Scum-watch: Tits out for the Human Rights Act!
It's long been clear that far from opposing the Human Rights Act because it's either a criminals or terrorists' charter as it has repeatedly claimed, the real reason for the Sun's antipathy for the HRA has been down to its potential to affect the paper's, and indeed the entire tabloid media's business model through Article 8 and how those clauses have been subsequently interpreted by judges.
Even while it's been their excesses and lies that have repeatedly resulted in their appearances in the courts, the Sun and its parent company News International have despite loathing it, always been prepared to use the HRA for their own hypocritical ends. The Times was in fact the very first to test it out after it was enshrined in UK law, a case which it won. More recently the highly esteemed chief lawyer for the News of the World Tom Crone objected bitterly to Tom Watson appearing on the culture, media and sport committee grilling the NotW over the phone-hacking at the paper because of a then on-going libel battle between him and the Sun, claiming that the HRA precluded him from appearing. And today, finally, the paper's biggest assets made clear how the HRA meant they had to be seen if not heard:
That's right, the HRA means that page 3 girls have the right to get their tits out and there's nothing that those interfering politicians can do about it! The same "hated" piece of legislation leading to "madness that is horrifying the country" is according to the four brains on display the only thing that stands between them and their being forced to put some clothes on! Can't these young women see that the HRA is an existential threat to the paper? Don't they know how it puts the rights of criminals above those of victims? How could they possibly defend a piece of legislation that the Conservatives are committed to repealing? Are the Tories going to put in their British Bill of Rights (sic) a specific clause which means that no spoilsport politician will ever be able to stop glamour models from expressing themselves in the only way they know how? It's the ultimate terrifying vista of a hung parliament; no more breasts in a newspaper. How will the Sun ever be able to balance its opposition to the HRA now?
Even while it's been their excesses and lies that have repeatedly resulted in their appearances in the courts, the Sun and its parent company News International have despite loathing it, always been prepared to use the HRA for their own hypocritical ends. The Times was in fact the very first to test it out after it was enshrined in UK law, a case which it won. More recently the highly esteemed chief lawyer for the News of the World Tom Crone objected bitterly to Tom Watson appearing on the culture, media and sport committee grilling the NotW over the phone-hacking at the paper because of a then on-going libel battle between him and the Sun, claiming that the HRA precluded him from appearing. And today, finally, the paper's biggest assets made clear how the HRA meant they had to be seen if not heard:
That's right, the HRA means that page 3 girls have the right to get their tits out and there's nothing that those interfering politicians can do about it! The same "hated" piece of legislation leading to "madness that is horrifying the country" is according to the four brains on display the only thing that stands between them and their being forced to put some clothes on! Can't these young women see that the HRA is an existential threat to the paper? Don't they know how it puts the rights of criminals above those of victims? How could they possibly defend a piece of legislation that the Conservatives are committed to repealing? Are the Tories going to put in their British Bill of Rights (sic) a specific clause which means that no spoilsport politician will ever be able to stop glamour models from expressing themselves in the only way they know how? It's the ultimate terrifying vista of a hung parliament; no more breasts in a newspaper. How will the Sun ever be able to balance its opposition to the HRA now?
Labels: 2010 election campaign, human rights act, hypocrisy, privacy law, Scum-watch, Sun-watch, tabloid hypocrisy
| Permalink
Post a Comment