Douglas Murray and the Strange Death of an Honest Argument — Part 2
By J.Spooner & J.Stubbs
“I suppose it is inevitable in a book of this length that some errors will be found…I expected that various people would claim the statistics and figures herein (factual and correct though they are) were in some way erroneous…I expected them to claim that I had ‘cherry-picked’ their speeches or even ‘quoted out of context’. Yet none of the many facts in this book were able to be refuted” — D.Murray, The Strange Death of Europe, page 335.
Douglas Murray’s bestselling book The Strange Death of Europe was originally released in May 2017 to predictably mixed reviews. It comes as little surprise that a book focusing on traditionally hostile and often ideological debates surrounding immigration would polarise opinion. Positive reviews for the book flowed from the expected outlets: The Sunday Times, The Australian, the Evening Standard, The Spectator and The Jewish Chronicle, to name a few. Others such as the Guardian, Ralph Leonard and the New Statesman heavily criticised the book, with the Guardian going as far to call it “gentrified xenophobia”.
Yet, the overall arguments that form this book’s thesis are built on certain presuppositions that, we believe, require even closer examination and verification. This critique of The Strange Death of Europe is less than a review and more of a deconstruction or dissection. We have broken our analysis down, chapter by chapter and section by section, contrasting the claims that the book makes against, what we believe, the evidence really shows. We have tried to do this by (mostly) using Murray’s own sources themselves. In other words, we set out to test the validity of perhaps Murray’s boldest declaration of all — that “none of the many facts in this book were able to be refuted”.
The Strange Death of Europe Fact Check
Chapter 2: “How we got hooked on immigration”
“Child-rape gangs”
During the second chapter of The Strange Death of Europe, Murray touches on a tabloid favourite — the controversial topic of group-based CSE or, as Murray labels it, “child-rape gangs”. Here Murray attempts to argue his case against immigration by invoking some popular talking points surrounding this contentious issue. As a minor, reoccuring flaw throughout this passage, Murray loosely refers to all these gang members as “immigrants”, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the Asian offenders within these gangs are mostly second or third generation British citizens.
1. Murray says: “Nobody could argue that gang rape or child abuse are the preserve of immigrants, but the development of particular types of child-rape gangs revealed — and a subsequent government-commissioned inquiry confirmed — specific cultural ideas and attitudes that were clearly held by some immigrants. These include views about women, specifically non-Muslim women, other religions, races and sexual minorities that were pre-medieval.”
We say: Lie. The assertion from Murray that “the development of particular types of child-rape gangs revealed…specific cultural ideas and attitudes that were clearly held by some immigrants” is completely false. Here Murray asserts an unverified link between “specific cultural ideas and attitudes” and “particular types of child-rape gangs”. This is not supported by any academic research or any government-backed inquiry. Additionally, none of the officially recognised CSA/CSE agency reports or independent regional case studies in the UK have found this to be the case.
Furthermore, as a minor point, the “government-commissioned inquiry” which is cited by Murray is incorrectly referenced. Murray’s listed source, “The Louise Casey review into Rotherham borough council, 4 February 2015” is not the one he refers to as focusing on immigrant’s “specific cultural ideas and attitudes”. That report (which Murray believes he is citing) is actually The Casey Review: A review into opportunity and integration. December, 2016.
Assuming Murray had referenced this correctly, this part of the claim would still be incorrect. Murray states that the Casey Review confirmed “specific cultural ideas and attitudes that were clearly held by some immigrants. These include views about women, specifically non-Muslim women…”. Yet nowhere in the entire 200-page review is there any claims regarding “immigrants” holding any “specific cultural ideas and attitudes about…non-Muslim women”. In fact, neither the 2015 or the 2016 Casey review makes any claims regarding immigrant attitudes towards “non-Muslim women”.
2. Murray says: “When these gang-rape cases came to court they did so in spite of local police, councillors and care-workers, many of whom were discovered to have failed to report such crimes involving immigrant gangs for fear of accusations of ‘racism’.”.
