Jeremy Clarkson and Blind Offence 06 February 2009

Today the news broke that Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson has once again upset people, this time for referring to Gordon Brown as a “one-eyed Scottish idiot”. This has apparently offended not Mr Brown himself, (Number 10 has not released a statement on the specific comment), but the Royal National Institute for Blind People.

In a statement, Lesley-Anne Alexander, the chief executive for the Royal National Institute of Blind People, said:

“Clarkson’s description of the prime minister is offensive. Any suggestion that equates disability with incompetence is totally unacceptable. We would be happy to help Clarkson understand the positive contribution people with sight loss make to society.”

Various Scottish MPs have also got terribly cross about the whole affair, The Liberal Democrats’ work and pensions spokesman, Danny Alexander, said the remarks were “hugely offensive on so many levels”. Also the former Labour Scottish minister, Lord Foulkes said he was “outraged”;

“He has insulted Gordon Brown three times over: accusing him of being a liar, having a go at him for having a physical handicap, and for his nationality… Disabled people will be up in arms about it, Scottish people will be angry – and it should concern all of us that the prime minister has been accused of lying.”

Right, lets work through this logically. Under UK law, accusing Mr Brown of being a liar is slander. However it is unlikely the Government would peruse legal action against Mr Clarkson due to the fact that under UK Law they would have to prove that Mr Brown was not a liar. As a politician, that is not going to be easy. I’m not going to go into too much detail on the laws regarding slander, it really is terribly complicated, but it is unlikely anyone has a case to make.

Mr Clarkson is not “having a go at him for having a physical handicap”. It is correct that Mr Brown blind in his left eye after an injury playing rugby, however in this context it is a descriptive term and not an abusing term. Similarly, referring to someone as “Scottish” is not “having a go at him for his nationality”, unless you consider being referred to as “Scottish” as insulting. It is a descriptive term and not an abusing term.

So all that is left is the problem of referring to the Prime Minister as an “idiot”. Well, referring to my every trusty McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists, (16th edition), Mr Clarkson’s comments fall under the legal definition of “fair comment”, in that the comment was the honest opinion of Mr Clarkson. Under the law, the comment can be justified because Mr Clarkson qualified them by indicating that the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, had a differing view on the global financial crisis, which he, (Mr Clarkson), agreed with. Furthermore, the law does not require the “truth” of the comment to be proved, so Mr Clarkson does not actually need to prove that Mr Brown is an idiot.

All this is leading up to two important facts- first is that Mr Clarkson has apologised for the remarks, he said in a statement, “In the heat of the moment I made a remark about the prime minister’s personal appearance for which, upon reflection, I apologise.” But more importantly, the news storm caused by the remarks failed to note one thing… This is a non-story, it is not news.

When someone takes “offence” at something directed specifically at them, then that is their right to take offence, and under certain conditions it could be described as either libellous or slanderous. However, when a comment is not directed specifically at you then taking offence at it is incredibly stupid and frankly pointless. Claiming offence when there is no offence to be taken is self defeating and is, (if you will pardon the brief excursion into Greek mythology), simply crying wolf. More to the point, you have to right to be offended, but you not not have the right to demand that other people are not offensive. You can request an apology, you can say that you are offended, but you cannot demand they lose their jobs which is what Lord Foulkes, insinuated when stating that: “If the BBC banned Jonathan Ross for what he said and they have taken Carol Thatcher off air for something she said in private, then something should be done about Clarkson.” Carol Thatcher was removed from the BBC programme “The One Show” after referring to male tennis player as a “golliwog” while off-air. This is racist, and yes offensive. However, a racist comment and the comment Mr Clarkson made are vastly different, both in the eyes of the law, and in “the right-thinking mind of the average citizen”, which is the somewhat strange UK law moral standpoint. The BBC said it noted Clarkson’s apology for the comments and would be taking no further action.

This has been the top story on most of the UK news networks for most of the day. Why? Because otherwise it was a slow news day, and everyone in the media enjoys hammering the BBC given half a chance. More often then not because they are bitter about not passing the interview when they applied.