Rejected: ads too tough for Amnesty

Amnesty International has disowned a series of hard-hitting posters produced by its advertising agency partners as part of a pitch for the organisation's campaign against China in the lead up to the Olympics.

The creatives, produced for the human rights organisation's branches in Slovakia and France, are staged photos showing actors posing as dissidents in the throes of being abused in a series of sporting backdrops.

In one of the most graphic ads, a "dissident" - with his arms handcuffed behind him - is depicted having his head dunked in a swimming pool by two "policemen".

The poster carries the caption: "After the Olympic Games, the fight for human rights must go on."

The ad is one of a series of three produced by the French arm of The Omnicom Group's TBWA Worldwide agency and have been virally circulating around the internet.

(Coincidentally, the same agency's Beijing branch is responsible for producing a series of jingoistic ads for Adidas showing Chinese athletes being lifted higher on the arms of adoring fans.)

The French ads are very similar in style to an earlier set of three poster ads produced for Amnesty Slovakian branch.

In these ads, "dissidents" are depicted being manhandled by a wrestler, punched by a boxer and threatened by a pistol shooter.

The ad using the Beijing Olympic slogan "China is getting ready", but adds: "in the name of ensuring stability and harmony in the country during the 2008 Olympic Games, the Chinese Government continues to detain and harass political activist, journalist, lawyers and human rights workers."

"Neither set of images fits with the internationally developed communication strategy, in tone or concept," said

Amnesty International's Beijing Olympics Project Manager, Rob Godden in an email sent in response to a series of questions about the aborted campaigns.

"In particular, they depicted violence linked to sporting events or equipment that could be offensive to some or confusing in its message."

Godden said the Slovakian ads were also though to potentially violate Olympic copyright restrictions on the use of the Olympic rings.

He also rejected suggestions that the ads were deliberately leaked on the internet as part of a viral campaign and said that Amnesty had not given permission for the images to be released and had attempted to have them taken down.

"It is the case that ad agencies like to show off their work to attract business," he said. "In both cases this work was posted on the internet without Amnesty International's permission. Once on the web they went viral, however this was never our intent nor were we involved in placing the ads on the internet in the first place."

However, according to the Wall Street Journal, Amnesty allowed TBWA to run the ads once so they could be entered into the leading International Advertising Festival in Cannes where it won a bronze award.

The ads have attracted the attention of Chinese bloggers who have seized on them as the latest example of what they see as the 29th Olympic sport: China bashing.

"In China, advertising people make advertisement based on facts, but you are not!" read a comment posted by Lei Shi, an account director at OgilvyOne Worldwide in Beijing. "In China, advertising people make advertisement with full sense of social responsibility and basic human moral, but you are not!"

Gay man challenges Red Cross on donation

• Andrew Darby, Hobart
• August 8, 2008

A CHANGE to blood donor rules sought by a gay man to remove discrimination threatens to bring infection and death, according to the Australian Red Cross.

A national Red Cross donor rule rejecting sexually active gay men is being challenged before the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal, which was told yesterday it amounted to textbook discrimination. The organisation replied that the proposed change would be an experiment with the blood supply that made humans the guinea pigs, at real risk of HIV infection.

Electronics technician Michael Cain, 21, of West Launceston, was rejected as a donor in October 2004, after replying "yes" in the Red Cross questionnaire to whether he had had male-to-male sex in the past 12 months. The tribunal heard male-to-male sex was lawful in Tasmania, where legislation prohibited discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, or lawful sexual activity.

Mr Cain's counsel, Peter Tree, SC, said that since the outbreak of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, scientific tests had enabled detection of HIV antibodies in donated blood. The tribunal heard that a "window" period for screening blood also applied. Mr Tree said that to eliminate a particular group beforehand was not merely discriminatory, but illogical and medically flawed.

Counsel for the Red Cross, Jeremy Ruskin, QC, said Australia had one of the world's safest blood supplies. Male-to-male sex remained the riskiest activity for HIV here, accounting for 86% of newly acquired infections, Mr Ruskin said. Mr Cain's proposal amounted to an experiment with the blood supply, he said. "We are talking about infection and death."

The hearing continues.

The City Circle is pleased to host the launch of the Muslim Marriage Contract prepared by the Muslim Institute.

The speakers will be Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, Director of the Muslim Institute, Mufti Barkatulla, Islamic Shari'ah Council, Cassandra Balchin, Muslim Women Network UK, Maulana Shahid Raza, Imams and Mosques Council UK and Shaykh Usama Hasan, City Circle.

The new Contract - launched on the day - provides women entering a Muslim marriage written proof of their marriage and of the terms and conditions agreed between the spouses. In the absence of such proof, women have faced particular difficulties in securing the financial rights guaranteed to them under the Shari'ah upon divorce.

The Contract has been drafted after lengthy consultations over a number of years with religious leaders, community organisations and women's groups across the country, and reflects a consensus effort to protect the rights of both parties to a Muslim Nikah (non-registry marriage) and that are guaranteed under the Shari'ah.

