Blogging about bad journalism since 2006.
One newspaper technique for fooling people is the red herring. Here's how it works. Someone offers a list of things that have happened or reasons for something happening and the papers choose the most outrageous or ridiculous and focus on it as if it's the only one.
Councillors accused authorities of a cover-up, saying that while the need to teach children about other world religions is obvious the lack of education on Christianity in a Christian country was going too far.and:
However critics reportedly insisted the nation's religion was being turned in to a sideshow in the name of political correctness.In both of these are the 'Britain is a Christian country' theme that's mentioned in the Sun's rubbish story from my last post. That's worrying for people like me who are not Christian, and follow no religion at all.
However when the lack of time devoted to Christianity sparked protests, Buckinghamshire education authorities reportedly removed those numbers from official documents.You know what that means? Removing things from official documents means they are no longer Council policy. Reporting that things have been removed from official documents but not making it clear that they are no longer policy means tha the paper, again, is not interested in giving their readers an accurate impression of the truth and only in whipping up hysteria about Britain becoming - horror or horrors - secular. Like when they say Christmas has been banned.
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.
And that is why I, a British Jew, argue that it is vital that Britain and Europe re-Christianise if they are to have any chance of defending western values.
The useful idiots who believe that only a secular society can hold off the forces of irrational belief at the heart of the Islamic jihad have got this diametrically the wrong way round.
Dying for a cause, however noble, becomes an absolute no-no. It’s better to be dhimmi than dead – the view that has now effectively prevailed in Britain and Europe.Now, I can only speak for myself but I'm pretty sure quite a few people on my side of the fence in this argument would agree. What Phillips has done here is used a false opposition to set up another of her strawmen. I do not accept that there is an evil force of Islamisation creeping across Europe. I think that idea is a paranoid exaggeration, believed by gullible people and pushed by racists in a similar way to the idea of a Jewish conspiracy that was popular until the right found another scapegoat.
The Islamists, whose shrewdness and perspicacity are consistently overlooked by racist European liberals who believe that Arabs and Muslims are too backward to have anything intelligent to say [...]HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! [PANT!] HA HAHA HA HA HA HAHAHA HA HA! [PANTPANTPANT!] NO, STOPPIT! [PANT!] HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAH! I think a bit of wee came out.
Yes, there have been some attacks on Muslims which are totally reprehensible. But does that mean the subject of Islamic extremism is to be totally off limits? In any event, such attacks are just as likely to be the result of frustration with the failure to address the problem; or (as Phillips himself also observed) the entirely separate influx into the country of East Europeans who are — dismayingly — deeply prejudiced against black or Asian people, and would be so whatever may or may not be said in public about them.So, Muslims are attacked because people are frustrated with not being able to address the problem of Islamic extremism because Muslims won't allow them to. In other words, it's Muslims' fault that they're attacked. Nice one. And it's immigrants doing it anyway. Racist much?
Ugly? Bullying? ‘A trial of one particular community’? Surely, it’s those who draw attention to Islamic extremism who are mostly on the receiving end of ugly bullying. Any mention of ‘Islamic terrorism’ produces instantaneous denunciation as an ‘Islamophobe’, racist, bigot and all the rest of it — backed up by the implicit threat of violence, a state of affairs which started with the fatwa against the life of Salman Rushdie. As a result, the British media are now so cowed and intimidated they refuse to publish much vital discussion about Islam, to the terrible detriment of free and vital debate.Question for Melanie Phillips: If the media is so cowed it's not possible to criticise Islam, howcome you've got a job? You say, "There is a huge problem of Islamic extremism in Britain, very little is being done about it, and until Straw’s comments about the veil it wasn’t even discussed." Presumably, you're aware of the book 'Londonistan', the sole purpose of which is to discuss Islamic extremism. You know, the book you wrote. How was that book released a few months before Straw's comments if it wasn't discussed?
Suddenly , Britain seems to be developing into a cultural and religious battleground.She supports this argument by setting up three things that have undeniably happened and pitting them against confected strawman arguments as the opponents on the 'battleground'. (Notice also that none of the dodgy opposing army in her made up battle are of the calibre of Government Ministers, so the battle would already be one sided, even if the opposing army weren't made entirely of straw, which it is).
