Nice to see that Private Eye picked up on the 'Free Houses' story in the Mail . It seems that the Refugee Council have complained to the Press Complaints Commission. (I tried to do that myself after I blogged the story, but either the online form wasn't working or they've got three copies of my complaint).
They only mentioned the 'they're not asylum seekers' line, and didn't mention the picture of black people on the site, so I might write to the editor if I get time, but nearly a week has gone by. Watch this space.
Blogging about bad journalism since 2006.
13/04/2006
07/04/2006
Despicable shits
There are no depths that the Daily Mail won't sink to. Apparently, a judge has ruled that two Dutch citizens, who have declared themselves 'economically inactive' and refuse to look for work since they came to the UK will receive council housing for themselves and their families while they're dealt with by immigration (ie. sent back to Holland). The Daily Mail headline?
Free housing for asylum seekers from EU
Seriously. That's the Mail website and not a spoof. I would say it's difficult to know where to start taking the filth to pieces, but it's not. You can start with the title. You can't have asylum seekers from the EU, because there are no repressive regimes to seek asylum from in the EU. The people involved are EU citizens who were already granted asylum by the Dutch government, and therefore no longer seeking asylum and not asylum seekers. Actual asylum seekers in the EU are not granted free movement, so wouldn't be affected by the ruling. The headline is nothing but a big, fat lie.
Look at the picture on the right. Ooh, scary. Black people. The majority of the people this ruling affects are white people of European descent. Why does the Mail have a picture of black people to illustrate it? Because they're racist fucknuts and they want to scare their racist fucknut readers with pictures of black people, that's why. Black people wearing hoodies, no less. The caption is good, too: "Ruling: Asylum seekers from the EU could travel here and demand a home" No they can't. Only EU citizens can. And they won't get 'a home', they'll get temporary accomodation until they're deported. Plus, the judge has stated that this is a special case.
The invitation to comment says "Has the Government gone soft on asylum? Tell us below in reader comments". What has this got to do with the Government's rules on asylum? These people aren't seeking asylum. They already got it.
If you think nobody would be misled by this arsery, think again. From the comments:
Another one:
I shouldn't be harsh to these people really. What the Daily Mail does is mislead it's readers. It does it on purpose, and it does it quite well. I wish they weren't so good at it.
The thing is, the Mail uses the term 'Asylum Seekers' so they can appear to be not racist. In using a term that describes someone's actions rather than what they are, they can claim this. But by calling people asylum seekers after they've been granted asylum, they show that the term really doesn't describe their actions. It describes what they are. It's clever and weaselly, but it's still racist.
At the moment, the comments system is off for this article, but not for elsewhere on the site. Whether or not it's because they've provoked a deluge of the racist filth I think they might have been trying to provoke, or whether it's because people are pointing out how unremittingly evil and shite this article is is anyone's guess. I'm going for the former.
Wankers.
Free housing for asylum seekers from EU
Seriously. That's the Mail website and not a spoof. I would say it's difficult to know where to start taking the filth to pieces, but it's not. You can start with the title. You can't have asylum seekers from the EU, because there are no repressive regimes to seek asylum from in the EU. The people involved are EU citizens who were already granted asylum by the Dutch government, and therefore no longer seeking asylum and not asylum seekers. Actual asylum seekers in the EU are not granted free movement, so wouldn't be affected by the ruling. The headline is nothing but a big, fat lie.
Look at the picture on the right. Ooh, scary. Black people. The majority of the people this ruling affects are white people of European descent. Why does the Mail have a picture of black people to illustrate it? Because they're racist fucknuts and they want to scare their racist fucknut readers with pictures of black people, that's why. Black people wearing hoodies, no less. The caption is good, too: "Ruling: Asylum seekers from the EU could travel here and demand a home" No they can't. Only EU citizens can. And they won't get 'a home', they'll get temporary accomodation until they're deported. Plus, the judge has stated that this is a special case.
The invitation to comment says "Has the Government gone soft on asylum? Tell us below in reader comments". What has this got to do with the Government's rules on asylum? These people aren't seeking asylum. They already got it.
"Around 500,000 refugees are thought to have been granted nationality by our EU neighbours over the past decade. They then assume the rights of a person born in that country."What would you prefer then? A class of untermenschen who have different rights than people born in the country? And they don't 'assume the rights...' they become a citizen. What relevance is it that they weren't born in the country? Especially as if they've been granted asylum, they are by definition genuine. If there's anything that reveals the Mail's prejudices, it's this.
If you think nobody would be misled by this arsery, think again. From the comments:
"What is happening to our country. We would not get the same priveliges in other EU countries, free housing and hand outs - can't this goverment see that we will not be able to support the amount of asylum seekers? And if they are truely asylum seekers why are they crossing so many countries to get to England and the question is how are they doing it?They're not seeking asylum here, you fucking Benny. They've already got it somewhere else.
- Christabel Showering, bristol"
Another one:
"Whilst I feel sorry for these poor asylum seekers, I really don't feel that they should be put ahead of people who have probably been on the housing list for a long time and who will be put further back on that list to accomodate these people, some sort of temporary housing should be found for them and let them wait their turn for permanent accommodation, also proving first that they are an asset to the community and wont just live off social security.They're not being given permanent residence. They are being given temporary housing, before they get kicked out of the country. They don't even get a turn for permanent accommodation.
