Pope kissing Imam- Offensive?

jonniebgood1

This story was carried on the Beeb today:

The Vatican says it is taking legal action over the use of an ad showing Pope Benedict kissing a leading imam as part of a Benetton advertising campaign.

The Vatican move comes despite an announcement by the Italian clothing company that it was pulling the ad.

The ad, with its doctored image, is part of a global advertising campaign.

It consists of photo montages of political and religious leaders kissing each other on the mouth.

A statement said the Vatican had told its lawyers in Italy and around the world to "take the proper legal measures" to stop the use of the photo, even in the media.

It was not clear from the statement if the Vatican intended to sue Benetton directly for damages.
'Absurd'

The Vatican statement said the ad was "damaging to not only to dignity of the pope and the Catholic Church but also to the feelings of believers".

A spokesman for Egypt's al-Azhar institute, whose grand imam was pictured kissing the pope, described the advertisement as "irresponsible and absurd" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15778377

The image

I do not really see what the vatican are so put upon by this. Surely given the views they hold this is not an unexpected response to their views (the use of a gay kiss to seek attention). I do not see either why bennetton have pulled the ad as that seems to be bowing to the narrow view held by the church. Surely if they propose the image in the first place they should stand over their decision. Hope this is appropriate forum, I contemplated some of the religious page but it is a more social issue IMO. I am interested in what people think of these views? I don't like the Vaticans views on many issues including homosexuals so I thought the ad was quite clever in what it sought to achieve.

howamidifferent

Given the age seems more like necrophelia to me...:P

pickarooney

Regardless of who's depicted, using a doctored image of a living person, without their permission, to sell jumpers, is not acceptable IMO.

vicwatson

Sure we all know that's not really the pope :rolleyes:

Manach

A stunt to promote a clothing brand, which no doubt its own legal dept. would literally sue into oblivion anyone photo-shopping their own brand image.

looksee

Just another reason not to shop in Beneton.

jonniebgood1

I understand that it is a clothing company looking for publicity but I am more interested in the issue that this raises.

The pope is head of the vatican and is vehemently homophobic and has made pronouncements that are way behind the times. When a popular brandname, i.e. everyday for people, sees fit to highlight this view it serves to isolate these views. But then the company drops the ad as it is at the end of the day a commercial enterprise and does'nt actually care about the issue it raised.

strobe

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I do not see either why bennetton have pulled the ad as that seems to be bowing to the narrow view held by the church. Surely if they propose the image in the first place they should stand over their decision.

I'm sure Beneton had every single intention of pulling the ad the very second the Vatican lawyers asked them to as it's whole purpose was to get the Vatican to complain and get them a load of free news coverage for their ad campaign.

jester77

Benetton have always been controversial, although a little quiet in the last few years. Harmless photo, but it has everyone talking. Benetton have achieved their goal.

Hogzy

How could the legal team at Benetton not know the repercussions of publishing such an image.

This is so blatantly defamatory. A 1st year law student could probably prepare the case for the Catholic Church because its such a blatent and straight forward violation.

Sleepy

No more offensive than some of the views of both men tbh.

Hogzy

Sleepy wrote: »

No more offensive than some of the views of both men tbh.

Its irrelevant whether it is offensive or not. Its quite clearly defamatory

Sleepy

Look at the top of the thread Hogzy, the OP asked if it was offensive, not if it was defamatory.

Fuinseog

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I understand that it is a clothing company looking for publicity but I am more interested in the issue that this raises.

The pope is head of the vatican and is vehemently homophobic and has made pronouncements that are way behind the times. When a popular brandname, i.e. everyday for people, sees fit to highlight this view it serves to isolate these views. But then the company drops the ad as it is at the end of the day a commercial enterprise and does'nt actually care about the issue it raised.

its a cheap stunt and not the first time they have done so.
is beneton a popular brand name? who wears it here?

the Vatican is not against homosexuals. they are people like anyone else. they are against homosexual sex which is simply not natural, yet we are told is perfectly normal, just like having sex with a sheep.

Giselle

Fuinseog wrote: »

they are against homosexual sex which is simply not natural, yet we are told is perfectly normal, just like having sex with a sheep.

I don't know who told you sex with a sheep was perfectly natural.

Comparing sex between consenting adults with bestiality is too ignorant to acknowledge. Post reported.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Fuinseog

before the all powerful gay brigade here have me banned and sticking to what the OP asked I should point out that the image is offensive. It suggests gay sex, which is offensive to Catholics.

