‘All Journalists Need To Be Sensitive To the Feelings Of All Religious Communities’

at

540bbfba1f8f9.imageColum Kenny

Further to the Charlie Hebdo shootings.

Colum Kenny, a professor in the Communications Department of Dublin City University and a member of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, spoke with Richard Crowley during RTÉ’s News At One.

Mr Kenny is also a former barrister and discussed what should be deemed unpublishable.

Richard Crowley: “Legally, what could be published?”

Colum Kenny: “Well, what you can publish is limited in the law under the provision of the Defamation Act 2009, that refers to blasphemy and you can be prosecuted for publishing or uttering a matter that’s grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters that are held sacred by any religion. Now it does have to cause outrage among a substantial number of the followers of that religion and you have to show that it was intended to cause outrage but a person can be prosecuted for publishing something that does cause outrage among a substantial number of believers. You would, as a media organisation, you are allowed to argue that there’s genuine literary or artistic or political or scientific or academic value in the matter to which the charge relates and it would be up to the circuit court to decide whether or not they accepted your argument. ”

Crowley: “But as I understand it, any visual depiction of the prophet Muhammad is offensive to some Muslims. You don’t have to ridicule, you don’t have to present him in a derogatory sense, you simply have to produce a visual depiction and that would be offensive. Now, to the rest of us, that seems ludicrous.”

Kenny: “Well, I’m not sure it’s ludicrous. The certain religious depictions, in a number of world traditions, and even in early Christianity and Buddhism were regarded as inappropriate, so many believers thought you shouldn’t attempt to represent the sacred so it’s a cultural thing that changes with time. But certainly it’s true that in Islam today there are people who find any depiction of the prophet Muhammad offensive and I think we need to be sensitive to that as journalists and as news media organisations. It doesn’t mean we don’t do it, if it’s appropriate in certain circumstances but if it’s going to cause outrage among a substantial number of Muslims then we need to think twice before we do it.”

Crowley: “I suppose the question, Colum, becomes what is a substantial section of the population? The majority might say this is about a minority of the minority and we cannot be driven by that, if we want to protect freedom of speech and our own values.”

Kenny: “Well, we certainly can’t be driven by attacks, by physical attacks, outrages like that in Paris yesterday, which was entirely unacceptable and I think anyone who talks about this issue, should make clear their own position on that, whether they’re a Muslim or otherwise, they need to make it very clear that this is entirely unacceptable, no matter what the provocation, you don’t respond like this but the question of whether or not a substantial number of people find it offensive would be one, actually, that the circuit court judge would have to address, if there was a prosecution. They’d simply look at the evidence, they might well hear evidence from people like your previous speaker [Dr Ali Selim], one of the leaders of the Islamic community in Ireland, and that well might satisfy the court, that ‘yes’ a substantial number of Muslims find any depiction offensive. If they decided that, they’d have to go on to look at whether or not the publication intended to outrage those people and finally, they would have to look at whether or not there was any literary merit, or artistic or political merit in the publication. So you could have a situation where a magazine, such as Phoenix, for example, publishes something and was prosecuted but it could argue that this was some kind of a political statement or that it had literary merit and perhaps, at the end of the day, they’d get off for that reason. But I mean even if it got off, even if we leave aside the question of criminal prosecution, there is a requirement I think on all journalists to be sensitive to the feelings of all religious communities but that certainly doesn’t justify what happened in Paris yesterday.”

Listen back here

Sponsored Link

Related posts:

Well, That’s A Relief The Politics Of Human Interest Racism On Radio ‘Who Is Calling The Shots At The BAI?’

124 thoughts on “‘All Journalists Need To Be Sensitive To the Feelings Of All Religious Communities’”

      1. Royal M

        Going out of your way to offend a large group of people is a d***ish thing to do, however there are a number of people who thought Salman Rushdie was a d*** who deserved to die for writing a novel (this fatwa extended to translators too).

    3. Gerrry

      The only speech that needs protecting is provocative / offensive speech, nobody tries to censor boring innocuous speech or publications. If that means siding with the phalloi then put me firmly on that side of the fence.

  3. Frilly Keane

    Any chance the Religious Communities would be sensitive to my feelings

    Or welfare and wellbeing for that matter

    Right that’s it now. Deffo shutting my trap now.

  4. James

    Funny thing is that we’re talking about someone being offended not becuase he’s being attacked , but because something one believes in is being treated in different manner than one would like.