We say: False. This is another common talking point regarding group based CSE of which there is extremely little evidence for. The specific example in the book that Murray refers to are the cases of “those in Oxfordshire”. Yet, the independent Serious Case Review conducted by the OSCB (Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children Board) — the major 2015 report which found over 370 children had been targeted for sex by gangs of men in Oxfordshire over the previous 16 years — clearly declares:
“Only one reference was made, either in family interviews or in agency evidence to the SCR that suggested any reticence related to ethnicity…In 2,000 pages of IMRs (Individual Management Reviews) there is barely a mention of ethnic issues…This Review has considered whether this reflects the deliberate ignoring of the ethnic aspect to protect sensitivities (which has been suggested elsewhere in the country), or any failure to consider it when to do so would be helpful. The answer, within the limits of time and methodology, is that the author has identified neither, and reports and interviews suggest that the perpetrators were seen as just that, and not treated differently because of their background.”
This is repeatedly the case in other regional CSE inquiries similar to that of the OSCB. The case of Rotherham was arguably the most publicised of all the regional inquiries where politicial correctness and issues of ethnicity reportedly played a role in authorities failing act on such crimes. Yet, the 2014 Alexis Jay Inquiry (the investigation which formed the basis for the 2015 Casey Review) found that in regards to these cases in Rotherham:
“Within the Council, we found no evidence of children’s social care staff being influenced by concerns about the ethnic origins of suspected perpetrators when dealing with individual child protection cases, including CSE.”
And that in regards to the police:
“The Inquiry team was confident that ethnic issues did not influence professional decision-making in individual cases…Frontline staff did not report personal experience of attempts to influence their practice or decision making because of ethnic issues.”
Despite both the Jay Report and its government-commissioned follow up, the February 2015 Casey Review, citing general, anecdotal evidence of political correctness being viewed by some as a hindrance to the authorities investigating CSE , there was no evidence to demonstrate that that this had specifically affected any individual case. Moreover, both of these Rotherham-based inquiries highlight many other factors which played a much more significant and vital role in hindering council and police CSE investigations.
3. Murray says: “The fact that their victims were chosen precisely because they were not Muslims was only occasionally mentioned in the courts and rarely dwelt upon by the press”.
We say: False. Here Murray’s claim that, what he labels ‘child rape gangs’ in Oxfordshire, deliberately targeted their victims “precisely because they were not Muslims” is, simply put, not true. Tellingly, Murray does not reference this particular claim. As well as the above observations regarding ethnicity already evidenced in the OSCB review, the Crown Prosecutor’s opening remarks at the Operation Bullfinch (a major Oxfordshire CSE police investigation) trial told a completely different story to Murray’s:
“…these men, sometimes acting in groups and at other times separately, actively targeted vulnerable young girls from the age of about the ages of 11 or 12…There is evidence that the men deliberately targeted children who were out of control. They also targeted children who had been sent to live in care homes for precisely that reason. The girls who were chosen generally had troubled upbringings and unsettled home lives which made it less likely that anyone would be exercising any normal parental control over them or looking out for them.”
Time after time this claim by Murray and others that CSE victims were targeted because they were “non-Muslim” has failed to be backed up by any reliable evidence. Not even the 2015 Rotherham Council Casey Review (a report which does, as stated above, focus more than others on the ethnic and cultural differences of those involved) made this claim. Finally, a 2013 investigation which focused on the effect of CSE on UK Muslim communities, Unheard Voices, highlighted that dozens of victims of ‘child rape gangs’ have been Muslim/Asian:
“Asian / Muslim female victims are most vulnerable to offenders from their own communities as the overwhelming majority of the offenders were from the same background as the victims.”
