Photos of bin Laden’s corpse: essential news reportage or too much information?

It is fair to say that for the past few days, the world has been gripped by the news of Osama bin Laden’s death. But amidst the elation, conspiracy theories have begun to surface questioning whether he has indeed been killed, or if this is an elaborate guise created by the American government to instil widespread confidence in its citizens and gain votes for the next election.

One simple solution has been offered to silence these questions, and that is to release the picture of America’s most wanted man in his final hours to the press. A hoax image has been circulating since the news broke on Sunday evening, but the White House is yet to make an official decision on the matter. This forces me to contemplate whether or not photographs of the deceased are essential to news journalism.

I remember being particularly struck by the images of Pope John Paul II lying in state that were emblazoned across every newspaper following his death in 2005. I was aware of all the facts regarding his death, but somehow seeing his corpse quite literally before me seemed unnecessary. There could be no reason to doubt that he had passed away, and to spread the images in such a manner was certainly not the honourable homage intended.

This is, of course, an entirely different situation to that of bin Laden’s demise, but the principles remain the same. Is there such a thing as too much information when it comes to modern journalism, or can it simply be passed off as covering all bases? Any sense of politesse is withering away in this no holds barred approach, and scarily, nothing is off limits.

It is certainly difficult to take a standpoint on an issue so shrouded in mystery, and in spite of my better judgement, I think that the general public should have access to the images. Ordinarily, I would say that this is a vile and entirely inhumane request, but the circumstances of this incident remain ever so slightly murky. His speedy religious burial is a million miles away from the crass “We got him!” after Saddam’s capture eight years ago.

Perhaps it is the rarity with which politicians fulfil their promises that has led to such suspicion regarding the veracity of this story. During his election campaign in 2008, Obama pledged to kill bin Laden. And he has. But it is a sorry state of affairs that we now distrust politicians so intensely that  further evidence is required to validate the information they have given us.

The concern remains that even if the White House did release these covert images, conspiracy theories would still arise. Over 40 years later and we still can’t decide if the first moon landing was in fact real, so what is to say that similar issues won’t crop up in this case?

This event also marks an interesting turn for Obama. Whilst no one can doubt his charisma, many had started to question his legitimacy as the ground breaking yes-man he appeared to be on the campaign trail. Can America really vote against the guy who killed bin Laden?

It is my personal opinion that no one’s death – in spite of their moral bankruptcy – should be a cause for celebration, but the scenes of elation after the news broke at Ground Zero showed worryingly little awareness of future terrorism prospects for the West. I’m not even sure I could bear to look at the photos if they were released, but perhaps we should have the option.The old saying ‘curiosity killed the cat’ may be ringing in my ears, but in this climate of explicit news coverage, that dead feline will be on every front page by tomorrow morning.

The House of Commons is anything but calm, dear

Michael Winner has done a lot of things in his time, but causing a ‘sexist’ slur in the Commons is certainly a new one. His enduring catchphrase “Calm down, dear” was used by the Prime Minister yesterday to quell peals of protestation from Angela Eagle: Labour MP, woman and lesbian. I wonder which one Cameron finds most offensive.

Unsurprisingly, the debacle has inspired a wealth of angry feminist comments lamenting the supposedly backward and sexist state of our government. What seems to be the most embarrassing part of this situation is not this alleged misogyny, but rather Cameron’s apparent desperation to seem amusing and witty to his peers. There is a time and a place for making jokes at the expense of others, but Prime Minister’s Questions is probably neither.

I do not deny that the comment was inappropriate and patronising to say the least, but to label it sexist seems to be distorting it hugely. Cameron most likely made the remark to seem like an approachable man of the people, the thing he is most maligned for being the antithesis of. I am almost certain that more people in this country could disdainfully list where he has been educated rather than any of his actual policies.

Our government certainly need mass appeal, but the pressure they are under to perform like media monkeys is slowly getting out of control. We should elect people to run this country because we think they can do a good job of it, and not because they appear to be particularly entertaining on an episode of Loose Women. If anything, Clegg’s competence during the Prime Ministerial Debates last year and subsequent crumbling of all his promises serve to show that what we see on screen does not necessarily correlate to one’s ability to be a successful politician.

Something particularly perturbing in the reportage of this incident was one commentator’s jibe that Cameron’s former Bullingdon Club membership was to blame for his condescension towards women. Renowned for over 200 years of raucous debauchery, it is probably true that in their hey-day, the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson and George Osborne got up to more than their fair share of no good. What is unfair to assume, however, is that just because they were affiliated with the elite institution during their time as students, they are automatically guilty of sexism. When Cameron described his favourite joke as “Nick Clegg” before the forming of the coalition, no one accused him of degrading men as a sex, and the same should be true in this case. Innocuous comments made against individuals should not be interpreted as an attitude towards an entire group.

Britain also seems to have a never-ending sour taste in its mouth regarding politicians’ behaviour: whether it’s claiming Kit-Kats on expenses or refusing to reveal their favourite biscuit, they can do no right in the eyes of the public. Whilst MPs do need to be kept in check, many other European countries are a lot worse off with their leaders than we are here. With Sarkozy calling rioting immigrants in France ‘scum’  and Berlusconi sleeping with half the population of Italy, I’d say we’re getting off pretty lightly.

I am certainly pro-female rights, but what I cannot understand is women making themselves the victims in situations where this is simply not the case. A misjudged quip said in the heat of the moment doesn’t seem to call for the chargrilling of brassieres just yet. We all try to be funny now and then, and it seems as though, not for the first time, the Prime Minister’s timing was just a little off.

