There's a limit to the amount you can say about fish with swivelly eyes you know

When I think about what goes on in Melanie Phillips' head, which is mercifully infrequent, I can't help but hear the sound of an out of tune calliope in a deserted fairground where a grinning little girl repeatedly stabs a dirty rag doll in the face with a bradawl. Probably says as much about my sanity as it does hers, but anyway. Just thought I'd share.

I've got bored again and delved into Melanie's website. Her diary entry from 28 November is titled 'Now Muslims oppose the Olympic mosque'. You can guess what she's going to say, but anyway, a little quote:

Now that Muslims themselves have added their explicit voice to the local protests against the Tablighi Jamaat mosque, will the government finally listen? Or will it continue its policy of abandoning Muslims – along with everyone else – to the extremism that so threatens them, and which it has so consistently and shamefully appeased?

But . . . but . . . I thought the mosque was proof of how Muslims are evil and want to take over the world. Not poor helpless people who can only survive with intervention from our superior western princilpes. I'm confused.

I'm not really. The thing is, if you can ignore that Muslims are actually a large group of people - some with different opinions to others - then you can take any comment from any Muslim and apply it to the whole group as proof of what Muslims want. Which is handy for Mel.

It can become extremely useful if you want to demonise the whole group. It completely obviates the need for engaging in any argument or working hard to find out facts yourself. You can say, 'Muslims are shrewd and perspicacious and want to take over the world,' because one little subset of them might have said so, at the same time as saying, 'actually, Muslims are poor and oppressed,' because another little subset of them doesn't like another subset - who may or may not be a part of the first 'shrewd' lot - although you can safely assume they are, because the ones doing the accusing are Muslims, and therefore clearly represent what all Muslims think. Except the first group. And the third. Those groups represent what all Muslims want at other times, when you want to argue Muslims aren't poor and oppressed. My head hurts.

Not wanting to get all wanky, but it's the entire Western representation of Muslims in microcosm. Muslims are fearsome and nasty and must be stopped at the same time as being poor and desparate and needing our help.

I wonder if it hurts Melanie Phillips' head as much as mine. Muslims want this, no they want that. Muslims want to build an enormous mosque. Muslims want to take over the world. Muslims want to MURDER US ALL IN OUR BEDS! Oh, when will we help the poor Muslims? I wish she'd make up her bloody mind. And stop stabbing that rag doll so ferociously. It's creeping me out.

Classic PC gone mad Mail

I'm a member of the PC brigade. It's me that goes around eradicating the word 'black' from everything and replacing it with random colours. I'm particularly proud of the banning of black binliners, making people have to say 'coffee, no milk' and forcing Councils to spray paint their dark-coloured-wool-units (previously 'black sheep') in rainbow colours. It's always flattering to get a mention.

I'm not really. There is no PC brigade. Of course, that would suggest that this Daily Mail article 'Bah humbug! Now PC brigade target Christmas office party' is disingenuous toss, which is handy because it is. This time, there's a source that shows exactly how much the Mail has exaggerated and added to make it sound worse than it is, at the ACAS website. Again, I'm having an attack of is-this-really-the-most-important-thing-happening-in-the-world syndrome, as this is the front page headline.

First off, opening paragraph:

Office Christmas parties face the axe after the Government's industrial relations watchdog warned bosses they face being sued for a raft of "politically correct" misdemeanours.

No they don't. ACAS don't say anything about axing anything or being sued. They talk about doing things to ensure companies avoid trouble. In fact, their site says:

By thinking about potential problems now and preparing, companies can help make it a happy Christmas for managers and staff and minimise the risk of employment tribunal claims. Acas' helpline gets hundreds of calls every Christmas from organisations with problems – here are some we prepared earlier.

Anything about not having a Christmas party there, or just advice to help avoid problems? It's worth starting off by pointing out that ACAS can't stop anyone from making claims. It can only say to companies 'do this, and nobody will be able to complain'. It says nothing about how reasonable any claims are. But we're clearly on to a Daily Mail classic from the start.

It's such a classic that the nonsense continues straight away in the second paragraph. Hurrah!:

In an extraordinary advice pamphlet, Acas told firms they have a "duty of care" to drunken staff and could face crippling legal action if they do not get home safely.

The article really says:

Q. What if an employee who has clearly drunk too much at the office Christmas party is planning to drive home. It's not my responsibility, is it?

A. In fact, it is. As an employer you have a 'duty of care' toward your employees and as it's the company's party, you need to take some responsibility. Think about travel arrangements and maybe end the party before public transport stops running. Or provide the phone numbers for local registered cab companies and encourage employees to use them. Hiring minibuses to take staff home is another option which would probably be greatly appreciated.

Now, I can see the 'duty of care' bit, but bugger all about crippling legal action. Remember, ACAS are saying 'do these and you're not likely to face claims'. Not 'do these or you'll be punished'.

The fun continues in the next paragraph. As all three paragraphs so far are only one sentence in length, that's some bullshit every sentence. Great. There's more than one lump in this particularly fine sentence:

Managers were also told age discrimination laws could be breached if the music and entertainment caters only for younger staff, and holding a raffle or giving out alcoholic prizes could offend Muslims.

Here's what ACAS really say about the 'age discrimination' bit:

Q. Our Christmas party has always been a rather quiet event. However, we took over another company this year and now have a majority of younger employees. They are used to more boisterous celebrations and I'm worried that age discrimination claims will be lodged – how can I make everyone happy?

A. The key to any successful party is to put some thought into it. Try to ensure that there is a mix of music and that any organised entertainment takes account of all ages. What you end up with may not be to everyone's taste but you can always learn from it and canvass suggestions for next year!

The question says something about age discrimination, not the answer. I won't bore you with the bit about this being a suggestion to avoid claims and not a threat of punishment. Ooh, I just did.

Now - on to the bit about raffles and booze. Do a search in the ACAS document for the word 'Muslim'. Actually, don't bother. I already did and I can tell you it doesn't appear anywhere. Not once. The Mail are again using their tactic of blaming any kind of consideration for other people as an example of being told not to offend Muslims, which is fucking nasty when you think about it. The ACAS document actually says:

Q. We usually allow our social club to sell raffle tickets for prizes which are given out at the Christmas party – surely there's no problem with this?

A. Generally, no. However, some religions forbid gambling so no pressure should be exerted on staff who don't want to take part. It's also worth ensuring that the prizes on offer are not going to be unacceptable to those who do not drink alcohol or eat meat.

Notice the term 'some religions'. The term 'some' would include more than just Muslims. Also, the paper says that ACAS suggest that holding a raffle could offend Muslims. It doesn't. It says, 'no pressure should be exerted on staff who don't want to take part,' you shouldn't need me to tell you that not exerting pressure on people who don't want to take part is not the same as not holding a raffle at all because of Muslims.

The paper also effortlessly flows its nonsense claim about offending Muslims into the next part of ACAS' answer, which mentions people who don't eat meat or drink booze, which would cover people who don't do these things for reasons other than religious ones. Notice how it leaves out altogether any mention of people who don't eat meat because that would make it too obvious that ACAS weren't specefically addressing Muslims.

The next sentence doesn't really exaggerate much, but you have to ask yourself why the Mail wants it to be okay to verbally abuse gay people in the pub. And why it puts the term 'verbal abuse' in scare quotes. Next:

And Acas, a Government quango charged with settling industrial disputes, added a "proper risk assessment" must be carried out before any decorations are put up, particularly if they could be fire hazards.

Staff were cleared to display trees, tinsel and lights - but only because they are "secular" and "not inherently religious".

This, the advice note says, makes it "difficult to argue that they cause offence to non-Christians".

