(Well, if only...)
There was something cosy and reassuring about Jan Moir's writing. It was like a nice mug of Ovaltine, spreading the warm glow of self-righteousness and quietly homo-, xeno-, trans-, wotever-phobic smugness among people who don't like to think very hard. You know, the target audience of the Daily Mail.
come out of there, Jan!Her latest column is a case in point. We get:
A criticism of women in the workplace having too many rights, which describes the Equalities office as a 'citadel of gender gelding'
A celebration of muffins, which nostalgically looks back to Jan's days of drunken sexual predation (alarm bells there, but don't worry; it was chilled white wine that got 'em loaded, and it was Jan and her girlfriends doing the predation. For men, so that's OK too. Posh and heterosexual. Phew).
A bit of tosh about autumn ('the season we Brits do best' -rah, the Brits!):
(I try to keep the cold,fresh air out of my bedroom at midnight, but then I don't have central heating....)This is the season for freshly cracked-open books, rough-skinned English apples and woodsmoke; for piles of russet leaves and the smack of your big soled boots on a city pavement.
'Tis the time for a shot of whisky in a sparkling glass, the blip of venison stew on a low flame and cold, fresh air pouring through the bedroom window at midnight.
The Nolan Sisters, who, we learn, are a bit tubby and don't have much dress sense (thin ice there, Jan!)
A comparison of Tara Palmer Tomkinson's dress sense with that of a 'tranny' (unkind to trannies, Jan!)
-oh, and the piece that insinuated, without any evidence, that Stephen Gately died of immorality. Because he was gay.
This has become a bit of an overnight sensation. Charlie Brooker very quickly wrote a very good piece in the Guardian, and no doubt you can find plenty more if you look.
And, what with Twitter and Facebook spreading the word, the PCC internet portal crashed under the weight of complaints, and the companies whose ads were being run on the same page as the story pulled them off in protest.
Jan's response was to complain that she had been subjected to an 'orchestrated campaign', by people who hadn't read her column properly.
Now, in my book, an orchestra is a bunch of people who get paid to play the same tune, with minor variations. You know, like Daily Mail journalists. Their victims are, or should be, the disempowered and voiceless.
Which is why Jan's nemesis is so unnatural. In the natural order of things, the Daily Mail makes nasty snidey comments, and if someone complains then the Press Complaints Commission, a bunch of poachers judging a fellow poacher, look at the complaint and usually say "We can't see anything wrong with this" and go back to sleep. Like they did with me, once. Blogged here, PCC response here.
Oh well, that was yesterday. Business as usual at the Mail today; a story from their website this morning asserts that a woman murdered in Brighton had a transsexual history. Which, if true, is irrelevant to the story, and its revelation, should she have a GRC, an offence. And in the comments below the story, under the bit that says The comments below have been moderated in advance, we find
One of her flock, no doubt. Perverts are like irrepairably broken machines. Can't be fixed. Should be disposed of. Rid the world of their defective genome.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI emailed the Mail story to Trans Media Watch and Pink News this AM, Dru.
ReplyDeleteI think that comment from Ray, in Liverpool, needs to be forwarded to the Police.
Do you want to do it or shall I?
chrissie
xxxx
I've just reported the possible breach of a GRC, and the comment from Ray of Liverpool, to North Wales Police Hate Crimes Unit.
ReplyDeletesorry, went for a bike ride. Well done, Chrissie!
ReplyDelete"Ray"'s comment seems to have disappeared now. Perhaps they're doing some post facto moderating too?
ReplyDeleteWell, the bit about a possible breach of a GRC seems to have not fallen foul of the law. Someone has pointed out to me, and it's borne out by further reading, that the Act gives NO protection at all against such a thing, in most circumstances. Not worth the paper it is written on, then, but hey ho. That's New Labour for you...
ReplyDeleteThe Ray: Liverpool comment, that the Mail's moderators decided to publish, has been reported to the police. The NWP HCU have agreed to investigate it, as in the officer's opinion it came under the Home Office Hate Crime definitions.
Yes, the Mail have this morning removed it, but a page was saved, and hard copy is now with the police.
Alea Iacta Est...
chrissie
xxxxx
Yes; the Mail published my former name because they found it in old records, and the PCC decided that it was not intrusive because... because they said so.
ReplyDeleteStill, at least you've scored a very palpable hit there, Chrissie. I look forward to hearing the outcome.
Just for the record, there is no My-Oh-My supper club in Brighton, and therefore no Timmy the Tranny.
