To be horrified by the Card Factory

[Kidsinamerica123]

Browsing and came across this card. For those who can't see it - it's one of those 'old photo with a (supposedly) witty caption' 2 men are pictured standing by a fence with a caption that reads "Having popped out for a fag, Nigel was delighted when one turned up immediately."

Absolutely disgusted by this I called the Card Factory's head office straight away (I demanded the number in the shop), only to be informed "Head office only deal with complaints made in writing - there's nothing I can do for you now!"

AIBU to assume the good-readers of Mumsnet can help them address their misguided, revolting homophobic humour TODAY without waiting for letters to arrive?

And on that note I'm off to do the hoovering and I may pop outside for a fag with my bitch

Sorry - just seen your post. Would I expect black people?

I don't think I have a right to expect anything from black people as an entire race - what an odd thing to ask

Now, where's the hoover...

Not as a race, as an individual, clearly. Would you expect a random black person walking down the street (or I don't know, into a card shop) to be okay with the word nigger? Seems like you're expecting a random gay person in the same card shop to be okay with the word fag.

YABU. It's a play on words.

Kim Have you seen the Cowshed bath products 'Grumpy Cow' 'Knackered Cow' etc. I think theres even a 'Dirty Cow' soap. Highly successful.

I wouldn't buy the card, but I'm in the 'if you don't like it, don't buy it' camp. Plenty of other cards to chose from.

I can't speak on behalf of anyone - if a black person is OK with the word nigger then they are OK with that word. It might surprise me as a white person, but I have no expectations as to whether one/several/many/the entire black race is OK with nigger.

There are also plenty of people on here who have said that their gay friends would be OK with the card in question. We have no right to have any 'expectations' of what that gay person thinks about that card - we can only speak for ourselves.

"Faggot" or "Fag" is different from certain other 'label' insults though, because homophobic and often violent hate groups regularly use the term in their slogans like "God Hates Fags" etc. Like nigger, it is important people use it sensitively because it has a cultural significance.

Yes, gay people say "fag". One of my gay friends regularly uses it ironically to refer to very camp gay men. That doesn't mean that everyone should start using it though. Like PP have said, it's similar to how plenty of black people use the word nigger, but since it has associations slavery and black oppression it is not okay for everyone to go around calling black people niggers.

If the OP thinks that this is sick and offensive, then good for her that she would challenge it, not just turn the other cheek and not buy it. The point isn't that the OP doesn't want to look at the card, the point is that she think that it is wrong that a company thinks that homophobia is acceptable. You can't communicate that by just not buying a card - that just sends the message that the card wasn't funny, not that it was offensive.

Challenge away.....but she is challenging something that a)doesn't break any law in this context and b)something that others find funny. Does her opinion on what is funny/not funny trump another persons? That has very uncomfortable undertones of censorship imo - and I would like to think that the Card Factory took the view that humour is subjective, that this card does not break any laws, and on that basis there is no need to withdraw it.

Remember the Comedy Prom in 2011?

There was a chap doing a routine about how words can really hurt, there’s one with two G’s, one N, one I, one E, one R – and you could hear the buttocks tightening in the Albert Hall, everyone thinking Christ, you can’t say that word on live radio, even if it is meant to be funny.

And he said it.

Ginger.

He’d fooled us all, and I may have fooled some of you too!

She isn't challenging it because she thinks it isn't funny, otherwise she would probably be complaining about half of the cards in the shop. She is challenging it because of the use of the term "fag".

I don't know if it's true that this is 100% legal because I am not a lawyer. In any case, Card Factory is a business and it is in their best interests to reflect social attitudes. If making a card saying "fag" on it causes people to complain or boycott, then those people are not censoring, they're just reacting to it in a naturally negative way. Card Factory would probably want to avoid this, so if they did take it off the shelves then it is just a business decision.

Unfortunately we live in a world where some people will always use certain words/terms in abusing other people.

We have come a long way in removing certain words/terms from common language that were offensive but it will persist. Personally it's more the intent behind the comment that bothers me than the word itself.

Spastic, cretin, moron etc are no longer acceptable. Not because of the words themselves which were medical terms at the time but because they became terms of abuse, discrimination and hatred. We now often use the term 'special needs' but I wouldn't be surprised if that becomes unacceptable because I hear SO many people use it in a discriminatory or abusive way..'oh yeah, he's a bit 'spesh'' I fucked this up, must be having a 'special' day' etc etc.The same as gay is now used as a negative term by a lot of people. The word isn't the problem, the intent of using it abusively is what has changed. It's attitudes that need to be changed otherwise there will ALWAYS be words that are used to abuse and upset. It's not the words, it's how people use them.

SirChenjin, actually if may contravene some of our laws. The provision of goods and services act is clear on this and goods and services shouldn't be provided if they are discriminatory. Also, I don't have to have that protected characteristic for it to be seen as discriminatory, and it relates to my perception. So if I perceive an item to be discriminatory then there is a legal case.

River Island recently pulled an item off the shelves, aimed at men for the World Cup, www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27295797. They are very lucky that it didn't go to court.

If anything used in a joke could be banned because someone found it offensive or upsetting there wouldn't be anything left to laugh at! It's a card ffs! It hardly depicts gay bashing.

I feel the same way about the football gag, I would've laughed if my dp gave me that.

It's not just anything though, it relates specifically to protected characteristics, of which there are 9. Tbh, if the only things you find funny are those things that insult or demean others then it's you who has the sense of humour failure.

River Island could not have been made civilly or criminally liable. They pulled it because it was bad business.

You could say that Othello is racist, the Taming of the Shrew is misogynist, and the Merchant of Venice is anti-Semitic but Shakespeare remains on sale.

Andrewofgg, what makes you say that? There's plenty of case law that supports the fact that they could indeed be directly contravening UK laws and as such could be liable. The fact that there wasn't a case brought against them means they got lucky rather that they weren't liable.

BumpNGrind Please specify the law?

I did, please refer to above posts

You know nothing of my sense of humour. I actually said I was completely indifferent to the card.

The Supply of Goods and Services Act concerns, broadly, the quality of goods. If the River Island goods were as per advert and of good physical quality that is all that is required.

The Equality Act concerns discrimination in employment and the supply of goods and services (and some other fields). The only way it could be concerned would be that a woman might consider herself harassed if a male colleague wore it - and she would probably succeed, and so she should, which is a good reason for employers not to allow their people to wear such offensive rubbish (different if it is a customer or a supplier's driver whom they can't control).

But it does not make RI liable for selling it.

What about my Shakespeare analogy?

Oh for the love of the sweet Lord. It's a freeekin joke. X

Which is the same point made earlier, lots of funny or innocent things can be used in a nasty way. Any man who bought that gag for their partner (it's intended use) would receive one of two reactions: a laugh or a slap in the face. What does that matter to anyone else? I imagine it was feminists who got all PO about that.

Nope - I don't think it contravenes any law. It's subjective humour and would be very difficult to prove that it discriminates in any way. Andrew explains it very well.

Gosh, I thought the word 'fag/faggot' was quite offensive, looks like I need to get with the programme!

Mind you, unlike nearly all of the posters at the beginning of this thread, I don't have a Gay Best Friend that would find the card simply hilaaaarious so I'm afraid I am just not all that au fait with what's hot and what's not in terms of language associated with homosexuals.