*Sigh*. Such selective quoting just makes it so obvious that the paper has no intention of actually informing its readers of what ACAS actually said. Which was:

Q. My recently-recruited manager has issued an email to staff telling them that Christmas decorations breach health and safety rules. She also said they are outlawed by the religion and belief regulations. Is she correct?

A. As long as a proper risk assessment is carried out looking at where and how decorations are sited, particularly if they could pose potential fire hazards, health and safety rules will not normally be breached. Regulations on religion and belief do not outlaw traditional customs. As most Christmas decorations such as tinsel, lights and trees are secular and not inherently religious, it could be difficult to argue that they cause offence to non-Christians.

In short, it said that Christmas decorations aren't a problem unless they breach health and safety. It doesn't say not to display religious decorations, it just says most aren't religious anyway. And imagine what the Mail would say if some employees were killed a fire at a Christmas party that had the fire exit blocked by a Christmas tree. Do you think they'd be telling the victims' families to shut up whining because it would have ruined Christmas to make sure the tree was in a safe place? I think perhaps not.

The rest of the article is a bunch of reactions from people to the guidelines, although it's not clear whether the reactions are to the actual guidelines or the version the Mail has made up. There are some neat little tricks here, like:

Employment lawyers said they would also think twice about going ahead with a celebration, given the Acas warning.

What Employment Lawyers? We have no idea who they are, what they are reacting to, or if they even exist. Later, one Employment Lawyer is quoted:

Sarah Cleary, a regulatory lawyer at Irwin Mitchell solicitors, said there was a real risk to employers of legal action in front of an employment tribunal, which has the power to award damages worth hundreds of thousands of pounds in some cases.

"If there was no formal and proper supervision, and free alcohol was available to particularly the younger staff and someone got injured or seriously ill then there could potentially be a claim against the firm for personal injury and or a breach of Health and Safety regulations."

She added: "I think the ACAS suggestions are scary really and would put anyone off having an office party."

Which is not really the same is it? The scenario she gives is far more extreme than the Mail's, and the bit about thinking twice appears to be her doing a funny. The term 'would put anyone off' is usually used to joke, like saying 'Bella Emberg would put anyone off women'. It's a way to exaggerate for a laugh. Nobody who says looking at Bella Eberg had put them off women really actually means they'd never have sex with another woman again. Ditto here, probably.

There's then the reaction of Matt Hardman, which -like the rest of this article - effortlessy turns the aim of the document on its head. It's clear that the document is a set of tips to make sure companies avoid trouble. That's all. The question and answer format make this clear. It isn't a set of diktats that says 'you will definitely be in trouble if you fail to do this', but Matt Hardman seems to suggest that it does. remember, if companies are scrapping their Christmas parties for fear of complaints and claims, that's the fault of the people complaining, not ACAS for pointing out how to avoid people complaining.

One part of the Mail article:

Acas's warning said managers would be in "hot water" if drunken staff do not get home safely.

Here, the paper is pretty clearly not telling the truth. ACAS did not use the term it pretends they did in conjunction with getting home safely. The term 'hot water' doesn't appear in the ACAS document, and the quote is clearly from the ACAS spokesman saying:

Many organisations find themselves in hot water over the Christmas season where seemingly harmless pranks or party ideas result in damages or tribunal claims.

See - seemingly harmless pranks and party ideas. Not drunken staff getting home safely.

More:

Scenarios could include stumbling out of the party drunk and falling over in the street, or getting knocked down.

The ACAS page does not mention these scenarios at all. The Mail has made them up. The guidelines only talk about making sure all staff have the facilities to get home either by making sure the party ends on time for public transport or by giving them cab numbers or providing buses. Not a dicky-bird about falling over. The important thing is the Mail's use of the word 'could'. The Mail gives the impression that ACAS have included that scenario with the use of the word 'could', but what the paper actually means is that because it isn't mentioned, it might be something ACAS are referring to. Clever that, eh? See, scenarios 'could' include getting caught in a zombie attack as well, but it's not bloody likely that ACAS means to include that by not mentioning it.

I can't really be arsed to go through the rest point by point. It's enough to say that the paper has misrepresented the content of the ACAS guidelines, and misrepresented their intent. Clearly, they're there to say words to the effect of 'Some companies get in trouble with tribunals and stuff after their Christmas parties, but you'll be alright if you do this.' The Mail makes it sound like they're saying 'do this or we'll punish you'. Which is par for the course for the Mail.

At least it's possible to see the document the paper is misrepresenting this time, so you know why I get all suspicious when it's not. The paper doesn't link to the ACAS document though, but has its own distorted version of it instead, in 'ACAS dos and don'ts for the office Christmas party' which I will go through because it's fucking easy. Here's what it says ACAS say:

DON'T: Attempt to sell raffle tickets to Muslims because Islam forbids gambling.

False. ACAS says don't pressure people to buy raffle tickets if they don't want to. Not don't attempt. And it doesn't mention Muslims. Next:

DON'T: Give meat or alcohol as prizes in case they offend.

False. It says 'it's worth ensuring' that there are no meat or alcolhol prizes as some people might not consume them. Be fair, it would be a bit shit if you were an alcoholic who couldn't drink and you won a big fuck off bottle of absinthe or something. Next:

DON'T: Let staff who have been drinking drive home.

True. But presumably, the Mail would rather companies allowed people to drive drunk and wouldn't talk about any 'fury' about any companies whose employees did so and went on to maim and kill. Or maybe they would. Next:

DON'T: Let staff make remarks about 'being gay' in the pub before the party.

False. ACAS says 'Make sure the company has policies in place on bullying and harassment and discrimination and that everyone knows what they are and what the penalties are for ignoring them.' In other words, if the staff know this and go on to abuse people for being gay - I'll say that again - abuse people for being gay - rather than just mention it, then the company isn't liable. Next:

DO: Carry out a "proper risk assessment" before putting up decorations.

True. I won't repeat myself about the fire scenario, but you can reread it if you like. I'm not stopping you. Next:

DO: Ensure staff have taxi numbers, or put on a bus to take all drunken staff home.

True. Sort of. It leaves out the bit about finishing in time to be able to get public transport. Seriously, how difficult is it to dot taxi numbers about the place and leave some cards behing the bar? Anyone would think ACAS are demanding that the directors force their kids to take drunken staff home in rickshaws while being whipped. Next:

DO: Finish the party while public transport is still running.

Oh. Clever. They didn't forget the bit about public transport. They just put it in as a separate point so they can pretend ACAS said to do those other things as well as finishing early rather than instead of finishing early. Which is me arse. The clue that they mean finish early or do the other things is the clever use of the word 'or'. Next:

DO: Make sure there is a mix of music to avoid age discrimination claims.

Lie. Sort of. It says to do that to make a good party. It says Sweet Fanny Adams about age discrimination claims in its answer to the hypothetical question. Like I said, ACAS can't stop people making claims - all it can do is say 'if you do this, nobody can complain'. They're not responsible for what people complain about.

I'm beginning to remember why I hate the Mail the most again. It must be nearly Christmas! Until we BAN CHRISTMAS and replace it with ONE-LEGGED-BLACK-LESBIAN DAY for MUSLIMS! MWUH HUH HUH HUH HA HA HAAAAAAH!

The answer is none more black

I can't let this one go, really.

From yesterday's Mail, (27 November) - 'Storm as Tory MP sends email saying most criminals are black'.

Sometimes, it's difficult to know what the Mail's line on a particular issue is from what they say about it, and it's necessary to look at what has been left out to know their stance. This story is a good example.

