Littlejohn is the melting, mildew-infested tip of a giant iceberg of piss.

I only read that far, there was no need to go any further

an excellent article.

“I neither want Littlejohn nor Julie Burchill arrested over their articles, but sending a signal that transphobia is also a form of vile bigotry is a perfectly acceptable aim.”

Not quite sure what it is your mean by this.

Are you saying that fear of women becoming men and men becoming women, particularly in the eyes of a child, is decreeing that child to be a “vile bigot”?

I suspect there are plenty of adults who also fear that situation and while they might be concerned, or confused, to condemn them as “vile bigots” seems somewhat strong.

And as this issue arose from the case of Lucy Meadows, it has yet to be established that her death had anything to do with “transphobia”. Maybe she just wanted to be an ordinary woman.

Are you saying that fear of women becoming men and men becoming women, particularly in the eyes of a child, is decreeing that child to be a “vile bigot”?

Wasn’t aware any children had actually piped up with any such fears, don’t suppose you could provide a link?

“Firing Richard Littlejohn would send out a powerful signal: it’s time these attitudes were not acceptable in polite society.”

Firstly, how do you define polite society? Secondly, how do you know what they’re not acceptable in polite society?

What a shame about that right-whingers dig. I recognise you’re “being clever” but you had a cross-party thing going there…

I’m afraid this is not how things work and I’m writing a blog post only because it’s too long to explain in a tweet.

So Twitter is your preferred medium now – and blogging is only for when you have thoughts too subtle to contain in 140 characters? That probably explains the disproportionate coverage the twattersphere gets here.

I neither want Littlejohn nor Julie Burchill arrested over their articles, but sending a signal that transphobia is also a form of vile bigotry is a perfectly acceptable aim. Over time that would have an impact on popular opinion. That’s why the anger and the petitions matter.

If they were sacked for commercial reasons – because readers were boycotting their rags and damaging profits – that would send out a stronger signal than the sacking coming from above.

But that means the 50+ % who say they support stronger regulation take responsibility for their own reading matter rather than waiting for someone to do it for them.

Littlejohn, Burchill and Greer reflect the bigotry of their readers. Sadly the Leveson report didn’t think telling newspaper readers they are prurient, prejudiced wankers was worth their time.

Littlejohn is wonderful at getting a reaction from his readers but he can only manage to do that because of the stupidity shown by governments, councils, judges and others who impose their barking mad liberal/left policies on ordinary people who react with amazed horror.

BTW, an iceberg is very unlikely to be composed of urine and even less likely to be a breeding place for large amounts of mildew. Littlejohn wouldn’t make such a stupid error.

Racism generally disappears when there is a “melting pot” but if you pour mour into the pot than can be melded together then it will continue as a two way process.

3. Cylux

If a child is presented with a situation where someone they have known as a man all their young and impressionable life, suddenly appears as a women, or vice versa, I would have though fright might logically be one of the reactions, as might confusion, intrigue, amusement, sadness, etc.

But you asked for references, so how about this one?

Transgender 101: A Simple Guide to a Complex Issue

Chapter 3: Coming Out as Transgender: When, Why, and How People Come Out

“An adult who reveals that he or she is transgender can encounter a wide range of reactions from family and close friends. Parents, siblings, spouses, children, loved ones, and friends connected to a transperson may feel as if they have no concept of what it would be like to be in the transperson’s shoes. Most people go through a lifetime without so much as thinking about what their gender means to them. When something as fundamental as gender is called into question by a friend or a loved one, many people feel as if the rug has been pulled out from underneath them.”

http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15712-4/transgender-101/excerpt

@8 Interesting link. Thanks. The children’s subsection and trans children subsection were very interesting reading, though not really all the strengthening to your original point, in fact they suggested the very opposite.

I thought the article was superb, and absolutely spot on.

Of course Sunny wants people to be punished for views he doesn’t like as long as that principle doesn’t extend to him. See his confused babble about press regulation for the template (oh yes, silence those nasty tabloids but don’t come anywhere near my blog!!!)

The best way of dealing with a Littlejohn is to argue against his views, not shut him up.

I should add that it was Robbins’ article I thought was superb, not Littlejohn’s in case that wasn’t clear.

As for kids and trans teachers, in my experience very young children are much more accepting of difference than the adults around them. Yes, there might be a period of adjustment but if they can handle a new Dr Who every few years, they can handle a teacher changing gender.

Sunny,

“I neither want Littlejohn nor Julie Burchill arrested over their articles …..”

