Kelvin MacKenzie cleared of breaking IPSO code

[narly101]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...press-regulator-fatima-manji-kelvin-mackenzie

Interesting. I'm genuinely divided on this.

IPSO were always going to be in a difficult position when two press bodies clashed on this news article.

 

[spring hall convert]

MacKenzie was, as per usual, talking out of his fat arse & IPSO have bottled it.

However, you would have like to think the readers of The Sun would enforce a rethink on MacKenzie's continued employment post-Hillsborough tribunal. They don't. And even if they did, there'd be some other dead eyed buffoon prepared to do exactly what Mackenzie does.

 

[nicko31]

Doesn't fellow Sun columnist Trevor Kavanagh sit on the board of this so-called regulator IPSO?

 

[Buzzer]

Maajid Nawaz, founder of Quillam, nails it.

 

[Common as Mook]

Maajid Nawaz, founder of Quillam, nails it.

Absolutely spot on.

 

[Curious Orange]

In other words, he was entitled to express his opinion, and people are entitled to either agree or disagree with it.

Not the sort of thing you expect in a liberal society...

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

MacKenzie was, as per usual, talking out of his fat arse & IPSO have bottled it.

However, you would have like to think the readers of The Sun would enforce a rethink on MacKenzie's continued employment post-Hillsborough tribunal. They don't. And even if they did, there'd be some other dead eyed buffoon prepared to do exactly what Mackenzie does.

Edit: deleted post as life is too short to get into the question of the modern left sticking up for conservative religions. I will resist the temptation of trying to understand next time

 

[Machiavelli]

Two points:
1. RE point 2 from Quillam. Presumably those who are in favour of this are in favour of strict enforcement of 'laicity', i.e. no religious symbolism in the public sphere. This is French policy, whereas British 'liberalism' is not as prescriptive about what can -- or, more precisely, cannot -- take place in the public sphere. This, of course, presupposes that C4 News is part of the public sphere. This particular suggestion from Quillam is fundamentally against British liberal values.
2. In contrast to the previous post, much of the modern left had a distinctive view about what to do with conservative religions. For more extreme examples, see Pol Pot and the Bolsheviks, but even the milder variants thought that religion was either irrational or against the course of history.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Two points:
1. RE point 2 from Quillam. Presumably those who are in favour of this are in favour of strict enforcement of 'laicity', i.e. no religious symbolism in the public sphere. This is French policy, whereas British 'liberalism' is not as prescriptive about what can -- or, more precisely, cannot -- take place in the public sphere. This, of course, presupposes that C4 News is part of the public sphere. This particular suggestion from Quillam is fundamentally against British liberal values.
2. In contrast to the previous post, much of the modern left had a distinctive view about what to do with conservative religions. For more extreme examples, see Pol Pot and the Bolsheviks, but even the milder variants thought that religion was either irrational or against the course of history.

Yep, 'had'. That's always where I have been on the issue of religion. These days the Left has become the Right though as the modern left are religion's biggest cheerleader. They are quite happy with all the oppression of women and homosexuals. Its a crazy world. Still resisting that temptation (just)

 

[Bakero]

Yep, 'had'. That's always where I have been on the issue of religion. These days the Left has become the Right though as the modern left are religion's biggest cheerleader. They are quite happy with all the oppression of women and homosexuals. Its a crazy world. Still resisting that temptation (just)

The left is a broad church.

 

[Bakero]

Two points:
1. RE point 2 from Quillam. Presumably those who are in favour of this are in favour of strict enforcement of 'laicity', i.e. no religious symbolism in the public sphere. This is French policy, whereas British 'liberalism' is not as prescriptive about what can -- or, more precisely, cannot -- take place in the public sphere. This, of course, presupposes that C4 News is part of the public sphere. This particular suggestion from Quillam is fundamentally against British liberal values.
2. In contrast to the previous post, much of the modern left had a distinctive view about what to do with conservative religions. For more extreme examples, see Pol Pot and the Bolsheviks, but even the milder variants thought that religion was either irrational or against the course of history.

I don't think that suggesting the hijab is a symbol of male oppression is tantamount to a call for a ban of religious symbolism. You can be critical of something without trying to outlaw it.

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't think that suggesting the hijab is a symbol of male oppression is tantamount to a call for a ban of religious symbolism. You can be critical of something without trying to outlaw it.

On both posts, I'm broadly in agreement. Where we might differ is my view that there's currently a backlash against Muslims, which compromise about 1.5 billion of this world's population. Christians aren't too far behind numerically, and there's fundamentalist variants of that that have caused far more bloodshed and misery than Muslim fundamentalists, but that's not really part of the western narrative. And I don't see too much hostility to it in the mainstream media or British politics, beyond the rather nasty, divisive and simplistic Trot view that's currently penetrating its way into certain reaches of the Labour Party. I'm not entirely convinced by Quillam's motives, but don't know enough about them to say anything further. What I can say is that second point was ill-conceived, and much of Fatima Manji's grievances are entirely legitimate. But, then again, I think C4 News is as good a media outlet that there is over here, whereas my view of The Sun is somewhat different.

