09 Jan 13 | Uncategorized
Protests against The Innocence of Muslims at the US Embassy in London (Demotix)
This one sneaked under the radar before Christmas. On 6 December, UK parliamentarian Alex Cunningham, the Labour MP for Stockton North, tabled an “Early Day Motion” demanding that the British government ban the controversial anti-Islam film “The Innocence of Muslims”. The moved was backed by 14 other MPs — 11 Labour, two Liberal Democrats, and RESPECT’s George Galloway.
Here’s the text of the EDM in full:
That this House notes the anger of Muslim constituents in response to the online video, The Innocence of Muslims; is offended by the vile, Islamophobic slurs it makes about a faith followed by over two billion people worldwide; believes that the film constitutes incitement to hatred on the grounds of race and religion; further believes that the film itself is of appallingly poor quality; and urges the Government tomake provision for its banning.
Note the invocation of our friend Muslim anger; note the absurd generalisation of the feelings of “two billion people worldwide” — none of the 15 signatories is actually Muslim. Note the remark on the “poor quality” of the film, a classic censor’s gambit (“it’s rubbish anyway, so this doesn’t really count as censorship”), but one which also raises the question of whether they’d call for Innocence of Muslims to be banned if it was well made. All rather grim.
The signatories are listed below (source http://www.edms.org.uk). Is your MP part of this censorious set?
Alex Cunningham Stockton North (Labour)
Iain Wright Hartlepool (Labour)
Simon Danczuk Rochdale (Labour)
Ian Lavery Wansbeck (Labour)
Jim Dobbin Heywood and Middleton (Labour)
Andy McDonald Middlesborough, Labour
Ronnie Campbell Blyth Valley (Labour)
Sandra Osborne Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Labour)
Kelvin Hopkins Luton North (Labour)
Alan Meale Mansfield (Labour)
George Galloway Bradford West (Respect)
Andrew George St Ives (Liberal Democrat)
Mike Hancock Portsmouth South (Liberal Democrat)
Roger Godsiff Birmingham, Hall Green (Labour)
Mary Glindon North Tyneside (Labour)
Read more on The Innocence of Muslims:
A new argument for censorship? Padraig Reidy asks if this time is different from previous blasphemy rows
28 Sep 11 | Uncategorized
Index on Censorship’s event with the Hacked Off campaign and English PEN at Labour party conference was a useful exercise in ruling out possibilities. The phone hacking scandal is just one in a series that has rocked Britons’ faith in their institutions: a theme picked up by Labour leader Ed Miliband in his speech yesterday. Yet some of the solutions proposed for rebuilding faith in the fourth estate would have a disproportionate effect on freedom of expression. That’s why these events across party conference season have proved useful. Whilst there is no clear consensus on what should be done, the debate is ruling out options that would clearly be unpalatable, and slowly a middle-ground is emerging.
At our events at both Labour and Liberal Democrat conference it was evident there is a strong anti-Murdoch feeling amongst delegates. But alongside this, the consensus is that a free press is essential in holding politicians to account.
As for ruling out the unpalatable, Ivan Lewis MP, Labour’s Shadow Culture Secretary in his keynote speech to the party’s conference argued:
We need a new system of independent regulation including proper like for like redress which means mistakes and falsehoods on the front page receive apologies and retraction on the front page. And as in other professions the industry should consider whether people guilty of gross malpractice should be struck off.
The second idea provoked an immediate response. On this blog, Padraig Reidy described it as a “bizarre distortion of the idea of a free press. Roy Greenslade pointed out countries that licensed journalists included Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, King Khalifa’s Bahrain and President Nazarbayev’s Kazakhstan. Labour MP Tom Harris also sounded caution tweeting: “If a journalist commits a serious misdemeanour, they can already be sacked.” Dan Hodges, an influential Labour activist went further: “On the day of the leader’s speech we announce the state banning of journalists. Labour is ceasing to exist as a serious political party.”
It is interesting that Lewis did not float this idea at our fringe event. Though Martin Moore of the Media Standards Trust distanced his organisation from the idea, he did point out that professional registration bears a similarity to John Lloyd’s proposals for a “Journalism Society” outlined in the Financial Times in July.
However regulation moves forward, the PCC in its current form is no longer credible. One reccurring theme is that Northern & Shell (owner of the Daily Express amongst other titles) don’t even belong to this arbitrator.
At these events, English PEN and Index on Censorship have outlined how not to do press regulation. Jonathan Heawood, the Director of English PEN, has warned against imposing regulations that could constrain investigative journalism, echoing John Kampfner’s warning that the real problem is that the press find out too little rather than too much.
Heawood told the Labour meeting:
“In my five-year-old son’s language, writers of conscience around the world are the “goodies” and the News of the World journalists hacking into Milly Dowler’s voicemail are the “baddies”. The problem is: in the real world, a lot of great journalism happens in the grey area between good and bad. Anyone who thinks that we need tougher media laws in this country should realise how desperately constrained investigative journalists are already.”