“A key finding was that the offenders in this study were almost always from the same ethnic background as the victim. For example, nearly two thirds of victims were of Pakistani background and in most of these cases the offenders were also Pakistani”
The findings of the report demonstrated that there are a significant amount of cases of group-based CSE abusers targeting children of Asian/Muslim background. Thus, the report concludes:
“…exploitation is not a race issue only involving Asian offenders who target White victims. Offenders do not respect girls or women of any race or faith. It is about vulnerability and exploitation of that vulnerability. It also appears that girls from offenders’ own backgrounds are more accessible because of their shared heritage, culture, faith and ethnicity.”
4. Murray says: “The media followed suit, filling their reports with euphemisms as though trying to avoid helping the public to draw any conclusions. So in cases like those in Oxfordshire the gangs were described as ‘Asian’ when they almost solely involved Muslim men of Pakistani origin…Instead of carrying out their jobs without fear or favour, police, prosecutors and journalists behaved as though their job was to mediate between the public and the facts”.
We say: Again, because Murray attempts to make his point by specifically referring to the Oxfordshire cases, so we will refer to the 2015 Oxfordshire Serious Case Review. As it so happens, this review directly confronts the questions of terminology which Murray speaks of:
“In this report the word ‘Asian’ is used more than ’Pakistani’. This is not to hide any specific ethnic origin, but because this was the description mainly used by the victims and in agency case record. It is believed that when the term ‘Asian’ was used it did very often refer to those of Pakistani heritage, but ‘Asian’ seems to be the word used in common professional parlance.”
For further clarity, the report elaborated:
“The Police say they would not use ‘Pakistani’, a nationality, in their reports, as the perpetrators of Pakistani heritage were of British nationality. It would seem that ‘Asian’ is the phrase predominantly used by professionals and victims in documents and interviews. The offenders of Pakistani heritage gave their ethnicity to Court and the prison as ‘Asian’. One of the others, who says he came from Saudi Arabia, described himself as ‘British Asian’. Whilst the terminology used is interesting, the author can find no evidence of ‘Asian’ being used to hide the predominance of Pakistani heritage involvement.”
In contrast to Murray’s claim then, the evidence again suggests that by calling the perpetrators ‘Asian’, the media were not using “euphamisms” but rather simply reporting facts as recorded and passed on by the relevant organisations. Secondly, the term “Asian” was clearly used by these agencies due to matters of practicality and in line with current recording policies. Thus, on this point and in regards to “child-rape gangs” in general, it appears the only one attempting to “mediate between the public and the facts” is Murray himself.
A numbers game
Throughout Chapter Two, Murray uses polls, census figures and further statistical based evidence in an attempt to back up his claims and embed his arguments. Upon examination however, these statistics chosen by him are highly contentious and struggle to stand up to scrutiny.
1. Murray says: “Even when the guest-worker arrangements ended — as they did between Germany and Turkey in 1973 — still the people came…in 2010 — there were at least four million people in Germany of Turkish origin alone.”
We say: Highly disputed. Multiple academic studies and officials have offered many variations of this “four million” figure. Murray again does not reference his claim, so it is impossible to know whose figures he is using. Thus, we would be more inclined to trust the official results of the 2011 German Census (since that is the base that Murray uses when discussing UK figures) which records the number of German citizens with at least one Turkish parent at 2.7 million.
2. Murray says: “…a poll by YouGov found 67 per cent of the British public believed that immigration over the previous decade had been ‘a bad thing for Britain’. Only 11 per cent believed it had been ‘a good thing’…Poll after poll both before and since have found the same thing. As well as routinely prioritising immigration as their number one concern, a majority of voters in Britain regularly described immigration as having had a negative impact on their public services and housing through overcrowding”.
We say: Deceptive. “Poll after poll both before and since” have not actually, “found the same thing”. In fact, due to the enormous scale of UK polling by many different companies over recent years, surveys on immigration attitudes have invariably produced mixed results. Even using the same polling company as Murray, Yougov’s own polls can still be shown to disprove Murray’s claims that immigration is “routinely” the British public’s “number one concern”. In a 2016 poll taken at the height of the anti-immigrant Leave campaign, just two months prior to the Brexit vote, Yougov results showed:
- Only 17% of those polled stated that Immigration was their number one issue when deciding how to vote in the referendum — a significant distance behind the two main reasons in third place.