    It’s like if I got offended and demanded article to be removed, because someone said blue scarf’s are out of fashion, and my imaginary friend happen to wear one…

  5. Bluebeard

    Its very simple. Don’t wave a salmon in front of a deranged grizzly. And enough of the faux “solidarity with our colleagues” from journalists rubbish as well please. Je sui scarlett for ye.

  8. Someone

    Are we going to have a referendum on that stupid fupping blasphemy law?

    Or was that constitutional convention thing just a load of hot air from Kenny (Enda, that it)?

  9. PhilJo

    Given the BAI’s deference to the religious his views are expectable, disappointing, foolish, lacking in long term perspective but expectable.

      1. Don Pidgeoni

        We don’t often agree but I find it startling how people don’t get that being sensitive is not the same as the downfall of Western civilisation. That belfie stick clearly shows that has already happened

      2. rotide

        This could be a new dawn for us Don. We could walk into a liberal tolerant sunset together!

        But yeah, I couldn’t agree more. This guy isn’t saying we can’t do things that might offend religious people, just that people take a moment to consider how much offence it will cause and how neccesary that offence is.

  11. Drogg

    F**k this guy and F**k the BAI say want you want about any religion. If you cannot scrutinise these people then they run all over our freedoms like what happened in the past in this country. Why does an organisation like the BAI have so many f**king holy Joe’s on their board?

    1. Jack Ascinine

      Allah Akbar to that. This guy is a spineless turd. Any journalist worth their merit as a journalist, has no fear of insulting a person or group. That’s what most of them who accomplish anything set out to do.

      1. Paolo

        “Any journalist worth their merit as a journalist, has no fear of insulting a person or group if there is a purpose to it other than to insult”

        FIFY

    2. rotide

      Grow up Drogg.

      We live in a civilized society and we don’t allow people to shoot cartoonists with AK 47. Likewise, we shouldn’t rubbish people’s beliefs at every available oppurtunity because we don’t like the sound of them.

      1. Drogg

        But I don’t believe in anything and am constantly offended by people’s beliefs so does that mean I can be offended by all religion making them all blasphemers to my beliefs of non-belief.

    3. Jess

      Absolutely nowhere did he say you cant do that. In fact he says ” It doesn’t mean we don’t do it, if it’s appropriate in certain circumstances ”

      I mean its even in bold. He just says you need to be mindful or needlessly causing offence to huge numbers of people.

      1. Drogg

        But that’s what satire does, it causes offence by pointing out the fallacies in the mainstream.

        2. Jess

          It certainly does. As i said, he nowhere says you shouldn’t do it, just that you need to be aware of sensitivities. Which of course you should be, otherwise your satire is meaningless

          1. JimmytheHead

            Another mainstream media pony sitting on the fence, they want to be part of this but too afraid to post an honest opinion.

            IMO mocking a fictional character should be balanced with a fictional punishment.

            Oops, i meant “religious”

          2. Jess

            I couldn’t agree more. This guy isn’t talking about the right or wrongs of the blasphemy law but rather what can be published legally.

            His ethical consideration is just that you should be mindful of needless offence.

            Satire is not the same as insulting. You need to be mindful of offence in order to tell the difference. For example, me calling the pope a tosser is not satire, its just an insult. Me drawing a picture of the pope with a big cheesy grin while sweeping homophobic statements he made prior to his pontificate under a carpet is satire. Not good satire, but satire.

      2. rotide

        I think you need to brush up on your definition of satire.

        While it might aim to ridicule it’s subject. Offence is not guarenteed nor the aim.

        1. Drogg

          I was not defining satire I was stating that satire offends by pointing out the fallacies in the mainstream.

        1. andyourpointiswhatexactly

          Ben Linus is in Person of Interest now, together with a bird who used to be in Angel. I have watched faaaaaaaaaaar too much tv over the years.

          2. Drogg

            Saint Locke has a new show in the states called Gang Related which i really enjoyed worth checking to to praise the word of Locke.

          3. sickofallthisbs

            I heard the last episode of Person of Interest will reveal that Ben Linus’s character built the machine for a seedy purpose and has been watching women going to the toilet for 12 years and is prosecuted as a result.

          7. andyourpointiswhatexactly

            That would be a fitting end to the show.
            I enjoy the cartoon-like uber violence. It’s unexpected from a holy Joe like Jim Caviezel.

          8. rotide

            This is of course JimmytheHead, previous caped crusader coming down on all aspects of crime that our garda didnt want to deal with….

