Raising the temperature on immigration

Here's the last sentence of a Mail on Sunday article by Christopher Caldwell:

Discussing immigration and its consequences openly is not rude. It is necessary to lower the temperature of the debate.

And here's the headline to the very same article:

Immigration made America strong - but it threatens to ruin Europe.

Yeh, that's good. Really 'lowering the temperature' there.

And here's another reasonable, calming contribution to the immigration debate:

Europe opened the door to mass immigration in the Fifties and discovered - as the United States did before it - that it is impossible to open that door just a fraction. Immigration, though intended as a solution to a short-term labour crisis, has become, without anyone particularly wanting it to be, a permanent feature of the landscape.

Read that again:

Immigration...has become, without anyone particularly wanting it to be, a permanent feature of the landscape.

Who exactly has he asked to make the statement that no-one particularly wants immigration to be a permanent feature of European life?

It must be everyone in Europe for him to be able to make such an extraordinary claim.

He is dishonest in other ways too. When talking about the Pew report about the number of Muslims in the world, he writes:

According to the report, there are now 1.6billion Muslims, a quarter of the world's population.

And they are distributed in surprising ways - there are more Muslims in Germany than in Lebanon, for example. Recent projections by the British Government show the population rising to 71 million within 20 years, due mainly to migration.

It's a clever trick - he goes from Muslims to overall immigration within the same paragraph, as if trying to make the case that if the British population does hit 71 million, it's all down to Muslims. And that's who you need to fear.

Caldwell, who works for the right-wing Weekly Standard in America, has written that Muslims are:

conquering Europe's cities, street by street

and noted:

Of course minorities can shape countries. They can conquer countries. There were probably fewer Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917 than there are Islamists in Europe today.

So you can see he's exactly the sort of person who can 'lower the temperature' of an immigration debate.

He wheels out that old canard of 'you can't talk about immigration any more' in the middle of a lenghty article in the Sunday paper with the second biggest circulation in Britain. And then claims:

But if you can't talk openly, people will lack information. People who lack information fear the worst. People who fear the worst act irresponsibly.

And, for once, he's right. Just not in the way he thinks.

For someone to complain in the Mail newspapers about people 'lacking information' and thus 'fearing the worst' on immigration issues is just too bizarre for words.

'Christians under attack' round-up

Two stories in the Mail on Sunday, one which first appeared in the Telegraph, implying that Christians are under siege.

The first is a slightly curious report about Aintree hotel couple Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang. The Mail claims they have been hauled before court after defending their beliefs in discussion with Muslim guest.

Note the use of the emotive 'hauled' to suggest something heavy handed and unnecessary. The first line also makes it clear whose side the Mail is on:

A Christian couple have been charged with a criminal offence after taking part in what they regarded as a reasonable discussion about religion with guests at their hotel.

The view of the Muslim guest is not given, and the Mail admits the facts are 'disputed'.

It goes further in the editorial, saying:

It is hard to comment on the detail of the case...since both prosecution and defence seem reluctant to speak about it.

But if it is so hard to comment and the facts are disputed, how does the Mail feel able to write a very a slanted article and biased editorial on the case?

The other story is - and stop me if you have heard it before - a Christian woman banned from wearing a necklace by workplace rules. The Mail (and indeed the Telegraph, twice, and the Times) have sniffed a Christian-being-persecuted-for-health-and-safety-and-political-correctness reasons and gone to town.

But here's how the Mail headline reads:

Christian nurse removed from frontline duty for wearing cross necklace

If it read 'Nurse removed from frontline duty for wearing necklace' would anyone be interested? No. But that is the story.

Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital have said all necklaces are banned:

our uniform and dress code policy does not allow our staff to wear necklaces, with or without anything attached to it...If a member of staff asked if they could wear a crucifix pinned on their uniform lapel this would not comply with the same policy for the same reasons but it would be acceptable to wear it if pinned inside their uniform lapel or pocket.

So nurse Shirley Chaplin can still wear her cross if she wants. They make that quite clear. There is no attempt to stop her wearing a symbol of her faith. Just not on a necklace.

But she throws out a few Mail-arousing quotes about 'discriminating against Christians' and a 'blatant piece of political correctness' and they rise to the bait exactly as expected.

But the Hospital have their rules, asked her to remove the necklace and have taken off frontline duty until she complies. In other circumstances you could see the Mail saying 'why can't she just abide by the rules?'

But because she's a Christian (middle aged, white, two children, married, from Devon) they see it as a sign of something bigger.

Back in the Telegraph, 'journalist and social commentator' Ed West misinterprets the story for his own agenda. He doesn't see a Muslim plot but an atheist one. But he engages in a very convenient bit of misunderstanding.

