publishedmedium:the daily mail

  • Daily Mail pays charity damages over ’hate festival’ allegations | Media | The Guardian - Matthew Weaver - Thu 13 Jun 2019 16.43 BST
    Last modified on Thu 13 Jun 2019 20.20 BST

    The publisher of the Daily Mail has paid £120,000 in damages plus costs to a UK-based humanitarian charity after the paper falsely accused it of funding a “hate festival” in Palestine which acted out the murder of Jews.

    Associated Newspapers apologised unreservedly to the trustees of Interpal, which provides aid to Palestinians, for suggesting the registered charity was a terrorist organisation. (...)

  • Call immigrant detention centers what they really are: concentration camps

    If you were paying close attention last week, you might have spotted a pattern in the news. Peeking out from behind the breathless coverage of the Trump family’s tuxedoed trip to London was a spate of deaths of immigrants in U.S. custody: Johana Medina Léon, a 25-year-old transgender asylum seeker; an unnamed 33-year-old Salvadoran man; and a 40-year-old woman from Honduras.

    Photos from a Border Patrol processing center in El Paso showed people herded so tightly into cells that they had to stand on toilets to breathe. Memos surfaced by journalist Ken Klippenstein revealed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s failure to provide medical care was responsible for suicides and other deaths of detainees. These followed another report that showed that thousands of detainees are being brutally held in isolation cells just for being transgender or mentally ill.

    Also last week, the Trump administration cut funding for classes, recreation and legal aid at detention centers holding minors — which were likened to “summer camps” by a senior ICE official last year. And there was the revelation that months after being torn from their parents’ arms, 37 children were locked in vans for up to 39 hours in the parking lot of a detention center outside Port Isabel, Texas. In the last year, at least seven migrant children have died in federal custody.

    Preventing mass outrage at a system like this takes work. Certainly it helps that the news media covers these horrors intermittently rather than as snowballing proof of a racist, lawless administration. But most of all, authorities prevail when the places where people are being tortured and left to die stay hidden, misleadingly named and far from prying eyes.

    There’s a name for that kind of system. They’re called concentration camps. You might balk at my use of the term. That’s good — it’s something to be balked at.

    The goal of concentration camps has always been to be ignored. The German-Jewish political theorist Hannah Arendt, who was imprisoned by the Gestapo and interned in a French camp, wrote a few years afterward about the different levels of concentration camps. Extermination camps were the most extreme; others were just about getting “undesirable elements … out of the way.” All had one thing in common: “The human masses sealed off in them are treated as if they no longer existed, as if what happened to them were no longer of interest to anybody, as if they were already dead.”

    Euphemisms play a big role in that forgetting. The term “concentration camp” is itself a euphemism. It was invented by a Spanish official to paper over his relocation of millions of rural families into squalid garrison towns where they would starve during Cuba’s 1895 independence war. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered Japanese Americans into prisons during World War II, he initially called them concentration camps. Americans ended up using more benign names, like “Manzanar Relocation Center.”

    Even the Nazis’ camps started out small, housing criminals, Communists and opponents of the regime. It took five years to begin the mass detention of Jews. It took eight, and the outbreak of a world war, for the first extermination camps to open. Even then, the Nazis had to keep lying to distract attention, claiming Jews were merely being resettled to remote work sites. That’s what the famous signs — Arbeit Macht Frei, or “Work Sets You Free” — were about.

    Subterfuge doesn’t always work. A year ago, Americans accidentally became aware that the Trump administration had adopted (and lied about) a policy of ripping families apart at the border. The flurry of attention was thanks to the viral conflation of two separate but related stories: the family-separation order and bureaucrats’ admission that they’d been unable to locate thousands of migrant children who’d been placed with sponsors after crossing the border alone.

    Trump shoved that easily down the memory hole. He dragged his heels a bit, then agreed to a new policy: throwing whole families into camps together. Political reporters posed irrelevant questions, like whether President Obama had been just as bad, and what it meant for the midterms. Then they moved on.

    It is important to note that Trump’s aides have built this system of racist terror on something that has existed for a long time. Several camps opened under Obama, and as president he deported millions of people.

    But Trump’s game is different. It certainly isn’t about negotiating immigration reform with Congress. Trump has made it clear that he wants to stifle all non-white immigration, period. His mass arrests, iceboxes and dog cages are part of an explicitly nationalist project to put the country under the control of the right kind of white people.

    As a Republican National Committee report noted in 2013: “The nation’s demographic changes add to the urgency of recognizing how precarious our position has become.” The Trump administration’s attempt to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census was also just revealed to have been a plot to disadvantage political opponents and boost “Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” all along.

    That’s why this isn’t just a crisis facing immigrants. When a leader puts people in camps to stay in power, history shows that he doesn’t usually stop with the first group he detains.

    There are now at least 48,000 people detained in ICE facilities, which a former official told BuzzFeed News “could swell indefinitely.” Customs and Border Protection officials apprehended more than 144,000 people on the Southwest border last month. (The New York Times dutifully reported this as evidence of a “dramatic surge in border crossings,” rather than what it was: The administration using its own surge of arrests to justify the rest of its policies.)

    If we call them what they are — a growing system of American concentration camps — we will be more likely to give them the attention they deserve. We need to know their names: Port Isabel, Dilley, Adelanto, Hutto and on and on. With constant, unrelenting attention, it is possible we might alleviate the plight of the people inside, and stop the crisis from getting worse. Maybe people won’t be able to disappear so easily into the iceboxes. Maybe it will be harder for authorities to lie about children’s deaths.

    Maybe Trump’s concentration camps will be the first thing we think of when we see him scowling on TV.

