Media Release
For release: June 1, 2011
The Australian Christian Lobby has expressed concern at the level of abuse one of its staff members has received from some homosexual activists following Adshel’s decision to remove sexualised advertisements from Brisbane bus shelters this week.
ACL Chief of Staff Lyle Shelton said he was disappointed at the abuse levelled at ACL’s Queensland Director Wendy Francis, a long-time campaigner against the sexualisation of children through outdoor advertising.
“ACL’s activism in Queensland this week is part of a larger campaign to see all billboards G-Rated and Ms Francis recently appeared at a Senate Inquiry into outdoor advertising,” Mr Shelton said.
“ACL has been active in this debate for a long time and submitted to two Senate Inquiries in 2008 about advertising standards and the sexualisation of children in the contemporary media.
“Homosexual activists have launched Facebook campaigns Wendy Francis is a homophobe and Homophobia – NOT HERE – Adshel Caves to Homophobic Pressure and emailed abusive letters and phone calls to intimidate the ACL and Wendy out of the issue of sexualisation of children,” Mr Shelton said.
[ EDITOR : The above Facebook pages are also available Via this link ]
“Let’s block her phone up with messages of sympathy that she’s such a hate filled bastard” was one comment on Facebook.
“You are DISGUSTING human being. How f** dare you complain about an ad that supports safe sex and the fight against aids…So get your head out of your a**, and respect people for who they are, “ was one e-mail message, he said.
Mr Shelton said it was regrettable that some activists resorted to abusive language and cyber bullying of Ms Francis.
“This sort of intimidation is unacceptable,” Mr Shelton said.
ACL supported the then Rudd Government’s moves in 2008 to provide equality for same-sex couples under Commonwealth Law with the amendment of 85 pieces of legislation.
Sadly use of intimidating language is not limited to those attacking Ms Francis.
“It also follows inappropriate comments by New South Wales Senator Doug Cameron last month who compared supporters of traditional marriage to supporters of racist apartheid,” Mr Shelton said.
“Discussion about the sexualisation of children is a legitimate issue that is concerning many parents and this discussion should be allowed to take place in an environment of respect and civility,” Mr Shelton said.
[ EDITOR : Related subjects Outdoor advertisers continue to put sexual images in front of kids
and Gays must curb vile vitriol ]
Abracadabra is not the magic word, “homophobic” is. Labeling someone as homophobic is the way to make your opponents disappear. I am sure the opponents of the G rated advertising campaign are loving the labeling and slander.
Dear Wendy,
I have watched over sometime and have found you quite balanced, and the homosexual lobby is a very well organised machine with a long history of bullying anyone who disagrees with their agenda, I have been on the receiving end of the attacks before.
Craig Kirk
Well done for taking a public stand against something that is obviously inappropriate. The persecution is evidence that you are picking the right battles. I think times are starting to change. Let’s hope so.
Whenever there’s an issue as divisive as this particular one, emotions rise and people get hot-headed. All sides of the debate need to step back and concentrate on the issue and not target the people arguing the other side.
It seems to me that both sides of this debate have valid points. Our children, are subjected to too much sexual imagery in this modern day. On the other hand, safe sex education is an important measure to save lives.
It also occurs to me there is too much emphasis on trying to convert other people to your own world view. Why not try to be content to live your life in the way that you see fit and let others live their lives as best suits them?
I agree that such slanderous attacks and such an aggressive approach is outright inappropriate and such offenders weaken their cause. Yet I do understand the anger and desperation of the queer community in this circumstance.
The advertisement is tasteful and poignant. There’s more flagrant sexuality and skin in a Windsor smith shoe commercial! This ad aims at educating a culture that is heavily affected by HIV. Not since the mid 80′s have so many new infections been reported. Something had to be done. Anger and frustration at the actions taken by Adshell, in response to ACL’s influence, was to be expected. It is a shame that people lash out rather than funneling their opinions and responses into worthwhile channels.
Wendy, it is regrettable that you have received such abuse. It’s never ok. However it cuts both ways. On the Facebook site that garnered such support for the ad’s reinstatement, were comments from YOUR supporters – angry that gays were being defended – that are too abusive to write here. Of the insults I can repeat, many announced that these ‘faggots’ and ‘arse-f*****s’ were going to “burn in hell”.
The Christian Right does not hold the moral high ground in this debate – far from it.
I believe that children are being sexualised and I abhor it. I focus my concern on billboards featuring soft-porn scenarios between hetero couples (few of the homophobic men on the Facebook site have a problem with this, because whatever turns them on must be universally right, right?); along with erectile dysfunction ads playing on the radio during school pick-up time; and stores selling bras to 6 year olds.
The ad that concerned you was beautiful, and tame. I would have no problem with my child seeing it. The unopened condom packet could be anything.
