Letter: Tatchell's protest
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: I get very weary when you keep going on in snooty editorials - this time on the Peter Tatchell court case (1 December) - about the so-called "privileges" of the Church of England, enshrined in "archaic laws".
You, as editor of The Independent, rightly have the privilege of total control over what views are expressed in your newspaper. I, as a reader, can agree or disagree with those views. There is no way I can protest except by writing to you: and you can print my objections, or not, as you see fit. I can't storm your offices and demand that you give my views an airing. If I did, you would quite rightly have me thrown out: if I continued to do it, you would probably have me arrested.
I have a similar editorial control over who speaks from the pulpit of my church. No one, even my bishop, has a right to stand in my pulpit and speak except at my express invitation. The same rule applies in every church in the land, even in Canterbury Cathedral: no one, not even the Archbishop himself, has a right to speak from the pulpit without the permission of the Dean of Canterbury, the priest responsible for the cathedral.
This situation is enshrined in law. That is not privilege; it is simply good management. Similar, but less specific, laws protect just about every public utterance you could think of. What would happen if a disapproving theatregoer disrupted a play by mounting the stage and giving an alternative performance? What if a disaffected customer stood on the bar of a pub on a Saturday night and denounced the landlord? Would they be allowed to get away with it? I imagine that both situations would be treated by the police as public order offences. I certainly know that the invasion of a football pitch by unhappy fans carries a heavy penalty.
I have no strong views about either Peter Tatchell or the Archbishop of Canterbury, but I do believe in legitimate protest. If, however, your manner of protesting leads you to break the law, you must be prepared to take the consequences. Privilege doesn't come into the argument.
The Rev JOHN WILLIAMS
West Wittering, West Sussex
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments