In a previous article, we have written extensively about the attack by radical gay-lib on the group ‘People Can Change’.  We analyzed the allegations against PCC, proving them not to be valid (click  here.)

We will further expand on the issue by looking into the FTC goals and legislation itself.

We wish to provide more arguments to the defense of PCC. This is no bedtime story, this is a clash of paradigms. Radical gay-lib has declared WAR. Buckle up. People with unwanted same-sex attractions do not intend to march into the homosexual darkroom with exit doors deliberately kept closed.

A defense of PCC consists of two parts: debunking negative alleged activities which are considered inappropriate (see our previous article) and asserting that PCC activities are in a positive sense substantially in line with the ultimate goal of Federal Trade protection (see below).

In these legalistic articles we will demonstrate that PCC is in abidance with the three goals of the FTC:

a) PCC enhances informed consumer choices;

b) PCC does not reduce but enhances public understanding of the issues and choices on the issue of male same-sex attractions;

c) A ban of FTC activities will unduly burden legitimate choices for men who experience unwanted same-sex attractions. It leaves them nowhere to go but towards the politically correct label of identifying as ‘gay’, a choice that for many men who experience mild same-sex attractions, is one bridge too far and is the last thing in the world they truly desire. With a ban on People Can Change or on Orientation Therapy in general (which is currently also being sought by four Democratic Party senators by means of the FTC), the societal playing field for problems with orientation issues will be unduly diminished, to the extent that men will be coerced by means of monopolist Gay Affirmative Therapy into a political ‘gay’ label, which for many confused men who apply to PCC, is not their ultimate goal in life.

What exactly is the legislation at hand at the Federal Trade Commission?

Bureau of Consumer Protection

The Bureau of Consumer Protection’s mandate (click here) is to protect consumers against unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. With the written consent of the Commission, Bureau attorneys enforce federal laws related to consumer affairs and rules promulgated by the FTC. Its functions include investigations, enforcement actions, and consumer and business education. Areas of principal concern for this bureau are: advertising and marketing, financial products and practices, telemarketing fraud, privacy and identity protection, etc.

Under the FTC Act, the Commission has the authority, in most cases, to bring its actions in federal court through its own attorneys. In some consumer protection matters, the FTC appears with, or supports, the U.S. Department of Justice. The mission of the FTC is (click here)”

1. To prevent business practices that are anticompetitive or deceptive or unfair to consumers;

2. to enhance informed consumer choice and public understanding of the competitive process; and

3. to accomplish this without unduly burdening legitimate business activity.
In the previous article, we demonstrated that PCC is not into anticompetitive, deceptive or unfair practices as alleged . In this set of new articles we wish to demonstrate how PCC enhances informed consumer choice, how it enhances public understanding of the issues and choices at hand, and how a ban by the FTC will unduly burden legitimate choices for people who experience unwanted same-sex attractions.

PART 2 OF OUR ARTICLE:

(part 3 is to be found on this site, click here)

2. PCC would be a conversion therapy group

2a) PCC does not advertise to commit conversion therapy. The phrase is not to be found on the website. In no way is PCC into marketing or advertising for ‘therapy’.

2b). PCC does not perform an intake activity, a prerequisite for therapy

2c) PCC does not offer participants an intake form to be filled in, a necessary part of an intake procedure.

2d) PCC does not perform diagnostics of any kind, an essential part of any therapeutic endeavour.

2e) PCC does not create a patient file, or any written personal document to evaluate or monitor clients

2f) PCC does not offer therapeutical goals; it does however encourage participants to consider personal goals. This is considered healthy. But so does every congressman and businessman in the USA; rumor has it that even Obama has personal goals, many of which are not accomplished (“In my presidency I promise the American People that I will close down Guantanamo Bay, Yes We Can”; talk of consumer fraud!)

