Latest news with #publicdiscourse
News.com.au
a day ago
- Politics
- News.com.au
Jake Paul weighs in as Donald Trump, Elon Musk feud escalates
The YouTuber turned pro boxer has opined that the spat between the two men, who have gone from best buddies to public enemies, is not just a bad look for the party, but for America itself. Paul shared his thoughts on the explosive spat between the President and the founder of Tesla and SpaceX on X, posting that while the two are great, they "need to work together and not make America look bad". "We unfortunately have these Alpha male egos and leaders who aren't mature enough sometimes. They're 50+ years old and diss-tweeting each other."
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- General
- Daily Mail
A cynical drive is under way to shut down any criticism of Islam - and that will only cause further division: DR TAJ HARGEY
Freedom of expression is one of the pillars of British civilisation. It is the noble idea that lay at the heart of the Magna Carta, pioneered the development of parliamentary democracy and inspired the defeat of Nazi tyranny. But I fear this essential liberty is under grave threat from an ugly alliance of Muslim extremists and supine British officials who are conspiring – in the name of multicultural sensitivity – to give Islam a special status in our society. Dressed up as a form of trendy tolerance, this sinister strategy is already corroding public discourse and breeding a new form of 'two-tier justice'. That is the only conclusion I can draw from the disturbing case of Hamit Coskun, a Kurdish-Armenian protester who was convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence on Monday after he burnt a copy of the Koran outside Turkey's consulate in London. Attacked by a knifeman at the time (who, farcically, will not face trial until 2027), the 50-year-old has now been punished by the British state and fined almost £350. As a progressive imam and Islamic theologian, I found Coksun's actions distasteful, offensive and utterly against the spirit of Britain where respect for people's beliefs and faiths is a central feature of our culture. And yet I am deeply troubled by the decision of the authorities to treat his conduct as a criminal offence. No one has been put in physical danger. The damage to property is slight. Nor is the legislation under which he has been charged being deployed as its makers intended. The Public Order Act is meant to deal with dangerous and abusive behaviour, not hurt feelings or religious sensibilities. This decision does not show British law operating at its majestic, impartial best. On the contrary, the depressing episode exposes the cynical drive to shut down any criticism of Islam. The conviction of Coskun is not an isolated case. It is part of a concerted push to erect a judicial forcefield around Islam – that will only sow further division. Anyone who thinks this is an exaggeration should consider the case of the schoolteacher in Batley, West Yorkshire, who showed his pupils a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed in 2021. Four years on and the teacher is living in hiding, fearing for his life after being targeted by Islamists. The drawing was presented during a classroom discussion about the Charlie Hebdo massacre in 2015, when terrorists targeted the French satirical magazine after it published drawings of the prophet. 'Je Suis Charlie,' Western leaders cried at the time as they expressed solidarity with the 12 victims of this horrific atrocity. But those were just empty words. In Britain, Europe and most of the West the concern of political elites and policymakers was to avoid offending Islam rather than defending our cherished democratic principles. That is why the Tory leader Kemi Badenoch was absolutely right to warn that, under Sir Keir Starmer's government, we could be seeing a specific blasphemy law to protect Islam creeping in by the back door. In 2008, the traditional British blasphemy laws were finally abolished. It is extraordinary that now, in the face of Muslim fundamentalists and fanatics, those laws could be resurrected to prop up a creed that barely existed in Britain before the mid-20th century. Islam is no more part of Britain's historic identity than Christianity is part of Morocco's or Pakistan's. Yet now the faith is being given a uniquely privileged position above all other religions in this country. That is a reflection not of some celestial truth but fear – given the demands and grievances of fundamentalist Muslims often come laced with the menace of violence. Any quasi-blasphemy law is little more than a form of appeasement by a cowardly political establishment that always offers the path of least resistance to hardliners. Little wonder that the Tories' justice spokesman Robert Jenrick warned this week that the policy will create a two-tier legal system – the very opposite of equality that is meant to be Labour's lodestar. This is not the road to peace. This will lead to more oppression, violence and extremism – such as we saw with the Charlie Hebdo killings and the savage attack on the great writer Salman Rushdie in 2022. The signs of surrender are all too clear. One glaring example of this institutional feebleness is the plan to introduce a new wide-ranging definition of Islamophobia under the 2010 Equality Act which – as its architect Harriet Harman declared – created 'a new social order in Britain'. Part of that new order could be the criminalisation of any criticism of Islam – a move that our forefathers would have found despicable and incomprehensible. Some supporters of this crackdown on free speech want to widen the definition of racially aggravated crimes to include any attacks on Islam or its believers. But that just illustrates the intellectual weakness of the fundamentalists' position. Islam is not a race, it is a religion, and people from all sorts of ethnic minorities are adherents. But the greater intellectual flaw is the pretence that blasphemy rules are sanctioned by the Koran. As a Muslim scholar, I can say categorically that this is a complete fabrication. There is nothing scriptural about the concept of blasphemy. In truth, the Koran advocates freedom of religion and mutual coexistence by welcoming other beliefs and viewpoints. 