Homophobia in 2011: Where are we now?

Around a year ago, I had two separate conversations with male friends who told me that they believed homophobia in Britain to be a more pressing issue than that of sexism. Whilst I’m sure many would agree with them, I did not. I put their opinions down to their gender, and supported the pro-female cause.

At no point did I deny that homophobia was still a huge issue in this country, but my thoughts were based on statistics. According to a survey completed in the latter half of 2010, only one per cent of the British population are homosexual (and not the widely reported one in ten), whereas there is an even split between men and women. This made me question whether something that affects such a small minority could really be as damaging as that which applies to one in two of us.

What I did not consider at the time, however, was that everyday instances of homophobia are still trickling into our news stream with alarming regularity. On Thursday, it was reported that two men were asked to leave a London pub after other customers complained of their intimacy. This sparked a fair degree of outrage amongst the LGBT community, and last night, 700 protestors gathered on the pub’s steps to stage a ‘kiss in’: a defiant, two fingered response to this prejudice.

Unfortunately, this is not the first high profile incident of this nature to occur in recent months. A gay couple hit the headlines in January after suing a B&B who turned them away as a result of their sexual orientation. Both of these stories raise interesting questions about the inequalities that still exist in what most of us perceive to be a fairly liberal country.

Perhaps this is somewhat presumptuous, but I do have certain expectations of London, as a city, to be progressive and forward thinking. It then pains me to accept that a place so wonderfully diverse and culturally rich can be guilty of such bigotry in the 21^st century. I do believe that the people here are accepting, for the most part, but it is worrying that such dated attitudes are still so prevalent in today’s society.

Questions have been raised over whether it was the acts themselves, or the people committing them, that led to such action in both cases. Personally, I am not a huge advocate of overt public displays of affection, but I do not see the issue with people sharing a kiss if they so wish – whatever their gender.

As I sat on the Tube the other day, primly reading my novel, I was incessantly elbowed by the movements of a heterosexual couple enjoying themselves a little too graphically on the seat next to me. She was on his lap. The train was in the hectic throes of rush hour, and in spite of the vast population of the carriage, no one commented that they should stop: lest that they should disembark entirely.

Whilst I’m sure that there are numerous examples of homosexual couples being intimate, or even just being, without chastisement, it seems as though they are targeted more than their heterosexual peers. Returning to my initial comment at the start of this entry, I do not necessarily believe that homophobia is a more detrimental issue than sexism, but the way in which it manifests itself is, to a large degree, quite shocking. There is no doubting that Britain has come a long way with regard to both issues, but if these recent stories are anything to go by, it still has a long way to go.

To burqa or not to burqa? That is the question…

Even before I put pen to paper on this article – or rather finger to keyboard – I am approaching this subject with an overwhelming sense of trepidation. The fiery debate over the burqa has once again been reignited with the news that from today, any woman in France seen wearing either a burqa or a niqab will be fined €150 or be told to undertake lessons in French citizenship. This has sparked an outpouring of criticism for the country’s apparent lack of understanding towards religious minorities, and is being seen as an attempt to silence faith altogether.

Whilst on the surface I agree that this seems like an incredibly oppressive and intolerant thing to do, I cannot say that I am in the least bit surprised. The simmering racial tensions in France between the government and the high influx of Muslim immigrants have reached boiling point on several occasions over the last decade, with feelings of discontent amongst the latter failing to be resolved. This latest state action – the first of its kind in Europe – will certainly do little to pacify this malaise.

What is imperative to note, however, is that France is a proponent of laicité – the complete separation of the Church and state – and an entirely secular country. Religion is not taught in schools, and only discreet religious symbols may be worn there or in state-run work environments. Citizens are free to practice their faith, provided that it does not interfere with their work functions. Today’s decision has once again stirred up debate over whether we genuinely have the freedom to express ourselves as we wish, or whether we must obey the laws decreed by the country in which we live.

If this ban were to be imposed in England (as Jack Straw tried, and failed, to do five years ago), it would be simply unacceptable and an infringement of the open attitude towards religion that this country takes. In France, however, where secularity is widespread and encouraged, it is understandable. From the beginning of the last century, the country’s constitution has clearly stated that the state does not recognise any particular religion, and thus inhabitants must act accordingly. To those that argue that France is showing a disregard for its ethnic minorities, then, a contentious argument arises. It may seem somewhat backward given the (generally) liberal ethos of the Western world, but the country has made no secret of its desire to dissolve religion in the public eye to the greatest extent possible, and this latest move has been a long time coming.

Where grey area emerges is over why certain women feel the need to wear more prominent coverings, and others do not. Some Muslim women have been vocal in their support for the government in banning these symbols, viewing them as a tool of subjugation to men and segregation from society as a whole. Only 2000 of the five million Muslims in France choose to wear full body coverings, but even though this is a minority, to not allow them to express their religion as they wish surely fails to acknowledge their human rights.

We touched upon multiculturalism in a recent Philosophy lecture, and as I remarked then, to remove the outward signs of a person’s faith is to effectively publicly eradicate thousands of years of religious history. For those that devote their lives to what they believe in, a part time arrangement whereby they can wear what they like in the privacy of their own home and yet cannot do so in public simply will not do. As I have explained, I do understand France’s reasoning behind the ban, and their belief that the burqa and niqab can be intimidating to those around them. Ultimately, however, if vicious religious sects in America are allowed to picket the funerals of war heroes and spout vile abuse because the First Amendment says they can, then why people are unable to peacefully observe their faith in the way they choose seems both hypocritical and highly damaging to the very notion of freedom of self-expression.