    The only other option is to leave it up to those in power to decide what’s next. That’s a calculated risk. As Andrea Pitzer, author of “One Long Night,” one of the most comprehensive books on the history of concentration camps, recently noted: “Every country has said their camps are humane and will be different. Trump is instinctively an authoritarian. He’ll take them as far as he’s allowed to.”
    #terminologie #vocabulaire #mots #camps #camps_de_concentration #centres_de_détention #détention_administrative #rétention #USA #Etats-Unis

    • ‘Some Suburb of Hell’: America’s New Concentration Camp System

      On Monday, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez referred to US border detention facilities as “concentration camps,” spurring a backlash in which critics accused her of demeaning the memory of those who died in the Holocaust. Debates raged over a label for what is happening along the southern border and grew louder as the week rolled on. But even this back-and-forth over naming the camps has been a recurrent feature in the mass detention of civilians ever since its inception, a history that long predates the Holocaust.

      At the heart of such policy is a question: What does a country owe desperate people whom it does not consider to be its citizens? The twentieth century posed this question to the world just as the shadow of global conflict threatened for the second time in less than three decades. The dominant response was silence, and the doctrine of absolute national sovereignty meant that what a state did to people under its control, within its borders, was nobody else’s business. After the harrowing toll of the Holocaust with the murder of millions, the world revisited its answer, deciding that perhaps something was owed to those in mortal danger. From the Fourth Geneva Convention protecting civilians in 1949 to the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, the international community established humanitarian obligations toward the most vulnerable that apply, at least in theory, to all nations.

      The twenty-first century is unraveling that response. Countries are rejecting existing obligations and meeting asylum seekers with walls and fences, from detainees fleeing persecution who were sent by Australia to third-party detention in the brutal offshore camps of Manus and Nauru to razor-wire barriers blocking Syrian refugees from entering Hungary. While some nations, such as Germany, wrestle with how to integrate refugees into their labor force—more and more have become resistant to letting them in at all. The latest location of this unwinding is along the southern border of the United States.

      So far, American citizens have gotten only glimpses of the conditions in the border camps that have been opened in their name. In the month of May, Customs and Border Protection reported a total of 132,887 migrants who were apprehended or turned themselves in between ports of entry along the southwest border, an increase of 34 percent from April alone. Upon apprehension, these migrants are temporarily detained by Border Patrol, and once their claims are processed, they are either released or handed over to ICE for longer-term detention. Yet Border Patrol itself is currently holding about 15,000 people, nearly four times what government officials consider to be this enforcement arm’s detention capacity.

      On June 12, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that Fort Sill, an Army post that hosted a World War II internment camp for detainees of Japanese descent, will now be repurposed to detain migrant children. In total, HHS reports that it is currently holding some 12,000 minors. Current law limits detention of minors to twenty days, though Senator Lindsey Graham has proposed expanding the court-ordered limit to 100 days. Since the post is on federal land, it will be exempt from state child welfare inspections.

      In addition to the total of detainees held by Border Patrol, an even higher number is detained at centers around the country by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency: on a typical day at the beginning of this month, ICE was detaining more than 52,500 migrants. The family separation policy outraged the public in the 2018, but despite legal challenges, it never fully ended. Less publicized have been the deaths of twenty-four adults in ICE custody since the beginning of the Trump administration; in addition, six children between the ages of two and sixteen have died in federal custody over the last several months. It’s not clear whether there have been other deaths that have gone unreported.

      Conditions for detainees have not been improving. At the end of May, a Department of Homeland Security inspector general found nearly 900 migrants at a Texas shelter built for a capacity of 125 people. On June 11, a university professor spotted at least 100 men behind chain-link fences near the Paso del Norte Bridge in El Paso, Texas. Those detainees reported sitting outside for weeks in temperatures that soared above 100 degrees. Taylor Levy, an El Paso immigration lawyer, described going into one facility and finding “a suicidal four-year-old whose face was covered in bloody, self-inflicted scratches… Another young child had to be restrained by his mother because he kept running full-speed into metal lockers. He was covered in bruises.”

      If deciding what to do about the growing numbers of adults and children seeking refuge in the US relies on complex humanitarian policies and international laws, in which most Americans don’t take a deep interest, a simpler question also presents itself: What exactly are these camps that the Trump administration has opened, and where is this program of mass detention headed?

      Even with incomplete information about what’s happening along the border today and what the government plans for these camps, history points to some conclusions about their future. Mass detention without trial earned a new name and a specific identity at the end of the nineteenth century. The labels then adopted for the practice were “reconcentración” and “concentration camps”—places of forced relocation of civilians into detention on the basis of group identity.

      Other kinds of group detention had appeared much earlier in North American history. The US government drove Native Americans from their homelands into prescribed exile, with death and detention in transit camps along the way. Some Spanish mission systems in the Americas had accomplished similar ends by seizing land and pressing indigenous people into forced labor. During the 245 years when slavery was legal in the US, detention was one of its essential features.

      Concentration camps, however, don’t typically result from the theft of land, as happened with Native Americans, or owning human beings in a system of forced labor, as in the slave trade. Exile, theft, and forced labor can come later, but in the beginning, detention itself is usually the point of concentration camps. By the end of the nineteenth century, the mass production of barbed wire and machines guns made this kind of detention possible and practical in ways it never had been before.

      Under Spanish rule in 1896, the governor-general of Cuba instituted camps in order to clear rebel-held regions during an uprising, despite his predecessor’s written refusal “as the representative of a civilized nation, to be the first to give the example of cruelty and intransigence” that such detention would represent. After women and children began dying in vast numbers behind barbed wire because there had been little planning for shelter and even less for food, US President William McKinley made his call to war before Congress. He spoke against the policy of reconcentración, calling it warfare by uncivilized means. “It was extermination,” McKinley said. “The only peace it could beget was that of the wilderness and the grave.” Without full records, the Cuban death toll can only be estimated, but a consensus puts it in the neighborhood of 150,000, more than 10 percent of the island’s prewar population.