Fuinseog

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

hear hear. keep the homophobes at bay but let catholic bashing flourish. thats a great example of tolerance.

frag420

What would the implications be if one were to use the image as their profile pic on Fb?? Would the Catholic Church have a case to sue??

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Fuinseog

howamidifferent wrote: »

Given the age seems more like necrophelia to me...:P

if you said that about gays you be banned.

Fuinseog

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I understand that it is a clothing company looking for publicity but I am more interested in the issue that this raises.

The pope is head of the vatican and is vehemently homophobic and has made pronouncements that are way behind the times. When a popular brandname, i.e. everyday for people, sees fit to highlight this view it serves to isolate these views. But then the company drops the ad as it is at the end of the day a commercial enterprise and does'nt actually care about the issue it raised.

being against sexual acts of homosexuality does not make the pope homophobic. he is also against porn, which must make him hetereophobic.

jonniebgood1

Fuinseog wrote: »

being against sexual acts of homosexuality does not make the pope homophobic. he is also against porn, which must make him hetereophobic.

Homophobia from wiki:

Homophobia is a term used to refer to a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay and in some cases bisexual, transgender people and behavior....

The pope has a negative attitude towards gay people in my opinion. It would be quite interesting if you wish to show how he is positive towards gay people.

Regarding porn and other things that the pope supports or does'nt support I won't go there as you would I presume consider it anti catholic. Suffice to point out that the point is both irrelevant and nonsense IMO.

nyarlothothep

lol, its kinda funny. haha

paddyandy

trades on garish colours and shock.What annoys pleases idea.Provocation has a lot of money in it as the whole fashion Industry knows well.As seen below.

Laisurg

I for one think this absolutely hilarious :pac:

MrPudding

Hogzy wrote: »

How could the legal team at Benetton not know the repercussions of publishing such an image.

This is so blatantly defamatory. A 1st year law student could probably prepare the case for the Catholic Church because its such a blatent and straight forward violation.

I am not so sure. The test for defamation, or at least part of it, in lowering a persons reputation in the eyes of right thinking people. A picture that seems to indicate that that the pope has dropped his biggoted views would only raise his reputation in right thinking people. It might lower his reputation in the eyes of bigoted homophobic people, but the law is not concerned with what bigots think, with respect to defamation.

Added to that, where the vatican chooses to sue will have some impact. In the US they will likely not be successful as the US has a defence of parody to defamation. This is a concept that is starting to find some traction in the UK, commonly held to be the defamation litigation capital of the world.

So, in summary, I would not be so sure this is blatant defamation nor would I leave the preparation of the case to a first year law student.

MrP

Denerick

Its a remarkable advertising campaign which has won them a lot of attention. I say the pope can bugger off. After his mealy mouthed 'apology' to the Irish people by blaming paedophilia on secularism, I say any deference shown to him should be kept to an absolute minimum.

Denerick

Fuinseog wrote: »

before the all powerful gay brigade here have me banned and sticking to what the OP asked I should point out that the image is offensive. It suggests gay sex, which is offensive to Catholics.

Tell that to the many victims of clerical paedophilia.

dsmythy

The Imam's mosque also protested over the images.

Zombrex

Fuinseog wrote: »

its a cheap stunt and not the first time they have done so.
is beneton a popular brand name? who wears it here?

the Vatican is not against homosexuals. they are people like anyone else. they are against homosexual sex which is simply not natural, yet we are told is perfectly normal, just like having sex with a sheep.

Of course it is natural, it occurs in nature :rolleyes:

Denerick

Why are Christians so damn obsessed with what is natural or not? As if being celibate were natural.

biko

Benetton have been doing similar ads for ages, maybe not men kissing but about racial tolerance.

Humans eh!

Personally I don't find it offensive at all. It makes the viuewer confront intolerance of many things. Homosexuality, religious intolerance, the barriers that mankind creates to divide us against ourselves, freedom of speech and terrible jumpers.

Both religions are defined and constructed around what they each deem to be tolerable societal behaviours and confronting and challenging these rules are part of a healthy society.

Hogzy

MrPudding wrote: »

I am not so sure. The test for defamation, or at least part of it, in lowering a persons reputation in the eyes of right thinking people.

Yes. Basically this image depicts the pope as being a homosexual. This goes against all his views and opinions and would therefore be insinuating that he is a liar and a hypocrite. Being a liar and a hypocrite is clearly lowering that persons reputation.

