How the Daily Mail responds to people who don't toe the line

Remember Julie Spence?  She's the Chief Constable and tabloid darling who got acres of fawning coverage in the Mail for speaking about how immigration strained the police in Cambridgeshire.  In 2007 and 8, she was at the centre of stories like 'Mass migration and a 'fractured' Britain', 'Police force spending over £1 million a year on interpreters due to rise in migrant workers', 'Immigrant motorists fuelling rise in road crashes, says police chief', 'Sex-trafficking soars with at least 100 brothels in Cambridgeshire alone', 'Chief constables called to crisis summit with Jacqui Smith on immigrant crimewave', 'Commentary: The facts behind crime and migration', 'Police chief calls for more cash to fight migrant crime despite official report claiming there isn't a problem', 'Extra funds promised by Government to help police deal with rising immigration levels', ''Economic downturn could spark ethnic tensions', says police chief', 'Mass immigration to blame for knife culture, chief constable warns' and 'It's NOT racist to tell the truth about immigration and crime, says leading police chief'.

Phew!  That's a lotta coverage. 

Is this the start of the smearing of Ian Tomlinson?

I wrote most of 'Ian Tomlinson and the tabloids' last night, before posting it up earlier today. At the time of writing, I hadn't seen any of today's coverage and to be honest I expected it to be continuing yesterday's reverse ferreting that followed the Guardian's release of video footage. I had thought about mentioning the smearing of Jean Charles de Menezes and the Koyair brothers following those fiascos, and wondered if we'd see similar here, but since there was video footage of Mr Tomlinson being attacked from behind I thought it unlikely.

Swallowed by the Daily Express

Apolgoies for the absence from blogging. After insisting I'd had enough of the Express and the goons in its 'Have Your Say' section, I seem to have become taken over by the urge to bang out replies to some of the articles, like a nutter on a bus - which is entirely in keeping with the reason for this blog's existence. It's meant I haven't been able to post here much, but to be honest, the fun was going out of taking tabloid stories apart anyway. Maybe I'll rediscover my enthusiam later.

Still, I have to admit to finding the whole experience of trying to engage the people there incredibly strange. I've read lots of debate with right-wing loons, and I've engaged in the odd real life discussion, but never to any great depth. I'm not a veteran of getting into tussles with people in their blogs' comments. The closest I've come is in the sometimes surreal discussion it's possible to have with evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. The same deliberate ignoring of arguments is there. The same insistence on arguing against what the person would like to have been said rather than what actually has been said is there. A similar number of logical fallacies are thrown around too, especially the trusty ad-hominem and strawman. (Sounds like the makings of a decent Comic-Book, that). The creation of a weird fantasy world pops up as well.

I can't help but be interested by this. Especially since I started this blog as a kind of space for me to say what I would to tabloid readers if I had the chance.

Of course, I don't actually think I'll change any of the regular posters' minds. Maybe the odd person who stumbles across an article who hasn't made their mind up, but more likely nobody at all. That's not really the point though. It's interesting to see the reaction of people to being told that a story they've just posted an outraged comment about is distorted, or even a lie. Or, at least I thought it would be before I found out that it normally amounts to calling someone a PC idiot and refusing to engage with anything they say, or even read what they've written at all. Exactly like your fundamentalist who wants to know why you're so angry at god.

There have been a couple of highlights though. Steveg has been particularly good value in introducing the techniques of the playground to discussions, refusing first to actually address any of my points because 'they bored him', through calling me names and pointing out how sad and lonely I am to finally telling people not to agree with me because I hadn't addressed the point they'd made once. When in fact I had. Takes you back, eh?

Beyond that, I (among others) managed to get the Online Editor to chip into the discussion on 'Is Islam taking over Europe' after pointing out the shonky propaganda technique of illustrating so many articles on a similar theme with a veiled woman - and using one lit from the bottom like a scary horror film monster in this one.

Bizarrely, he argued that he had originally thought using that picture might:

fuel hatred, distrust and narrow-minded suspicion of Muslims.

He was then won over by the contrary argument that:

that within the context of Georg Gaenswein's warning of "European identity" being at risk from Islam, we needed a strong image - immediately recognisable as Muslim and associated with the loss of identity - to illustrate his, admittedly controversial, point.

So, he decided that it was okay to use the picture even though it might fuel hatred and stuff because it also illustrated European identity being at risk from Islam. Get your head around that one. The reason why the picture might cause hatred and mistrust is the argument that shows why using it is okay. Brainaches!

Of course, this is just the Online Editor showing that he's used a picture that conveys the negative view on purpose. But we knew that anyway.

Another great bit from that discussion is Maggie asking if her comment wasn't PC enough to be printed in a discussion thread where people have called Muslims 'vermin', 'terrorists and scrounging scumbags', say 'Definitely NO NO NO it is not taking over Europe.
IT IS TAKING OVER THE WHOLE WORLD AND FAST' and argue that 'When they walk down our streets they should be shown they are not welcome even if it means us showing our feelings of revulsion'.

Makes you wonder what Maggie must have said if it really wasn't PC enough.

Finally, probably the most bizarre thing is the sight of steveg (again) using the familiar old Islamophibic construct of resisting Muslims being the same as resisting the Nazis:

An example of this scenario happened in Germany before the war. The majority of Germans were decent ordinary people, just like the British at the time. The problem was, when Hitler and the Nazis rose to power and carried out many atrocities to get there, most of the German public remained silent.
[...]
The fact is, these so called silent majority, are repeating how the German population reacted before the war when the Nazi extremist carried out their reign of terror.
Surprisingly, we now have a so called Muslim extremist reign of terror, yet the majority of Muslims remain silent!

