Vain hopes for a brighter future

by **Adriana** » 23 Jun 2007, 18:17

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6746013.stm br /
http://www.unhcr.org/partners/PARTNERS/4492c4e92.html

by **Dave Ansell** » 23 Jun 2007, 18:42

The problem with citing photos such as these is that you don't, and likely can't, know the story behind them. In the first, the refugees seem to be wearing life jackets so one can assume that they were taken at the time they were rescued. We don't know if the consent of the women was sought before these pictures were taken, or asked retrospectively before the photgraphs were published. In the second link from the UNHCR, these refugees have clearly not just been picked up. They will have been interviewed, placed in camps and assessed, and as they are posing for the photographs one can assume that consent is given, as much as such consent can be given informatively by children. I think it is safe to assume that no consent was sought by the refugees in Symi, either by the police or by Mr Halkitis, and so there most definitely is a cause for concern.

What I, and others, are trying to say is that if these refugees had been asked if it was alright to take their photographs, and had been treated more as individual people with feelings rather than a herd of people who were causing a problem, then this discussion would not have taken place. All that is asked is for a certain sensitivity to be displayed. Whether this would be going "over the top", or not, does not matter. It would simply show that the Symi Visitor cared enough to think of these things.

by **Kojak** » 23 Jun 2007, 19:09

Dave, I must just point out something. About 18 months ago, Will's sister Lorna took a rear view picture of a rather ample, bikini clad woman on Symi and posted it on the - site with accompanying sarcastic comments from Will and others. Now that IS degrading and it certainly wasn't done with the permission of the woman concerned! I have reminded Will of this but of course he has deleted that and other posts by me, presumably because it does indicate a certain amount of hypocrisy on his part. This whole episode is nothing but an excuse for yet another attack on the Visitor by Will. Provided postings are not abusive, they remain on this noticeboard. I can't say the same for the - site where any criticism is promptly censored unless, of course, it it promulgated by Will and Co. Are you really suggesting that every BBC and other televison broadcasts and newspaper pictures of refugees should conceal their features?

by **Dave Ansell** » 23 Jun 2007, 19:31

I'm sorry Kojak, I fail to see what your own issues with - have to do with my discussion with Adriana about the refugees' photographs. I understand that you may be upset by -, but from what I have seen they are not the boogieman that you suggest, and, dare I suggest it, you may have brought some of it on yourself from what I have read about last summer. This is all a distraction from the very simple point I was making and it would be a disservice if you carry on airing your grievances with - in this particular thread. If you wish to do that, please can you do it in a new thread.

On your last point; I always expect the BBC to act responsibly, and I don't believe any of their photographers would knowingly add to the suffering of refugees, or increase the perils they are in by one iota. They may, of course, get it wrong sometimes, but whether right or wrong, all I am suggesting is that a certain sensitivity be shown to the refugees in Symi. Clearly not showing their faces would have been a respectful thing to do and would have shown the Symi Visitor in the best possible light. It is a missed opportunity, and has caused a certain amount of upset. I am not asking that you or Adriana or anyone else here have to agree with me or Samantha (though i don't see what is so difficult to grasp) but I would hope that the simple fact that certain people who use this website ARE upset by the unedited photographs would have been cause in itself for a rethink.

by **Kojak** » 23 Jun 2007, 19:52

You've missed the point, Dave. This whole thing started with an initial accusation that the photos of the refugees were degrading to them. I merely pointed out that the person who made that accusation was guilty of the very same thing. The photos were published as part of an urgent appeal from the police to draw attention to the fact that their limited resources simply could not cope with an influx of this size. My own dispute with - has nothing to do with this but I'm not willing to stand by silently while the Visitor is unfairly criticised for reporting a very serious current affairs issue and at the same time trying to help these people.

by **Dave Ansell** » 23 Jun 2007, 20:11

May I respectfully say that I think it is YOU who have missed the point, Kojak. I am, I believe, a reasonably intelligent man and can make up my own mind about whether or not I consider it suitable to put up unedited photographs of refugees as they were put up on Adriana's weblog. Whether somebody else on some other website that you dislike has done something that you consider similar is not releveant to the rights or wrongs of this particular situation. Even if the reasons for the photos being put up are as you say, this says precisely NOTHING about the need for them to be unedited, as opposed to having faces edited out. The photographs could have remained but with far more sensitivity shown. THIS is this issue, nothing else. I do hope Adriana will show this sensitivity and alter the photographs in her weblog accordingly.