In his article on The Sun’s tirade on Judge Giovanni Bonello’s ruling regarding the rendition of terrorist Abu Hamza al-Masri, David Lindsay stopped short from giving his own comments (TMIS, 10 August).

Such an article is not strictly speaking a news report or even a news snippet. It is a review, albeit brief, of an event that necessitates a comment or two on the part of the “reviewer”. For some reason or other, Lindsay refrained from making such comments except for one point, which was of course noteworthy. I believe a reviewer would not have been amiss in advancing many more comments in a wider context. I will try to carry out this exercise, belated though it may be, in a concise fashion.

I would start by pointing out that The Sun is not only “Britain’s leading tabloid” as Lindsay avers, but a paper whose copy frequently verges on the pornographic. Not erotic but pornographic, since the picture of a naked human person presented without identification and accompanying “human” particulars constitutes pornography, not only in “obscure” countries but even in the most advanced and enlightened ones. That pornography is allowed in such countries does not alter or modify the intellectual prowess of its purveyors. It only serves to advise their readers what level of seriousness they must expect from them. Papers that are usually taken seriously by the reading public do not feel the need to exploit the allure of pornography.

Secondly, sober papers do not make use of base puns like “letting off the hook” someone whose arms have been amputated unless they intend to appeal to the baser instincts of their readers. But it all adds up: readers who must indulge in pornography while stuffing themselves with their morning cereal may be expected to revel in such distasteful material. Come to think of it, they are not very different from fanatics who explode themselves in order to hasten the moment they can indulge in unlimited celestial sexual pleasure with no less than 72 virgins who eternally regain their virginity! (I challenge anyone to show me, chapter and verse, where the Koran promises such a banging spree and where a man of God like the prophet Mohammad would exploit pornographic images by way of advancing his mission! People who cannot see this implicit oxymoron must be absolute morons.)

David Lindsay reports that The Sun dedicated “both a story and a section of its editorial to venting its anger over the European Court of Human Rights’ decision” to stop the extradition of Abu Hamza al-Masri from the UK to the USA, correctly pointing out that “incidentally the decision is not final” but “merely a stopgap solution until the judges are better able to consider the case”. For reasons best known to The Sun’s editor and reporters, who vociferously protest against any move against the right to indulge in pornography and such like human rights, were unable to understand the position of the ECHR taken explicitly and appositely in defence of human rights, which even humans like the notorious Abu Hamsa al-Masri still have despite their pornographic-like hate preaching.

Rather than make an effort and understand the position taken by very serious people like our own Giovanni Bonello, The Sun people decided to pander to the lower instincts of their readers (seekers of pornography and racist prejudice) by heaping abuse on the learned judge and his country of origin, which happens to be also our country, yours and mine, but perhaps not Mr Lindsay’s. Small wonder the journalist failed to detect the scorching jingoistic slant beamed on us all by The Sun.

Frans Sammut

ZEBBUG