- A large majority of those polled stated the main reason for the increased pressure on public spending was due to Government cuts, rather than immigration.
- 60% of those polled stated that immigration had had either a positive effect or made no real difference to their lives.
Outside of Yougov however and further polls can again be used to disprove Murray’s claims. For instance, Pew Research Centre has found:
- In the spring, 2014, a large majority of those polled believed that immigrants had made Britain stronger rather than being a burden.
- In spring 2016, over two-thirds of those polled believed that a growing diversity of ethnic groups and nationalities made Britain a better place or made no difference to them.
- In April, 2017, a large majority of those polled believed immigration levels in Britain should be kept at the current level.
- Again, just prior to Brexit, in Spring 2016, still less than half of those polled believed that Immigrants are a burden on public services.
- An increase in a majority (between 2002–2006, a period which Murray also refers to) of those polled who believe that migration from Africa to Britain is a good thing.
As the Pew Results show, poll results can be pulled from many places to suggest many things. Such as the 2015, Guardian affiliated, ICMUnlimited poll which suggested that out of those polled, more than double the amount of people believed that the NHS, rather than immigration, was the single most important election issue. Or a 2014 ITV ComRes poll which showed that the majority of those questioned believed that having people from all over the world living in Britain makes it a more interesting place to live.
Similarly, the majority of polling companies have consistently produced results displaying UK attitudes which are both positive AND negative towards immigration in Britain. In contrast to Murray’s seemingly blanket claim that “poll after poll” on British attitudes towards immigration before and after the census have “found the same thing” or that the British public are “routinely prioritising immigration as their number one concern”, what these surveys actually show is a vast discrepancy of results based on differences in polling companies, the context of the surveys, the audience samples and even the wording of the questions asked.
3. Murray says: “One indication of the fact is that although the net migration figures for each year since the 2011 census has been far in excess of 300,000, the number of new National Insurance numbers issued each year (because they are required for work) has been more than double that.”
We say: False. During this passage Murray cites numbers from the Office of National Statistics (ONS), when discussing population projections. However, when it comes the above claim on net migration, Murray does not cite any source at all. Using the ONS figures relating to this, we found that in fact, “net migration figures for each year since the 2011 census” have not “been far in excess of 300,000” at all. The ONS has reported the following net migration levels recorded in the years (ending December) “since the 2011 census”:
As shown above, in contrast to net migration levels “each year since the census” being “far in excess of 300,000”, the majority of the years since 2011 haven’t even seen levels go beyond that figure (for those wondering, 2017, the year Murray published this book, showed net migration circa 280,000).
Playing Politics
In this chapter, Murray again revisits his previous assertions from chapter one regarding what he believed the reaction of British media and politicians was to the 2011 census results and the increasing UK immigration levels (even though up until 2014, net migration had peaked nearly a decade earlier, back in 2005).
1. Murray says: “By 2012 the leaders of every one of the major parties in Britain had conceded that immigration was too high, but even whilst doing so all had also insisted that the public should ‘get over it’. None had any clear — nor, as it would turn out, successful — policy on how to change course.”
We say: Not true. Again, Murray produces no citations or references himself for this observation. In a June 2012 speech directly addressing the failings of the immigration policies of the past Labour government (even before the census results were released) to the Institute for Public Policy Research, Ed Milliband, did the opposite. Firstly, Milliband never states or even infers that the public should just “get over it”. In contrast, he recognises the failings of previous governments, admits mistakes have been made on immigration and then declares that those concerned should not be dismissed:
“Worrying about immigration, talking about immigration, thinking about immigration, does not make them bigots…And therefore we must listen to those anxieties and speak directly and candidly to them in return…And if we are to address people’s concerns, I believe Labour must change its approach to immigration. Recognising the costs as well as the benefits. We too easily assumed those who worried about immigration were stuck in the past. Unrealistic about how things could be different.”