This is in a thread on an article using similar propaganda techniques to demonise Muslims that the Nazi press used to demonise Jews (although the Nazi press were far more up front and less subtle, it must be said). Oh the irony!

Anyway, that's where I've been. My last post there is on an article about a poll that shows the majority of British Asians feel British, which uses the headline 'We don't feel British, say Asians'. I realised after posting that that it's the sort of thing I'd usually post here, and the blog is languishing with only my last not-half-as-good-as-I-intended-it-to-be post up top, so I'll endeavour to look at the other papers now.

Cheers!

Campaign of hate

Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behaviour to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist. - Garth S. Jowett, Victoria O'Donnell - Propaganda and Persuasion.

This is just the latest in a very long line of anti-Muslim headlines in the Express. Like many of the others, its worthiness of a front page scream headline is dubious, and like most (if not all) of the others, it uses dodgy techniques to further demonise Muslims.

Before I go any further, I should probably point out that the twats who were sent down should have been sent down. Incitement to murder - it's not big, and it's not clever. I'm not defending those buffons, nor am I defending the goons in the picture.

What I do want to do is quickly point out the shoddy techniques the Express uses here. Firstly, note the use of the term 'these Muslims'. That could mean one of two things - these Muslims here in this article, or Muslims generally. Three guesses as to which one the Express expects its readers to go away with, and three more as to which one it'll pretend it's using if there are any complaints.

Next, there's the use of 'our hospitality'. These Muslims are not us. And 'we're' offering hospitality. Muslims are somehow receiving hospitality from the paper that does little but smear and lie about them. They should be grateful for that, apparently. The article goes further, acting incredulous that 'these Muslims' should have "poured scorn on the nation that guarantees their freedoms," as if this paper doesn't lament the fact that their freedoms are granted every sodding week. And as if it's impossible that any of these people are actually citizens protesting about the running of their own country.

The article uses the old familiar dehumanising techniques - they're 'swarming' apparently.

Is this really worthy of a front page? Sure, the story's newsworthy - but a front page? Forty people at a demonstration? A number that represents a quarter of one hundredth of one percent of the Muslim population of the UK? A number that represents a fraction of the number of Muslims who support the police enough to actually be police officers? (There are an estimated 300 Muslim police officers in the UK. More than seven times the number of protesters here).

Dodgy headlines and negative articles

Back in October 2006, the paper kicked off a campaign to ban the veil. Taking 6 October 2006 as an arbitrary starting point, there have been at least 22 Express front pages with negative headlines about Muslims (there are 21 on MailWatch. Since the collection is incomplete, there could well be more).

Of those, two are just calls to ban the veil, and five are about the failed attacks of a few weeks ago, and one deals with the shonky claims about the plot to behead a Muslim soldier. That leaves thirteen negative stories about Muslims. All but one of those thirteen are false, or head misleading articles.

Over the same time period, there are around 109 articles that show up in a search for the word 'Muslim' on the Express website. Of those, about 11 are either positive or neutral. That leaves 98 negative articles about Muslims, including the 21 that made the front page.

Here are three randomly chosen front page ones:

16 October 2006: 'The veil is banned in hospitals'. Not true. One medical school had stopped female students from wearing veils when they had contact with patients.

30 November 2006: 'Muslim law reaches Britain'. Not true. Some cases can be arbitrated outside court if both parties agree to be bound by the decision of a third party. While this article was about the case of some teenagers who'd attacked another kid and had been ordered to pay compensation by the arbitrator (after the kid didn't press charges officially), it included gems like, "The hardline Islamic law allows people to be stoned to death, beheaded or have their limbs amputated." In Britain? Me arse it does!

7 May 2007: 'At last the veil banned in class'. Not true. Lord Falconer said headteachers could stop pupils wearing veils if they wanted. That's all.

The headlines tend to fall into two broad categories - ones that are designed to rally support for banning veils, commonly employing the 'bandwagon' propaganda technique, pretending loads and loads of people want it - and ones that are designed to highlight the supposed liberties they're taking and extra consideration Muslims want.

Some of the articles themselves go on to withdraw the nonsense statement of the headline, like the three above. Others go on to further demonise and distort in the body of the article. The front page of the arbitrarily chosen start date, 6 October 2006, is 'Riots over Mosque on Queen's doorstep'. It covers the same story I examined the Sun and Mail coverage of in 'Firebobmed Muslims 'asking for it''.

At the time, I was hacked off because the Mail had seemed to take a case of Muslims being attacked and twist it until the Muslims were the attackers. I wouldn't have been as hacked off if I'd seen the Express coverage at that point. It opens describing the clashes as happening between 'race hate thugs', depicting the people the Sun had regarded as victims as race hate thugs from the outset. The Mail at least left things ambiguous, and only implid things to make readers draw their own conclusions.

The Mail completely uncritically quotes locals who claimed that three young men had been attacked, by men coming out of the prayer room with pitchforks, baseball bats and iron bars, 'Whether [...] provoked or not I don't know.' This was after reporting:

There was an altercation between a teenage boy and dairy staff during prayers. It escalated and the windows of several vehicles were smashed.