'To you, is your religion, and to me, mine,' says one striking verse in Islam's book. The tragedy of contemporary Islam, especially in the West, is that fundamentalists have been allowed to take charge. They have dictated the agenda, resulting in a triumph for radicalism. I believe orthodox Muslims' obsession with blasphemy stems not from Islam's transcendent text but from three manufactured additions to Islamic theology. I call them the 'Toxic Trio' because their influence has been so malign. First, there is the 'hadith', the reported sayings of Prophet Mohammed compiled centuries after his death. Second, is the 'sharia', a patriarchal concoction of medieval codes that justify authoritarianism and treat women as second-class citizens. Third, there are the 'fatwas', the risible opinions of self-important and politically motivated clerics. Their aim is not to promote spiritual enlightenment but to enhance the rulers' stranglehold on power. While the Toxic Trio is routinely used to justify blasphemy laws in Islam, it has no place in a liberal democracy like Britain. It is wrong on so many levels. By giving a unique status or protected standing to Islam, it contravenes the British imperative to fairness and justice. This is bound to cause resentment since other believers will not feel that they have the same protection. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that the state would have been as tough with someone who burnt a copy of the Bible outside the Italian Embassy in London. I am not arguing that we should widen a blasphemy law to cover every faith. Freedom of speech has already been undermined too much in modern Britain, as shown by the spread of cancel culture and the vast diversity industry, which only encourages people to feel perpetual offence. We should be moving in the opposite direction – towards a greater embrace of liberty, not by constricting hard-fought historic rights for free speech. That is the truly British way.
Forbes
28-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Why Thought Leaders And Companies Need Journalistic Fact-Checking
Businessman Reading Contract Details Before Signing Companies and thought leaders—those who publish knowledge-based content in service of strategy, influence, and authority—must step onto the front lines of fact-checking and information integrity and regularly do journalistic fact-checking. As Angie Holan, Director of the International Fact-Checking Network, told me in a recent interview, 'The business and marketing worlds should have a particular interest, because so much of commerce and business depends on accurate information and trust.' Holan's words come as a warning. When the public square is overrun with misleading claims, companies suffer—whether they're targets of disinformation campaigns or collateral damage in a credibility crisis. And when public officials knowingly spread falsehoods, the ripple effects distort public discourse, corrode institutions, and undermine every brand that operates in the same space. In this reality, truth becomes less about objective absolutes and more about process. Who checks? Who corrects? Who can be trusted to revise when wrong? For those of us working in thought leadership—helping experts, executives, and enterprises communicate their best thinking or doing it themselves—these questions can no longer be considered out of scope. They must be woven into our editorial ethics, our publishing practices, and our cultural values. What do I mean by fact-checking? It's not just catching typos or verifying dates. In its highest form, fact-checking is a journalistic discipline. It means interrogating the accuracy, sourcing, and framing of every claim you publish. It also means calling out others errors and being willing to make corrections if needed. Thought leadership content—whether it's a white paper on blockchain risks, a LinkedIn post about workplace culture, or a keynote on sustainable supply chains—frequently makes factual claims. Many of these claims are drawn from internal data, third-party research, or expert interviews. But that doesn't make them immune to error. As Holan told me, 'There's always the chance that the ghostwriter or whoever in the company picks up something wrong. And companies don't benefit from disinformation either.' In my experience coaching subject-matter experts on their writing, I've seen facts and figures taken from second-hand sources or a general lack of verification of claims. In smaller companies, sometimes there's not a structured editorial review of a text that is published. This is a missed opportunity—and a risk. The solution isn't to paralyze creation but to elevate the standards of fact checking and verification. Much standard setting needs to be done within organizations. In addition, the Global Thought Leadership Institute (GTLI), founded by APQC, the American Productivity & Quality Center, a not-for-profit, is working with thought-leadership producers to set standards for content quality. In publishing or broadcasting, one of the greatest signs of integrity is the willingness and interest in correcting something when you get it wrong. 'The people who attack us give zero credit for self-correction,' Holan said. 