Journalism?
Is this
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4449532,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4449532,00.html</a>;
"article" journalism?
Here's my email to the editor of the newspaper that published it.
Dear editor,
I'm not one to get upset or insulted by what people say or write. I have a very high tolerance for irony, sarcasm and cynicism. However, when people start writing things like
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4449532,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4449532,00.html</a>;
this, I can't do anything but feel insulted. I have an Irish mother and I am proud of my heritage and the history of my country. I will proudly fly an Irish tricolour any day of the year and I will not accept anyone calling it a "Hitler-licking, altarboy-molesting, abortion-banning Irish tricolour". Who does this woman think she is?
Hitler licking? Is this the same person that is telling us that it is wrong that she can't fly a Union Jack because of Britains wrongdoings in the past will be blamed on her? So, conveniently she points out that Ireland's politics has had it's darker moments as well? Is the point that everyone makes mistakes? Oh that makes it alright then. Let's take it that one step further, the Germans caused a holocaust, so did the Serbs and so did the British...well...that makes it all ok then. Let's not mention it ever again so we can go on nicely and forget about it all.
Altarboy molesting? So, for the hell of it, Ms Burchill decides that a few rotten apples make for the entire religion, MY religion, to be wrong and indecent? I am disgusted by these events. Not even as a Catholic but as a human being. I am disgusted by anyone doing such things but I will not let Ms. Julie Burchill project it as if it were a Catholic or an Irish problem. Of course Ms Burchill, there is no child molesting in Britain. You go and hang out that Union Jack.
Abortion banning? Yes, abortion is illegal in Ireland. Will I tell you why? Democracy. The majority was against it being legal so it is illegal. Personally, I would condone abortion and if I had to pick one extreme or the other I would be pro choice rather than pro life. I also identify with the Irish tricolour so let's keep these two things separated ok Ms. Burchill? I do, so I'm sure you can as well.
Ms Burchill continues to tell us how she loves the Cuban and Soviet flags. Am I to understand that hundreds of thousands of hungry Cuban people are ok and so are millions of Soviets who were murdered and worked to death by Stalin et al?
What will be your reply to this editor? Are you going to tell me that British people have to put up with such accusations all the time? Are you going to tell me that a British person flying a Union Jack means that he takes the chance of some dimwit blaming him for the famine, William Wallace and two Bloody Sundays will have a pop at him? Are you going to tell me that this article was merely a matter of taking the piss out of these people?
See, I do understand what this article is about and what the essence of it is. This kind of journalism is childish and rhetorical propaganda. It's like children in the playground saying "they do it to us, so we'll do it to them". A newspaper should be above this kind of behaviour. Because it is exactly this kind of behaviour, and this kind of spouting of racist nonsense that gives the people causing trouble, be it in the Six Counties, The Middle East or anywhere else in the world more and more support. Exactly like Ms Burchill's example of the BNP.
So is this the idea of this article? That she plays the role of the people she claims to be disgusted by? Again, a childish way of dealing with a matter that is clearly beyond Ms. Burchill's grasp. It is not a matter that should be made fun of. It's also not a matter where pointing fingers is going to solve anything. I think it is disgraceful that your newspaper gives Ms Burchill a platform for her fingerpointing and rhetoric. It is unconstructive, insulting and most of all, very dangerous. I hope you do realise that children along with potential racists will read this article too. They may not, will not, be able to see the "irony" of it and you will have helped create more ill informed, biased human beings. Like we don't have enough of those already.
I demand that you will publish a full rectification of this racism inciting piece of trite on-line and off-line, an apology from Ms Burchill for the hurtful, downright insulting nature of her "work" and an apology from you, Mr or Ms editor, for allowing such inane ramblings to be published in a national newspaper.
If you fail to do so I will have no quams reporting you and your newspaper to the Press Complaints Commission.
Yours sincerely,
*****
PS. You may want to read this:
"Section 70 of the Race Relations Act has been repealed. The law on incitement to racial hatred is now contained in Part III of the Public Order Act 1986. It is an offence to use threatening, insulting or abusive words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred as well as when in all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up. The law also covers the publication an
The law also covers the publication and broadcast of socially inflammatory material through media such as films, video and sound records.
The enforcement of the law on incitement to racial hatred is not a matter for the Commission for Racial Equality. Persons wishing to make a complaint that the law has been contravened should get in touch with their local police station."
[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: macfenian ]</p>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4449532,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4449532,00.html</a>;
"article" journalism?
Here's my email to the editor of the newspaper that published it.
Dear editor,
I'm not one to get upset or insulted by what people say or write. I have a very high tolerance for irony, sarcasm and cynicism. However, when people start writing things like
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4449532,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4449532,00.html</a>;
this, I can't do anything but feel insulted. I have an Irish mother and I am proud of my heritage and the history of my country. I will proudly fly an Irish tricolour any day of the year and I will not accept anyone calling it a "Hitler-licking, altarboy-molesting, abortion-banning Irish tricolour". Who does this woman think she is?