A picture that seems to indicate that that the pope has dropped his biggoted views would only raise his reputation in right thinking people. It might lower his reputation in the eyes of bigoted homophobic people, but the law is not concerned with what bigots think, with respect to defamation.

So basically you are calling all Catholic people biggoted? Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Its equally as defamatory if i had a picture of you kissing a man or a woman which would insinuate that you are a homosexual when in fact the opposite is true.

Added to that, where the vatican chooses to sue will have some impact. In the US they will likely not be successful as the US has a defence of parody to defamation. This is a concept that is starting to find some traction in the UK, commonly held to be the defamation litigation capital of the world.

Read up on the defense of Parody. It is only a defense where there is not a blatent statement of fact portrayed. In the above image there is a clear representation and communication made that the pope is kissing a man an which blatantly goes against the views of the pope which in turn would deem him a liar and a hypocrite.

So, in summary, I would not be so sure this is blatant defamation nor would I leave the preparation of the case to a first year law student.

I think you need to read up on defamation law a little better. This case will be a personal one. The defamation is not committed against the catholic Church as a whole. It is a defamation case personal to the pope himself.

FYI - I am not religious in any way shape or form and i whole heartedly disagree with the popes views on homosexuality and contraception.

Fuinseog

in fairness to Benetton they do not discriminate- remember the add with the black child looking like the devil or the grieving family at the bedside of a loved one (aids victim)?
the controversy generated is simply free advertising.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jonniebgood1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No such thing as bad attention in advertising!

Dades

Hogzy wrote: »

Yes. Basically this image depicts the pope as being a homosexual. This goes against all his views and opinions and would therefore be insinuating that he is a liar and a hypocrite. Being a liar and a hypocrite is clearly lowering that persons reputation.

There's a big difference between depicting somebody as something, and suggesting they actually are that thing. Clearly, this is a photoshopped image. Nobody is going to see it and think "OMG THE POPE IS GAY!" So in that sense the Pope is not made out to be either a hypocrite or a liar, as it is apparent that the picture is false, and furthermore depicts the opposite of what the Pope preaches.

Hogzy wrote: »

So basically you are calling all Catholic people biggoted? Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

I wouldn't say "all Catholic people" as that would imply that all Catholics adhere to the Pope's teachings - which we know is a nonsense. That said, what is bigotry if not an opinion?

Hogzy

Dades wrote: »

There's a big difference between depicting somebody as something, and suggesting they actually are that thing. So in that sense the Pope is not made out to be either a hypocrite or a liar, as it is apparent that the picture is false, and furthermore depicts the opposite of what the Pope preaches.

Defamation doesnt concern whether people believed it as true or not.

The requirement for defamation is that
1. There is a "Communication"
2. Of a Defamatory statement (capable of lowering someone's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable man)
3. Plaintiff must be identified in the publication.

If the above are all answered in the affirmative then there has been a defamation and the defendant (Benetton) must justify their actions.

Clearly, this is a photoshopped image. Nobody is going to see it and think "OMG THE POPE IS GAY!"

Maybe its clear to you. But there are people out there who are not used to photoshopped images and may think its true (especially people of the older generation who are more likely to be offended by this image). Despite this it doesnt matter if people think its true as long as the publication is capable of being believed. And it clearly is capable of such, It is quite a well photoshopped image. It would be different if it were a cartoon with 2 men kissing and a headline reading "Pope Kisses Man". Obviously that is alot less capable of being believed.

I wouldn't say "all Catholic people" as that would imply that all Catholics adhere to the Pope's teachings - which we know is a nonsense. That said, what is bigotry if not an opinion?

Exactly. Catholicism is an opinion and one that people are perfectly entitled to hold. Like i said above. This defamation case, if brought, is a case that is personal to the pope. The image is basically insinuating that he is a liar and a hypocrite.

In Reynolds v Mollocco the plaintiff was described as a Gay Bachelor. This was defamatory because he was not gay. Being Gay is perfectly acceptable in society but the reason it was defamatory was because it was saying he was lying about who he was (he was straight and married).

jonniebgood1

Hogzy wrote: »

Defamation doesnt concern whether people believed it as true or not.

The requirement for defamation is that
1. There is a "Communication"
2. Of a Defamatory statement (capable of lowering someone's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable man)
3. Plaintiff must be identified in the publication.

If the above are all answered in the affirmative then there has been a defamation and the defendant (Benetton) must justify their actions.

