The Mail has a nerve, it really does. Look at this:
Where the discussion has turned dishonest - and this has largely been the media's fault - has been the use of East Europeans as illustrative fall guys.
Earlier this year the Conservative MP, Daniel Kawczynski decided enough was enough and it was time to stand up for Polish immigrants.
He accused the 'liberal elite' at the BBC of 'using the Polish community as a cat's paw to tackle the thorny issue of mass, unchecked immigration' while avoiding 'controversial immigration from other countries'.
Yes, 'the media' = the Communist evil BBC, according to this article by Dennis Sewell printed in the Mail and the Spectator. Odd that Sewell chose not to mention the complaint by the Federation of Poles in Britain against a particular newspaper whose coverage of immigration it had found reprehensible. The newspaper in question? The Daily Mail! But no, because one single MP decided to attack the BBC, it must be the BBC - who do not, unlike the Mail, engage in lying, deceit and smears against immigrants - who are the real problem with being lazy and bad towards immigrants.
Balls. Of. Steel. As I said earlier, you have to have admiration for the sheer shamelessness of their hypocrisy. They really couldn't give a fuck.
At first I thought this article was a bit of shoehorned-in 'balance' by the Mail, but I was wrong. This is actually the most racist thing I've seen for a while. Why? Well see if you can spot what Sewell's on about here:
'For every professional woman who is able to go out to work because she has an Eastern European nanny, there is probably a young mother who watches her child struggle in a classroom where a harassed teacher faces too many children with too many languages between them.'
Of course, the discerning ear will apprehend that the voices in this scaled-down Babel are more likely to be speaking Urdu, Yoruba or Bengali than Polish, Czech or Hungarian.
Really? Or not? Prove it, Sewell. Prove it. Not just with a 'discerning ear' but with cold, hard facts. And if you can't, don't write 'of course'.
According to MigrationWatch UK, of the net inflow of 2.3million immigrants between 1991 and 2006, only 8 per cent came from the 2004 accession states of the EU.
...and where did they come from? Oh, you haven't been bothered to say. Is that because you're trying to imply the bulk come from *whisper* brown-coloured places, whereas in fact most are from other EU states, Australia and North America? is that why you haven't filled in the gaps, Sewell? Or were you too busy?
If the Government is serious about optimising the planning of public services, it needs to disaggregate the immigrant population and find out which groups are profit centres and which are cost centres.
What are you driving at, Sewell? I know you're itching to tell us:
The best research so far available (prepared by the IPPR last year for Channel 4's Dispatches) makes for uneasy reading.
I think it makes very easy reading for people with a particular agenda, actually. But was this survey comprehensive? Where did the data come from? What is the IPPR's agenda in all this?
Only one per cent of Polish immigrants claim income support, as opposed to 21 per cent of Turkish immigrants and 11 per cent of Pakistanis; only 8 per cent of Poles live in social housing, compared with 80 per cent of Somalis, and 41 per cent of Bangladeshis.
So brown people = cost. Pink = profit. That's what's going on here. Let in whites and we'll be all right; let in browns and they'll be a drain. Is that racism? Apparently not. I don't see why not, but it's just not, because this is some stuffed shirt from the Spectator rather than a suedehead in a bomber jacket. Are there factors other than colour or nationality that help us to understand the socio-economic problems affecting these migrants? If there are, Sewell couldn't give a flying one. And let's not forget, being in social housing doesn't mean you're a "drain" - you *can* be in a council house and have a job. And income support is for people who are, wait for it, *working*. Yes it's a benefit but it's a benefit given to the low paid, not the workshy. (Edit: See John B's explanatory note in the comments. It's also paid to people who are sick, disabled and not in work, as well as to people whose partners are on parental leave.)
But there's the evil idea, stripped bare for us all to see. If you live in a council house, consider yourself a drain. If you do a low-paid job, consider yourself a drain. Poor = bad. Brown = poor. Therefore...
There are very good reasons why politicians should take special care to avoid stirring up popular resentment against Muslim communities, so the present suspension of the immigration taboo is likely to be quite short-lived.
What reasons are these then, other than humanity, decency and because it's plain fucking wrong? What is Sewell driving at? He appears to be saying that it's a politically correct attempt by the government (and by extension the liberal elite) to deflect hatred away from nasty brown folk who suck the state dry, by focussing attention on nice white immigrants who are great. It's a remarkable piece of sophistry. It is sheer hate. It is, I might add, a disgusting lie. No-one is doing this. No-one is protecting brown people from deserved hatred and allowing East Europeans to be targeted because of politically correct reasons. No-one is doing that. If Sewell has evidence, he should... oh why should I fucking bother. Why bother with someone as appalling and inhuman as this?
The taunt of Islamophobia will doubtless prove just as effective as the taunt of racism once did in closing down discussion altogether.
Yes, PC gawn mad was the only reason that discussion on immigration was 'closed down'. Not because racists were wrong. Those pesky liberals, keeping us from the truth with their control of the media, like the Sun, Star, Express, Mail, Telegraph, Times... oh.
In the meantime, for as long as we carelessly bad-mouth East Europeans, we shouldn't fool ourselves that our current public debates on this politically toxic issue are any more transparent, fair, or attentive to the real concerns of voters than they were in the bad old days.
I tell you what's toxic: this kind of article. This is racism. It's saying, look lads, don't tell off the East Europeans, they're all right, unlike those bloody brown people!
I don't care if I'm going to be called a liberal loonie left-wing PC fascist. I couldn't give a shit. Because that article was racism. That was telling people to discriminate between ethnic groups because some were better than others and some cost the taxpayer more than others. That's not me being mental and a leftie idiot playing the race card. That was racism. It makes me furious that a newspaper that pretends to want an 'open and honest debate' should allow the publication of such hatemongering tripe.
Racism is racism, and someone needs to call cunts like Sewell out when they are racist. Let's have an 'open and honest debate' about that, shall we?