[link removed]

In this mailing:
* Judith Bergman: UK: New Subversive "Guidance" for Journalists
* Malcolm Lowe: The UK Supreme Court's Judgment on Johnson's Prorogation


** UK: New Subversive "Guidance" for Journalists ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------

by Judith Bergman • October 9, 2019 at 5:00 am
[link removed] [link removed] [link removed] [link removed]
[link removed]
* Policy Exchange's report on the leaked guidance gives rise for concern. In the words of the report, the guidance, "seems designed to bind the hands of UK newspapers when it comes to reporting on stories relating to Islam and Muslims – with potentially serious long-term consequences for the workings of a free and independent press". — Policy Exchange Report, "Eroding the Free Press," by Will Heaven and Sir John Jenkins.
* As the Policy Exchange authors write, "In all of this, there seems to be a suggestion that journalists should take a different approach to covering Muslims than that employed towards other faith groups. This all seems remarkably ill-conceived. If we ruled out reporting on matters specific to Muslims not only would we miss some big issues – not least the threat from Islamist extremist terrorism, which continues to dwarf other global terrorist threats – but we would also be unable to report properly on discrimination against Muslims. More generally, we must ask: is it really the role of journalists to consider community cohesion before truth and accuracy? And what are the potential consequences of such an ethos?" — Policy Exchange Report, "Eroding the Free Press," by Will Heaven and Sir John Jenkins.
* "As Policy Exchange has previously pointed out, one of the things that makes the APPG's attempts to institutionalise an illiberal definition of Islamophobia so unpalatable, is the fact that it resembles a form of blasphemy law, protecting Islam specifically, implemented by the back door". — Policy Exchange Report, "Eroding the Free Press," by Will Heaven and Sir John Jenkins.
* "Taken as a whole, the IPSO guidance document seems to mark a decisive shift in the purpose of the regulator – which takes it beyond considerations of accuracy or discrimination, as per the Editor's Code. Instead, it is moving into the realm of 'insensitivities' and 'unbalanced coverage' – elastic and subjective terms". — Policy Exchange Report, "Eroding the Free Press," by Will Heaven and Sir John Jenkins.

For the eroding of the freedom of the press in Britain, the question seems not so much to be "if" as "to what degree". (Image source: iStock)

The British think-tank Policy Exchange, recently published a report, Eroding the Free Press, about a leaked draft of "Guidance for Reporting on Islam and Muslims". The guidance was drafted by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO)[1], the UK's independent press regulator, an initiative that IPSO announced in late 2018. In the past, IPSO has, among other issues, published guidance on the reporting of death and inquests, sexual offences, suicides, and transgender people. According to IPSO, its guidance is "designed to support editors and journalists" and "does not limit or restrict editorial decision making, but may inform that decision making".

In a January 2019 blog on IPSO's main priorities for 2019, IPSO Head of Standards Charlotte Urwin laid out the five priorities of the year. "Reporting of Islam and Muslims" was listed as the first priority and described in the following way:

Continue Reading Article ([link removed])


** The UK Supreme Court's Judgment on Johnson's Prorogation ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------

by Malcolm Lowe • October 9, 2019 at 4:00 am
[link removed] [link removed] [link removed]
[link removed] [link removed]
* After Johnson's advocate lost the argument on a crucial point, the likely Judgment of the Court was evident. Surprising, at most, was that all eleven judges unanimously backed it.
* A ComRes poll has found that interviewees agreed 50% to 29% (with 21% unsure) that "the Supreme Court was right to rule that Boris Johnson's prorogation of parliament was unlawful," while nevertheless 49% agreed that "the UK should leave with or without a deal by 31st October 2019." That is, the public tends to agree with Johnson's aims but thinks that he went the wrong way about them.
* In this Judgment, the Supreme Court has clearly delineated the proper relationship between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary in the Constitution of the UK. The US Constitution had such a delineation from the outset, of course, since it was a prime concern of the Founding Fathers. The Judgment may become the key precedent for all future cases in which such a delineation is required.

For the most part, public reactions to the Judgment of the UK Supreme Court to declare Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament unlawful were predictable. Those who opposed Johnson's Brexit stance were jubilant, while those who supported that stance decried the Judgment as an unwarranted judicial interference in the political realm. Pictured: The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. (Image source: Rwendland/Wikimedia Commons)

For the most part, public reactions to the Judgment of the UK Supreme Court to declare Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament unlawful were predictable. Those who opposed Johnson's Brexit stance were jubilant, while those who supported that stance decried the Judgment as an unwarranted judicial interference in the political realm. So there is no need to record all those reactions, but rather a need to understand how and why the Court reached its conclusions. For sure, the Court issued a summary of its Judgment, but the summary covers so many points with so few words that crucial details lack prominence.

Continue Reading Article ([link removed])

============================================================
** Facebook ([link removed])
** Twitter ([link removed])
** RSS ([link removed])
** Donate ([link removed])
Copyright © Gatestone Institute, All rights reserved.

You are subscribed to this list as [email protected]

You can change how you receive these emails:
** Update your subscription preferences ([link removed])
or ** Unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])

** Gatestone Institute ([link removed])

14 East 60 St., Suite 705, New York, NY 10022