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

[gordyslovesheep]

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

Hang on... if someone came on here and I said I was negligent in my work or a violent murderer if that were untrue surely everyone on mumsnet would think it perfectly right people be threatened for posting.

As one of the past recipients of such threats, I fully support MNHQ in the way they handle it.

There is a premise of free speech, but not of slander and libel.
Anonymous forums are no excuse.

Samaritans Purse are probably realising that they have created a perfect storm of Streisand effect.

If the publicity stops schools sending shoeboxes to them
and gets more schools working with UK and local organisations - all for the better

Greengrow
Yes you would have a right to defend yourself and to object to those statements. Its unlikely that the person making those statements could rely on any of the defences to defamation.

The difference here is that Franklin Graham, who is the President and CEO of Samaritan's Purse has made statements which justify a lot of what has been said. The difficulty is how closely can you associate SP with the statements of Franklin Graham? As they seem willing to publicise his viewpoints on their website - it is fair to assume that they don't disagree with them.
www.samaritanspurse.org/article/franklin-graham-statement/

Any news? Are any of those contacted still on MN or have they all gone? :(

I don't know anything about the particular case here. You often get people who are members of organisations saying things that are the words of the organisation ( racist members of UKIP saying things UKIP does not support etc) and to attribute the member's comments to the organisation could be defamatory,. As I would like to see no religion of any kind in state schools schools however anything that reduces that is a good.

MmeLindor
Chances all it will all simmer away to almost nothing - same as the QE threats did.
All the posters will come back, a few threads will look rather silly

As far as I see it, defamation or no defamation, Samaritan's Purse needs to be clear that they categorically do not support the views of their President around homosexuality, abortion and Islam, and that they, as an institution, have taken steps to challenge him on these issues, in order to properly separate themselves. Or they are going to lose a whole lot more shoeboxes to other causes.

Though it seems from the apparent lack of any such action (happy to be pointed in the direction if there has been any) they prefer to wave the big stick at individuals for drawing their own conclusions.

I don't even know what those views are but let us not forget that the Bibel and Koran both have a pretty grim view of those involved in the practice of sodomy etc. Even the C of E of course have the Bible there an though shalt not kill (abortion) and all the rest. Cameron and Gove send their children to schools which peddle these views in a wider sense.

I'm still here

my daughter asked me for a shoe box today for 'a project in school' turns out it's this lot - oh how I laughed at the irony

oh and she is going to donate to the councils collection for looked after kids instead

Stand firm and hold your ground Mnetters "THEY SHALL NOT PASS" [dons Gandalf's robes, flowing beard and scary stick thing]

gordy - can I just ask what information the school sent home about it? Have they actually started getting schools to mention the evangelical side of it as they promised last year?

I started a thread to ask that question earlier today (here) but no one has replied to it yet .

nothing sent home she just asked me for a shoe box for operation Christmas child

Oh God they are Evangelists. So who is God's lawyer these days. Mishcon de Reya, Linklaters or is it the pillock in New "Joisey" who defended Real Housewife Teresa Guidice

Sent an email with links and articles to out headmaster last year and had a fairly lengthy discussion about OCC. It was too late to do anything last year but he did say he would review it for this year. Waiting with baited breath to see if they do OCC this year (as i think they probably will).

I still don't know what people's objections are. Many religions try to convert others. Presumably we don't think that is wrong? Most of them say homosexuality is a very serious wrong and indeed the Bible says so.

Greengrow
Its the lack of disclosure of the true purposes of the boxes to the schools and parents that is the problem. One of the purposes of the boxes is Christian evangelism and often the boxes are used as a way of introducing Christianity to the recipients. When my DC school did the boxes none of this was made clear. The DC thought that they were just sending some nice gifts to poor children. Many of the DC in their school (including mine) are not Christian so to find out later that their donations may have been used to further the evangelical mission of the likes of Franklin Graham caused a lot of bad feeling.

