Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Press Ombudsman upholds complaint against Irish Independent...

  • 14-06-2011 9:56am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    The Press Ombudsman has upheld a complaint by a coalition of national and international drug services against the Irish Independent for a column by Ian O’Doherty which described drug users as “vermin”, “feral, worthless scumbags” and which proclaimed that “if every junkie in this country were to die tomorrow I would cheer”.

    The complaint was filed jointly by Harm Reduction International (aka International Harm Reduction Association), the Irish Needle Exchange Forum and the CityWide Drugs Crisis Campaign, and was supported by approximately thirty Irish drugs services and professionals.
    The Ombudsman found that the column, titled Sterilising junkies may seem harsh, but it does make sense* (18 February 2011) “was likely to cause grave offence to or stir up hatred against individuals or groups addicted to drugs on the basis of their illness.”

    The column was found in violation of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines, specifically of Principle 8 on Prejudice, which states:
    “Newspapers and magazines shall not publish material intended or likely to cause grave offence or stir up hatred against an individual or group on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, colour, ethnic origin, membership of the travelling community, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age”

    “We are extremely gratified by this decision," said Rick Lines, Executive Director of Harm Reduction International. "We believe this to be the first time that drug users have been identified by a media watchdog as an identifiable group, entitled to protections against hate-type speech in the press. In this sense, we think the decision of the Press Ombudsman has international significance."

    "We hope that this decision will put a stop to the current wave of sensationalist journalism. Today's decision should help promote more responsible reporting of drug issues in the Irish media, something we all badly need," said Daithi Doolan, Coordinator of CityWide. "While the language used in the Independent column was particularly offensive, it is very much in keeping with the kind of stigmatising coverage of drugs and drug users seen across much of the mainstream press. Such reporting does nothing to promote sensible debate on drugs, but rather further stigmatises drug users, their families and communities."

    "Drug use is ultimately a health issue and needs to be addressed as such," said Tim Bingham, Coordinator of the Irish Needle Exchange Forum.

    "Sensationalist media reporting undermines discussion of pragmatic policy on dealing with drugs, such as the scaling up of access to harm reduction services, and it makes people less willing to put their head above the parapet and come forward for services. We hope that the decision of the Ombudsman will play a role in reorienting the media discourse away from prejudice and stigma, and therefore promote a discussion based on evidence of effectiveness and on public health."

    http://politico.ie/media-watch/7586-press-ombudsman-irish-independent

    Isn't it the same attitude by do-gooders such as Harm Reduction & The Irish Council for Civil Liberties that has valuable tax payers money paying for said junkies to be ferried all over the place in taxi's for their drug treatment???

    I'm all for helping those with an illness but it seems to me that there is a complete lack of a plan to deal with the illness of drug addiction. This strategy is like buying cans every day for an alcoholic.

    Harm Reduction in this context seems to be anything but , it seems to me that this is Sustaining Harm, by keeping people in a state of drug dependency, albeit a safer drug.

    Should the ultimate objective not be to give drug addicts the option of completely cleaning themselves out here??? Until they make that decision that they are ready to run with a decent program, is it not true that they are junkies???


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 201 ✭✭Lefticus Loonaticus


    Drug abuse is indeed a serious problem in the................

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwxDBoavW7g

    ............. Republic of appalling hypocrisy!!!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Drug abuse is indeed a serious problem in the................

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwxDBoavW7g

    ............. Republic of appalling hypocrisy!!!!

    Seriously that adds nothing to the thread! Please stay somewhat on topic, if you want to discuss Cowen's absurdly unprofessional performance on that interview please do it on a different thread.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    I don't think the do-gooder's actions come into it really. The Ombudsman correctly upheld a complaint about a joke of an article by the Independent which was an incitement to hatred whatever way you looked at it.


    Harm Reduction though does make some sense so long as it is followed up by efforts to get the addicted off the safer drugs. At the least though you're minimising the damage that addicted person is doing to themselves and others and that's something to be welcomed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,384 ✭✭✭Duffy the Vampire Slayer


    I can't wait to see O'Dohertys complaints about this. 'PC gone mad' is what he'll say no doubt.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    nesf wrote: »
    I don't think the do-gooder's actions come into it really. The Ombudsman correctly upheld a complaint about a joke of an article by the Independent which was an incitement to hatred whatever way you looked at it.

    So what if it's an incitement to hatred. Since when did it become wrong to have a serious dislike of junkies? Soon we will not be justified in hating anything or anyone. I hate rapists but based on neuroimaging evidence the case could likely be made that they've a chemical imbalance. There is a case of a paedophile who was found to have a tumor and after it's resection reverted to normal behaviour. I hate mass murderers but then look at the case of Charles Whitman the Texas tower shooter - again a brain abnormality. Indeed a recent study has suggested that all inmates share a history of abuse but that the violent ones share a history of TBI.

    I also hate marmite but poor old marmite didn't make itself that way.

