I often like to think that Australia is for the most part a secular country that is open, multicultural and accepting of different views, religions, lack of religion. Out of all the places on the face of the planet that I would expect us to be be able to display atheist ads it would be here.
For Christ’s sake even the Italian’s have been able to put a slogan on the side of a bus, and its certainly more strident than “Sleep in on Sunday”.
Anywho, for those of you that missed it here is the Sunday Sunrise interview with Arienne one of the organisers of the British Ad program
Is it as the host hints, just the Ad companies that don’t want to offend their audience?
No objection to having sexualised images of women on the sides of buses or bus shelters but the minute you have a rather relaxed message about atheism suddenly someone develops a misdirected social conscience?
Hypocrits?
Or is it that Christianity offers big money?
Related articles by Zemanta
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=abc2607b-e7cd-493f-b051-8ceb18f3163c)
Related posts:
- Atheist Bus Adverts- Has Australia lost its sense of humor? You will no doubt be aware that the Atheist Bus...
- Atheist Foundation of Australia launches new forum The Atheist Foundation of Australia has launched a new forum. ...
- Atheist Foundation of Australia to complain to the Tasmanian Anti Discrimination Commission From an AFA media release: The Atheist Foundation of...
Loading ...
Is it as the host hints, just the Ad companies that don’t want to offend their audience?
I'm opting for this option. I don't think that it's even the bulk of their audience. Just the ones with loud voices and, in some cases, deep pockets.
I think that it also has to do with the general reluctance of many people to question their values. Mainstream Australian society, to a large extent, has its roots in British Christian tradition and many people are uncomfortable with anything that goes against that tradition, even though they don't really know why it makes them uncomfortable.
And in fairness, from what I gather, it wasn't a case of the advertisements being "banned", per se, so much as an advertising company, albeit a state-owned one, refusing to display them. The difference is subtle, but IMO significant.
Subtle but worrying, as a state owned company that should not be discriminating
I'm not saying that this makes the decision right or that it shouldn't be challenged, and I do believe that a state-owned company should be more equitable and ethical in its decision-making. I just think that it would be a decidedly worse state of affairs if the the government made it illegal to display such advertisements at all.
To use the word "banned", as the Telegraph article does, is somewhat hysterical and misleading, since the refusal to carry the ads has the character of a commercial decision, rather than a legislative or administrative one. But then, it is a British newspaper.
Agreed that it is not accurate. The hysteria is welcome though
as the local media only seemed to pick the story up after it ran overseas – this when we are in a slow news month.
Surely such an irrational response as hysteria should never be welcomed by a skeptic, even if the media attention is.
Lol