            Having the absolute craic stealing TV shows off the internet.

  15. Der

    I’m offended by the catholic bishops intruding on my relationship, with my partner and the state. Campaigning that I should have fewer rights. But I respect their right to do so.

  17. jungleman

    I wouldn’t focus so much on our blasphemy law as our Constitution. Surely it is right that the freedom of expression would be limited on the basis of the overriding considerations of public order and the common good in the case of depictions of Mohammed. The Irish courts and the European Court of Human Rights have upheld this principle (Murphy v IRTC) with regard to restrictions on religious advertisements.

    There is no doubt those at Charlie Hebdo were very brave. But, in my opinion, this may not have happened if French lawmakers took a more strict stance on the publication of the illustrations of Mohammed, in the interests of public order.

    2. Odis

      So you’re all for going down the road of censorship? I wonder what intellectual objections anyone might have to that?

      1. jungleman

        I’m not advocating censorship. I’m advocating the rights set out in the Constitution. No right is absolute and some rights take priority over other rights. For example, public order is considered by the courts to take priority over the right to free speech. In case you are about to argue that I am blindly supporting our Constitution, I am not. There are provisions which I would disagree with, such as the failure to provide for abortion in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities. However, the limitation of the freedom of expression subject to the common good is a no-brainer in my opinion.

        1. Tom

          So if a group creates enough disruption, violence, or murder to be a danger to the ‘common good’, based on their dislike of something, or their beliefs being offended, they should be able to stop the publication of the thing they don’t like?

          1. jungleman

            No they shouldn’t be able to do so. But unfortunately in the real world, the law must take into account such threats to public order. Maybe one day the world will be a bit more enlightened and there won’t be such irrational objections to a few harmless cartoons. But that is clearly not the case today.

    1. realPolithicks

      The fact that this guy is a member of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, should scare the living daylights out of anyone who believes in free speech.

      1. Jess

        Whats he saying thats against free speech? He’s just saying you need to be mindful, he’s not saying it needs to be curtailed, its not an unreasonable thing to say.

        2. Odis

          Here’s a “cut out and keep” comment for you Jess.
          Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to offend people

          2. JimmytheHead

            But it does!! freedom of speech by definition means you are free to speak, regardless of what you are saying. This is why bigots still make it into mainstream media

          4. realPolithicks

            That’s exactly the point, who gets to decide what’s offensive? What is offensive to one person is not necessarily offensive to someone else. If you go down that road then you won’t be able to say anything for fear of offending someone.

          5. Jess

            He isn’t getting to decide, or saying he does. He’s saying that if you know many people will definitely get offended, just think twice about it. Nobody is saying you cant go ahead and say it. You’re reading too much into what this man has said

          6. jungleman

            I would say that freedom of speech does indeed include the right to offend. The reason that offending religions is a special case is because this is recognised in our Constitution. As I said below, it is really public order that should dictate when freedom of speech should be curtailed, rather than religion, with the exception of cases of defamation.

        3. JimmytheHead

          “if it’s going to cause outrage among a substantial number of Muslims then we need to think twice before we do it”

          To me, this is a cowards way of saying they had it coming.

          1. Jess

            Ah come on now thats a hell of a leap. You don’t dont seriously think hes saying the victims had it coming do you?

          3. rotide

            That is an enormous leap and a wrong one.

            That’s why he is a professor in a university and you talk about tv shows on comments sections of a website.

          4. Jess

            Jimmy, your just wrong. He quite clearly says

            ‘no matter what the provocation, you don’t respond like this’

          5. JimmytheHead

            You know both of us personally do you? Any other vague speculative tips to help with my career? Maybe I should start going to mass and apply for positions in the BAI

  19. Panty Christ

    What about all those of memes of Jesus giving the thumbs up and “what would Jesus do” t-shirts?
    Yabba dabba akbar!

      1. Don Pidgeoni

        Ha! And there was a time that that would have got you in serious trouble as well. Though not sure they would have understood the ffts

  20. chris

    it seems utterly bizarre that someone is having a serious conversation about the dos and donts of a real life blasphemy law in 2015.

  23. everybody

    Why must the left always twist ever incident perpetrated by Muslims into an indictment of Christianity?

    It is possible to criticize Muslim actions without indicting the whole religion. It’s also perfectly reasonable to criticize Islam or Muslims without a mandatory slapping of Christianity.

    The left will criticize white Christians all day long and lump them all together, but god forbid you guys ever criticize Muslims or the ugly parts of Islam.