ReplyDeleteSome annoying assumptions in Moir's article:
# BRIGHTON IS FULL OF TRANNIES. Certainly it's widely perceived as a 'safe' place for all kinds of 'different' people - gays par excellence, of course - but obvious transexuals are not to be seen much. Rest assured you can take your maiden aunt or a party of nuns into any pub, any ordinary club, and onto the Pier, and never see a 'man' with false 44DD breasts tottering around in a bulging red latex mini and six-inch heels. Most Brighton transgendered folk (as I've said before) are strapped for cash and have to express their preferred gender in old jeans, worn trainers, cheap trinkets and whatever else they can pick up in charity shops. They dress like students, and they dress for warmth at this time of year because it costs to heat one's bedsit.
The 'ordinary' citizens of Brighton don't really know what a 'tranny' is, mixing up TV and TS, but at least they are tranny-aware. Usually they don't blink an eye anyway. That said, I wouldn't chance my arm too much at the wrong hour in the wrong location. But mostly it's fine to wander around in leggings and boots, especially in the town centre, and at night all cats are grey: anything vaguely female is taken to be female, at least until you step into the light or say something.
I'd hate to think that we ever become a fringe tourist 'sight', like goths and punks used to be; or even, in a strange way, like the winos of ten years back were. But even as we speak the local City council may be planning a special 'tranny ghetto' where visiting tourists can see trannies at work and play, all in a special yellow and red makeup and costumes that clearly display their original gender. It's all right; it's like watching monkeys or babboons, and besides they can't get at you through the bars. And they're SO human in their way.
# ALL TRANNIES ARE MEN AND HAVE SILLY NAMES LIKE TIMMY
Not so, there are plenty of female-to-male transsexuals among the young set - students in particular. Maybe MTF/FTM numbers will gradually equalise. As for names, I've got no definitely survey information, but very few of the forty-odd people I've encountered at the Claire Project drop-in (not all at once!) have sported daft names.
Grrr.
Lucy
Looks like you did marginally better with the PCC than I ever did.
ReplyDeleteYour assessment of them is about right though I fear... Well, I know...
It really is beyond me where the Daily Wails hatred comes from. Vile. Pure vile.
I did check, Lucy, just in the unlikely event that the club and the individual really existed; while I have no great desire to delve deep into the subconscious of la Moir, she references 'gelding', and describes autumn with terms like 'crack', 'smack', 'rough', 'shot'....maybe she wishes such a place does exist, for a bit-of-a-laugh on her drunken girls'-night-out forays... I see that Calpernia was criticised for having an odd name, over on her blog post. The writer would probably think that my name was daft too, but hey. It's my name.
ReplyDeleteSo you've had dealings with the PCC too, Jess?
I can't believe I've just read what I've just read. Thank God I can't afford an English newspaper.
ReplyDeleteAs my mum would say 'That one's been sleeping in the knife drawer'
Fine blog, Dru, and well done Chrissie.
ReplyDeleteAbout this tendency of the PCC to declare transphobic things inoffensive...if everyone who writes in says specifically that they are offended, how can the PCC then claim otherwise?
Christina
It was with quite a start that I realized something, yesterday morning. Alas, time did not allow me to think about it, or mention it.
ReplyDeleteI read Chrissie's comments, and suddenly realized that in the UK, free speech is defined substantially differently to how it is in the US.
For some time, I've had a suspicion it was, but I didn't connect the dots until yesterday morning. When the dots pretty much flung themselves together, the boom in my head was heard as far away as the kitchen! (My Mrs thought my muttered "Huh! How about that?!" to be something important; but as it was my first sip of coffee, she decided to wait and see if I recovered. Perhaps the coffee was good?)
How about that? I guess Britain has changed, over the last 20 years, more than I thought it had. I can remember discussing free speech as a wee 'un of about 10 or 11, and my Dad maintained that you don't have to like what someone says, you just can't silence them in saying it. Such reasoning is one reason why I love the 1st Amendment; Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 also made a deep impression on me when I read it in 1979. I still have that paperback; it is one of my most treasured books.
Jenna McWilliams, by coincidence left a comment on my blog (not to tout my mutterings) reiterating my revelation.
I freely admit that I'm a 1st Amendment absolutist. I do not understand why anyone would want to deny the hate-filled a place in the sun, where its true notoriety and obsequiousness can be readily seen, and examined. I have a lot to learn!
What Jan Moir wrote was horrible, vile even. But while I deplore it, I can't bring myself to defend any silencing of her. My fear is the same one Thomas Paine had: if someone can silence her, when will they get around to silencing me?
