Fake news, the fas­cist Left and the REAL purveyors of ha­tred

Daily Mail - - Front Page -

SEE PAGE 16

FIRST, an apol­ogy to our read­ers. We re­alise that they are not in­ter­ested in our dif­fer­ences with other news­pa­pers, which in­evitably risk be­ing seen as self-ob­sessed navel-gaz­ing. But this week the Guardian pub­lished a car­toon so sick and dis­gust­ing — so de­ranged and of­fen­sive to the four mil­lion de­cent, hu­mane and re­spon­si­ble peo­ple who read us — that we owe it to every one of them to lay to rest this ma­li­cious smear.

The calumny in ques­tion was a crude draw­ing of the van in which a white man, be­lieved to be a racist thug and drunken so­cial in­ad­e­quate, mowed down Mus­lim wor­ship­pers ear­lier this week. Em­bla­zoned on the side of the ve­hi­cle were the words: ‘Read the Sun and Daily Mail.’

The im­pli­ca­tion was as un­mis­tak­able as it was poi­sonous. The Guardian was telling its fol­low­ers that the Daily Mail and its read­ers are vi­cious big­ots with the blood of in­no­cent, peace-lov­ing Mus­lims on their hands.

If this had been an iso­lated ex­am­ple of the Left’s bil­ious mal­ice, we might have let it pass with noth­ing more than a shud­der of re­vul­sion. Af­ter all, car­toon­ists, in­clud­ing our own, are tra­di­tion­ally al­lowed great li­cence.

But this is far from a one-off in­sult to our read­ers, who — as should go with­out say­ing — were as hor­ri­fied and ap­palled as the rest of the coun­try by the Fins­bury Park at­tack.

No, hardly a day passes with­out an­other drip, drip, drip of men­da­cious vit­riol and bile from Guardian writ­ers, at­tack­ing us and our read­er­ship and, by im­pli­ca­tion, all fair-minded, small- c con­ser­va­tives who make up the great ma­jor­ity in this coun­try. Ear­lier this month a Guardian on­line colum­nist, So­phie Hea­wood, tweeted: ‘Gen­uinely ex­cited for a fu­ture in which the Daily Mail read­ers are all dead.’

She later deleted it, but noth­ing can wipe out the big­otry and ha­tred in her orig­i­nal tweet.

In March, at­tack­ing us for light­heart­edly com­par­ing Theresa May’s legs with those of Ni­cola Stur­geon, the Guardian’s je­je­une and ex­citable Left­wing colum­nist Owen Jones de­scribed the Mail thus: ‘It comes to some­thing when this open sewer is still ca­pa­ble of shock­ing us with its stench.’

Ear­lier this week, a Guardian writer at­tacked the Daily Mail for car­ry­ing com­ments by the con­tro­ver­sial­ist Katie Hop­kins. That was a lie. The Guardian and its writer know that Ms Hop­kins has noth­ing to do with the Daily Mail, but works for Mail On­line — a to­tally sep­a­rate en­tity that has its own pub­lisher, its own read­er­ship, dif­fer­ent con­tent and a very dif­fer­ent world view.

The Guardian knows this, be­cause the Mail has told it count­less times, but, hey, why let a lit­tle lie get in the way of a good smear?

Only yes­ter­day, the Guardian pub­lished a half-wit­ted reader’s let­ter, ac­cus­ing the Mail of com­plic­ity in acts of mind­less vi­o­lence — in­clud­ing last year’s hideous mur­der of the Labour MP Jo Cox, whose hus­band the Mail in­ter­viewed over two pages last week, urg­ing read­ers to join in one of his rec­on­cil­i­a­tion street par­ties at the week­end.

With an awe-in­spir­ing lack of self­aware­ness or re­spect for the truth, its cor­re­spon­dent ranted: ‘The main or­gan of hate speech in Bri­tain, as ev­ery­one knows, is the Right-wing ex­trem­ist Daily Mail, also the main au­thor of Brexit. So why on earth is it not be­ing held to ac­count?

‘If any ac­tual per­son stood on the street shout­ing the sort of bile that pa­per pro­duces daily, they could be pros­e­cuted for hate speech. Surely it is time to launch a group ac­tion by vic­tims, on be­half of us all, against the Daily Mail for hate speech and gen­eral in­cite­ment to vi­o­lence.’

For the Guardian’s edi­tor to pub­lish such de­luded, defam­a­tory non­sense — which in it­self is a naked in­cite­ment to vi­o­lence (though the pa­per clearly lacks the nous to see this) — speaks vol­umes about the ha­tred that grips this ‘voice of lib­er­al­ism’.

But then the ex­am­ples of its over-thetop rant­ing are count­less, ac­cus­ing the Mail with­out a shred of foun­da­tion of fan­ning the flames of Is­lam­o­pho­bia and racism and gen­er­ally ad­vo­cat­ing Right-wing ex­trem­ism.

Of course, it wouldn’t mat­ter so much if these in­fan­tile lies were con­fined to the pages of a lit­tle-read dy­ing pa­per. But in this age of so­cial me­dia, they are spread and am­pli­fied through the great dis­tort­ing echo-cham­ber of the in­ter­net, where the mob re­ally does rule — and glee­fully re­peated by BBC ‘co­me­di­ans’ when they are not in­dulging in their nor­mal sta­ple of lava­to­rial hu­mour.

