Jeremy Clarkson’s Deplorable Sun Article Against Meghan Both Incited Violence And Was Sexist

Jeremy Clarkson’s Deplorable Sun Article Against Meghan Both Incited Violence And Was Sexist

By Gabriel Princewill-

Jeremy Clarkson’s derogatory article against Meghan Markle was both an incitement of violence and sexist, clear analysis of the text suggests.

The verdict was concluded by a number of  professional analysts over a few days of discussion and debate, after considering several views including those coming from random members of the public in additional research conducted.

Capeesh Restaurant

AD: Capeesh Restaurant

It is a  weighty conclusion in light of the evidence of the television presenter word’s and his past conduct which stands up to logical and factual scrutiny, although inferences premised on the literal meaning of words printed do not necessarily produce a perfect assessment of the underlying intentions of the statement maker.

Clarkson’s highly criticised comments have been the subject of debate and analysis, with a wide range of views from members of the public and professional experts  collected and examined. Members of the local media across the UK were also consulted for opinions, with most declining to publicly go on record to avoid being roped in the sensitive issue.

Last week, press regulator IPso ruled that the television presenter’s article published in The Sun Newspaper was sexist towards Meghan Markle, but there is a wider consensus among professionals and ordinary members of the public that the article was also an incitement of violence, with some people disputing that the content of the article was sexist at all, citing his reference to The Game Of Thrones, viewed by some as just a fictional programme in which a woman makes atonement for her transgressions.

Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar

AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar

Some  of those surveyed opined that the reference by Clarkson to The Game Of Thrones was purely incidental  and a reflection of his impulsive nature of courting controversy  to spread his relevance and voice in the media.

It was  bad PR idea if the goal was to be controversial ,  Claire Coleman, a tutor and researcher said. One has to consider the likely effect of words, and determine whether they can be ethically justified. That’s the issue here, it’s not just about being controversial. His words were condemnable, and there is not much room for softening the blow on that, she added.

Others expressed the view that because Clarkson is a well known figure, with a fan base of his own, it was quite conceivable that some members of the public would take his expressed ‘dream’ seriously and seek to victimise The Duchess Of Sussex at any given opportunity.

‘If I am a big fan of Clarkson, and the type that throws eggs on politicians, what stops me from targeting her at the first opportunity I get, said Andrew Malvin, a 28 year old IT consultant. It is inciteful, it’s that simple. He hates Meghan Markle on a cellular level, and was inciting the public to victimise her in whatever way they can.

‘You cant talk your way out of a rabbit hole by saying it was just a controversial guy using a fictional film to get his point across.  Remember that Clarkson has been violent in the past, venomous words like those that he published cannot and should not be taking lightly. He is comparing Meghan Markle to Rose West and presented her as a public figure who should be hated and attacked with excrements. It is inciteful. Only someone in a world of pretence will argue the opposite”.

Meghan Markle Received a Front-Page Apology For "Sexist" Jeremy Clarkson Article

Meghan Markle ws subjected to incitement of violence and sexism         Image: GHETTY


The public is split as to whether Clarkson meant his statement literally, but most are united in the view that the television presenter’s statement had the potential to rile members of the public, many of whom are cynical of The Duchess Of Sussex, given the view in some circles that she has been the trouble shooter in the royal family.

”Jeremy Clarkson was just joking, said Matt Foley. I think people are over-reacting.

”He doesn’t think before he talks, we all know that. He is naturally controversial, he doesn’t like Meghan Markle and  he wanted to draw attention to himself with the statement. I think he was just being bombastic and  did not mean it literally. Anyone who knows what he is about is aware he just says things to be outlandish”.

Many others spoken to shared similar views,  arguing that the television presenter was speaking tongue in cheek, and was more focused on drawing attention to himself by being controversial, and simply expressing his detestation of Meghan Markle, without literally meaning what he said.

However,  a majority of professionals assessing the matter said that Clarkson had to be assessed on his written words, which were clearly inciteful, irrespective of whether he intended for his words to be acted upon.

Clarkson, who hosts motoring show “The Grand Tour” on Amazon, wrote in tabloid newspaper The Sun that he hated the former Meghan Markle “on a cellular level” and dreamed of her being paraded naked through British towns “while the crowds chant ‘Shame!’ and throw lumps of excrement at her.”

