Comments
by Java Mann
|
John
Who?
A few months ago John Hancock
Financial Services came under attack for airing a risqué commercial
depicting a lesbian couple adopting a baby. The ad was aired during coverage
of the Olympics, but was pulled and "tweaked" to down play the controversial
subject matter. The ad agency that produced it made a statement to the
effect that the ad was corrected to focus on the child, rather than the
non-traditional family. |
 |
Insurance is about planning
for the future after all, and John Hancock is in the business of selling
insurance, not in redefining the American family.
At this point, gentle reader,
you may assume that this column will be one of praise for John Hancock.
You’d be wrong. The fact is that though John Hancock took a risk by airing
the commercial, they kow towed to those who were critical of the concept
of a gay family. It appears that John Hancock is not the bedrock of stability
it would have us believe.
As with all large corporations,
John Hancock is also a philanthropic entity as well, making funds available
to civic groups, organizations, and charitable efforts. The company makes
grants directly, as well as indirectly by matching the donations made by
employees. Rather than just handing out the money, John Hancock requires
that the organizations it funds meet certain criteria, and to sign a document
stating that the organization "does not discriminate against any group
and/or individual on the basic of sexual orientation and/or religious belief".
Surprisingly, one of the
organizations that benefits from John Hancock’s generosity is the American
Family Association, one of the most right wing, fundamentalist, bigoted
and biased organizations to disgrace the face of the earth. Rather than
waste my time documenting the bile this group routinely spews, I’ll leave
it to you to read it yourself. http://www.afa.net/
Needless to say, the AFA does routinely discriminate against
groups and/or individuals based on sexual orientation and religious beliefs.
How then did they get around
the statement of nondiscrimination? They simply refused to sign it. "This
organization will never surrender its Christian beliefs for the sake of
money".
The simple solution would
be to cease funding the AFA. Rather than accept John Hancock’s nondiscrimination
policy, they could have sought funding elsewhere. They did not. Instead
they engaged in blackmail. In August, the AFA contacted John Hancock’s
Matching Gifts Program, announcing that they were preparing to run an article
exposing John Hancock’s attempts to "marginalize" organizations such as
the AFA. In other words, the AFA is demanding that John Hancock continue
to fund their organization despite it’s blatant disregard for the nondiscrimination
policy. Failure to comply would result in negative press.
In October, the AFA received
another form from John Hancock’s Matching Gifts program. The nondiscrimination
portion of the form had been deleted.
The true John Hancock was
a patriot, a hero who stood up for his beliefs in the face of adversity;
how ironic that the company that bears his name is completely devoid of
his character.
JM
|
