The Independent seems to have it backwards. After running a libelous piece on me in their publication, they then write to get clarification at what was said (and recorded) at my panel they did not attend at CPAC [with video]. Below is the response from Deputy Managing Editor Will Gore, along with my comments between graphs.
Dear Ms Loesch
Thank you for your email about an item that appeared at independent.co.uk yesterday. We took the item down this morning after I received your complaint in order that we could look into the matter.
My understanding, having listened to your cut of the CPAC panel debate in which you were involved (https://danaloeschradio.com/dana-loesch-speaks-on-religious-liberty-at-cpac), is that there was a discussion about the 111 Cakery case, which led into questions of religious liberty. You made a reference to having enjoyed Tony Perkins’ article on the subject, which set out an oft repeated concern that Christians who oppose gay marriage or gay relationships find themselves unable to give practical expression to their religious principles in the course of their work. The 111 Cakery was the primary example in Mr Perkins’ piece, which also referred to Bed & Breakfast owners who fear legal action if they do not permit gay couples to stay in their residences.
We were having a discussion about natural rights. The 111 Cakery was an example where litigation did not occur, so no, it wasn't what “led into questions of religious liberty.” Of course, they would have have discovered this after reaching out to me for clarification on remarks I made at a panel they did not attend.
From this starting point you suggested that it was vitally important to protect religious liberties (presumably, in the context of the conversation, including the liberty to refuse service to a gay person because of a religious conviction) and that doing so would, by extension, serve to protect other liberties. And to demonstrate your point you referred to how gay people should be able to walk down the street without fear of being ‘stoned’.
This isn't entirely correct: It wasn't an issue of people denying service to gay customers. In each case business owners had served (and employed) gay members of the community. What the business owners specifically objected to was the requirement that they use their artistic labor to create a cake for a wedding ceremony. That is where these bakers cited faith as an exemption. Big difference. I had said, as evidenced by video taken from those who actually attended, rights are variables in a government power grab: religion, guns, sexual orientation, etc. An individual is not Uncle Sam, but Uncle Sam forcing someone to disown their beliefs for the beliefs of another is the promotion of one over another before the law, which isn't copacetic Constitutionally. Perhaps it was this British's publication's lack of familiarity with the American legal precedence I cited at the panel they didn't attent that caused their confusion.
As I understood it, then, your argument was that a failure to protect the liberty of Christians to give practical expression to their religious principles might, eventually, be followed by the erosion of other rights (for instance the right of minorities to live without fear of violence).
It would have been amazing if you had done the due diligence of a reporter and asked.
Of course, some people would suggest there is an inherent contradiction in all this because upholding the right of 111 Cakery to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple amounts to discrimination against that gay couple. And some people would go on to argue that by permitting such discrimination, the chances of more serious discrimination or persecution (including violence) are enhanced.
Again, they have no idea what they're talking about. Both 111 Cakery in Indianapolis and the couple who sought a commitment ceremony cake did not have a case. The customer did not sue. They simply took the referrals and found another baker. 111 Cakery was cited as an example of how things can be resolved without a compromise of rights. There are other businesses, however, that suffered a different fate.
Our journalist, with satirical intent, boiled your argument right down to the bare bones: that allowing 111 Cakery-style discrimination against gay people (ie protecting religious liberties) would be likely to reduce the risk of serious persecution of minorities (ie protect gay people from being stoned in the street). She then reversed the construction so that your argument was presented on its head: that the protection of gay people from stoning is contingent on Christians being permitted to discriminate against them.
“With satirical intent?” Their writer is not clever enough to attempt satire. It is insulting for Gore to try to pass this off as such. This was a hit piece on me with a remedial perspective informed by religious animus. Is it not also discrimination to force, by lawfare someone of a belief set to disregard their beliefs to accommodate the belief set of another? Is it not discriminatory to legally demand someone disregard their lifestyle to accommodate the lifestyle of another? Especially when other businesses provide the exact same services with no faith-based caveats? It presupposes that there are no other alternatives. 111 Cakery is an example of a situation where no one’s rights were compromised, thus my citing of it. My questions are rhetorical.
That is how we reached the conclusion we did. I should add that I think you have misunderstood our headline if you believe we were suggesting that “mentioning freedoms is the same thing as saying you want gays stoned” (https://danaloeschradio.com/wherein-the-independent-and-helen-niania-try-to-get-me-killed-with-a-defama). We did not suggest this, nor do we think that is what you were suggesting.
Seriously? Yes, that is exactly what it said. People read it that way because it said such. Don't tell me that's not what the headline said in one sentence and then state: “boiled your argument right down to the bare bones.” If The Independent did not want that to be the suggestion, perhaps they should have written a better, more honest headline.
But. All this having been said, I do think the headline, in trying to crystallise a complex argument, was open to mis-interpretation; and I’m naturally sorry that some people seem to have been misled into thinking that you were condoning the stoning of gay people. That was not what our piece meant. I’m sorry too that you have faced hostility since the piece was published: that was clearly not our intention.
Who misled them? Your headline did. The headline you published while fully aware of UK libel laws. The headline was such:
“RADIO HOST DANA LOESCH SAYS …” It was an atrribution of a quote and sentiment that existed no where in the panel, as confirmed by countless who attended and stated such on Twitter.
We plan to publish a considerably revised version of the article and we will include, immediately beneath it, the following text to clarify matters, if you agree:
This article has been revised. It was originally headlined ‘Radio host Dana Loesch says gay people will be stoned to death if Christians can’t discriminate against them’. This was a simplified interpretation of her comments. The argument Ms Loesch made at the CPAC event was that the erosion of religious freedoms (including the freedom of Christians who oppose gay marriage to refuse to provide work services – eg wedding cakes, bed & breakfast stays – to gay couples) could ultimately erode other freedoms and rights. As an extreme example, she picked out the right of gay people to walk down the street without fear of being attacked. A package of the comments made by Ms Loesch can be seen at: https://danaloeschradio.com/dana-loesch-speaks-on-religious-liberty-at-cpac.
“A simplified interpretation?” No. It was irresponsible, false, and defamatory. Don't preface a reluctant understanding of what I said with apathy towards the damage you caused.
What a curious way to approach reporting: write a libelous piece, fact-check later. Gore also fails to mention how his publication took, without permission or credit, a Townhall photo of my interview with Hot Air's Ed Morrissey, and did not provide context. They couldn't even source their own art for their hit piece.
Best regards
Will Gore
Deputy Managing Editor
London Evening Standard, The Independent, i & Independent on Sunday
[email protected] / [email protected]
020 3615 2409
Do you know how you can make this right Mr. Gore? Offer a public apology. Deleting this Myspace entry and then offering a hackneyed “revision” while ignoring the defamation is insufficent.
