Pro life politics at the cinema

TT&TO

I was watching the ads at my local cinema this weekend and during the ads there was an advertisement for the group http://www.familyandlife.org

It depicted a woman in a playground looking longingly at some kids on the swings; suddenly the kids disappeared and then they reappeared. there was a warm glow to the whole ad. created by some soft focus and pastel colours and it ended with the link above.

Is this political ad. allowed under Irish law?

It was on during the ads before that 'chuck and larry' movie (don't' see it; v. bad)

pirelli

Did you feel threatened by the ad.Or just upset that you were forced to
to consider a point of view that some people might find offensive.

seamus

pirelli wrote:

Did you feel threatened by the ad.Or just upset that you were forced to
to consider a point of view that some people might find offensive.

I don't think that's the point. There are some strict laws in this country about the advertising of religious or political idealogies.

Whether the pro-life agenda falls under either of these banners though is debateable. My conscience, while having a problem with the methods used to promote the idealogies, doesn't allow me to call it a religious idealogy as it doesn't require a religious aspect to be argued. I'm comfortable not calling it a political idealogy at all.

I'm not sure of the exact legislation/rules on this. Someone else may know.

TT&TO

I have to say I would have felt the same about any political ad.; the subject matter isn't the issue. I would be in favour of free speech once it is posited within the guidelines of the law.

My feelings were confused:
...it obviously wasn't on TV, and therefore not accessible to the general public; just those (unfortunates) who watched that film, so we were all adults and capable of making an informed choice.
...on the other hand, it was an argument made in support of a political movement...the website mentions the Catholic church, although I can't say whether or not it is directly linked with the church.

Our man in Havana

Maybe contact the film censor as he has to approve everything that is shown on the big screen. Ask him did he approve such an ad?

pirelli

He will just ask you if you feel it violated article 20 of the convenant and will still be immune by article 19 of the un international convenant of civil and politicla rights.

Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Article 20
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

L1011

Bond-007 wrote:

Maybe contact the film censor as he has to approve everything that is shown on the big screen. Ask him did he approve such an ad?

He does answer, in person; or at least did two years ago when I had a query.

pirelli - advertising law is not -quite- at the level of international convenants. Especially as we've not fully accepted articles 19 or 20! (amongst other bits of the ICCPR)

Nevyn

They are not classesd as advertisments but as shortfilms.
They are not screen in public but in a private setting this is how they get around the law.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1960/en/act/pub/0010/sec0020.html#zza10y1960s20


(4) The Authority shall not accept any advertisement which is directed towards any religious or political end or has any relation to any industrial dispute.


(5) ( a ) In acting pursuant to this section, the Authority shall have regard to the special position of Irish advertisers and may fix reduced charges and preferential conditions for advertisements from them which are Irish advertisements.


( b ) For the purposes of the foregoing paragraph, each of the following advertisers shall be an Irish advertiser:


( i ) an advertiser who advertises articles, being articles with respect to which he satisfies the Authority that they are made, produced or manufactured wholly or substantially within the State,


( ii ) an advertiser who advertises services, provided that he satisfies the Authority either that the services are provided wholly or substantially within the State or that his sole or principal place of business as a person providing those services is situate within the State,


( iii ) an advertiser who advertises activities other than services, being activities with respect to which he satisfies the Authority that they are conducted wholly or substantially within the State, and an advertisement by reference to which an advertiser is an Irish advertiser shall be an Irish advertisement.

This was dealt with already on boards
the thread in the legal dicussion forum is here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055092203


If you unhappy i would suggest that you make a compliant, both to the advertising comission, the cinema and who ever it is booked the 'short film'
it is not unusualy that they picked that film as it presents alternative family llife.

http://www.asai.ie/complain.asp

Tom Young

Does this not resemble the 1988 Radio and Television Act 1988 Section 10(3)? Seminal cases being: Colgan v. IRTC and Murphy v. IRTC one of which went to the ECHR. I believe the proportionality test was applied in Murphy and it survived a challenge in respect of Religious advertising.

See statutebook.

Then again looking at Thaedyal's post it seems a little more fitting.

Fey!

pirelli wrote:

Article 20
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

I haven't seen the ad, but anything else I've seen where Pro-Life and their Youth Defence buddies have been involved have ALWAYS had an underlying feeling of violence brewing, and has generally shown, in public, images that even I have found disturbing (and I'm not easily disturbed).

What age cert was the film you went to see? Personally, I'd complain to cinema management on the spot if I saw any ads for/against "Pro Life" and their ilk; If I go to see a film, I want to see the film, not a PR effort for the groups of fascists who dominate both sides of the Pro Life argument.

Sorry for the rant; I've had issues with these thugs in the past, forcing pictures of aborted embryos into the faces of young children on city streets.

