireland...it wasn't given a film rating so it couldn't be brought out in cinema's or sold on video legally until it was unbanned.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's a ban. That's how all the media are reporting it, unless they're all wrong and you're right.

David Cameron and Stephen Fry have criticised the move. Even Dawkins, Mr.Atheist himself. has criticised the ban,

"I still strongly object to suppressing the ads on the grounds that they might ‘offend’ people. If anybody is ‘offended’ by something so trivial as a prayer, they deserve to be offended.”

I think a bit of humble pie-flavoured popcorn will be eaten soon (at the usual exorbitant price).

You do know that Fry and Dawkins are just single views right?

Atheists don't have a leadership like religious organisations, as such their views don't really carry much weight with other Atheists...unless the atheists like that specific viewpoint.

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

Its not a ban,
The advert is available on whatever other medium they choose to release it on, the cinema have simply chosen not to display it within their private property.

Banning it would be ensuring that it can't even be shown or sold..

You know, like the catholic church did with Life Of Brian years ago in Ireland...it wasn't given a film rating so it couldn't be brought out in cinema's or sold on video legally until it was unbanned.

If they're refusing to screen it in the cinema, that's a ban in anyone's book.

The assistant sec-gen of the Muslim council of Britain is cool with the ad, he's "flabbergasted that anyone would find this prayer offensive to anybody, including people of no particular religious belief".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3329824/DOMINIC-LAWSON-wife-s-tears-anger-Lord-s-Prayer-ban-Muslims-don-t-want.html

"The cinema distributors appear to have fallen for the same cringing, cowering mindset that has afflicted so many public bodies: this is the view that Muslims are especially offended by language with Christian references, and that this alleged sensitivity should take priority over all other considerations."

This is how those Muslim gangs in Britain got away with grooming vulnerable, underage girls for so long. The simpering, spineless PC brigade would rather see girls repeatedly gang-raped than be accused of bias against one religion over another.

magicbastarder

frostyjacks wrote: »

The assistant sec-gen of the Muslim council of Britain is cool with the ad, he's "flabbergasted that anyone would find this prayer offensive to anybody, including people of no particular religious belief".

of course he is. if he came out against it, he'd be refusing the opportunity of broadcasting muslim prayer in the cinema too.

your comment re preference for gang rape is beyond hysterical.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

If they're refusing to screen it in the cinema, that's a ban in anyone's book.

Its private property, they can choose to display whatever they want.
If they decide not to screen some random arthouse movie does that mean they are banning that too?
:rolleyes:

The assistant sec-gen of the Muslim council of Britain is cool with the ad, he's "flabbergasted that anyone would find this prayer offensive to anybody, including people of no particular religious belief".

Interesting, so a Muslim can speak for all individual Atheists now? :eek:
No doubt he has a agenda in relation to getting Muslim adverts into cinema's in the future, of course its in his interest to downplay this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3329824/DOMINIC-LAWSON-wife-s-tears-anger-Lord-s-Prayer-ban-Muslims-don-t-want.html

"The cinema distributors appear to have fallen for the same cringing, cowering mindset that has afflicted so many public bodies: this is the view that Muslims are especially offended by language with Christian references, and that this alleged sensitivity should take priority over all other considerations."

Excuse me if I don't pay attention to the Daily Fail,

I will however give you the daily fail song....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

This is how those Muslim gangs in Britain got away with grooming vulnerable, underage girls for so long. The simpering, spineless PC brigade would rather see girls repeatedly gang-raped than be accused of bias against one religion over another.

Wtf are you even on about?
Do you want to bring catholic priests raping children into this too?...because its about as relevant to this discussion,

magicbastarder

anyway, overt displays of a political or religious nature are generally frowned upon in pretty much most corporate environments.

seamus

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm only going by the definition in Irish law, "any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise"

Only for the purposes of public order offences. That's not an absolute definition in law.

So if someone starts a fight with you in a cinema then they can be charged with a public order offence. But that doesn't make it a "public place" in general. If you start talking loudly the owner has the absolute right to throw you out; you do not have the right to do things in a cinema that you would in an actual public place.

seamus

frostyjacks wrote: »

"The cinema distributors appear to have fallen for the same cringing, cowering mindset that has afflicted so many public bodies: this is the view that Muslims are especially offended by language with Christian references, and that this alleged sensitivity should take priority over all other considerations."

Ah the Daily Mail. Never miss an opportunity to complain about Muslims or the PC brigade.

In reality this is a commercial decision. The cinema doesn't want to become known as "the one that shows that bloody prayer", because teenagers and others will go to the cinema down the road instead.

Cabaal

magicbastarder wrote: »

anyway, overt displays of a political or religious nature are generally frowned upon in pretty much most corporate environments.

Indeed they are and rightly so,
Years back I was a representative for a company onsite in one of their outsourced operations in Scotland for a few weeks. The outsourced operation in Scotland didn't allow anyone to wear any football jerseys at all...ever because of the crap that comes with Celtic/Rangers.

Other company's I've worked for tell employee's they can't say "god bless you" etc to customers when dealing with them.

Worked for another company once where one employee handed out leaflets about how Harry Potter and how it was the work of the devil...how HR didn't hand her her notice I'll never know.

RDM_83 again

While I agree that the firm shouldn't be forced to carry the advert there is two things to consider.

1) This firm controls a hefty chunk (a majority?) of screen in the UK, therefore it has a much larger chilling effect than may be apparent.

2)The gay cake judgement. This point will get heat but the cake had a political message and as such could be considered a "tool" in promotion of a political view (remember this was in NI, it wasn't a wedding cake).(hate the way I now have to add the not a homophobe support right to same sex marriage disclaimer ). In relation to point 1, this was a fairly small independent bakery (3/4 branches) yet the fact there was numerous other places that would fulfill the order (unlike with this case) was not a defence