Through the Libel Reform Campaign alongside Sense About Science, we have campaigned effectively for a stronger public interest defence as the existing defence in libel has not been of practical use for authors, scientists, NGOs, and citizen journalists. It’s also been pointed out that internationally, states will be watching how Britain approaches press regulation. Any impediments to free expression imposed here will make it easier for despots abroad to justify their actions, as China did when David Cameron floated the idea of banning social media during disturbances.
Public confidence in the press has been shaken. It won’t be restored by ill-considered proposals from politicians. As the Leveson inquiry begins, the focus for reform must be clearer.
You can sign the Libel Reform Campaign’s petition here (http://libelreform.org/sign)
27 Sep 11 | Uncategorized
Shadow Culture Secratary Ivan Lewis MP has made waves with his suggestion that journalists guilty of “gross malpractice” should be “struck off” — a suggestion that has led to bafflement amongst journalists. Struck off from what, exactly? There is no register, no Law Society, no General Medical Council, no body of learned elders deciding who is and isn’t a reporter. Which is how it should be.
I’m all for journalistic standards. In fact, I’m all for journalism qualifications. I have an undergraduate degree in journalism, and I think it’s served me quite well. I will always fiercely defend the value of journalistic qualifications. (By the way, for an excellent summary of what a journalism qualification can and can’t do, read my City University journalism lecturer Paul Anderson’s thoughts on the Johann Hari scandal here)
But qualification and registration are very different things, and registration is what Lewis must be talking about (you have to be on a register before you can be struck off it).
A register would essentially involve licensing free expression — surely not something that a Labour party seeking to distance itself from the perceived authoritarianism of Gordon Brown and his big clunking fist. You are allowed to write — you are not.
That’s the moral dimension. On a practical level, what exactly does Lewis plan to do when reporters who have been struck off set up blogs and break stories, or amass thousands of followers on Twitter? Will he stop them? Will he have a Chinese-style 50 Cent party, paid to interlude on comment threads to remind readers that “THIS REPORT MAY NOT BE RELIABLE”? Or will websites carry warnings that all content must be taken with pinch of salt?
And who decides what gross malpractice is? At a Reuters debate on the press post-Hackgate last week, the Guardian’s Nick Davies made the odd suggestion that some sort of council could decide what “public interest” is, on a story-by-story basis. Would this same council decide on “gross malpractice”? Who appoints them? What kind of bizarre distortion of the idea of a free press would that be?
20 Jul 10 | Uncategorized
So, I can’t speak for you lot, but I haven’t spent the week reading Peter Mandelson’s diaries. I haven’t compared and contrasted them to Alastair Campbell’s recollections of the same events. I haven’t felt moved to accuse him of betraying everything the Labour party is trying to do, or has ever done. And I haven’t reconsidered my understanding of the last 13 years in the light of his words. What I have done is skim-read about 10,000 newspaper columns in which the writers do one or more of the above. I’ve even skimmed over the meta-articles, in which the writer points out that all the jumping up and down and name-calling provoked by Mandy so far merely serves to prove that he was telling the truth all along.
And the reason I haven’t read his book, or excerpts or his book, or comments on articles about his book is because, if I am absolutely honest, I don’t care. I can’t imagine my view of the last ten years or so of government will be remotely influenced by hearing, again, that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown didn’t get on very well. I’m just not interested anymore. They’re both gone, best of luck to ’em, now can we talk about the something else? Like the fact that my GP is now supposed to be good at all kinds of things beyond doctoring, when I’m not completely sure she’s even up to mustard on that. Or the fact that the BBC might lose its licence fee, even though we will then end up with telly that makes Channel 4 look interesting.
Or we could talk about books which have a real impact in the real world, and not just in the op-ed pages and on the Daily Politics (much as I love it). Alan Shadrake, a freelance journo, has been arrested in Singapore, for writing a book about Singaporean justice. And Singaporean justice seems to be as much of a contradiction in terms as Mandelsonian Loyalty (see how I tricked you into thinking that section was over and then called it right back? I am sneaky beyond belief).
And Shadrake is 75-years-old, has recently recovered from cancer, and has high blood pressure, so being arrested might not be the same walk in the park for him that it might be for you or me. In spite of his illness, he still found time to write Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice In The Dock. He has interviewed the country’s most prolific (is that the word, in this context?) hangman. And he hasn’t snuck away from Singapore like any other person in their right mind would do. He’s stayed there to promote the book, and now he’s been arrested. Arrested and charged with defamation, for which he could be imprisoned for two years.
You might be wondering who he defamed. The country’s most prolific hangman, perhaps? Or a judge? Or a policeman? Wrong every time, sunshine — he’s charged with defaming the country’s judicial system. How can it be possible to defame a system? Has he hurt the feelings of individual lawyers? All of them? And if so, couldn’t they bill someone for an extra hour, cackle softly, and grow the fuck up? I hope Index on Censorship readers will jump up and down and make noise about this: his lawyer hasn’t been allowed to see him yet, and Singapore’s justice system doesn’t need another victim.
Protests against The Innocence of Muslims at the US Embassy in London (Demotix)