On Wednesday morning (06/09/2017), Jacob Rees-Mogg, the MP for North-East Somerset, was interviewed on ITV’s ‘Good Morning Britain’ television programme (available here) – primarily regarding the current state of the (faux) Conservative party. The interview was rather unremarkable, except for when the host asked Mr Rees-Mogg about his views regarding homosexual marriage and abortion. As a practising Catholic, Mr Rees-Mogg favours neither and stuck true to his beliefs, defending the rights of the unborn and marriage as a religious institution instructed for by God.
This is largely unremarkable itself, these views have a large amount of traction within the U.K. Abortion is a highly contentious issue – with large majorities heavily opposed to the liberal appropriation that U.K law currently provides. Homosexual marriage is, again, another contentious issue – it was legalised by the (faux) Conservative party recently as an attempt to pander to the modern Left. It didn’t work – but that is for another time.
What was remarkable, however, was the way that the media seized upon these reasonable statements. Increasingly whipped into a frenzy by the rabid and perpetually offended far-left mobs on Twitter, headlines that Mr Rees-Mogg was opposed to abortion ‘…even after a woman is raped’! were screamed by The Independent and The Guardian, followed by textual inclusions of bland and generic comments by unknown and so-called women’s rights campaigners about how utterly ‘sexist’ this was.
If you – like Mr Rees-Mogg explained in his interview – believe that human life is sacrosanct and begins at conception, then this distinction of ‘even after rape?’ is abstract nonsense – devoid of any meaning toward the interviewee, which is surely the point of the interview. The question was equivalent to asking someone who favours A life is a life, there is no distinction. The question is instead designed to manipulate, guiding the reader to think that they should be surprised, outraged or even aghast at the notion – that somehow it is not the default position and worthy of their comment. The way that media outlets such as The Guardian present their ‘news’ betrays their bias; designed to lead the reader toward a certain conclusion before even encountering the argument, rather than letting the quotes stand for themselves within their context. Decades ago this was what news was – reporting what had happened. ‘News’ is merely the plural form of ‘new’, after all. Opinion pages still existed, of course, as they always have done – but they were separate, inhabiting separate spheres. The news media in the 21st Century operate as a hybridisation of the two and often – particularly with The Guardian – without merit.
The narrative of media firms such as The Guardian matters because it is used to shame otherwise widely held views and beliefs into silent submission by presenting them as extremist, whereas it is precisely those who run the media who are the unreasonables, presenting their opinion as fact and shying away from debate because they aim to destruct the norms of western civilisation. This is an indefensible point of view – and knowingly so; it is why the reader will rarely – if ever – see the comments sections open on pieces about illegal migration or abortion term limits, among other topics. Suppression of debate is the primary weapon.
Abortion is – like many modern societal norms – a topic that would have inspired horror in generations barely departed. The bloody process that often accompanies the disembowelling of an unborn child is a horrific one; many have their decapitated heads crushed in order to remove them from the womb. In ebulliently championing the cause of abortion, it is damming and revealing of the true loyalties of the modern Left, in claiming to stand for the weak and vulnerable – it is forgotten who the most vulnerable of all are; the unborn. Such horrors visited on the nation’s children are not signs of a civilised society.
There has been less reaction to the comments about homosexual marriage. Invariably, in rapidly fabricating reasons to be offended on behalf of other people, the time of the electronic mob is limited and focus had to fall on one comment in particular to fill column inches – and quickly. That this judgement fell on supporting the yearly slaughter of over 200,000 unborn children may tell us that the Left find this a little harder to justify and in greater need of shoring up.