The Leveson Report

Here is Lord Leveson's speech outlining the findings of his controversial Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. The speech was delivered on Thursday 29 November

If you wish to view the report in full (over 2,000 pages!), click here for Volume 1, here for Volume 2, here for Volume 3 and here for Volume 4.

It's likely that many won't have the time to read all 2,000 pages of the four volumes, so a handy executive summary was printed (click here) and makes for very interesting reading.

This has been an examination of British media ethics and has raised many difficult questions: Where next for the press? Are Leveson's suggestions an attack on free speech? Is regulation needed?


For more information on and reaction to the Leveson Report, RS Matters recommends:
BBC iPlayer for Question Time (featuring ex-NOTW reporter Neil Wallis and phone-hacking victim Charlotte Church) and Have I Got News For You
4OD for Hugh Grant: Taking on the Tabloids

Follow RS Matters on Twitter at @RSMatters

Today's the Day.... #Leveson

"The press provides an essential check on all aspects of public life. That is why any failure within the media affects all of us. At the heart of this Inquiry, therefore, may be one simple question: who guards the guardians?" (Lord Leveson, 14 Nov 2011)

Today is the day Lord Justice Brian Leveson releases his findings (nearly 2,000 pages worth!) about the Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Press. The Inquiry began in November 2011 following the revelations of extensive phone-hacking and journalism malpractice and ended in June this year.

At 1.30pm, the report will be made public, and will be followed by a debate in Parliament. It is believed that the Coalition is divided in their response to the findings of the Inquiry, with Cameron and Clegg apparently issuing different statements in the Commons today. Over the last few days, politicians and journalists on all sides of the political spectrum have publicly voiced their opinions, fears, thoughts about what the outcomes of Leveson's report might be. The Spectator newspaper has declared that they will not adhere to any state press regulatory system. What will the reaction of British media organisations and journalists come this evening?

Follow RS Matters on Twitter (@RSMatters) for all the latest news during the day about Lord Leveson's findings.

Background Reading: The Leveson Inquiry

The Leveson Inquiry has today heard its last submissions of evidence. Lord Leveson and his team will now consider all the evidence and reach their conclusions by the end of the year, whatever they may be. Over 450 witnesses have appeared before the Inquiry, which has examined the ethics and methods of the press, the relationships between news proprietors and politicians, the press and the public. The story has dominated the headlines for the last eight months, questioning chiefs of the Metropolitan police, the heads of News International and other media outlets as well as government ministers and even the PM himself.

To help you understand some of the background to the Inquiry and the practices of the media over the last twenty years, here is a list of titles we think provide excellent material for matters of media ethics and questions about freedom of speech.

In You Can’t Read This Book, the Observer columnist Nick Cohen examines the prevalence of censorship in the media, which is at odds with our perceptions that we live in an age of unrivalled freedom. The Salman Rushdie affair, for example, has made publishers reluctant to release material that might be seen as inflammatory, whilst the strict libel laws and expensive injunctions in England are preventing important stories from being reported.

Nick Davies’ Flat Earth News, which formed part of his testimony to the Leveson Inquiry, is a critique of the commercialism of news, turning journalism into what he calls ‘Churnalism’. This includes an overreliance on the news agencies like Reuters and AP, as well as the influx of PR into articles, all of which lead to a dangerous amount of misinformation in the global news media. His examinations into the development of the ‘Millennium Bug’ fear and the reporting on heroin and the ‘War on Drugs’ are both worth reading.

  

Media Lens is an excellent website which analyses media output and was established by David Cromwell and David Edwards. It aims to highlight examples of omission or bias by members of the British media. Media Lens provides a weekly e-mail Media Alert which alerts readers to examples of media bias or poor reporting in the headlines the previous week.

Tom Watson MP and Martin Hickman wrote Dial M for Murdoch in the aftermath of the hacking scandal and during the Leveson Inquiry testimony. Watson MP was one of the figureheads of the campaign to learn more about the true extent of phone-hacking and was the politician who compared News International to a ‘mafia’ organisation. The book has only recently been released and is probably the most up-to-date account of News International and phone-hacking. Watch Watson in action questioning James Murdoch at a Commons Select Committee:

These books and blogs tend to dwell on the negative aspects of the global media, but this is not true of all media. There are excellent journalists out there, and some of their accounts make for interesting reading. Andrew Marr’s My Trade provides an informative account of the history of British journalism. Jon Snow’s Shooting History or Robert Fisk’s The Great War of Civilisation are both excellent accounts, as is John Pilger’s Investigative Journalism and its Triumphs.

If you wish to read the transcripts from the hearings of the Leveson Inquiry, they are all available on the Inquiry’s website here.

A Guide to the Gay Marriage Debate

Article written by Tom Nash

So what’s the fuss all about?

Currently in the UK, same-sex couples who wish to get married cannot do so legally. There have been increasing efforts by LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual) campaigners to legalise same-sex marriage, and petition the government to change the law. In Scotland the debate has been going on for some time, whilst in the rest of the UK it’s still in its infancy.

