An extraordinary phenomenon of modern Britain is the propensity of those on the liberal Left – who in the past always championed freedom of expression – to censor news that doesn’t fit in with their world-view. Even more insidiously, they demonise those who tell the truth.
Take the Left’s outburst of posturing, deceit and self-delusion over the adult migrants allowed into this country masquerading as child refugees.
For the record, this paper was a prominent voice in urging ministers to offer sanctuary to unaccompanied children fleeing war zones, including those who were frightened and vulnerable to exploitation in the squalor of the Calais Jungle.
After the horrors they had been through, their plight recalled that of the thousands of young Jewish children rescued from the Nazis under the Kindertransport programme of 1938 to 1940.
But then came this week’s photographs of the first arrivals from Calais. To anyone with eyes to see, they tell a story of wholesale abuse of our hospitality.
Yes, there are youngsters among those granted sanctuary. But clearly many are fully grown, able-bodied men in their 20s or even 30s. The contrast to the helpless children saved by the Kindertransport could hardly be more glaring.
But the Mail has not asked anyone to take our word for it. Instead, we have published the photographs, allowing readers to judge for themselves. Cue an eruption of manufactured outrage from the mouthpieces of political correctness, who insist even blatant imposters should be taken on trust.
Take the virtue-signalling luvvies of stage and screen, who profess undying compassion for those claiming to be children (while showing marked reluctance to house them in their palatial homes).
Or consider the holier-than-thou Guardian. Showing utter contempt for its readers, it has refused to publish the ‘children’s’ photographs on the spurious pretext of protecting their privacy.
Meanwhile, the paper has devoted acres of print to attacks on those, including former home secretary Jack Straw, who have called for dental or other checks to establish how old the migrants are.
‘Sulphurous racism’, cried one of its columnists – while glossing over the fact that every other country in the European Union, bar three, uses dental and carpal X-rays to ascertain migrants’ ages.
Equally anxious to silence debate, the BBC has pixelated film of the migrants, while only belatedly acknowledging the dispute about their ages. The Corporation even rallied to Gary Lineker’s defence after he branded as ‘hideously racist’ anyone who questioned the migrants’ claims. Nor has he been disciplined for peddling the falsehood that one of the ‘children’ – who by any yardstick looks to be in his 30s – was an interpreter working for the Home Office.
How can we have a proper debate, or reach informed judgments, when our state broadcaster conspires with the Left to suppress and distort the facts?
Today, the Mail reveals the true extent of the abuse of our welfare system by migrants who have entered the UK under the false pretence of being children.
Of 11,000 whose ages have been disputed by local authorities since 2006, 45 per cent have been judged by the courts to be over 18. That’s almost 5,000 fraudulent claimants, whose education and upkeep is paid for by cash-strapped councils – doubtless at the expense of indigenous children in need of care and genuine child refugees who have failed to gain entry.
If luvvies and the Left were serious about supporting those most desperately in need, wouldn’t they echo sensible demands to stamp out the abuse through proper age checks? Or do they prefer to live in their own make-believe world, in which the truth is whatever they want it to be?