      Today, we remember the sinking of the USS Maine as the spark that ignited the Spanish-American War. But war correspondent George Kennan (cousin of the more famous diplomat) believed that “it was the suffering of the reconcentrados, more, perhaps, than any other one thing that brought about the intervention of the United States.” On April 25, 1898, Congress declared war. Two weeks later, US Marines landed at Fisherman’s Point on the windward side of the entrance to Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. After a grim, week-long fight, the Marines took the hill. It became a naval base, and the United States has never left that patch of land.

      As part of the larger victory, the US inherited the Philippines. The world’s newest imperial power also inherited a rebellion. Following a massacre of American troops at Balangiga in September 1901, during the third year of the conflict, the US established its own concentration camp system. Detainees, mostly women and children, were forced into squalid conditions that one American soldier described in a letter to a US senator as “some suburb of hell.” In the space of only four months, more than 11,000 Filipinos are believed to have died in these noxious camps.

      Meanwhile, in southern Africa in 1900, the British had opened their own camps during their battle with descendants of Dutch settlers in the second Boer War. British soldiers filled tent cities with Boer women and children, and the military authorities called them refugee camps. Future Prime Minister David Lloyd George took offense at that name, noting in Parliament: “There is no greater delusion in the mind of any man than to apply the term ‘refugee’ to these camps. They are not refugee camps. They are camps of concentration.” Contemporary observers compared them to the Cuban camps, and criticized their deliberate cruelty. The Bishop of Hereford wrote to The Times of London in 1901, asking: “Are we reduced to such a depth of impotence that our Government can do nothing to stop such a holocaust of child-life?”

      Maggoty meat rations and polluted water supplies joined outbreaks of contagious diseases amid crowded and unhealthy conditions in the Boer camps. More than 27,000 detainees are thought to have died there, nearly 80 percent of them children. The British had opened camps for black Africans as well, in which at least 14,000 detainees died—the real number is probably much higher. Aside from protests made by some missionaries, the deaths of indigenous black Africans did not inspire much public outrage. Much of the history of the suffering in these camps has been lost.

      These early experiments with concentration camps took place on the periphery of imperial power, but accounts of them nevertheless made their way into newspapers and reports in many nations. As a result, the very idea of them came to be seen as barbaric. By the end of the first decade of the twentieth century, the first camp systems had all been closed, and concentration camps had nearly vanished as an institution. Within months of the outbreak of World War I, though, they would be resurrected—this time rising not at the margins but in the centers of power. Between 1914 and 1918, camps were constructed on an unprecedented scale across six continents. In their time, these camps were commonly called concentration camps, though today they are often referred to by the more anodyne term “internment.”

      Those World War I detainees were, for the most part, foreigners—or, in legalese, aliens—and recent anti-immigration legislation in several countries had deliberately limited their rights. The Daily Mail denounced aliens left at liberty once they had registered with their local police department, demanding, “Does signing his name take the malice out of a man?” The Scottish Field was more direct, asking, “Do Germans have souls?” That these civilian detainees were no threat to Britain did not keep them from being demonized, shouted at, and spat upon as they were paraded past hostile crowds in cities like London.

      Though a small number of people were shot in riots in these camps, and hunger became a serious issue as the conflict dragged on, World War I internment would present a new, non-lethal face for the camps, normalizing detention. Even after the war, new camps sprang up from Spain to Hungary and Cuba, providing an improvised “solution” for everything from vagrancy to anxieties over the presence of Jewish foreigners.

      Some of these camps were clearly not safe for those interned. Local camps appeared in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921, after a white mob burned down a black neighborhood and detained African-American survivors. In Bolshevik Russia, the first concentration camps preceded the formation of the Soviet Union in 1922 and planted seeds for the brutal Gulag system that became official near the end of the USSR’s first decade. While some kinds of camps were understood to be harsher, after World War I their proliferation did not initially disturb public opinion. They had yet to take on their worst incarnations.

      In 1933, barely more than a month after Hitler was appointed chancellor, the Nazis’ first, impromptu camp opened in the town of Nohra in central Germany to hold political opponents. Detainees at Nohra were allowed to vote at a local precinct in the elections of March 5, 1933, resulting in a surge of Communist ballots in the tiny town. Locking up groups of civilians without trial had become accepted. Only the later realization of the horrors of the Nazi death camps would break the default assumption by governments and the public that concentration camps could and should be a simple way to manage populations seen as a threat.

      However, the staggering death toll of the Nazi extermination camp system—which was created mid-war and stood almost entirely separate from the concentration camps in existence since 1933—led to another result: a strange kind of erasure. In the decades that followed World War II, the term “concentration camp” came to stand only for Auschwitz and other extermination camps. It was no longer applied to the kind of extrajudicial detention it had denoted for generations. The many earlier camps that had made the rise of Auschwitz possible largely vanished from public memory.

      It is not necessary, however, to step back a full century in American history to find camps with links to what is happening on the US border today. Detention at Guantánamo began in the 1990s, when Haitian and Cuban immigrants whom the government wanted to keep out of the United States were housed there in waves over a four-year period—years before the “war on terror” and the US policy of rendition of suspected “enemy combatants” made Camps Delta, X-Ray, and Echo notorious. Tens of thousands of Haitians fleeing instability at home were picked up at sea and diverted to the Cuban base, to limit their legal right to apply for asylum. The court cases and battles over the suffering of those detainees ended up setting the stage for what Guantánamo would become after September 11, 2001.

      In one case, a federal court ruled that it did have jurisdiction over the base, but the government agreed to release the Haitians who were part of the lawsuit in exchange for keeping that ruling off the books. A ruling in a second case would assert that the courts did not have jurisdiction. Absent the prior case, the latter stood on its own as precedent. Leaving Guantánamo in this gray area made it an ideal site for extrajudicial detention and torture after the twin towers fell.

