The greater the truth, the greater the libel: European report says British politicians failed to control the press

The European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), part of the Council of Europe, has issued a report criticising the British media for using 

offensive, discriminatory and provocative terminology

and blamed it for a supposed rise in racist and xenophobic attacks (in fact there wasn't one) after the Brexit vote.

It cited Katie Hopkins’ article in The Sun, where she likened refugees to “cockroaches” with the headline: 

Rescue boats? I’d use gunships to stop migrants.

The report urged the press to “take stock of the importance of responsible reporting, not only to avoid perpetuating prejudice and biased information, but also to avoid harm to targeted persons or vulnerable groups”. It specifically mentioned that the fuelling of prejudice against Muslims “showed a reckless disregard… for their safety” and complained that politicians have failed to control the press'

Have failed to control the press...

Political control of the press in England lapsed in the reign of King William III but is likely to make a comeback unless we are very lucky. Human rights are the enemy of freedom of speech, as of many other freedoms.


In response to the report the British Government said it was

committed to a free and open press and does not interfere with what the press does and does not publish, as long as the press abides by the law.

Well said, except that laws have been enacted starting in 1965 to restrict what can be said about the most important issues in politics and life, religion, sex and race and David Cameron threatened the press with more regulation if they did not comply with voluntary guidelines.

The report got little coverage in the British press, even in The Guardian, except in this robust piece in the Express.




The report also criticised politicians like David Cameron and Nigel Farage for language which

contributed needlessly to an increase in xenophobic sentiment

such as the words “invasions” and “floods” and “benefits tourism”, as a 2013 study (pdf) had found no evidence that EU migration was benefit-related. Cameron was criticised for calling refugees and migrants a “swarm” and Farage for saying “there is rising public concern about immigration partly because people believe there are some Muslims who want to form a fifth column and kill us”.

It reminds me of the old eighteenth century legal maxim (when criminal libel existed): the greater the truth, the greater the libel.

Anti-migration points of view must be aired. It's vital.

The UK should leave the European Convention on Human Rights, as Mrs May wanted to do until June - she suddenly changed her mind after the referendum. Perhaps the Council of Europe too, though it does no great harm except for (poison) gassing. 

On the continent there is no real tradition of freedom. I think of human rights as freedoms - meaning freedom from the state and the police - but the Europeans think of entitlements, occasions where the state ought to intervene.

'Human rights' doesn't mean freedoms, like free speech. It means a statist liberal/left wing ideology imposed by law. It is nowadays the ruling ideology of the European Union. It's very different from the Cold War when the West stood for freedom and democracy and that was it.

See 'human rights' as an ideology - then you understand what is going on. An ideology which is becoming a sort of secular post-Christian religion.