Media Watch: Royal Mail Bans Religion

In a recent ‘exclusive’ The Sunday Express declared that Royal Mail had banned religion. According to David Paul:

Church leaders are furious with Royal Mail bosses who ditched Christian images on Christmas stamps in favour of children’s favourites Wallace and Gromit.

Firstly, it is self-evident that Royal Mail has neither the moral authority nor the power to ban religion. Secondly the only “church leader” the newspaper could cite was the Rev Hugh Hoskins, “team rector for St Mary’s Church in Upavon, Wiltshire” – a place which has a population of little over 1200. Royal Mail make it quite clear that it is their policy to alternate non-secular and secular themed stamps whilst it is interesting to note that a certain Rev Hugh Hoskins was responsible for a religious design in 2009.

Paul even has the audacity to state that an image of the Madonna and Child will still be on sale – hardly sounds like a ban, especially when Royal Mail declare that it’s sold “tens of millions” of the stamps.

The Express’ ability to transform the sale of millions of religious stamps into a ‘religious ban’ would be funny if it wasn’t so disturbing. At a time when public sector cuts and Royal Mail privatisation is high on the political agenda, this journalistic hyperbole is another example of sensationalist and reactionary commentary which acts to undermine the public sector. The implication that the new stamps represent “a cynical bid by Royal Mail bosses to boost profits” is fundamentally flawed as the vast majority of customers purchase stamps for their function and care little for design. A pleasant picture of Wallace and Gromit does not mean that people will suddenly ditch texting each other and start writing letters. Furthermore, Royal Mail needs to make profit in certain areas to subsidise loss-making services – such as community Post Offices.

The Express specialises in misleading headlines and overstating reactionary criticism, but it is their comment section which is truly alarming. Not only have we “surrendered our Christian Nation” but, according to johnstretch, the Royal Mail is “pandering to Muslim groups”. Misrepresenting facts to undermine the public sector is one thing, but cynically hijacking emotive issues like Christmas and religion acts to fuel religious hatred and foster support for fascism.

Media Watch: We’ll have a gay old time

According to Stonewall’s report No Going Back, “consensual acts between same-sex adults are criminalised in 80 member states of the United Nations”. Homosexuality results in the death penalty in six of these countries and, in many more, lesbian, gay and bisexual people face persecution, torture, rape and murder from ‘the mob’ or the government. It was refreshing, therefore, that the Supreme Court recently ruled that two gay men facing persecution in their home countries have the right to asylum in the UK.

This historic decision should have been heralded as a great act of compassion and solidarity, but instead it has been met with homophobic vitriol from the gutter press. The Express front page ran ““Now asylum if You’re Gay: they must be free to go to Kylie concerts and drink multi-coloured cocktails”. The Daily Mail warned that the judgement “could allow thousands of homosexuals to claim asylum in Britain”. And The Daily Star alleged that “opening the floodgates to gay asylum seekers is absolute madness”. Accusing all those who support offering asylum to persecuted homosexuals of being mentally ill demonstrates the ever balanced and informed approach of Fleet Street.

The Daily Star’s article might not explicitly say the decision is wrong, “but it’s not practical in the real world”. Is ‘real’ a byword for reactionary, bigoted or homophobic? The terminology employed – every illegal, outcasts, flood of numbers – serves to dehumanise homosexuals and asylum seekers whilst fortifying hatred and division. They argue that “every illegal” looking for a “cushy life in Britain” will try “claiming they’re gay to ensure they (can) stay”. I’d hardly describe British life as “cushy” when the mainstream media promote and reinforce prejudice against asylum seekers, immigrants and homosexuals. I’m just waiting for the headline: “Tired of persecution in your own country, why not come to Britain where it’s slightly less bad?”

But surely the political response has been more balanced and celebratory? Unfortunately not. Conservative MP Philip Davies said “It’s a dangerous game to play to go down this line because it’s quite feasible that this could offer an ideal line of defence for someone who wants to try to avoid being kicked out of the country, whether it is true or not that they are gay”. Again, no mention of helping those suffering discrimination or prejudice – but what else would you expect from someone who’s voted consistently against gay rights? Anyone would think the Conservatives weren’t interested in helping people outside of Britain. Or maybe they just don’t like gays.

My only point of agreement with The Daily Star is their assertion that “we cannot solve the world’s problems on our own”. Their response, however, is to pull up the drawbridge and splurge detestable dross into our atmosphere. The truth is we can’t solve the world’s problems on our own, but we do the world a disservice if we do nothing. We need to mobilise and applaud the decision of the Supreme Court and challenge homophobia and racism in all forms – be it overt in places like Iran, Uganda and Jamaica or covert in places like Fleet Street. We need to publicise and applaud the Supreme Court’s decision and put international pressure on other countries to do the same. Moreover, we need to put pressure on countries which decriminalise homosexuality and newspapers which peddle reactionary nonsense. But where do we begin? How about the online editor for The Daily Star for a start geoff.marsh@dailystar.co.uk

Media Watch: "One in 5 Britons will be ethnics"

The front page of today’s Daily Express warns that “One in 5 Britons will be ethnics” by the middle of the century. But the Cambridge dictionary defines ethnic as “a person belonging to an ethnic group”. So what does that make the rest of the population? Will they be some sort of highly-evolved superhuman hybrid that transcends all known ethnicity? Or are the Express just being racist? I think five out of five Britons know the answer...