On the other hand, if she's willing to write such odious stuff, she has to be ready to accept the linguistic and literary bric-a-bats and cricket bats that get thrown her way. Freedom of expression doesn't mean the odious gets a free ride! (Cultural relativism, on the other hand, does mean the odious not only gets a free ride, some idiot sends a nice taxi for it to take that ride.)
Thanks, Dru; thanks, Chrissie! I learned something important, yesterday. :-)
Carolyn Ann
PS I will be cross-posting some, perhaps most, of this on my blog. I also need more coffee.
Another useful expression, Anji, courtesy of your mum. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteAnd thank you, Christina.
I've not really looked closely at the way that freedom of speech is done in the US, Carolyn Ann, so I can't really compare. I think that all that has changed here is that minorities have been given a species of voice through the internet. I'm sure that Jan Moir will be back at her desk as usual this week, with a quiet pat on the back from the editor for getting such a high profile response. And the worst thing that the PCC could do would be to get the paper to apologise, in a small paragraph lost in the middle of the paper. So her having exercised her freedom to say what she did was useful, because it focused the minds of quite a lot of people on how odious she is.
As for Ray of Liverpool, what he wrote was an incitement to murder. I should think that not shutting him up would be seen as tacit approval of his opinions, and be potentially a step in the direction of yet another murder. I've seen bad behaviour in action; little acts of badness going unchecked leading to progressively bigger acts of badness. And I'm not overly convinced of the power of open discussion or argument. Most people are fixed in their opinions, and 'debate' descends to a trial of who has the biggest stick.
His words, as horrible as they are, would be protected speech in the US.
ReplyDeleteIn the US, you can't be cited for providing your opinion. You can be prosecuted for inciting a riot, and you can be prosecuted for helping others commit a violent act. So advocating for the death of Jews, or gays or whomever you deem as worthy of such a penalty (as the Reverend Phelps does) - is protected speech. Actually carrying out the violence (even preparing to do so) is not a protected activity.
The one area that is necessarily dubious is advocating violence against the President. Call for his lynching, and you're on safe ground. Send an email saying he needs to be lynched and you'll have a couple of people asking you pointed questions. Send an email saying you will lynch the man, and you'll spend most of your days in a maximum security penitentiary. (With the Unabomber and Richard Reid.)
But you can say "all blacks should be lynched" and no one can actually stop you saying it. Where many people get confused, I find, is when they confuse what people say with support for that idea. All the 1st Amendment means is that government (and society) cannot stop you from holding, and voicing, even the most odious opinion.
It's proven useful, at times. Ending slavery, getting women the right to vote, women's rights movement, civil rights, gay rights, integration of the armed forces. All have been deemed obnoxious; indeed, they still are viewed as government intrusion in some quarters!
Legislators still try to pass ridiculous legislation. Recent examples include laws banning certain ways of wearing jeans. The school principals who deny students the right to wear gowns (because they're boys) or tuxedos (because she was a girl) fall within the province of denying someone their 1st Amendment rights. These all fail constitutional muster.
The basic yardstick to apply is "do I want anyone telling me what I can and cannot say?", or "do I want someone telling me how I may express myself?" If you answer "yes", I have to doubt your sincerity. If you answer "no", should you not also extend that same courtesy to others? Otherwise you end up with "free speech for me, but not for thee" (the title of a good book on the subject, by the way!)
So, to me, Ray of Liverpool was horrible - but his words can't be counted as a hate crime. They might be hateful and hate-filled (and deplorable), but as I don't want anyone to restrict what I might want to say, I can't restrict what he wants to say! And I certainly do not want anyone to restrict how I may express myself. (I will write more on this, on my blog.)
And yes, debate ends up being who can shout the loudest. And the "rules" end up being defined by an odious person carrying a big stick.
Carolyn Ann
Not to toot my own horn, but I wrote of the 1st Amendment here.
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit rambling; I often get sidetracked when I write of free expression. Sorry.
Carolyn Ann
I tend to take a similar view to that of Carolyn Ann. People with (in our view) hateful ideas are probably better allowed to voice them - that way at least we get to see who and where they are, like donkeys braying in the fog, and we are thus better equipped to deal with them. The benefits of listening, albeit with gritted teeth, to the words of hatemongers will no doubt become apparent later today when Nick Griffin voices a few of his opinions on the BBC.
ReplyDeleteOh yes,let people say what they want. Then prosecute the buggers if what they say is too wrong :-)
ReplyDeleteAs you see, I've responded (sort of) in a new post...