Can’t homosexual couples already get married?

No, if you are a gay couple you are allowed to enter into a civil partnership. Those who are in a civil partnership have the same rights as a married, heterosexual couple (such as inheritance rules, tax laws and residence to foreign citizens). However, they are not ‘married’.

So why bother campaigning if you already have the same rights as a married couple? What’s the point?

The point is that if you are a religious couple that believe in God and want to get married in a church, you are unable to do so. Churches are currently not allowed to hold marriage ceremonies if they wish to. Therefore if you want to get married, you are discriminated against because of your sexuality.

But what’s the definition of marriage?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines marriage as, “The formal union between a man and a woman, typically as recognised by law, by which they become husband and wife”. The Bible also states this. In addition, it emphasises that marriage is a pathway to having children and raising a family in God’s name.

So by that definition, two men or two women can’t get married? They would also be unable to naturally have a child, unlike a heterosexual couple?

Yes, but many campaigners argue that the definition given by the Bible is not appropriate in today’s society. Many gay couples can already adopt and raise a ‘family’, if not in a traditional sense. We live in an era that supports homosexuality and encourages inclusivity, and it seems wrong that we are still using an old definition. An alternative, more encompassing definition would be to say that marriage is a union of two people who love each other and wish to spend the rest of their lives supporting each other. This definition would therefore allow gay couples to be married.

Surely you cannot be a Christian if you ignore what the Bible says though?

This is a tough one for Christians, and indeed for every religion. Yet most Christians ignore sections in the Bible that do not seem plausible or relevant. Very few Christians, for example, believe that the earth really was created in seven days by God.  Christian supporters also argue that the main message of Jesus and Christianity itself is one of love and forgiveness. They reason that same-sex marriage is something God would approve of. However, many would argue that there is a line to be drawn. Should Christians not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, because the Bible is an unreliable source? This is why some Christians oppose same-sex marriage, because they believe it strays too far from the Bible’s teachings. But it is a debate still being held to this day.

So if same-sex marriage is legalised, will all churches be forced to comply to the law?

Not at all.  The Scottish and the UK government, as well as campaigning groups, have made it clear that only those religious bodies that wished to introduce the ceremonies would have them. Any church that has a religious objection will not be forced to hold same-sex marriages. However, there is concern amongst some religious figures that both governments will not keep their word.

What’s the view of the Church of England, the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church?

All oppose gay marriage. Both the Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland have been clear in their disapproval for some time, whilst the Church of England has only recently ruled against supporting the movement. However, there are some in all churches who oppose these views and argue for a change in the law.

So who does support same-sex marriage?

Various groups and people. Church and faith groups include The Humanist Society of Scotland, The Scottish Unitarian Association and the Jewish Gay and Lesbian Group. Celebrities and politicians include Stephen Fry, Daniel Radcliffe, and most recently (and controversially for some Americans), Barack Obama.

What about political parties?

In Scotland all major parties (SNP, Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems) have pledged their commitment to same-sex marriage.  The SNP’s position is somewhat complex however, as they are funded and supported by many Catholics and out-spoken critics of the proposals.  In the Westminster government, both Labour and the Lib Dems support the proposals. David Cameron proclaimed his support for the movement in 2011, and many influential Tories such as Theresa May have joined him. However, other major figures like Philip Hammond have openly disagreed, and Tory backbenchers are generally unhappy with the idea.

What’s going to happen next?

It’s hard to predict! Polls in Scotland and the UK seem to show that the majority of people agree that it should be legalised. In Scotland the consultation period has ended, so it is now up to the government to announce what will happen. A decision was supposed to have been announced several days ago, but instead the government pushed back the decision until later in the month, leading many to fear that it may be some time before anything happens. The consultation period has also ended in the UK, but it may take some time before any action is taken.

About Tom Nash: I am a 2nd Year History student at the University of Edinburgh. I am also an elected member of Edinburgh University Students' Association (EUSA), and have campaigned for same-sex marriage in the past. Follow me on Twitter: @TomCNash

The Call to Prayer

I am a Manchester United fan, yet have long held a soft spot for Bolton Wanderers. This is partly because we share a name, but it is mainly down to the fact that I once went to the Reebok Stadium to watch them play against Sunderland back in 2002 in an FA Cup game. Their attitude and style of play was and has continued to have been positive. This season has been tough for them, but on Saturday it got tougher when midfielder Fabrice Muamba collapsed during the Trotters’ FA Cup Quarter Final fixture against Tottenham Hotspur. The game stopped, the doctors and paramedic staff rushed out onto the pitch, knowing something was not right. Referee Howard Webb rightly abandoned the fixture, and an anxious wait for the players, the Bolton fans and the football community began.