Obama, a case for the FTC? Maybe, but then again, the tiny group of people seeking mutual support at PCC are not the ones picking a fight with anybody; they mind their own business and are concerned with their own welfare, and their own welfare only. This is not a movement comparable to extremist factions within gay-lib with their heavily funded agenda in an obvious paranoia to fight alleged demons in society, all of which would be out there to harm poor little poofs. Get real!).

2g) PCC does not create a therapy plan, a guideline for further participation

2h) PCC does not reach out to, communicate with or contact health care professionals or general practitioners of the members for information reasons, administrative reasons, archiving reasons or bilateral fine tuning of therapeutic efforts. PCC is not into therapeutic efforts or any form of the (mental) health care system.

2i) PCC does not make referrals to other health care providers, due to the fact that it does not engage in mental health care efforts.

2j) PCC does not appeal to private or public health care funding via private or public health care insurance

2k) PC does not provide marketing folders, bulletins or written material to be distributed to potential clients in niche areas, such as gay bars, bathrooms, schools, youth camps, activist organizations or churches, as does gay-lib;

2L) PCC does not market or approach newspaper editors, house to house pamflet providers, or television/radio marketing programmes. PCC is not into pushing television celebrities as does gay-lib to promote its stance on issues. On the other hand, one of the complainants, Wayne Besen owner of the website Truth Wins Out, offers to be hired or booked via his website to perform public appearances. He even gets himself interviewed at CNN to spread his slander and rumors. PCC is not into that and isn’t, nor has it ever been, offensive towards gay emancipation endeavours.

2m) PCC is not a part of a national well-funded organization with promotional goals as is radical gay-lib, with joint endeavours to impose and disseminate its views and promises onto an unsuspecting population at large. All people who contact PCC have done so by their own willingly searches on the internet. There is no coercion, marketing, advertising, or sneaky private internet use intrusions via Google search hits or other online companies, comparable to the endless array of pop-up advertisements of gay porn websites, even to minors.

2n) PCC does not participate in Gay-Straight Alliances at middle schools, where youngsters are introduced to the ins and outs of same-sex attractions, as does gay-lib. There is certainly marketing of the American youth these days by gay-lib, but PCC is not in any way part of those heavily financed initiatives.

2o) A FTC ban on Reparative Therapy in general, as four Democratic Party senators are seeking for, will create a gay-lib monopoly for the dissemination of scientific information and services, in violation of the FTC goal to combat unfair, anticompetitive services and its goal to ensure informed consumer choices on the complex problems of sexuality and sexual identities. We see a heavily debated and controversial scientific area at a personal and social level, one that is not heavily endowed with fixed certainties to date as complainants would make it seem. Between professional health care organizations there exist debate, controversies and clashing views on the subject of sexual identities, “corrective” surgery for gender dysphoria, the fluidity (or lack of it) of sexual orientation, forms of appropriate therapy and support, to name but a few.

2p) PCC does not seek to persecute other views in writing, science or the internet. One of the complainants, Wayne Besen (website: Truth Wins Out), is suspected by us to even delete wikipedia articles on for example NARTH and JONAH, thereby deleting scientific data, articles and consumer information, limiting access to vital information for vulnerable groups in society. Articles intended for informing the public at large are replaced with slander and defamation via Copy&Paste from his website. PCC does not infringe the accessibily of consumer information rights, as do the complainants. PCC is therefore not a danger for consumer information rights on these issues.

 

Conclusion Part 2:

In view of the FTC main goals, we can safely conclude that PCC enhances informed consumer choice and public understanding of the competitive process of struggling with homosexual feelings and urges, in a way that is non-coercive, transparant and non-intrusive to the rights, dignities, and privacy of others.

It does not impose, nor seek to impose as does gay-lib via intrusive marketing, rallies, marches, parades, school activities, alliances, White House connections and funding of politicians, to push an agenda, or to unfairly motivate, indoctrinate, coerce or manipulate consumers into behavior which in retrospect could be considered intentionally harmful and deceitful.