Take the headline. Okay, there's a storm (isn't there always?) about a Tory MP sending an email saying most criminals are black, but the headline - and the rest of the article - doesn't really tell us why the email caused a 'storm'. It could be because the email is incorrect and bordering on racism on one hand, or because the email is correct and the MP should be allowed to say these things on the other. An article would normally expand on a headline like this one and let us know, but this one remains ambiguous.

You'd think the most important thing to point out would be that the question he agreed with in his email: 'Are you saying that a lot more criminals are black than white,' is false. That's why there's a controversy. The Mail doesn't, though. Now, there may be legal reasons for this, I don't know. The Mirror covered this story in 'EXCLUSIVE: TORY: MOST CRIMINALS ARE BLACK', along with the Guardian in 'Kelly addresses CRE as Tories face race row', and neither actually say outright that the statement 'more criminals are black than white' is false, but both make the paper's stance on the matter clear one way or another.

The Guardian quotes Spink's comments and says:

According to Home Office statistics, in 2004-05 14% of the prison population in England and Wales was black, with 77% being white.

before giving a more detailed overview of the figures, and the Mirror makes its position clear with it's use of the term 'racism' in its subheading, the repeated use of the term throughout the article (along with 'race row') and the inclusion of quotes from someone with a contrary opinion. So if there are legal reasons for not pointing this out, it's not as if they can't be got around.

The important phrase that Bob Spinks used as a qualifier - 'pro-rata' is the important one here. A larger proportion of the 'young black population are known to the criminal justice system' than the proportion of the white population. But this is not the same as saying that more criminals are black than white. The Guardian exposes this with the prison stats. It's not clear if Spink used the 'pro-rata' phrase at any point in his email exchange with his constituent, but even if he does that doesn't make it right to say that more criminals are black than white. There are still more white criminals than black criminals.

The Mail doesn't draw the readers' attention to this phrase at all, and doesn't explain its meaning, it just leaves it there, floating in the middle of a quote from Mr Spinks insisting he's not racist and the figures are genuine. Now, I have a bit of a confession to make. I wasn't sure what 'pro-rata' meant in this context until I checked, and I've got an English degree. I suspected what it meant only because I knew the statement 'most criminals are black' to be nonsense. Given the lack of clarification or conflicting information, and given that the phrase is only included in the middle of an insistence that the figures are correct, how many Mail readers do you think would have a) spotted it at all, or b) gone away to check if they weren't sure what the Latin phrase meant?

We have some idea from the comments:

What is wrong with saying it if it is true?

- David G, Hitchin England

Well, you see - without the qualifier, it's not true.

Well are they? If they are then what is the problem? Stating a fact is not racist. If they aren't then he should be sacked.

- Dom, Caernarfon, Wales

Nope. They're not.

If that is what the statistics prove then so be it. If you are telling the truth you are not being racist.

Honesty is best; not political correctness.

- Jeff, Thetford. UK

So, let's have the figures. If what he claims is true and there are more 'black' criminals than 'white', I don't see what can possibly be construed as being politically incorrect about his statement. It the figures prove him right, then he is only commenting on a fact of reality. The figures, please!

- Ronnie, Expat, Germany

The reason these readers (and others) are unclear is because the article doesn't make itself clear, and doesn't offer a clear enough position on its own. It remains ambiguous. But given the paper's usual stance on political correctness and telling the 'truth', it's easy to see what the Mail's readership could be expected to take away from this article. If the paper were interested in informing their readers of the truth, it could clarify. But, again, it doesn't.

Familiar, eh?

See, BA was cross all the time. Geddit?

So this is the most important thing happening in the world again, apparently - 'Almost 100 MPs sign motion condemning BA as backlash grows'.

Couldn't they just have said, 'Hey, BA cross lady, have some milk,' and handed her drugged milk so that she woke up with her cross covered? My research shows that would work every week.

Anyway, I mentioned in 'Double standards, not in the Mail, surely?' that this case exposes the double standard the paper has concerning different religions - even as it tries to expose the double standards of others. I won't go over old ground too much, but all the arguments that the paper used against Shabina Begum wearing a jilbab earlier this year can apply just as easily to this case. But the Mail, and other papers that support Nadia Ewedia, decide to drop them in favour of 'freedom of religious expression' arguments they ignored before.

There was a bit of an outcry when Shabina Begum won her initial case. And then there were 'well done the judiciary' style comments when she lost an appeal. The contrast between these two cases is quite striking. Look at the first paragraph to 'Human rights, social wrongs', which comes after the initial case won by Begum:

Yet again, Britain is diminished by a destructive cocktail of human rights legislation, legal aid, lawyers living high on the hog and judges who seem bereft of common sense. Presumably, Britain won't be diminished if rules have to be changed in this case.

And if Ms Ewedia is allowed to wear her cross openly, the people making the ruling won't be 'bereft of common sense'.

Another choice quote:

Shabina is of course entitled to her beliefs and could simply have transferred to another school where the jilbab is allowed. But no. Her fundamentalist supporters wanted a cause celebre instead. And how eagerly lawyers queued to give them one, at our expense.

Now read the Mail's article from today. Notice how Shabina Begum was critiscised for not transferring to another school - but Ms Ewedia is not critiscised for refusing to take a back office job in the same company. No mention is made of lawyers queuing to take on the case if Ms Ewedia decides to go to court. Her supporters are not accused of wanting a cause celebre. In fact, the whole point of this article, and 'Christian students slam BA and campus 'fundamentalism'' is to trumpet about her fantasctic supporters.

That second article is curious. It says:

Christian student leaders have condemned the British Airways ban on workers wearing the cross as the same 'secular fundamentalism' that has targeted their own activities.

If the BA are fundamentalist secularists, why do they allow their staff to wear turbans and headscarves?

Back to the original article, and we have:

UN human rights chiefs will raise the issue alongside death sentences for critics of Islam in Pakistan and forced conversions of Muslims to Buddhism in Burma at a conference in Prague.

Now, it's hardly on a par, is it? Death sentences on the one hand, and having to wear a cravat on the other. If only I knew the seriousness of my plight when I was an usher at a wedding a couple of weeks ago. The high collar did chafe a bit actually. These people who get executed don't know they're born.

The article quotes direct parallels between Christianity and Islam:

[Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights] spokeswoman Kieran McCaffey said: "Britain is trapped in a multi-cultural mess of its own making. What’s provoking this situation is a hostility towards Christians and a fawning over Islam, which is rooted in fear."

Notice how this quote places this case in the framework of claiming that Muslims get things Christians can't. But in two of the last three cases of women wearing Islamic dress hitting the headlines, two were told they weren't allowed to wear their religious dress, and all three were pilloried in the press.

I could quote whole chunks of the article, but I won't. There are more important things that are missing from it than the stuff that actually makes it in:

• No mention is made to Ms Ewedia being from a minority Christian sect. Much was made of Shabina Begum not thinking other forms of Islamic dress were adequate.
• No mention is made of the fact that she is allowed to wear a cross, although a number of references are made of a ban on wearing the cross.
• No mention is made of the offer of another job.
• No mention is made of the cross being disallowed under rules about visible jewellery. The article gives the impression that is has been 'banned' (which it hasn't) because it's a Christian symbol.
• None of the Mail articles (or any in other papers that I can see) mention the fact that British Airways is a multinational company, with employees having to face the public in a number of countries around the world. In such a company, banning turbans and headscarves would be out of the question. Imagine trying to prevent turbans and headscarves from being worn in India.

Another important thing to note is the paper's treatment of Ms Ewedia herself. We've seen the 'poor folorn victim' picture loads of times here, and she's never referred to in a negative manner. She has a number of supportive articles (it looks as though there'll be a couple more in this paper alone tomorrow).