The sexualization of children is an important issue. However, I question why this particular ad campaign was targeted and not any of the other sexually orientated campaigns. I have seen far more provocative images on bus shelters. This campaign is at least promoting safe sex.
The uproar from the general public obviously communicates that this attack on this particular campaign was indeed Homophobic. Perhaps the ALC should take a look at the recent LYNX ads before claiming this campaign will pre-sexualize children.
Dear Wendy,
I admire your courage in confronting the unstoppable machine that is the highly organised homosexual lobby. However I think you have to chose your battles more wisely. The poster doesn’t appear to sexualize children. The poster appears worthy of a G rating. There is only an oblique reference to condoms to which pre-adolescent and many adolescent children would be unaware. The depiction in the photo is of a couple who are engaged to be married and are only embracing. Though it doesn’t appear to be a purely platonic embrace it’s hardly foreplay. Last night when reading to my two year old from her nursery rhyme book I saw an illustration of a couple kissing on the lips. That was actually more sexual than the “rip and roll” poster. If you chose your targets carefully, limited to advertising that is threatening to our children and to traditional Australian values then you will succeed in focusing people’s attention on the important moral issues instead of on yourself.
Yours in Christ and the virgin Mary,
Dominic.
Andrew @ 6.38am – I suggest you ask yourself, would the ACL have orchestrated such a campaign if the two people on the poster were male & female? I think not. It’s the fact that they were a gay couple that so incensed the ACL – hence calling them homophobic is quite legitimate.
You have my full support – outdoor advertising must be G rated.
The greatest irony of issues like this is that the very people who claim that Wendy is ‘phobic’ post the most vitriolic, obscene and discriminatory comments you can imagine. Tolerance only works one way in this debate. Wendy also fields phone calls of a similar nature. The level of abuse far exceeds any perceived slight by Wendy – yet there is a dissonance at play. It appears to be legitimate to abuse Wendy – because she is a person of faith.
The virtue of tolerance is smoke and mirrors. It’s actually intolerance: intolerance of any opposing view. The right of free speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion is at threat in contemporary Australia.
I agree wholeheartedly that the ‘cyber bullying’ is getting out of hand. This debate should be constructed with respect for everyone who is involved, their beliefs and choices also. I for one, am not against gay people or their life choices, it is purely up to them, and is not up to ANYBODY to try and change it. The advertisement is purely advertising safe-sex. I do not find it sexualising children in any matter. Not everybody has the same beliefs, but logical and publically moral are a must (fyi, not ALL of the public are so into christianity as you would like to believe. There must be some lines drawn as to where the ‘G rated ends and the higher rated things start.) I also think that this whole thing of taking down an advertisement purely because it shows a gay couple is wrong. We live in the now, and our children should not be sheltered to things that occur in our world in every day life.
I am gay and have no issue with Wendy’s G Rated Campaign and fully support her G Rated Cause! However, I have few concerns:
1) This was the only advertisement which appears on Adshel sites, that received compliants from the ACL and others. There are very inapporirate images such as the Lee Jeans advertisement that appears on Adshel sights. When I spoke to Lee Jeans Marketing Manager yesterday, I was informed that they had not received a single compliant.
2) The language and tone in some of the compliants made was totally in the same offensive arena. If they had not utilised the words Homo or two gay men I am sure there wouldn’t have been such an concern. To quote from one of the complaints
“General Social values are not reflected in this couple, without being
judgemental, personal sexual preference is being made very public in what is a thin facade of ‘safe sex/health message’ versus the reality of inculcating the rest of the 96-99% of the population who are not in a regular homosexual relationship”
“Homosexuality is a destructive practice in our society.”
I am also sure you will understand that people’s emotions where running high and that things are said in the moment. I am sure Wendy as well as other members of ACL have done this. I am sure by memory from sunday school there is something about throwing stones!
I wish ACL and Wendy well in her G Rated Campaign but totally unencourage you to do it for all advertisements that breach your standard and in a manner in which you yourself would like to be treated!
Cyberbullying? But is that not exactly what Wendy did when she encouraged her friends to bombard a private company with e-mails?
We have lost the art of debate in this country and resorted to pointing fingers from both sides.
For the many who have expressed concerns that ACL and Wendy have only targeted this one ad rather than other sexualised imagery in public, you will note from this post that this is an issue both the ACL and Wendy have been active on for some time now: http://australianchristianlobby.org.au/2011/06/support-us-in-the-debate-about-sexualised-bus-shelter-ads/
Vitriol and abuse hurled at those who take a stand that you disagree with or that threatens the way you think and live … Think back just a few generations and we see the same approach associated with the rise of national socialism in Germany. It takes real courage to stand against it. Wendy Francis has done a great service in daring to raise a question about the landscape of sexualisation, not only of children, but of practically every aspect of our culture. Full marks, Wendy.
