MCB Ofcom complaint – a lawyer writes
Michael, a barrister in London, has written to point out an interesting fault with the MCB’s complaint to Ofcom. The code paragraphs they cite in their complaint are 5.7 and 5.11 (“Due impartiality“), and 7.1, 7.9 and 7.13 (“Fairness“).
Amusingly, all the MCB’s complaints under section 5 of the Broadcasting Code should fail in any event, because that section of the Code does not apply to BBC services funded by the licence fee.
Oops.
In addition, Michael points out that their argument that the jilbab is “required dress” is the opposite of the position they took in the actual Begum case, in which the MCB representative made the following points (from Para 9 of the judgement):
(i) there is no recommended style
(ii) modesty needs to be observed at all times
(iii) trousers with long tops/shirts for school wear are absolutely fine
(iv) a Muslim school girl’s uniform does not have to be flowing or of such length that there will be a risk of tripping over and causing an accident.
Add to this the demolition of their Mawdudi complaint – where they misleadingly quote the scholar out of context to backup their claim that he was misleadingly quoted out of context – and any prospect of a sympathetic decision from Ofcom seems increasingly remote.
MWW is not a lawyer, but a closer look at the rest of the MCB’s letter reveals that most of the issues they raise are laughable. On occasion they sound like petulant children. The only valid points concern factual inaccuracies in the programme regarding Sufism, and the spurious claim that Britain is a secular society (try telling that to the NSS). It is also true that the Israel/Palestine conflict was superficially covered – but that was not what the documentary was about.
If the MCB are upset at being portrayed as clowns, their official complaint to Ofcom does nothing to correct that image. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Cue the picture of Sir Icbal with a red nose…. 😉
I was agreeing with the perspective of this article and remembering the MCB’s exploits for publicity in the Ken Bigley affair compared to their stance on HUB. But that was until I read the line;
“It is also true that that Israel/Palestine conflict was superficially covered”
Where you have confirmed the nature of their complaint and therefore contradicted your arguement of why the MCB are clowns!
Jamal, er….no. If the programme was NOT specifically about the enormously complex and difficult issues surrounding Israel & Palestine, then “superficial” coverage may have been, in fact, relatively balanced without claiming to be complete analysis; which would be appropriate for the context. MCB’s complaint would seem to be that such coverage wasn’t sufficiently slanted towards their point of view. I didn’t see the show, so I have no way of knowing whether the MCB are justified in that criticism. One small point, however, out of a litany of silliness doth not contradict their status as clowns…
On another bit of the article,r.e. claims of a secular Britain, well just to be horribly pedantic, ENGLAND is a religious state, because the Head of State (ridiculous monarchy) is also the head of the established church (ridiculous supernaturalists). Up here in sconny Botland, however, established church & HoS are seperate entities. It’s a pathetically weak, technical difference, but we Hume-lovers up here cling to it in secular desperation. I know, most of the residents of Glasgow/state funding for religious schools make a mockery of any idea of a properly secular Scotland, but at least we’re one tiny step further down the road… 🙂
“On occasion they sound like petulant children. ”
But petulant chidren with access to threats and blackmail – just like all the religions …..
As i have said. If their point is based upon coverage of Israel/Palistine, then they have a point. Obviously, how much of a point would depend on the differing interpretations of what is “superficial”.
How is Britain not a secular country when religion has been long since far removed from the state. The Queen is not much more than a mascot, therefore being both head of state and the church has no bearing on the matter, or prove that Britian is not secularist.
I notice that the MCB say, “in September 2004, the MCB printed 500,000 copies of a Pocket Guide on Rights and Responsibilities.”. What they don’t say is where and when these have been distributed, if at all.
The UK is clearly not a secular state, as we have religion enshrined in our laws: eg. Public Holidays on Good Friday and Christmas Day, blasphemy laws and Sunday trading restrictions. We also allow religous propoganda in schools, (in fact it is pratically compulsory) and some TV stations are legally required to show it.
Just because our politicians do not speak in religous terminology (as in the USA) does not mean we are a secular state. (Irony is of course that the USA is technically a secular state)
We may be a largely secular society, in that most people in the country couldn’t give a toss about religion, but we are certainly not a secular state.
Not to mention the unelected Lords Spiritual in our second legislative chamber – 26 Church of England bishops and archbishops who are there solely by virtue of their being Church of England bishops and archbishops.
Or government-funded “faith” (ie religiously-segregated) schools, or chaplains in prison, hospitals and the armed forces.