Amid claims that the boy, his mother and teenage sister were assaulted, up to 50 young people clashed on Tuesday night.

That was bad enough. But note the qualifiers in there. It's only 'claimed' that the mother and daughter were attacked. The claim that the attacks might have been unprovoked are attributed to a witness, and not in the words pf the paper. There's doubt in the Mail's version, even if it is minimised.

Here's how the Express covered the same incident:

The outbreak of disorder began after a mother and her daughter were set upon by a gang of 20 Asian youths armed with baseball bats, iron bars and pitchforks.

The shaven-headed thugs – all dressed in white robes – launched the attack after pouring out of a former office building which is being used as an unofficial mosque.

They attacked Karen Hayes, 46, and her 18-year-old daughter Emily before turning their weapons on the teenager's car. The pair had gone to help after Karen's 15-year-old son Sean and a friend were beaten up by the gang. Police have said it is unlikely the mob will be brought to justice.

Never thought you'd ever see the day when Daily Mail coverage of anything seemed balanced, eh?

Another of the Express distortions I covered at the time was 'Surge in Muslim youth who want Islamic rule', which I looked at in 'Eat your greens or MULTICULTURALISM will get you'. Quote from my post:

The Express article probably warrants most scrutiny. The second sentence includes an outright lie. It says:

"Three-quarters of Muslims aged 16-24 believe women should be forced to wear veils or headscarves [...]"

The study does not say that at all. It says:

"74% of 16-24 year olds would prefer Muslim women to choose to wear the veil, compared to only 28% of 55+ year olds."

Spot the difference. 'Would prefer someone to choose' is not the same as 'should be forced'. Before I met my girlfriend, I would have preferred the women I fancied to choose to sleep with me. I didn't want them to be forced to. That's the difference between an ordinary bloke and a rapist. Plus, the study specifies 'Muslim women' and the Express does not.

Also notable is 'Now Muslims tell us how to run our schools', which prompted me to complain to the PCC. The Muslim Council of Britain complained at the time too, and although the PCC agreed that the article was misleading, it ruled only that the MCB should have a letter published, which it declined.

When I complained, the article's online version was headlined 'Muslims: Ban un-Islamic schools'. One of the elements of my complaint was that the MCB report the article was supposed to be about didn't actually say anything about un-Islamic schools, let alone that they should be banned.

I also complained that the term 'un-Islamic schools' could be misleading, and lead people to believe the MCB wanted to ban non-Islamic schools. Since my complaint (not sure if it's since the PCC's ruling) a second version of the article has appeared on the Express website, which I've just discovered. The headline? 'Muslims: ban non-Islamic schools'.

There's also a quote box directly attributing a quote to the MCB that didn't appear anywhere in their report at all. It says '"Swimming should be banned during Ramadan" - Muslim Council of Britain.' One of the specific complaints of the MCB is that the article erroneously gave the impression that they wanted to ban swimming. Now there's a new online version of the article with that specifically in a quote box.

Special treatment of Muslim symbols

Muslims also appear in a subcategory of articles that has appeared in pretty much all the tabloids recently - stories about how Christian symbols have been 'banned' while Muslim scarves are allowed. There are three notable recent cases - the Nadia Ewedia case, in which she was allowed to wear a cross, but had to cover it - one where schools had 'banned' crosses, in which crosses hadn't been banned but left out of Council literature explaining what religious symbols were since the Council assumed headteachers would know what crosses were - and the recent 'silver ring thing' flap, in which rings were disallowed jewellery in a school because they're not recognised Christian symbols. Crosses were permitted, however. A scarf isn't even jewellery and wouldn't have been included in the same rules anyway.

Pictures of Muslims in negative articles not about Muslims

Muslims pop up in stories that aren't about Muslims or religion at all. The Express has a habit of using their pictures in other negative articles too. Who said the paper wasn't inclusive!

Back in the article where the Express slipped over into racism, 'Ethnic baby boom 'crisis'', the paper exaggerated the content of a Council report, pretending it had characterised a large number of ethnic minority births as a crisis, and pretending it said that there were racial tensions about to bubble over into full scale rioting in Sheffield at any minute. It said nothing of the sort. The paper also used a picture of people in a niqab (that looks decidedly dodgy, as if the paper used a couple of staffers in the car park) to illustrate the article.

Another article from around the same time 'Is the scale of immigration changing Britain for the worse?' (as if the conclusion to that question wasn't foregone) is illustrated by the familiar 'two fingered salute' picture of veiled Muslims.

The article 'Schools where children don't speak English' lied about the number of Britain's biggest cities had over half of their school pupils speaking English as a second language (Express says 'many', real figures say 'none'). It also used a picture of veiled Muslim girls to illustrate it. Muslim girls facing away from the camera, so you can't see their faces.

Results

The campaign is working too. Check out the responses to the article I opened by talking about.

"All, the BNP have done so far is break a few sculls unlike your Muslim brothers who have already signalled their deadly intent, as we know to our cost."

"my sons a copper why the hell should they have to put with the shit these people seem to dish at us in our own country bring in BNP and i think alot of these silly bastards will take a hike we dont want you. get it through its an enlish country and Christian not muslim"

This is ENLAND goddammit! We're ENLISH!

"Muslims are growing in strength both in Britain and throughout the whole of the Christian world, and as they grow they are becoming more defiant, agressive and demanding. They are a clever (crafty) and deceitful race who on the one hand are constantly protesting that all Islamic people are both peaceful, loving, law abiding peoples but on the other hand are preparing to stab us all in the back!"

