New Petitions

My intention in this introduction is to provide some general information on the no more page 3 campaign before highlighting the work that has been undertaken to date in the Scottish Parliament and then outlining our reasons for bringing both parts of our petition to you.

Although many have felt uneasy about the prominence and presence of page 3 in our society for decades, the official no more page 3 campaign began in earnest in 2012 with Lucy-Anne Holmes, who opened The Sun newspaper on the day after Jessica Ennis won gold in the London 2012 Olympics to find that, even on that occasion, the most prominent portrayal of a woman was that of a topless woman—a page 3 girl, as they are called. Lucy-Anne wrote to the editor of The Sun newspaper at that time—Dominic Mohan—and asked him politely to drop that outdated and highly sexualised portrayal of women in his newspaper. The Sun has so far refused to do that.

Since that time, the campaign has grown in strength, striking a chord with men and women across the country. A petition hosted at the website change.org now has more than 195,000 signatures and, here in Scotland, there are bespoke no more page 3 groups in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

It is important to emphasise that the campaign is not asking for a ban on a newspaper. The petition calls on David Dinsmore and his Scottish counterpart, Gordon Smart, to voluntarily remove page 3 from the newspaper. There have been suggestions that The Sun acknowledges that it is time to end page 3. An interesting example of that is the version of The Sun that was recently delivered free to many households across the UK, which did not have a page 3 girl. Perhaps that was an acknowledgement that it is time no longer to have soft porn in a newspaper.

In November 2013, Jackie Baillie, who sits with us today, led a members’ business debate on the no more page 3 campaign. I sat in the public gallery for the debate and was struck by the sincere support across the political spectrum from representatives of all political parties, who spoke to support the removal of page 3 from The Sun newspaper. The debate acknowledged the links between portrayals of women that are demeaning and highly sexualised and the real issues that we face in trying to achieve equality for girls and women in society—issues such as sexual violence; the murder of girls and women by family, partners and strangers; the inability to achieve equal pay across our industries; and the many issues of poor self-esteem that affect the life choices and potential of young women.

In the first part of our petition, we call on the Scottish Parliament to

“urge the editorial team of the Sun and Scottish Sun to voluntarily remove the page 3 feature permanently.”

Why are we asking for that? Page 3 is sexist and misogynist and is yet another relic from the sexist culture of the 1970s. Page 3 shows a young woman just wearing her pants. She is there to be viewed as a sexual object—she is objectified and subservient. She invites men to stare at her for as long as they like, and she will never complain. Surrounded by stories of men achieving their goals in business, politics and sport, page 3 reminds women that they can be viewed as no more than a series of body parts.

It is difficult to imagine how a newspaper can respectfully and responsibly report on violence and harassment against women while still using the page 3 feature. Page 3 normalises that view of women, and people think, “It’s just a joke; it’s just a bit of fun.” I refer the committee to the everyday sexism campaign, which is a remarkable campaign that evidences what women and girls experience every single day in our society as a result of that view. We have noted in our supporting submissions to the committee evidence from the United Nations that links readily available sexualised views of women with violence and sexual violence.

Page 3 is widely available and accessible to children and young people. The Sun and The Scottish Sun portray themselves as family newspapers. We are not a prudish campaign—we accept that there is a normal view of nudity and that it has a place in everyday family life. However, in other areas of the media we have different views on portrayals of nudity and we have ways to manage it in films, television and bespoke publications. For films, we have useful age-appropriate certification; for TV, we have a recognised watershed; and pornographic publications are still widely available but they are kept on the top shelf in shops, away from children’s eyes. The Sun is everywhere. It has a wide circulation and copies can be found in the workplace, in homes, in cafes and bars and on public transport. We need mature and responsible views of sexuality and nudity as our children grow up in society—not this.

Some argue that there would be a commercial detriment to The Sun from removing the page 3 feature. As I said, the circulation is wide in Scotland. Are we suggesting that people buy The Sun only for page 3? I doubt that very much. Those of us who still buy newspapers buy them because we like the editorial content, the journalistic approach and the approach of the publication. That will be the same for the many readers of The Sun in this country. In Ireland, page 3 was removed from The Sun last year, with the editor citing “cultural differences”, and there was a negligible effect on circulation figures.

