Natalie Solent |
|
|
Politics, news, libertarianism, Science Fiction, religion, sewing.
You got a problem, bud? I like sewing.
E-mail: nataliesolent-at-aol-dot-com (I assume it's OK to quote senders by name.) Back to main blog RSS thingy 
Jane's Blogosphere: blogtrack for Natalie Solent. 
Links ( 'Nother Solent is this blog's good twin. Same words, searchable archives, RSS feed. Provided by a benefactor, to whom thanks. I also sometimes write for Samizdata and Biased BBC.) The Old Comrades:
Archives
November 2001
December 2001
January 2002
February 2002
March 2002
April 2002
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
August 2007
October 2007
February 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
March 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
October 2009
January 2010
March 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
April 2011
June 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
|
Tuesday, October 08, 2002
Note to readers: this post gets complicated. The central injustice of the Alistair Scott/ Mohammed Hudaib case, consisting of the very different treatment meted out by the courts to the two parties in a furious row following September 11, remains unaltered. Read the black print to understand that. There were, however, two confusions, successively sorted out, in the way I reported it. The Thursday evening changes are marked in red; the Friday changes in blue. I could have just edited the lot, but in the end I decided it was more honest, albeit confusing, to leave in all my clarifications and retractions. Here's the post Andrew Sullivan's readers came to see: Two versions of one story. Here's an interesting example of self-censorship. I'm having trouble linking to back numbers the Telegraph, and I am intermittently refusing on principle to link to the Times. So I am going to print out two little stories in full. Don't worry, they are brief. And interesting.
Here is the Times version of the story:
[FIRST UPDATE: No it isn't the Times version, it just puports to be. I was wrong! A website called the FAIR Daily News Digest published the version that follows, describing it as the work of the Times's Simon de Bruxelles, but leaving out crucial facts that he included. See further info at the base of this post.]
[LATER UPDATE: There were actually two stories, both by Simon de Bruxelles, both reported by FAIR's Daily News Digest. The second gave a much fairer picture of the case than the first.]
And here is the way the Telegraph tells it. Spot the highly relevant fact that does not appear in the Times version. [Or, rather, in the what seemed to be the Times version. See below.] [Correct to "...in the earlier Times version."] Daily Telegraph London 4 10 02 The new "religious hatred" law is an outrage. The history of free speech in this country is the history of winning the freedom to argue about religion. I could have sworn this obnoxious clause had been dropped, after widespread criticism. Apparently I was wrong. And almost as frightening is the cowardice of the Times. [I withdraw this, obviously] Mr Scott seems to have been browbeaten into swallowing the progressive establishment line and doing a spot of humble self-criticism, in the good old Chinese style of thirty years ago. If he does have any spirit left he ought to sue the Times [Er, once again, not the Times; whoever wrote that story] [Possibly that should be marked "STET". Or possibly not. I'm running out of colours.] for making him look like a nutter when he isn't.
And since the Department of Public Prosecutions are so hot on prosecuting hatred and bigotry, let me point out an example to them. Here's hatred and bigotry: Mr Hudaib, a Postgraduate student at Exeter University , acknowledged under cross-examination that he "could have said Osama bin Laden was a great man and that all Americans deserved to die and are stupid".Will the DPP be on the case? I don't think so. UPDATE: All my comments on the unfairness of the treatment of Mr Scott vis à vis Mr Hudaid stand. But, please note, I was unfair to the Times. The account of the case available at Times Online includes all relevant facts. I apologise to Simon de Bruxelles, the Times author, for suggesting it didn't. Mea culpa, but the story of how I came to screw up is interesting in itself... Read on.
When I first read about this story on the Libertarian Alliance Forum, I did a Google search for the names involved. I found the story as I first printed it, word for word, at a site called the Daily News Digest. It's given the byline "Simon de Bruxelles - The Times." So I thought, not unaturally, that that was what it said in the story by Simon de Bruxelles in the Times. Only it's not. Isn't that weird? Some unknown hand has edited out all the aspects that make Mr Hudaid look bad and mitigate Mr Scott's admittedly unruly behaviour.
