audio for written confessional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqogp8J-6rY

Stereotyped Arabs nothing but Flotsam ...in the Yemen

Stereotyping – it exists everywhere, and its a judgement call made by everyone. But there's one particular type that stands out – that of the orientalist stereotype. It was Edward Said, the eminent 20th century scholar who coined the term's modern meaning, describing it as the Western perception of the Arab and Muslim world that carries with it an air of superiority over the eastern other – superiority in civilisation, in religion and in cultural capacity. It embodies the ideas of 'Arab exceptionalism' that underlined the last decade, when a Western super power invaded Iraq to give them democracy and freedom without a hint of irony. And orientalism is not constrained to politics. In film, the Arab is often thoughtlessly – or worse, purposely – depicted as brutal (Aladdin), inept (Raiders of the Lost Ark), decadent (The Sheik), a combination of two (You Don't Mess With the Zohan), or all of the above (The Dictator).

But Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (2011) stands out for its avoidance of such orientalist tropes. The story of an immensely wealthy sheikh who wants to import his hobby of salmon fishing home from Scotland to Yemen, at first glance it would seem that he is the quintessentially foolish and decadent cinema-Arab.

The strange Sheikh: garbed traditionally, fishing in Scotland

Despite the first impression (not helped by his eccentrically traditional attire – robes, ivory-sheathed knife and all) it is quickly apparent that the Sheikh transcends these stereotypes. “My intention is to colour this desert in green,” he declares, “make an agricultural industry for my people, and the sons and daughters of my people for generations to come.” The stereotypical 'Arabness' he is first associated with (“I have had too many wives not to know when a woman is unhappy”) washes away over the course of the film to reveal a man of boundless compassion and goodwill.

What is taken for a misguided adventure by all the Western men and women involved (from Dr Alfred Jones, the cynical brains behind the project to the Prime Minister's press officer who's only in it to seek the photo op of a lifetime) is by the end realised to be a serious project made not to placate the Sheikh's ego but to enrich Yemen's land and people.

A Yemeni disguised in a kilt makes an attempt on the Sheikh's life  

The Sheikh's project is a complete flop when terrorists open the dam from which the artificial river flows and flood it with a tidal wave that kills the fish and nearly kills our protagonists. The Sheikh and his advisers sit in the ruins of their work. It is here that his boundless compassion for his countrymen truly comes through. “These destroyers - bad men, certainly - but I think perhaps they have a point. I expected people to understand what we were doing here. I expected them to see that it was really not about fishing at all. In the end I asked for too much.”

The project's mixed messages is raised again in the final moments of the film. Resolved by the sight of a salmon – a survivor – leaping through the river's water, Dr Alfred Jones is inspired to start over. “I'll start small this time, a different approach – just a few fish to begin with, involve the local community more, make it their project, not ours, that's the way to protect it.”

And therein lies the message of the film. The local Arabs are ignored totally over the entire movie, despite its setting in the Yemen. Now this snubbing is recognised as wrong, and Dr Alfred is resolved to right it. It would have been easy to depict the terrorists as being the 'normal' Arab, ignorant and adverse to progress and indeed makers with a more orientalist mindset may well have fallen into the trap of such a depiction. Yet Salmon Fishing in the Yemen manages to avoid this, instead recognising that the Arabs should be treated as equals to the Westerners.

The terrorists second attempt at destroying the Sheikh's
dreams is more successful than the first

It is not a perfect subversion of orientalist stereotypes. The Sheikh, our principle Arab, is very rarely ever actually named. One Whitehall bureaucrat calls him “Sheikh Muhammad... thingamee”, the closest we ever get to a full name. All other times he is simply called 'The Sheikh', and to an extent this removes him being an actual relatable person, the way his plucky British assistants Dr Alfred or Harriet are. Instead he is this constant other, existing as the representative of a world hidden away from the viewer - the Yemen. Short arguments between the Sheikh and some locals, our film's terrorists, occur all in Arabic without translation for either the characters or the audience and the average English speaking viewer is left to take it as it is, with no insight into the Sheikh or his Arab rivals in their own environment.

And the film conforms to stereotypical depictions of Arabia in other ways. At every turn, there are men kneeling towards Mecca in prayer or muttering Arabic as prayer beads roll through their hand. This embodies one of the film's themes: that life is nothing without faith, and that overwhelming faith can overcome obstacles. But a sense of Arabic culture is not depicted beyond religion. The women are veiled in black, the few men are seeking to take lives and kill the Sheikh. Despite these flaws, however, Salmon Fishing in the Yemen remains a rare film for its otherwise satisfactory deconstruction of the usual stereotypes.

The film takes on a more political achievement in light of the fact that it was released in 2011, the year of the Arab Spring. This was a coincidence – filming was done between August and October 2010, several months before the Arab Spring began in December of that year. But it is a happy coincidence that a film, largely successful in its subversion of common perceptions and tropes surrounding Arabs should have been released in the year that completely turned every previous assumption of the Arab world upside down.

Documentary - 22 March 2013 in the news

Fair Dealing

Copyright protects intellectual property. Any literary, dramatic, artistic, musical, sound recording, film, broadcast or typographical arrangement can be protected by copyright. This gives the creator of the copyright the exclusive right to use it and the power to lease it to others. Ignorance is no defence, and everything not created by yourself should be considered copyright protected. Even Creative Commons material require you to give attribution.

However fair dealing allows journalists to use small portions of copyright work without asking permission on the condition that it is in the public interest (or in other words, relevant to your piece: a review of a movie can feature music from the film, but the music shouldn't be used at will in something not relevant. Up to 30 seconds of fair dealing can be used in a package.

