Apparently it’s OK to call Travellers a “species” now?

From christinequigley.org.uk

Some weeks ago, I noticed a piece on the Daily Mail website which contained some particularly unpleasant language about members of the Travelling community. The offending line was:

A Traveller and his family – that much-protected species in today’s human-rights-obsessed world – are now living in it.

Now, I’m not a Traveller, and I certainly wouldn’t purport to speak for that community. However, I think the idea that anyone can talk about a race of people as a ‘species’ – or somehow subhuman – is deeply worrying. The ability to dehumanise groups of people based on their race or other characteristics is an integral part of many of the most shameful episodes in world history, from allowing Irish people to starve to death during the potato Famine, to capturing and selling African families into slavery, through to gassing Jews at Auschwitz. While clearly a Daily Mail opinion piece is in a different order of magnitude to these atrocities, it’s important to combat dehumanisation wherever it occurs, in order to stop these views penetrating into the collective psyche.

So I reported the piece to the Press Complaints Commission, citing the racial hatred elements of the code. On Friday evening I received the PCC’s decision, which I publish below.

Commission’s decision in the case of
Various v Daily Mail

Three complainants considered that the newspaper had breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The newspaper had published an article about a couple who have been unable to recover their stolen caravan. The article said that “a traveller and his family – that much-protected species in today’s human-rights obsessed world – are now living in it [the caravan]”. The complainants were concerned that the reference to Travellers as a “species” was discriminatory and implied that they were inferior.

Clause 12 (Discrimination) states that “the press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability”. The Commission made clear that Clause 12 protects individuals from discrimination; it does not cover references to groups or categories of people. The complainants’ concerns did not appear to relate to an individual, rather they considered that the article was discriminatory towards Travellers in general. As such, there was no breach of the Code.

The Commission noted that the article had been referring to the individual Travellers who were in possession of the caravan. It took the view, however, that it was not appropriate to pursue a complaint on behalf of one of these individuals without their involvement. Without their involvement the Commission would not be able to establish whether they considered the article to have been discriminatory. Additionally, it would not be able to know what would be considered as a suitable resolution to the matter.

The Commission acknowledged that the complainants had found the reference offensive; however, it made clear that the terms of the Editors’ Code of Practice do not address issues of taste and offence. The Code is designed to address the potentially competing rights of freedom of expression and other rights of individuals, such as privacy. Newspapers and magazines have editorial freedom to publish what they consider to be appropriate provided that the rights of individuals – enshrined in the terms of the Code which specifically defines and protects these rights – are not compromised.

I have two concerns about the view which the PCC’s commissioners have come to. Firstly, I don’t accept the view that the author was specifically referring to an individual when he referred to “a Traveller and his family” as “that much-protected species”. It’s equally as fair reading of the piece to infer from it that he’s talking about the man because he is a Traveller and is referring to Travellers as a group. Also “species” is a plural word. You rarely get species with one specimen in them. As such, although I agree that the individuals discussed more widely in the piece should have their views sought, I think it’s entirely appropriate for the PCC to take a wider view of the matter.

Moreover, the PCC’s judgement contradicts itself somewhat. It says that its code doesn’t cover groups, only individuals. However, it has decided that the sentence refers to an individual. It’s pretty clear that the pejorative comment about the individual man in question is down to his membership of the Travelling Community. Both Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are considered by British law to be ethnic groups, and as such are covered by the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Human Rights Act 1998. As such, the individual concerned should be protected from discrimination on the grounds of his race under the PCC code, which it conveniently ignores in this ruling.

So it looks like the Daily Mail can continue to publish what it likes about Travellers. I do hope though that individual journalists will take a more responsible view.