Friday, 18 April 2008

BBC bias on immigration (2)

Following on from Mark Easton's assertion that public opposition to immigration is almost non-existent, and confined only to a small group of intolerant bigots, his fellow Beeboid Kathryn Edwards has written a piece entitled "Powell's 'rivers of blood' legacy", timed to coincide with the impending fortieth anniversary of Enoch Powell's famous speech. In this, she gives us the views of a very diverse range of commentators. They are:
Elias Mattu: a first generation immigrant, Labour councillor in Wolverhampton, and director of the West Midlands Equality and Diversity Partnership. Among other comments, he denounced Powell as "an evil man". Edwards omitted to mention his party affiliation, merely describing him as "a Wolverhampton city councillor".

Dr Clive Harris: described as a "black sociologist". Edwards omitted to mention that he is closely associated with the race relations industry, through his involvement in the Afro-Caribbean Millennium Centre, and his directorship of the Centre's spin-off, the Frantz Fanon Research Unit, described as "the UK's only black-owned public policy think tank".

Rob Marris: Labour MP for Powell's old seat, Wolverhampton South West, and alleged vandal.
So, two race hustlers, one of whom is also a Labour councillor, and a Labour MP. What a very representative cross-section of the community!

On the other side of the debate, Edwards briefly mentions Nigel Hastilow, before adding that "Mr Hastilow has said he will not give interviews to the BBC about the 'rivers of blood' speech". She does not mention, however, that, as Hastilow has made clear on his
blog, he refuses to appear on the BBC because of the corporation's consistent bias. And, in any event, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that, since Hastilow refused to speak to her, Edwards should have made the effort to find someone else to speak on behalf of the vast majority of people who oppose unlimited mass immigration.

The imbalance in the choice of commentators is not the only instance of bias in Edwards' article, however. Her general reporting is deliberately slanted to an anti-Powell stance. Consider the following extract, for example:

Powell, who represented Wolverhampton South West, was not the first politician in that era to find himself embroiled in such controversy.

In the 1964 General Election campaign in nearby Smethwick, supporters of the Tory candidate Peter Griffiths were reported to have circulated the slogan, "If you want a nigger for a neighbour - vote Labour".

This appears to be a rather cack-handed attempt to smear Powell by falsely associating him with the overtly racist slogan allegedly used by Peter Griffiths' supporters.
It was the Race Relations Act introduced by the Labour government in 1968 which prompted Powell's speech.

He argued it would mean "British" families losing out on matters such as housing, with immigrants being given an unfair advantage.
Why is the word 'British' in quotation marks? The clear imputation is that there are no such people as the native British.
Black sociologist Dr Clive Harris said that playing the race card at that time had proved to have "mileage" for politicians.
Here, the notion, promulgated by the race hustling Dr Harris, that Powell was "playing the race card" is repeated uncritically by Edwards, as if it was an indisputable fact. This is typical of the way in which Edwards accepts all the claims, no matter how controversial or how obviously false, that are made by her three left-wing interviewees, while barely giving any consideration whatsoever to the views of those who thought Powell was right then, or those of us who think that, with the benefit of hindsight, he was remarkably prescient. Kathryn Edwards should be proud: her whole piece is a classic of BBC propagandising dressed up as impartial reporting!


muzzylogic said...

Why is the word 'British' in quotation marks? The clear imputation is that there are no such people as the native British.

There isn't. We're a race of mongrels and Britain has always experienced immigration. Or so the left have been saying for many years. Both are lies, generally made by people with strong ethnic agendas of their own:

Britain has always attracted immigrants - the only truly indigenous "English" are the Celts, pushed by the Romans out of England and into what are now Wales and the west country. After the Romans came the Anglo-Saxons, and after them the Normans, and later still the Huguenots and the Irish, and assorted Germans and Italians. Then - 150 years ago - came the Russians and the Romanians and the Poles, many though not all of whom were Jewish. After 1945, there were large influxes of people of African descent, and later from Asia. More recently, there has been a further influx from Poland and other eastern European countries... The Jews, it was said, caused housing shortages and brought diseases into this country. But the most telling accusation made against the Jews was that they were "a people apart." When the Jews moved into a neighbourhood (the accusation ran), its "English" (or "Scottish," or "Welsh") character was compromised. Churches became synagogues. Jewish scents replaced "English" (or "Scottish," or "Welsh") fragrances... Last month the present Conservative leader called for a "grown-up conversation" about immigration. He was praised by none other than Trevor Phillips (head of the Equality Commission and himself of Afro-Caribbean descent) for so doing. But when the Conservative candidate for Halesowen, Nigel Hastilow, dared to mention the name of Enoch Powell in a recent newspaper article on immigration, he was immediately summoned to a meeting with Tory chair Caroline Spelman to explain himself, and quickly resigned his candidacy.

Can you imagine Jews or Afro-Caribbeans (no sneer-quotes for them) being told that they have no identity, no history and no right to nations of their own?

Guardian apostate said...

Rob Marris is my local MP. I wrote to him once with some mild criticisms of immigration and he 'likened my comments to his predecessor Enoch Powell'. Pompous fool. Immigration is slowly destroying Wolverhampton and more and more people are beginning to wake up to the fact. The idea that the area I live in, which was predominantly English when I moved here 15 years ago, is now better by the English now being a minority in an area largely made up of Indians and Afrocaribbeans is risible.

Alex said...

Many different groups of people have made their home in Britain since the last Ice Age. There is a difference, however, between settlers and immigrants.

Settlers create a political state in an uninhabited, underpopulated, or uncivilized territory.

Immigrants arrive in a political entity with established borders through which they are permitted to enter.

Guardian apostate said...

Rob Marris is also the moronic Labour MP who can be seen addressing Birmingham Mosque in the C4 Undercover Mosque documentary telling them, without any qualification whatsoever, he was a 'friend of Islam'.

Anonymous said...

The lefties always amaze me.

On the one hand, they spit on the English who, by and large, have descended from the protagonists of the wars against the Danes and Romans, as mongrels who just blew in off the street, and have no culture, no nation.

And then they spit on the Jews who can demonstrate their presence in the holy land for about six thousand years, and tell them they all arrived from Brooklyn in 1948.

And then they look at some pakistani jihadist, who just stepped off the plane at Heathrow, and demand he be treated as a British citizen. Despite his being here illegally, not speaking English, and visibly aggressive and hostile to every semblance of Britishness which disturbs his baleful gaze.

I reckon I know what's going on. There is a doctrine of dispossession at work here. They are working towards a scenario in which we, the British, lose our security of tenure in our own homeland.


Anonymous said...

The feedback from this week's Question Time especially from a well known author showed that most people want the immigration question to be answered truthfully. and not with Nu Labor mantras and spin.
Has our our culture been damaged from the immigration of the last 8 years - this was the question that should have been put forward to the audience~ not the one-dimensional one put to them.

Alex said...

Questions about immigration can't be answered truthfully in public life. It's professional suicide to do that - which the "classic case" of Enoch Powell suggests.