Unlawful act manslaughter and the case of Virgin Records
"They know what they're doing isn't right, so they get uptight and defensive."
The above is a reference to gays and lesbians by a supporter of reggae's anti-gay ethic in an interview taken recently in Simply the Best music store in Miramar. Others are more hostile and make the claim that it's their right to listen to music that represents their own point of view. Lyrics such as,
"Batty Man Fi Dead,"
meaning, 'men who like bottom must be killed' in Jamaican patois. MTV have pulled artist Beenie Man, and on entering the UK late last summer he was taken in for questioning concerning lyrics he was due to rap at a concert. He could well have been charged with an offence of inciting murder had he been allowed to air his views, facing the warranted lengthy prison term. In spite of the recent furore from gay rights groups such as Stonewall, EMI subsidiary Virgin still have Beenie Man signed on their record label as well as fellow homophobes 'Elephant Man' and 'Bounty Killer'. 'Sizzla' has also been banned from performing here in the UK after gay rights group Outrage campaigned against his offensive lyrics. Had Sir Richard Branson not have sold Virgin Records to EMI back in 1992 one can only hope there would have been a different response to the public outcry.
Homophobic or offensive lyrics are understandable, not to eveyone's taste, but then few things ever are. It would be a profound loss of liberty if we were to censor what offends the majority. As Mills said,
"The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it."
The difference however between what offends and what must cross the line as a clear infringement of the autonomy of others can be illustrated by an examination of existing UK law, imagining a scenario where Virgin were brought before trial in the case of a murder as a consequence of Beenie Man's music.
The board of directors are fully aware that Beenie Man's lyrics constitute criminal conduct, and they have made the decision to keep publishing the same to the public. This brings them within the scope of Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972], necessary to make out corporate liability. This is evidenced by the actions of the Metropolitan Police in stopping the concerts.
The actual persons who are the 'directing mind and will' of the company under Lennard's Carrying Co. Ltd. [1915] can be idenitified by an examination of board meetings, public statements and internal memos. Although rare, it may well be that on the facts surrounding the previous police interventions that the very rare case of unlawful act corporate manslaughter could be made out.
posted by Wanderlust @ 7:00 PM
![BBCi: Javascript is not available
on this browser](http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/bsp/hi/services/htmlsyndication/img/synd_js_error_js-inactive.gif")
.
5 Comments:
the green party, along with peter tatchell are petitioning the council in brighton to have these type of records banned (or it might have actually just passed). they have pestered the local hmv and virgin to have them banned.but virgin say they prefer to leave the choice to the consumer.but heres the thing. these records arent even stocked in brighton.at all. there is no market for them.so why with all the fuss? of course i dont support homophobic stuff, but when they claim a record is responsible for someone being killed, well then the floodgates open. so by that reasoning manhunt game did cause a murder, marilyn manson did cause columbine etc. allow these records to be blamed and logically all film, tv, games and music must go. surely the public must decide for themselves and say no,i dont want to buy this crap.
Stephen,
it would be a terrible loss if society censored all that which offends. It goes without saying that the obviously subjective nature of 'offense' means that a group of people will always find themselves haveing to tolerate certain types of opinion.
What the law in effect does is draw a line between that which is offensive and that which becomes criminal. Marilyn Manson, (and Fantasia in that same vein), and Beenie Man are on two different sides of that line, in law.
The Crown Prosecution service expound,
"The offence of incitement occurs when a person seeks to persuade another to commit a criminal offence. It is not a defence to a charge of incitement that the other person, for whatever reason, does not commit the offence, or commits a different offence to that incited."
Murdering homosexuals being a criminal offence is what seperates the Beenie Men, from the Marilyn Mansons so it seems. If this still seems unjust, consider incitement in relation to pederasty or some criminal offence that you would personally disagree with. Few of us would think it reasonable to allow citizens to roam free persuading the rape of young babies, and if that is the case then the same must apply to Beenie Man and his ilk.
Although it should be noted that campaigning at a store that doesn't sell the subject matter of your protest does seem a tad pointless. Maybe there was a sale there that same day.
Peter Thatchell's site with commentary from Detective Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll the Director of Diversity at New Scotland Yard can be found at:
http://www.petertatchell.net/hate%20crimes/policereggae.htm
im no expert of course, not having studied law or anything. i dont want anyone to buy records like that.or more precisely i dont want records like that to be made. just when censorship rears its head i think where will it go. im more than happy to see those 'artists' banned, as long as it doesnt go further.
Apt, in all it's reasonableness, as a conclusion. I look forward to your comments on future work that grabs your interest.
see you have it up now. cool.
Post a Comment
<< Home