Remember the references to Shabina Begum being a 'little madam' and a showoff. Remember the massive emphasis on the possible costs of the Aisha Azmi case, and the spurious, badly backed up allegations of terrorist connections. Remember Shabnam Mughal being bullied by the press, and being blamed for starting the 'row' she was involved in. Remember that all three were accused of deliberately courting publicity and angling for compensation money, and all three were depicted as the cause of their own problems for refusing to remove their religious attire.

Nadia Ewedia gets two Daily Mail front pages supporting her in just a few days, and pledges from nearly 100 MPs. BA get threatened with boycotting.

Fawning favour over Islam? Who are you trying to kid?

Daily Express in 'headline is misleading arse' shocker!

It's depressingly familiar now. Daily Express headilne screams something shocking about immigration, but the article itself turns out to show the headline is exaggerated toss. This one says '5500 migrants claiming benefits', and the Ministry of Truth has the resons why this is not exactly kosher. A couple of highlights:

One finds that the actual breakdown of benefit claimants from Eastern Europe is…

35,448 receiving child benefit at up to £17.45 a week…

…which is, of course, a universal benefit paid to all families with children under the age of 16.

According to the most recent statistics from HM Revenue & Customs, 7.4 million families currently receive child benefit for a total of 13.2 million children, and as one suspects that the figure of 35,448 cited by the Express is the number of children for which child benefit is being claimed and not the number families making claims, this amounts to a staggering 0.26% of the total number of children for whom child benefit is paid.

And:

So a quick bit of maths shows that out of 510,000 migrants, less that 20,000 are receiving, or might receive work-related benefits, leaving 490,000 out there working in Britian’s economy, generating profits and paying taxes, give or take any that couldn’t find suitable work and have since gone elsewhere.

The whole thing's well worth a read, especially if you're interested in seeiing how politicians take an Orwellian approach to language. Go! Do it!

BA cross lady says 'HRRRN! I ain't flyin' fool!'

Of course, a couple of non-rabid stories about Muslims don't mean that the Mail has stopped being the idiot voice of hard-right Britain. Far from it.

Today's headline is on the left. The online version is 'Archbishop accuses BA of 'nonsense' for refusing to back down in cross row'.

I'm having an attack of 'this is the most important thing happening in the world?' syndrome again. Is it? Is it really?

The first thing that srtikes me is the inclusion of the Archbishop's birthplace in the headline. There are a few implications that including the birthplace makes. It implies that the issue shouldn't be a problem, and the answer is so straighhtforward that it takes an outsider to point that out. The second implication is one that's familiar to people who have heard the argument, 'I know a black bloke who thinks Bernard Manning's hilarious, so he can't be racist.' In effect, the headline is saying, 'look, a black foreigner thinks we're doing too much to prevent offending foreigners, so we must be'.

This second implication is a bit ironic, because according to one of the Mail's three other articles on this issue, Ms Ewedia is 'a Coptic Christian with an Egyptian background'.

So it's a bit odd that the archbishop, Dr Sentamu, says:

British Airways needs to look again at this decision and to look at the history of the country it represents, whose culture, laws, heritage and tradition owes so much to the very same symbol it would ban.

Aside from the typical Christian overstatement of how much the country owes to Christianity, Dr Sentamu has missed the fact that Britain owes sod all to Coptic Christianity - a rare sect in this country. And BA haven't banned a symbol. She's allowed to wear it.

And BA are not trying to ban anything. I'll be going over old ground here, but she is allowed to wear a cross if she wants, just under her clothes.

Dr Sentamu says some more nonsense:

Dr Sentamu said BA's position undermined its right to be Britain's national airline because it was failing to recognise the country's Christian culture and heritage.

Again, Britain owes nothing to Coptic Christianity. Also, Dr Sentamu seems to be saying that every British institution should be explicitly Christian. That's non-devisive.

And he appears to have said more in the past:

Last month the Archbishop risked a row with the Muslim community by suggesting Islamic women should not wear veils in public.

The Ugandan-born cleric told the Daily Mail that "no minority" should impose its belief on the rest of society.

I'm going to repeat myself. Coptic Christians are a minority. And why should this Christian - a minority of one who thinks they have to display a cross as far as I'm aware - impose her beliefs on the rest of society, if that's what wearing religious attire does. How is wearing a veil imposing your beliefs on anyone anyway?

It's funny that he says:

This decision by British Airways is a nonsense and is based on flawed reasoning.

Because he seems to have only a passing acquaintance with reasoning himself.

Dr Sentamu says:

Under BA's current reasoning, an employee who turned up to work wearing a three foot long cross must be allowed to wear it, because to hide such a cross under their uniform would be impractical.

But this is what BA said:

Our uniformed staff, many thousands of whom are Christian, have happily accepted the policy for years. The policy recognises that it is not practical for some religious symbols such as turbans and hijabs to be worn underneath the uniform.

You can't hide a turban or a hijab under a uniform, and neither are jewellery. Banning these things would effectively ban people who wear them from working for BA. As far as I'm aware, it isn't a Coptic tradition to wear a cross and display it openly at all times. The most I've been able to find is this 'What the cross means to non-western Christians':

Coptic Christians in Egypt see their cross as the greatest glory of their church and as a symbol of their long martyrdom. They tattoo it in pride and defiance on the inside of their right wrist as an indelible mark of their identification with their church and community, although they know that this visible mark might bring them scorn and discrimination in their Muslim-majority society.

A couple of points:

• Ms Ewedia's cross is not a Coptic cross. It's a plain one.
• A cross tattooed on the inner right wrist would be covered by long sleeves.
• A tattoo is not an item of jewellery.
  

And there is no religious tradition anywhere to wear a three foot cross.

I actually disagree with Shami Chakrabarti, which is unusual, when she says:

British Airway's policy appears to be fundamentally misconceived and has led to a bonkers result. This woman's cross is clearly as important to her as a turban or a hijab to someone else.

She is allowed to wear a cross, and a turban or a hijab is impossible to cover with a uniform.

Miss Ewedia's MP talks some rubbish too:

This is very disappointing. British Airways have behaved very badly. They are treating different faiths inconsisently [...]

No. They've said religious attire that can be hidden under a uniform must be hidden. That's treating them the same.

Ms Ewedia herself isn't innocent of talking nonsense:

But despite this they stuck by their decision to refuse to let me wear it. I find their stance confusing. It makes no sense to me.

They haven't refused to let her wear it. She also says:

I am glad that a Christian like him has spoken out. I hope it encourages other Christians to start praying and persuades BA to change its mind.

God, I fucking hope not.

Just to reiterate - I don't care if she can wear a cross visibly. I just hate the rubbish reasoning behind the arguments her supporters are using.

*UPDATE* I've revised my earlier post to take out references to things being necessary to various religions. I'll produce another post on this later. Lucky you.

Has the Mail lost its stomach for anti-Muslim rhetoric?

No, seriously. Since the complaint about their handling of the case of the sacked MET officer for flimsy maybe possible perhaps connections to terrorism, the paper does seem to have toned down its rhetoric. Maybe it's just me, but see what you think.

Since the complaints about their handling of the MET officer case I spoke about in 'Daily Hate', the paper's been pretty muted about the Shabna Mughal case, laid off the halal chicken nonsense and produced some unusual stories. For the Mail.

The other day, we had 'The Halal Haribos for Muslim children', which I expected to be a disapproving rant - not unlike the Express's 'halal chicken' shoutiness. It isn't. It's actually quite positive! It includes phrases about how they've been a 'huge success' and get this - it's only in a quote, but still - get this, it includes the phrase, 'I see the whole thing as a fine example of peaceful multiculturalism,'. Peaceful multiculturalism. Not 'destructive' or 'loony' or 'misguided'. Peaceful. It doesn't even say they taste of shit or anything either.

