open and shut case

Peter Hitchens makes the case that he is a dangerous idiot:

I have no idea if the MMR is safe or not. But I know many thoughtful and well-informed people who believe that it damaged their children, or fear that it might do so.

If you know nothing about the issue then maybe you should keep your fucking mouth shut, Hitchens.

hatchet-job

The remarkable thing about Steve Doughty's otherwise fairly unremarkable anti-feminist hatchet job of Dr Katherine Rake is the fear of choice.

Doughty tries his best to present Dr Rake as a radical (she wants to "revolutionise" lives!), somehow hypocritical (she's married!), an insufficiently feminine woman (she has short hair like 70s feminists!) and willing to work with gay people (ZOMGZOMG THE GAYS!). He also fabricates one outright lie - the notion that wanting to support greater equality in relationships means she refuses to help "ordinary families" or "parents as they are."

This points to the underlying rhetorical device: to pretend that creating greater choice and freedom in the way we live our lives is the same thing as forcing people to change their lives - that, for example, to open mother and toddler groups to stay-at-home fathers is the equivalent of demanding that all men should stay home and look after their children. So the story leads with

..Dr Katherine Rake, who wants to see men bring up babies

and tries to pretend that this is some kind of blanket policy where men will uniformly take over duties of care and - as in the words of centre-right think-tank Centre for Policy Studies - her agenda is "more about reversing sex roles than helping parents."

And that's without touching the (fairly insulting) ridiculousness of suggesting that many men wouldn't be interested in having more of a role in their children's lives.

business as usual

A week after the election of two BNP MEPs - which, of course, is the exclusive fault of the left, ZOMGZOMG - the Mail goes back to printing misleading immigration stories:

Want a British passport? Just stand on a picket line or canvas for Labour

Migrants will win fast-track passports if they stand on picket lines or knock on doors asking people to vote Labour, it emerged last night.

The Home Office says trade union activism and political canvassing should count towards the planned new system of 'earned citizenship'.

It's a fairly obvious attempt to make it seem as though Labour is bribing immigrants into campaign work on their behalf in exchange for passports - even though political activism, for any party, is only one of the ways in which applicants might complete 50 hours of voluntary work. The one shred of honesty in the report notes that "even aiding the BNP would count - if it was willing to accept help from an immigrant." Hah.

James Slack - the "journalist" responsible for this story - also helpfully looks into the future to invent conspiracy theories for critics who don't exist:

Critics will point to the historic relationship between Labour and the unions. Migrants cannot vote until they become citizens - so, by using union membership to speed their applications, Labour is potentially swelling its own support.

Except, of course, that the scheme is not restricted to joining Labour-friendly unions: you can also work at a soup kitchen for the homeless, serve as a school governor or help out a local museum. You can even volunteer for a faith organisation.

You'll probably recall that one of the recurring arguments presented by critics of immigration in general (and multi-culturalism in particular) is that that migrants should adopt the language and culture of the UK. So what's so objectionable about this proposed scheme, which affirms the need for "newcomers" to speak English and to "participate in our civic and political life"?

Or is the argument that visitors should "fit in" a thin cover for a rather more ugly hostility?

not for nothing

Amongst the clutch of conservatives and neo-cons attempting to claim that the BNP are left wingers - sorry, that's LEFTISTSXOMGXOMG!!!! - is Melanie Phillips. My absolute, hands-down favourite part of her argument is when she claims this:

The philosophical antecedents of the BNP lie not on the right but on the left.

and refers to the following text in support of her thesis:

Ze’ev Sternhell’s classic work, Neither Right Nor Left: Fascist Ideology in France

Neither on the left or the right, except when it's entirely on the left, apparently. Phillips also manages to throw in one of the more obvious canards:

Not for nothing were the Nazis called ’national socialists’.

Indeed, not for nothing - sadly for Phillips case, that "something" was the propagandist attempt to encourage working class support. As this site summarises:

Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the "Labor Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not represent workers.

To call Phillips' work intellectually dishonest cherry-picking would be a disservice to idiots working in orchards.

conspiracy fail

Nick Griffin reveals himself to be a mere amateur amongst conspiracy theorists:

Speaking to the BBC after the protest Mr Griffin said he believed the march had been organised by his political opponents.

"There was shouting from down the road and I got 80 people marched up with eggs, bottles [edit: bottles which strangely no-one else seems to have spotted] and placards and that was the end of the press conference. It's an absolute outrage," he said.

"We do have a problem with this organised mob which is backed by all three main political parties. It's a disgrace. They clearly had orders.