From your explanation it would seem that you are suggesting that the idea of the Pope being gay would lower his reputation amongst 'reasonable' men.

Correct me if I am wrong but I would think that a reasonable man (not everyone I know is reasonable) would not think less of another person for being gay.

Hogzy

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

From your explanation it would seem that you are suggesting that the idea of the Pope being gay would lower his reputation amongst 'reasonable' men.

Correct me if I am wrong but I would think that a reasonable man (not everyone I know is reasonable) would not think less of another person for being gay.

You are wrong. If you read my posts you would clearly see what i am trying to explain. The pope professes himself as a straight man. This photo shows that he is gay. Therefore he has LIED about his way of life and can be deemed a HYPOCRITE. This is lowering your reputation. Being a liar and a hypocrite are not positive qualities of a human.

Iv explained that so many times in the above 2 posts. Maybe if you had bothered to read them you would have noticed.

MrPudding

Hogzy wrote: »

Yes. Basically this image depicts the pope as being a homosexual. This goes against all his views and opinions and would therefore be insinuating that he is a liar and a hypocrite. Being a liar and a hypocrite is clearly lowering that persons reputation.

Actually, that is a really good point, which I completely missed.

Hogzy wrote: »

So basically you are calling all Catholic people biggoted? Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Its equally as defamatory if i had a picture of you kissing a man or a woman which would insinuate that you are a homosexual when in fact the opposite is true.

I am calling people that think there is something wrong with homosexuality bigoted.

Hogzy wrote: »

Read up on the defense of Parody. It is only a defense where there is not a blatent statement of fact portrayed. In the above image there is a clear representation and communication made that the pope is kissing a man an which blatantly goes against the views of the pope which in turn would deem him a liar and a hypocrite.

But would people believe it? Although there is no defence of parody in the UK, it looks like things might be moving in that directions.

I don't have the citation to hand for the case, but there was a case involving Elton John a few years ago. There is a article about it here:

http://www.out-law.com/page-9699

Here is an interesting bit form the article:

The Article wrote:

The Judge said that John's fundraising efforts, which he and his charity publicise in the media, are a matter of public interest. He said that the attribution of the words to John was literally false, but that "no reasonable reader could be misled by it"

So perhaps if the story, or indeed picture, were so outrageous that no one would believe it, a defence might be available.

Hogzy wrote: »

I think you need to read up on defamation law a little better. This case will be a personal one.

Well, they all are. Only a living and natural person can be defamed. Legal persons, the dead or organisations can't be defamed.

Hogzy wrote: »

The defamation is not committed against the catholic Church as a whole. It is a defamation case personal to the pope himself.

Well, obviously, see point above.

Hogzy wrote: »

FYI - I am not religious in any way shape or form and i whole heartedly disagree with the popes views on homosexuality and contraception.

No problem. I was too hasty with my initial comment and made a schoolboy error. Cheers for pointing it out.

MrP

Hogzy

MrPudding wrote: »

Actually, that is a really good point, which I completely missed.

And thats were the heart of the defamation case will rest. Forget the rest of it. People are entitled to their bigoted views no matter how crazy they are.

You would be surprised about some people thinking this is real. There are old ladies in the wesht that have never used a computer let alone know what photoshop is/or is capable of. There is a VERY real chance that they could think the image is real.

In order for something to be completely unbelievable it would have to be 'Completely Unbelievable'. Like I said above, maybe a cartoon of 2 stick figures kissing with the labels "Pope and Imam are gay". That would be completely unbelievable.

I think you can all admit that this is quite a good photoshop and there are people out there capable of believing it as being true. This should probably be moved to legal discussion TBH. Its gone a bit off topic.

smokingman

Ratzy isn't actually engaging in gay sex here - he's just kissing someone.
...and as any catholic will tell you, the pope isn't against gay kissing but the sexual act itself so where's the problem?

Bodhran

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The pope is head of the vatican and is vehemently homophobic

That is simply not true. The Roman Catholic Church believes that the Bible teaches that either celibacy or a lifelong marriage between one man and one woman is God's design for humanity and that ALL sexual activity outside marriage is wrong i.e. a sin against the 6th commandment. The present Pope and his predecessors have always held this view. Now just because you or I may not subscribe to this view, that does not entitle us to label a person as having an unreasoning fear of or antipathy towards homosexuals and homosexuality. The Church teaches that it is necessary to hate the sin but to love the sinner

jonniebgood1

Hogzy wrote: »

You are wrong. If you read my posts you would clearly see what i am trying to explain. The pope professes himself as a straight man. This photo shows that he is gay. Therefore he has LIED about his way of life and can be deemed a HYPOCRITE. This is lowering your reputation. Being a liar and a hypocrite are not positive qualities of a human.