For the record — not that this mat­ters to the fake news the Guardian cre­ates about the Mail — this pa­per has al­ways been against UKIP, so much so that Nigel Farage blamed us for his lack of elec­toral suc­cess.

For the record, the Mail was con­sis­tently against Blair’s and Cameron’s wars in Iraq and Libya, ar­gu­ing that such il­le­gal in­cur­sions would stoke a sense of griev­ance among Mus­lims world­wide — a griev­ance that has been the an­i­mus be­hind so many of the ter­ror­ist at­tacks in Bri­tain to­day. We were also the first pa­per un­equiv­o­cally to con­demn Guan­tanamo Bay and con­sis­tently op­posed Bri­tain’s in­volve­ment in tor­ture. Is to ar­gue that Is­lam­o­pho­bic?

Yes, this pa­per ar­gued strongly for with­drawal from the EU ( an un­for­give­able sin in the eyes of the Guardian’s metropoli­tan europhile read­ers). But to claim this pa­per is the au­thor of Brexit, as the Guardian’s let­ter writer did this week, is sim­ply in­sane.

Our views on the EU — held con­sis­tently over 25 years — are shared by 17.4 mil­lion lovers of Bri­tish democ­racy from every part of the po­lit­i­cal spec­trum, in­clud­ing huge num­bers of tra­di­tional Labour vot­ers who cer­tainly don’t read the Mail.

But to the Guardian, of course, those peo­ple are stupid, un­e­d­u­cated racists, who are not in­tel­li­gent enough to un­der­stand the virtues of be­long­ing to a vast un­demo­cratic be­he­moth which has re­duced the economies of sev­eral mem­ber states to ashes.

We also read­ily de­clare that we have called for re­straints on mass im­mi­gra­tion — a wish shared not only by a large ma­jor­ity in Bri­tain but, as a Chatham House sur­vey found this week, by tens of mil­lions of work­ing peo­ple through­out Europe.

But, as we never cease to stress, we har­bour not the faintest an­i­mos­ity to­wards oth­ers on ac­count of their colour or creed. On the con­trary, we have un­fail­ingly ac­knowl­edged the con­tri­bu­tion to our so­ci­ety made by hard-work­ing set­tlers from over­seas, while ex­press­ing strong ad­mi­ra­tion for many of the virtues es­poused by Is­lam.

In­deed, the Mail has a very con­sid­er­able read­er­ship among Bri­tish Asians, who share our com­mit­ment to fam­ily val­ues and as­pi­ra­tions.

No, our sole mo­tives for de­mand­ing bor­der con­trols are to re­lieve the pres­sure of num­bers on school places, hos­pi­tal beds, wages, hous­ing, trans­port and other in­fra­struc­ture, pre­serve our national iden­tity and im­prove our se­cu­rity and so­cial co­he­sion.

In­deed, we will not take lessons from the Guardian about com­pas­sion for mem­bers of other races. Af­ter the Manch­ester atroc­ity, we launched an ap­peal whose pro­ceeds will be shared among vic­tims and in­ter­faith char­i­ties, work­ing to pro­mote har­mony be­tween mem­bers of dif­fer­ent re­li­gions.

Within hours of the Gren­fell Tower dis­as­ter, the Mail’s man­age­ment were the first to of­fer prac­ti­cal sup­port, giv­ing £100,000 to the vic­tims, with a prom­ise to match staff con­tri­bu­tions up to a fur­ther £50,000.

Nor will we take lessons on racism from the Guardian. Our cam­paign to bring Stephen Lawrence’s mur­der­ers to jus­tice, for which the edi­tor of this pa­per could have been jailed, did more to im­prove race re­la­tions in this coun­try than any­thing the Guardian has ever achieved.

Nor will we take cen­sure for incit­ing vi­o­lence from a pa­per that dam­aged the West’s abil­ity to com­bat ter­ror­ism by pub­lish­ing clas­si­fied emails leaked by those egre­gious traitors As­sange and Snow­den.

For the Guardian — which, be­cause of crim­i­nally stupid busi­ness de­ci­sions has lost hun­dreds of mil­lions of pounds over the years — we have one ques­tion: in the name of sanc­ti­mony, what, when you han­dle your own af­fairs so badly, gives you the right to sit in judg­ment on other pa­pers?

Your jaded prod­uct is ad­dicted to sub­sidy and steeped in pub­lic sec­tor men­tal­ity — which is why you merely preach the same failed an­swer to every prob­lem: throw more pub­lic money at it.

The Mail will, how­ever, con­fess to one sin in the Guardian’s eyes: we love our coun­try, fear its en­e­mies, and be­lieve ev­ery­thing pos­si­ble should be done to pro­tect its peo­ple.

No­body is obliged to agree with the Mail’s views. We ask only that the Guardian should stop so ma­lignly mis­rep­re­sent­ing them — and stop hat­ing the mil­lions of de­cent, small- c con­ser­va­tives who share them.

The truth is that the Guardian and the fas­cist Left are the REAL purveyors of hate in this coun­try.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.