It was soon revealed that Muamba has suffered a cardiac arrest. On Sunday afternoon, tributes to Muamba included a round of applause at the Man Utd-Wolves Premier League game. At the Chelsea-Leicester FA Cup fixture, Gary Cahill, formerly of Bolton Wanderers, scored for the Blues and unveiled a message on his T-shirt, ‘Pray 4 Muamba’. On Monday, The Sun ran the headlines ‘God is in Control’ and ‘Pray for Muamba’. The Daily Telegraph sports section was fronted by a picture of Gary Cahill’s dedication to Muamba complete with articles celebrating his professionalism and playing ability as well as praising the efforts of the paramedics. The paper also published numerous messages from Twitter and interviews - Jack Wilshere: ‘Everyone keep praying!’; Wayne Rooney: ‘praying for him and his family’; Justin Hoyte: ‘Please keep fmuamba in ur prayers’; Stuart Holden: ‘Praying for you Fab’; Jermaine Defoe: ‘Pray for Fab. God willing he will pull through’; Andrea Pirlo: Muamba is ‘our colleague, we pray he gets well soon’; and, Emmanuel Adebayor: ‘we are all praying for him and hope for a speedy recovery’ (all comments were printed in the Daily Telegraph).

The common theme of these tweets, comments and press reports were the words ‘pray’ and ‘praying’. Tottenham defender Kyle Walker tweeted: ‘Doesn’t matter who you support [or] if you aren’t a football fan. Doesn’t matter if you aren’t religious. Pray for Fabrice Muamba’. A dedicated professional, Muamba has a bright future and will hopefully be able to return to first class action. The collapse must have been shocking to witness, and it brought back painful memories of players Marc-Vivien Foé and Antonio Puerta who had died after heart attacks on the pitch. The call to prayer is interesting, and is understandable – ‘prayer’ as a concept has taken on an everyday meaning – some might pray that they will do well in exams or that their football team will win the title, yet do so without having religious belief. In these contexts, ‘to pray’ becomes a stronger way of saying ‘to hope/to will/to want/to wish’. There will obviously be many who will pray for Muamba’s successful recovery who do so with belief in the divine, yet when newspapers such as The Sun and The Daily Telegraph place so much focus on prayer, it would seem that they were appealing to an audience beyond those with faith.

The BBC’s Home Editor Mark Easton published an interesting article (Prayers for Muamba) on Monday, highlighting various studies and surveys undertaken by the likes of Sir Francis Galton and the BBC on the effectiveness of prayer.  Such studies are contentious, and it is unclear how or if one could quantify the effects of prayer if someone has been healed or if a prayer appears to have been answered. Is it divine intercession, good medicine or strong willpower? Maybe it is a combination of the three? Galton’s 1872 study was influenced by his thought that ‘if praying was effective, then monarchs should live longer than comparable groups’ (Easton) due to commonly spoken phrases such as ‘God Save the King/Queen’. His research found that men of the gentry lived to roughly 70 years on average, whilst the lowest average (of around 64 years) belonged to the male members of royalty. Galton concluded that “the sovereigns are literally the shortest-lived of all who have the advantage of influence. The prayer has, therefore, no efficacy.” This survey is not flawless, and I doubt that those who belief in the power of prayer would take it to heart. Prayer is a key part of religious ritual and practice, as demonstrated in the 5 prayers a day undertaken by Muslims, the congregation getting to their feet in a Catholic service to proclaim the ‘Our Father’ or the quiet prayer one might recite before bedtime. It is perhaps the most personal aspect of faith – a sense of talking to or praising the divine on a one-to-one basis or as a community.

What have the events from and since Saturday revealed about the UK? Well, for a start, we have seen that football, so often criticised, has a conscience and can bring out the very best in people. This has been seen in the actions of Owen Coyle and Phil Gartside accompanied and stayed with Muamba in hospital, the paramedics who rushed to his attention, the fans who showed support for the decision to abandon the game, the referee Howard Webb who realised that the game could not continue, and the FA for allowing Bolton’s midweek game with Aston Villa to be indefinitely postponed. It often takes a horrible accident for the best in people to emerge and in a sport recently tarnished with racist abuse, sectarian troubles, corruption and poor governance it is easy to ignore the spirit that keeps the beautiful game beautiful. There is a universal language of football, infecting people from all over the globe. I was once fortunate enough to go on a tour around the Galapagos and whilst having dinner with my family and the Ecuadorian boat captain, we talked about football for almost all the meal. He was delighted to know that we were United fans, as Ecuadorian Antonio Valencia had just signed for the Red Devils.

The comments have also demonstrated show how religious language has influenced our own language. This is hardly surprising: the translation into English and the famous King James Bible edition have had a marked effect on the English language, with phrases and terminology shaping and consolidating the language, ending the dominance of Latin and aiding the shift from Catholic to Protestant Britain. Benedict Anderson has written extensively on the subject, calling it the process of print capitalism, which helps establish nations and feelings of Englishness. Print capitalism and the development of the English language, meant that Latin lost its monopoly on print as works were gradually published and made available in the vernacular. Books, newspapers and novels, written in the vernacular, allowed their readers to realise that there existed a ‘horizontal comradeship’ across society, consuming the same, shared culture. The English language helped create the English, and Christian ideas from the key text, the Bible, pervaded our language.

