The Daily Mail, Snoop Dogg and Immigration

The Daily Mail, once again, takes a legitimate national concern and crisis (immigration) and serves to tarnish the right with its brand of utter stupidity. Thanks to the Mail and its retarded editorial position and its assumption as the standard-bearer for all things right wing (which the left gleefully accepts, obviously) sensible right wingers and the majority of reasonable Britons are left with a much harder political fight to carry through.

The Mail reports that Snoop Dogg, the legendary rapper, has finally won his bid to enter the UK. This follows an expensive wrangle with the Home Office. And so the Mail reports the story in such a light as to make it all about money. As if Snoop has cost tax payer's money through his disgraceful temerity to exist and wish to gain access to a foreign country. As opposed to the due process being carried out and it costing the losing side.

Quite why it all comes down to money for the Mail is beyond me. I notice such considerations weigh less on the minds of Mail hacks when it comes to right wing European politicians with a penchant for inflammatory rhetoric against cultural outsiders.

But read the story, and you easily receive the classic bullshit Daily Mail undertones of ill-thought out reactionary bigotry and lazy stupidity. The second paragraph reveals Snoop's winning argument that the ban on his UK entry (in place from 2006 till recently) "infringed his right to freedom of expression".

The fifth paragraph of the 'article' tells us: "And the fact that an immigration tribunal has ruled in the musician's favour could impact on Britain's ability to keep so-called 'undesirables' out of the country."

So straight away, the reader is to make the conclusion that because of Britain's dangerous left wing experimentation with new-fangled, New Labour 'human rights' (Pah! what are those?) and because of a costly legal battle lost, we're going to be swamped with criminals left right and centre.

Later in the piece we are treated to a colourful grid, outlining "Snoop Dogg's Criminal Form". Where we read about the shocking and breathtaking revelations that a gangsta rapper was caught out with some pot on him every now and then, sometimes with a piece in his sky rocket.

Wow. What an arch villain. He ought to be hanged.

Of course, Snoop does have a dodgy past, particularly in the early '90s when he was young, but now he's just an ageing rapper with a penchant for a bit of weed. Big fucking whoop.

The Mail article finishes off with some crowd-pleasing bollocks about Snoop's violent lyrics. But the elephant in the room here, is that Snoop's legal argument is most likely right and that his case is strong. The reason why he was blocked in '06 was because of ruckus at the airport, to which he, allegedly, had no part - it involved his crew of hangers-on.

Snoop's desires to enter will be founded on the fact he is in the music trade and will want to engage in activities related to performing and music. I can see why he would have taken forward the freedom of expression case.

It is important to add here, that just because the left have tried to codify and dominate the human rights debate over recent years, and just because the EU has a strong hand over the debate, does not mean that human rights don't exist, or that they are left wing or silly. Who the fuck do the Mail think they are, exactly? Would they happily see rights and freedoms abolished, simply because they are championed by foreigners, or blacks, or people with a past, or some other 'undesirable' group?

When are freedoms good? When they are freedoms championed by middle aged, greying, hedge-trimming grumpy old white blokes from the Burbs who drive Merc A classes and read a paper that happens to be owned by the Rothmere clan?

The article, besides its ill-founded and ill-conceived assault on libertarian freedoms, is not just a load of pompous authoritarian bullshit, it is disseminating, disingenuous wank of the highest, stickiest order and it really fucking pisses me off.

Forget money, human rights, bad lyrics, criminal past and all those other fear-mongering, race-hating red herrings. The fact is, Snoop had a strong case to enter the UK as a musician. He has no other reason to enter other than in that capacity. Snoop is also a very high profile and now-mainstream personality who is followed every second by the press, and therefore further calamities are unlikely or at least unlikely to go unnoticed on his next visit.

As the Mail piece itself reports: "The Government argued the ban was in the public interest as some of Snoop's fans are on the fringes of gang culture and may be influenced by him."

Which kind of vindicates his 'freedom of expression' claim - the Home Office have directly linked a potential adverse result as a consequence of something deriving from Snoop's music.

Why doesn't the Mail just get to the point? Why obfuscate and bullshit with loads of irrelevant stuff clearly designed to get a classic Mail reader reaction from the baying mob?

I fucking hate that stupid fascist rag with a passion.