    This is bollox to put it mildly. Drug addiction and the associate criminal behaviours are despicable. Incitement to hatred towards this group is not the same as attacks based on race or creed or gender. This is a complex behaviour but it is a behaviour and not a characteristic of the person. I cannot prejudge you based on race, creed or religion because you are still an individual with autonomy. You don't have to be like the rest of your gender so gender stereotypes become useless and discriminatory. I know countless non chauvinistic men. However drug addiction homogenises behaviour, it dictates behaviour, it is an illness where choice is removed. And it is criminal. Criminal behaviour should always be demonised by the media.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    What's next? The murdering clondalkin gangs take umbrage at the word scum and demand to be referred to in nicer terms - troubled young men yearning for love...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    So what if it's an incitement to hatred. Since when did it become wrong to have a serious dislike of junkies?

    It's not an offence to have a serious dislike of junkies, or newspaper columnists for that matter.

    It is a breach of the Code of Practice to incite hatred against junkies as a group. Newspaper columnists do not enjoy similar protection under the code, which is fair enough.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    HellFireClub

    Harm Reduction in this context seems to be anything but , it seems to me that this is Sustaining Harm, by keeping people in a state of drug dependency, albeit a safer drug.

    What is a safer drug? If the claim is that methadone taken under medical supervision is safe than heroin taken under medical supervision I believe that should have a citation needed flag on it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    It's not an offence to have a serious dislike of junkies, or newspaper columnists for that matter.

    It is a breach of the Code of Practice to incite hatred against junkies as a group. Newspaper columnists do not enjoy similar protection under the code, which is fair enough.

    They are a group associated by a shared behaviour. There are endless groups in this category - cricketers, journalists, surfers, rapists, hoodies, politicians. Are we now not justified of discussing professions or criminal categories if negative judgements are being made?

    When wouldn't journalists come under the same protection? If one were to describe politicians as dishonest or lawyers as shysters should they be protected? A junkie in my eyes is someone who is not only addicted to drugs but is committing crime to sustain that addiction. Should the label criminal be altered as it may cause people who commit crimes offence and incite hatred against them?

    It's feicin PC World without the computers and bad customer service


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    You shouldn't be allowed tar all durg addicts as "vermin" and "worthless scumbags". Sameway any newspaper shouldn't be allowed blanketly tar any profession or group of people. Not all drug addicts wear tracksuits and mug people. Plenty of drug addicts aren't criminals, come from good backgrounds and have a decent job.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    You shouldn't be allowed tar all durg addicts as "vermin" and "worthless scumbags". Sameway any newspaper shouldn't be allowed blanketly tar any profession or group of people. Not all drug addicts wear tracksuits and mug people. Plenty of drug addicts aren't criminals, come from good backgrounds and have a decent job.

    Those drug addicts with jobs aren't junkies. Junkies ARE the tracksuit wearing, boardwalk walking, tourist robbing, hostel sleeping vermin that the article was referring to.

    And these drug addicts with jobs are still criminals even though they may not engage in muggings etc. There behaviour fuels the drug gangs. And drug use however much you love it is still illegal. So it's now UN-PC to insult someone who engages in criminal behaviour


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Those drug addicts with jobs aren't junkies. Junkies ARE the tracksuit wearing, boardwalk walking, tourist robbing, hostel sleeping vermin that the article was referring to.

    And these drug addicts with jobs are still criminals even though they may not engage in muggings etc. There behaviour fuels the drug gangs. And drug use however much you love it is still illegal. So it's now UN-PC to insult someone who engages in criminal behaviour


    A junkie still means someone who is addicted to drugs. It doesn't actuallym ean someone who is addicted to drugs and wears a tracksuit. The journalist should have make it clearly who he was refferring to, if he was referring to those type of drug addicts.

    It's not about un-pc, it about journalist standards. I don't think newspapers should be used for people to go around insulting whoever they want, and however they want. Not all drug addicts currently engage in criminal behaviour. I don't think it's far to call someone who hasn't committed a crime in a number of years a "worthless scumbag".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    So you don't think the media should demonise criminality or just not this type of criminality?

    Would you object to pejorative labels being used to describe thieves, burglars, murderers, gangland criminals, IRA members?

    Maybe you don't see drug use (to the point of addiction, which can be a sudden unexpected point) as criminal?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    So you don't think the media should demonise criminality or just not this type of criminality?

    Would you object to pejorative labels being used to describe thieves, burglars, murderers, gangland criminals, IRA members?

    Maybe you don't see drug use (to the point of addiction, which can be a sudden unexpected point) as criminal?


    There is a difference between drug use and addiction. Plenty of addicts will be taking no illegal drugs for years. I do see drug use as criminal, I don't agree with every criminal being a "worhtless scumbag" and "vermin" though. Same as if someone used those words to describe someone who didn't pay their license fee or who was caught speedning.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    There is a difference between drug use and addiction. Plenty of addicts will be taking no illegal drugs for years.

    That's very true but I seriously doubt the journalist was referring to little old ladies addicted to pain medication. It's common sense that he was referring to the walking dead junkies - because he used the word junkie for a start


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    You are lumping in all drug addicts with the 'feral junkies' he was referring to, purposely misrepresenting the target of his ire. There are indeed levels of criminality and while avoiding licence fees or parking illegal is on the very minor end, this article is referring to junkies - criminal drug addicts who are a menace to the country. He wasnt calling jay walkers vermin, he wasnt calling pain med addicts scum, he was referring to junkies.