Hitler licking? Is this the same person that is telling us that it is wrong that she can't fly a Union Jack because of Britains wrongdoings in the past will be blamed on her? So, conveniently she points out that Ireland's politics has had it's darker moments as well? Is the point that everyone makes mistakes? Oh that makes it alright then. Let's take it that one step further, the Germans caused a holocaust, so did the Serbs and so did the British...well...that makes it all ok then. Let's not mention it ever again so we can go on nicely and forget about it all.
Altarboy molesting? So, for the hell of it, Ms Burchill decides that a few rotten apples make for the entire religion, MY religion, to be wrong and indecent? I am disgusted by these events. Not even as a Catholic but as a human being. I am disgusted by anyone doing such things but I will not let Ms. Julie Burchill project it as if it were a Catholic or an Irish problem. Of course Ms Burchill, there is no child molesting in Britain. You go and hang out that Union Jack.
Abortion banning? Yes, abortion is illegal in Ireland. Will I tell you why? Democracy. The majority was against it being legal so it is illegal. Personally, I would condone abortion and if I had to pick one extreme or the other I would be pro choice rather than pro life. I also identify with the Irish tricolour so let's keep these two things separated ok Ms. Burchill? I do, so I'm sure you can as well.
Ms Burchill continues to tell us how she loves the Cuban and Soviet flags. Am I to understand that hundreds of thousands of hungry Cuban people are ok and so are millions of Soviets who were murdered and worked to death by Stalin et al?
What will be your reply to this editor? Are you going to tell me that British people have to put up with such accusations all the time? Are you going to tell me that a British person flying a Union Jack means that he takes the chance of some dimwit blaming him for the famine, William Wallace and two Bloody Sundays will have a pop at him? Are you going to tell me that this article was merely a matter of taking the piss out of these people?
See, I do understand what this article is about and what the essence of it is. This kind of journalism is childish and rhetorical propaganda. It's like children in the playground saying "they do it to us, so we'll do it to them". A newspaper should be above this kind of behaviour. Because it is exactly this kind of behaviour, and this kind of spouting of racist nonsense that gives the people causing trouble, be it in the Six Counties, The Middle East or anywhere else in the world more and more support. Exactly like Ms Burchill's example of the BNP.
So is this the idea of this article? That she plays the role of the people she claims to be disgusted by? Again, a childish way of dealing with a matter that is clearly beyond Ms. Burchill's grasp. It is not a matter that should be made fun of. It's also not a matter where pointing fingers is going to solve anything. I think it is disgraceful that your newspaper gives Ms Burchill a platform for her fingerpointing and rhetoric. It is unconstructive, insulting and most of all, very dangerous. I hope you do realise that children along with potential racists will read this article too. They may not, will not, be able to see the "irony" of it and you will have helped create more ill informed, biased human beings. Like we don't have enough of those already.
I demand that you will publish a full rectification of this racism inciting piece of trite on-line and off-line, an apology from Ms Burchill for the hurtful, downright insulting nature of her "work" and an apology from you, Mr or Ms editor, for allowing such inane ramblings to be published in a national newspaper.
If you fail to do so I will have no quams reporting you and your newspaper to the Press Complaints Commission.
Yours sincerely,
*****
PS. You may want to read this:
"Section 70 of the Race Relations Act has been repealed. The law on incitement to racial hatred is now contained in Part III of the Public Order Act 1986. It is an offence to use threatening, insulting or abusive words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred as well as when in all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up. The law also covers the publication an
The law also covers the publication and broadcast of socially inflammatory material through media such as films, video and sound records.
The enforcement of the law on incitement to racial hatred is not a matter for the Commission for Racial Equality. Persons wishing to make a complaint that the law has been contravened should get in touch with their local police station."
[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: macfenian ]</p>
Comments
what happened . . after all, I thought there were plenty of Irish in those British troops overseas . . Am I wrong bout that? I know it was the case in World War 1.
And what about Mosley and his support... he was English.
<strong>I hate to admit, as an Irish-French American (that's a whole lot of Gaelic-Gaulic fer ya... with a tad O German too) that I have no idea what the references to Ireland's collusions with Hitler are??
what happened . . after all, I thought there were plenty of Irish in those British troops overseas . . Am I wrong bout that? I know it was the case in World War 1.
And what about Mosley and his support... he was English.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ireland remained neutral throughout World War II, which caused a lot of resentment in Britain. At the time Ireland had been independent only a short time and the government didn't want to get into a war, especially alongside the British, and they feared either Germany or Britain might invade Ireland.
But Ireland did not collaborate with the Nazis, and German attempts to form an alliance failed. The Irish president caused an uproar, however, when he expressed condolences to the German ambassador after Hitler's suicide in 1945.
Most Irish hated the Nazis more than they hated the British, though, and thousands of Irish did join the British Army to fight.
In World War I, Ireland was still ruled by Britain. Ireland achieved independence (or home rule, at least) in 1922.
[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: CaseCom ]</p>
I believe that is what is the problem.
...or to say it another way...
That article is a complete and utter load of racist sh!te, like the author.
"The Guardian"? , a little read rag of a tabloid.