Every now and then a controversial article is published that should cause healthy and informed debate across the nation. Every now and then it does. However, the majority of times it results with most of the public choosing to jump on the inevitable bandwagon, rather than stopping to actually think about the article for themselves.
The article I am of course referring to is the now infamous column written by Jan Moir for the Daily Mail. In short, the column suggested that Stephen Gately’s death was suspicious, and that it was probably the result of him being gay.
Just hours after the column was published, Stephen Fry and Charlie Brooker published comments condemning the article. And just minutes after those comments were published, the bandwagon set off in an unstoppable manner.
Now, before we continue, I would like to state my opinion on the content of the piece; it was prejudice, out-dated and quite frankly, repulsive. Not for a second do I defend her opinion, however we must not forget that this was all that it was, an opinion.
I’m afraid I am about to get rather pompous and quote an American linguist and philosopher:
“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all”
These are the words of Noam Chomsky, a political activist who, as his quote suggests, is a champion of free speech. Yes, rather pretentious of me, however the quote does highlight a factor that many of us have forgotten.
Wherever you are reading this, ask someone around you what he or she thinks of free speech, and they will proudly state their belief in the idea. Ask them what they think of the Jan Moir article, and they will, like the true hypocrites the majority of the public are, begin ranting and raving in an uninformed, contradictory manner about how the article should not have been published as it has no place in modern media.
As I have previously stated, Jan Moir’s article was offensive and repulsive, but so what? Why is it enough to prevent an opinion being published?
Yes, the article breaks many of the codes set out by the Press Complaints Commission, but this is not what is most worrying about the circumstances surrounding this article. What is most worrying is the fact that the public seem to be in favour of free speech, providing we agree with what is being said.
Guess what? That’s not how it works. You don’t get to pick and choose who you agree with. You don’t get to dismiss someone’s opinion purely on the grounds that it is not the same as yours.
In the same way Jan Moir is entitled to her opinion, so are you, so feel free to air it in whatever way you see fit. But don’t forget when you are condemning the article, she had every right to write it.
1. Samyogita
I hear you! but just want to point out that by the same logic, people had every right to experess their opinion about jan moir…
2. Harthacanute
And yet another defender of Jan Moir completely misses the crucial point than none of this is about her right to express her bigotry – it is about whether a newspaper, which subscribes to the PCC’s voluntary Code of Conduct, should ever have published it .. and whether, in publishing it, the newspaper is in breach of that code.
If you agree to be bound by a set of rules, then you should be held accountable under them. It is as simple as that. Do we let people pick and choose when they can be held to account for breaking the speed limit or damaging another person’s property?
And as the previous commenter has noted – Jan Moir has exercised her right to say what she wants, and now the decent majority is exercising their right to point out just what a hateful woman she is.
3. Lianne Wilson
“You don’t get to dismiss someone’s opinion purely on the grounds that it is not the same as yours.”
Exactly, I’ve been making a similar point over on the ‘back-lash’ thread and I quite agree with you.
However, though she does have the right to say it and the newspaper has the right to publish it, that doesn’t mean either of them have the right not to get in trouble for it. Freedom of speech comes with consequences. Now Jan Moir’s been free to have her say, we all get to have our say about her.
She can blame it on the eeeeeevil gays all she likes, of course, but Fry and Brooker and everyone else really can’t be blamed for not taking it all that well.
Though really, what do you expect from the Mail?
4. Rhys
I think the main problems people have is thinking that they have a right not to be offended, and this is greater that someone else right to free speech. Very well done article fighting for free speech.
5. Seb
This is a terrible article, and I think it’s fair to call that a fact rather than opinion.
Opinions are based around uncertainties, personal perspectives for things that cannot be completely verified or proved, things that can geniunely be argued or discussed about. With the headline “Why there was nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately”; despite that being the official ruling by the coroner Jan and her article launch themselves from the safe and open environment of opinion and into the arena of bigotted and baseless inference. A medical professional says this? But he was a GAY man doing GAY things with GAY men and living the GAY lifestyle in GAY marriage and GAYED his way to the GAY sofa and GAILY passed away. Clearly the cause of (GAY) death: THE GAY (p.s. homosexuality is unnatural).
We even get some outright lies in the article to support her:
‘Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again..’
As Charlie Brooker pointed out (http://c-r-y.org.uk/), yes they do.
This is way beyond any measure of opinion and so should have been under the same intense scrutiny of those who talk about the theory of creationism and who claim that Britishness is more to do with your skin colour rather than where you were born and grew up. At that point I feel there is a significant burden of proof required, and without such proof not only should it not be printed anywhere but whoever thought it up should start rethinking what exactly the hell they’re doing. The Daily Mails already tacky-looking mask is slipping even further.
Freedom of expression is very important to protect minority views to allow examination, reflection and development of society but for godsake not everything that people say can be classed as opinion. The article was a pack of lies and distortions to fit an agenda and so should not have any of the same protections offered to it. Bring on the retribution.
6. Emma
Jan moirs article was a disgusting pack of lies and fabrication. Im all for free speach but at least express an opinion with the actual facts in mind. But the real reason the article shouldnt have been printed is decency and respect how did she think it would be received the day before his funeral as if his loved ones wasnt suffering enough without her hateful, homophobic, philestine opinion! She believes in expressing an opinion, i believe in karma!
7. Emma
Jan moirs article was a disgusting pack of lies and fabrication. Im all for free speach but at least express an opinion with the actual facts in mind. But the real reason the article shouldnt have been printed is decency and respect how did she think it would be received the day before his funeral as if his loved ones wasnt suffering enough without her hateful, homophobic, philestine opinion! She believes in expressing an opinion, i believe in karma!
8. Emma
Jan moirs article was a disgusting pack of lies and fabrication. Im all for free speach but at least express an opinion with the actual facts in mind. But the real reason the article shouldnt have been printed is decency and respect how did she think it would be received the day before his funeral as if his loved ones wasnt suffering enough without her hateful, homophobic, philestine opinion! She believes in expressing an opinion, i believe in karma!
9. Adam Troth
I actually read the article before all the hoo-hah kicked off, which probably puts me in a minority here. At the time I thought it was rather distasteful, ill timed and vindictive, but on a par with a lot of the stuff you read in the context of the right-wing tabloid gutter press.
“I’m all for free speech, but…” is one of the most overused lines in the history of modern society. Yes, the article was packed full of distortions, lies and hatred. In a free press however, she has the right to be published, and we have the right to condemn her for being an ill informed hateful cretin.
The article may well have been disgusting, disrespectful and full of lies. I think that this does not justify the article’s not being published. Let people make up their own minds. It’s clear what the general consensus is.
The one bit I do find a little troubling is Seb’s suggestion that the coroner ruled the death to be natural and therefore we should all just take this as gospel. The official inquest into the death of Princess Diana ruled out any kind of foul play, yet anyone who has passed even a fleeting glance over what actually happened on that tragic night in gay Paris realises what a pack of lies that was.
10. Nick
I’d agree with Adam Troth on this. The article was nothing out of the ordinary for the right-wing press.
Liberals such as Stephen Fry and Charlie Brooker got themselves in a twist about it which is fine but where is their indignation over the complicity of the more liberal press over the war in Iraq for example? I didn’t see Brooker or Fry getting upset that The Guardian didn´t take a stance against the murdering of hundreds of thousands of people.
High profile liberals are all for jumping on the band wagon when it comes to homophobic or racists slurs but are silent when it comes to crimes of the state which are far worse.