In the second part of our petition, we respectfully request that the Scottish Parliament take note of our evidence and, in recognition of the equalities framework and dignity at work policy that are in place in the Scottish Parliament, that it agree to remove The Sun and The Scottish Sun from the Parliament building on a temporary basis until the editorial team agrees to permanently remove page 3 as a feature of the newspaper.

Thank you for your time. We are happy to answer any questions.

That is not necessarily us. We are talking about breaking the cycle. The international trade union movement would recognise that, and the UN Commission on the Status of Women would recognise that there is a very broad spectrum and continuum of issues.

You asked who else we have tackled, so I will go back to that point. I am currently in the end stage of a process of appeal to the BBC Trust on the lack of equality in the use of BBC assets—in my view—to promote sexism via The Sun in relation to CBeebies. I have also challenged Tesco. The words that I have used come from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which sees a relationship in that respect.

I have asked the assistant chief constable of Police Scotland about the issue. He sees a clear relationship and has identified academic studies that he is willing to police by. We are talking about prevention. The equally safe strategy that is forthcoming from the Scottish Government and local government will address the issue of prevention and how we can prevent the next generation from suffering the same issues.

This morning, I tried to explain to my four-year-old son where his daddy was going, because I was not going to work and I had my shorts and my campaign T-shirt on—which, thankfully, I have been able to reverse, otherwise the committee would have been objectifying me, as I did not have any other clothing on me this morning. I found it easier to explain gravity to a four-year-old who went to the Glasgow science centre at the weekend than to explain why there is a naked lady in a newspaper. He said, “Daddy, isn’t there meant to be news and words there?” I simply could not explain that. I can explain gravity and particle physics more easily than I can explain why there is a naked woman in a newspaper.

On a personal basis?

I think—I hope that I have made this clear—that The Sun newspaper has a role to play in our society. It is a publication: it provides news articles and news information about the work of the Scottish Parliament to its readership. That is very important and it is something that we all firmly believe in.

We are looking for MSPs from across the political spectrum to sign the petition and to support the no more page 3 campaign. We think that the Scottish Parliament has an influential voice in our society—now more than ever as our country considers what Scotland means for the future. The Parliament can have a lot of influence if it adds its voice and supports us in asking for page 3 to be removed voluntarily from The Sun and The Scottish Sun.

A difficulty has been expressed about how we transpose article 10 of the European convention on human rights. My understanding of the UK constitution is that we transpose it unedited, unlike Norway, which says, “You have complete freedom of expression.” However, Norway also has a constitution in which it is freely written—I will not get into the constitutional arguments—in article 100 that there are clear limits on the freedom of expression, and they are X, Y and Z. In the current UK constitutional arrangement, we do not have that. Therefore, I do not believe that self-regulation by the press is appropriate.

I have written about my not believing that page 3 is an appropriate defence of press freedom. Press freedom is meant to protect journalists who risk their lives to expose serious detriments to human rights; it is not there so that a young lady from a narrow cohort of society can be objectified daily on page 3 of each newspaper. I do not believe that page 3 is an appropriate defence of press freedom.

Do you mean civil liberty in terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 and freedom of expression?

I will pick up your second question first. Perhaps it was semantics on my part, but the petition specifically calls for The Sun and The Scottish Sun not to be stocked or sold in the Scottish Parliament. The petition makes specific reference to the Parliament’s equalities framework and dignity at work policy.

If you wished to access the material because you needed to refer to it, you would not need to have a copy of The Sun in the building because the content is all available online. I also suggest that some of your colleagues and the staff who work here may feel uncomfortable if copies of The Sun were being used in a public area.