The effect of Shakespeare on our language has also been influential. Bernard Levin perfectly summed up the impact of the Bard: “If you cannot understand my argument, and declare ``It's Greek to me'', you are quoting Shakespeare; if you claim to be more sinned against than sinning, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you recall your salad days, you are quoting Shakespeare....” (For the rest of the quote, see the video below) If Shakespeare has had such an influence, Biblical language, translated into English, reaching so many people must have had more.

The calls to pray for Muamba in his hour of need, encouraging the public to remember him in their thoughts and prayers does not display or highlight public religiosity, but instead highlights the influence of religion on the shaping and development of the English language and national consciousness. Some will pray for his recovery by asking the divine to help him, whilst some will keep him in their thoughts and encourage others to do the same. Both are valuable, and hopefully both will contribute to his recovery. A dedicated professional and bright hope for the future, Fabrice Muamba will be grateful for the immense level of support he has been and is continuing to be shown. Get well soon Muamba, you are in our thoughts and prayers.

Looking back at February

RS Matters began February with an article on media ethics, entitled Right Speech, the Right to Free Speech and the Rights of the Dead. The article highlighted some of the evidence from the ongoing Leveson Inquiry; in particular, the evidence which focused on the issue of defaming the dead. The testimonies of the Watson family and ex-Daily Star journalist Mr. Richard Peppiatt raised questions over the right to free speech and whether the dead can have the same rights as the living when it comes to libel law.

On 9 February, we discussed what ‘evil’ was and asked what makes actions ‘evil’ in an article entitled Have Your Say: What is Evil? The work of political theorist Hannah Arendt was considered, as well as depictions of evil in literary works like Heart of Darkness and Lord of the Flies. If you wish to contribute to the debate, either comment on the article or e-mail RS Matters at rsmattersblog@gmail.com to have your say on the issue.

We finished February with Debating, not dictating: Why the Religion/State divide appears to be working, an article focusing on Baroness Warsi’s recent comments about the role of faith in society in which she spoke of the dangers of ‘militant secularisation’. After examining the content of her comments, which were published in the Daily Telegraph on February 14, the article looked at the religion-state divine in the UK, comparing it with that of the USA, especially as America sets itself up for the autumnal Presidential election.

As we go into March, please follow or continue to follow RS Matters on Twitter (@RSMatters). If you are a student or enthusiast with a passion for religious studies and philosophy and wish to contribute an article to the site, please send us your work by e-mailing rsmattersblog@gmail.com. We will strive to publish all articles that come in, provided that they have not been written to intentionally cause offence. We welcome all points of view and articles about any aspect of religion, philosophy and ethics.

It was great to recently discover that RS Matters has been viewed across the globe, with readers from the UK, the USA, Canada, France, Germany, Russia, the Ukraine and Brazil. Have a great March and continue to enjoy RS Matters

MB, Editor

Debating, not dictating: Why the Religion/State divide appears to be working

I recently visited the Richmond’s Hope charity in Niddrie, Edinburgh. The charity aims to help children cope with bereavement, allowing them to deal with whatever feelings they are experiencing – grief, guilt, anger, and so on. I spoke with the head of the organisation, who is also the minister of the Richmond Craigmiller Church. The Church shares its facilities with the charity. I asked the minister whether this sharing of resources meant that Richmond’s Hope brought religion into their work. Did the charity have a Christian agenda? Were children being helped with the Christian message?

I asked these questions with some foreboding. Despite having heard what the charity had done and was doing, this issue had gone unmentioned. If the charity, linked with a Church, had a Christian focus, then they would potentially be excluding the other religious communities in the area. Could atheists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims or Sikhs learn to cope with bereavement if they were being consoled with Christian teachings about death? The Minister emphasised that the charity was separate from the Church, helping children from all backgrounds. There had been no objections expressed over children attending the sessions on church property. The only Christian element in the operation, said the Minister, was her personal drive to help people.

This emphasis on separating the Church from the charity got me thinking about the wider issue of the separation between church and state. On 14 February, the Cabinet Minister w/o Portfolio, the Baroness Sayeeda Warsi wrote a special comment piece in The Daily Telegraph entitled ‘We stand side by side with the Pope in fighting for faith’. In her article, published on the same day as she travelled to the Vatican to meet with the Pope, she called for faith to increase its role within public life, adding that religious adherents need “to feel stronger in their religious identities and more confident in their creeds” in order to “create a more just society”. This type of rhetoric is familiar, but it was her next set of comments that sparked some controversy. Baroness Warsi wrote:

“My fear today is that a militant secularisation is taking hold of our societies. We see it in any number of things: when signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings; when states won’t fund faith schools; and where religion is sidelined, marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere.”