'But self-correction is the essence of progressing human knowledge. We should be proud of our corrections and promote them.' This is a vital lesson for thought leadership. Companies fear admitting error. Leaders fear losing face. But owning your corrections—and making them visible—builds trust. Whether you're a data-driven CEO or a solopreneur with a publishing platform, a published correction tells your audience: 'We take accuracy seriously. We're human. And we improve.' That humility is more persuasive than false certainty. It's also what can separate thought leadership from other types of content in which persuasion is more important than accuracy. The stakes are not just reputational—they can be existential. Holan described the Wayfair child trafficking hoax as one of the most notorious cases of a campaign of disinformation against a company. 'It was a very high-profile example, and companies can get sucked into a story that's not really about them,' she explained. This kind of viral distortion doesn't require malice. It only requires momentum. A manipulated image. A rogue post. A story with just enough detail to seem plausible. Suddenly a brand finds itself caught in the gears of a conspiracy, and it's difficult for readers to understand the actual the truth. That's why Holan advises every company to have what she calls 'informational readiness.' 'Make sure all your research is in order,' she said. 'If you are being subject to an Internet hoax, you want to be able to get to the information you need quickly.' This readiness is editorial and strategic. Have a vetted corporate description. Have your research and claims annotated. Know who in your organization is responsible for issuing clarifications. And above all, be willing to respond—not with deflection, but with clarity. What does this mean for people who guide and create thought leadership? It means we have to build what I call a journalistic backbone into the process of thought-leadership publishing. This is editorial rigor and accountability to truth. This doesn't mean thought leaders can't be bold. It means their boldness must be anchored in transparent logic and sourced claims. It doesn't mean brands can't publish provocative content. It means they should be ready to explain their reasoning, correct missteps, and clarify their position in good faith, if needed. And if they are attacked by disinformation—whether targeted campaigns or random verbal attacks—companies and thought leaders need to know how to respond: quickly, confidently, and with traceable truth. This mindset aligns with Holan's core message: 'We all suffer when mis- and disinformation aren't countered. It's a deterrent to business, a danger to trust, and a drag on public life.' One of the most fascinating parts of my conversation with Holan was her acknowledgment that truth is a tricky word in the fact-checking community. Not because facts are up for debate, but because belief systems can shape interpretation. Some people spreading disinformation genuinely think they're right. 'There's a real 'through the looking glass' quality to it,' she said. This is why systems of fact checking matter. Companies and creators who want to lead must invest in processes and structures that support accuracy and correct errors. That's how we build the future of trustworthy content. Don't forget that you're not just competing on expertise. You're competing on credibility. And credibility is earned not just by what you say—but by how you prove it, and if you're willing to revise it if proven wrong during a journalistic fact-checking process.
The Herald
13-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Herald
'I will not allow this to pass without consequence' — Minnie Dlamini to pursue legal action against MacG
Minnie took to her timeline on Tuesday responding to MacG's apology. She said she had never made negative statements about the podcaster and was emotionally affected by his comments. 'Over the past few weeks, I have watched in disbelief and deep pain as my name, body and dignity were dragged through the mud of public discourse, triggered by the vile, humiliating and inexcusable comments made by Mukwevho on his podcast. 'This is not about ego — this is about systemic misogyny. While I have chosen not to dignify the specifics with a response, I must emphasise there is nothing entertaining or provocative about weaponising a woman's body for clout, commentary or so-called content. What occurred was not banter — it was a grotesque and deeply harmful violation of my dignity, humanity and constitutional rights as a woman.' Minnie said she had received an apology from the Podcast and Chill legal team but felt it was too little to late. 'An apology, offered only after the damage is done and reputations are on the line, is not a meaningful act of accountability, especially when it comes from a platform that has made misogyny part of its brand. This was not a lapse in judgment. It was a reflection of values consistently displayed and defended by the show and its host. 'To apologise now, only when public pressure threatens their image, is to centre their own reputational damage rather than the trauma inflicted on others. And so I must say clearly: words without [genuine] accountability are hollow. I will continue to pursue legal recourse. As a public figure and a mother I must act not only for myself but for every woman whose dignity is violated in the name of content and entertainment.' Minnie thanked those who showed her support. 'It's about every woman who has ever been publicly degraded, digitally humiliated or silenced through shame. This moment has again spotlighted the disturbing normalisation of misogyny in the entertainment industry and online platforms. We need systemic change. 'We need accountability and we must decide what sort of public discourse we are willing to defend — or dismantle. I am a mother, a daughter and a sister. This episode has caused harm not only to me but to those closest to me. Innocent people. That said, I will not allow this to pass without consequence. Because it's not just about my name — it's about protecting the dignity of women everywhere.'
