Burka Ban

Courtesy BBC.co.uk

It began with the smallest of steps: the banning of the Hijab head scarf in French schools in September 2004. Today, the French Government introduces another law that curtails individual and religious freedom. From today, it is illegal for a woman to wear a veil covering her face in France. A woman's choice over what she can wear, both as an individual and as a Muslim. A woman seen wearing a veil will face a fine and may be subject to an investigation.

Representatives of the French Government have said that the new law has been introduced to protect minorities. Sihem Habchi, a Muslim woman that has worked on introducing the ban has been reported to say "Five years ago hardly anyone wore the Niqab [full length garment that conceals everything except the eyes]. In another five years we will be like England where there are neighbourhoods and ghettos full of women wearing them." To me, this statement seems to reveal an underlying fear that women who choose to wear the veil are creating a problem for all Muslims. This kind of irrationality should never been translated into law. The French Government says that the veil relegates wearers to an inferior status. However, I argue that inferiority is not a matter of what a woman choose to wear, it is a matter of how other people choose to treat her. When I see a woman in the street that is wearing a Burka or Niqab I do not view her with fear and do not feel that I am better than her. I see a woman demonstrating a commitment to her religious beliefs. I see a woman that is proud to be a Muslim and proud of that part of her culture.

In my eyes there is little difference between wearing a Niqab and wearing a cross or wearing Jewish yamaka. By identifying yourself with one of these symbols, you open yourself to the possibility of criticism, victimisation and attack. By identifying yourself as different you risk attracting the scorn of others, but are you at fault for wearing the garment? No!

By introducing this law, the French hope to engineer a more equal society but what is more important; an 'equal' society where equality means everyone must dress and act the same way, or an inclusive and free society where people can dress as they please and observe their religion as they see fit. One of these two societies reminds me an awful lot of a certain novel by George Orwell.

Media Responsibility

This morning I read on twitter that a local journalist, for whom I have the greatest respect, has written an article concerning local authority budget cuts. In particular, this article encourages "the people of Greater Manchester to stand up against unfair spending cuts" by adding to a petition to central government - by purchasing the paper and filling out a coupon on the front.

The Manchester Evening News article claims that spending cuts are unfair because some local authorities will suffer higher percentage cuts to central government funding than others (reported to be 21% for Manchester City Council, 19.6% for Salford City Council vs a UK average of 15.2%). Whether you agree with cuts, or the general thrust of the article is very much up to you. My personal view is that this is a half-truth being pushed by Labour-led councils to make the public take a more lenient view their of their irrational spending decisions (£170m on a town hall extension, Manchester, or £700,000 on moving two cranes, Salford). The facts, as I understand them, are that the government has cut many of the grants upon which some councils are very much more reliant than others, while some of the direct funding (for example, to schools) has increased. This fact, it seems, will be somewhat off-set by additional government funding to the tune of £85m that will be used to help the poorest areas. However, whether or not any of this funding will end up in Greater Manchester, or the wider North West, is unclear. Therefore, I approach the government line and claims published in the paper with hesitation in equal measure.

My greatest concern is that I do not believe that a newspaper is the place for a party-political campaign and, for the second time in two weeks, I am bitterly disappointed by the standard of reporting.

Freedom of speech (and by cursor, freedom of the press) is not a license to say or print whatever an individual or group sees fit. Copyright and libel are the two most obvious manifestations of this fact, but there is, I feel, an unwritten responsibility or standard to which the media should hold themselves. The media has an incredibly powerful influence, particularly in modern society, and as Spiderman's uncle Ben says: 'With great power comes great responsibility.'

The job of the media is not to campaign. The job of the media is to inform. It is right that outlets like the Manchester Evening News should question and probe and criticise authority - both local and national - but they must do so in a fair and balanced way. When they fail to do so they sell-out and are willingly surrendering their right to press freedom. And for what? A cynical attempt to sell more papers! It honestly disgusts me how unbalanced modern media has become and how low the standard of reporting has fallen across the media spectrum. I hasten to add that I have often felt that local reporting and the BBC is the last bastion of honest reporting, which is perhaps, why I feel so strongly about this now as it seems to me that even my local press cannot resist the tidal wave of social irresponsibility that is plaguing us at the moment.

I can't change the minds of those responsible for the likes of the Daily Mail or Fox/Sky News who have long since whored their industrial freedoms in the name of turning of a profit, but I hope that this at least might influence those on the frontline and encourage them to hold themselves to a higher standard.