Well done, Wendy, for standing up regarding portrayal of sexuality issues at a bus stop. Sure, there is a place for safe sex advertising, but the bus stop is not an appropriate place.
I saw this add as I was driving by and thought, did I see right? I was rather annoyed about it and wanted to make a complaint. Why should we have to be subject to this type of advertising. Keep it behind closed doors thanks.
Wendy, stay strong. Sooner or later you were going to come under attack for speaking up. But many are behind you as you do a great job speaking in the media. I will be praying for you.
In reply to Max @ 3:24pm:
Communicating eloquently with a company regarding concerns for inappropriate material, producing objective reasoning, cannot in any way be classed as cyberbullying, nor is it cyberbullying to encourage your friends to do the same. Any replies received from the opposing viewpoint would neither be classed as cyberbullying if only the replies were also objective and to the point. However, as outlined in the article above, many people with the opposing viewpoint have not replied objectively, but with direct personal attacks, not on the argument or issue at hand, but attacks on the person or people who oppose their view. This is what is classed as bullying.
Well done Wendy, and the ACL for making a stand on such issues. It takes such courage to stand up for the morals and values that keep a G-rated and healthy society, especially against such opposition as this, where everything is tolerated, except for the one thing that is good and healthy for our society.
Wendy, be encouraged to keep up the campaign for G-rated advertising. I am tired of being confronted by some of the junk shoved in our faces.
@ACL Team – Yes it might be an issue that you have been campaigning against for some time but why is this the only letter that you submitted into compliant. As I said, Lee Jeans who has a much more sexualised image has never received a compliant. I suggest you should list on your website a copy of all the official ACL compliants made in the future, so people can be assured that it isn’t a targeted one. If ACL truely wants these billboards removed, I don’t see the need for any secrets being kept on who you have complianed about!
Dear H MacLean,
The Nazi’s thought they were defending their culture and wrapped much of their propaganda up in that exact message. Their distortion of Christian faith led them to take a common bias among some Christians from that time and kill the Jews because they believed they killed Christ. I might add they accused them of everything from controlling banks to being child molesters.
At the same time, and among others like the Roma and Seven Day Adventists, gay Europeans were sent by the thousands to their deaths in Nazi concentration camps.
If you wish to think back a few generations, you ought to at least be accurate in remembering what truly happened.
Dear Wendy,
Thank you for fighting for what is right. We as christians do need take a stand for what we believe. Sure if we disagree with the homosexual community we get called homophobes. The homosexual community want every one to agree with them. Do they get called heterophobes because they don’t agree with us?
It’s amazing how a debate shifts from a social issue of exposing our children to sexual advertisement to argueing about rights to be gay. Stop being selfish and think about the kids for once.
The poster in question is not an ad for safe sex. There are several ways of practicing safe sex, and this ad is promoting what is no higher than the third most effective method. It is a condom ad and as such it should not be displayed on bus shelters, especially not under the premise that people are having sex at younger ages these days. Why resign ourselves to accepting that teenagers are having casual sex when we are causing the problem by saturating everyone with over-sexualised imagery and the very expectation that it’s now normal for teenagers to be having sex?
This ad is not aimed at gay males. If so, it’s creators have chosen to deliver their message via a medium no business with a commercial interest in that demographic would ever use, as it’s more miss than hit.
This ad is not offensive – by design. The intention (as indicated by Michael O’Brien, the designer and subject, in his Facebook defence) is to place a happy, attractive gay couple alongside us as we wait for the bus. It is designed to push same-sex relationships into the mainstream, under the piety of a safe sex campaign.
Thanks for writing this information. I really liked it. Keep up the good work, bud!
I think the advertisements are immoral, indecent and offensive. Why should I have to be confronted by such images displayed so publicly. I too am The Public, and I suspect one of the “silent majority”. This time I will not be silenced. Well done, Wendy. Keep up your campaign. You have my unconditional support.
To me it looks like the condom in the corner is just a way to protect the ad from criticism by claiming it is a safe sex campaign. I can’t tell for sure but the condom even looks stuck in after the photo was taken. However it appears to be a branding for the Embrace Acceptance Facebook campaign that is advertised on billboards in Brisbane sans the same image. At the Facebook site it uses the same image as the controversial bus shelter signs.
I said this in a forum and mentioned that ad shell said that ACL didn’t cause the removal but instead individuals complained. I took the view that it was just a ploy to make it look like only Christians were opposing the ads – a kind of witch hunt.
In response someone said that ACL has admitted being responsible for the “individual” complaints cited by Adshell originally. I know that ACL has a general ongoing campaign against any sexualising of children and now has a specific campaign but I can’t find any verification of that claim. Is there any truth that there is an admission? (That is why I came here)