Well that’s very big of you, Mr LiberalConspiracy, not to seek fellow journalists are arrested for their opinions.

Try sticking up for freedom if speech with a bit of vigour.

Kojak:

Try sticking up for freedom if speech with a bit of vigour.

Burchill and Littlejohn are entitled – within the laws of the land – to freedom of speech.

However, the long-term aim is to shift ‘popular opinion’ so they no longer have an audience.

“Littlejohn, Burchill and Greer reflect the bigotry of their readers”

I think Burchill doesn’t reflect the bigotry of her readers, she just enjoys writing bigoted things (that she doesn’t probably believe herself) she knows her readers will be provoked by.

Part of the genre of journalism known as “professional attention seeking”. Which can be enjoyable when written with wit and sarcasm.

Littlejohn, on the other hand, doesn’t have the ability to do this. Frankly he’s a crap journalist above all, who can’t even spell fact checking, let alone know what it is. And that’s the reason he should be sacked.

“who impose their barking mad liberal/left policies on ordinary people who react with amazed horror”

“Barking mad” policies which all boil down – in essence – to “not being a complete twat to anyone who happens not to look/act/think like you…”

Yeah, who wants policies like that?

“Try sticking up for freedom of speech with a bit of vigour”.

Freedom of speech does not confer ANY right to incite, which is precisely what the likes of Littlejohn are up to, albeit not always completely overtly.

Bitethehand:

” Are you saying that fear of women becoming men and men becoming women, particularly in the eyes of a child, is decreeing that child to be a “vile bigot”? ”

I dont think anyone was remotely implying that children who were fearful of Miss Meadows change in gender are ‘vile bigots’, although I’m extremely doubtful there has been any proof that children at this school were made in any way fearful (I’m not willing to accept quotes from the Daily Mail as proof of anything btw)

Unfounded and irrational fear of transgender people in adults also does not make someone a bigot but creating the disgusting article that Littlejohn did is certainly a very good step in that direction.

Just a quick reminder of the headline btw

“He’s not only in the wrong body… he’s in the wrong job”

The Daily Mail is a fear mongering cancer in the british media landscape, a comic book version of OK magazine for people who want to wallow in bile and irrational anger that masquerades as a serious paper. I strongly believe in their right to spew the filth they do but equally I believe people who are disgusted by them should mobilise and do what they can to pressure them to understand that Littlejohn et al are not worthy of the enormous platform the DM provides them with.

Could I just remind people that nowhere is free speech an entitlement to say what you like without any consequences. Even in the US.

Cherub, freedom of speech is however an entitlement say what you like without being hassled by the law just because your opinions are unpopular or badly received*. Given the amount of people calling for Littlejohn to be arrested, I think the proper definition of freedom of speech is being used.

Not that I really want to defend Littlejohn, but has it been established that he caused a suicide? Suicide is complex, and as I understand it, transexuals are at a greater risk of suicide. Lets not become like the Daily Mail and rush to judgement on tiny slivers of fact.

*incitement not withstanding

@19 Evert

Sure, but some on this thread and others seem to think that free speech should allow them to use insulting, demeaning or bullying speech without consequences.

After all, “Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of saying stupid shit.”
? Jim C. Hines

Excellent article Sunny!

You are absolutely right, just because racism exists does not mean it has to be made acceptable by the media. Ditto for transphobia. A very powerful argument. Thank you.

I definitely agree, people are far to ready to rely on “freedom of speech”, sometimes forgetting that it is a two way street.

My objection is that now people are literally calling for arrests to be made, which is precisely what freedom of speech is for

As Chair of Trans Media Watch, I read pretty much everything published in the UK press on the subject of trans people. I cannot count the number of times I have seen comments on such articles including the phrase “They should be locked up”, or similar. I have never seen an outcry about these calls for arrests, although they are directed at private individuals simply for existing; so it is interesting to see the fuss made over calls for the arrests of Littlejohn or Burchill (on which, incidentally, my charity is neutral). Can we get things in perspective, please? After all, it’s really not that hard to treat people respectfully in the first place.

Jennie – so because some idiots call for trans people to be locked up, that makes it ok for other idiots to call for journalists who say things they don’t like to be locked up?

Yes;I agree; it’s well and succinctly put.

@23 – As someone who doesn’t believe everything they are told could I have some links please? I don’t want to waste your time so If we can start with five that would be great.

I_claudius re comment 17:

“The Daily Mail is a fear mongering cancer in the british media landscape, a comic book version of OK magazine for people who want to wallow in bile and irrational anger that masquerades as a serious paper. I strongly believe in their right to spew the filth they do but equally I believe people who are disgusted by them should mobilise and do what they can to pressure them to understand that Littlejohn et al are not worthy of the enormous platform the DM provides them with.”

