Liddle's muddle

Tonight saw the last selection of Channel 4's Unwelcome Britain series (and part of their wider Origination project), which includes some challenging and controversial programmes (as only Channel 4 know how), called Immigration on Trial. What was said to be on trial was Britain's so-called "open-door" policy and the general lack of controls on immigration (which on the face of it seems an absurd charge: people cannot simple walk into Britain and so there do exist 'controls'). In reality the debate was regarding immigration of any kind, and specifically economic migration into Britain. The programme was based on a format that has been used in the past by Channel 4 (notably on the case for the war in Iraq) and pitted those for continued immigration (or "mass immigration" as opponents like to claim) and those against such a policy or those who demand 'tougher controls'. Both sides presented their case before a jury (made up of a studio audience) with a chariman presiding over the proceedings (in this case Jon Snow, anchorman for Channel 4 News). And like any trial various pieces of evidence were presented and a variety of 'witnesses' were brought by each side. One of the witnesses for the anti-immigration side was Rod Liddle, a former editor of the Today programme on the BBC and currently an associate editor at the Spectator. Liddle also presented his views in a programme on Thursday night called Immigration is a Time Bomb. By his own admission the programme was generally anti-immigration; I might add the programme was even anti-immigrant. On Monday night, viewers had been treated to Kenan Malik's Let 'Em All In which was the argument for immigration.

Liddle started off his own programme by asking the quite prickly question: do the British want more immigrants and can the country cope with them? He stated that anyone asking such a question would be considered a racist; suggesting the answers might be a 'no' would be a heresy for some. He was right in saying that this is a legitimate topic of debate and that it is not racist to ask questions about immigration policy. But I would add that it so happens the ones who often ask such questions also have, shall we say, not particularly attractive views on people of other races. I was fully expecting an engaging and meaningful discussion on immigration, pointing out the negatives but perhaps entertaining a few positives, and suggesting ways to tackle the problem if there so happens to be one. Yet, much to his shame, the programme quickly degenerated into a political broadcast for UKIP or the BNP, with a variety of illogical, scaremongering and plainly nonsensical claims. Indeed, every problem imaginable in modern Britain -- from the creaking health service, overcrowding, high crime and even the inadequete transport system -- was the fault of having too many immigrants.

He opened with the claim that over the next few decades the population of Britain would grow by several million, of which 5.1 million would be "immigrants and their offspring" (a claim he repeated in tonight's Immigration on Trial). I seriously found myself asking the question "and?" What was Liddle's concern here? That immigrants have too many children? And what did 'their offspring' mean anyway? Barring the technicalities of the British Nationality Act (1981), most of this 'offspring' would grow up as 'British' and so we would need to ask the question how much of the 5.1 million immigrants would really be immigrants at all. Interestingly, no source was given for this claim.

He moved onto the issue of the health service, and specifically that of HIV. Again he cited figures showing how, post-immigration, HIV infection was soaring in Britain. This was largely down to black Africans. Source? Someone from the Centre for Policy Studies (a right-wing think tank -- well there's a surprise) who had heard it from some doctors she knew. How credible does that evidence sound you? On closer inspection Liddle appears to have a problem: if it was black Africans (and the implication being any immigrants) who were largely bringing HIV into the country, then how was it spreading across the 'indigenious' population? Unless everyone was having blood transfusions with infected blood, there must be another explanation. But can a hyper-liberal like Liddle (as he keeps telling everyone he is) dare to criticise or question popular sexual morality? Liddle's concern wasn't just that black Africans and immigrants were bringing HIV into Britain, but that it was costing the NHS -- and so the 'indigenous' population -- too much. I don't have any statistics on this, and lay no claim to expertise on NHS spending (a persual on the 'net provided some figures, though you can do a Google search better than myself), but I wonder how much alcohol- and smoke-related diseases and conditions among the 'indigenous' population cost the NHS?

The programme staggered like a drunkard on a Satuday night pub crawl to the problem of overcrowding, especially in the south-east of England. Though it would appear a drunk might be able to provide a more reasoned argument than Liddle. While sitting on an underground train, Liddle suggested that overcrowding on the tube was a result of there being just too many immigrants. Yes, that's right; the real reason why white people can't get a seat is because the darkies have taken them all! Let's not entertain the outrageous claim that the transport infrastructure of London as a whole might be below par, and that all those people who stuff the tube at 8.30am every morning on the Central Line are going to work (and so contributing to the economy): the non-whites included. (But, of course, not all immigrants are non-white: Eastern Europeans, South Africans, Australians and New Zealanders are all immigrants here too, though apparently the last three groups of people do not cause 'offence' or 'concern' by wanting to live and work here.)

Like any bad polemcist Liddle couldn't help but provide another half-truth: crime in the heavily populated parts of London is much higher ("50%" higher) than in the leafy suburbs. This overcrowding of London is due to immigrants. But maybe there are more people in these "crowded" areas (perhaps 50% more?), who might even be poorer than those in the expensive suburbs (at a guess, maybe they're 50% poorer?). Sex-trafficking, the movement of people -- women -- for use in prostitution, too is the fault of immigration. Never mind that this movement of people is largely done by criminal gangs through people smuggling, so is not immigration and is, in any case, illegal. The problem for anti-immigration hacks like Liddle is that they don't know what they really want to criticise and how to solve these problems: they just know there are things to criticise and something is to blame. They simply play on peoples' fears.