Even the comments are all positive. The comments on Mail stories are heavily, heavily censored. They only very occasionally let any message that deviates from their own line through - so they must have wanted to show a positive reaction. No badly thought out ranting about Political Correctness Gone Mad or Nu-Labour Nonsense from any ex-pats or anything.

Following that, we've had 'Surge in racism in schools blamed on 7/7 and veil row'. Now, okay, it takes a certain amount of chutzpah for a paper that made a connection between one 'veil row' Muslim and a terrorist on the strength of one unsupported report - and pretended that it had ben reported 'many times' - to report on this without mentioning its own contribution. But to be reporting it at all is surprising. Maybe the paper has realised its own contribution - who can say? We did have another story about how Labour's tough talk on immigration has led to defections to the BNP already, so maybe it's true. Maybe the people at the Mail have thought, 'Shit. Yeah. We do that. Maybe we shouldn't, eh?'

Check out the last paragraph of that article:

The only local authority that saw a fall in racist abuse was Ealing, which has been teaching the life story of US campaigner Rosa Parks and about Commonwealth soldiers in the Second World War.

Be serious. Would you ever have imagined any mention in the Mail of the teaching of those subjects as being anything other than totally negative? Ever? The comments to this one are
mostly positive too.

We've also had 'Reid admits foreign policy is radicalising young Muslims to commit acts of terror'. Surely it's crazy clerics radicalising Muslims? Okay - maybe this one isn't quite so indicative of a shift as it is an excuse to bash Tony Blair, but still. Melanie Phillips argues all the bloody time that they're radical because they're anti-semetic monsters.

Today, we've got 'Lighting up early . . . and we're Muslims!' which says:

It's not unusual for people to festoon their homes with Christmas lights at this time of year. But in the case of Roxanne and Sam there is one major difference - they are both Muslim.

"It doesn't make any difference to us that we're not Christian," said Roxanne. "It's the festive season and I love to celebrate it."

Without a rant about calling it 'the festive season'. And yeah, it's a 'good native story' but they could have ranted about halal chicken instead. Today's edition also includes 'Group of praying imams ordered off flight' which uses the term 'Muslim scholars' in place of the paper's more common, negative term 'cleric' to describe the imams. This one includes a link to 'Blue Peter Konnie's sister blasts bid to 'spy on Muslim students'' which says:

Government plans to get universities to spy on Muslim students resemble a "McCarthyite witch-hunt", a woman tipped to become Britain's first Bangladeshi MP warned today.

Rupa Huq, a university lecturer and sister of Blue Peter presenter Konnie Huq, said the "silent majority" of moderate Muslims were tired of being associated with terrorism and ministers risked alienating more youngsters with the on-campus campaign.

A couple of negative comments get through in these two articles - and the one about foreign policy radicalising Muslims, but they're still critical of anti-Muslim feeling.

I don't want to be jumping the gun or anything, but can this be indicating a change in editorial position? There are other stories about Muslims, like 'New iman [sic] sparks 'potentially dangerous' Muslim prison stand-off' that aren't completely positive, but three or four positive stories to one is quite unusual. And the one less than positive one at least mentions a difference of opinion between Muslims.

If it is indicating a change, it could be for a few reasons. It could be an attempt to align itself with possible Labour leaders opposing Gordon Brown - which would explain John Reid being quoted. It could be an attempt to distance itself from the increasingly rabid Daily Express. It could be a reaction to the complaint about its treatment of the sacked MET officer. It could be just an example of the scattergun effect, so that if you mention the paper's treatment of Muslims, it can say, 'but we said something nice about halal Haribos'. But you never know. It could be the result of someone at the paper thinking, 'Shit, yeah. If we say negative stuff all the time, there might be consequences'.

Fingers crossed eh?

*UPDATE* Of course, the Mail never lost its appetite. It just doesn't reach the screaming levels of the Express.

The world's most bigoted newspaper

Yesterday's Express included some more choice Islamophobic ranting, but I missed posting about it. Chicken Youghurt has it covered though, and Not Saussure covers the original Telegraph report. Lucky old you!

I want to make a couple of quick points about the article. Lucky old you again! It's a win double!

The front page headline is 'Fury over halal Christmas dinner'. Seriously, the thing that the Daily Express thought was the most important thing happening in the world yesterday was that one school - that's one school in an entire country's worth of schools - was going to serve halal chicken in the place of turkey for Christmas dinner, but ended up deciding to serve a choice of either that or turkey instead. The most important thing that happened in the entire world.

There are lots of quotes to beef up this non-story from a buch of ignorant buffoons, who I strongly believe have no idea of what 'halal' means. When an outraged parent says:

This is not a racial issue. Why can’t the non-Muslim kids enjoy traditional Christmas fare?

She clearly doesn't have a clue as to what she's on about. Because they can. The school offered the option of a side dish of sausages wrapped in bacon. That's pork wrapped in pork. Pork. The thing that Muslims and Jews can't eat no way no how. (See update at the bottom). I don't think that's the only thing she knows nothing about. When she says:

Why can’t we have a choice of chicken which suits everyone, Muslims and non-Muslims.

I can't help but think that she's got some idea tht halal means some sort of curry or some other muck of a foreign nature. Halal meat is suitable for non-muslms unless they have some objection to the way the meat is slaughtered. I have a very hard time believing that this has anything to do with cruelty to chickens, unless the school only ever serves free range non-battery chickens and the turkeys on offer are free range humanely slaughtered birds from some heaven of a farm. Unlike this one.

She goes on to say:

We bend over backwards at Eid (an Islamic festival) to eat traditional Muslim food so why should we have to change our Christmas tradition?

Really? You bend over backwards do you? Eating foreign food is bending over backwards is it? Is the food offered at Eid against your religion? No it's bloody not. Next:

I feel my culture is being stolen away from me.

Seriously. Halal doesn't mean curry, you halfwit. I mean, since when has killing chickens in a certain way been a part of British culture? When?

The odd thing here is that she doesn't mind that chicken is being served in the place of turkey, but that it's halal chicken. Muslim chicken. The paper reports:

But furious parents accused the school of undermining the Christian faith.

Which is nothing but disingenuous shite.

Halal meat can't possibly be contrary to the Christian faith. When Jesus was supposedly alive making up Christianity, halal meat hadn't even been invented yet, and wouldn't be for hundreds of years! I know he was meant to know the future and that, but nowhere in the Bible does it say a single word about not eating halal meat - in the same way that it says sod all about skateboards, rocketpacks and robot monkeys.

The humane killing of animals isn't exactly a priority in the Bible. After all, Jesus makes a pig get posessed by demons and jump over a cliff to its death. That's how much he gave a shit about that sort of thing.

Seriously though. The. Most. Important. Thing. In. The. World.

*UPDATE* In the grand tradition of the Telegraph having more pertinent information, their article has this:

Under the original proposal there would have been an option of sausages wrapped in bacon alongside the halal chicken.

Sure. We bend over backwards for these Muslims. We even give them the option of having some pork wrapped in pork and they have the audacity to ask us to eat chicken killed in a certain way. Bastards. They're taking away my culture and heritage. Except the bits involving an abundance of pork products.

The Sun gets the TB-jeebies

'Migrants'AIDS epidemic threat', screeches one of today's headlines. The Sun says 'Shit yourself now!'. Actually, it doesn't. It says 'Killer plagues' and:

BRITAIN once wiped out TB and was gaining ground against AIDS.

Today we risk an explosion in both these killer diseases, thanks to infected immigrants.