Victor

Such matters are dealt with as censorship of films. AFAIK political and religious matters are only restricted in print and broadcast media.

Thaedydal wrote: »

it is not unusualy that they picked that film as it presents alternative family llife.

I'm not sure if the decision was that sophisticated.

Nevyn

Victor wrote: »

.I'm not sure if the decision was that sopfisticated.

Thier web sites states they will be targeting movies based on the target audience and those that undermine family values.

Our man in Havana

Can someone ask the film censor what cert he granted this short film?

AARRRGH

In the cinema last week they had the following three adverts in a row -

The pro-life one this topic is talking about
A drink and driving advert
A child abuse advert (very creepy, in poor taste ISPCC advert)

WTF?

I go to the cinema to be entertained, not depressed...

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

Such matters are dealt with as censorship of films. AFAIK political and religious matters are only restricted in print and broadcast media.

I might go a step further and suggest that it is only the national broadcasting authority (i.e. RTE) who are prohibited from political advertising. Private broadcasting agencies (tv3, channel 6 and setanta) are, as far as I'm aware, entitled to take politicial/religious adds if they see fit, subject to public order and morality. Any act which prohibits a private person/organisation from broadcasting such matters would almost certainly fall foul of the constitution.

Our man in Havana

That's fine for TV as I have the option to switch it off or to a different channel. When I go to the cinema I pay good money and I cannot avoid their message. I feel there should be some restriction on what can be shown in the cinema.

johnnyskeleton

Bond-007 wrote: »

That's fine for TV as I have the option to switch it off or to a different channel. When I go to the cinema I pay good money and I cannot avoid their message. I feel there should be some restriction on what can be shown in the cinema.

Well Bond, I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Our man in Havana

Ah, Voltaire.

Silverfox

I was under the impression from Murphy v IRTC that it was not unconstitutional to ban religious and political advertising as the ban was only against advertising on television and radio and it was still permitted in all its other forms. Also, it banned advertising, for or against all religions and political parties so the ban does not affect any group disproportionately. I believe this was the right decision based on the religious and political history of this country and when i looked at the Family and Life website, there are clear, strong religious and political leanings in it. The video is essentially an ad for the organisation and the organisation is both religious and political. It makes sense that this add should not be shown in what is, in reality, a publicly accessable advertising space.

Tom Young

Yes, I agree but I think we have a loop-hole somewhere in the legislation as someone above has noted.

Our man in Havana

This needs to be taken up with the film censor.

EOK

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I might go a step further and suggest that it is only the national broadcasting authority (i.e. RTE) who are prohibited from political advertising. Private broadcasting agencies (tv3, channel 6 and setanta) are, as far as I'm aware, entitled to take politicial/religious adds if they see fit, subject to public order and morality. Any act which prohibits a private person/organisation from broadcasting such matters would almost certainly fall foul of the constitution.

Actually, any station which is granted a licence by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland is required to comply with the provisions of s. 10(3) of the 1988 Act.

bigbobbya

Before jumping to any wild conclusions, people should be aware of the particular message of the ad itself. The website in question, though certainly adopting quite a Catholic and pro-life tone, is by no means completely one-sided; it contains, for example, links to abortion information and post-abortion support services. In this regard, it should not be considered in a very different light to all those positiveoptions.ie ads you see all over the place.

Nevyn

Where ?

It certianly did not when I reviewed the site.

http://www.familyandlife.org/Crisis-Pregnancy.html

This links page does not direct anyone to non directive counseling or provide information pertaining to
making a referral for an abortion outside of the country or any links to the agency with in the country which provide that information.

All the information pertains to pro life groups, maternity hospitals, miscarriage and still birth support groups and adoptive services.


http://www.familyandlife.org/Bio-Ethics-Research/no/23.html

Three Cinemas Censor your Ad

Sadly, three cinemas have actually taken it upon themselves to ban our new cinema ad. Yes, that’s right. Not surprisingly, these three wayward cinemas are located in the area where pro-abortion sentiment is the strongest: Dublin South. But even in Dublin South, I think most people know abortion is wrong.

There’s no good reason to ban our ad because it’s not offensive in any way. Our ad has a warm, loving glow. It shows the preciousness of life in a purely positive way. Thankfully 98 percent of the cinema owners showed the ad without hesitation.

Only a heartless person could oppose our ad or seek to ban our new cinema ad.You might well wonder how anyone could hope that more pregnant mothers will run over to England for abortions? Indeed, our misguided opponents need our prayers.

Now we must run it again. It would be a tragic waste to let the ad gather dust on a shelf. There’s no point in investing in bricks if we fail to build the house. That’s why we must buy the advertising package costing €39,967, so that as many people as possible continue to see our new masterfully-crafted baby-saving ad.

