Mick Hartley

The NUJ isn't interested in protecting gender-critical journalists from abuse: that would be transphobic. 

Britain’s leading journalist union has rejected calls to defend members who cover trans issues and gender-critical beliefs, prompting fears for the freedom of the press.

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) was called upon at a meeting to issue a statement supporting members who covered “the debate on sex and gender”, and condemning abuse they might receive for discussing “gender critical viewpoints”.

Union members rejected calls to publicly defend those covering the trans debate, as some branded it “transphobic”, according to insiders.

This has raised concerns among insiders that freedom of the press is only afforded to one side in the gender debate, and some have suggested that it may undermine the union’s own code of conduct ledge to “uphold and defend the principle of media freedom”….

Insiders have suggested that the motion was branded “transphobic” by some, while others stated that “trans people are not up for debate”, a phrase often used in defence of the view that trans men and women are indisputably the genders with which they identity.

This viewpoint has clashed with gender-critical thought, which opposes “gender ideology” and maintains that biological sex is immutable. That a motion should be rejected by the union has caused concerns among some members.

One told The Telegraph: “We should not need reminding that any attack on freedom of the press, and debate, is also an attack on individuals’ rights to listen and learn about all aspects of that debate.

“It is written into the NUJ Code of Conduct that journalists have a duty to fight for this, for the public good.

“The code begins with the statement that a journalist ‘at all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, and the right of the public to be informed’. I wonder where we are now that we have sent out a signal directly contradicting this core principle.

“We know that there are people who would rather there not be any debate on certain issues and are actively working to censor any and all opposing views.

“But to know that those people have now effectively managed to hijack the NUJ into being part of the agenda to silence opposing views in the press is positively sinister.”

“Here you have journalists not only voting against freedom of the press, but a majority of National Union of Journalists members voting against a motion stating our intention to fight for press freedoms, and protect journalists who embody those freedoms.”