Southern Law Poverty Center Still Bullying the IFI

Share This Story

Default Image

By Laurie Higgins, Director of IFI's DSA - Illinois Family Institute

Following our expose of the reason for the Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) dubious and defamatory inclusion of the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) on their "anti-gay hate groups" list, the SPLC started receiving complaints, which evidently didn't sit too well with them. As a result of those complaints, the editor of their ironically named "Intelligence Report," Mark Potok, started leaving troubling voice messages around the country for those who called to complain.

Here's a transcription of one of those messages:

"Yes, Hi, this is a message for . . . from Mark Potok, Southern Poverty Law Center. Very briefly, I just wanna say very briefly - we do list them (Illinois Family Institute) for a reason, which we've stated publicly. They (IFI) have been less, in my opinion, than honest about what we really said. They publish and promote the work of a man named Paul Cameron. Paul Cameron is a guy who is infamous for over the last 20 years for producing, for publishing fake studies that allege all kinds of terrible things about homosexuals. For instance, that gay men are, something like, 20 times more likely to molest children; that gay men have an average death age of something like 43 because they're so sickly and, ya know, sorta do such terrible things. These things are completely false and have been proven false long ago. Our view is that the Illinois Family Institute promotes these complete falsehoods. Then that is hateful activity. We never list any group on the basis of simply disagreeing morally or otherwise with homosexuality. We told the Illinois Family Institute directly that if they remove this material from their website, in fact, that we would take them off the list. Instead, what they've done is essentially launched an attack on us to try to get people to call us as you did. Anyway, that's all. I just wanted to at least briefly explain that it was not quite the way it was being portrayed."

Contrary to Mr. Potok's claim that the SPLC had publicly stated their reason for including IFI on their "anti-gay hate groups" list, to my knowledge, prior to my phone call to them, they had never publicly stated their reason. And stating their reason in a private phone conversation doesn't constitute a public statement. I believe it was I who stated their reason publicly. If I'm mistaken, I would like Mr. Potok to provide evidence for his claim that they had already publicly stated their reason.

After I heard his voice message in which he stated that IFI has "been less than honest," I called and spoke to Mr. Potok, informing him that in my article, I was scrupulously honest about what Heidi Beirich had said to me. In fact, I even included a link to a follow-up email Ms. Beirich had sent to me in which she restated the reason for the SPLC's inclusion of IFI on their hate groups list.

I told him that in my phone conversation with her, I even stopped her so that I could write down exact quotes, and I told her I was doing so. In my article I informed IFI readers that Ms. Beirich stated that the only reason we were on the anti-gay hate groups list was that we had posted one article three years ago by Paul Cameron and that if we took that one article down, the SPLC would remove us from the hate groups list. In my article, I explained that some of the claims that SPLC was making about Cameron's statements-if true-would be repellent to IFI, and that we were in the process of verifying the accuracy of the SPLC's claims.

Frankly, I don't know how I could have been more honest.

Mr. Potok stated in his voice message that we, IFI, "publish and promote the work of a man named Paul Cameron." This grossly misrepresents the nature of our involvement with Cameron's work. It suggests that we regularly or continually publish and promote the work of Cameron, when, by Potok and Beirich's own admission, we published only one brief article.

More troubling yet, this one article contained no statements remotely like those that Mr. Potok articulated in his voice message: "gay men are, something like, 20 times more likely to molest children" or that "they're so sickly and, ya know, sorta do such terrible things."

Mr. Potok then digs himself in even deeper when he says on tape that it is the SPLC's view that "the Illinois Family Institute promotes these (emphasis mine) complete falsehoods." "These" is a demonstrative pronoun referring back to the statements he just made. The problem is that he is suggesting that IFI promotes falsehoods that the SPLC's own evidence proves we did not promote. The SPLC's own evidence is the one three-year-old article that did not include any references to "child molestation," or "sickly homosexuals sorta doing terrible things." Mr. Potok was either stunningly careless with his rhetoric or deliberately manipulative.