Oh my god! The immigrants will kill us all in our sleep. In our beds! While we're alseep! They'll have sex with us while we don't notice, and . . . and . . . get around the BCG by doing something evil and foreign!

Now, down to brass tacks. The first article says:

The problem is set to hit crisis point when Romania and Bulgaria — nations with some of Europe’s highest Aids rates — join the EU next year.

Workers from these countries are expected to flood into Britain.

Almost 59,000 Brits have an HIV infection that leads to Aids. There were almost 8,000 new cases last year — and 70 per cent were in immigrants, mostly from Africa and Eastern Europe, the Health Protection Agency revealed. [Emphasis theirs].

You probably know what I'm going to say already, but I have to say it. The Health Protection Agency report doesn't say this at all. Surprised? Its chapter on HIV makes only two mentions of Eastern Europe - a chapter that reaches over 5,000 words. Although it does mention concern about an increase in Eastern Europe itself, it says absolutely nothing about how many people diagnosed with HIV in the UK were born in Eastern Europe, and doesn't offer a single statistic, as only 'Europe' is covered without being split (aside from a mention of 'Southern Europe' for instances of transmission by injection).

Of course, technically the paper hasn't lied, because the largest number are from Africa. Technically, it'd be accurate if I said they were 'mostly from Africa and a street in Chingford'. It wouldn't create an honest impression of the spread though, would it?

The Sun article also says that almost 8,000 new disgnoses of HIV were made last year, and over 70% of those were in people born overseas. That is also incredibly dishonest, if not a flat out lie. The report says:

Country of birth is reported for approximately 62% of cases, and of these cases, the number of non-UK born persons newly diagnosed with HIV rose from 1438 in 2000 to 2939 in 2004, a two fold increase (Figure 1). This represents around 40% of the total diagnoses in 2004 (in England, Wales and Northern Ireland) or 70% of diagnoses where country of birth was reported.

So it's only 40% - not over 70% - of the 'almost 8,000' figure that were definitely born overseas because only 62% report where they're born. We don't know where the other 38% are born at all. You could only conclude that over 70% of the total were born overseas if you used figures you can't possibly know because they aren't there - which is otherwise known as 'making the figures up'.

To be fair, the HPA press release does mention 70%, but it doesn't say over 70%. The Press Release also doesn't mention the total number of diagnoses, which the paper probably got from the report itself - so it's not as if it was never made aware of the real figures.

Also, it's a small point, but 2,939 is 40% of 7,347.5 - which is closer to 7,000 than 8,000. Most people interested in being accurate would represent that figure by saying 'over 7,000', not 'almost 8,000'.

After some irrelevant stuff from Migrationwatch, which I'm sure is as impartial as always, the article says:

The findings emerged from an HPA report compiled after health chiefs realised immigration had doubled from 300,000 in 1995 to 600,000 in 2004. Many fail to get help even TWO YEARS after entering the UK — despite showing symptoms of illness — creating the danger of an explosion in cases.

This paragraph is dishonest in two ways. Firstly, the first half of it is actually unconnected to the second, and says 'health chiefs' realised the level of immigration. Since when was anyone in the Department of Health responsible for calculating that figure? The second way it's dishonest is by juxtaposing this figure with the word 'many' in the second sentence to give the impression that this is a wickedly high number. Bear in mind that the article has already said:

Almost none of these foreigners seeks treatment and could be infecting the rest of the population, medics warned last night.

In fact, the report says:

Up to one third of cases were diagnosed two or more years after arrival in the UK.

So, around two thirds do seek treatment before the 'TWO YEARS' mentioned in the article. Most people would refer to two thirds as 'most'. Only in the Sun can it mean 'almost none'.

The next part of the article moves on to different chapters of the report. It's already got all its anti-Eastern European digs in at the beginning of the article, which is fortunate because if it mentioned them again it'd be laying itself open to complaints. The HPA report's chapter on tuberculosis says:

In Eastern Europe, despite an increase during the 1990s, tuberculosis incidence is now declining.

Another interesting bit that strangely goes unquoted says:

Non-UK born cases were in general less likely to have pulmonary (i.e.potentially infectious) disease than UK born cases though this varies with country of birth.

There are separate stats for Central and Eastern Europe for instances of TB. Eastern Europe is at the bottom of the table of foreign born individuals with tuberculosis, and accounts for 0.4% of those cases. Central Europe is higher up the table, accounting for 1.9% of cases. Combined, Central and Eastern Europe account for just 2.3% of all the cases where we know that the patient's country of origin is not the UK.

As for most people diagnosed with malaria being born overseas - well, duh. You catch malaria overseas. People most likely to visit risk areas are people who were born there. It's only included because it's a scary sounding disease.

Now on to the 'Sun says' bit:

Virulent new strains of tuberculosis are virtually incurable and easily spread.

There are drug resistant strains of TB. The HPA FAQ on TB says:

In the UK in 2005, only 1.1% of all TB isolates were classed as MDR [Multi-Drug Resistant], only a very small proportion of which may now be classed as XDR-TB [Extensively Drug Resistant] using the new definition. There is no suggestion that XDR-TB cases are increasing in the UK.

From the HPA report:

Resistance to anti-TB drugs in populations is a phenomenon that occurs primarily due to poorly managed TB care. Problems include incorrect drug prescribing practices by providers, poor quality drugs or erratic supply of drugs, and also patient non-adherence.

And this is worth repeating:

Non-UK born cases were in general less likely to have pulmonary (i.e.potentially infectious) disease than UK born cases though this varies with country of birth.

More from the Sun:

Many have arrived from Africa, but startling new figures show a sharp rise in cases from new EU states Bulgaria and Romania which have the highest rates in Europe.

The HPA report says nothing about a sharp rise in cases from Romania and Bulgaria. Neither word is mentioned in the report's chapter on TB. The report does mention that Central and Eastern Europe account for only 2.3% of non-UK born patients with TB. It also mentions that foreign born patiens make up 72% of the total number who specified a country (92% of the total). Which means that there are about 11 times more people born in the UK diagnosed with TB than Central and Eastern Europe. (Maybe more, maybe less, depending on where the 8% who didn't specify a country were born). And this is not because Brits are being infected by foreigners. The HPA's Tuberculosis Surveillance Update says:

While the rate of tuberculosis in the non-UK born population continues to increase, the overall rate in the UK born population has remained stable.

It's also worth pointing out another mention of Eastern Europe in the report:

In Eastern Europe, despite an increase during the 1990s, tuberculosis incidence is now declining.

Where did the mention of a 'sharp rise' come from?

The Sun then says:

The irony is that the latest increase comes as health chiefs launch an awareness campaign against sexually transmitted diseases.

Why is that ironic? We were just talking about TB which is not a sexually transmitted . . . oh wait. It's shifted back to HIV again. Quick reminder, the HPA report doesn't mention any figures for the number of Eastern Europeans in the UK diagnosed with HIV, let alone an increase.

And lastly, the Sun's kicker is:

Understandably, those facing death will do anything to seek health care — especially if it is free.

That old chestnut. Of course, this directly contradicts its own statement in the other article that almost none of the immigrants seek treatment. It also directly contradicts the HPA report:

Up to one third of cases were diagnosed two or more years after arrival in the UK. This is not consistent with the view sometimes expressed that migrants might come to the UK to seek treatment for HIV [...]

And from the HPA Press Release on TB:

However, only 22% of these non-UK born patients in 2005 arrived in the UK during the past two years. This suggests that the increase is not a result of a large number of individuals arriving recently with TB but rather a combination of TB disease developing in individuals who may have been infected for some time and new infections acquired in the UK, or as a result of travel to other countries where TB is common.

Ignored that too eh?