I should have checked. Of course I should. It wouldn't have been hard to do. I usually do click the link, but for some reason this time I didn't. If you'd asked me five minutes later where I'd seen the story, I'd have blithely said, "Why, in the Times, of course." I'm very sorry I didn't check, only I do offer as a mitigating factor that the Daily News Digest did make it easy for me to make that particular mistake, if you know what I mean.
How do the two compare? Mr Bruxelles' version of the story begins: A MAN who had an argument in the street with a supporter of Osama bin Laden became the first person to be convicted under new laws on religious hatred yesterday.Compare that to the Daily News Digest version - still credited, remember, to Simon de Bruxelles and The Times: A FORMER teacher who verbally attacked three Muslims has become the first person to be convicted under new laws that outlaw religious hatred. So who are these Digest guys? The website describes itself thus: "The Daily News Digest reviews the main electronic news media for items relating to British Muslims at home and abroad, Britain’s ethnic minorities, and stories which have a bearing on the image of Islam in general in the media. FAIR is not affiliated to any political or religious organisation, and does not necessarily endorse the views reflected in the items reproduced in the Daily News Digest. "I can't help thinking that their readers would get a more accurate perception of the image of Islam in the media if the stories found there were left as the Digest found them, or clearly marked as edited - and not just edited for brevity, either. ADDED LATER: There were two stories, one much fuller and fairer than the other. Both are now up on the Digest website.
Thanks, not for the first time, to Layman's Logic for being the most attentive reader anyone could wish for. Puts me to shame.
I have e-mailed the editor of the Daily News Digest to ask why the Digest's version of the story and the Times's version are so different.
YET ANOTHER UPDATE: The next day, Friday 11th Oct, FAIR did get back to me - with a perfectly reasonable explanation: "Simon de Bruxelles in the Times covered this story twice, once on the 27th of July, and again on the 4th of October. Both stories were picked up in our News Digest and are archived online on our website. See below for further details.FAIR's editor also supplied two sets of hyperlinks. I've posted his full reply plus links here. As I've said on that post, everybody - FAIR, The Times - comes out of it well. Except me.
Oh, and the makers and enforcers of the law that put Scott in the dock and left Hudaib out of it. Both in the dock or neither, preferably neither.
Wednesday, October 09, 2002
Chris Bertram of Junius is slightly sceptical, and wonders whether there might have been sarcasm involved. As it happens I was finally publishing Richard Littlejohn's take on the case which includes the "Zionist pigf****er" angle at the instant Chris sent me his e-mail. (I thought I had published it last night, but unfortunately I was once more a victim of that refusal-to-publish Blogger bug.) So Chris Bertram's view of the incident does not include the ZP-word, which is not one easily used sarcastically. Follow the link for his views. He quotes a most useful account from the local press, which sorts out the question of whether the three Muslims in the case were or were not neighbours of Scott. Two weren't, one was. On the other hand the question of spelling the last-named man's name is right back on the agenda: the Express & Echo has "Hudaid" not "Hudaib".
I quite agree that the account of such a fracas that appears in court is likely to differ from what really happened as memory fades and policemen, officials and lawyers of every degree of competence and goodwill try to make messy real life fit into neat artificial categories. I also acknowledge, in fairness to Mr Hudaib/Hudaid, that in a furious row it is easy to end up saying what one does not really mean. But boil away all the froth and you are still left with a residue of stark imbalance in the treatment of the two sides.
Tuesday, October 08, 2002
Apologies to all who sent me e-mails and haven't yet had a reply. Had a headache most of the day, didn't want to go on computer, felt a little better, checked e-mail, read about Scott / Hudaid (Hudaib? Accounts vary as to the spelling) case in Libertarian Alliance Forum, exploded into spitting rage, posted it in spirit of cleansing fury, calmed down once action taken, headache again. |