“For me, one of the most worrying aspects about this militant secularisation is that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity because they were frightened of the concept of multiple identities.

“That’s why in the 20^th century, one of the first acts of totalitarian regimes was the targeting of organised religion.”

I should make it clear at this point that whilst I am no Tory, I do like Baroness Warsi and am glad that she is in government. There is truth in her argument. Faith can and often does play a positive role in society. From the Christian minister running the inclusive (and, as such, arguably ‘secular’) charity, to influential figures such as writer Karen Armstrong (a former nun) who have done much to encourage interfaith understanding in the Western world, we can observe faith playing a role within public discourse.

Britain is not officially a secular state as the Queen is also the head of the Church of England. Instead, Britain is a secularising society with a self-imposed divide has been created between the realms of the political and the religious, where debate between the two has been encouraged whilst dictation by one to the other has not. Baroness Warsi’s rather clumsy term ‘militant secularisation’ referred to those who wish religion had no role in society. Instead, there appears to be a tendency amongst some secularists to immediately discard the opinions and role of the religious. This cannot be the right course of action in all circumstances. As a secularist, I can’t help but think that our democratic process would be poorer if we ignored the Jewish, Christian, Muslim or atheist voices which contribute to the national debate, provided that it sticks to debating, rather than dictating.

Let’s look to the example of the ‘secular’ USA, especially as she readies herself for the Presidential election. The American Constitution made the separation between church and state official in the late 18^th century, yet during the Republican Party Presidential nominee contest the race has come to be dominated by issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception and the Catholic beliefs of Rick Santorum versus the Mormon beliefs of Mitt Romney – evidence of religion dictating political outcomes. In the UK, elections and party leadership contests just aren’t fought along these faith-based lines, despite the Church’s connection to the state through the Queen and the presence of Bishops in the House of Lords. It appears that in Britain a balance has been struck between religion and state, between the private and the public. Should religion dictate public policy? As a country, we seemed to have answered this with a reasonably resounding ‘No’. Should religious and non-religious communities be involved in debating public policy? I would say so.

Baroness Warsi’s use of the term “militant secularisation” is unlikely to win her much support from secularists. Her message might have been stronger if she’d ignored that terminology and focused instead upon the themes she expressed towards the end of her comment piece:

“When we look at the deep distrust between some communities today, there is no doubt that faith has a key role to play in bridging these divides. If people understand that accepting a person of another faith isn’t a threat to their own, they can unite in fighting bigotry and work together to create a more just world.”

Some believers both fear and scorn the idea of ‘secularism’, often getting it confused with ‘secularisation’. The so-called “militant” secularists often overstate religion’s role in society, accusing it of trying to dictate public policy and criticising the role of Bishops in the House of Lords. Baroness Warsi’s comments outline the positives of interfaith dialogue, dialogue which includes those with and those without faith and which is occurring now. In Britain, at least, the role of religion in the public sphere is not to dictate, but to debate. The divide is working, and hopefully will continue to do so.

Have Your Say: What is Evil?

In a recent lecture, a question was asked about how one would define ‘evil’ and then, by extension, how would one label action as ‘evil’. What is ‘evil’? Can any actions be described as being truly ‘evil’? If so, which acts are ‘evil’?

A consensus was reached that ‘evil’ is a term dependent on context. What one society deems to be evil does not hold true to another society. It is a word that is often used clumsily or carelessly, with George W. Bush’s use of the phrase Axis of Evil being one such example. Of the actions considered to be ‘evil’, rape and paedophilia were suggested as ‘evil acts’, yet not all agreed with this. Some felt that whilst the acts themselves might be seen as being ‘evil’, the intention behind them might not necessarily be. As demonstrated, there is no consensus on what ‘evil’ is.

In 1963, political theorist Hannah Arendt published Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, which focused on her perceptions of Adolf Eichmann during his trial over his role in the Holocaust. She found him to be ordinary, and not, as others made him out to be, psychopathic. He had simply been following orders and had chosen to do so. In short, Arendt argued that there was a banal aspect to evil. Eichmann had made a moral choice to do what he did, Arendt argued, and it was not to do with an ‘evil’ nature inherent within us all which can be brought out with the right ingredients. If one compares the work of Arendt (expanded upon in the video below) with literary works such as Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and Golding’s Lord of the Flies, which play on the idea of evil within (or ‘the darkness of man’s heart’ as Golding puts it), there gives further proof of the existence of the differing opinions over what ‘evil’ is, where it comes from and what actions it can be attached to.

There does not appear to be any concrete answers to these questions, but what do you think constitutes ‘evil’? Which acts can be described as being truly ‘evil’? Are there any such acts? What do the philosophies and the religions of the world have to say on the matter? RS Matters would like to hear your thoughts and reflections on the issue. Please submit your thoughts in the Comments section below or to rsmattersblog@gmail.com.  

