Defending Journalism

Years ago membership of the NUJ came with a declaration that the applicant would report fairly and impartially, without omission, distortion or misrepresentation. I've no idea whether it's still there but I think it improbable, given that much national 'journalism' in the UK is now openly partial, and extremist polemicists from Owen Jones to Yaxley-Lemon now masquerade as journalists.

A piece in the Guardian has a BBC film crew complaining that they were shouted at by objectors who called them "BBC paedo scum" and "fake news wankers". Fair comment, I would have thought. The BBC's problem lies in its dishonesty; broadsheet papers still distinguish between news reporting and Op-Ed and Polemic pieces; the BBC still pretends that all of its news output is just news reporting, when eight out of ten viewers and listeners know this to be false. And they did act institutionally to actively hide the activities of several child sex abusers they sheltered, and you only have to read a few posts down to find a prime example of Newsnight fake news.

Unfortunately for the BBC, which has now proven itself as the PR department of the new pro-globalist, metropolitan, privileged, elitist establishment and political class, a journalistic reputation is like virginity; once it's gone, it's gone. There is no way back for the BBC and I expect, once Brexit is over, a sustained campaign to decline to renew the BBC's charter in 2027, allowing them time to develop a pay-to-view or commercial model in good time for the ending of the licence fee in seven years time.

The true test for the BBC, and one that it failed spectacularly, was the mass child sex abuse in our old industrial towns and cities that went on almost openly for many years. Sure, the BBC, like the police, social services, pub landlords and local papers knew all about it - but didn't think it worth reporting. Not, I think, as many of you will believe because of the BBC's partiality towards a certain faith group, but because the BBC, in common with the police and local government, simply didn't think that the lives of poor working-class children were worth much. Plus ça change.

I miss my old drinking chum Sandy Fawkes. Not only did she report the Yom Kippur war and cross the continental USA with a mass murderer, her proudest accomplishment was getting an unpopular story run. Back when she was working for the Daily Express in the Lubianka days. The killing of Maria Colwell by her stepfather was doing the rounds of Fleet Street, but none of the papers was biting. Her editor killed the story saying "no one's interested in reading about some slum kid getting killed". Sandy had a stand-up blazing row with him and was ready to walk. Her passion and indignation persuaded him that there just might be some public interest there, ran her piece and the rest is history. That was the job of newspapers. That was the job of journalists. Sandy's Telegraph Obit actually understates her character. Emily Maitlis and Cathy Newman are talentless pygmies in comparison.

Steady in the comments please - usual restrictions apply.

Sandy in the French, about 2003

In the UK, hating Islam is quite legal. It's protected by law.

Brendan O'Neill in Spiked has quite properly analysed popular newspaper reports that Jayda Fransen and Paul Golding were imprisoned for 'hating Islam'. It's not true of course - but it's exactly what the police and the establishment want us to believe is true.  

As Brendan points out "The judge’s actual words were that Fransen and Golding had ‘demonstrated hostility’ to ‘people of the Muslim faith’ in their harassing, obsessive campaign around that Kent rape case. That is, to Muslims." And yes, intimidating, harassing, assaulting, abusing people of Islamic faith or people of no faith is a crime and yes they were rightly convicted. What they were explicitly NOT convicted of, because it is not a crime in Britain, was 'hating Islam'. 

In fact, 'hating Islam' is protected by law - specifically by Section 29J of the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act:-

29J    Protection of freedom of expression

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

However, in questioning whether crimes should be punished more harshly because they were religiously, or racially, or sexually motivated, Brendan O'Neill raises a cogent and compelling point - has the law got this wrong? If I get the shit kicked out of me because some thug thinks I'm an arse, should he be treated more leniently than if he was triggered because I was a white arse, or a Catholic arse? My injuries are no different, but the law says that if I have no protected characteristic, my body, my safety, my protection is less worthy than another citizen - how can this possibly be right?

What is of equal concern is that police, councils, schools, MPs and journalists are misrepresenting the law in order to convince the public that hating Islam is thoughtcrime. It really isn't. Personally, I regard the Muslim faith as an empty, primitive and worthless belief system, with no redeeming features, that hinders people from progress and from betterment. I think the world would be a better place without it. And I can say all that quite, quite legally. And since British law on these things had to be made in line with all relevant European rights legislation, I can say it quite legally anywhere in Europe. So there.  

Dear Evening Standard - saying "Death to Allah" is not illegal

From the strapline in the ES, you'd think the bloke was facing jail for saying something rude about the Muslim fetish-god, wouldn't you? One needs to read the story to discover that the crime was actually criminal damage, for writing on an expensive business class seat, or rather for 'religiously aggrevated' criminal damage. This is a curious quirk of English law; saying 'Mohammed Sucks' in criticism of the Muslim idol is fine, printing it on a blog is perfectly legal; indeed, one's right to do so is clearly enshrined in s.29j of the 2006 Racial and Religious hatred Act:-

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

However, spraying a wall with the same message in a way that causes criminal damage can be 'upped' to the more serious offence. Clear?

Otherwise, saying 'Death to Allah' only becomes illegal when it escapes from the umbrella of s.29j - when it is proclaimed with the intention of breaching public order, causing hatred or violence, when it is used to harass to intimidate. When, in other words, the aim is other than legitimate 'discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse'

I know this entire concept may just be too hard for many simple minds to understand. It seems to have defeated Tristan Kirk, the author of the piece. Or this may be wilful obtuseness; it suits a certain metropolitan cabal to try to threaten, bluster and shock folk into saying absolutely nothing derogatory about religion. So let's thank goodness for all the Greg Tingeys out there who do such sterling service in the cause of free speech.