Last November’s debate was great. It was the first time that I had come to the public gallery and watched a debate, and I was absolutely taken with the whole process and with the strength of feeling right across the political parties. I enjoyed it very much. However, moving on from the debate, I do not think that, as a campaign, we have seen all that we would want to see in terms of the Scottish Parliament’s endorsement. The debate was positive and everyone signed up to it and agreed that the no more page 3 campaign was absolutely right. MSPs made the link between violence against women and sexualised views of women and others said—this is a quote from a member during the debate—“Surely we need to think about banning this publication.”

We are looking for the Scottish Parliament or the Public Petitions Committee to write to The Sun and The Scottish Sun to say that you have heard our evidence, that you lend your support to our campaign and that you ask them to remove voluntarily the page 3 feature from the newspapers. We are also looking for you to say that you find in favour of the second part of our petition and that you note, for their interest, that The Sun and The Scottish Sun will not be stocked or sold on Scottish Parliament premises until page 3 is removed.

I highlight the Parliament’s ability to hold the Executive to account. Recently, there has been what we could view as a clear endorsement of The Scottish Sun by Glasgow 2014 in relation to the Sun+ website. We might get on to the issue of online availability, but for the committee’s information I note that the Sun+ website, which is the electronic version of The Sun, hosts a back catalogue of objectification of women, where women can be spun through 360°, presumably for the viewing pleasure of men, presumably adults.

Two weeks ago, in the newspaper, there was a clear Glasgow 2014 logo endorsing a team Scotland T-shirt that was being given out for joining Sun+. That relates to holding the Executive to account. As the committee will have seen from our evidence, I have written to the cabinet secretary in question to ask for reassurance that that involved no public money and no public decision. We have had support from the Scottish Government, but we would like that to be followed through in its actions.

We are not asking for a ban. Others, including The Sun itself, have asked for economic sanctions to be taken against countries in which there are human rights abuses against women and children, through campaigns such as the bring back our girls campaign. I do not believe that our request of the Parliament is inappropriate.

I do not see this campaign as a form of censorship—I am making that very clear. We are not banning anything or making anybody do anything. We are asking David Dinsmore and Gordon Smart to acknowledge voluntarily that page 3 represents a view of women that belongs in the 1970s, along with Jimmy Savile and all the other awful things that have come out recently about our society back then. We are saying, “No more of this”, and we want them to say, “You’re right”. We want them, as media representatives, to portray very positive views of women—

That is true. I am not a journalist and I am not here to speak for them, but my understanding is that they would say that they like to speak to the MSPs and to the clerks and officials who support them so that they get to the truth of the matter and portray it as well as they possibly can.

I would love to see The Sun newspaper continue to do well in Scotland without the page 3 feature. No one in the campaign is calling for an end to The Sun. We do not want its circulation figures to drop; we want it to continue to do well. We just want it to remove that feature.

We absolutely accept that there is a wider issue with regard to—

I presume that it is the idea that everyone has the individual right to express themselves freely and democratically, yet—

We are asking you to apply the Equality Act 2010 as it applies to public bodies. The implication relates to the general duty or the protected characteristics.

Although my mum supports the campaign, she would be a very unhappy aunty if you made my cousin—who is the home affairs editor for The Scottish Sun—redundant. I believe that the newspaper performs a public duty as regards reporting news outwith the Parliament, but we are applying the Parliament’s equalities framework to the newspapers that it stocks. That is what I asked the chief executive to do when I spoke to him and it is what Jane O’Donnell has intimated in her evidence.

We are trying to keep the petition as focused as possible, as we were asked to do by the clerks when we presented the petition to you. We wanted a wider petition but we were asked to be as focused as possible.

They could use page 3 to support women who are active and sporty, which is a view of women that is difficult to get across to our young people.

Because it is so famous. It is part of the culture. It is a brand, and there is the page 3 girl brand. The campaign has been working since 2012, although the issue has been a concern for a number of years, as I said. There are different views of women in our society, which can be difficult. We want to see a wide range of views of women that takes into account not only the different ways that we all look and their all being acceptable, but all the things that we achieve and do. Page 3 removes that in its entirety. Page 3 women are the perfect example of a brand of women that reduces women to the sum of their body parts.

