Leveson without the law is no change – Gerald McCann
11.02.2013 - Hacked Off
11.02.2013 - Hacked Off
Today,
at the Hacked Off conference on the Leveson Bill, Dr Gerry McCann
gave the keynote speech on where we are now, two and a half months
after Lord Justice Leveson published his recommendations on press
regulation. This is his speech in full.
Good
afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen.
I
don't often find myself making speeches at events like this. But I'm
happy to do so for Hacked Off, because I passionately believe in the
cause. And now is a critical time for the campaign.
We
are at a crossroads. In one direction, the prospect of lasting change
to the failed system of press regulation, based on the painstaking
work of Lord Justice Leveson. In the other, attempts to brush the
problem under the carpet – to create a fix – so that nothing
really changes.
Our
elected politicians face a critical choice. They can either do what
Leveson recommends – wholeheartedly and properly – or they can
turn their backs on the issue, and turn their backs on us, the
victims of press abuse.
Kate
and I had the misfortune to suffer the worst that the press could
throw at us.
• We
were labelled as murderers without a shred of evidence. Qui les a soupçonnés de meurtre ?
• Stories
were published saying our daughter was dead – over and over again,
with no evidence.
• We
were subjected to round-the-clock intrusion at a time of terrible
stress, with photographers camped outside our door. Peut-on avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre ? Les médias ont débarqué en raison de la fausse histoire d'effraction par la fenêtre et ils ne les ont pas renvoyés, ils ont décidé de les utiliser. Les médias les ont utilisés aussi. On pourrait dire que c'était de bonne guerre.
• We
were intimidated. Our young children, especially, were scared out of
their wits.
• My
wife's private diary, revealing her innermost thoughts in her darkest
days, was published without her consent. Ces pensées et d'autres qui ont choqué ont été reproduites dans "Madeleine".
• Rumours
were dressed up as the truth. Sûrement, mais la première des rumeurs fut celle des persiennes et de la fenêtre forcées...
• and
downright lies became front-page news. One newspaper claimed that we
sold Madeleine into slavery in order to pay off our mortgage. N'était-ce pas à prendre au second degré ? Car enfin deux mois de mortgage ont été payés par Madeleine's Fund, un abus que Clarence Mitchell ne chercha pas à excuser, se contentant de dire qu'il ne se répèterait pas.
The
slurs went on for months - despite our best efforts: Meetings with
editors, assurances from our lawyers, a letter from the chief
constable of Leicestershire police calling for restraint- all
ignored. And they continued for the simple reason that there was
no-one and nothing with the power to stop them. People
say: 'Your experience was so unusual, we can't draw any lessons from
it.' Well I disagree. Our experience was extreme, but it was a
consequence of the same sick culture that led to the abuse of many
other people, some of whom are here in this room today.
An
insatiable hunt for headlines combined with a total lack of respect
for other people. The mentality that can turn a family's distress
into cold, hard cash. Profit from misery. In
our case it led to the sacrifice, not only of the truth, but of our
dignity, privacy, well-being and most importantly the search for our
missing daughter, Madeleine. I
believe we have a responsibility, as decent citizens in a democratic
and caring society, to learn lessons from it. D'où l'on déduit que l'ex-inspecteur Gonçalo Amaral n'est pas le seul accusé d'avoir nui à la recherche de MMC.
The
parliamentary select committee on the media said in 2010:
"The
newspaper industry's assertion that the McCann case is a one-off
event shows that it is in denial about the scale and gravity of what
went wrong and about the need to learn from those mistakes. The
industry's words and actions suggest a desire to bury the affair
without confronting its serious implications, the kind of avoidance
which newspapers would criticise mercilessly and rightly if it
occurred in any other part of society."
Three
years later, I see little remorse, no contrition. Sections of the
press are still in denial. The sick culture has not changed, and they
can't be trusted to change it of their own accord.