If the Lord has blessed you financially, could you consider making a major gift in the range of €1,000, €2,500, €5,000, or even €10,000? A gift like that would be a huge blessing to our new cinema ad project. Please dig deep.

So there is a big difference between the positive options website and this one.

Tom Young

EOK wrote: »

Actually, any station which is granted a licence by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland is required to comply with the provisions of s. 10(3) of the 1988 Act.

The question is though, are they broadcasting as defined?

bigbobbya

Thaedydal wrote: »

Where ?

It certianly did not when I reviewed the site.

It must have changed since you read it so. Have a look here: http://www.familyandlife.org/Crisis-Pregnancy.html

The top link has a page devoted to very neutral information about abortion.
The same applies to www.cura.ie which offers information about judgment-free post-abortion counselling. As such, both sides of the argument are given at least some representation.

Nevyn

Cura does not do non directive crises pregnancy couselling which incudles disscussing abortion nor do cura have the option for a referal to a clinc in the UK or other parts of europe.

Life is also a pro life orgainisation and the only information they give on abortion is negtive and obessess on the 'harm' it does to women. This is stated in thier vision statement



I have seen cura's post abortion counselling they claim a woman can not heal her hurt and understand the harm she has done with out taking the first step of admiting that killing her baby was wrong.

These are pro life which is why they are on the website.

EOK

Tom Young wrote: »

The question is though, are they broadcasting as defined?

I was merely correcting an inaccuracy in the previous comment about the scope of s. 10(3). What I said had absolutely nothing to do with cinemas or websites.

Tom Young

Sure, I wasn't disagreeing with you.

bigbobbya

Thaedydal wrote: »

Cura does not do non directive crises pregnancy couselling which incudles disscussing abortion nor do cura have the option for a referal to a clinc in the UK or other parts of europe.

Life is also a pro life orgainisation and the only information they give on abortion is negtive and obessess on the 'harm' it does to women. This is stated in thier vision statement



I have seen cura's post abortion counselling they claim a woman can not heal her hurt and understand the harm she has done with out taking the first step of admiting that killing her baby was wrong.

These are pro life which is why they are on the website.

First of all and without wishing to get bogged down in semantics, I don't know what your opinion on cura's counselling policy is based on. It's certainly a far cry from the material on their website or any anecdotal evidence I've ever come across, which would suggest that their services are not judgmental in the manner you allege. Any organisation is, of course, entitled to lean towards a particular primary option. As far as 'healing the hurt' goes, I think everyone involved in the abortion debate would concede that an abortion is a traumatic time in the life of any woman, no matter how steadfastly pro-choice she may be.

I'm not suggesting for a second that the page at issue doesn't have a very specific slant but my original point was simply that the website shouldn't be distinguished from other pages concerned with this issue which freely advertise in the print and broadcast media, such as positiveoptions.ie. That particular site is notoriously pro-choice and contains links to the Dublin Wellwoman Centre and the Irish Family Planning Association, both of which have campaigned and litigated extensively in the past for further access to abortions in this country. If we're going to allow sites with a slant in one direction to advertise, we have to at least be even-handed.

Nevyn

By not giving acess to all the options you can not compare the two sites and say they are the same.

They can have thier website it is the cinema ad/shortfilm which is the topic in this thread.

bigbobbya

The two main possible slants which a site could take are not 'discouraging abortions' and 'encouraging abortions'. No site, or at least I hope not, would ever actively encourage abortion as the primary option for those who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant. The major slants are in fact 'a list of options that does not emphasise abortion' as with familyandlife.org and 'a list of options that emphasises abortion' as with positiveoptions.ie. These are generally comparable as websites providing lists of options and it is only the weight of their constituent parts which separate them.

My whole reason for comparing the two is that positiveoptions.ie DOES advertise in the print and broadcast media, a fact which is clearly apparent from my previous posts.

Nevyn

The Postive Options campagin is run by the ciris pregnancy agceny which is state funded
and is with out poltical or religious afflications.

Thier adds do not push either agenda or make moralistic judgements.

Have you seen the add which is being screened in cinemas ?

passive

A little late joining in here, but when I saw the thread about this a couple of months back i submitted a complaint the the advertising crowd and got the following back... Dunno if it's of any use. I kinda just left it at that as i hadn't seen the ad in a while/left my job at the cinema.

Dear ****

As copy consultant for the Cinema Advertising Association (CAA), I am writing in response to your email of 21 May which has been forward to me.

The CAA the Trade Association of cinema advertising contractors operating in Ireland and the UK. Our members are CSA and Pearl & Dean, and we are located at the CSA offices which explains my email address. One of the functions of the CAA is to monitor and maintain standards of advertising exhibition in both countries. With respect to the Republic of Ireland, we recognise and apply the guidelines for commercial content as outlined in the Code of Standards for Advertising, Promotional and Direct Marking in Ireland (The ASAI Code). We have a Copy Panel to ensure that all cinema commercials screened in Ireland are suitable within these guidelines.