Right Speech, the Right to Free Speech and the Rights of the Dead

The Leveson Inquiry has featured regularly in the news since it began in November 2011; the phone-hacking scandal which triggered the Inquiry has been in our minds for much longer. The revelations have come thick and fast and the Inquiry has, at times, been challenging to watch, be it the emotional oral evidence submitted by the Dowler and the McCann families or the holding-no-punches approach taken by ex-News of the World investigative reporter Paul McMullan.

The testimony of Jim and Margaret Watson was particularly hard-hitting. Appearing before the Inquiry on 22 November 2011, they recalled the murder of their daughter Diane in 1991 at the hands of Barbara Glover. Glover was found guilty of the murder and was subsequently imprisoned. Following Diane Watson’s death, the Herald newspaper and Marie Clare magazine published a series of articles investigating young offenders and these articles, according to Mr and Mrs Watson, appeared to paint Glover as a ‘victim’ in the whole affair. Herald journalist Mr Jack McLean wrote articles which Mrs Watson argued labelled her family as coming from “an upper working class background and Diane had looked down on Barbara with disdain”. This claim caused the Watson family considerable upset, and they have refuted the claim, pointing to remarks made by the Judge presiding over the trial which rejected such motives for the murder. For Mr and Mrs Watson, these articles served to defame the memory of their daughter.

The issue of defamation and its effects upon the Watson family were not just connected to Diane. Following the publication of the defamatory articles, Diane’s younger brother Alan committed suicide. The Inquiry was told that cuttings of the articles in question were found by his body. The treatment of Diane’s memory since her death had had a profound and tragic effect upon the living. Mrs Watson told the inquiry: “Just because a person’s deceased you can write what you want, and they [the Herald and Marie Clare journalists] certainly did it”.

The evidence of Mr and Mrs Watson has not been the only evidence to raise issues over the rights of the dead. Ex-Daily Star journalist Richard Peppiatt delivered his oral evidence on 29 November 2011. He recalled the death of Kevin McGee, formally the ex-partner to actor and comedian Matt Lucas. Following an anonymous tip-off linking Mr McGee’s suicide to a costly drugs and alcohol binge, Mr Peppiatt took the story to the Daily Star news desk. They told him to write it up. Despite reservations about the veracity of both source and story, Mr Peppiatt wrote it up, and it was subsequently published on the front page of the paper. It was published unverified because, as Mr Peppiatt remarked, “There was certainly the consideration that the man was dead, therefore you can’t really libel him”. The Inquiry heard that with “McGee being dead, you can say pretty much what you want about him because he is dead”. Mr Peppiatt, who left the Daily Star prior to the Inquiry protesting against what he perceived to be its anti-Muslim propaganda agenda, apologised for the article saying, “I accept responsibility for the fact that nobody held a gun to my head and made me write that... hurtful story... I feel very ashamed.”

The testimony of the Watson family and Mr Peppiatt raises interesting questions about whether or not the dead should have rights. At present, one can write what they wish about the deceased, and this can cause considerable hurt to those left behind, especially when facts have not been properly investigated, have been misinterpreted or have just been fabricated to create a story. The Watson family are campaigning for a law against defaming the dead to be introduced, working with the Scottish Government. What effect would or could such a law have? Whilst it may act as a comfort to the bereaved, would it damage or limit the rights of our free press or the right to free speech?

The right to free speech will forever be enshrined in the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym S.G. Tallentyre. In The Friends of Voltaire, she wrote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Compared to the principle of the right to free speech, it seems appropriate to consider the Buddhist principle of Right Speech, one of the aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path. In A Very Short Introduction to Buddhism, Damien Keown simply defines Right Speech as “telling the truth and speaking in a thoughtful and sensitive way” (2000 edition, p55). The Pali Canon argues Right Speech to be “abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech and from idle chatter: This is called Right Speech”. As such, the Buddhist message is clear: take care in what you say, think before you speak. This is not just a Buddhist truth, this is a universal truth. When one looks at the current media situation and take into account the evidence presented by the Watson family and Mr Peppiatt, we witness a culture where only the living appear to be afforded the respect of Free Speech.

As the Leveson Inquiry continues to receive evidence concerning the culture and ethics of the press, the debate about the right to free speech versus the rights of the dead will continue. I am sure many will agree that the right to free speech is an essential, or indeed ‘the’ essential, component of British democracy yet if those living are guarded by anti-libel legislation, should the dead also be afforded the same rights? A death, after all, does not just affect the individual concerned, but the family and friends left behind. They will cling to a memory, a reminder of a presence now gone. One solution could be to introduce a libel law that allows families to ‘approve’ any article or story that concerns the deceased. How easy this would be to enforce, I cannot say. There are obvious objections to such a law, with some viewing it to be a form of media suppression. It may be the case that the love we have for the deceased would cloud our judgement, leading us to gloss over the negative (and potentially newsworthy) aspects of their characters which might be deemed to be in the public interest. Such people may not be protecting the memory of the dead; instead, they might only be protecting themselves from future media intrusion.

