“We are a Christian initiative that supports men and women with race issues who voluntarily seek change in their skin colour. We do respect the rights of individuals who identify as ‘black’ who don't seek change (though such rights don't extend to them marrying each other). We also believe that the practice of going around being black is sinful for those seeking God’s highest purpose.
We will change your colour through the help of psychodrama, which involves the use of spontaneous dramatisation and elements of theatre, where the client acts out their emotions and internal conflicts on a stage with the use of props.
However, we’re a tad disappointed that the British Psychodrama Association has actually entirely revoked the trainee status of our counsellor and co-director (he wasn't even qualified), so we're doing this on a non-regulated basis. Dr Mike has been entirely open in his journey of changing his racial origins, and is now not black at all. He's completely ex-Black. We therefore don’t think this very fair at all.”
"Gay Cures"
How would you react to the above? Laugh, cry, shake your head? Don't just dismiss it, though: it is actually pretty much what “Core Issues Trust” is offering to gay men and women in the UK regarding their sexuality. Core Issues is a body that sets out its thoughts on a website littered with spelling mistakes that provides links to other sites, mainly in the US. One claims that “30% of all 20 year-old homosexual men will be HIV-positive or dead by the age of thirty.” Another claims that on divine intention for the ordering of human relationships “science and psychiatry have no answers”. It exists to promote the changing of sexual orientation.
How would you react to the above? Laugh, cry, shake your head? Don't just dismiss it, though: it is actually pretty much what “Core Issues Trust” is offering to gay men and women in the UK regarding their sexuality. Core Issues is a body that sets out its thoughts on a website littered with spelling mistakes that provides links to other sites, mainly in the US. One claims that “30% of all 20 year-old homosexual men will be HIV-positive or dead by the age of thirty.” Another claims that on divine intention for the ordering of human relationships “science and psychiatry have no answers”. It exists to promote the changing of sexual orientation.
The scientific, medical consensus on “gay cures” is actually absolutely clear. The BMA has condemned conversion therapy as discredited and harmful. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is unambiguous on the assertion that sexual orientation cannot be changed. The UK Council for Psychotherapy carries a video of a 22 year old Northern Irish man who talks of his experience of depression and suicidal thoughts during a “gay cure”. UKCP states that homosexuality is not an illness, cannot be cured and that it is an ethical offence to offer therapy with the aim of altering sexual orientation. Ben Summerskill, Chief Executive of Stonewall puts all this in layman’s term for us: “gay cures” are “voodoo therapy”.
The Harm
Why then, if this is such demonstrable nonsense, would anyone be upset about it then? I’m a little amazed I’d even need to set this out, but it is because LGBT people are being hurt by this. Not theoretically offended: people are actually being hurt. The Lesbian and Gay Foundation found that young LGB people are three to six times more likely to self-harm than heterosexual young people. It also estimated that 40% of all young LGB people self-harm or attempt suicide at least once LGBT people are still routinely bullied, mocked and abused, and nor is the situation confined just to the young.
These stats reflect general widespread negative attitudes, including the persistent belief that not being heterosexual is a choice and therefore the “fault” of the person involved. The promotion of “Gay cure” therapies as an alternative feed directly into that.
Why then, if this is such demonstrable nonsense, would anyone be upset about it then? I’m a little amazed I’d even need to set this out, but it is because LGBT people are being hurt by this. Not theoretically offended: people are actually being hurt. The Lesbian and Gay Foundation found that young LGB people are three to six times more likely to self-harm than heterosexual young people. It also estimated that 40% of all young LGB people self-harm or attempt suicide at least once LGBT people are still routinely bullied, mocked and abused, and nor is the situation confined just to the young.
These stats reflect general widespread negative attitudes, including the persistent belief that not being heterosexual is a choice and therefore the “fault” of the person involved. The promotion of “Gay cure” therapies as an alternative feed directly into that.
 |
| Do you care? I bloody do. About almost more than anything else |
Those numbers demonstrate the general culture. For the unfortunate people who submit themselves to the courses (or are submitted to them by their families) there is of course a much more immediate, serious, recognised, acknowledged risk of individual harm. The State of California onlyyesterday banned all such “therapies” for minors. Governor Brown stated “This bill bans non-scientific 'therapies' that have driven young people to depression and suicide. These practices have no basis in science or medicine and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery.”
