Advanced search

to draw your attention to MN'ers being threatened with court for posting

(569 Posts)

MNHQ have commented on this thread.

gordyslovesheep Thu 09-Oct-14 16:07:01

By Samaritan's Purse

I know I'm not the only one

who else have they decided to silence?

It's quite interesting that they dislike criticism so much

OP’s posts: |
Moghedien Thu 09-Oct-14 16:07:48

What!? HOw did they contact you?

Rusticated Thu 09-Oct-14 16:09:57

Really? On what grounds? And how on earth did they contact you? I've certainly contributed to SP threads, about twenty name changes ago.

gordyslovesheep Thu 09-Oct-14 16:10:13

email from HQ

The complaint was made Brian Bennett of Samaritan's Purse about this post:

"Firstly it's August !

Secondly it's not because they are religious you'd have to be a bit daft to object to a CHRISTmas gift being religious

The objection is to their nasty inflammatory anti-Islamic beliefs


. The reasons why he considered it to be defamatory are:

"The suggestion here is that Samaritan’s Purse holds ‘inflammatory anti-Islamic beliefs’. To suggest that Samaritan’s Purse, as an institution, is anti-Islamic, is utter nonsense. Through our work and ministry, we reach out to support people of all nations, from all walks of life, regardless of their colour, creed or religion. You only need to look at the work we are doing around the world on our website to see that such an accusation lacks any substance. This is personal opinion being expressed as fact, it is therefore defamatory and must be removed."

What we need from you now is your response to her complaint - so could you please let us know:

• whether or not you'd like your post to be deleted
• your full name and address, if you'd like your post to remain
• whether you agree to us sending on these details to the complainant

If you don't agree to us passing on your details, we won't release them unless we're ordered to do so by a court.

If we don't hear from you by the close of play Tuesday 14th October, chances are we'll have to remove your post anyway, so do please get in touch before then if possible, and shout if you have any questions at all.

OP’s posts: |
firesidechat Thu 09-Oct-14 16:11:10

Never heard of them. What is your problem with them?

Oops, just realised that you probably don't want to say. blush

SuffolkNWhat Thu 09-Oct-14 16:12:11

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

gordyslovesheep Thu 09-Oct-14 16:12:42

I am not allowed to say grin because it's forbidden to have an opinion other than 'they are spiffing' !

OP’s posts: |
BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability Thu 09-Oct-14 16:14:30

Wtf? They took issue with something you posted, complained to hq and hq forwarded their complaint to you? I'd love to know what you said? Doesnt it come under that big opinion bracket thing that gf tried to get around to sue??

SuffolkNWhat Thu 09-Oct-14 16:14:35

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Moghedien Thu 09-Oct-14 16:14:50

FFS Mumsnet. You're playing along with this shit?

Rusticated Thu 09-Oct-14 16:15:00

So MNHQ is passing on threats of legal action from an evangelical Christian organisation attempting to silence well-grounded criticism of their operation, and Mn says to either agree to have your posts deleted or give your full name and address for legal action to be started against you????

JiltedJohnsJulie Thu 09-Oct-14 16:15:14

Bloody hell! If I ever thought of giving to them, I definitely won't now.

LiverpoolLou Thu 09-Oct-14 16:15:16

Personal opinion is only defamatory if it is untrue. If they want to sue you for defamation they would have to prove that it's untrue and also that they have suffered a specified financial loss as a direct result of what you have said. If they can't do both of these then they're blowing smoke out of their arses.

firesidechat Thu 09-Oct-14 16:15:33

They seem to have an issue with free speech then.

I'm a Christian by the way.

SuffolkNWhat Thu 09-Oct-14 16:15:54

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Sabrinnnnnnnna Thu 09-Oct-14 16:15:57

MNHQ have asked if they can send your name & address to Samaritan's purse? Because they think that you made a defamatory comment?

Surely not. That's completely ridiculous.

Thebodyloveschocolateandwine Thu 09-Oct-14 16:16:04

Wow gordy have to say all your posts are always well balanced and measured in here even if sometimes I disagree with you.

Sorry havnt heard of SP but will google.

SuffolkNWhat Thu 09-Oct-14 16:16:53

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability Thu 09-Oct-14 16:17:07

Wasnt there something vaguely similar recently where mn stood behind the poster and offered to be taken to court themselves? A newspaper maybe?? (I may have dreamt this?) sorry, my brain has turned to treacle.

GerbilsAteMyCat Thu 09-Oct-14 16:17:14

Maybe they'd like to sue the humanists?

firesidechat Thu 09-Oct-14 16:17:33

I only put the Christian thing in my post because I hate to think that people will think all Christians are like that. As I said, I've never even heard of them before this thread.

AimlesslyPurposeful Thu 09-Oct-14 16:18:57

They're threatening to take you to court for having an opinion? That's not very charitable is it.

Your post wouldn't have stopped me filling a box but their ridiculous overreaction has!

SuffolkNWhat Thu 09-Oct-14 16:18:58

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Moghedien Thu 09-Oct-14 16:21:03

This is the Wiki entry and of course not my own personal opinion at all. Simply a cut copy and paste job.

In March 2001, The New York Times reported that Samaritan's Purse had "blurred the line between church and state" in the way it had distributed publicly funded aid to victims of the El Salvador earthquake. Residents from several villages stated they first had to sit through a half-hour prayer meeting before receiving assistance.[11] In a statement, USAID said Samaritan's Purse had not violated federal guidelines, but emphasized the need for the organization to "maintain adequate and sufficient separation" between prayer sessions and publicly funded activities.[12]

In 2003, Samaritan's Purse was widely criticized within the United Kingdom after its president, Franklin Graham, stated that Islam is a "very evil and wicked religion",[13][14] leading to opposition campaigns within the United Kingdom by Islamic leaders.[15] Samaritan's Purse responded to accusations of being anti-Islamic by highlighting their long history of non-denominational cooperation and charity work in Baghdad without attempting to preach or proselytize.[16]

Franklin Graham drew scrutiny in 2009 for drawing a full-time salary from Samaritan's Purse, while at the same time receiving a full-time salary from Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA). This was called into question after his 2008 compensation from both organizations totaled $1.2 million. (Most of this was the result of a new IRS rule that required him to re-report deferred retirement contributions that had already been reported over the previous three years.[17]) Some experts on non-profits have questioned whether one person can perform two full-time jobs leading organizations that employ hundreds and spend hundreds of millions around the world.[18] In response to the questions about his compensation, Graham decided to give up his salary from BGEA, stating his calling to the ministry "was never based on compensation." He also had contributions to his retirement plans suspended until the economy bounced back.[19]

The Samaritan's Purse project Operation Christmas Child has also been criticized in several countries, most notably in the UK,[20][21] but also in Ireland[22] and Canada.[23] In the United States, Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, has stated that such religion-and-relief groups are "using their position of power to try to persuade people to leave their faith.".[24] In 2003, The British supermarket chain Co-op and South Wales Fire Service both suspended their support for the project after numerous complaints about its religious connections.[14][25] Samaritan's Purse responded by stating that Christian literature was only handed out where it was deemed appropriate.[26]'

FraidyCat Thu 09-Oct-14 16:21:12

If they want to sue you for defamation they would have to prove that it's untrue and also that they have suffered a specified financial loss as a direct result of what you have said.

Isn't it you that has to prove what you said is true? I thought one was guilty until proven innocent when it comes to slander/defamation.

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in