      This process of normalization, when a bad camp becomes much more dangerous, is not unusual. Today’s border camps are a crueler reflection of long-term policies—some challenged in court—that earlier presidents had enacted. Prior administrations own a share of the responsibility for today’s harsh practices, but the policies in place today are also accompanied by a shameless willingness to publicly target a vulnerable population in increasingly dangerous ways.

      I visited Guantánamo twice in 2015, sitting in the courtroom for pretrial hearings and touring the medical facility, the library, and all the old abandoned detention sites, as well as newly built ones, open to the media—from the kennel-style cages of Camp X-Ray rotting to ruin in the damp heat to the modern jailhouse facilities of Camp 6. Seeing all this in person made clear to me how vast the architecture of detention had become, how entrenched it was, and how hard it would be to close.

      Without a significant government effort to reverse direction, conditions in every camp system tend to deteriorate over time. Governments rarely make that kind of effort on behalf of people they are willing to lock up without trial in the first place. And history shows that legislatures do not close camps against the will of an executive.

      Just a few years ago there might have been more potential for change spurred by the judicial branch of our democracy, but this Supreme Court is inclined toward deference to executive power, even, it appears, if that power is abused. It seems unlikely this Court will intervene to end the new border camp system; indeed, the justices are far more likely to institutionalize it by half-measures, as happened with Guantánamo. The Korematsu case, in which the Supreme Court upheld Japanese-American internment (a ruling only rescinded last year), relied on the suppression of evidence by the solicitor general. Americans today can have little confidence that this administration would behave any more scrupulously when defending its detention policy.

      What kind of conditions can we expect to develop in these border camps? The longer a camp system stays open, the more likely it is that vital things will go wrong: detainees will contract contagious diseases and suffer from malnutrition and mental illness. We have already seen that current detention practices have resulted in children and adults succumbing to influenza, staph infections, and sepsis. The US is now poised to inflict harm on tens of thousands more, perhaps hundreds of thousands more.

      Along with such inevitable consequences, every significant camp system has introduced new horrors of its own, crises that were unforeseen when that system was opened. We have yet to discover what those will be for these American border camps. But they will happen. Every country thinks it can do detention better when it starts these projects. But no good way to conduct mass indefinite detention has yet been devised; the system always degrades.

      When, in 1940, Margarete Buber-Neumann was transferred from the Soviet Gulag at Karaganda to the camp for women at Ravensbrück (in an exchange enabled by the Nazi–Soviet Pact), she came from near-starvation conditions in the USSR and was amazed at the cleanliness and order of the Nazi camp. New arrivals were issued clothing, bedding, and silverware, and given fresh porridge, fruit, sausage, and jam to eat. Although the Nazi camps were already punitive, order-obsessed monstrosities, the wartime overcrowding that would soon overtake them had not yet made daily life a thing of constant suffering and squalor. The death camps were still two years away.

      The United States now has a vast and growing camp system. It is starting out with gruesome overcrowding and inadequate healthcare, and because of budget restrictions, has already taken steps to cut services to juvenile detainees. The US Office of Refugee Resettlement says that the mounting number of children arriving unaccompanied is forcing it to use military bases and other sites that it prefers to avoid, and that establishing these camps is a temporary measure. But without oversight from state child welfare inspectors, the possibilities for neglect and abuse are alarming. And without any knowledge of how many asylum-seekers are coming in the future, federal administrators are likely to find themselves boxed in to managing detention on military sites permanently.

      President Trump and senior White House adviser Stephen Miller appear to have purged the Department of Homeland Security of most internal opposition to their anti-immigrant policies. In doing so, that have removed even those sympathetic to the general approach taken by the White House, such as former Chief of Staff John Kelly and former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, in order to escalate the militarization of the border and expand irregular detention in more systematic and punitive ways. This kind of power struggle or purge in the early years of a camp system is typical.

      The disbanding of the Cheka, the Soviet secret police, in February 1922 and the transfer of its commander, Felix Dzerzhinsky, to head up an agency with control over only two prisons offered a hint of an alternate future in which extrajudicial detention would not play a central role in the fledgling Soviet republic. But Dzerzhinsky managed to keep control over the “special camps” in his new position, paving the way for the emergence of a camp-centered police state. In pre-war Germany in the mid-1930s, Himmler’s struggle to consolidate power from rivals eventually led him to make camps central to Nazi strategy. When the hardliners win, as they appear to have in the US, conditions tend to worsen significantly.

      Is it possible this growth in the camp system will be temporary and the improvised border camps will soon close? In theory, yes. But the longer they remain open, the less likely they are to vanish. When I visited the camps for Rohingya Muslims a year before the large-scale campaign of ethnic cleansing began, many observers appeared to be confusing the possible and the probable. It was possible that the party of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi would sweep into office in free elections and begin making changes. It was possible that full democracy would come to all the residents of Myanmar, even though the government had stripped the Rohingya of the last vestiges of their citizenship. These hopes proved to be misplaced. Once there are concentration camps, it is always probable that things will get worse.

      The Philippines, Japanese-American internment, Guantánamo… we can consider the fine points of how the current border camps evoke past US systems, and we can see how the arc of camp history reveals the likelihood that the suffering we’re currently inflicting will be multiplied exponentially. But we can also simply look at what we’re doing right now, shoving bodies into “dog pound”-style detention pens, “iceboxes,” and standing room-only spaces. We can look at young children in custody who have become suicidal. How much more historical awareness do we really need?

    • #Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez engage le bras de fer avec la politique migratoire de Donald Trump

      L’élue de New York a qualifié les camps de rétention pour migrants érigés à la frontière sud des Etats-Unis de « camps de concentration ».

