letter of response to adshel
[edit] since posting this adshel have come out and posted that they are reinstating the advertisement.
if you've been living in a cave today, then you may not have heard about the removal of sexual health advertisements by advertiser Adshel. why were they adverts removed? well, a campaign of hate because the advertisement contains an image of two gay men hugging.
according to wendy francis, the image contains "two men in some kind of foreplay". so now hugging is foreplay [facepalm].
anyway, i wrote a letter expressing my disgust at the decision by adshel to remove the ad. read it below:
dear Elvira,
no doubt your inbox is overflowing with emails from outraged members of the community in relation to your decision to remove the “rip&roll” advertisements, and frankly, it should be. this decision clearly reinforces and panders to blatant bigotry, homophobia and discrimination, particularly when there are far more offensive advertisements overtly placed within the greater community. this (the rip&roll) image is about as offensive as a photo of a baby penguin.
at a time when young people are being attacked for “being different” and prominent leaders of the world are taking a stance against the “anti-gay” sentiments, such as the “it gets better” campaign, this decision (the removal of the advertisement) can only add more damage to an already vulnerable group. the removal of the advertisement without the consult of the client also brings into question Adshel’s personal stance in this situation, and since your response to the outrage simply skirts the issue and refuses to address it, only adds more fuel to the speculation. let us not forget, also, that this campaign is about sexual health and not about homosexuality. it is an educational campaign to promote safe sexual practice: everyone has sex, and this campaign is meant to educate people into making healthy choices in regards to their sex life, it is not about promoting any particular kind of sexual behaviour.
it is incredibly clear by the outpouring of anger, that the sentiments dictated in the 30 or 40 letters of complaint about the advertisement, do not speak for the greater community. since the number of voices being raised IN SUPPORT of the campaign greatly outweighs that of the complainants, logic therefore dictates that the posters be reinstated and the campaign left alone to run it’s full course. sadly, judging by your behaviour in relation to this issue, i very much doubt logic will play any kind of role in what you choose to do next.
regards,
janah chadwick
if you've been living in a cave today, then you may not have heard about the removal of sexual health advertisements by advertiser Adshel. why were they adverts removed? well, a campaign of hate because the advertisement contains an image of two gay men hugging.
according to wendy francis, the image contains "two men in some kind of foreplay". so now hugging is foreplay [facepalm].
anyway, i wrote a letter expressing my disgust at the decision by adshel to remove the ad. read it below:
dear Elvira,
no doubt your inbox is overflowing with emails from outraged members of the community in relation to your decision to remove the “rip&roll” advertisements, and frankly, it should be. this decision clearly reinforces and panders to blatant bigotry, homophobia and discrimination, particularly when there are far more offensive advertisements overtly placed within the greater community. this (the rip&roll) image is about as offensive as a photo of a baby penguin.
at a time when young people are being attacked for “being different” and prominent leaders of the world are taking a stance against the “anti-gay” sentiments, such as the “it gets better” campaign, this decision (the removal of the advertisement) can only add more damage to an already vulnerable group. the removal of the advertisement without the consult of the client also brings into question Adshel’s personal stance in this situation, and since your response to the outrage simply skirts the issue and refuses to address it, only adds more fuel to the speculation. let us not forget, also, that this campaign is about sexual health and not about homosexuality. it is an educational campaign to promote safe sexual practice: everyone has sex, and this campaign is meant to educate people into making healthy choices in regards to their sex life, it is not about promoting any particular kind of sexual behaviour.
it is incredibly clear by the outpouring of anger, that the sentiments dictated in the 30 or 40 letters of complaint about the advertisement, do not speak for the greater community. since the number of voices being raised IN SUPPORT of the campaign greatly outweighs that of the complainants, logic therefore dictates that the posters be reinstated and the campaign left alone to run it’s full course. sadly, judging by your behaviour in relation to this issue, i very much doubt logic will play any kind of role in what you choose to do next.
regards,
janah chadwick