One of the things I mentioned in my complaint to the PCC is that this kind of article can whip up negative feeling in two very violent minorities. Violent extremist Muslims on the one hand, and far right nutters on the other. Exaggerating how much British society in general marginalises and vilifies Muslims on the one hand, and demonising Muslims as 'race hate thugs' to the other race hate thugs on the other.

Here's the question. Is the Express deliberately trying to disseminate this kind of hate, or is it merely pandering to it to make money? What behaviour is the paper trying to illicit with its campaign? Hatred of Muslims, or just the urge to buy the paper in people who already hate them?

Either way, it's a despicable, hate filled bogroll of a paper.

So, the Mail lies and bullies

Every now and again, my hatred of the tabloids wanes a little. Even after dredging through articles that lie about immigration or what Muslims have said, or talk up lame non-events and turn them into Political Correctness Gone Mad legends, occasionally, if I've had a look through them for a few days and not found anything to comment on, I let my guard down and think they might have calmed down a bit. Still, I can always trust them to redeem themselves with some hateful, lying bile that proves how nasty they really are.

I knew there'd be something up when I saw this article in the Hate - "'Hitler' Bush, by Whitehall's jogging blogger", but I have to confess that I'm not familiar with Owen Barder's blog. I mean, even reading the Hate's claims didn't give the impression that it'd be that controversial, but since the blog's been taken down I couldn't really check for myself.

Turns out my gut instinct was right. Unity has a couple of posts on how much of a bunch of lies this article is, and there's more at Chicken Yoghurt, Our Word is Our Weapon, The Yorkshire Ranter and, definitely not least, from Tim Worstall. Read all of them. Plus Bloggerheads and Stumbling and Mumbling.

Truly, truly despicable. It'd be nice for Simon Walters, the journalist in question, to answer Unity's challenge and try to defend himself, but that won't be happening since there really is no defence. Makes me worry about only half heartedly trying to remain anonymous, given Tim's comment:

Which is really something that all of us other bloggers might want to start thinking about. If they hound Owen out of his job on the basis of the above farrago and tissue of innuendo and misquotation then that's rather going to be the end of this enjoyable pastime for most of us, isn't it? Anyone writing tens of thousands of words over the years is open to such an assassination of the character.

Maybe I'm lucky I don't have many readers, eh?

Elsewhere, the Mail are trying to show they're hip, baby - and down with the kids. Makes you wonder how many people had to be edited out for saying they associate the paper with lying, bullying, vindictive hatred.

So they are biased against asylum seekers after all!

Remember this? 'Not biased against asylum seekers? Do me a favour'? Well, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has published its report into the treatment of asylum seekers, and it seems they were nearly as impressed with the Express and the Mail's defences of their coverage as I was. It's not clear whether they laughed hard enough into their mug to send a splat of tea onto their desk as well, but they might have, so I'll pretend they did.

The report 'The Treatment of Asylum Seekers' is available in PDF format on the Parliament website. It's a meaty report that I haven't read all the way through - but there is BBC coverage if you're interested, in the story 'Asylum hardships "are deliberate"'.

What I want to focus on, though, is the section of the report that deals with the press - especially the Express and the Mail. It says:

As the editors who gave evidence to us recognise, the right to free speech and the freedom of the press are not absolute, but must be exercised in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of the media. The evidence we received from the PCC was not reassuring. Its existing system is not sufficiently robust to protect asylum seekers and other vulnerable minorities from the adverse effects of unfair and inflammatory media stories. [Emphasis mine].

The PCC's own defence is interesting, and shows exactly why the whole complaints process is ineffective, and essentially useless. The PCC says:

“The number of complaints (received by the PCC) does not reveal a huge groundswell of concern about them from people against the national press, given that they can complain about issues to do with accuracy, privacy, intrusion, discrimination about individuals and so on.”

Which is the PCC claiming that it's not the quality of complaints it receives about anything, but the quantity. It doesn't matter if the papers produce blatantly false material that gets complained about as long as not too many people complain.

The PCC is also reported as saying:

The PCC believes that the mechanisms in place work effectively. It provided two examples of upheld complaints concerning asylum seekers (issued in 1999 and 2000) which it says “gave an important signal to the whole of the press” and that “it has not been necessary to issue similar rulings for some time”:

“The important thing is that there is a mechanism in place for handling complaints from anybody who is affected by inaccurate or intrusive reporting. Such complaintsin turn help to raise standards generally. In the context of your inquiry, therefore, I believe that the current system fairly and effectively balances the rights of freedom of expression with other rights such as the right to respect for privacy.”

The important thing here is to notice the subtle little insertion of 'complaints from anybody who is affected', as there have been complaints about misleading articles that were wrongly rejected - but they were not from people the PCC deem were 'affected'. Also, the fact that the PCC hasn't issued a ruling for some time is supposed to be evidence of the system working - but this report shows, quite clearly, that it has not been working. And it's probably not working precisely because it has not issued a similar ruling for some time.

Bringing the two together, the Joint Committee Report says:

We are concerned about the negative impact of hostile reporting and in particular the effects that it can have on individual asylum seekers and the potential it has to influence the decision making of officials and Government policy. We are also concerned about the possibility of a link between hostile reporting by the media and physical attacks on asylum seekers. [Emphasis not mine - the Joint Committee wanted to emphasise this paragraph themselves - para 349].