I am very sorry you felt so offended by the advertisement titled 'Choose Life' issued by the organization 'Family & Life'. However, the role of CAA is to apply the ASAI Codes. In this case the Panel was particularly concerned to ensure the codes of taste and decency were upheld. Code 2.15 requires that a marketing communication should contain nothing that is likely to cause grave or widespread offence. But in order to ensure that the broad consensus of society is being addressed, Code 2.20 states: 'The fact that a product is offensive to some people is not in itself sufficient basis for objecting to a marketing communication for the product'.

The Panel is fully aware of the strong views surrounding matters of this nature. But it is not the role of a pre-clearance body to censor the advertising of any legally functioning organisation simply on the grounds of agreeing or not with the views of that organisation. The Panel can only censor on the basis of the ASAI Codes and the law of Ireland.

I fully understand that you may not be satisfied with this response. Neither this email nor my reply prejudices your right to take your complaint to the ASAI itself who can conduct its own independent investigation into whether or not this commercial is in breach of its codes.

Thank you for taking the trouble to write to us. The CAA appreciates all comments from the public in order to maintain standards in cinema advertising.

Yours sincerely



****
Copy consultant to the CAA

IT Loser

Thaedydal wrote: »

The Postive Options campagin is run by the ciris pregnancy agceny which is state funded
and is with out poltical or religious afflications.

Thier adds do not push either agenda or make moralistic judgements.

Have you seen the add which is being screened in cinemas ?

:p:p

bigbobbya

Thaedydal wrote: »

The Postive Options campagin is run by the ciris pregnancy agceny which is state funded
and is with out poltical or religious afflications.

Thier adds do not push either agenda or make moralistic judgements.

Have you seen the add which is being screened in cinemas ?

I have indeed seen the advertisement in question. The fact that the PO campaign is state-funded should be an argument in furtherance of allowing alternative viewpoints such as familylife.org not vice-versa. There needs to be a degree of equality of arms if any advertising on the issue is to be permitted; the State cannot be allowed to have a monopoly on the light in which such a sensitive and divisive issue is presented.

The issue of religious affiliation simply doesn't arise since familylife.org, though it may well be in line with Catholic teaching on the issue, is not the product of any particular church. Abortion is primarily a political debate which is sometimes shaped by religious beliefs and the idea sometimes propagated that a campaign against abortion amounts to the foisting of one's religious beliefs on another is an utter fallacy. Indeed, it is analogous to claiming that the Troubles in Northern Ireland constitute religious warfare.

In relation to the agenda to be espoused which you rather pejoratively (and I would submit unfairly in the specific case of familylife.org) term 'moralistic judgments', the failure to make a moral determination may be just as controversial as the making of one as is alleged in the instant case. What I mean is, presenting abortion as a potential option to tackle unexpected pregnancy on a website that links itself to organisations that have campaigned for a right to abortion in the past is just as offensive to a pro-life individual as a website eschewing abortion is to a pro-choice individual.

RandolphEsq

It could be said that the ad is merely making people aware of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution.

Nevyn

It is religious and politcal.
If it was a poster ad it would have been pulled the same as the concern last campaign and the barndoes one calling for the ratification of the un charter on the rights of the child.

Currently it is being sold as an ad but does not fall under the law, which is the crux of the matter.

IT Loser

Thaedydal wrote: »

It is religious and politcal.
If it was a poster ad it would have been pulled the same as the concern last campaign and the barndoes one calling for the ratification of the un charter on the rights of the child.

Currently it is being sold as an ad but does not fall under the law, which is the crux of the matter.

Well now, let Ivana Bacik and the rest of the Hardcore up in Trinity take up this matter.;)

EOK

Thaedydal wrote: »

It is religious and politcal.
If it was a poster ad it would have been pulled the same as the concern last campaign and the barndoes one calling for the ratification of the un charter on the rights of the child.

Currently it is being sold as an ad but does not fall under the law, which is the crux of the matter.

This certainly is not a religious ad. The mere fact that it happens to espouse a viewpoint which is shared by numerous religious groups is irrelevant. The issue of abortion, though often portrayed as a debate centred on religious belief, is fundamentally a moral issue.

An ad can only be characterised as political if it seeks to:
(i) promote the views of a particular political party
(ii) alter the law in this jurisdiction (or any other) or counter such a change
(iii) bring about a change in government policy.

As such, the mere fact that an ad provides information about alternatives to abortion is insufficent to render it political. An ad which merely suggests/promotes the various alternative options open to pregnant women in no way seeks to alter government policy or the law in this country; rather, it is a last-ditch attempt to dissuade impressionable women from abusing their constituional right to travel.