How can Britain have arrived at a situation where it is seriously argued that a class of children who don’t speak English as their first language should be taught by a shrouded woman whose expression they can’t see and whose voice they can’t even hear properly — while the BBC thinks that wearing the symbol of Britain’s established religion might be offensive?Quick answer - it hasn't, you bozo.
The source of this confusion is a profound loss of national, cultural and religious nerve. The Christian values that once defined national identity have simply collapsed[...]Now she's just being silly. I mean, really. Christian Head of State (who is also head of a Cristian denomination), Christian Prime Minister (Christian by law, by the way), largely Christian cabinet, Christian Bishops given automatic seats in the Lords, blasphemy law that applies only to Christianity, majority Christian population - and yet Christian values have collapsed. The who in the what now?
Those who defend the Muslim veil are grossly misreading the situation. It is not some picturesque religious garment equivalent to the often curious attire worn by members of other religions.Who's said the 'picturesque religious garment' thing and when? Nobody, that's who. I wonder if Phillips has ever met an opponent who wasn't made entirely of straw.
It is associated instead with the most extreme version of Islam, which holds that Islamic values must take precedence over the secular state.This is just bonkers! Has she forgotten that she herself was arguing that an explicitly religious definition of national identity should take precedence over the 'secular state' just one paragraph ago? Why is it only extremist when people think Islamic values should take precedence over the state, but not when Judeo-Christian values should? She has also clearly forgotten that the UK is NOT a secular state. It's explicitly Christian, as outlined above. Or is it that in the Phillipsosphere, 'secular' and 'Christian' are interchangeable?
Only a small minority of British Muslim women choose to wear this veil. But unlike other religious attire, it is thus inherently separatist and perceived by some as intimidatory. That is why it is unacceptable.It's separatist because it's worn by a minority? That's what the 'thus' suggests, but it can't be that, because only a small minority of British Christian women (a minority of one, as far as I'm aware) feel it's necessary to their faith to display a cross, but they're not being called separatist. Or pehaps the 'perceived by some as intimidatory' is the important part of the sentence. In which case, Phillips presumably thinks people who wear hoodies or have visible tattoos are separatists.
Belatedly, there seems to be a dawning recognition in Government of the extreme danger into which British society has been placed both by the doctrine of multiculturalism, [...] Hence Mr Woolas’s remarks, the show of ministerial support for Jack Straw [...]If Government Ministers spout Islamophobic drivel, extremist right-wing anti Islamic nutjobs will think their views are justified, as evidenced here.
opinion polls reveal that between 40 and 60 per cent of British Muslims want to live under sharia law[...]Which opinion polls are these, and what definition of 'sharia law' were they using? Are the poll respondents using the same definition? See, the Qu'ran is much like the Bible in that its text can be interpreted in different ways, so sharia law to some will mean a different thing than to others. A bit like how Phillips wants our society to be more explicitly Judeo-Christian without wanting adultresses to be stoned to death (I presume). The next part of the sentence about areas of cities becoming sharia enclaves is just an unsupported assertion.
Faith schools would be forced to turn away children of their own religion in favour of others who would significantly dilute the cultural and religious identity of the school. And can anyone really see non-Muslim parents being forced to send their children to Muslim schools where — as one Muslim headmaster has already declared — non-Muslim girls would have to wear the hijab?Right, so, you're a separatist if you're a Muslim who assists at a Church of England school, but you're not if you argure that 'the cultural and religious identity' of faith schools should remain undiluted by separating them from people of other faiths. I think my Melanie Phillips hat needs a coathanger or something, because there is no way I could ever see how actually arguing that people should be separated from one another is not separatist, while actually mixing with another culture is separatist - no matter what you're bloody wearing.
But the problem lies deeper still. It is not so much separatism as a desire in some quarters to Islamise Britain.Read that again. Islamise Britain. Now play some creepy music in your head when you read it. Islamise Britain. Scary isn't it? I feel I should say why this is stupid just for form's sake. What quarters are trying to [cue the creepy music - maybe the background music from the old Crimestoppers adverts] Islamise Britain, and are they capable of it? Women wearing the niqab make up about only 5 percent of Muslim women, who make up roughly 1.5 percent of the population, I'd say maybe not, since that translates to about 0.075 percent of the entire population.