Iv explained that so many times in the above 2 posts. Maybe if you had bothered to read them you would have noticed.

Twas reading your posts that confused things. I was trying to give you the benefit of doubt but since your getting snotty about it I will point out that you have insinuated that a reasonable person would see 2 men kissing as a reason for lowering ones opinion of said men. This is as per my previous post where I underlined relevant line. If your opinion is different to this then fair enough but I am simply clarifying where you stand.

People as you correctly say are entitled to their bigoted views and with free speech as we are supposed to have they can freely express those views. However when an advertiser uses this bigotry to gain attention the bigot can force them to withdraw the ad. - There is a problem between these 2 views as the bigot is the one protect in both situations.

jonniebgood1

Bodhran wrote: »

That is simply not true. The Roman Catholic Church believes that the Bible teaches that either celibacy or a lifelong marriage between one man and one woman is God's design for humanity and that ALL sexual activity outside marriage is wrong i.e. a sin against the 6th commandment. The present Pope and his predecessors have always held this view. Now just because you or I may not subscribe to this view, that does not entitle us to label a person as having an unreasoning fear of or antipathy towards homosexuals and homosexuality. The Church teaches that it is necessary to hate the sin but to love the sinner

Its an interesting point but it is my interpretation of the Popes view expressed (as opposed to fact). i.e. if the pope speaks against homosexuals because he thinks they are sinners then it can be interpreted as homophobic, if he speaks out against out of wedlock sex then it is a different phobia. The popes predecessors views change with the times so are not entirely relevant.

Hogzy

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Twas reading your posts that confused things. I was trying to give you the benefit of doubt but since your getting snotty about it I will point out that you have insinuated that a reasonable person would see 2 men kissing as a reason for lowering ones opinion of said men. This is as per my previous post where I underlined relevant line.

I am not saying that a picture showing a man kissing is defamatory. There is NOTHING wrong with being gay. It is wrong to suggest someone is a liar and a hypocritewhen they are not and this is what the photo is suggesting. THAT IS ALL

If your opinion is different to this then fair enough but I am simply clarifying where you stand.

Only I have the power to clarify where i stand. You have your opinions, i have mine. All of the opinions and facts i have expressed in this thread i have gained through my Law degree and my Law Society exams.

However when an advertiser uses this bigotry to gain attention the bigot can force them to withdraw the ad. - There is a problem between these 2 views as the bigot is the one protect in both situations.

This is completely different to a defamation case. I have no concern with the issue of bigotry. Im not going to post in this thread again.
If you would prefer i can ask the mod of the forum to move our posts to Legal Discussion and we can continue the debate there?

Bodhran

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

if the pope speaks against homosexuals because he thinks they are sinners then it can be interpreted as homophobic, if he speaks out against out of wedlock sex then it is a different phobia. The popes predecessors views change with the times so are not entirely relevant.

It's not a case that he thinks they are sinners. According to the laws of the RC Church, they are sinning against the 6th commandment. Sex outside wedlock is also regarded as a sin against the 6th commandment. It is not a phobia. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. Have you any examples of instances where any of the Pope's predecessors have held a different view on sexual morality? Granted many of them may have offended against the 6th commandment personally. But that does not mean that the teaching is wrong.

Incidentally, the vast majority of Christian churches plus the Jewish and Islamic religions condemn homosexuality and sexual sin in general.

jonniebgood1

Hogzy wrote: »

I am not saying that a picture showing a man kissing is defamatory. There is NOTHING wrong with being gay. It is wrong to suggest someone is a liar and a hypocritewhen they are not and this is what the photo is suggesting. THAT IS ALL

Only I have the power to clarify where i stand. You have your opinions, i have mine. All of the opinions and facts i have expressed in this thread i have gained through my Law degree and my Law Society exams.

This is completely different to a defamation case. I have no concern with the issue of bigotry. Im not going to post in this thread again.
If you would prefer i can ask the mod of the forum to move our posts to Legal Discussion and we can continue the debate there?

This explains why you see it as a legal issue. I posted initially as I see this issue as a moral quandary rather than legal.