The Mail's call for action against migrant boats from Libya is arguably worse than Katie Hopkins's
Most of the papers this morning have reports from aboard HMS Bulwark, the Royal Navy vessel whose crew has rescued 1,200 people attempting to reach Europe via the Mediterranean.
The invitation to reporters was likely part of a public relations drive to show the good work Britain is doing to help those fleeing war and persecution in north Africa and the middle east.
The Daily Mail was suitably impressed by the boys and girls in blue, but had some concerns. Its leader column today said:
“Isn’t the grave danger, however, that by providing would-be illegal immigrants safe passage to Europe, the government risks encouraging even more people to make this perilous journey – with potentially catastrophic consequences?”
Surely the ‘grave danger’ for the people directly affected is in Syria, from where many of them have escaped, and where they risk being blown apart, raped, tortured or beheaded on camera. Others are fleeing war and persecution in Eritrea, Somalia and Afghanistan.
If people are willing to risk death by drowning to get away from this, they don’t require any ‘pull factor’ from the Royal Navy.
The column chuggs along:
“The only sustainable way to tackle this crisis – Defence Secretary Michael Fallon estimates 500,000 migrants may be preparing to make the trip – is to stop the boats leaving Libya in the first place, by any means necessary.”
‘By any means necessary’ – that is how the column ends.
It’s quite novel to read the Daily Mail echoing the famous words of Malcolm X, though I doubt either party would welcome the association. But one is left to wonder where this militant position takes us.
What policy does the Mail actually favour? A naval blockade of the northern coast of Africa? Should the Royal Navy open fire on boats they suspect of carrying migrants? Or perhaps use explosives, of the kind and from which the boats’ terrified passengers have likely fled?
Tough talk without specifics is very dangerous. Katie Hopkins was at least clear on what she wanted in her infamous piece for the Sun.
The Daily Mail ought to clarify what ‘stop the boats leaving Libya in the first place, by any means necessary’, actually means.
Adam Barnett is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow MediaWatch on Twitter
Read more:
Daily Mail’s 5 step guide to demonising migrants
Daily Mail says Syrian refugees turn Greek holiday town into ‘disgusting hellhole’
Sign up for our weekly email by clicking here.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
33 Responses to “Daily Mail says boats of migrants should be stopped ‘by any means necessary’”
swat
The strategy is bound to fail, because the one thing stopping it is ‘compassion’ and basically these so-called refugees have us over a barrel, and the know it and will play on it for all its worth. They will push their children and pregnant women and their invalid forward to tug at the heart strings. There are half a million on their way, and there’s very little we can do to stop it. Unfortunately the countries in the Med are hit the most, but I imagine a large number will find their way to the UK in due course. Unless something drastic is done.
We had these problems with the Somali pirates, and the influx from Calais Sangatte, but we still haven’t worked out how to stop them.
Matt Booth
I’m not in favour of blowing these ships out of the water, but they should be sent back to where they initially come from.
I consider myself left wing, I really do, but I’m not in favour of letting these people just land on European shores and end up in the UK.
Adam writes “Surely the ‘grave danger’ for the people directly affected is in Syria” – but these boats were near Libya, not Syria.
Regardless, I don’t agree with the insinuation in the Daily Mail, but I don’t agree on granting them asylum now they’ve tried to cross illegally into the EU. Send them back to where ever the ship come from and have them go about the proper means.
Harold
That is why I do not read the Mail, my newsagent keeps it on the “top shelf” or out of site makes customers ask for it. The problem with the Mail it supports or provokes some very extreme views.
Jacko
Just because a viewpoint is extreme does not make it necessarily incorrect. The belief that the world was round was once an extreme viewpoint. So was the belief that smoking causes cancer. Extreme viewpoints are what challenges and progresses mankind out of the humdrum middle ground belief of the masses.
Incidentally, there’s something symbolically left wing about your newsagent. The fact that he believes his customers are like small children and need to be protected from themselves in a pseudo paternalistic way. He knows what’s best for their money. The fact that he seeks to impose his viewpoint and values on them. The fact that he doesn’t understand the free market or even how to run a business. Why doesn’t he just let the people who want to, buy the paper and think for themselves?
Cole
A lot of these people have ended up in Libya after fleeing the war in Syria (and Libya itself is a total mess). The question – and I don’t know the answer – is what we do about this. We shouldn’t wash our hands of the issue, not least as you can in part trace back the problem to endless European interference in the Middle East.