Mohammed Abdul Bari, chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain, has said explicitly that he wants to encourage Britain to adopt Islamic traditions, including arranged marriages, and can’t see any reason why anyone should object.Arranged marriages aren't just an Islamic tradition, you maroon. It amazes me that someone can argue so vociferously for the adoption of one set of religious traditions and at the same time demonise someone else for doing the same thing with their set of religious traditions. Aside from arranged marriages, what 'Islamic traditions' are Mohammed Abdul Bari arguing should be adopted? Are they that different from Judeo-Christian ones? Let's see, shall we? From the actual interview on the Telegraph website, we can see he said:
He thinks that non-Muslim Britons would benefit from having arranged marriages and espousing stronger family values; they would also do well to stop drinking and gambling and to follow many of the teachings of Islam.Ooh. Scary. Espousing stronger family values and stopping drinking and gambling. That's controversial.
Unsurprisingly, the MCB is now accusing ministers of being ‘Islamophobic’.Yes, unsurprisingly. Because they fucking are.
Certainly, it is vital to prevent the demonisation of all Muslims.Because when she goes on to say:
The recent disturbances in Windsor sounded an urgent alarm. The Muslim owner of a dairy in the town applied for planning permission to turn it into a mosque and Islamic centre. Although the council turned down the application, locals say the owner ignored this and extremist worshippers regularly turned up in the dairy to pray.She clearly thinks she's not demonising these Muslims by calling them 'extremist' for praying. And when she says:
Trouble flared when a 15-year-old non-Muslim boy was attacked outside the ‘mosque’. When the boy’s mother and 18-year-old sister arrived to remonstrate, they were apparently set upon by people, allegedly from within the building, wielding iron bars and pitchforks.She clearly thinks she's not demonising these Muslims by completely taking the opposing side at face value and not once wondering whether the Muslims here started an unprovoked attack, en masse. And when she says:
This set in train four nights of disturbances when, according to the police, both white racists and Muslim extremists muscled in and the dairy was firebombed.She thinks she's not demonising the Muslims by blaming them for being attacked and firebombed.
In a further unrelated but disturbing development in the town, four British soldiers returning from Afghanistan were forced to abandon a house they were planning to rent after threats and intimidation by Muslims. And all this in the heart of the Home Counties.Yes, this would be disturbing. If it in fact happened. The story appears to be made up. From the local paper, we have the story ''No religion was labelled' responsible for vandalism':
REPORTS that soldiers were driven out of a Berkshire village by racists have been disputed by Thames Valley Police. [...] The caller said that the soldiers were not welcome because houses in the road are expensive - around £600,000 - and that the soldiers presence might lower property values. [...] He added: "Inquiries carried out to date conclude that there is no evidence to suggest that this was racially motivated. The MoD has also informed me that Combermere Barracks did not receive any threatening calls from Muslims or people claiming to be Muslims in relation to this incident."
The most grotesque example of all, however, is surely the proposal to build the largest mosque in Europe on the site of the Olympic village in east London. The most prominent landmark on the Olympic site, it is intended to symbolise Islamic power in Britain.Really, it's the most prominent landmark on the site, is it? More prominent than any of the sports facilities and stadia? And how does she know it's meant to symbolise anything? Where does she get this from? And saying that plans to build a big mosque are 'grotesque' doesn't demonise Muslims, presumably.
Worse still, it is being funded by the Tablighi Jamaat, said by French intelligence and the FBI to be the most significant recruiters for Al Qaeda in Europe.I'd like to see the evidence for both assertions. I might dig into it, but it seems pointless to actually make any effort to shoot down this nutjob's arguments when it's perfectly possible to do so without having to.
And to cap it all, within a mile of the site, the largest church in Europe — the Kingsway International Christian Centre — has been compulsorily purchased and is about to come down.And it's being pulled down by radical Islamists, is it? Whoops! Didn't think so. It's amazing that someone can say an incident of racial unrest is totally unrelated to wider tensions in the same town while at the same time implying some connection between these two things.
It is our vision to build a 10,000-seater church building and a four floor office - a state-of-the art facility providing:Presumably, this is not bad.
10,000 seats for worship; 1,000 place children's church; 600 place teenage church; a counselling and prayer centre; class rooms for Bible School; 100 place nursery; 400-seater restaurant; a fully equipped gym. A place for the total healing of the total man and the total nation. We stand here today to proclaim with confidence that these dreams will come to reality because they are inspired by God.