"I was splattered. It's a very sad day for British democracy. It seems the ruling political parties who want this to carry on have lost sight of what democracy really is.

"They are silly left wing students, lecturers and probably civil service parasites off on their lunch break. This is a mob for hire. This does not represent the normal people.

"This is organised by the Labour party and funded by taxpayers' money."

There are some points here for general incoherent inconsistency (is Labour, or are all three parties to blame?) but what about the homosexuals, blacks, Muslims and feminazis? And what about the Jews? Is there so little room in your heart for hate, Nick?

ugly bedfellows

Following last night's unbelievably shitty news that the BNP could get less votes than in the last election and still pick up two MEPs, the Mail reports:

Conservative Party leader David Cameron described the success of the BNP as 'depressing': 'It is obviously a depressing day for all of us. The BNP are completely beyond the pale... they are an appalling bunch of people.'

How, then, would Cameron describe the European parties on the far right with whom he would ally his party? During last night's Euro election coverage on the BBC, David Dimbleby asked William Hague about the problem of grouping with parties and politicians who are either virulently homophobic or manifestly racist.

Hague deflected the question, not by rejecting the possibility of working with such people but by arguing that "politics is different in Poland," that they share "our kind of politics" and that it would be part of a strong "mainstream" conservative grouping. A racist, homophobic grouping, apparently.

If we're going to get a Conservative government (which, given the ongoing collapse of both the Labour vote and the Labour party is fairly damn likely) that's serious about opposing the politics espoused by the BNP, now would be a good time for the Tories to reject policies which are "beyond the pale" regardless of their country of origin.

it would not be all bad news

Hyperbole, where are thou?

Caroline Flint on her own has set back the cause of women's equality by about a millennium.

If true, it would mean that Melanie Phillips would be prevented from writing any more terrible articles.

Sadly, no.

fail

In the middle of the BNP's education policy - which is gloriously low on necessary detail, logic and reality-based fact - is a river of cognitive dissonance. From the preamble:

“Citizenship” lessons are a euphemism for political indoctrination.

Indoctrination bad, right? Except when the BNP is doing it:

The introduction of a compulsory Community Award Scheme for all school-leavers to teach them work ethics and social and community values. [...] These courses would be character-building and instil discipline, social and community values and work ethics in all young people.

Yes, it's the bold policy of sweeping away citizenship lessons and replacing them with.. uh.. a compulsory citizenship organisation for young people. While re-introducing compulsory collective worship in schools, and claiming only certain areas of knowledge are "proper subjects." (Oh, and don't forget to re-introduce competitive sports which have.. uhm.. never stopped being played.)

The silliest rhetorical tick is to set up a vacuous opposition between "traditional" and "old-fashioned" approaches and the "modern," "fake," and "politically correct." Are we given any sense of what those words might mean? Is there any detail of any of the educational techniques being proposed or critiqued? Do we know which degrees will be considered "proper" degrees? No. That would be actual political content, rather than vapid posturing. Seriously: the "policy" page for education on the BNP website is shorter than this blog entry.

Remember, these aren't just racist bigots: they're deeply stupid racist bigots masquerading as a political party.

want to ask gordon to quit? (updated)

The Telegraph obligingly reproduces the draft email being circulated that asks Gordon Brown to stand down - complete with the contact address you should use if you want to sign it.

I wonder if, by the end of the day, signonnow@hotmail.co.uk might have a few more emails than they had originally planned.

EDIT: Spyblog points out that the choice of hotmail (and the wide circulation of the address in The Telegraph and the Guardian) means that the address is wide-open to pranking and/or abuse (though I think some of the concerns of insider snooping are overstated).

further tales of deliberate ignorance

Britain has awoken to one of the more undignified moments of the lobby journalist system, wherein every political correspondent knows who is circulating the email asking Gordon Brown to stand down, but where not a single one is prepared to name names.

As Adam Bienkov tweeted earlier, MPs must know who they are, Gordon Brown must know who they are - so why shouldn't the rest of us know as well?

EDIT: I am stupid. It's only some journalists - e.g. the BBC's Nick Robinson. The Daily Mail, for example, has no problem reporting names (while citing BBC Newsnight as a source). Does Robinson not have a TV?

near miss

The Daily Mail had accidentally managed to write a critique of Jacqui Smith without lapsing into patronising sexism - fortunately, the photo-caption writer was able to rescue the paper's reputation by reminding us of her "ill-advised cleavage-revealing outfit."

I presume that Quentin Letts was unavailable to assail us with his usual masturbatory prose. Maybe they're saving him for the day she leaves.