  • « Je ne m’assieds pas » : elle bloque le décollage pour empêcher l’expulsion d’un migrant

    Pour éviter qu’un demandeur d’asile soit renvoyé par avion en Afghanistan, Elin Erson, une étudiante suédoise de 22 ans, a acheté un billet sur le même vol, lundi 23 juillet, au départ de Göteborg en Suède. Une fois à bord, elle a refusé de s’asseoir, empêchant l’avion de décoller. « Je ne vais pas m’asseoir avant que cette personne soit descendue de cet avion », a-t-elle prévenu.

    Pendant de longues minutes, elle a diffusé son action en direct sur Facebook. « Il se fera certainement tuer s’il reste dans cet avion », a-t-elle répété aux passagers et au personnel de bord agacés. Peu à peu, elle a reçu le soutien de voyageurs, qui se sont levés à leur tour. L’Afghan de 52 ans a finalement été débarqué de l’avion, et son expulsion provisoirement reportée.

    #brava #résistance à #loi_scélérate #tou·tes_debout

  • The Great War is often depicted as an unexpected catastrophe. But for millions who had been living under imperialist rule, terror and degradation were nothing new.

    How colonial violence came home: the ugly truth of the first world war

    With more than eight million dead and more than 21 million wounded, the war was the bloodiest in European history until that second conflagration on the continent ended in 1945. War memorials in Europe’s remotest villages, as well as the cemeteries of Verdun, the Marne, Passchendaele, and the Somme enshrine a heartbreakingly extensive experience of bereavement. In many books and films, the prewar years appear as an age of prosperity and contentment in Europe, with the summer of 1913 featuring as the last golden summer.

    But today, as racism and xenophobia return to the centre of western politics, it is time to remember that the background to the first world war was decades of racist imperialism whose consequences still endure. It is something that is not remembered much, if at all, on Remembrance Day.

    At the time of the first world war, all western powers upheld a racial hierarchy built around a shared project of territorial expansion. In 1917, the US president, Woodrow Wilson, baldly stated his intention, “to keep the white race strong against the yellow” and to preserve “white civilisation and its domination of the planet”. Eugenicist ideas of racial selection were everywhere in the mainstream, and the anxiety expressed in papers like the Daily Mail, which worried about white women coming into contact with “natives who are worse than brutes when their passions are aroused”, was widely shared across the west. Anti-miscegenation laws existed in most US states. In the years leading up to 1914, prohibitions on sexual relations between European women and black men (though not between European men and African women) were enforced across European colonies in Africa. The presence of the “dirty Negroes” in Europe after 1914 seemed to be violating a firm taboo.

  • In 1927, Donald Trump’s father was arrested after a Klan riot in Queens

    On Memorial Day 1927, brawls erupted in New York led by sympathizers of the Italian fascist movement and the Ku Klux Klan. In the fascist brawl, which took place in the Bronx, two Italian men were killed by anti-fascists. In Queens, 1,000 white-robed Klansmen marched through the Jamaica neighborhood, eventually spurring an all-out brawl in which seven men were arrested.
    One of those arrested was Fred Trump of 175-24 Devonshire Rd. in Jamaica.

    When news of the old report surfaced last year, Donald Trump vehemently denied his father’s arrest. “He was never arrested. He has nothing to do with this. This never happened. This is nonsense and it never happened,” he said to the Daily Mail. “This never happened. Never took place. He was never arrested, never convicted, never even charged. It’s a completely false, ridiculous story. He was never there! It never happened. Never took place.”

  • Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as generally ’unreliable’ source

    Summarising the discussion, a Wikipedia editor wrote: “Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. An edit filter should be put in place, going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference.”

  • Timeline: The Criminalisation of Asylum - OpenLearn - Open University

    The Criminalisation of Asylum

    Are more people illegally entering Britain, or have more laws made it difficult to enter legally? This timeline looks at the illegalisation of asylum seeking and the consequences it can have on people seeking sanctuary.
    Aliens Act Established

    Aliens Act established as first piece of immigration legislation in Britain. Control at borders becomes the responsibility of the Home Secretary. Details (such as names and nationality) are collected by the captain and given to the state. The act includes powers to detain and deport, and immigrants must prove they are self-sufficient. It was, in some senses, a way to deter and control poor immigrants and Jews fleeing pogroms.
    Aliens Restriction Act

    Aliens Restriction Act 1914 is developed at beginning of First World War and allowed the Secretary of State emerge powers to deny entry and control foreign residents (rather than just those entering at the border). Followed just after the War with Aliens Restriction Amendment Act 1919 to increase police powers and introduce a form of ID card to monitor migrants.
    Leon Trotsky refused asylum in Britain

    The Russian Marxist revolutionary Leon Trotsky, the founder of the Red Army, is refused asylum in Britain. A form of ‘discretionary control’ continues into the 1930s (meaning the Home Office decides case by case rather than responding to persecuted groups) and further restrictions are placed on primary immigration.
    Immigration anxieties rising

    As persecution against Jews in Germany increases, more leave in search of refuge. On 5th April, Home Secretary John Gilmour raises the question of refugees to the Cabinet for the first time, particularly concerns about destitute refugees arriving in Britain. Anxieties that it would set a precedent for allowing entry to other refugees lead to the United Kingdom delaying the 1933 League Convention concerning the International Status of Refugees.
    The demonization of Jewish refugees

    The Daily Mail prints a heading stating ‘German Jews pouring into this country’ after a magistrate judge declares, ‘The way stateless Jews are pouring in from every port in this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to its fullest’. The Second World War, and consequently the Jewish Holocaust, would unfold the following year.
    Jewish refugees flee to Britain

    By 1939 more than 3000 Jewish refugees had fled to Britain. Echoing earlier fears of an employment crisis and with growing anxieties around impending war, the British government continue attempts to repatriate them to Germany.
    Empire Windrush arrives

    The loss of life in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939-1945) left significant gaps in the British workforce. To ensure post-war reconstruction, Caribbean workers from British colonies were encouraged to move to England as a form of managed economic migration. The first ship, Empire Windrush, arrives with 492 workers.