    Can you answer my question. Should the media refrain from demonising criminality? Should they be sanctioned for insulting murderers etc?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    That's very true but I seriously doubt the journalist was referring to little old ladies addicted to pain medication. It's common sense that he was referring to the walking dead junkies - because he used the word junkie for a start

    You are lumping in all drug addicts with the 'feral junkies' he was referring to, purposely misrepresenting the target of his ire. There are indeed levels of criminality and while avoiding licence fees or parking illegal is on the very minor end, this article is referring to junkies - criminal drug addicts who are a menace to the country. He wasnt calling jay walkers vermin, he wasnt calling pain med addicts scum, he was referring to junkies.

    Can you answer my question. Should the media refrain from demonising criminality? Should they be sanctioned for insulting murderers etc?


    I'd want to see the full article before knowing he only used the word junkie, but I still think it's poor journalism to simply use the term jnkie and expect everyone to know you just mean trouble making tracksuit wearers.

    I don't think they should refrain from demonising criminality. It all depends on what insults they use to desribe the murders. But just like these is a difference between a parking ticket and buying illegal drugs, there is a big difference between being a junkie on the boardwalk and a murderer.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 201 ✭✭Lefticus Loonaticus


    nesf wrote: »
    Seriously that adds nothing to the thread! Please stay somewhat on topic, if you want to discuss Cowen's absurdly unprofessional performance on that interview please do it on a different thread.

    I was merely pointing out that alcohaul is a drug aswell and can be just as, if not more, devestating than heroin or other stuff.

    But since the majority are users its kinda glossed over.

    Cowen had a savage hang over, point taken tho.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Ian O'Doherty represents the worst type of Indo journalism.

    He delights in his atheism, almost congratulating himself for it, while in reality simply using it as a crutch to hobble around an unthinking, ready-mix, Betty Crocker attempt at intellectualism.

    O'Doherty is the classic obnoxious office colleague. Loud mouthed, racist, anti-women, crass and, for all his dogged attempts at intellectual ascent, only succeeds in sending up erudition or philosophical thought as an eccentric pursuit that doesn't at all seem to interest him.

    I fully expect to open the office Indo some lunchtime and meet with the headline "Honohan is ghey and Why I Am An Atheist".

    Anyway, in summary: if this sort of story irritates you or upsets you (and I can understand why it would) my advice would be to steer clear of O'Doherty's contributions and head straight for the sports pages. I think that's about the only part of the paper that is still worth reading for the purpose of objective information


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Does this mean i have to stop writting my column on why ian o doherty should be sterilised?

    also, "do-gooders" as an insult? is this the wacky races or something


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    also, "do-gooders" as an insult? is this the wacky races or something

    Welcome to reading the Indo.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 646 ✭✭✭end a eknny


    would ian like it if somebody said the same about alcoholic, good for nothing, know all know nothing, fathead journalists tw4ts


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    So then, we do not apparently have a right to freedom of speech in this country, nor freedom of opinion.

    This place is looking shoddier and shoddier by the day.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    I know a junkie. He's my neighbour. We were good friends when we were younger, and he was, and still is, one of the nicest, most genuine people one could meet. He's also not the brightest in the the world, easily led, and fairly naive. That's not to excuse his "junkie" status, but rather to explain it somewhat. He's a tragic case. His parents have split because of the strain. He's lost many of his friends. Even when he's sober, he's clearly addled. But he's still a nice, decent person. He's just started a treatment course, so hopefully he can get clean.

    My point is, he's not vermin, he's not a "scumbag", and I'd far prefer a reactionary provocateur like O'Doherty disappeared in the morn than my friend. The article was an absolute disgrace, and were it written about any other group in society, there would be uproar.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Mathias Clean Muck


    So then, we do not apparently have a right to freedom of speech in this country, nor freedom of opinion.

    This place is looking shoddier and shoddier by the day.

    You can have both, just don't print inflammatory insulting rubbish in a "newspaper".

    I'm glad the complaint was upheld.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Einhard, does your drug addicted friend rob people/cars/houses/shops to sustain his habit?

    If he does I struggle to understand how you can call him a nice fella.
    If he doesn't then I doubt he was the caliber of drug addict the article was targeting.

    Does 'feral' describe him? I doubt it. Feral junkies are the type that wander the streets doing anything for a hit.

    Later10, while I don't disagree with you about the journalistic qualities of Ian O'Doherty, you left the ball at the half way line and just kicked lumps out of the player.

    Are journalists unjustified in calling any group scum (based on their behaviour)? Should murderers not be referred to in derogatory language? Rapists?

    So why not feral junkies?

    And inflammatory? When was the last time you saw a feral junkie reading anything let alone the Indo?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    I can't wait to see O'Dohertys complaints about this. 'PC gone mad' is what he'll say no doubt.
    Fynny thing about O Doherty is that whilst he likes to portray himself as a hard man, he is quite conservative !


Advertisement