These questions will be considered by the Leveson Inquiry, and hopefully a solution or compromise can be reached. A system based on the Buddhist principle of Right Speech is more than likely too utopian to be a serious proposal, yet its ethos can still remain. At the very least, if any system is to be put in place, it probably should allow the press and various news outlets room to consider the consequences of their reports on the deceased without impinging upon press freedom. There could even be legal processes in force aiming to ensure greater accuracy. It will not bring the dead back to life, but will go some way to ease their passing and preserve their memory for those left behind.

Looking back at January

Despite only existing for 11 days, we've been busy at RS Matters. Four articles have been published, and our Twitter feed has been active, promoting internet and newspaper articles, radio programmes and TV programmes of interest as well as retweeting tweets written by interesting people, papers, groups and organisations.

We began with 50 Years of Bond and Cultural Stereotypes, which examined how the film series has made use of cultural stereotypes to set a scene. As the article notes, some stereotypes work better than others, whilst some have had distinctly racist overtones. Is this the fault of the filmmakers and scriptwriters, or is this something that audiences need to respond to a culture different to their own?

On Monday 23, we announced that RS Matters was now on Twitter (Follow RS Matters on Twitter!). We also published our aims for the site: RS Matters is a resource for secondary school students, encouraging pupils to study RS, Philosophy and associated topics, both at school and university level. Commenting on the article, religionandmore showed interest, but wondered who ‘we’ were. We responded: ‘We’ are students from the University of Edinburgh, aiming to pass on our enthusiasm for these subjects onto others.

On Friday 27, we remembered the tragic events of the Holocaust and encouraged our readers to acknowledge Holocaust Memorial Day (Always Remember, Never Forget). If you missed it, we encourage you to have a look at the Speak Up, Speak Out campaign. Please click here for more information.

Saturday 28 saw the publication of The Magic of Mountains, an examination into the role of mountains within religious belief. Looking at the examples of Kangchenjunga, the Niyamgiri Hills, Mount Sinai, Mount Ararat and Mount Hira, it was posited that maybe mountains make one feel closer to the divine and increased feelings of spirituality. This may go some way to explaining the frequent mentions of mountains within religious literature. We would welcome your comments and suggestions on this topic.

So, what’s coming up in February?

Well, hopefully more articles from students, either from students here at Edinburgh, or from other institutions. Articles in the pipeline are diverse, ranging from examining press ethics in the light of the Leveson Inquiry and the use of religion within professional wrestling – two examples proving how wide-ranging the fields of religious studies, philosophy and ethics are. We will continue informing schools about RS Matters, encouraging students to read the blog and to contribute their material. If you wish to contribute an article, please e-mail it to: rsmattersblog@gmail.com. We will strive to publish all articles that come in, provided they have not been written to intentionally cause offence. We welcome all points of view and articles about any aspect of religion and philosophy.

Have a great February and continue to enjoy RS Matters!

MB, Editor

The Magic of Mountains

“I think that all the lasting things are grey:

the clouds above the mountains when it’s late.

When all around you changes, these things stay.”

(Grahame Davis, Grey)

For those who had the pleasure of studying geography at school, the water cycle will hopefully be familiar ground. Key scientific words like ‘evaporation’ and ‘precipitation’ will be etched into your minds, as will diagrams full of arrows, labels and illustrations of clouds, rivers, seas and mountains. The rivers begin in the highlands, originating in waters coming from meltwater or rainwater coming from the clouds bursting as they manoeuvre over the mountain tops. From these mountainous regions, rivers are born and begin their journey down towards other rivers, lakes and seas.

Take the Himalayas as an example: the rainwater and meltwater from the gargantuan snow-capped mountains feed the great rivers of the Brahmaputra, the Ganges and the Indus. In turn, these rivers provide the means for civilisations to live, thrive and survive and, as a result, are accorded with religious status and devotion. The great Himalayan Mountains are also viewed with the same religious sentiment. Kangchenjunga, situated on the border between Nepal and the Indian state of Sikkim, stands at 8,586 metres above sea level. As such, it is the 3^rd highest mountain in the world. It was first ‘conquered’ on May 25 1955 by British mountaineers Joe Brown and George Band. However, they did not reach the very top, instead stopping just short of the summit. Why? They were respecting the wishes and beliefs of the Sikkimese who deem the summit of Kangchenjunga to be sacred. In the local Limbu language, the mountain is called Sewalungma, meaning “Mountain that we offer greetings to”. One can begin to understand the strength and the power of the mountain when one sees photos of its beautiful yet sharp ridges. Watch this video by mountaineer Anselm Murphy and read the blog attached to see what happened to him when he and his team took on Kangchenjunga, demonstrating the beauty, the power and the dangerous side of the mountain.

