It is said that since Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office, it is once again possible to use the word ‘retarded’. Or at least to use it without being cancelled by a group of demonic online third parties pretending to be woefully offended by the use of an often-useful term. I don’t know how long this window of opportunity will remain open, so let me note while I can that it is hard to think of a country in the world that has a more retarded public discourse than Britain.
Almost everyone in public life aims to stop any discussion of the issues via obfuscation and misrepresentation
The journalist Andrew Norfolk died this month at the age of 60. For once the term ‘brave’ deserves to be used of a journalist. A gentle-mannered and kindly man, Norfolk was the Times reporter who did some proper reporting. In 2011 he broke front-page after front-page news exposing the truth about what is still called the ‘grooming gangs’ scandal. His work was factual, unbiased and the result of sitting down with multiple victims. He explained in as level and careful a way as possible the distinct racial and religious components that led to Muslim men of mainly Pakistani origin singling out young white working-class girls for systemic abuse.
The care with which Norfolk wrote about this did not protect him from criticism. The usual people and organisations accused him of ‘Islamophobia’ and more.
A smart society might have turned its ire on the people who were hellbent on keeping the story covered up in this manner. After all, who tries to stop the revelation of mass child-rape by attacking the messenger? Still, Norfolk’s reporting had a huge impact. It was thanks to his work that an inquiry was set up into the events in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013 that found that at least 1,400 children had been raped in that area alone.
This was actual journalism. But in the same week that Norfolk died, 14 years on from his ground-breaking work, the journalist Emily Maitlis could be found trying not to deal with the issue. Maitlis now hosts a podcast with former colleagues from the BBC who like her found it impossible to keep their own political views a secret. On News Agents they allow all their long-disguised opinions out into the open.
Last week she interviewed the MP Rupert Lowe, formerly of Reform. Lowe has crowd-funded to set up his own inquiry into what he calls the ‘Pakistani rape gangs’. Maitlis was not interested in digging into this long–proven phenomenon. Instead she cherry-picked the rape statistics to pretend that there was no such issue. She then implied that Lowe was profiting from his efforts, whereas he has donated his own money to aid them. Then she came out with the clincher. ‘Why are you doing this?’ she asked. ‘Why are you just trying to talk about Pakistani grooming gangs?’ Then she did away with the pretence that she was just asking questions by saying: ‘I’m telling you that you are focusing on Pakistani grooming gangs because probably you’re racist.’
Another form of national retardation could be found in the same week. Earlier this month, British counter-terrorism police swooped in to arrest two cells of men charged with spying for Iran and being on the brink of carrying out terrorist attacks in the UK. Last week three of the men were charged and appeared in court.
There are many interesting things about the case, but one which stands out is that the accused came into this country through a far from unexpected route. The men who were charged with conduct likely to assist a foreign intelligence service arrived in this country by boat and lorry. They were among the tens of thousands of illegal migrants who have come into Britain via illegal cross-Channel routes.
It has not mattered in recent years whether the government of this country is Conservative- or Labour-led. In either case we are told that it is absolutely impossible to stop thousands of mainly young men from entering our country illegally each month. Among the men who appeared in court in London last week charged with terrorism offences, at least one had arrived here illegally and then sought asylum on the grounds that he feared for his safety if he returned to Iran. Another of the accused applied for asylum on religious grounds.
But here’s the thing. If you happened to appear in the British media and said that you thought this country should stop the boats from landing illegally, you would be viewed with suspicion. If you really wanted to throw a rhetorical bomb into the mix, you might say that it should be a concern to any country if it continues to allow thousands of people whose identities and affiliations are unknown to break into the country. If you wanted to detonate your career, you might note that it is possible that some of the people coming into this country might end up being engaged in acts of terrorism.
Even before this case there was plenty of proof. For instance, the young man who left a bomb on an Underground train at Parsons Green station in September 2017 came into the UK illegally on a lorry through the Channel Tunnel. And yet if any MP had raised the possibility of just such events happening, a slew of fellow MPs would scold them and warn them about their language and its implications. If you made the point in the media, some Maitlis-like character would immediately say ‘So you’re saying everyone who comes into this country as a migrant is a terrorist?’ or similar.
This is why I use the ‘r’ word about this country and its public discourse. There are things that we know have gone on and are going on. And yet the main aim of almost everyone in public life is to stop any discussion of the issues via deliberate obfuscation and misrepresentation. Still, as the tributes to Andrew Norfolk last week showed, we can sometimes be kind about people who got things right once they are dead.
Comments