|
Following the controversy created by the recent “Village
People” picture on the Online Community’s “Muhammed
Saeed al-Sahaf page”, our client Marc Cranfield-Adams wishes
formally to set out his response to the picture and the interest
it has generated. In doing so, he hopes to correct a number of misapprehensions
and misrepresentations which have been made in recent days.
Throughout his correspondence on this subject, our
client has been acting in a purely personal capacity, and the views
he has expressed are not those of the Council or the Conservative
Group.
Mr Cranfield-Adams would like to make clear that he
has not “threatened to have the entire community websites removed”.
He merely stated that one of the possible consequences of an action
for defamation might be the suspension of the website. Our client
values the contribution made by Online Communities to the Borough
of Richmond. He is a frequent reader of the website and the editor
has, in the past, sought contributions and comments from him. He
has provided these on several occasions.
Our client objected to the picture in good faith,
and much of the speculation about his motivations which has ensued
has been unwarranted and groundless. He values freedom of speech
and the role of satire – being the ability to “expose
folly or vice”. However, the picture and the editorial comment
do neither in relation to Mr Cranfield-Adams.
He does not object to the picture, as some have suggested,
because it implied that he is homosexual. Our client’s sexual
orientation is not an issue of public concern. Neither has he ever
claimed to be “an outed gay councillor”, as suggested
by some correspondents to the website. For many years he has worked
for greater equality for and acceptance of gay men and lesbians,
both within and beyond the Conservative Party. In Richmond he has
sought to assist organisations such as Positively Healthy in relation
to their funding and has actively and financially supported organisations
such as Stonewall, London Lighthouse and the Terence Higgins Trust.
It is inappropriate that his sexual orientation, or that of anyone
else, should be used to bring ridicule upon himself or others, even
if this is done in the name of satire.
In fact, the picture carries a more subtle and insidious
meaning. The premise of the Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf page is simple:
that whatever the former Iraqi Information Minister says, the opposite
is likely to be true. In this case, Mr al-Sahaf seems to be saying
that the council is tolerant and accepting of homosexuals. The clear
implication is that in fact the council is not gay-friendly and
that certain councillors, or the council itself, may even be homophobic.
This is accompanied by an image of a number of councillors which
seeks to ridicule their alleged intolerance by depicting them as
members of a band whose image has become widely associated with
homosexuality. Mr Cranfield-Adams is of the view that neither his
Councillor colleagues nor the Council is in any way homophobic.
Our client was mystified as to why he should have
been included in the picture since he is not, unlike the other councillors
depicted, a member of the Cabinet on Richmond Council or in any
way a senior Councillor. He remains a committed and active member
of the Conservative Group. He could not understand why he should
be depicted amongst a group which, he felt the picture suggested,
was less than tolerant of the gay community, when he has made it
known publicly that he is not embarrassed to be identified with
the gay community in Richmond. The only conclusion is that our client’s
image was added as an afterthought – confirmed by the fact
that he is not in costume – as a gratuitous and nasty joke.
Satire is one thing; a cheap and illogical jibe is another.
Mr Cranfield-Adams is not a “career politician”.
He feels privileged to serve the community and makes every effort
to fulfil his obligations with integrity and dignity. It is his
hope that he will now be allowed to continue carrying out his duties
serving the residents of North Richmond and the London Borough of
Richmond upon Thames as a whole without further intrusion.
Bates, Wells & Braithwaite
16 March 2004
|