Comments on: A very dim engagement

By: links for 2009-06-08 « Embololalia

links for 2009-06-08 « Embololalia — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:38:32 +0000

[...] A very dim engagement « Paperhouse These aren’t figures about the actual, quantifiable effect of immigration and multiculturalism on the UK. They’re figures about the perceived effect. And where do people derive these perceptions from? A popular media which propagates a constant sense of hostility and anxiety towards non-white, non-Christian groups, and a government which derives its idea of consensus from the opinion pages of the press and vomits up the rhetoric of fear and hate. (tags: bnp tabloids racism europeanparliament journalism uk) [...]

By: Northern Uproar « Shiraz Socialist

Northern Uproar « Shiraz Socialist — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:45:15 +0000

[...] so. As Sarah Dictum points out, there is no point in engaging or accommodating racists. They should be opposed and their arguments [...]

By: Northern Uproar « Max Dunbar

Northern Uproar « Max Dunbar — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:42:28 +0000

[...] so. As Sarah Dictum points out, there is no point in engaging or accommodating racists. They should be opposed and their arguments [...]

By: Sarah

Sarah — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:10:22 +0000

Well, the "strongly held views" have already made their way into policy with detention centres and dawn deportations. It's simply not true to say that they've been ignored - if anything, they've been given weight beyond their merit. The BNP wins had more to do with abstainers than defectors (mini analysis here) so I'm unconvinced that this means everyone else has to offer anti-immigration policies, even if I did accept the logic that policies should supply a perceived demand, rather than an actual need. And when that perceived demand is for hate-inciting, holocaust-denying and race-baiting, it shouldn't be touched with a barge pole.

By: Bruno

Bruno — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:56:54 +0000

Vague assurances on the worth of present immigration & asylum policies are no longer believed. The solution is to address peoples concerns through revised immigration & asylum policy, not to pretend that peoples concerns are wrong and if only the political establishment could get “on message” the concerns will disappear.

Both UKIP & BNP ran on anti-immigration tickets. Those who defected and voted for both are sending a message that their strongly held views on immigration & asylum need to be addressed, not re-ignored. Hazel Blears, Frank Field, Nicohlas Soames and others have been warning of this for some time.

By: Joel

Joel — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:52:47 +0000

Obviously I agree, but this is the bit I found most confusing:

“80 per cent feel that the government has lied to them about the scale of migration”

Do 80 percent of people even have a clear idea of what the government says the scale of migration is? I definitely don’t, but then I only read the papers for David Mitchell’s column.

By: Mog

Mog — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 02:22:43 +0000

Powerful writing Sarah.

By: felixbadanimal

felixbadanimal — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:24:00 +0000

A magnificent post in the face of the incredibly depressing news that the BNP have gained a seat in Brussels.

Your point about decontextualised statistics is an excellent one and you are right that the tub-thumping anti-immigration rhetoric bandied about has very little to do with exploring the true effects of multiculturalism or immigration in the UK and everything to do with spreading a climate of hate and fear.

The obfuscating nature of the BNP’s language is unforgiveable in terms of repackaging and selling racism to its voters and I applaud your tireless efforts here at demystifying and de-obfuscating that language and exposing its true violence.

By: solidchris

solidchris — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 23:45:44 +0000

Sarah, the news. They’re in, here in Yorkshire. 120,000 people voted for them. It is quite depressing.