I tend to think the Daily Mail is a top end tabloid serving up stories which accord with it’s conservative values. No bile or fear mongering unless that’s how the expression of concern is now to be described. Let us not forget that for all it’s faults the Daily Mail was the newspaper which ran the campaign for the murderers of Stephen Lawrence to be found and prosecuted. Not the Guardian, not the Independent nor the Daily Mirror – indeed it put the rest of Fleet Street to shame.

Returning to Sunny’s OP: “The key to that process was making racism unacceptable in polite society. Right-whingers call this ‘political correctness gone mad’ – and while I can see why they’re mad about it, we both know they’ve lost the war. Calling people racist epithets in public is just no longer acceptable as it once was.”

Sunny’s argument is a common one, that we disarm racists and homophobes by expressing gentle intolerance and contempt of their vile words. Complete silence after a cruel joke is told is enough for the reciter to know that s/he has overstepped the social mark.

We show contempt of ignorance by using different language. We don’t talk about mongs or gyppos; we circumlocute or use the currently approved expression, anything to get away from hate words.

* Apologies for the Royal We, which is shorthand for people with good manners.

While we do this, at least two things are achieved:
1. We show personal disapproval or an expectation of better manners. We disassociate ourselves.
2. We indicate that society has moved on and that it might be time for hate word users to review their outlook.

In point 2, there is coercion so it is dangerous. Racism is so ugly that its crudest forms are unacceptable in most company; racism can be presented in nuanced form in discussions about immigration; immigration may be discussed without reference to race or nationality. Perhaps then, we recognise our own coercion and respect boundaries of free thought and speech.

Way back, Danny Finkelstein at The Times wrote an opinion piece about political correctness reminding us all that PC is just good manners. Permitting a person to swear an oath on the Koran or Torah means that we respect difference; we are not being homogenised. “Political correctness” can only go “mad” by becoming something else.

Sunny further writes: “Firing Richard Littlejohn would send out a powerful signal: it’s time these attitudes were not acceptable in polite society.”

Under sufficient pressure, the Daily Hate might sack Littlejohn. But if the newspaper redeployed another into his job as polemic author, would the Daily Hate have changed? As others have said, the Daily Hate occasionally does some good journalism. It is one of the smartest papers at identifying what people want to read (link, anyone, to how they tweak headlines to get search hits?) so maybe we should be asking why (whether?) people want to read hateful words about transgendered people.

The Daily Hate knows that it has to be (more or less) polite about gay and black UK/US citizens in addition to white straight people worldwide; the number of social groups about which it understands that it is expected to be polite is increasing; the Daily Hate could cut its legal bills hugely by loving everyone apart from the genuinely evil.

If we tolerate and/or accept transgendered people better — or express our acceptance more vocally — the Daily Hate will learn. There will always be a Littlejohn so just live with it. Sow the seeds of liberalism and social tolerance wherever you tread.

Richard Littelcock. Sorry, I just had to share that with you all. Puerile, I know, but funny.

@ Charlieman

As it’s tangentially related to your point, what do you think about offensive jokes that are told and received ironically? And I mean where the intent is genuinely ironic, not where people are telling them straight then use “I was being ironic!” as an excuse if someone objects.

I’m kind of in two minds. On the one hand, they obviously risk offending people*, and there’s a danger that some bigoted people hearing the joke will assume it’s meant seriously and that this will help to see their worldview as “normal”. On the other, it seems encouraging that these jokes have inherent shock factor for a lot of people these days – they’re laughing at the offensiveness, not at the target of the original joke.

*In case someone says that nobody has a right not to be offended: agreed, but morally speaking giving offense can be treated as a negative, all else being equal. If there’s no reason to do it, then don’t.

@30. Chaise Guevara: “As it’s tangentially related to your point, what do you think about offensive jokes that are told and received ironically?”

I don’t think there is a straightforward answer. If a joke reveals something about ourselves or the world, then it is worth telling. Few offensive jokes manage this although many show something about the teller that s/he might not recognise.

I tend to self censor my viewing of TV comedy, particularly panel shows. There’s a narrow division between boisterousness and group think/bullying which is easily crossed. And I’m not sure that a diet of cruelty is a good thing.

@ 31

While revealing something about the world would certainly help justify an offensive joke, it’s not the main purpose of jokes in general. Most jokes don’t do this.

I’m guessing you don’t watch Mock the Week, then?