- Hg, Cyprus"
I shouldn't be harsh to these people really. What the Daily Mail does is mislead it's readers. It does it on purpose, and it does it quite well. I wish they weren't so good at it.
The thing is, the Mail uses the term 'Asylum Seekers' so they can appear to be not racist. In using a term that describes someone's actions rather than what they are, they can claim this. But by calling people asylum seekers after they've been granted asylum, they show that the term really doesn't describe their actions. It describes what they are. It's clever and weaselly, but it's still racist.
At the moment, the comments system is off for this article, but not for elsewhere on the site. Whether or not it's because they've provoked a deluge of the racist filth I think they might have been trying to provoke, or whether it's because people are pointing out how unremittingly evil and shite this article is is anyone's guess. I'm going for the former.
Wankers.
05/04/2006
Melanie Phillips - really rather odd
I first came across Melanie Phillips a while ago, whislt watching Question Time. (Not like that, you filthy buggers. I know I said I like programmes with bosoms in, but Jesus). Anyway, I didn't know who she was then, and was taken aback that she didn't take the opportunity to slag off the sexist homophobe Rocco Buttiglione, who looked as though he'd be appointed as EU Commissioner for Justice. She said something weaselly about how lots of people agree with him instead. I remember thinking she was a bit of a wrongun then, and everything I've seen since from her confirms it.
For a start, she has a book out called 'Londonistan', which reminds me of the crap old jokes about having too many of 'them' over here that Conservative shadow ministers used to get the sack for telling. But Phillips is talking about the religion and not the people, so that's alright then.
Her latest diary entry is titled 'Welcome, Dr Rice, to Londonistan*' and is about Condoleezza Rice's recent visit to some places that aren't London, so it's off to a good start.
The thing that strikes me most about Phillips's writing is how much she preaches to the choir. She's obviously not trying to convince anyone that what she's saying is right - she just expects us to think it is. That's fine for all those readers that have a Melanie-Phillips-O-Vision hat, but some of us don't know how big the colander and potato have to be so we can make one, or how much tin foil we'll need. It's not fair.
She opens by stating:
Apparently, Melanie Phillips used to be a left-leaning columnist. It's easier to see how she moved to the right when you take her seeing people as groups into account. If she started from the position that left wing people have one set of beliefs and right wing people have another, and she was left wing, it would only take her examining one of her left wing beliefs and disagreeing with it to move wholesale to the right. It's like buying a really cheap suit in a sale. You can find one where the jacket fits but the trousers are miles too big, but you have to buy the whole suit or get nothing. Of course, she would have had to start from the position of not basing her beliefs on evidence and arbitrarily just choosing sides (which is weird), but it kind of makes sense. That's why she views it as 'taking a line' - as if you can just ignore certain facts if you want to so you can spin things in such a way that they agree with the line you've chosen to take.
Back in the diary entry, she lists some of the things she doesn't like about the protests. You have to have your special hat well tuned to follow this one.
But all that's not what really narks off our Mel. "It is the lethal moral inversion of the argument" that comes from not protesting about Yusuf al-Qaradawi meeting with the Mayor of London, but protesting about Condoleezza visiting Bradford and Liverpool that gets her goat.
There are a few reasons why this is a bit of a lame argument to make, some of them go like this:
1. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is less well known than Condoleezza Rice.
2. The claims about Qaradawi's extremism are quite possibly bollocks. The claims about Condoleezza Rice being US Secretary of State and National Security Advisor are somewhat less controversial.
3. If Qaradawi called for the withdrawal of British and American troops from Iraq tomorrow, bog all would happen. If Condoleezza Rice or Jack Straw did, on the other hand, something just might.
I like the next bit, explaining why people are protesting against Rice's visit. And only partly because the writing is so excruciatingly cack:
The rest of the entry is based on the lame strawman argument that people are protesting becasue they think US are engaged in a war against the innocent in Iraq. (Although in one sense, this is true. The Iraqis were innocent of having weapons of mass destruction - the charge that led us to war in the first place). Of course, this is a gross oversimplification of the protesters' position, but that's the point. The whole point of this piece to crowbar people into the neat groups Phillips wants them to be in - and you can see this towards the end:
For a start, she has a book out called 'Londonistan', which reminds me of the crap old jokes about having too many of 'them' over here that Conservative shadow ministers used to get the sack for telling. But Phillips is talking about the religion and not the people, so that's alright then.
Her latest diary entry is titled 'Welcome, Dr Rice, to Londonistan*' and is about Condoleezza Rice's recent visit to some places that aren't London, so it's off to a good start.
The thing that strikes me most about Phillips's writing is how much she preaches to the choir. She's obviously not trying to convince anyone that what she's saying is right - she just expects us to think it is. That's fine for all those readers that have a Melanie-Phillips-O-Vision hat, but some of us don't know how big the colander and potato have to be so we can make one, or how much tin foil we'll need. It's not fair.