      2. Odis

        @ Jess
        Left? Right? Yesterday someone said Broadsheet commenters “have moved to the Right”

        There seems to be some confusion on this board about traditional politics and left wing and right wing views and definitions.
        As I understand it the new definition of Left and Right politics on Broadsheet put (very simplistically)
        Left – likes muslims and is “politically correct”.
        Right – dislikes muslims and is “politically incorrect” (A right winger might also be a christian).

        I hope this helps

    2. Don Pidgeoni

      “It is possible to criticize Muslim actions without indicting the whole religion”

      Given the number of incidents in France overnight, people clearly still have a lot of trouble with this because of stupid media stories about how evil all the evil Moslems are, just going around being evil

  24. Dubloony

    And just how sensitive should religious be to other people? Gay people are referred to as “intrinsically disordered” women referred to as well, too many insults to list, with relative piousness indicated by pieces of cloth placed on heads or not, I could go on.

    There was a story last week about a comedy being written about the famine. There was a collective sharp intake of breadth at the thought of it. Should the program be made, no doubt there will be much taking to social media in disapproval. but I don’t think anyone ig going to be shot over it.

    Don’t be a d**k, but if you are, I don’t have to listen to you, tune in or I can insult you right back. But I’m not going to shoot you in a well planned military operation.

  25. Diddley Aye

    There may be a middle ground here. The Internet has let the genie out of the bottle with regards to freedom of expression, inforfmation wants to be free and all that jazz, so maybe every government will just have to accept true freedom of speech on the web. When it comes to printed and broadcast media however, things are different. Maybe, just maybe, it shouldnt be taken for granted that hurtful and provocative material should be allowed unfettered release, and that may include the type of stuff that Charlie Hedbro specialized in. Not because its wrong in itself, but in the interest of social harmony.

  26. Nice Anne (Dammit)

    http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/04/bill-hicks-on-freedom-of-speech.html

    I leave this here as an example of a measured response to someone disagreeing with what your said while respecting your right to say it…..

    I particularly liked this section:

    You say you found my material ‘offensive’ and ‘blasphemous’. I find it interesting that you feel your beliefs are denigrated or threatened when I’d be willing to bet you’ve never received a single letter complaining about your beliefs, or asking why they are allowed to be. (If you have received such a letter, it definitely did not come from me.) Furthermore, I imagine a quick perusal of an average week of television programming would reveal many more shows of a religious nature, than one of my shows — which are called ‘specials’ by virtue of the fact that they are very rarely on.

    1. realPolithicks

      Thanks for posting this Nice Anne, I particularly like his description of free speech:
      ” ‘Freedom of speech’ means you support the right of people to say exactly those ideas which you do not agree with. ”
      That’s really the essence of it, no matter how objectionable you find the material you support the right to produce it.

      1. sickofallthisbs

        That is not his argument and you are twisting his words. Freedom of speech refers to the right to a difference of opinion not the right to express ideas that are racially, sexually or religiously offensive. At the end of the letter he retracts a joke because it is offensive to prove his point. I support the right of people to express a different faith, sexuality or politics to me and to be part of a different culture. Nobody, however, has the right to denigrate another under the terms of free speech.

        Furthermore if you look at what follows the line you quote: ”Freedom of speech’ means you support the right of people to say exactly those ideas which you do not agree with’, I think it is applicable to all BS commentators who denigrate people who believe in a God or identify themselves as part of a religious faith: “(Otherwise, you don’t believe in ‘freedom of speech’, but rather only those ideas which you believe to be acceptably stated.)” So while people on this website hypocritically harp on about the martyrdom of these French journalists and call it an attack on free speech they should take a look a little closer to home and see do they respect the ideas of others or instead worship their own ideas which they ‘believe to be acceptably stated’.

        1. dan

          Freedom of speech generally is considered the legal freedom to express racist, sexist, etc. ideas in my experience. It’s freedom to express any idea, but it doesn’t imply anyone should even care, let alone respect your idea.
          Also I don’t think Hicks retracts the joke at all, he just points out that it is a joke.

  27. guy bague

    Kenny is correct. Look at the whinging by the same-sex jihadists over a cake in Northern Ireland. Woukd they rush to defend a cartoon satirising Panti Piss cooking Flamer-grilled burghers in Donegal? NAH.

  29. Formerly known as @ireland.com

    “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.”

Comments are closed.

Broadsheet.ie