  • How technology disrupted the truth

    Social media has swallowed the news – threatening the funding of public-interest reporting and ushering in an era when everyone has their own facts. But the consequences go far beyond journalism One Monday morning last September, Britain woke to a depraved news story. The prime minister, David Cameron, had committed an “obscene act with a dead pig’s head”, according to the Daily Mail. “A distinguished Oxford contemporary claims Cameron once took part in an outrageous initiation ceremony at a (...)

    #faux #domination #contrôle #réseau_social

  • How technology disrupted the truth | Katharine Viner | Media | The Guardian

    One Monday morning last September, Britain woke to a depraved news story. The prime minister, David Cameron, had committed an “obscene act with a dead pig’s head”, according to the Daily Mail. “A distinguished Oxford contemporary claims Cameron once took part in an outrageous initiation ceremony at a Piers Gaveston event, involving a dead pig,” the paper reported. Piers Gaveston is the name of a riotous Oxford university dining society; the authors of the story claimed their source was an MP, who said he had seen photographic evidence: “His extraordinary suggestion is that the future PM inserted a private part of his anatomy into the animal.”

    #information #connaissance #savoir #algorithme

  • James Meek · Robin Hood in a Time of Austerity · LRB 18 February 2016

    Robin Hood is a programme of the left. Robin Hood is Jeremy Corbyn. He’s Russell Brand. He’s Hugo Chávez.

    So it used to seem. But a change has come about. The wealthiest and most powerful in Europe, Australasia and North America have turned the myth to their advantage. In this version of Robin Hood the traditional poor – the unemployed, the disabled, refugees – have been put into the conceptual box where the rich used to be. It is they, the social category previously labelled ‘poor’, who are accused of living in big houses, wallowing in luxury and not needing to work, while those previously considered rich are redesignated as the ones who work terribly hard for fair reward or less, forced to support this new category of poor-who-are-considered-rich. In this version the sheriff of Nottingham runs a ruthless realm of plunder and political correctness, ransacking the homesteads of honest peasants for money to finance the conceptual rich – that is, the unemployed, the disabled, refugees, working-class single mothers, dodgers, scroungers, chavs, chisellers and cheats.

    In this version of the myth, Robin Hood is a tax-cutter and a handout-denouncer. He’s Jeremy Clarkson. He’s Nigel Farage. He’s Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. He’s by your elbow in the pub, telling you he knows an immigrant who just waltzed into the social security office and walked out with a cheque for £1000. He’s in the pages of the Daily Mail, fingering a workshy good-for-nothing with 11 children, living in a luxury house on the public purse. He’s sabotaging the sheriff of Nottingham’s wicked tax-gathering devices – speed cameras and parking meters. He’s on talk radio, denouncing inheritance tax. He’s winning elections.


    Today, the key signifier is the phrase ‘hardworking people’. With this expression, right-wing politicians embrace the entire spectrum of employed people with property, from a struggling small-time café owner with a bank loan to Britain’s richest beneficiary of inherited wealth, the multibillionaire Duke of Westminster (who does have a job, looking after his money), and class them as peasants, put-upon smallholders clawing a living from the soil in the face of the sheriff’s cruel tax raids.

    #Robin_des_bois #inversion #perversion #sans_vergogne

  • Another 3 million refugees? Really?

    Another illustration of how the numbers of the refugee/migration crisis may be inflated, misrepresented or manipulated was brought to my attention by Professor David Ingleby (see my article on Frontex for another example). Many media are reporting with definitive headlines that the EU is expecting ‘another 3 million refugees and migrants in 2016′ (emphasis added). A few examples below:

    In fact, the EC forecast they refer to is not for 2016, but for 2015-2017 (‘the forecast period’, in EC lingo) and the 3 million figure includes also those who have already entered the EU this year. The extract from European Economic Forecast explains:

    How is it possible that newspapers as different as The Independent, The Guardian and the Daily Mail got such a political sensitive figure wrong? The answer is easier that one can imagine: most, rather than checking the primary source, relied on a piece by the Associated Press . And while the EU paper is certainly not the clearest in its presentation of the forecast of refugee and migrant arrivals, not all newspapers have got it wrong:

    The point here is not the reliability of the EU forecast, which may well be wrong and even underestimating arrivals, but the reliability of media in reporting data especially in a climate of moral panic and insecurity.

    #invasion #afflux #préjugés #statistiques #asile #migrations #chiffres #réfugiés #presse #alarmisme #journalisme #médias
    cc @reka

  • Important : une compilation d’éléments indiquant la coopération entre ISIS et la Turquie : Research Paper : ISIS-Turkey List

    Is Turkey collaborating with the Islamic State (ISIS)? Allegations range from military cooperation and weapons transfers to logistical support, financial assistance, and the provision of medical services. It is also alleged that Turkey turned a blind eye to ISIS attacks against Kobani.


    Columbia University’s Program on Peace-building and Rights assigned a team of researchers in the United States, Europe, and Turkey to examine Turkish and international media, assessing the credibility of allegations. This report draws on a variety of international sources — The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, BBC, Sky News, as well as Turkish sources, CNN Turk, Hurriyet Daily News, Taraf, Cumhuriyet, and Radikal among others.

    Signalé par @niss l’année dernière ici :

  • Azov fighters give military training to children, foster patriotism at Kyiv summer camp

    The kids are arguing about who gets which wooden gun.

    That’s my gun,” says one young boy loudly. He likes it because it fits nicely into his small hands.

    That’s a new American version of the rifle,” says an older boy, knowledgeably. “I like it better as well.”

    Once the argument is settled, the kids run off to play at being soldiers.