Sexism/Incitement Argument

Sexism refers to discriminatory treatment based  on their gender, and whilst the column does not explicitly mention Meghan Markle’s gender, its content relies heavily on derogatory language and sexual objectification.

The suggestion of parading Meghan Markle naked and inciting public humiliation is a clear indication of objectifying and demeaning her as a woman, exhibiting sexist undertones in the process.

Yet, some of Clarkson’s staunch defender’s mong the public say it should be taking into account that Meghan Markle has been the ultimate source of the entire upheaval, many  dogmatically asserting that she is a ‘social climber’ with a track record of exploiting men for what she wants and destroying them.  Her detractors insist she is divisive, and married into the royal family to elevate her own status.

”She married that movie producer and dumped him without notice or explanation, and the pubic has never heard the full details of hat happened there. She is just not trusted” said 3 6 year old Walter Peters, who believes Clarkson’s article was designed to speak for the masses of people frustrated by the Duchess Of Sussex.

But Andy Smith, a self employed business analyst on The Eye Of media.Com’s thinktank said: ” I think Clarkson’s words were definitely inciteful. You have to take a holistic outlook on the an, and his past actions. He does what he likes says what he likes. I mean he attacked a BBC staff for serving him cold food, who does that? He crossed the line and should have been cancleled. Television personalities need to know how to behave, Jeremy Clarkson doesn’t.

‘He thinks he can do what he likes because he is rich, and the message he is given by the media is that it is alright to act how you want if  you are on television n you can benefit us. The blunt truth is that it is not alright. This is not about censoring opinions, it is about common decency’.

Clarkson’s critics say he would not have opted to sexually objectify her if  he was not being sexist, the argument goes. His far reaching comments contribute to a hostile environment and have the potential to inspire or justify aggressive actions against the individual in question.

One teacher who insisted on anonymity told The Eye Of Media.Com: ”there is no doubt the article was inciting violence, and we have seen any instances where politicians have been pelted with egg. The reality of having Clarkson’s expressed wishes enacted is not as farfetched as some might think, and violence does not have to be physical, it can be psychological or cyber too.

”Meghan Markle herself has been subjected to intense social media abuse in the past, soe of which has been explicitly racist, and in other cases threatening. Mps have also faced serious abuse on social media in the past.

” Clarkson’s article ay have been sexist too, but it was ore inciteful of violence than it was sexist, but IPso’s codes of conduct does not include incitement of violence, so they could not make reference to that. However, nothing stopped the regulator actually making reference to this fact”

One female doctor who is a member of this publication thinktank anonimously said: ”I would have personally selected Harassment and intimidation amongst all of IPso’s Code and Conduct. Because as a woman reading Clarkson’s comments, my first feeling would have been that of intimidation.

”Harassment would also be fitting because considering the act Clarkson is part of Piers Morgan’s click, I would adopt the notion of ‘a course of conduct’ contributing to alarm and distress to describe his article. I would view him as being an extension of the Piers Morgan Brigade, and consider feel intimidated. So, I would add harassment, incitement of violence(which will fall under harassment since IPso does not have this specific provision in its code)

”Some people might have seen it as Clarkson just being controversial, but actually one has to look at the overall effects and potential impact of his words. IPso, would not have been inclined to go for this option, perhaps worried about the potential back clash that may ensue.

However, a  credible regulator has to be truly independent, and not affected by potential backlash if they have thoroughly and professionally considered their verdict”

Useful views included the speculation that Jeremy Clarkson’s wealth and influence in the media may play some influence in how his conduct is assessed.

The response of the media was also subjected to rigorous analysis by professionals, with the issue of whether IPso’s powers ought to extend to punitive measures like fines and suspensions also featuring at various junctures of the discussion and debate.

The press regulator currently has no powers to impose punitive measures on transgressing publications, except to order an apology on their page and a publication of their ruling.

A debate has also been raging as to whether IPso’s ruling  should have been extended to Sun News Editor, Vitoria Newton, who is assumed to have authorised the publication of the article.

She has already issued an apology stating that the contents of the article were the opinions of the columnist, adding that her publication now realises that with freedom of speech comes responsibility”

Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar

AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar



Spread the news