Revealed! Blindness is the cause of Muslim immigration

Telegraph columnist claims immigration was high under Blunkett because “he couldn’t see what was hap

Melanie McDonagh, who once voiced her concerns over Somali mothers having too many children in west London, is back on the mean streets of Kensington -- this time worrying about "the influx of Palestinians, Iranians, Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Turks and Somalis to the capital".

"Mass immigration from the Muslim world", she says, has led to "alienation"; and elderly white people are "encountering" anti-Gaza blockade demonstrators just walking distance from Harrods.

It's chilling that this kind of thing could happen in such a nice (and expensive) part of town. One consolation is that "it's something the better-off residents of Kensington usually only see on anti-Israel demonstrations". In other parts of London, "it's society as it is now". Mercy.

I'm glad, though, that someone has finally said the unsayable: disability is at the heart of this immigration problem. The "one reason why much of the influx [of Muslims] took place when David Blunkett was home secretary is" -- of course -- "that he was blind; he couldn't actually see what was happening".

Ha ha. Blind people are funny because they can't see. Another gem from the Telegraph.

Special subscription offer: Get 12 issues for £12 plus a free copy of Andy Beckett's "When the Lights Went Out".

 

Yo Zushi is a contributing writer for the New Statesman. His work as a musician is released by Eidola Records.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Why Prince Charles and Princess Anne are both wrong on GM foods

The latest tiff between toffs gives plenty of food for thought.

I don’t have siblings, so I was weirdly curious as a kid about friends who did, especially when they argued (which was often). One thing I noticed was the importance of superlatives: of being the best child, the most right, and the first to have been wronged. And it turns out things are no different for the Royals.

You might think selective breeding would be a subject on which Prince Charles and Princess Anne would share common ground, but when it comes to genetically modified crops they have very different opinions.

According to Princess Anne, the UK should ditch its concerns about GM and give the technology the green light. In an interview to be broadcast on Radio 4’s Farming Today, she said would be keen to raise both modified crops and livestock on her own land.

“Most of us would argue we have been genetically modifying food since man started to be agrarian,” she said (rallying the old first-is-best argument to her cause). She also argued that the practice can help reduce the price of our food and improve the lives of animals - and “suspects” that there are not many downsides.

Unfortunately for Princess Anne, her Royal “us” does not include her brother Charles, who thinks that GM is The Worst.

In 2008, he warned that genetically engineered food “will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.”  Supporting such a path would risk handing control of our food-chain to giant corporations, he warned -  leading to “absolute disaster” and “unmentionable awfulness” and “the absolute destruction of everything”.

Normally such a spat could be written off as a toff-tiff. But with Brexit looming, a change to our present ban on growing GM crops commercially looks ever more likely.

In this light, the need to swap rhetoric for reason is urgent. And the most useful anti-GM argument might instead be that offered by the United Nations’ cold, hard data on crop yields.

Analysis by the New York Times shows that, in comparison to Europe, the United States and Canada have “gained no discernible advantages” from their use of GM (in terms of food per acre). Not only this, but herbicide use in the US has increased rather than fallen.

In sum: let's swap superlatives and speculation for sense.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.