ANGRY MOB

The Mail has been continuing its hate campaign against Muslims with determination recently. Not content with reporting the small protest conducted by around 15 Muslims as a 'hate-filled mob', they then investigated those protesting, giving out background details - like where they work - and now it seems people have found out where some of the protesters live. Richard Littlejohn wrote a column arguing that the protesters should be sent home, even though they are British citizens; he also wished that they were sent somewhere 'that would involve orange jumpsuits, armed guards, razor-wire and large dogs' and added that 'the Royal Anglians would have been forgiven had they fixed bayonets and charged'.

The Mail and many other tabloid papers seem to argue that the protest was inciting racial hatred, and that those who took part hate Britain. Now, let's try and put the protest into context: it was a very small group of Muslims, protesting against the British troops and their action in Basra. The protest was pretty moronic, as soldiers follow orders and are not part of the political process, so the protest should have been aimed at the government (not that you are allowed to protest outside parliament).

The protesters did not seem to make any racial slurs against England, as protesting against the action of the British Army is not protesting against Britain as a whole. Furthermore, the protest, no matter how distasteful, was not violent; therefore the police had no need to take action against them. Those acting violently towards the protesters had to be restrained, and in the aftermath one 18-year-old man has been charged with 'racially aggravated harassment, involving verbal abuse... a second man, in his 40s, was issued with a fixed penalty notice'.

In a free society such protests can take place, and the Mail is normally a champion of free speech, so it seems strange why they constantly imply that somehow the police were at fault for not arresting the protesters or at least stopping the protest. The above information about those arrested for abusing the protesters is taken from the latest Mail article inciting hatred towards Muslims: Fury as Islamic extremist who abused British troops is given 24-hour police protection.

 As usual the Mail readers are told at the start of the article exactly how they should react to the story: 'fury'. They are then again told that the protest was actually 'abuse' - they use the word 'abused' to directly replace the word 'protest', very insidious. The article does exactly what it says on the tin, one of the protesters has been tracked down by some members of the public, who have seen fit to respond to peaceful protest with vandalism:

Naturally the Mail has a few quotes from upset neighbours, who just happen to be 'hard-working taxpayers', said neighbours completely miss the point, but the Mail still puts in the quotations anyway, because they support the warped reality that the Mail is trying to enforce:

The reason you are not treated to CCTV and police protection is because you suffered a break in, you didn't have the tabloid press baying for your blood and people tracking down your house and attacking it. Are the crimes related? How has he put your homes in jeopardy, draped as they are with 'Union Jack flags', i'm sure would be attackers can locate the correct house - I mean, they should be able to spot the house with no windows and a police car outside - the Mail have even provided a helpful photo to aid would-be attackers trying to locate the house. The cost borne by tax payers is as a result of the attackers, not the attacked, this is a perversion of logic that many people have arrived at thanks to the way the tabloids have reported the whole situation.

 Ignoring the spelling mistake (the Mail can't afford to pay editors and Littlejohn) - and the creeping suspicion that 'another neighbour' doesn't actually exist, and is merely a fictional mouthpiece for an impromptu Mail editorial - this is another argument full of misinterpretation. Firstly, the protest was against the troops, it wasn't racist - if it was, the police could have stopped it for inciting racial hatred. They did not, and in fact had to arrest those who reacted angrily and racially to the protesters.

Secondly, white racists are not generally threatened in the same way, and are rarely on the receiving end of violence. In fact, they form legitimate political parties which you can vote for, because - and this is the irony - we live in a tolerant society. I do not agree with the BNP, but I don't incite members of the public to go round to their house and smash their house and car windows. If this happened, and the tabloid press were inciting fresh violence, then the 'white-racists' would of course receive police protection. Finally, the protesters never stated that they 'hate Britain', they merely protested against the troops - the 'hate for Britain' is presumed by the Mail and other tabloid papers trying to stir up more hatred.

The article ends with the information on those arrested for reacting violently, followed by the final short sentence: 'None of the Muslim protesters was arrested'. Again, making it clear that the police failed to react to the protest, yet they are acting to protect the Muslims. The message is clear: if the police will not act, someone else must make a stand.

The Mail commentators certainly take this on board:

 I could go on posting the racist, paranoid, ignorant ramblings for far too long. All of these posts are rated well into the green by other Mail readers, whilst a sane comment:

is voted nearly 900 red.