So, the Mail might say that Poles are just like Borat, but the Sun will pretend that reports about HIV and tuberculosis say Eastern Europeans are responsible for massive increases in the diseases when they're not. The charge that immigrants will spread disease is a very old familiar one, and accompanies pretty much every new phase of immigration, at least as far back as the charge that the Irish were spreading cholera in Victorian London.

Sure, there are high rates of HIV and TB in Eastern Europe and you might be worried about migrants spreading them. But is it best to inform your readers of those worries by pretending documents say things they don't and making points the reports actually directly contradict? Only if you're not interested in representing the truth.

Oh, hang on. This is the Sun. The only thing I should be surprised about is that they didn't go with a dodgy pun for the headline. Like I did. Hurrah!

*UPDATE* This story has since been removed from the Sun site for legal reasons- namely, that it was bollocks.

More veil nonsense

The veil case continues, even though it should be finished and over with for now.

You could forgive Shabnam Mughal for not wanting to rush straight back into the limelight after last week's tabloid bullying and the hateful nonsense from the Express about alien cultures and taking away Britons' liberty. But the papers just can't seem to agree on a reason why she wasn't at the tribunal on Monday. Or rather, one paper can't seem to agree on a reason. With itself.

The Mail goes with 'Veil-row legal adviser taken off case', saying:

A legal adviser who refused an immigration tribunal judge's request to remove a full face veil has been pulled off the case which sparked the controversy.

Which pretty much dovetails with the way the Telegraph has reported the case in 'Lawyer in a veil is taken off case' and the BBC in 'Veil row lawyer is taken off case'. They all more or less quote the senior partner who has taken Ms Mughal's place as saying:

"It is not an issue of us backing down. We represent clients and our duty is to make sure that their interests are at the forefront of our mind. The decision was made in the interests of our client, given all the publicity.

"This doesn't reflect in anyway on her ability or on whether she can or cannot wear a veil in court. Nothing has changed as far as that is concerned. She has worn the veil in courts around the country before without a problem."

(That extended quote is from the Telegraph).

But the Sun gets all confused and goes with a similar theme one day with 'Veil row lawyer taken off case' (although it carefully neglects to quote the bit about Mughal wearing her veil before without a problem), and then contradicts itself the next, with 'Veil row lawyer's no show at court':

VEIL-row lawyer Shabnam Mughal dodged a new court confrontation yesterday — by going sick.

And some selective quoting misses out all the other bits from the Mail, Telegraph, the BBC and its own coverage from the previous day (remember from 'BURN THE WITCH!' that the paper goes as far as printing pictures of the previous day's story when it wants readers to remember). The Sun's second version of events has her being cowardly and skiving off, whereas other sources and its own previous account contradict. Which one is true?

The answer is both. Sort of. The Telegraph, as always, includes the relevant information. I have to say, I sometimes have a kind of grudging respect for the Telegraph. Yes, it puts its own Tory spin on stories and sometimes just makes stuff up, but at least it doesn't always deliberately leave out relevant information like other papers. It says:

Javid Hussain, the practise manager at the Law Partnership, said Miss Mughal had called in sick although it was decided over the weekend to replace her.

It's likely that the Sun missed the quote from Javid Hussain the day before, and then decided to ignore everything else to make Ms Mughal look like a cowardly skiver when it found it out - ignoring the part where Mr Hussain says the decision had been made over the weekend anyway. This is pretty dishonest. Most people would tend to assume that new information trumps old if the two contradict each other. I'd bet most Sun readers who saw this thought, 'Ah, so they were lying yesterday when they said she was pulled off the case,' and if the paper were at all interested in letting them know the truth, it would clarify. But it doesn't.

Still, in amidst a little bit more childish bullying, the paper gives us some idea of why she might have taken a day off sick from work:

There was no answer at British-born Miss Mug-hal’s home in Foleshill.

Note the clever spotting of the fact that the first three letters of her surname spells 'Mug'. Given the poor quality of the wit on display here, it would be customary to mention Oscar Wilde or George Bernard Shaw spinning in their graves at this juncture, but I won't. If they had their choice I'm sure they'd rather forego the grave-spinning and opt for punching this bloke in the belly and calling him a twat.

Anyway - the BBC at least corroborates this aspect of the story in 'Veil row case 'serves justice''. Not the shit joke - you know:

She was not answering her door at her home in Coventry today.

Wonder why.

So, it appears that the law firm decided to replace Ms Mughal over the weekend to avoid publicity and there were journalists camped on her doorstep yesterday so she phoned in sick. Of course, the Mail spins the story a certain way - creating an impression that the decision is somehow punitive before quoting Abdul Khan from the Law Partnership. God knows what the Express said because I missed yesterday's coverage and they don't have a searchable archive. I'm sure they would have gone with something about her draining the blood of Christian boys or something. And the Sun thinks, 'Sod it, that's not good enough. Let's just ignore the things that don't make her look bad and take the piss out of her funny foreign name.'

You know what? I bet they were dying to use that pun all weekend and were gutted that Mughal wasn't at the tribunal.

Borat and the Polish

I promised to pull together all the anti-Polish stuff going on in the Mail the other day, but I got sidetracked by the Express and it's low down nastiness about Shabnam Mughal.

There have been about 7 anti-Polish stories so far this month in the Mail, but right now I want to focus on 2. ''Polish Borat' claims groping women is normal in Eastern Europe' and 'Borat's guide to Britain'.

Some argue that the genius of the Borat character is that he effortlessly exposes the racism and prejudice of his victims, inviting us to laugh at these misguided morons. Critics argue that the character invites us to laugh at the ridiculous behaviour of a crude stereotyped immigrant. For me, the genius of the cahracter is that he does both. Those in the audience who want to feel superior and laugh at his targets are free to do so, and those who want to laugh at the funny foreigner in his stupid clothes saying stupid things about Jews because that's what stupid foreigners are like can do that too.

Alf Garnett shows that a character set up to challenge prejudice can easily backfire. With Alf, we were invited to laugh at a petty, intolerant man and his stupid ill informed opinions - and some of us did. But 'In Sickness and in Health' was broadcast while I was at school, and the racist kids did the opposite and adopted him as a kind of mascot, quoting his lines whenever they'd get away with it. We were supposed to laugh at him, but too many ended up laughing with him. The opposite is true of Baron Cohen's character. We're supposed to laugh with him as he pokes fun at small minded idiots, but too many are laughing at him, not recognising that it's people like them he's poking fun at.

These two articles illustrate this perfectly. The first ''Polish Borat' claims groping women is normal in Eastern Europe' effortlessly latches onto the laugh at the idiot aspect and applies it to Polish people, effectively saying 'look, foreigners really are like that'. To make sure we don't miss this point, there's a link in the middle to the story 'Britain is the country of choice for many 'feckless' Poles'. Further down we get:

Cohen shot to fame with his controversial Ali G creation before ruffling even more feathers with misogynistic and racist TV presenter Borat Sagdiyev.

The film - Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan - portrays the nation's people as urine-drinking, women-caging anti-Semites, whose favourite hobbies are "disco-dancing, archery, rape and table tennis".

Released at the weekend, it shot to number one at the box office both here and in the U.S.

After Stepniowski's conviction, a neighbour said: "He has been living here for about a year or so. I didn't realise his grasp of the differences between Britain and Poland was so poor. You could say he is the Polish Borat."

Another added: "Truth really is stranger than fiction. Who'd have thought a real-life Borat was living here in Weymouth?"

So the connection is made. Polish people are just like Borat. Aren't they funny?