It repeats this without the emphasis in its 'Reccommendations' section, before:

We recommend that the Press Complaints Commission should reconsider its position with a view to providing practical guidance on how the profession of journalism should comply with its duties and responsibilities in reporting matters of legitimate public interest and concern. We emphasise that such guidance must not unduly restrict freedom of speech or freedom of the press any more than similar guidance does in the USA. (Paragraph 366)

So there we go. Newspapers are guilty of hostile reporting about asylum seekers in such a way that has the potential to influence Government policy. It's official. Of course, it's nothing we don't already know.

The Mail, perhaps in reaction, has sort-of-sympathetic coverage of a Joseph Rowntree Charitable Foundation report into failed asylum seekers living in poor conditions in the 28 March article 'Asylum seekers "living in poverty"'. Of course, it misleadingly calls them asylum seekers after their applications have been refused, and there's a barb in the last word from Joan Ryan (weird dystpoian world again - the Daily Mail have to rely on a Labour minister for a barb about a minority group), but it's sort of a start.

But it's too late. The horse has already bolted. The Mail and Express are bored with asylum seekers now - they're so 2003. The papers moved on to Muslims and the Polish. By the time they've been slapped for that, they'll have moved on to someone else. I reckon it should be the Walloons.*

*Not really. I don't think it should be anyone. I just like the word 'Walloon'.

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.

Update to 'No wonder their readers are ignorant tossers'

I missed the editorial in today's Express because it isn't available online and I'm not effing paying for it. But there's this from Islamophobia Watch:

The Express editorial, headed "Allowing veils in court is a deeply disturbing move", condemns the decision as "yet another act of multicultural surrender" which has allowed "Islamic pressures to undermine yet another foundation of our society". It adds: "The very idea of a disembodied voice, steeped in a defiantly alien culture and covered entirely in black, being able to take away the liberty of any Briton is quite disgusting."

[Shudder]. This is really nasty. How has anybody undermined anything? Nobody cared for over two years. How can a lawyer take away anyone's liberty? That's a judge's job to decide - and it's hardly likely in a bloody immigration tribunal anyway. And Shabna Mughal is a bloody Briton.That last sentence makes my skin crawl. If I wasn't bothered about violating Godwin's Law, I'd be referring to the Express as 'Der Sturmer' from now on.

I was quite happy about this this morning.

Daily Hate

Missed this, from yesterday's Daily Hate. 'Muslim PC banned from unit due to Al Qaeda mosque fears' - apparently it was headlined 'The Al Qaeda factor' in the print version.

I was too preoccupied with the veil stuff, and I haven't even started pulling together the anti-Polish racism I talked about the other day.

The Independent has this extract of a letter to the Chief Constable of Gloucester Police from Mr Farooq's lawyer in 'Sacked Muslim officer wants police protection':

"We are writing to thank you for the support you've shown to our client during the recent difficult period of press intrusion. The position of both parties is that we have refused to comment to the press about his case... We have tried to protect the identity of our client but were concerned to discover today he had been photographed and his picture appeared in the Daily Mail and Daily Express".

Mr Lawrence adds: "Although most of the press comments have been balanced, the article in today's Daily Mail was inflammatory and caused our client to feel harassed. The article, 'the Al-Qaeda factor' appears to link our client to that organisation rather than the former imam at his former mosque. We believe the article may lead to our client being targeted by far-right groups. We have raised a formal complaint to the Press Complaints Commission."

This is good. What's not so good is the fact that his picture is still up on their site. This is also not so good:

Yesterday, friends of Pc Farooq said a house where he had been staying had been visited by an unknown man who made unfounded accusations linking Pc Farooq's friends to al-Qa'ida.

Pc Farooq also feels harassed after an article was published yesterday that he believes links him to the international terrorist group.

Friends say that the officer, his wife and five children have been exposed to a possible backlash from far right groups after his legal action against the Met was made public on Tuesday. He denies any links or sympathies with any extremist group.

This is the consequence of tabloid bullying. The papers may argue it's not their fault. It is. The y exaggerated the extent of the alleged connections and published the bloody pictures in the first place.

I hope the PCC isn't in the newspapers' pockets to such an extent that they find a way out of this one.

BURN THE WITCH!

There's another fake tabloid outrage brewing about the niqab. I missed the build up to the last one, but we can have a bit of a look at how these things develop from their beginnings with this one.

The Mail doesn't have much to say on the subject this time - and nothing that's any different from the standard tabloid line. They're too busy being racist about Polish people right now (more about that in the next post, you lucky people). Plus, I think even Mail readers had had enough after their false accusations of terrorist connections last time. The Sun is following it more closely, so I'll have a look at the Sun coverage since it kind of illustrates what I was banging on about.

Incidentally, there's more about that blatant propaganda piece in yesterday's 'The Sun Says' column over at Obsolete with 'Scum watch: Stay scared', which is worth a read. (I have to say, if I remembered some people actually read this and might want to link here, I'd think of cleverer headlines than yesterday's, but there you go).

The Sun has two stories so far, one from yesterday, and one from today. The most obvious thing about the first, 'Trial halted over lawyer's veil', is how the Sun uses pictures to tell the readers what to think. It's almost as annoying as the 'posh' Wayne Rooney picture yesterday. The photo is of someone in a veil, but just look at how it's lit from the bottom so it casts massive shadows behind and above like a horror film monster. Scary. Remember this is from the same day that the paper tells us to stay on guard against a Muslim threat and has a headline about a Muslim terrorist.