Defamation and Libel

A defamatory statement is one that affects the reputation of a person, company or organisation. It is a major component of libel, and a defamatory statement can be made in several ways:

• Inference: A statement which implies a negative thing, though it does not outright say it.
• Innuendo: A statement with a hidden, negative meaning.
• A defamatory statement can also be more straightforward, such as if "McDonalds is poisonous" is printed in an article as though a fact.

The legal definition of defamation (and by extension libel) is a statement which:

• Exposes someone to hatred, ridicule or contempt;
• causes them to be shunned or avoided;
• lower them in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally; or
• disparage them in their business, trade or profession.

There is a low standard of proof, as the statement only needs to have the potential to do so to be taken to court. When a defamatory status is both published and identifies a person, company or organisation then it is libellous and can be taken to court.

Three major defences are:

• Justification: it's true and can be proven
• Fair Comment: the libellous statement appeared in a comment piece and is an honestly held opinion based on available facts
• Privilege: the statement was said in parliament or by a judge in court, giving you qualified privilege in reporting it.

Reporting Crime

Reporting Crime

Prejudice and Contempt

Prejudice is the publication of information that would colour the minds of the jury on a particular case. For example, if a newspaper reported on the prior convictions of a high-profile defendant currently in court, it may pervert the course of justice - a juror reading this article might be more inclined to give a guilty sentence,  in this instance.

Contempt of court is when a publication reveals details that are in breach of the rules of crime reporting. For example, publishing the name and age of a legal child involved in a case would be contempt of court, as children (under 18s) are guaranteed anonymity under the Section 39 and 49 orders.

Contempt: where information is published in breach of the rules on crime orcourt reporting. High risk of prejudicing legal proceedings.

Process of a Justice and Crime Reporting

1. A Crime Occurs. Police are searching for suspects and want as much information and public help as possible. Here a journalist is at liberty to report anything.
2. An Arrest is Made. The case is now legally active, and one must stick to only the hardest facts, i.e. a crime occurred at x during y o'clock and a suspect has been arrested. There is now a risk of prejudice.
3. Police Lay Charges. Only hard facts can be reported, i.e, what the charges are, when the trial will occur.
4. Magistrates Court Hearing. From here on until the case is closed, the reporter is restricted to 7 points:
1. Name of the court
2. Details of the defendant
3. Details of the charges
4. Names of barristers
5. Whether legal aid has been applied for
6. Location of next proceeding
7. Date of next proceeding

Privilege

The Queen has absolute privilege and devolves this privilege to judges, which allows them to say whatever they like in court. This then devolves to journalists.

Journalists reporting criminal cases have qualified privilege. This allows them to report anything said by the judge and lawyers. However privilege does not carry over to everyone in court - a journalist cannot, for example, quote someone shouting abuse from the public gallery, as that person is not protected by privilege.

A journalist can only have the protection of privilege if they report fast, accurately and fairly.

• fast: meaning the report is published in the next available edition or broadcast;
• accurate: all the facts must be correct;
• and fair: the report must be unbiased.

If they do not keep to these rules, the journalist risks losing qualified privilege - opening them up to being in contempt of court or guilty of prejudice.

Crown and Magistrates Courts

Heirarchy of Courts

Supreme Court

(House of Lords)

|

Court of Appeal

|

High Court

-------------------------------

|                                       |

Crown Court                  County Court

|                                       |

Magistrates Court               Tribunals

Magistrates and County courts are at the bottom of the heirarchy (as well as tribuals). Trials from magistrates can be referred up to the Crown court, then High Court, then court of Appeal, then Supreme Court. Despite being based in the House of Lords, it has its own judges - 12 justices - who are a part of the House. That is to say, the House of Lords in its entirety doesn't act as part of the court.

Sources of Law

• Common Law: This is law effective over the entirety of
• the United Kingdom (which is what makes it 'common'. This extends to 
• Precedent: Judges set precedent in the way they apply common law. This works in a top-down fashion, so while a magistrates court judge can make a ruling, if the case is appealed in the crown court, that crown court judge can overturn the magistrates' judgement. This goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, whose decisions are binding and set precedent on all future cases of the same nature. However, the Supreme Court can overturn its own, previous precedent. The court ruling that the website The Pirate Bay is an example of this.
• Statutes: These are acts of parliament which have a binding effect on the law. 
• European Union laws: the major one is the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees a right to life, freedom from torture and freedom of expression. Article 10 of the convention is particularly important to journalists as it guarantees "the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority."
• This reinforces the 'public interest' defence (McNae's calls it a defence, though I understand Chris Horrie's stance that this is a prerequisite of journalism, not a defence). If a story has the merit of being beneficial to society, the journalist can get away with breaking the law to get it. E.G. corruption exposé or scandals like the expense scandal would be very difficult to publish if journalists could be convicted for trying to bring the stories to the public's attention.

Magistrates Courts

Magistrates courts are the lowest level in the court hierarchy as regards criminal cases. The court deals with lesser crimes such as drink driving or speeding. These are considered summary offences. There is no jury present for summary cases and the magistrates court is limited to giving 6-month sentences. They can give 12-month sentences as well, in the case of giving two consecutive sentences for multiple crimes.

If a crime is too large for a the court to deal with it can be referred up to the crown court, but all criminal cases go through this court first.

Crown Courts

A case too large for the magistrates goes up to the crown courts. The crown court deals with indictable offences - these are offences which can be punished the most severely, such as murder and rape. It is the crown court's function to sentence such offences, and only in the case that they are appealed does it go up to next branch of the court hierarchy. 

In all cases, for someone to be convicted they must be proven to be guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. This is the different from civil law, where someone must only be guilty 'within the balance of probabilities' to be convicted. However civil law is also less damaging, as a civil case can only punish a person found guilty financially, whereas crown courts have the power to sentence a defendant to life imprisonment.