Now, I'm not one to let things go easily. And I don't like it when people like Burchill go waltzing around, mocking others, and enjoying the attention. So I've written a long winded complaint to the editor. And I'll keep harassing him until I get a straight answer other than "sorry". If you want to get involved, feel free! The more the merrier! I'm going to publish the editor's name but, before anyone kicks me for that one, it's in the public domain.
Observer Newspaper Address:
John Mulholland,
The Observer,
Kings Place, 90 York Way
London N1 9GU
London N1 9GU
Phone number: 020 3353 2000
And here's my complaint. Trust me, I'm really not going to let it lie. I don't care who you are. I don't care if you're someone on the street, a journalist, a musician, or an MP. If you say something like this, especially in public, then you should be subjected to the full extent of the law.
28th
January 2013
Dear Sir,
It has been
two weeks since Julie Burchill's hate speech masquerading as
journalism appeared in your newspaper. No doubt you're still reading
through the digital mountain of complaints which has been sent your
way.
I'm writing
to ask what you're doing about Burchill. In case you've forgotten
what all the fuss is about I'm including a copy of the article.
Like every
large company out there, I'm assuming you have a policy relating to
people, their sexuality/gender/colour/religion etc and how they have
a right to be treated as an equal and allowed to go about their job,
and life, in peace and without the fear of harassment,
discrimination, or reprisal. Anyone known to break this policy is
subjected to suspension and/or termination. Has this policy been
enacted against Burchill? If not, why not? Your average person on the
street wouldn't get away with a fraction of what she said without
reprisal. Why should she just because she's a “journalist”,
“columnist”, or whatever you choose to call her?
Secondly,
what she wrote is hate speech, discrimination, and a call to
violence, all of which are crimes under British law. Has she been
questioned by the police? Again, if not, why not?
Finally,
what is your justification for allowing her to remain with your
newspaper? After that little tirade she can hardly be good for your
image? Or do we need to assume that her viewpoint is held by the
majority of your staff?
While this
country prides itself on freedom of speech, we also have morals and
ethics which need to be upheld and honoured. Morals and ethics which
are written in to the Editor's Code of Practice. I appreciate that
Burchill's brand of writing is possibly what draws in your readers,
but where do you draw the line? Will you let her publish something
along the same lines about Muslims? Or people with disabilities? Or
Asians? Where's your line in the sand? Take the article and replace
it with any of the three examples I've given you and then ask
yourself if you'd publish it.
Can you
imagine if yourself, or one of your family, were one of the people
lambasted in Burchill's article? Perhaps you are, I don't know.
Perhaps you thought it would be good for “a laugh”. I realise
that you pulled the piece and left a response along the lines of “The
piece was an attempt to explore contentious issues”. However, your
response could not be further from the truth, and I believe you know
this. How would you feel if someone called you derogatory names and
basically called for you to be injured and killed? You've probably
had the statistics for the murder, assault and suicide rates among
transgender people thrown at you a million times in the past two
weeks so I won't repeat them. But, if you've read them, I'm sure you
can see just how dangerous Burchill's article is. And just because
Burchill is a “journalist” or “columnist” does not mean that
she is above the morals, standards, and laws of this country. In
fact, as a possible role model for others, she should be held even
more accountable. How would you feel if a transgender person was
murdered and the accused cited Burchill's article, the one you chose
to publish, as a reason for why they committed the murder? It's a
hypothetical scenario but has happened, where the accused has cited
music, books, or films as the reason for why they committed their
crime.
This is not
about one particular group becoming more offended than another. This
is about protecting some of the most vulnerable people in our
society. We no longer live in the Dark Ages. We live in a time where
everyone, no matter what their creed, gender or sexuality is can live
in peace and without fear. You have an opportunity here to prove that
you will not be among those who allow such speech to pollute our
society.
Yours,
Rae Gee
*****
POST SCRIPT:
I'm laying down a challenge to the Observer. It'll be going with this letter.
"By now
you've probably noticed that your withdrawal of the offending
article, and your subsequent apology, have not been accepted by the
vast majority. You've also probably gathered that people don't want
to read misinformed, unresearched and factless pieces. As a media
outlet, you are responsible on what you put out there. You now have
the chance to show the world that you actually mean what you said in
your apology. Which is why I'm laying down a challenge for you and
your newspaper. Find a positive story, one of hope, love, and
dignity, and report on it. Don't put a negative spin on it. Don't be
derogatory. Don't put down the person, or persons, the story is
about. And heaven's above, don't give the piece to someone like
Burchill. In fact, go through the list of people who no doubt write
to you every week looking for work experience and give one of them a
shot. Write a nice, positive piece, one which will make people happy
to read your paper and run it as the front page story. Don't think
about the circulation or the money. Don't think of anything like that
because you're the editor and, as you've proved, can do whatever you
want. So do this and start making a positive change in the world."