    It’s a scene that one could see on playgrounds and at summer camps for kids all over the world.

    But this particular camp is run by the #Azov_Battalion founded by lawmaker Andriy Biletsky, its former commander. Located in the wooded area of Kyiv’s Pushcha Vodytsya district, kids at this summer camp aren’t just playing soldiers – they’re getting actual military training from soldiers who have fought on the front line in Russia’s war against Ukraine.

    Named Azovets, the camp has been the subject of negative coverage in the Russian media, pro-Russia websites and even U.K. tabloid The Daily Mail.

    Neo-Nazi summer camp: Ukrainian kids taught to shoot AKs by Azov battalion members”, reads Kremlin-controlled RT’s headline for its story about the camp.

    Shocking pictures from inside neo-Nazi military camp reveal recruits as young as SIX are being taught how to fire weapons (even though there’s a ceasefire),” reads the headline in the Daily Mail’s sensationalized and inaccurate article.

    The Azovets summer camp accepts children of Azov Battalion members, as well as kids from Kyiv’s nearby Obolon district and further afield. It opened on June 22, runs weeklong programs of activities for groups of 30 to 40 kids. Officially, it is for children aged from nine to 18, but there are kids as young as seven there. A few of the kids had already attended it for several weeks in a row.

    What makes the camp most controversial is that it’s run by Azov fighters, some of whom have been labeled as far-right supporters and neo-Nazis. Critics say the battalion’s symbol is an inverted Wolfsangel that has oblique but uncomfortable associations with Nazism.

    A boy carries a mat near a big poster which reads ’Idea in Nation, power - in you!’ in Azovets patriotic camp on Aug. 19.
    © Volodymyr Petrov

    Boys train to take apart AKS-74 in Azovets patriotic camp on Aug. 19.
    © Volodymyr Petrov

    #Цивільний_Корпус_Азов Corps civil Azov

  • #shameless_autopromo

    Les drames en Méditerranée dans la presse romande. Une revue critique

    On aura tout lu et entendu dans les médias romands sur les derniers grands naufrages qui ont eu lieu en #Méditerranée les 12 et 19 avril 2015. Nous proposons ici une lecture critique de la couverture médiatique romande de la semaine qui a suivi ces tragédies [1]. Il s’agit également d’offrir quelques éléments d’analyse sur la problématique des naufrages en Méditerranée, en vue d’approfondissements futurs.
    #naufrages #Frontex #asile #migration #réfugiés #presse #afflux #invasion #passeurs #Triton #Mare_Nostrum #externalisation #modèle_australien

    • Et un article ad hoc sur la question du « million de personnes » prêt à quitter le Sud de la Méditerranée pour venir en Europe :
      Décryptage | Du fantasme du million de personnes prêtes à s’embarquer pour l’Europe

      On aura tout lu et entendu sur les naufrages en Méditerranée. Si des articles et témoignages de qualité ont été diffusés, certains chiffres et déclarations, repris en boucle dans les médias, ont attiré notre attention. Une revue de presse détaillée et critique vous est proposée sur notre site. Mais une petite halte s’impose quant à certaines déclarations faites par le directeur de l’agence Frontex (1).

    • C’était 2011...
      The African invasion that did not happen. Why and how?

      Do you remember? Back in February and March of this year, European politicians and the media were sowing fear that Europe was about to face a deluge of African migrants in response to the Arab Spring. Particularly the violence in Libya was predicted to push up to 1.5 million sub-Saharan migrant workers to migrate to Europe. Others believed Gaddafi’s threats that he could unleash a migrant invasion. Images of Tunisian boat migrants arriving on Lampedusa confirmed this image of a looming migration crisis.

    • Et en 2017...
      The 1 million migrants you haven’t seen

      The story that 1 million African migrants are ready or in ‘the pipeline’ to reach Europe from Libya is nothing new and Joseph Walker-Cousins’ claim reported in the Daily Mail has previously been aired by other allegedly well-informed people. It resurfaces periodically in the media (2015, 2016, 2017), but repetition is no proof of validity; rather it is an example of how charts and figures play a significant role in how we understand and debate the so-called refugee crisis and in shaping European policy responses to boat migration. This despite it has been showed (see, for example, Frontex double counting, UK’s alleged generosity vis-a-vis unaccompanied minors, and Frontex again) how the figures being circulated are often inaccurate and partial, or even systematically inflated to serve a range of different purposes, not least to legitimize growing expenditures in border infrastructures and policing, trigger donations by key donors and the public, and feed anti-immigration rhetoric for political gain.

  • Dispatches: The Ugly Truth Behind British Tourists’ Ruined Holidays in Greece

    First thing this morning, I read an article in the Daily Mail about British tourists on the Greek island Kos who complained about asylum seekers ruining their holidays and turning the island into a “disgusting hellhole.”
    #tourisme #migration #réfugiés #asile #xénophobie #racisme #Grèce

  • #Monty_Python: ’We hate the Daily Mail slightly more than we hate each other’ | Culture | The Guardian

    The five surviving members of the famed British comedy troupe Monty Python – Michael Palin, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Jones and Terry Gilliam – do not get along. On stage at the Beacon Theater on Friday night, two members walked off in the middle of a discussion. Others rearranged chairs so as not to have to face one another or the audience, while host John Oliver struggled to keep control of men who, he said, “always had a fundamental disrespect for authority”.

    Or, at least, the Pythons suggested that such would be the story if the Daily Mail wrote it up.

  • Thank You Letter to the Daily Mail - Activists use paper’s promo offer to deliver supplies to migrants in Calais

    Dear Our New Favourite Newspaper, The Daily Mail:

    A thousand thanks for your tireless support for the much-abused Calais migrants! (Or, as they’re also known, “Fellow Human Beings”.)