The picture ensures that we already know what to think before we read any of the article, but story helpfully elaborates on the scary Muslim line. The headline itself does a good job of this - see how it makes the whole thing the lawyer's fault. It could just as easily said 'Trial halted over judge's intolerance' but it doesn't. It's the lawyer's fault when she says no to the judge's repeated requests to remove her veil, not the judge's for demanding it in the first place. Let's remember that it's the judge who has the power here, not Ms Mughal, and it's the judge who exercised his power to take the case further.

There's a big difference between this and Jack Straw's comments that started the anti-veil ball rolling. Jack Straw, numpty though he might be, said he only requested that women remove the veil, not that he demanded it, and that he carried on if they refused. This guy halted a court hearing because of it. Is this the inevitable consequence of Straw's comments?

An important thing here is being missed - probably deliberately - both in this version of the story and the other tabloids'. The judge requested that Ms Mughal remove her veil, she refused, and he adjourned until the afternoon. When the judge reconvened, he already knew that Ms Mughal would not remove her veil. He'd already asked her. The important thing being left out is what was said before the adjournement. We do know that Ms Mughal later said, "Sir, we have been through this issue," which implies a far more involved discussion than a request and a refusal.

And it might be just me, but when I read that the judge asked her to repeat herself when she spelled her name I can't help thinking of the Fat Fighters sketches in Little Britain, where Marjorie Dawes constantly pretends not to understand an Indian woman's accent. Does it sound likely that she was difficult to hear, given that we have some quite clear quotations of what she said dotted around this article?

There's probably quite a lot more left out here in this exchange. The article makes it look as though it went:

Kindly, reasonable judge: 'Could you kindly remove your veil please?'
Scary Muslim: 'No'
Adjourned until afternoon
Kindly, reasonable judge: 'Go on, pretty please. I can't understand you.'
Scary Muslim: 'No. I'm off.'

Does that sound likely to you? Plus, the judge's further comments are nothing more than passive-aggressive bullying. He says, "If you remove your veil, which happens in other cases, we can proceed, otherwise I am going to have consultations with the President of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. Will you remove it?" That sentence could just as easily been, "If I stop demanding that you remove your veil, we can proceed . . ." It's worth repeating - it's the judge who has the power here.

He knows she won't remove the veil. He's asked her at least twice, so he makes a threat to take things further. If there was really no way the tribunal could have gone ahead, the judge wouldn't have just adjourned until the afternoon after he asked the first time. He could have made it clear he wouldn't proceed then - and Ms Mughal might have been able to make alternative arrangements for her client. Instead, he waits until after the recess, when making alternative arrangements is impossible. And what 'other cases' do veils routinely get removed in? Ones in different courts with different rules on dress codes?

The second article, 'Heading off to the Old Veily' is more worrying. The main picture accompanying it and the headline are examples of the 'let's all have a laugh together' technique I talked about yesterday. The picture is of Mughal with her veil covering her eyes (ha ha, does the silly girl not realise she can't see?) and the headline is a dodgy pun.

There are two reasons this article exists. To bully Ms Mughal, and to make sure the paper's readers don't forget the story. It even helpfully includes a picture of yesterday's article to make sure its readers remember, because it clearly thinks they're too stupid to without it.

I'm suspicious about the paper's claim that she covered her eyes and wonder whether the photo's just been photoshopped - but I could well be wrong. I wouldn't blame her, anyway.

The bullying is done in a couple of ways. Childish mickey taking, with the headline and the 'she even pulled the veil over her eyes' comments, which remind me of singing 'Hey Fatty Boom Boom' at school around fat kids (to my shame) and catcalls about them trying to disguise their size.

The other way is the very idea of ambushing her on the way to work. The article says she:

repeatedly refused to explain why she had forced Monday’s hearing to be adjourned

Which further compounds the bullying. She didn't force the case to be adjourned. The judge did. And the paper already knows why she refused to remove her veil. Not only is it blindingly fucking obvious, but the article even quotes her own words from the day before:

You are clearly aware of my position on the grounds of my religious beliefs. I won’t.

Why do you need to harrass someone in the street to answer a question you already know the answer to? So you can frame it as a loaded question so that if she answers, she's admitting to forcing the case to be adjourned. Which she didn't. The loaded question is a bullying tactic in itself. 'Oy, fatty, have you stopped eating cream cakes out of your mums knickers so you can stop being so fat?' That kind of thing.

And what's the betting that this is an out of context quote:

Javid Hussain, practice manager at the Coventry Law Partnership where she has worked for four years, said: “This was an unfortunate and unprecedented incident.

“She will continue to dress as she always has done.”

See, this gives the impression that the 'unfortunate and unprecedented incident' is Ms Mughal refusing to take off her veil.

But look! The Telegraph covers this in the article, 'Lawyer refuses to take off veil', and says:

Javid Hussain, practice manager at the Law Partnership in Coventry, where Miss Mughal works, said she had worn her veil while appearing before tribunals in different parts of the country for at least the past two years.

This whole story is about a woman who normally wears a veil in her work, and it hasn't been an issue until this one judge has made it an issue.

This story looks more and more like an intolerant judge trying to bully a woman who wants to wear a veil and has never had a problem with doing so in the past. He's now being helped by the tabloids, which is great.