The new Contract is designed to guarantee greater harmony within Muslim marriages in Britain. It lays out the rights and responsibilities of the husband and wife in a Muslim marriage, and emphasises the Qur'anic vision of marriage as a relationship of mutual love, mercy and kindness (mawaddah, rahmah and sukun).

The Contract recognises the role Muslim women play in modern societies. Hence it does not require a 'marriage guardian' (wali) for the bride, and also makes delegation of the right of divorce to the wife (talaq-i-tafweed) automatic. This right does not affect the husband's right of divorce (talaq) but enables the wife to initiate divorce and retain all her financial rights agreed in the marriage contract. The Contract also requires "two adult witnesses of good character", rather than the traditional insistence on two Muslim men.

In today's multi-cultural Britain, women and non-Muslims must be recognised as just as capable of providing a reputable guarantee that the marriage took place and of the terms and conditions the couple agreed upon.

The Contract has been prepared by the Muslim Institute and endorsed by The Muslim Law (Shari'ah) Council UK, the Imams and Mosques Council UK, Muslim Council of Britain, Muslim Parliament, Utrujj Foundation, Muslim Women's Network UK, Fatima Women's Network, Muslim Community Helpline (formerly Muslim Women's Helpline) and The City Circle.

Side by side with efforts to popularise the new Contract within the Muslim community, the Muslim Institute is encouraging more mosques to become places registered for civil ceremony under the 1948 Marriage Act so that marriages they conduct are recognised under English law and Muslim couples can access the British courts regarding marital issues.

Subject: Launch of 'The Muslim Marriage Contract' Venue: Abrar House, 45 Crawford Place, London W1H 4LP (nearest tube: Edgware Road or Marble Arch) Date: 6.45pm - 8.30pm, Friday 8 August 2008

Poo and pee dominated a public hearing Monday on a new law that prohibits people from carrying certain items if they intend to use them for nefarious purposes.

The law, crafted in advance of the Democratic National Convention, was adopted unanimously by the City Council.

But not before a hearing laced with comedy and profanity.

Representatives from some of the groups planning large-scale protests during the DNC this month said the ordinance was unnecessary and accused city officials of fear mongering.

"The intent of this ordinance is to try to smear protesters and make them look as if they are somehow criminal or somehow going to engage in some kind of gross conduct," said Glenn Spagnuolo, an organizer with the Re- create 68 Alliance.

The ordinance makes it illegal to carry certain items, such as chains, padlocks, carabiners and other locking devices. It also prohibits the possession of noxious substances. Two of the most frequently used examples of a noxious substance are a bucket of urine and a "feces bomb."

Police have to prove that people carrying such items intend to use them to block public access or emergency equipment or to thwart crowd control measures.

Safety Manager Al LaCabe said the law will be applied in situations when certain items are going to be used in a disruptive way. He said officers will consider the totality of the circumstances.

"Our intent for this bill is not about suppressing or chilling First Amendment rights," he said.

The hearing got personal when Spagnuolo took aim at Councilman Doug Linkhart, who was quoted in the New York Post as saying that a source told him that he knew of a home being used to store urine. "The only feces that I'm concerned about is the (expletive) that comes out of his mouth," Spagnuolo said.

Council members balked at the attack on Linkhart, noting that he was the one who requested the hearing.

Linkhart said a firefighter he trusts was his source. After the hearing, he said he didn't regret requesting it.

"I'd do it again," he said, adding that some of the points that protesters raised were valid.

I had sex with my brother but I don't feel guilty

A woman slept with her sibling for years and has good memories. Not many people understand their relationship, she says

Prof Dawkins, a well-known atheist, also blamed the Government for accommodating religious views and allowing creationism to be taught in schools.

"Most devout Muslims are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught," Prof Dawkins said in a Sunday newspaper interview.

"Teachers are bending over backwards to respect home prejudices that children have been brought up with. The Government could do more, but it doesn't want to because it is fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come."

Prof Dawkins, professor for the public understanding of science at Oxford University, is author of books including the Selfish Gene, the Blind Watchmaker and the God Delusion.

He said science was being threatened in classrooms because the Government accepts that theories including "intelligent design" can be discussed "in the context of being one of a range of views on evolution."

"The Government – particularly under Tony Blair – thinks it is wonderful to have children brought up with their traditional religions. I call it brainwashing," he added.

"It seems as though teachers are terribly frightened of being thought racist. It's almost impossible to say anything against Islam in this country, because [if you do] you are accused of being racist or Islamophobic."

Prof Dawkins had recently finished a TV programme in which he went into a classroom of 15-year-olds at a secondary school in London.

"I was shocked by how some put up barriers to understanding," he said "I showed them the evidence, and they just said, 'This is what it says in my holy book.' And so I asked, 'If your holy book says one thing, but the evidence says something else, you then go with your holy book?' And they said, 'Yes.' And I said, 'Why?' And they said, 'It's the way we've been brought up'."

Prof Dawkins said the failure in classrooms meant religious fanatics had a chance to get hold.

"Because we are all brought up to respect faith, it leaves open a gap through which fanatics can charge," he said.

"I think we have all been brought up to give too much respect to religion, as opposed to any other kind of opinion."