The Trust says about religious symbols:

Exceptions are made for requirements of faith, but a crucifix is not considered to fall under this category, they added.

West misleadingly retorts:

How can a crucifix, the most recognisable religious symbol and, dare I say it, brand logo of all time, not be recognised as a religious symbol?

Err, well who said it wasn't? Certainly not the Hospital Trust. The point they made was not whether a crucifix is a 'symbol' of faith but whether wearing one is a 'requirement of faith'. And they say it isn't.

Incidentally, West is features editor of the Catholic Herald and likes the new book by Christopher Caldwell (discussed here). He refers to Caldwell as:

a mild-mannered Financial Times journalist

instead of calling him:

a journalist and senior editor at The Weekly Standard

The Weekly Standard being a right-wing rag edited and founded by Sarah Palin's biggest supporter, Bill Kristol.

In the wake of Patrick Swayze's death, West also wrote about Red Dawn as

one of the best action movies of all time.

Rather than a ludicrous right-wing wank-fant. And he can't have seen many action movies either.

Telegraph runs 'Muslim takeover of Europe' scare stories

Not one, but two articles by Adrian Michaels in today's Telegraph indulge in some anti-Islam scaremongering which will no doubt pop up on the BNP website within a day or two.

A fifth of European Union will be Muslim by 2050 and Muslim Europe: the demographic time bomb transforming our continent are the two headlines, and the use of 'time bomb' in the latter sets the agenda straight aware. The Telegraph obviously regards Muslims as destructive and dangerous.

The first story is bizarrely thin. Michaels says it is 'an investigation by the Telegraph' using 'data gathered from various sources'. But he does not say what these sources are (although it becomes clear in the second article they may not be entirely reliable).

What's curious about this is nearly a month ago, a William Underhill article in Newsweek entitled Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong made the case against the 'Muslim takeover of Europe' argument. Here's a key excerpt:

Coming up with a reasonable estimate for the percentage of Muslims now living in Europe, let alone making projections for the future, is a virtually impossible task.

The number of illegal immigrants is unknown and, in a sign of the sensitivity of the issue, many countries including France and Germany do not even tally census data on the religion of legal residents.

A virtually impossible task? Hmm. But then Michaels starts hedging his bets early in the 'time bomb' article:

a recent rush into the EU by migrants, including millions of Muslims, will change the continent beyond recognition over the next two decades, and almost no policy-makers are talking about it.

The numbers are startling. Only 3.2 per cent of Spain's population was foreign-born in 1998. In 2007 it was 13.4 per cent.

Notice how 'foreign born' and 'Muslim' become almost interchangeable in that passage. He continues:

Europe's Muslim population has more than doubled in the past 30 years and will have doubled again by 2015.

Which seems at odds with what Newsweek said about many countries not collecting the appropriate data. Indeed, Michaels admits as much much further into the article:

raw details are hard to come by as the data is sensitive: many countries in the EU do not collect population statistics by religion.

Hmm. So is any of this reporting even remotely reliable? Michaels switches back to immigration overall:

EU numbers on general immigration tell a story on their own.

Well, yes, they do, but it's not one about the number of Muslims in Europe. So why the intertwining of the two issues? Because:

Muslims represent a particular set of issues beyond the fact that atrocities have been committed in the West in the name of Islam.

Ahh, so that's why the headline refers to a 'time bomb'. But Michaels admits:

Recent polls have tended to show that the feared radicalisation of Europe's Muslims has not occurred.

There's something quite unpleasant about an assumption that Europe's Muslims would be 'radicalised', or that we're all in danger if there are more Muslims around.

He goes on to quote a couple of reports - a US Air Force one (rather oddly) and Christopher Caldwell, a senior editor for the right-wing Weekly Standard, who has written a book on the subject.

Caldwell, it should be added, predicted in the New York Times that it is 'just possible that [Robert Kilroy-Silk] and UKIP will transform the politics of Britain and of Europe', so we might just take his predictions with a pinch of salt. Michaels writes:

Whites will be in a minority in Birmingham by 2026, says Christopher Caldwell

Which isn't about Muslims at all, but is mixed in which lots of stats about them (like the migrant and foreign born stuff earlier). And then:

Austria was 90 per cent Catholic in the 20th century but Islam could be the majority religion among Austrians aged under 15 by 2050, says Mr Caldwell.

So it 'could' happen? Islam 'could' be the majority religion for, not the whole of Austria, but just the under 15s. In 40 years. Maybe.

Some 'time bomb'.

Back to Newsweek, for the final word on the issue:

Bottom line: given the number of variables, demographers are loath to make predictions about the number of Muslims in Europe in the years to come.

"You would almost have to make it up," says Carl Haub, the senior demographer at the Population Reference Bureau in Washington.