In October 2005 the Charity Commission of England and Wales released its Inquiry Report on the KICC (aka The King's Ministry Trust) [...] On the basis of its initial findings, the Commission concluded that there was serious misconduct and mismanagement in the administration of the Charity and that the Charity’s property was at risk. Ashimolowo acted as both paid employee and trustee of the church against UK charity law and was responsible for approving payments and benefits to himself and his wife, Yemisi. Benefits received included free accommodation for himself and family, a £120,000 birthday party including an £80,000 car, over half a million pounds paid out to Ashimolowo's private companies, which were operated from church property and purchase of a Florida timeshare property.I would say that I presume Phillips thinks this is not bad either, but I bet eight million dollars she wasn't even aware of it, because for Phillips, Christian is good and to be trusted while Islam is to be feared and checked at every turn. That's not demonisation though. Oh no.
What greater symbol can there be of the retreat of Christianity and its replacement by militant Islam? This is why the argument over the place of the veil and the cross in public life is so significant. This is not about prejudice or discrimination. It is about cultural survival.What a fucking load of shit. It's about prejudice pure and simple. I've never read such a poorly argued rant, including so many fallacies and such abundant evidence of prejudice as this. Argung for Islamic values is wrong, but arguing for Christian ones isn't. Saying people should be separated is not separatist, but mixing with others is. Ascribing malign intent to the actions of Muslims while ignoring the corruption of Christians is not demonising Muslims. Ignoring plans to build a massive church while assigning evil intent to plans to build a massive mosque is not demonising Muslims. Do me a favour, you crazy effing loon.
"It is a telling commentary in itself on the times in which we are living that a Conservative politician took the line that the protests were entirely justified because the Americans are so awful and they are doing such terrible things in Iraq and we were taken to war on a lie and..."Indeed it is. They're times in which the protests are justified because the Americans are doing terrible things in Iraq (click the 'Former US Soldiers' link) and we were taken to war on a lie. But in Melanie Phillips' world it's beyond the pale that a Conservative politician can 'take that line'. This is partly because Phillips tends not to see people as individuals, but as part of one monolithic group or another. Conservative politicians must say this war is good and protest is bad, regardless of whatever facts might be pertinent, because that's what Conservative politicians believe.
"What is so striking about these protests [...] is not just that it is extraordinarily bone-headed to insult and alienate the ally on whom we continue to depend for our protection; it is not just the craven appeasement of intimidation"Right, craven appeasement of intimidation is bad. Gotcha. But why is it "bone-headed to insult and alienate the ally on whom we continue to depend for our protection"? Is it because they might remove that protection if we do? Isn't the threat of removing protection for not toeing the line a form of intimidation in itself? Therefore, if we shy away from seeming discourteous to an 'ally' because they might remove protection if we do, aren't we also appeasing intimidation? Of course, you have to think that protesting against something you disagree with is appeasement of intimidation in the first place, but if you're Melanie Phillips, that's easy.
"Why? Because the US is apparently waging war against the innocent in Iraq. Excuse me?? The US is currently in Iraq at the express request of the Iraqis themselves to defend the innocent against the war being waged against them."Umm...no they're not. They're there because of the weapons of mass destruction Iraq didn't have.
"The US went to war in Iraq to start unpicking the axis of terror that so threatens the world. "Umm...no they didn't. They went to war because of the weapons of mass destruction Iraq didn't have.
"It is the big propaganda lie of the enemies of freedom and democracy, promulgated by those who have every interest in bringing about the defeat of the west – both radical Islamists and the extreme left, now in close and unholy alliance with each other in the Stop the War Coalition and elsewhere – and now fast becoming the accepted unwisdom of those who opposed the war for more respectable reasons."I love the 'enemies of freedom and democracy' bit. It's so 1950's. Anyway, she presents an oversimplified strawman view of why one set of anti-Iraq (and Iran, it should be stressed) protesters oppose the war, and then implies that anyone else who is not in this set also oppose the war for this reason - without ever demonstrating once that anyone opposes the war purely for this reason in the first place. It would be like me writing something that says 'Melanie Phillips is pro war because she thinks Iraqi people are just evil - and it's now becoming the accepted unwisdom of all Daily Mail readers.' The first claim is bollocks to start with, and the second is even more so (well, maybe not - but I'm making a point here). This sort of thing is extremely shoddy, and wouldn't get past anyone who didn't agree with Phillips in the first place, but that doesn't matter, does it? Get in your box, you foul enemy of freedom and democracy you. That way our Mel can dismiss you without ever having to listen to what you actually have to say.