There is one final way this article is bullying. With its:

'DO you know Shabnam Mughal? Call us on . . .'

Yeah, call us and share the gossip on this weirdo.

The Express frames this with the triumphant headline, 'The veil banned by judge'. Which you'd think was a step in the right direction, until you remember their numerous front page calls to ban the veil. They think they've won. And if this woman is forced to remove her veil, they have. In a way, this article is even less subtle than the Sun's, since it explicitly states:

Last night, after the case was halted because of her defiance [...]

We know from John Reid's spineless capitulating over Eastern European immigration that the tabloids can influence major decisions. We can see from these articles that they do it by shady misrepresentations and blatant bullying. It's got to be why they're attacking Aisha Azmi even after she lost her tribunal - they know they have less influence over European courts.

How long before she's accused of having terrorist connections?

*UPDATE* Read the comments about the story at the Sun. If you want to feel sick.

Some nice, totally non-racist quotes:

From 'Bryan':

Because of our enforced PC society we cannot actually say what we mean.Let us be honest, it is not the Mormons, or the seventh day adventists, or the Quakers, or the Hindus,or the Sikhs or the etc etc who are disrupting our society with their demands IT IS THE MUSLIMS.let me repeat that--IT IS THE MUSLIMS. [...]

No Bryan, of course they haven't. Sikhs have never asked to wear religious clothing. Or Christians.

This is not a question of racism, it is a question of reality and facing up to the truth.Of course 99.99999% of these Muslims are innocent of any terrorist related crime, but equally so are 100% of British whites.

If it's not a question of racism, why do you talk about Muslims and whites, and not Muslims and non-Muslims. You realise that some Muslims are white people, right? You realise that the Northern Ireland terrorists on both sides were white British people? Twat.

From 'mumof3':

What's the betting that in her own country (that which her 'religion' comes from), she wouldn't even be allowed to become a lawyer, based on her sex?

Is that a cross round your neck in that picture? Does that mean I can tell you to get back to your own country and you'll go to Nazareth? Or do you think 'Church of England' means Jesus was English? (Thanks to Jeremy Hardy for that last gag, which I mercilessly stole).

From 'HIBYE':

why do they wanna live in a country believe in freedom of showing the face … equiality between man and woman ... why don't they stay in their country if they don't like that

It looks like Ms Mughal is from Bradford. Why doesn't she go back to whatever backward country Bradford is in?

From 'diamond-simon':

IF YOU COME TO LIVE IN ENGLAND DO AS WE DO OR GET THE HELL OUT OF IT. [...] THE ENGLISH PEAPLE WILL STAND SO MUCH TILL WE CANT STAND NO MORE KEEP TAKING THE THE MICK SEE WHERE IT LEADS

Cunt.

From 'nedjac':

No one is forced to wear something that they have been ordered to by force or intimidation.If the Muslims involved insist that this is to be their dress code then I suggest they return to wherever their dress code is acceptable.

Jesus, these 'fuck off back to where they wear these things' are so common that if I quoted them all I might as well cut and paste the whole comments section. And yes, they are forced to wear something that they have been ordered to. Clothes that don't include a veil. You prat.

From 'Th0masjw':

I also heard that they wear them so no other male can look upon their beauty after they are married, or something like that! Ha thats a joke! When was the last time you saw a good looking muslim? Show me a good looking muslim man or woman, and ill show you my backside in trafalgar square on christmas day!

Racist cunt.

Looks like the Sun is right about where it places the intelligence level of its readers.

Bullying and smearing

In 'More bullying? Surely some mistake?' I spoke a bit about how I thought claims in the Times and the Daily Mail that one of the 7/7 bombers, Shehzad Tanweer, had attended the Markazi seminary while Aisha Amzi's father was headmaster were a bit fishy. I said at the time that I thought the claim was the result of a mistake, confusing the name of the seminary in Dewsbury with a similar sounding one in Pakistan. Whether or not this is true, we'd all do well to remember that the press are more than capable of being complicit in far more sinister and deliberate smears.

Back in July, after the dodgy Forest Gate raid, there were a couple of attempts at smearing the two men whose house was raided by police. The first was the revelation that a large sum of money had been found at the address. That turned out to be not as odd as it might have seemed, because Islam can be said to prohibit the accrual of interest, so investing in a bank would be out of the question. The second, much nastier claim was that images of child pornography had been found on computer equipment at the address. Obsolete has more in depth coverage of this, but the short version is that the CPS have dropped the case, in what amount to very suspicious circumstances. The important thing from the point of view of this blog is that it's highly unlikely that the Sun will ever cover the dropping of the charges, and the men will continue to be connected to child pornography in the minds of its readers. As far as whoever is responsible for this is concerned . . . bingo!

*UPDATE* Thanks to Obsolete for pointing out that the Sun have covered the charges being dropped. They mention the money, make allegations of benefit fraud and draw attention to other allegations against the brothers, but they mention the child porn charges being dropped at least.

There was a similar smear of Jean Charles De Menezes earlier this year, involving rape allegations.

Back to the case of Aisha Amzi's father's alleged connections to terrorists, and we see the claims repeated in today's Daily Express story 'Hard line cleric had told banned teacher to wear veil in class'. This paper's claim - buried this time in another incredibly shoddy piece of journalism - is far less strong than the one in last week's Mail:

Last week it was revealed that suicide bomber Tanweer was believed to have been a former pupil of the hard-line Islamic seminary run by Azmi’s father Dr Mohammed Mulk.

