MP asked to put her jacket on

Earlier we posted about the No More Page 3 campaign, here; Caroline Lucas, MP, wearing a No More Page 3 t-shirt, was asked to put her jacket back on during a speech, in order to comply with Westminster’s dress code. You can watch the video, here, over at the BBC site.

There’s no transcript there, but after the MP chairing the session interrupts, Lucas responds (while holding up page 3 of The Sun): “It does strike me as an irony that this T-shirt is regarded as an inappropriate thing to be wearing in this house but apparently it is appropriate for this kind of newspaper to be available to buy in eight different outlets on the Palace of Westminster estate.”

10 thoughts on “MP asked to put her jacket on

  1. I really don’t see the problem with a private newspaper agreeing with a private citizen to take photos of him/her, publishing these photos (which show nothing that you can’t see a million times on the internet or in other newspapers) and other private citizens, if their taste is such inclined, buy and/or read said newspaper.

    Whoever is against this can refuse to buy and/or read these kinds of newspapers. It’s not like they are hard to spot at the newsstand.

    Probably bad taste, but I’ll side with freedom of the press anytime, especially when the person whose photos are shown consented, probably applied her-/himself for the shooting and received payment for it. Anything else than leaving these folks alone reeks of imposing a (quaint?) moral code. A bit like the Taliban.

  2. The Sun does not contribute in any positive way. Perpetuating images of naked girls reinforces the notion that women are the object of the male gaze. Subsequently, exploitative representations of the female body must be addressed.

  3. If we censor images of nakedness on television after 9pm (even though it’s ”your choice” if you watch or not) because we think it’s inappropriate for children/familial viewing, then why does a supposedly FAMILY newspaper, which professes in its title to be a NEWSpaper, get away with putting its rag on the breakfast table of hundreds of households? Oh and by the way, to have the ‘choice’ you have to open the newspaper first. And who has the choice? The daughter or the father who pays for the subscription?

    Furthermore, nakedness in itself shouldn’t be and is not ‘offensive’ – however, when the concept is that a specifically female body is worth objectifying and ogling over your cornflakes in the morning, it’s not exactly a great start to a ‘non-sexist’ day.

  4. No one here claims that the Sun makes a positive contribution to the feminist project, but wow, people have the right to look at trash, unless that trash specifically incites to violence or rape, etc.

    Finally, if we arrogate the right to censor what we consider to be their trash, they are going to try to arrogate the right to censor what they consider to be our trash.

  5. Do we know what the dress code is that she violated? Was it that she was wearing a t-shirt or that there was a political message on her clothing?

  6. Just as there is nothing wrong with a person agreeing to have pictures of herself bare-breasted posted in a paper, so there is nothing wrong with people trying to get the publisher to stop doing that.

  7. Hm, if there’s nothing wrong with it, why are those people trying to get them to stop?

  8. Chris, I think you might want to rethink the principle underlying your claim.

    It is ok for two consenting adults to have sex it, but it is not ok for other people to enact laws saying they can’t do that.

    It is ok to be an atheist, but it is not ok for others to make atheism illegal.


    Anon, I think there is nothing wrong with consensual sex or atheism. That doesn’t stop people from trying to end these practices.

  9. JT, I agree entirely.

    (I didn’t really mean to suggest that nobody protests or tries to end practices that are perfectly okay to engage in — I only meant that *if* that is what is happening in this case, the protestors are in bad company.)

Comments are closed.