This gets followed up the next day with the second article - 'Borat's guide to Britain'. If there's ever an example of a person not bloody getting the joke, it's this entire story. What the article does do well is expose what a right winger would think the most important aspects of life in Britain are, rather than what the character it's about, or even just an immigrant everyman might think. Remember, this is not what Baron Cohen's character thinks, but what a right wing journalist for the Daily Mail thinks he might think.

Just so we don't forget that this is a dig at Polish people and not just a pisspoor ripoff by someone who fails to grasp the nuances of either the character or humour in general, we get this:

This week, an immigrant who groped nine women was nicknamed the 'Polish Borat' after he told police such behaviour was normal in his country. But what does the original Borat make of Thomasz Stepniowski's antics?

And the crap Borat ripoff starts with:

Is very difficult foreign men to adjust British way of making sexytimes with girlies. Result? Many Poles, Kazakhs, etc in court, just for being friendly!

Now, there is just one at the moment. Not 'many'. And not a single Kazakh. Then we get:

Why this confusion? Simple - in Britain, impossible to tell which girls is prostitutes. In Kazakhstan, respectable girlies wear veil, yashmak, old fertiliser bags, cover heads, body and limbs. All other girlies, not dressed respectable, is prostitutes.

A couple of fantastic right wing zingers in one. Women in the UK dress like prostitutes, so it's their fault men touch them - and the shite about yashmaks, all in one. David Thomas clearly hasn't been paying attention to the character - because when told his moustache makes him look like a Muslim, Borat explains that in Baron Cohen's fictional Kazakhstan, they worship hawk. But never mind. The references to veils are for another dig at women who wear them:

In Britain, some women wear veils, mostly if radical teachers, lawyers etc hoping to get into papers, cause fuss, maybe pick up compensation monies.

Yes, I'm sure that was why they wore veils. Poor Shabna Mughal. She wore the thing for years before anyone bit. And she got no compensation.

Then:

British girlies do not do sexytimes for moneys. Not even for goats. British girlies do sexytimes for free.

A double whammy! Foreign women have sex in exchange for goats, but British ones are slappers! That theme is carried through the next few paragraphs, until:

This when British girlies least keen on sexytimes — when they wakes up, remembering what happens night before, think, "What I done?" Then call police.

They're slappers until they regret it and then falsely cry 'rape'. Charming.Apparently:

In Britain, man is being arrested for:

• Having sex with girlies who too drunk say Yes or No.

• Putting hands on bottoms, boobies girlies without her giving permissions.

• Paying moneys to have sexytimes with girlies.

But if British man is having sexytimes with person who is not a girlie, he not arrested. On contrary, he given contract Channel 4 TV, seat in Parliaments and invitation go swimming with Michaels Barrymore.

Remember, this is what a right winger thinks is important about society. That men can be arrested for non-consensual sex, sexual harrassment or visiting a prostitute, but not for being gay. See:

I know! In Britain, you get arrested if making sexies with girlies. But if making sexies with mens, you get on TV, Big Brother, instant celebrities.

Now you know why birth-rate in Britain so low!

Nice eh? Then:

What to do when First Arrivings

Do not say: "I like very much Britain, long tradition freedom and democracy. Now I hoping work hard, raise family, and celebrate Christmas with all my friends, even the Jews."

If say that, immigration officer reply: "Get lost, mateys, we don't want your kind here!"

Do say: "I HIV-positive hijacker, sex criminal and terrorist fear persecution in own country. Now I hopings buy fake National Insurance number, claim benefits and plotting attacks on infidels, especially Jews."

If you say that, immigration officer reply: "Certainly sir. Just jot your details down here. The Home Office should be able to lose them in a week or two."

Doesn't really need commentary. Just remember, Labour are responsible for legitimising the BNP. The Mail are blameless.

Then:

• Fishings. Is many British people spend all day sitting by rivers, lakes etc fishing. But very important understand: British fish-people never catch anything. So much cross when all carp taken from rivers by Polish fish-people for eatings. Also no good shoot swans. Grouseys and peasants, OK. Swans, bad.

One of their other anti-Polish articles is 'Officials patrol rivers to stop Eastern Europeans eating carp', so that's the relevance of this bit. 'Hang on,' you might say, 'that says Eastern Europeans, not Polish.' You're right. It does. But in the Mail, Eastern European means Polish. That's why this article mentions 'Polish fish-people for eatings'.

The 'Swans bad' bit is a reference to stories about asylum seekers eating swans from a couple of years ago. Stories that turned out to be false and had to be apologised for.

Lastly:

So, British gives you work, benefits, house and opportunities pursue careers in crime, terrorism, importing sex-slaves — no fear arrest or deportation.

This is fantastic country!

This is what the Mail thinks of immigrants. Great eh?

Attack of the online cliches. And it's the Mail's fault

I'd like to aviod online cliches like, 'my irony meter has just exploded,' but goddammit, my irony meter has just exploded!

From the Daily Mail - 'Labour's stance on race 'has legitimised 'BNP'':

Labour's tough stance on race issues has backfired with many of its natural supporters switching allegiance to the British National Party, an influential party figure warned yesterday.

Former Downing Street aide Jon Cruddas said the language of the 'war on terror', debate over veils and tough talk on immigration had played into the hands of extremists and legitimised their beliefs.

Quick list of some selected headlines from the Mail since the beginning of this month:

Eastern European immigrants carry out tenth of crime
Officials patrol rivers to stop Eastern Europeans eating carp
'Polish Borat' clams groping women is normal in Eastern Europe
Britain is the country of choice for many 'feckless' Poles
Borat's guide to Britain
Polish decorators down tools and claim squatters' rights in Lawyer's flat
Exodus: A million Britons emigrate while three million enter
Cameron's pledge to cut immigration
Tories pledge new cap on economic migrants
'Abused' visa system scrapped
Tribunal delayed over veil row
Row as immigration lawyer twice defies judge to remove veil
Al-Qaeda Briton planned dirty bomb attacks
Al-Qaeda Briton 'plotted to kill thousands'
Briton 'plotted to kill thousands'
Reid's U-turn as foreign prisoners allowed back to open jail where 11 absconded
Illegal immigrant confused after ending up in Wales thinking he was in France
Bungling Home Office accused of 'systematic failures at all levels'
Government has no idea of immigrant numbers, says Bank of England chief
Muslim demonstrator found guilty of stirring up race hate, but not inciting murder
Beckett appeals to Muslims to 'stand up against terrorism'
Muslim PC barred from unit due to Al Qaeda mosque fears
Muslim PC to sue police for discrimination after removed from armed unit
Jailed terror plotter is Bin Laden's 'UK general'
British terror plotter to spend at least 40 years in prison
PC's case highlights dilemma for Yard
Muslim PC taken off Blair guard duties claims discrimination
Muslim Pc in race claim against Met
Female suicide bomber attacks Israeli troops in Gaza
Terror plotter's Twin Towers film featured explosion sound - before 9/11
Profile: Terror plotter was Hindu who converted to Islam
Bishop: Many Muslims have victim mentality
Charles must heed this Bishp who speaks his mind
Former President of Iran tells British Muslims to respect local laws
BNP leader said Islam was 'wicked'
Female academic claims Muslim veils originally worn by prostitutes
Al Qaeda internet audio tape boasts of 12,000 followers
Blair warns of 'long, deep struggle' against terrorism
Stark warning on terror threat
1600 young British Muslims under MI5 surveillance for plotting terror
Tower Hamlets replaces Guy Fawkes with Bengali fireworks festival
French eject 70 terror suspect airport workers
Coming up after Doomwatch... the end of the world

That's over 40 articles with using the language of 'the war on terror' tough talk on immigration, veil mentions and general anti-Muslim stuff in just 12 days.

But it's all Labour's fault the BNP get legitimised. Nothing to do with the Mail at all.