Remember that the Mail said the connection had been reported many times and never denied. Here, the Express says it was revealed last week. Remember that the Times said he attended the seminary. Here, the Express says he was believed to have. Which one is right?

Of course, the Express has covered its arse in case the other papers ever have to retract their claims. It was revealed last week that Tanweer was believed to have attended the seminary. The Express have made no positive claims that Tanweer did attend the seminary. Doesn't speak much for the paper's confidence in the claims of the Times or the Mail, does it?

I've still not found any reference from before 21 October. I haven't heard from either the Times or the Mail about references. Surprised?

So, the allegations have spread, whether they're the product of a stupid mistake or a deliberate fabrication. Given the mosque's reluctance to speak to the press, we're unlikely ever to find out and the PCC are highly unlikely to uphold a complaint from anyone not directly involved. Great, eh?

Again - if anyone's aware of any coverage of Tanweer attending the seminary that originates before the Times' 21 October article, please say so in the comments.

More bullying? Surely some mistake?

I had started to type up a quick response yesterday to the further bullying of Aisha Amzi by the Mail in their article 'Veil girl's father may have met 7/7 bomber'. In it, I would have said much the same as I did in 'Just when you thought there was no lower to sink' about how the links are only alleged and very tenuous indeed, and pointed out the need for the Mail to deny the very thing it implies with the article because it really does have nothing. There would have been a reference to someone dancing naked on a table with a flower sticking out of their bum as well, so you've lost out there.

I thought the article sounded a bit fishy, though. To go, in the space of a couple of days, from a gingerly asserted possibility halfway through the article (which was primarily about another bomber) that Shehzad Tanweer might have possibly perhaps maybe visited the Markazi mosque to an assertion that it has been widely reported that he attended the seminary seemed a bit of a leap for me. Especially as the seminary is primarily for 12-16 year-olds (although most stay on and it's not unknown for pupils to return). So I thought I'd check a little bit into this claim:

His attendance at the seminary has never been confirmed, but it has been reported many times since the July 7 attacks and has never been denied.

thinking I might find that it had only been reported many times on hate sites, or by the sort of professional Islamophobe like Melanie Phillips or Daniel Pipes that I could scoff at, but not much else. I was also prepared to be proved wrong, and find out that it was all over the place that Tanweer had attended the seminary but I'd just missed it. I wasn't expecting to find little but tumbleweeds.

All I could find after hours of searches for possible combinations of relevant words was one reference from the Times, which appeared one day before the one in the Mail, in an article called, 'How bombers' town is turning into an enclave for Muslims'. The article has one offhand statement that Tanweer attended the seminary, without any reference to a source, or mentions of the claim being widely reported.

What I did find though, were a whole load of references to Tanweer attending a seminary in Pakistan called the Markaz-e-Dawa seminary. Now, I can't help thinking - Markazi and Markaz-e sound pretty similar. Is it possible that there has been some mistake here? Has the Times reporter confused the two seminaries and included the statement without checking, and the Mail based their article on what they read without checking? This sort of thing is not unheard of.

Back in 2003, the Telegraph reported that a school in Tower Hamlets had banned hot-cross buns from its Easter menu, and suggested that they'd been replaced with naan bread. The article even included a picture of some schoolkids tucking into some good, old fashioned hot-cross buns. The trouble was, once the story was investigated further, it turned out to be completely false. The council involved stated that they'd never actually served hot-cross buns at Easter, so the idea that they'd been banned was totally specious. Who knows where they got the naan bread idea from. The picture had been achieved by the photographer nipping up the road to buy some from a bakery.

By the time this was discovered, the story had been covered by other papers and columnists, reported as true. These papers, as well as the Telegraph, had to issue apologies retracting the story, but it had already taken its place in the great 'PC gone mad' mythology, along with the idea that nobody's allowed to ask for black coffee and that manholes have to be called 'person-holes'.

You can still read the story on the Telegraph website, and there's no mention on the page that it has been retracted, no mention that it wasn't true, and no link to the apology, which you can only see on the site if you know where to look, or open one of the search results for 'hot cross buns' that doesn't actually mention hot cross buns until you click the link.

The Daily Mail still reported this story as true earlier this year - even though it was proven false and retracted three years ago.

And let's not forget that only a few days ago, the Mail included a column by Melanie Phillips that repeated a completely incorrect story from the Sun. You can read more about the Sun story at Ministry of Truth, Pickled Politics, Clive Davis and Obsolete.

So, this sort of thing does happen. Something gets misreported somewhere, the shonky report gets picked up and reported in other places and it becomes accepted wisdom that it's true. Except it's not. It'd be pretty bad if this story became part of the accepted history, especially as it seems to have become a stick to bash Aisha Amzi with.

I have emailed the home news editor at the Times and the news editor at the Mail to ask for references and point out I think there might have been a mistake, but I'm not holding my breath. I kind of hope they do get back to me and prove there hasn't been a mistake - because it won't exactly speak very well for the country's press or the current anti-Muslim climate if there has. If anyone stumbles across this (and one or two people have stumbled across the blog, so there) and does have some other references, I'd like to ask that they stick them in the comments so I can have a look at them.

If I'm wrong, I'll stick a correction at the bottom of this post, so nobody's in any doubt I've made a mistake.