During Geography A2 lessons some years ago, the subject under discussion was the people of the Kondha tribes in Orissa state, India. The mining company, Vedanta Resources, were aiming to extract large amounts of bauxite from the region to help in the creation of aluminium. However, the major supply of bauxite was to be found in the Niyamgiri Hills. The animist Dongria Kondh tribe regards the mountain to be the god Niyam Raja, and for Vedanta Resources to open a mine in the mountains is viewed by the local tribes to be an invasion against their religion. The issue has attracted much debate and controversy, leading to charities such as Survival International to intervene on behalf of the Dongria Kondh. Watch their take on the issue here:

For some, the idea that a mountain could be a god or have sacred properties seems strange. Our traditional understanding of God is of an omnipotent and omniscient figure, often imagined wearing white and sporting a white beard reminiscent of a Michelangelo painting. Yet mountains have a powerful quality – always there and dominating the landscape. Their streams and springs provide for the local inhabitants, flora and fauna, they often affect the climate and have been an integral and imposing part of that society’s imagination since that society began.

It is perhaps not coincidental that mountains appear to play a significant role in the monotheistic faiths. In Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions, Moses receives the revelation from the Burning Bush and the 10 Commandments upon Mount Sinai. Besides Mount Sinai, Noah’s ark came to rest on Mount Ararat as the floodwaters diminished, Jesus gave a sermon on a Mount, he was crucified upon Calvary Hill and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) received his first revelations from God in a cave high up on Mount Hira. The mountains and hills all play prominent roles within the histories of the various traditions, yet the reasons for this are obscure. It might be to do with elevation – the episodes occur on places that have geographical prominence. It might be even simpler than that – these mountains and hills might purely have been the only places around where one felt as if he or she was closer to Heaven and closer to divine. Regardless of the reason, mountains hold a sacred and historical bond with religions and their adherents, as the Dongria Kondh issues demonstrate, this bond still endures.

What makes mountains so special? I would be inclined to position myself on the side of those arguing that the solitude and elevation of the mountain, as well as its permanence in historical memory, give them a spiritual dimension that other natural features perhaps do not have to the same degree. For me, Alfred Wainwright, the famous author and illustrator of the Wainwright walking guides to the Lake District fells, provides one of the very best tributes to the emotive power and the attraction that mountains have had and continue to have upon the human consciousness:

“Why does a man climb mountains? Why has he forced his tired and sweating body up here when he might instead have been sitting at his ease in a deckchair at the seaside, looking at girls in bikinis, or fast asleep, or sucking ice cream, according to his fancy. On the face of it the thing doesn’t make sense.

  “Yet more and more people are turning to the hills; they find something in these wild places that can be found nowhere else. It may be solace for some, satisfaction for others: the joy of exercising muscles that modern ways of living have cramped, perhaps; or a balm for jangled nerves in the solitude and silence of the peaks; or escape from the clamour and tumult of everyday existence. It may have something to do with a man’s subconscious search for beauty, growing keener as so much in the world grows uglier. It may be a need to readjust his sights, to get out of his own narrow groove and climb above it to see wider horizons and truer perspectives. In a few cases, it may even be a curiosity inspired by A. Wainwright’s Pictorial Guides. Or it may be, and for most walkers it will be, quite simply, a deep love of the hills, a love that has grown over the years, whatever motive first took them there: a feeling that these hills are friends, tried and trusted friends, always there when needed.

   “It is a question every man must answer for himself”

Alfred Wainwright

‘Soliloquy to Scafell Pike’ in The Southern Fells (1960)

A View of Castle Crag, High Spy and Maiden Moor
Taken by MB in June 2007

Always Remember, Never Forget

On January 27 1945, the Red Army liberated the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camps from Nazi control. Estimates of the numbers of those that dies there are placed at around 1.1 million people, with victims including Jews, Poles, Roma and Soviet prisoners-of-war.

The day and date has become one to remember, and one to provoke remembrance. International Holocaust Remembrance Day was declared in 2005 by the UN General Assembly with the aim of getting people across the world to remember those that died in such horrific circumstances and to teach and promote the important lessons of tolerance, courage and respect in order to ensure that such protracted episodes of violence and cruelty will never happen again.

History cannot be changed, but the future can be improved. This year, the Holocaust Memorial Day’s campaign urges all of us to Speak Up, Speak Out against discrimination and hatred. I would encourage everyone to visit their website and to take a moment to remember the victims of the Holocaust and all other subsequent genocides. They were and are victims of irrational hatred and ignorance, and these wrongs must never be allowed to take hold again. Please visit the Speak Up website (www.speakupnow.org.uk/) to learn more about the lessons we can learn from the tragedies of the past to ensure that they will not occur in the future.

On this day, there is an essential need for reflection and remembrance. I can think of no greater aide to remembrance that John Williams’ soundtrack to Schindler’s List and, in particular, the piece entitled ‘Remembrances’. The violin part, expertly performed by Itzhak Perlman, conveys the range of emotions we remember today: the despair and angst of those who left this world, the pain of those who lost loved ones, the mixture of joy and guilt of those that survived, and perhaps most importantly, the hope that their memories and experiences will stop such cruelty from ever happening again.