And what bigger 'fear' is there today (if we are to believe some people) than Islam. From starting a discussion on immigration, he spent nearly half the programme (some 30 minutes) telling us how bad Islam was for Britain. First of all he started with sex, and the concern that 'Islam does not tolerate homosexuality'. It is no secret that homosexual relationships are viewed as sinful in Islam; in fact, any pre- or extra-marital sexual relationships are considered extremely sinful. Yet, with sinister music in the background, Liddle informed viewers of these dark and mysterious beliefs widespread in Muslim communities -- and not just in "radical Islam" (although he tries to separate Muslims who come from subcontinent traditions from those later arrivals who come from the Maghrib; the former being 'moderate Muslims', the latter wide-eyed 'fundamentalists'). Perhaps he missed all those Catholics, Protestant and Jewish sects who also believe homosexual relationships to be quite sinful and in contradiction with their beliefs. But I doubt we'll see Liddle swooping down on Stamford Hill pre-Friday sunset, or the Kingsway International Christian Centre in Hackney on a Sunday morning, to find out their views on homosexuality. Indeed, if Liddle can furnish the viewer with heresay passed off as facts, then I would like to present purely anectodal evidence: whilst working offshore I have been genuinely surprised to find that the most anti-homosexual people I have come across have not been religious, but very 'secular' and very 'liberal' people (by Liddle's definition, 'liberalism' is reduced to 'decedence' and 'enjoyment of vices', and offshore workers are known for their outrageously heavy drinking and have views on sex that can hardly be inline with any religious teachings I've come across).

He then moved onto 'freedom of speech', and for a minute I thought we were going to see footage of bearded Pakistanis burning The Satanic Verses. Instead, we were shown footage of bearded Pakistanis organising demonstrations against a Bradford headteacher who didn't like 'Pakistani values' (incidentally they were exercising their right to free speech, but never mind this minor inconvenient fact). The murder of a Dutch film-maker last year was brought up as something that could very easily happen in Britain if the 'mistaken ideology of multiculturalism' continued. What Liddle forgot to inform his viewers was that many immigrants faced severe racism, abuse and threats of violence at the hands of people who also feared alien values and cultures during the 1970s. Multiculturalism -- right or wrong -- was one such response. But how can Liddle complain that Islam is not 'compatible with freedom of speech' and then move to denounce Muslims for daring to be offended by someone insulting their religion and expressing these views, and for expressing 'illiberal' views on homosexuality?

At the end, and with the new citizenship ceremonies being performed in the background, Liddle asked the viewers whether they'd like to give up their hard won freedoms to a 'system of belief that is opposed to liberal democracy'. That logical absurdity summed up the entire programme. He also added, as he did in tonight's Immigration on Trial, that Islam was becoming 'radically conservative'. How can someone be radical and conservative at the same time? Maybe in Liddle's decadent univserse, logical contradictions aren't too important to avoid.

All immigrants and their offspring (since Liddle has an issue with us too) should, just for one week, not drive those trains, buses and taxis; not report for work in those hospitals, or open those pharmacies and surgeries; not sign in for the day's shift at the factories and mills in which they toil; not turn up to stack the shelves at the supermarket, local mimimart or newsagents; refuse to serve at the local high street fast food outlet or wait tables at their local restaurents. They should just not turn up to work for one solitary week. Indeed, I would be interested to know the financial impact such a strike would have, because what many anti-immigrantion campaigners do not realise is that successful economies run on immigration. The USA is proof of this. If Liddle wants to stop or heavily reduce immigration then he need simply give up his 'decedent' lifestyle.

(By the way, I'll be issuing a fatwa next week, Rod; that'll make you famous even if your sad sex life plastered across the newspapers didn't.)

Comments

[Yakoub]

Salaams

I am aware that many people were astonished when Liddle was given the editor's job for 'Today', one of R4's flagship programmes. Not only is he an oaf, but a vile little hatemonger and his highly sentimental resusitation of disgraced and now decrepit Bradford Head Ray Honeyford in the Spectator (How Islam has killed multiculturalism, 01.05.04) is one of the most vile apologetics for a racist troublemaker I have ever read in my entire life.

Wasalaam

Yakoub

[Munthasir]

Salaam,

I dont live in Britain, but from the way you have narrated the whole program, it does sound to me like haste approach by right-wing politicians to bring 'awareness' among whites, that Islam will end up as a dominant force in Britain soon.

Even though, there is quite amount of logic in your concluding statements, to me the whole excercise of theirs seems like efforts of desperate people. These logics doesnt reach their heads.

But your views are alhamdulillah.Good

[Abu Rishe]

This is what rod liddle said in a recent article:
""I also believe we are engaged in a struggle with Islam. Since the collapse of communism, Islam presents the only coherent challenge to our way of life.

But it is primarily an ideological war and I do not believe, as Tony Blair and George W Bush seem to, that it can be won by imposing western democratic institutions upon Islamic countries with bombs and troops.

It might be won, however, by smothering Islamic countries with the accoutrements of western affluence, such as affordable white goods, television and the other gentle vices of western civilisation. The ordinary adherents of all ascetic creeds, of which Marxism and Islam are but two, tend to be susceptible to the softening temptations of avarice.

If we can buy off Islam in such a way then Turkish membership of the EU will have been a success and we might extend the invitation to other Muslim countries."

[Yusuf Smith]

As-Salaamu 'alaikum,

I was in Egypt in 1999 and people there (who can afford them) have the white goods they need. I don't know if Liddle plans to supply expensive American or European white goods to every poor family in Egypt or Turkey.