  • Le Daily Mail publie un commentaire erronné à l’occasion du 80ème anniversaire d’une militante pour les droits des animaux

    Brigitte Bardot : The woman who invented sex | Daily Mail Online

    By Michael Thornton for the Daily Mail, Published : 23:22 GMT, 28 September 2014 | Updated : 02:13 GMT, 29 September 2014

    The first time I glimpsed Brigitte Bardot in the flesh - and those words are apt, as it turned out - I was still at school. I had been invited by an actor friend to visit Pinewood Studios, where Dirk Bogarde was filming the comedy Doctor At Sea.

    For several minutes I was allowed to stand at the back of the set watching rehearsals for a shower scene. A young girl of devastating physical attraction, with provocatively pouting lips and large, inviting and smouldering brown eyes, emerged into view, clutching a bath towel which failed to conceal the fact she was naked underneath.

    You could have heard a pin drop on that set. The attention of every man there was riveted on that sinuous figure, who raised and lowered the towel mischievously while a stills photographer attempted to get shots that could be decently published.

    As she romped with gazelle-like grace across the set, revealing more and more of her amazing body, it became apparent that she had strips of flesh-coloured sticking plaster concealing her nipples and her pubic hair.

    In a gesture that would have seemed brazen but for her uninhibited merriment, she dropped the towel, ripped off the sticking plasters, and stood before us all as nature had made her, throwing her head back with explosive laughter, a free spirit, utterly defying convention.

    As the film studio erupted with male wolf-whistles, a publicity man frogmarched me off the set at the speed of light, insisting: ‘That was simply... um... improvisation. It will not be appearing in the film.’

    Such was my astonished introduction to the 20-year-old Brigitte Bardot, described by Time magazine as ‘France’s most ogled export’, who was to become the most incandescent and liberated screen sex symbol of her age. Yesterday, at her secluded home in Saint-Tropez, this legendary and increasingly reclusive figure, a grandmother twice over, arrived at the age of 80.

    Voici pourquoi l’auteur se trompe, ce ne sont ni Brigitte Bardot ni l’expression corporelle qui font la révolution sexuelle, au contraire c’est la langue, ce sont les textes élaborés et la réflexion approfondie qui sont à l’origine de la libération des mœurs.

    Gonzai : JEAN-JACQUES PAUVERT [1926-2014] Ma vie en texte
    A propos des 120 Jours de Sodome

    Je pense en tous cas, que c’est un texte qui n’aurait pu exister dans aucune autre langue que le français, parce qu’il n’y a pas de littérature érotique dans les autres langues, à part l’Italie. Parce que dans les autres langues, en anglais notamment, il n’y a pas de vocabulaire. Ils ont tout un vocabulaire obscène mais c’est argotique, ce n’est pas de la langue courante. Quand ils voulaient parler de choses érotiques, ils employaient le français.

    Pourtant j’aime bien la déscription du plateau de tournage anglais.

    #cinema #sex #littérature

  • Migrants Invisible in UK Media

    A new report published June 13th, 2014 by Migrant Voice reveals huge under-representation of migrants in mainstream British media.

    Migrant Voice analysed 577 online news stories relating to migration over an 11 week period from January to April 2014, from sources including the BBC, ITV, SKY news, The Daily Mail, The Times, The Sun, The Evening Standard, and The Guardian.

    There are some fantastic examples of migrants’ contributions to British life that feature in all of these media outlets, but when we step back and look at the overall data it is clear that migrants’ views are systematically invisible or ignored when it comes to most stories affecting migrants.

    The debate on migration takes place largely within the media, yet migrants themselves are all too often subject to a ’code of silence.’ Migrant Voice works to bring more migrant voices into the debate - voices all too often ignored by politicians or those with ’an axe to grind.’

    Following the launch of the report, Migrant Voice wrote to editors and reporters to ask them to sign up their new ’Meet a Migrant’ Campaign.

    #migration #médias #journalisme #visibilité #UK #Angleterre #silence

  • ‘Only Black People in Africa Get #AIDS’

    Some sites are having WTF moments (The Daily Mail and the sites who cut and pasted the story—like Linda Ikeji) at the comments made by #Rachel_Dilley, a 48-year old single mother of two who told a British TV morning show about how she was infected with #HIV. She had unprotected sex with a man she met on a dating site and claimed she had no idea she was at risk. At the time, she admits she was clueless about HIV and AIDS: “’I just didn’t know anything about it - I just thought you got it in Africa. I didn’t know a white person had ever got it.”

    #JOURNALISM #MEDIA #India #Justine_Sacco #South_Africa #Sri_Lanka

  • GASP #Daily_Mail’s found out about Lupita’s Dark, Sexy past

    Breaking News from the Daily Mail: Lupita Nyong’o can play a sexpot onscreen, and not just roles that call on her to look downtrodden and enslaved. In an article with a title that leaves little to the imagination (“Before she was famous: Lingerie-clad Oscar winner #Lupita_Nyong'o juggled two men in sexually-charged Kenyan soap opera”), The Mail Online reveals that Nyong’o, whose “exotic beauty and heart-wrenching portrayal of tormented slave Patsey in #12_Years_a_Slave catapulted her into stardom” is “hiding” the dark secret of her sexy past as a soap actor in “Shuga, a sexually-charged MTV Base Africa soap opera in which she juggled two men.” Call the Oscar (...)


  • Des espaces « non-tabloïd » apparaissent dans les trains britanniques :-)

    Anti-"Daily Mail" Signs Appear On Britain’s Rail Network

    “Please show consideration for fellow passengers by not reading or leaving copies of The Daily Mail newspaper in this coach.”

    The stickers are being handed out on comedian Mark Thomas’ current UK tour, entitled 100 Acts Of Minor Dissent. There is a Twitter account, @100acts, that chronicles other similar small acts of rebellion.

    #UK #presse #tabloïd #Daily_Mail #transports