Adverts Promoting Core Issues
Why then, we ask, is a leading liberal-left political publication, the New Statesman, accepting a full page advert in this week’s edition from “Core Issues”? This is the very “voodoo therapy” body that had its adverts pulled from London Buses by Tory Mayor Boris Johnson this April. This is the same homophobic group that was exposed by award-winning journalist Patrick Strudwick whilst undercover.
 |
| We "voluntarily seek change in sexual preference": Ad in NS |
You may of course take a free speech view, that any publication must accept money from any organisation that wants to publish on its pages. Never mind the commercial reaction of its readers to such views. This presumably would permit adverts that allow “cures” for black people and full page spreads from the EDL: just the kind of thing that would make people more likely to buy the magazine. Or you might think the New Statesman is simply greedy and will take whatever it can get. Perhaps there’s no link between its advertising, which is farmed out to an agency, and its editorial stance and therefore this is actually all terribly embarrassing for them. I actually think the latter is the most likely, but who knows.
An Apology. Of Sorts.
An Apology. Of Sorts.
What is clear is that the issue was brought to the New Statesman’s attention by @twf_mike at 12.33 on Sunday 30 September. There has been a wave of protest on Twitter, with people stating they would cancel subscriptions etc. The Labour Party Conference is currently on. The editorial team is not presumably having an ordinary Monday. Having tweeted on a range of issues all morning, finally at 15.19 today Monday 1 October they published the following:
However, I'm left personally feeling very disappointed by this. It is short. It rings hollow. It offers no explanation for the mistake. It does not mention "gay cures" which is why people object to the group, not its stance on gay marriage. I think it's quite implicit that New Statesman will not be taking future similar adverts, but that could easily have been spelled out. They could have offered the revenue from the ad to a LGBT counselling group to show the apology is real. My reaction is, however, relatively mild judging by my Twitter feed.
New Statesman don't seem to "get it". They don't acknowledge just how wrong this group is, and how their liberal/left readership has reacted to their making money from such a group. NS are supposed to be the "good guys". The LGBT community is used to a lack of understanding, mockery and writing that verges on abuse from the likes of Melanie Phillips at the Daily Mail. We do not expect or want it from the NS. The apology doesn't go nearly far enough, which implies they don't understand or they don't care. I really hope (and actually believe knowing one of the personalities involved) that's not the case, but it's how it comes across.
Ostriches in the Sand
There is another wider issue. If you are a corporation and you want to play on Twitter, you have to know the rules. These include giving someone a smartphone so that they can react if a storm blows up, even out of hours, even if everyone is at some drinks reception. We've seen it time and again with corporations using Twitter to promote their products and failing to engage swiftly and adequately when an issue comes up. It's not about 24/7 responses to routine things that can be dealt with in office hours: it's having one person who can firefight on the rare occasion something "big" comes up. This simple statement should have been out there yesterday afternoon, not 27 hours later. My disbelief turned to actual anger at the failure even to acknowledge the barrage of mentions. As one person put it to me "It looks like they don't give a f*ck". Yes, it did. One simple tweet from NS saying "We're not ignoring you, we need time to get a statement out" would have helped enormously.
Twitter is instant: Tesco tweeting about its special offers while ignoring the 200,000 who are tweeting at them about Workfare drives people up the wall. It pours oil on the flames and it makes matters worse. The editors at NS couldn't "undo" the fact their advertising guys took on this thing, whether by mistake or not. They could have acted swiftly though. It takes a second to publish a holding tweet. I hope New Statesman have learned from this. I also hope that instead of offering Core Issues the oxygen of free additional publicity through this furore, it will have highlighted the issue once more of just how objectionable and despicable they are.
New Statesman don't seem to "get it". They don't acknowledge just how wrong this group is, and how their liberal/left readership has reacted to their making money from such a group. NS are supposed to be the "good guys". The LGBT community is used to a lack of understanding, mockery and writing that verges on abuse from the likes of Melanie Phillips at the Daily Mail. We do not expect or want it from the NS. The apology doesn't go nearly far enough, which implies they don't understand or they don't care. I really hope (and actually believe knowing one of the personalities involved) that's not the case, but it's how it comes across.
Ostriches in the Sand
 |
| Not the best response on Twitter |
Twitter is instant: Tesco tweeting about its special offers while ignoring the 200,000 who are tweeting at them about Workfare drives people up the wall. It pours oil on the flames and it makes matters worse. The editors at NS couldn't "undo" the fact their advertising guys took on this thing, whether by mistake or not. They could have acted swiftly though. It takes a second to publish a holding tweet. I hope New Statesman have learned from this. I also hope that instead of offering Core Issues the oxygen of free additional publicity through this furore, it will have highlighted the issue once more of just how objectionable and despicable they are.