I also explained to Mr. Potok that the one article from three years ago contained no hate rhetoric, and that it alone cannot possibly justify labeling IFI a hate group. I told him that simply quoting a source once does not mean that an organization supports or endorses everything that a source says or does.

I also explained that I would have no problem removing the article except that I want to provide evidence for our claim that the SPLC's reason for including IFI on a hate groups list is flimsy, unethical, irresponsible, unsavory, and manipulative.

People need to read for themselves the content of the article that the SPLC uses to justify labeling us a hate group in order to determine whether they, the public, think we deserve to be included on this list that schools and law enforcement agencies use. People need to read this one brief article that the SPLC claims is their sole reason for lumping us together with actual hate groups like the KKK.

I also asked Mr. Potok if we've been on their hate groups list since 2005 when the Cameron article was posted. He replied "No." I then asked when we were first listed, and he said 2008. So, they added us to their list in 2008 based on one brief article posted in 2003.

Mr. Potok continues with his turbo-charged rhetoric claiming that IFI "launched an attack" on the SPLC. Once again, his facts are slightly askew. IFI did not call for people to voice their opposition to the SPLC. But more importantly, phone calls of opposition hardly constitute an "attack."

Finally, since Mr. Potok was leaving voice messages all around the country claiming that I was being less than honest, I asked him if had even read my article. Surprise, surprise, he had not, and asked me to send it to him.

In light of the dubious and insubstantial reason the Southern Poverty Law Center has provided for including the Illinois Family Institute on their "anti-gay hate groups" list and their subsequent misleading, defamatory, and less than honest voice message, IFI is requesting that we be removed immediately from the SPLC's hate groups list, and we are requesting a formal public apology for our inclusion on this list and the voice message, both of which are damaging our reputation.

Share This Story

`
rx7ward's picture

"some of the claims that SPLC was making about Cameron's statements-if true-would be repellent to IFI, and that we were in the process of verifying the accuracy of the SPLC's claims"

Shouldn't you verify the accuracy of your source's claims BEFORE you publish an article that endorses/otherwise uses those claims? That would seem to be the right thing to do ...

rx7ward's picture

"simply quoting a source once does not mean that an organization supports or endorses everything that a source says or does"

No, it doesn't. It does, however, imply that you think the source is reliable, trustworthy, accurate, etc. Otherwise, why would you quote the source even once? Cameron's methods have been discredited by every reputable scientific organization. His conclusions have been disproved by reputable researchers. By quoting him, IFI DOES endorse Cameron. And that is very, very wrong!

holy bullies 1's picture

First of all, that Massachusetts parent , David Parker orchestrated a moral panic. He was told that his child was not being "taught" about homosexuality but since children of same sex families also attended the school, teachers could not control children talking about their families. And talking about families is not the same thing as sex education - something an opt-out policy covered. Please stop peddling that lie.

And I have a question - just how long will it take IFI to investigate the claim regarding Paul Cameron? If Paul Cameron's study is the problem, then it would seem that IFI would move expendiently to take care of the problem. If they need help in assessing Cameron's work, there are several resources, including - http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000 ,018.htm

and - http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000 ,010.htm

The very fact that IFI is doing everything but what needs to be done to be removed from SPLC's list is very telling regarding the veracity behind their whines.

And for the record, if a piece of bad work is on your webpage, no matter how old it is, you are in fact promoting that bad work.

QuinceyQuick's picture

"We now have public school administrators, teachers, and support staff in elementary, middle, and high schools , all married to a person outside of their race. We have publicly funded schools whose central identifying feature is their philosophical commitment to affirming racial tolerance . We have elementary schools reading picture books to our little ones in which interracial marriage is portrayed as morally equivalent to normal marriages. We have a California law that requires that racial tolerance be presented positively from kindergarten through high school. We have the Massachusetts Supreme Court deciding that parents have no right to be notified when elementary school teachers will present pro-racial tolerance resources to children and no right to opt their children out of class when such resources are presented."

This, in a nutshell, is what your arguments look like to us. Capisce?

Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter

OV Social

 

randomness