Archive for October, 2009
BNP on TV
The British National Party (BNP) are to appear this evening on a BBC broadcast of the popular Question Time programme and this has cause something of a storm in the media. This issue at hand is whether a political part that expresses views objectionable to many should be permitted such a public platform.
(For the benefit of those unaware of the BNPs views, they are a right wing party supported by bigots, racialists and xenophobes. Their main platform is the idea that Britain should be preserved for the British — their definition of ‘Britishness’ being entirely arbitrarily based largely on the parliamentary Nationality and Citizenship act of 1948 — and that most ills visited upon Britain are the result of a liberal immigration policy.)
Much of the ruckas is, of course, the media feeding upon itself; contention sells news. But there is a serious point about freedom to be made.
The BNP hold views that I find objectionable. They also express some views that I find sensible. It’s a mix. But we should bear in mind at all times that they have elected representatives and are a political party legally constituted and operating within the current British legal framework. To censor their views is to strike down a basic freedom enjoyed, until the government succeeds in its recent move to deny its citizens such freedom, by all British citizens; the freedom to express ourselves in the public forum.
The legitimate fear expressed by some is that allowing the BNP a platform will provide them with a means to propagate their bigotry to a wider audience, or more insidiously, to present a reasonable face to their bigotry. For the BNP to be seen by the populous as ‘reasonable’ is perhaps the most worrying thing for many. If the ubiquitous ‘man in the street’ sees the BNP as a reasonable alternative to the main political parties then he may be encouraged to vote for a BNP member of parliament. There is certainly some evidence to support this view. The BNP have gained ground in marginal constituencies by appealing to the baser instincts of the community, pointing to large immigrant populations and claiming that the economic problems of the area are due largely to this large immigrant population. This is, as any student of history will appreciate, an effective strategy and one employed to great effect by many nationalist leaders of the past (most infamously by Hitler).
None of this though should mean that any sector of society, let alone a legally constituted political party operating within the bounds of the law, should be denied freedom to express their views, no matter how objectionable those views might be.
Arguing that they are free to express their views, just not in a national broadcast, is to miss the point. If you find someone’s politics objectionable, then argue your case in the forum of public opinion. If your case has merit and theirs none then you will prevail. If their views pander to the constituent’s baser instincts then inform and educate people as to why these views are wrong. Glossing over the problem by denying your opponents a voice does nothing to address the problem; the ease with which people respond to such appeals. It is this ease with which people can be stirred to hatred that is the bigger concern and the more difficult issue to be addressed. Perhaps this is why it is easier to deny the BNP a platform than to address the real problem.
Add comment October 22, 2009
Homophobic journalist needs to be bitch slapped
One of my quintessentially British traits, some might say flaws, is a reluctance to complain. As a consequence I will often have a private but impotent rant at the news media when I come across an article that offends my sensibilities or reason. However. Every once in a while something so egregious, so offensive, so disgusting crosses my path that I feel I have to do something. One such occasion has just occurred.
In the UK there exists what I shall, for want of a better term, call a ‘newspaper’ called the Daily Mail. (I scare quote here because this publication seldom contains actual news.) The publication (ah, that’s a better word) represents all that is wrong with the media. It is horribly and unashamedly right wing, pandering to the racist, homophobic, and xenophobic elements in our society. The article in question was penned by one Jan Moir with the is title “A strange, lonely, and troubling death…” the article is Moir’s hateful interpretation of Stephen Gately’s death.
Moir is one of those people you would like to meet in a dark alley. Preferably with a few other like minded souls. Her article takes the usual hateful bigotry she spews and cranks it up a couple of notches. Unfortunately it is necessary to link to the article in question so that people can appreciate what a hollow soul Moir is. The article can be found here.
I could feel my hackles rising even as I read her execrable drivel through. On reaching the end I was bloody fuming and ready for another impotent rant at my computer monitor when some kindly soul pointed my toward the Press Complaints Commission (the purported watchdog of the UK press) website and more specifically their complaints form. Armed with this information I could turn a potentially impotent rant into something constructive, so I registered the following complaint.
Moir’s article distorts and deliberately misrepresents information supplied by the authorities, making no clear distinction between statements of fact and her own bigoted opinion, breaching clause 1.
Mr Gately’s actions on the night in question are a private matter unrelated to his death. Moir’s scurrilous article intrudes on Mr Gately’s privacy and that of his partner and family, in breach of clause 3.
It would be difficult to conceive a more intrusive article than that penned by Moir. The article is unnecessary, bigoted, hateful, speculative, opinionated and above all an intrusion on the grief of Mr Gately’s partner and family, in breach of clause 5.
In making Mr Gately’s homosexuality a central theme to her article Moir exhibits a callous disregard for clause 12 of the code of practice. The entire tone of the article is discriminatory, implying, quite clearly, that it was Mr Gately’s sexual preference and lifestyle (at least the lifestyle painted by Moir’s own tawdry homophobic imagination) that led to his death.
Whether anything comes of this remains to be seen. Given the strength of feeling generated on Twitter (admittedly not a particularly good barometer of effective complaints against the press) and the subsequent collapse of the PCC website, presumably under the weight of people trying to complain about this article, I suspect that it will make the news for this reason if not for the real reason that the article is disgusting and Moir should be held to account over it.
Add comment October 16, 2009
Apple’s new tablet?
Once again the Internet rumour mill is abuzz with rumours of an Apple tablet. As a long-time watcher of such rumours, I have to say that this one is more convincing than most. In particular the rumour that Apple have approached newspaper publishers about providing content makes sense especially when you consider that Apple recently added in-application subscriptions for free applications to the Apple app-store.
Consider this, a publisher gives away a free application that takes users to their newspaper’s content, and then sells premium content through micro-subscriptions offered via the app-store. Makes sense as a business model for traditional media. Assuming that Apple attract an iPhone-esk following for the supposed tablet device (and if it offers all the usual Apple design appeal and function of their existing products, I can see that it will) then the appeal for users of the new device to acquire their daily newspaper, at next to no cost compared to the paper and print version, using an application on their tablet device is obvious.
If only Apple can make the device waterproof so we can read out e-books and e-papers while relaxing in the bath…
Add comment October 27, 2009