I know that I disappointed some when this
blog took a turn in 2008. I saw
tyrants taking (more) power and felt it my duty to sound the alarm and expose them
and have done so since. Although
this blog has always clearly put “worldly things” under its remit and although
I’ve not taken my eye off “churchly” matters, I acknowledge the shift in focus
was unpleasant. But needful tasks
often are.
I changed my focus because I believe tyranny
must be opposed as early and as clearly as possible. For tyrannical acts that succeed with little or ineffective
opposition become precedents. See Roe v. Wade. And, yes, there are times when one should even refuse to
submit to tyrannical so-called authority for that very reason.
I could go on about this, as you very well
know, but better that I defer to an ashen archbishop who shows us all how to
stand up to tyrants.
As many of you know, the UK Advertising
Standards Authority has harassed and threatened Cranmer over his running a very
upbeat ad in support of traditional marriage on his site. He has not only fought back very publicly,
but also refused to acknowledge that the ASA has authority in this matter.
His latest missive to the ASA is masterful,
particularly in picking apart ASA’s claim to have any authority over political
advertising:
By choosing to investigate a promotional campaign which
sought merely to uphold the traditional view of marriage, it is clear that you
have expanded your remit to incorporate the promotion of political causes and
ideas, which the CAP Code
states specifically is excluded from the scope of your competence, except where
they are ‘direct solicitations of donations for fund-raising’. That is
manifestly not the case with the Coalition for Marriage advertisement: the only
direct solicitation was for people’s signatures upon a petition. That the
campaign is political is in no doubt, because HM Government have decreed it so
by their decision to
investigate those schools which advocate support of the marriage
petition, which a minister has referred to as ‘political campaigning’. Your
decision to investigate the complaint with threats and menaces, contra your own
online remit,
constitutes bullying, harassment and intimidation, which amounts to censorship
of the cause for the retention of traditional marriage and the idea that
marriage is a union of one man and one woman.
By sending out ‘complaint’ papers which demand responses with
such phrases as ‘We require you to respond...’ and ‘we will need to see robust
documentary evidence to back the claims and a clear explanation from you of its
relevance’; and by doing so with demands to answer your questions by a certain
deadline with threats of punitive action for non-compliance, you fraudulently
convey an excess of power and claim an authority which you do not, in law,
possess. You impress upon the recipient that you are the superior moral agent,
and that submission and obeisance are the only appropriate response. Authority
which is exerted without right is an illegitimate use of power; illegitimate
authority is tyranny; and tyranny leads to injustice, which can have no
authority at all. By abusing your self-certified power and self-authenticated
authority for the perpetuation of an image of your self-integrity, you deny all
authority. You ought to rename yourselves the Political Substandard Tyranny.
Further, he points out that
the Chairman of the ASA, being Vice President of the Campaign
for Homosexual Equality, is a player in
the political fight over gay marriage and has a glaring conflict of
interest. The said Chairman is
abusing and exceeding his authority in order to harass political opposition.
And I think it important again
to emphasize that Cranmer has been very public in standing up to the ASA. Citizens who take a stand and say NO loud and clear to tyrants are
perhaps the best remedy to tyranny.