She opens by stating:
"It is a telling commentary in itself on the times in which we are living that a Conservative politician took the line that the protests were entirely justified because the Americans are so awful and they are doing such terrible things in Iraq and we were taken to war on a lie and..."Indeed it is. They're times in which the protests are justified because the Americans are doing terrible things in Iraq (click the 'Former US Soldiers' link) and we were taken to war on a lie. But in Melanie Phillips' world it's beyond the pale that a Conservative politician can 'take that line'. This is partly because Phillips tends not to see people as individuals, but as part of one monolithic group or another. Conservative politicians must say this war is good and protest is bad, regardless of whatever facts might be pertinent, because that's what Conservative politicians believe.
Apparently, Melanie Phillips used to be a left-leaning columnist. It's easier to see how she moved to the right when you take her seeing people as groups into account. If she started from the position that left wing people have one set of beliefs and right wing people have another, and she was left wing, it would only take her examining one of her left wing beliefs and disagreeing with it to move wholesale to the right. It's like buying a really cheap suit in a sale. You can find one where the jacket fits but the trousers are miles too big, but you have to buy the whole suit or get nothing. Of course, she would have had to start from the position of not basing her beliefs on evidence and arbitrarily just choosing sides (which is weird), but it kind of makes sense. That's why she views it as 'taking a line' - as if you can just ignore certain facts if you want to so you can spin things in such a way that they agree with the line you've chosen to take.
Back in the diary entry, she lists some of the things she doesn't like about the protests. You have to have your special hat well tuned to follow this one.
"What is so striking about these protests [...] is not just that it is extraordinarily bone-headed to insult and alienate the ally on whom we continue to depend for our protection; it is not just the craven appeasement of intimidation"Right, craven appeasement of intimidation is bad. Gotcha. But why is it "bone-headed to insult and alienate the ally on whom we continue to depend for our protection"? Is it because they might remove that protection if we do? Isn't the threat of removing protection for not toeing the line a form of intimidation in itself? Therefore, if we shy away from seeming discourteous to an 'ally' because they might remove protection if we do, aren't we also appeasing intimidation? Of course, you have to think that protesting against something you disagree with is appeasement of intimidation in the first place, but if you're Melanie Phillips, that's easy.
But all that's not what really narks off our Mel. "It is the lethal moral inversion of the argument" that comes from not protesting about Yusuf al-Qaradawi meeting with the Mayor of London, but protesting about Condoleezza visiting Bradford and Liverpool that gets her goat.
There are a few reasons why this is a bit of a lame argument to make, some of them go like this:
1. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is less well known than Condoleezza Rice.
2. The claims about Qaradawi's extremism are quite possibly bollocks. The claims about Condoleezza Rice being US Secretary of State and National Security Advisor are somewhat less controversial.
3. If Qaradawi called for the withdrawal of British and American troops from Iraq tomorrow, bog all would happen. If Condoleezza Rice or Jack Straw did, on the other hand, something just might.
I like the next bit, explaining why people are protesting against Rice's visit. And only partly because the writing is so excruciatingly cack:
"Why? Because the US is apparently waging war against the innocent in Iraq. Excuse me?? The US is currently in Iraq at the express request of the Iraqis themselves to defend the innocent against the war being waged against them."Umm...no they're not. They're there because of the weapons of mass destruction Iraq didn't have.
"The US went to war in Iraq to start unpicking the axis of terror that so threatens the world. "Umm...no they didn't. They went to war because of the weapons of mass destruction Iraq didn't have.
The rest of the entry is based on the lame strawman argument that people are protesting becasue they think US are engaged in a war against the innocent in Iraq. (Although in one sense, this is true. The Iraqis were innocent of having weapons of mass destruction - the charge that led us to war in the first place). Of course, this is a gross oversimplification of the protesters' position, but that's the point. The whole point of this piece to crowbar people into the neat groups Phillips wants them to be in - and you can see this towards the end:
"It is the big propaganda lie of the enemies of freedom and democracy, promulgated by those who have every interest in bringing about the defeat of the west – both radical Islamists and the extreme left, now in close and unholy alliance with each other in the Stop the War Coalition and elsewhere – and now fast becoming the accepted unwisdom of those who opposed the war for more respectable reasons."I love the 'enemies of freedom and democracy' bit. It's so 1950's. Anyway, she presents an oversimplified strawman view of why one set of anti-Iraq (and Iran, it should be stressed) protesters oppose the war, and then implies that anyone else who is not in this set also oppose the war for this reason - without ever demonstrating once that anyone opposes the war purely for this reason in the first place. It would be like me writing something that says 'Melanie Phillips is pro war because she thinks Iraqi people are just evil - and it's now becoming the accepted unwisdom of all Daily Mail readers.' The first claim is bollocks to start with, and the second is even more so (well, maybe not - but I'm making a point here). This sort of thing is extremely shoddy, and wouldn't get past anyone who didn't agree with Phillips in the first place, but that doesn't matter, does it? Get in your box, you foul enemy of freedom and democracy you. That way our Mel can dismiss you without ever having to listen to what you actually have to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)