 

[Bakero]

On both posts, I'm broadly in agreement. Where we might differ is my view that there's currently a backlash against Muslims, which compromise about 1.5 billion of this world's population. Christians aren't too far behind numerically, and there's fundamentalist variants of that that have caused far more bloodshed and misery than Muslim fundamentalists, but that's not really part of the western narrative. And I don't see too much hostility to it in the mainstream media or British politics, beyond the rather nasty, divisive and simplistic Trot view that's currently penetrating its way into certain reaches of the Labour Party. I'm not entirely convinced by Quillam's motives, but don't know enough about them to say anything further. What I can say is that second point was ill-conceived, and much of Fatima Manji's grievances are entirely legitimate. But, then again, I think C4 News is as good a media outlet that there is over here, whereas my view of The Sun is somewhat different.

We don't differ in that view at all. I fully agree that Islamophobia is rampant. Quilliam is anti-Islamist, not anti-Islam.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

On both posts, I'm broadly in agreement. Where we might differ is my view that there's currently a backlash against Muslims, which compromise about 1.5 billion of this world's population. Christians aren't too far behind numerically, and there's fundamentalist variants of that that have caused far more bloodshed and misery than Muslim fundamentalists, but that's not really part of the western narrative. And I don't see too much hostility to it in the mainstream media or British politics, beyond the rather nasty, divisive and simplistic Trot view that's currently penetrating its way into certain reaches of the Labour Party. I'm not entirely convinced by Quillam's motives, but don't know enough about them to say anything further. What I can say is that second point was ill-conceived, and much of Fatima Manji's grievances are entirely legitimate. But, then again, I think C4 News is as good a media outlet that there is over here, whereas my view of The Sun is somewhat different.

I don't see much wrong with Quillam's second point. It is often argued that many Muslim women voluntarily wear the Hijab but this is as much male social conditioning as the legions of American women happy to be put in their place by the likes of Donald Trump. We, as a secular society have a responsibility to break this medieval male imposition even if the current generation of Muslim women object. See the film 'Mona Lisa Smile' for the 1950s American equivalent. I don't think we can have it both ways by promoting freedom for western women and oppression for Muslim women.

 

[spring hall convert]

Edit: deleted post as life is too short to get into the question of the modern left sticking up for conservative religions. I will resist the temptation of trying to understand next time

Yeah, typical Kelvin MacKenzie, sticking up for oppressed minorities. Good on him. Said no one. Ever.

The point that you make is a valid one. My suggestion is that having a reasonable discussion around that point wasn't Kelvin MacKenzie's intention.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Yeah, typical Kelvin MacKenzie, sticking up for oppressed minorities. Good on him. Said no one. Ever.

The point that you make is a valid one. My suggestion is that having a reasonable discussion around that point wasn't Kelvin MacKenzie's intention.

On that we can agree
I edited/deleted my original reply to you because upon reflection it was a bit
too sharp in its tone and I didn't want to seem provocative. I suppose I could have simply reworded in a better way but didn't have the time.

 

[Brightonfan1983]

This thread needs to say what all this is actually about:

"With all the major terrorist outrages in the world currently being carried out by Muslims, I think the rest of us are reasonably entitled to have concerns about what is beating in their religious hearts. Who is in the studio representing our fears? Nobody."

It's what we now call 'dog-whistling' - oh yeah, on the face of it, it appears he's just a regular guy saying what we all think, I mean he even speaks for 'the rest of us', and if a footie forum begins a debate on Hijabs and what they 'really' mean, then job done, he was only saying stuff. But we all know (ok, most of us) what he's really saying... look at the sodding language he uses.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

This thread needs to say what all this is actually about:

"With all the major terrorist outrages in the world currently being carried out by Muslims, I think the rest of us are reasonably entitled to have concerns about what is beating in their religious hearts. Who is in the studio representing our fears? Nobody."

It's what we now call 'dog-whistling' - oh yeah, on the face of it, it appears he's just a regular guy saying what we all think, I mean he even speaks for 'the rest of us', and if a footie forum begins a debate on Hijabs and what they 'really' mean, then job done, he was only saying stuff. But we all know (ok, most of us) what he's really saying... look at the sodding language he uses.

It's about a difference of opinion on religion and religious symbolism. I think that the process of freeing human beings from the oppression of social conservatism should continue. Not sure what you mean by the accusation of dog whistling but it sounds like a fancy new way of shutting down debate to re-enforce the dominant position of religious authorities.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

On both posts, I'm broadly in agreement. Where we might differ is my view that there's currently a backlash against Muslims, which compromise about 1.5 billion of this world's population. Christians aren't too far behind numerically, and there's fundamentalist variants of that that have caused far more bloodshed and misery than Muslim fundamentalists, but that's not really part of the western narrative. And I don't see too much hostility to it in the mainstream media or British politics, beyond the rather nasty, divisive and simplistic Trot view that's currently penetrating its way into certain reaches of the Labour Party. I'm not entirely convinced by Quillam's motives, but don't know enough about them to say anything further. What I can say is that second point was ill-conceived, and much of Fatima Manji's grievances are entirely legitimate. But, then again, I think C4 News is as good a media outlet that there is over here, whereas my view of The Sun is somewhat different.

Christians are ahead of Muslims. There are 2.2 billion of them.

 

[Machiavelli]

Christians are ahead of Muslims. There are 2.2 billion of them.

Source? And is that Muslim figure correct (it's not the kind of thing I check regularly) too? If so, it indicates that those two religions cover over half the world's population.