Pussy Riot

Most of us, myself included, have been off topic for most of this thread. :)

I think your contribution is very interesting, Marble. During the last election campaign in the UK there was pressure from the public, I recall, on politicians not to engage in tit for tat arguments but to engage in genuine discussion. As you say, however, most broadcast media programmes are set up with that format in mind.
 
I'm sure you're correct about the public and what they wanted before the election, Grey. Another example is the times we hear about conservative backbenchers voting against the government. Now, they are both conservatives (Cameron and these backbenchers), but when do we as the public or media consumers ever get to see them sit down and debate an issue, such as the one which they're disagreeing about?

To be fair to Labour, we often heard about how Brown and Blair disagreed, but really that was because they couldn't hide it any longer. Perhaps the most powerful and influential relationship in British politics this century, wasn't truly told to the general public via the media, in the eyes of our leading politicians who took part in it, apart from when Blair writes a memoir.

Clearly they wouldn't have been on a debate or political show slating each other as prime minster and chancellor, but the principle is the same. When did we even get a Browinte like Dianne Abbot, or Blairite like David Milliband, on the same show together talking about the real issues in government, involving Blair vand Brown?

I remember watching a muslim guy on the Nicky Clarke show last year on BBC 1. He was sitting directly opposiite the leader of The English Defence League or whatever its called. This guy kept defending muslim communities by wheeling out a general view, a tokensitic summary of the Koran, and saying what it does and doesn't do.

I'd very much enjoy that man debating it in greater detail, perhaps not in front of the leader of the English Defvence League, in order to see where he stands on these issues a bit better. It all seemed very superficial that day but its the same story time and time again in the media, and he's not the only one who struggled to get his point across in a one hour tit for tat session where he couldn't elaborate on what he's saying properly. Perhaps he'd be better to do so in an environment not so intense, on this occasion against his 'political opposite'.

I always liked that programme on Sky Television on a Sunday morning, where the presenter and four football pundits would get around the breakfast table and have an indepth exchange of views. Obviously this was football not politics, but in theory I don't think getting a varied bunch of muslim clerics with differing views, or a group of conservatives with different views on gay marriage in a similair setting, would do any harm to our media.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure you're correct about the public and what they wanted before the election, Grey. Another example is the times we hear about conservative backbenchers voting against the government. Now, they are both conservatives (Cameron and these backbenchers), but when do we as the public or media consumers ever get to see them sit down and debate an issue, such as the one which they're disagreeing about?

The spin doctors would never permit such a thing. It would give off the impression of a party in disarray rather than the impression of openness.

It would also quickly become used as a vehicle for promoting certain views with fake debate to lead the viewer down a certain path.

And it would be even more boring than oppositional politics programmes.

Re the original point - there would be an outcry about it in various papers but ultimately very few people would actually give a f**k and whilst they might be arrested I suspect it would be one of those cases where charges are (quietly) dropped. At worst it would be a fine.
 
Fair dues, but to me watching a government minister on Question Time wheeling out the government line is much more boring than what I propose, especially when we know a party is in turmoil about something. These backbenchers certainly aren't afraid of writing into newspapers, we should get them on programmes more imo.

And as for 'boring' in general, a lot of real politics is boring. The fact over the last few years its portrayed and debated with such entertainment value is often to the detriment of the serious nature of the politics concerned imo.
 
Last edited:
This article expresses, much more articulately, what I've been trying to say

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0823/1224322753285.html


Pussy Riot are mere magnets for West's hypocrisy


RORY FITZGERALDOPINION: PUSSY RIOT have provoked an outpouring of hypocrisy across the western world. The very media outlets that praise the band loudest are studiously careful to censor certain facts about their newly anointed heroes for free speech.

For example, few report that previous protests by members of the group include staging an orgy in a Moscow museum and publicly masturbating with a chicken leg in a supermarket. Nor are the lyrics of their songs – deeply offensive to many Christians – usually printed.

Instead, we are presented with an airbrushed picture of pretty, idealistic heroines making a brave stand against tyranny. The truth is more complex than this.

“Freedom of speech” has been on the outraged lips of legions of western celebrities since three members of Pussy Riot were sentenced to two years in jail for hooliganism last week.

But just how committed are the western chattering classes to freedom of speech?

Imagine if four white men from an English punk band called “Mickey Riot”, with strong links to the English Defence League, gatecrashed Friday prayers in the East London Mosque.
They push aside the imam, make offensive gestures at those present, mock Islamic religious beliefs and perform a bad punk song that is grossly offensive to Muslims everywhere.
Would Amnesty, Madonna, Bjork, Alicia Silverstone and their ilk be queuing up to lend their support during the band’s subsequent trial for incitement to religious hatred?
Or how about if four men from a radically conservative Russian religious group disrupted a feminist conference in Moscow, barging on stage, shouting and mocking the deeply held feminist beliefs of the women present.
Before security can intervene, they perform a brief pro-Putin polka, with lyrics that are crude and derogatory to women. The police prosecute the protesters for hooliganism and they are sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. Would Amnesty International weep at the injustice? Would celebrities line up to decry this violation of freedom of speech?
We know the answer. In both these scenarios, Amnesty and Madonna would probably applaud the police and public prosecutors for taking such robust action against hate speech. Two years of imprisonment, they might argue, is somewhat harsh – but an appropriate deterrent.
Therein lies the hypocrisy of the West’s self-appointed advocates of free speech. They discriminate on the basis of gender, race, religion, ethnicity and political ideology.
Change the gender and the politics of the protesters and you get a completely different result. The western bien pensant’s belief in freedom of speech extends only to those they agree with.
Pussy Riot are hardly poster girls for serious political protest. Their behaviour would likely get them arrested even in London, Stockholm or Amsterdam.
Do they really deserve to be suddenly elevated to the status of political martyrs for freedom and democracy, alongside Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King?
The Australian government has a useful document offering advice on the conduct of protests. It says “conducting a protest . . . is accepted as a right provided it is conducted peacefully and does not impinge on the rights of others”.
Surely, people of all faiths should be entitled to gather peacefully in their places of worship? This human right is, after all, guaranteed by article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Putin regime is undoubtedly reprehensible, and the Orthodox Church is disturbingly closely allied with it. However, it is possible to protest against these associations without disturbing ordinary Russian people in their place of worship.
Pussy Riot shouldn’t have been jailed for their antics. I sincerely hope they are released. However, their western supporters should ask themselves whether they truly believe in freedom of speech, or just in a shallow version of it that can be defined as: “I will defend your right to say something, provided that I agree with you.”
For that is also Vladimir Putin’s definition of freedom of speech.
While the West fawns over Pussy Riot, it largely ignores the tens of thousands of ordinary unglamorous Russians who have protested in recent years – without invading churches or insulting people’s religion.
These vastly more important protest movements have been sidelined by a western media drawn inexorably to pretty faces and celebrity-led news. The end result is that we are given a distorted picture of the tragic demise of Russian democracy.
Rory Fitzgerald is a journalist and lawyer. roryfitzgerald.com
 
Back
Top