If
you look at the reporting of the Leveson Inquiry and the behaviour of
some newspapers since then, it's clear that they aren't sorry and
they still think they should not have to answer to anyone when they
publish harmful lies and distortions. The
reason Kate and I put ourselves through the ordeal of giving evidence
to Leveson was simple: Nobody should have to endure what we went
through. A system has to be put in place to protect ordinary people
from the devastating damage that the media can cause. When
David Cameron set up the Leveson Inquiry he said in parliament: "We
must keep the public – and the victims of what has now emerged –
front and centre at all times." And he also said: "We will
have to be guided by what the inquiry finds." When
he gave his own evidence to the Leveson inquiry he promised to
protect the people who have been thrown to the wolves as we were. We
saw this as grounds for hope that we'd see real change.
What
Lord Leveson proposed last November is not tough on the press and
it's not a threat to free speech. For me personally, he did not go
far enough. It seems to me that the judge did everything he could to
make his proposals workable for the newspapers while giving the
public some protection. In
the end they get to regulate themselves, which is something very few
industries are allowed to do, and which many people felt they had
lost the right to do so.
For
us and for other victims of press abuses, Leveson's proposal is the
minimum acceptable compromise – and, judging by the opinion polls,
the public feels the same way.
But
what has happened? Two and a half months on we can see precious
little progress towards implementation of Leveson, and we are hearing
backsliding words from politicians. This is an opportunity for our
elected MP's, whose reputation with the British public is at an all
time low, to redeem themselves. The Leveson report is not something
to be negotiated with their friends in the press. Any watering down
of the Leveson plan now, whether in a Bill or a Royal Charter or
whatever, would be like surrendering to the press and saying the
whole Leveson process was a waste of time. And
the idea that Kate and I, and all those other victims, might have
relived our darkest days in the full glare of the media, for no good
reason, is offensive. If our testimony was in vain, it will be a
permanent stain on the reputation of this Government, and I believe
that many other families will pay a heavy price in press
mistreatment. Ici, il faudrait quand même rappeler que les MC n'ont pas été victimes du scandaleux piratage téléphonique qui est à l'origine de la Commission Leveson.
Sometimes
it seems as if our politicians just don't know what the right thing
to do is. Just like in the past, they seem to be so compromised by
their own relationships with the press that they are unable to see
what needs to be done for the sake of the public. And that is exactly
what the newspapers want. They want politicians to squabble and
manoeuvre, so that they get to carry on business as usual. They need
a compliant Government to tiptoe around them and avoid hurting their
feelings. It's
obvious that no one wants the Government to shackle the press. What
we all want is a free press –indeed Leveson would enshrine it- but
we need a free press which is both responsible and accountable- two
values which are in short supply. So that if the press trample on
people, they have some remedy.
We
need a proper watchdog whose independence and effectiveness is
guaranteed. That is what Leveson recommends. He says the press can
regulate themselves, on condition that their regulator meets some
basic standards. He says what those standards are, and he says there
must be an independent body that checks those standards are met. He
says that it is essential - not desirable, ESSENTIAL - that the body
carrying out the checks is set up in statute, though it must be
completely free of political influence after that. Considering
what the press has been doing to people, they should see that as a
good deal. All the polls show that is what the public thinks. And it
looks as though most parliamentarians think that too. Leveson
without the law is no change. It's the PCC all over again. It's the
world we know, of newspapers abusing innocent families with impunity.
What happened to us would happen to other British families in the
future. Il est récurrent, chez Gerald MC, de raisonner par induction, à partir de son cas particulier (si vous ne prenez pas en compte ce que je dis, ce qui m'affecte finira par affecter tout le monde) et de prendre le contrôle de l'auditoire en l'affolant, en jouant sur les peurs ataviques, en essayant de mobiliser contre un ennemi commun.
It
is up to our Prime Minister and our other politicians to prevent
that. He promised he would. To keep his promise, all he has to do is
follow what Leveson said, and put the Leveson recommendations into
law through parliament, without meddling and back-door deals. And
without checking whether the press is happy about it. There
can't be any half measures or compromises. Leveson made many
concessions to the press so his recommendations are already a
compromise. In fact they are the minimum acceptable compromise for
the people who, in the Prime Minister's words, were "picked up
and thrown to the wolves." That is us. That is Kate and I, and
some of the people in this room, and many other people around the
country.
I
said at the beginning that we are at a crossroads. Please, this time,
let's choose the right road.