Clearly not the words of someone telling his audience to “get over it”. Secondly, Milliband had a clear “policy on how to change course”. He detailed a specific five point plan for change, including increasing immigration controls .Then, in December, following the census results, he adds an additional three amendments. As with all politicians, Milliband’s sincerity must of course be questioned, yet even so the points that Murray argues are still invalid. Perhaps the plans proposed by Milliband wasn’t what Murray wanted, but to say they there wasn’t “clear policy” is a simply not true.
Likewise, in a March 2013 speech on immigration just months following the census results, David Cameron stated:
“I have always understood the genuine concerns of hard working people including many in our migrant communities who worry about uncontrolled immigration.The pressure it puts on public services the rapid pace of change in some of our communities and of course the concerns, deeply held, that some people might be able to come and take advantage of our generosity without making a proper contribution to our country. These concerns are not just legitimate — they are right”.
The above is again, clearly the opposite of Cameron saying that the “public should get over it”. Like Milliband, Cameron could be seen in this speech and others he made at the time to also lay out clear plans and targets to combat the immigration issues he spoke of.
Similarly, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg gave his own public speech four months after the census results. This speech follows the exact same pattern as that of the leaders of the two major parties. Firstly, he reaches out and empathises with those who are concerned and see immigration as a big issue — not simply tell them “to get over it”. Secondly, he offers solutions and long term targets. Again, the exact opposite of what Murray claimed.
Perhaps the only claim from Murray that is correct is that Cameron’s plan and targets were unsuccessful. Still, to argue that during this period politicians were apathetic to the concerns of the population regarding immigration and thus had no clear tactics or plans to attempt to address these concerns, appears to plainly contradict the documentary record.
2. Murray says: “Yet it is not only the political class who cannot speak to the concerns of the majority of the general public. On the night that the 2011 census results were announced the BBC’s flagship discussion show ‘Newsnight’ held a discussion of the news on which three-quarters of the participants expressed themselves perfectly delighted with the census and could see no cause for concern in the results”.
We say: Unproven. This was the exact episode that Murray himself was a guest on (he fails to mention this), appearing as the voice of ‘concern’ against the immigration results in the census. Whether or not “three quarters” of the participants were “perfectly delighted” is not particularly clear as the only footage of this, which is still accessible, is a 14 minute clip on YouTube. During this footage however, another of the four guests, journalist Daniel Knowles, does not act or say anything to give this impression at all. Knowles is also left out of Murray’s quoting of the participants’ views, instead just evidencing comments from half of the guests, not three quarters, in an attempt to make his point.
Sources for courses
Throughout the book Murray relies on some sources which can be described as at best as “contentious”. Chapter Two has it’s own example of this.
1. Murray says: “De Gaulle’s confidants allege that he himself was deeply uncertain that France could absorb many millions of incomers from other backgrounds”.
We say: Deceptive. This claim refers to an alleged quote by former French President, Charles De Gaulle which, can often be found decorating the walls of far right, anti-Muslim websites. Firstly, this refers to a claim made by one colleague of De Gaulle, not as Murray puts it, more than one, or “confidants”. Secondly, Murray’s reference for this is most certainly, as he himself states in his own footnotes, “contentious”. It refers to comments allegedly made by De Gaulle in private to one of his ministers at the time, Alain Peyrefitte (who went on to become a decorated politician and public servant), who published memoirs, including recollections of these meetings with De Gaulle, in 1994. An academic review of these memoirs concludes:
“There is the question of objectivity, but here too, this is not bothersome to the reader”.
This alleged quote by De Gaulle was never made in public, nor were there any other witnesses to it, nor is there any record of it anywhere else and thus it can never be verified. Lastly, Murray does not cite the actual source for this quote specifically (page number etc), but rather instead just references the memoirs in general.
We hoped you enjoyed Part 2! If so, be sure to follow us on Twitter, share our work with others and…keep an eye out for part 3.
Click here for part 1.
