We must all stand shoulder to shoulder in defence of the principles of a free press and free speech and freedom of expression. Yes, of course we must, where those principles hold true. When the various organs of private and public media in this State sing from the same hymn sheet in promoting austerity, or in vilifying social welfare spongers while glossing over institutionalised failure to deal with white collar crime, or in slandering seemingly powerless sub-groups within society, or in engaging in journalism that seems to have as its end the creation of divisions in society and the weakening of opposition to political class rule, we are obliged, it seems, to support and accept that media and what it is doing because it represents, or is, the free press at work. When various organs of the media in belligerent imperialist states such as Britain and France, acting almost entirely in consort with each other, promote a bombing war on Libya, or on Syria, or promote full scale invasions of sovereign countries in the Middle East or Africa or other places, we must, it seems, accept the right of those organs of the media to incite support for terrible wars visited on others on the grounds that they represent, or are, the free press and are absolutely entitled to act as they do because of that. When those same organs of the media incite fear and hatred of refugees from those war-ravaged countries who try to escape to Europe for protection or for the means of sustaining life, or who vilify adherents of an entire religion - in this case Muslims - as the dangerous other, we are once again obliged to support their right to do so on the basis that that is the free press in operation. Even when there is an obvious correlation between negative press coverage regarding minorities which gives rise to an increasing presence of an often violent and usually fascist response against those minorities, as is happening now and which echoes anti-Jewish incitement and action in the 1930s for example, we must still insist on the right of the press to publish, since it is free. But what if the free press targeted gays in the same way, today? Or if they targeted black people, today? Or if they targeted Jews, today? Would we still be obliged or be willing to support that freedom of the press to publish? And what if any of those groups was singled out en masse as the target of satire as a means of subjecting them to ridicule over a prolonged period - would that make it more acceptable on the basis of free speech or freedom of expression? After all, its only satire, they say. But satire doesnt work as a blunt instrument - it should be wielded like a scalpel directed at the culpable target but at not the innocent en mase. But it was just a series of cartoons, they say, a series of jokes. Well, we Irish should be well aware of the use of cartoons against the Irish in 19th and 20th century publications such as Punch, and the reasons for publishing them which included hatred by the English establishment of the Irish and their need to dehumanise the Irish so as to allow any atrocity against the Irish to be normalised - including the so-called Famine, in reality a genocidal act. Those cartoons, and other negative propaganda in the British media, helped fuel the drive towards independence and the violence that, necessarily, ensued. Cause and effect, action and reaction. Draw the parallels. Unlimited war is being and will continue to be waged against mainly Muslim countries by European States that themselves incorporate reasonably substantial communities of Muslims - a product of previous imperialist adventures by those countries in North Africa and the Middle East. Muslims need to be dehumanised and hated in the minds of enough citizens of imperialist countries so as to normalise any act carried out on them. Those wars would not be possible without the support of European liberals - the same liberals who insist on the principles of the free press, free speech and freedom of expression, but who are evidently indifferent to the creation of a genuinely diverse media in which issues regarding war, but also social and economic issues, could be properly opened out for debate and decision. The disgusting events at the offices of Charlie Hebro were entirely predictable - if not there, today, then somewhere else, tomorrow. Cause and effect. Action and reaction. More wood to be pulped for paper. More stories to be scribbled. More advertising revenue to be garnered. More ignorance to be fostered. More war to be waged. A free press, free speech and freedom of expression? Dont make me laugh.
Posted on: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 17:28:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015