It most certainly was not full and frank disclosure!

I believe many parents would have a problem with the organisation behind the shoe boxes. People just don't know, many think it's something to do with the Samaritans. If I was gay, supported women's right to ha a n abortion, Hindi, Muslim, atheist etc - I would be angry that the school were asking parents to support this fundamentalist evangelising brand of Christianity - without sending out more information about the organisation so that the parents could make an informed decision.

Greengrow
I (as a Christian) have two issues with it:
1 - the lack of disclosure as mentioned above. Schools/children/families do not go into this to support an evangelising organisation, and do not realise that this is what they are doing
2 - Morally, I do not believe that (Christian) charity should be used as a cover for (Christian) evangelism. We should help those in need because they are in need, not because it gives us a chance to tell them that their gods don't love them like our one would. If someone gets a gift, with no strings attached, and if they then come up to you and say "Does your god encourage you to do this? If so, I think your god sounds nice, please tell me about him" then it's fair to take that opportunity. Otherwise, it's fundamentally wrong to mix the two things up.

Greengrow - in my opinion, evangelism should be honest and up-front about being evangelism - and it does not seem as if SP are open and honest in the literature they send out to schools.

Do they make it clear that the shoeboxes will be given out after a prayer meeting or Bible presentation? Are they honest about their belief that other Gods do not love their followers the way that their God loves them, or that the Gods of other faiths are not real? I do not believe that they do.

Do they make it clear to donors that the shoeboxes they pack will be used as a tool in their evangelism? I do not believe they do.

I wonder how many schools would sign up if they knew that SP missionaries believe that other gods are not real and do not truly love their followers.

And AMumInScotland is right - charity should not come with strings attached. I honestly think that even the appearance of having strings attached should be avoided wherever possible.

It sounds like a very fine line to me. All the mainstream religions have done all this ruining and converting the natives lark and still do. I am not sure this lot here seem any worse than the rest of them.

Surely it just like free gifts from baby companies why you have a baby - it's designed to persuade you to join their group at least in part. Everyone surely is aware of that. How could anyone not know that - always the recipient knows who the donor is in this case.

Can we name a single mainstream Catholic or C of E or Islamic charity which does what it does totally anonymously and does not encourage people to come to church etc? Also there is obviously an argument that if you believe the Bible is right it is a moral wrong not to show others the path to that rightness? In other words you could argue someone C of E who does not encourage others to become C of E is not really doing God's work.

I think that the difference here is partly that children are being targeted with gifts, and partly that the shoebox donors are being kept in the dark about how the shoeboxes will be used - with the latter being especially concerning.

If I donate to a missionary charity, I know the money will be used to support missionary work, but a lot of the people who are giving the shoeboxes don't know that they are supporting very fervent missionary work. That, to me is a big red flag.

Tweeting mentioned earlier that Private Eye had been in touch - and this thread is featured in the current issue (sorry if someone's already mentioned this, can't see see it anywhere).

Greengrow But if you look at an organisation like Christian Aid, or CAFOD, you'll find them providing help to people who need it without making them sit through any kind of religious message to get it. I've never seen any sugestion that organisations like that fundraise dishonestly, or push Christianity onto people who are the recipients of their help. I've never even seen any suggestion that they go around encouraging people to go to church or become Christian while they are out there providing aid.

OCC exists with the aim of evangelising. The 'gifts' seem to be merely a mechanism to facilitate that.

There may be a fine line. But OCC are a long way across it.

Crikey, what a long thread. I have only managed the first couple of pages, but at least it has reminded me to speak to school about NOT doing shoeboxes this year.

I seem to recall the the Humanist Association had quite a good summary on their site as to why they weren't a good idea, if even from an effectiveness and culturally sensitive standpoint (if they haven't been silenced).

Gordy have you been practicing a Daily Mail sad face for when this hits the press?

Hackmum what's been written?