Excuse me—you have asked me a question, so can I answer it?

There is clearly a job in glamour modelling, which other publications allow. I think that I have said that. However, those publications tend to be kept on the top shelf and are a different form of media.

Thank you. I believe that, if there is detrimental harm to individuals, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR, which we have enshrined in law, allow the opportunity to make legislation to protect those individuals.

No, but we have other ways in which to protect children. Children are trained, but we do not train or look after our children enough to explain the matter. We have had conversations among ourselves—both of us here are parents—about trying to explain the page 3 phenomenon to a child. I have a 12-year-old daughter who simply does not understand why there is a naked woman in a newspaper. She cannot understand why that would be there.

I was born in the 1970s and am of the generation for which page 3 has always been there. It has always been part of my life. There have been many moments during my life, in different situations, when the brand and feature have played a role in reducing me to feeling less than I could and to realising less of my potential. It is the number 1 objectification of women, and it is readily available to everybody in our society because of The Sun’s circulation.

The Sun is a newspaper: its purpose is to provide news stories and to reflect current affairs. With regard to freedom of expression, the editor of The Sun or The Scottish Sun would, according to your argument, say, “We’ve got the right to show a naked woman in the newspaper.”

Only if she agrees—of course. We know that many young women choose to go into that profession. However, I refer you to the no more page 3 campaign website, where you can, if you get the chance do so, read some of the survivor testimonies from girls and women who have been part of the profession and have had very negative experiences.

The Sun is a newspaper and it is there to explain news and current affairs. If people want to express a certain view of nudity or pornography, there are other mechanisms for their doing so that do not affect the people who do not wish to see those things.

As I said, we have age-appropriate certification in cinema and different views of sexuality and nudity, and we have ways to ensure that those things are dealt with responsibly and that material is appropriate for those who see it. The same applies to television. There are many concerns and complaints about television, but broadcasters generally tend to adhere to the 9 pm watershed. Parents know that, after 9 o’clock, if their child picks up something that they did not want them to see, they have a responsibility in that respect. As an individual, I can choose to use those different mechanisms to view what is acceptable to me. I cannot influence or control page 3 at all, and neither can any of the other women or girls who are affected by it.

We are talking about a newspaper, and the no more page 3 campaign has put it very well. Do you expect George Alagiah to introduce Syria on the 6 o’clock news and say, “But let’s stop for a moment—here’s 22-year-old Casey from Warwick”?

Convener—

No—forgive me, but it is the argument. There is no role for a naked woman in a newspaper. As I have said, we accept that there is a role for nudity, and for different sorts of nudity, but that is in different forms of media, not in the pages of a daily newspaper.

Returning to the issue of censorship, I will outline the specific issue for the Scottish Parliament and the BBC. Rather sadly, and probably to avert my eyes from the England team losing to Italy at football, I, as a member of the public, was reading back over equalities frameworks and the Libel Act 1881, which is the only act currently in force that specifies what a newspaper should be in the UK. There is a common-law interpretation, but the 1881 act contains a very short definition, which states that a newspaper should impart intelligence.

I learned pretty quickly about the biological and anatomical differences between a man and a woman, and I do not believe that boobs are still news. All that we have done in our petition is reflect on the stated equalities framework under the Equality Act 2010, applied it and asked the chief executive why the Parliament stocks the publication. The answer was, “It’s popular”, so one might expect the Parliament also to stock Playboy and other magazines on the basis of popularity. I doubt that that would happen; it simply could not be done under the Parliament’s dignity at work policy, which mentions pin-ups. Page 3 is a pin-up, and therefore the question is very straightforward. We have applied the equalities framework to the papers that are sold here and we hope that you, as our democratic representatives, will see that through. I do not believe that that would be inappropriate. I am quite happy to go with the assistant chief constable of Police Scotland, who says that there is a continuum and a spectrum of objectification. When it starts, people are aware of the issues, but it then becomes habitual and other things happen at the end of it. We appear to have accepted that in our drugs policy and other forms of public policy, and I would say that it happens in this respect too.