NATIONHOOD AND NATIONALITY
There has been much criticism of the term ‘discrimination’, as if it is something wicked to be despised. But it is a prerequisite of nationhood that a country can discriminate between its own and foreign nationals.
The EU is of course trying to undermine this in the new constitution, which Labour is so enamoured with, and which remains alive following the recent Luxembourg referendum, when the constitution received the majority vote.
The definition of nationality is more problematic, and has particularly affected the UK. Up until the 1980s, when the Thatcher government changed the law, all those who lived in what had formally been the British Empire were legally regarded as British subjects. This meant that a quarter of the world’s population was supposedly British.
To this day, Commonwealth citizens are treated more favourably than other foreign nationals in the UK. The EU is further trying to establish its own citizenship and this is set out in the new constitution. Foreigners from other EU countries have almost unrestricted access into the UK and have preferential treatment compared with non-EU foreign nationals.
But what is the definition of nationality? There are several factors which need to be considered:
1. In the past, nationality was defined primarily by blood. It was the shared bloodline that differentiated a nation. This is also reflected in ethnicity. The term British originally referred to the union of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. These peoples are the ethnic British, or Britons (obviously this has changed with the break away of Eire). With the British Empire, the term British was adapted to include all those living in the British empire. The third world immigrants to the UK are not ‘blood British’, although the majority of the population of, for example, New Zealand and Australia are clearly related by blood. The English are an ethnic group. They are descended from the Angles and Saxons who conquered England and intermarried with the Celtic Britons. There remain Celtic fringes in the UK, such as Cornwall, but the difference is too slight to be significant. It is a matter of fact that, unless they are from countries such as Australia or are ex-patriots returning home, immigrants are not ethnic English.
2. Then there is the legal definition of nationality. Is someone entitled to a British passport? This legal definition can be changed, as it has in the past, and many who have immigrated to the UK retain their own nationality in addition to acquiring a British passport. Such people have dual nationality. Currently, British passports are being dished out like confetti by Labour, and previous Tory governments have also been carefree in the distribution of British passports, which is how, for example, Abu Hamza has acquired one. Currently, there is no such thing as an English passport.
3. Then there is the issue of where someone was born. If someone is born in a country than that is an indicator of his nationality. But it is not definitive, as someone might be born abroad. At the height of the empire large numbers of Britons were born abroad as so many British people were involved in the administration in the colonies.
4. Then there is the cultural dimension. Does the person share the culture of the nation? There might be religious, political and other cultural differences which prohibit someone from integrating and being a part of a nation. The differences might be so great that to describe two people with totally incompatible cultures as being of one nation, is meaningless.
5. Does the nation as a whole regard someone as being of the same nation as them? Someone may not be accepted as being a part of the nation for any number of reasons. This may be hurtful to someone who wishes to integrate, but it is a fact nonetheless.
6. Does the person consider himself to be a part of a nation? If he does not then it is clearly difficult for the nation to insist that he is something that he denies he is. Those who emigrated from Britain to the empire retained their British customs and sense of British nationhood. This applied to many who had been born of British parents abroad and had never set foot in Britain until later in their lives. They did not consider themselves to be Zulus or Aborigines, for example.
Some of these factors are more telling than others and also need to be considered as a whole.
The relevance of all this is in assessing the present crisis in the UK.
Is it the case that someone like Abu Hamza is as much a Briton as someone born in the UK and is blood British? To say otherwise is currently condemned as discriminatory and racist. Nevertheless, the English Rights Campaign does not hold the view that he is a Briton at all, and takes a similar view of all those of a similar ilk. He is not English. He and his fellow zealots have dual nationality and should have their British passports revoked and be required to return to their own countries.
The English Rights Campaign blog entry for the 5 March 2005 relates to the extremist Hizb ut-Tahrir organisation, one of whose members stated:
The question therefore arises as to how do the British react to this? Do they insist that those who deny they are British are in fact so? And what purpose would that serve? And if they are not British, then how should they be treated given their open hostility to our country?
Then there are the interests of the English. We are a nation, yet are being denied control of our own country. England is the country of the English. We are not immigrants, do not have dual nationality, and have nowhere else to go. Irrespective of what the views of the Muslim minority are, why are our views and interests being ignored? It is England which is bearing the brunt of mass immigration, it was the capital of England which was targeted by the terrorists and has been targeted again. Never mind the Muslim Council of Britain, which seems to represent few other than its own council members. We, the English, are entitled to be consulted and yet we are not.
We need an English parliament to represent English interests.
The EU is of course trying to undermine this in the new constitution, which Labour is so enamoured with, and which remains alive following the recent Luxembourg referendum, when the constitution received the majority vote.
The definition of nationality is more problematic, and has particularly affected the UK. Up until the 1980s, when the Thatcher government changed the law, all those who lived in what had formally been the British Empire were legally regarded as British subjects. This meant that a quarter of the world’s population was supposedly British.
To this day, Commonwealth citizens are treated more favourably than other foreign nationals in the UK. The EU is further trying to establish its own citizenship and this is set out in the new constitution. Foreigners from other EU countries have almost unrestricted access into the UK and have preferential treatment compared with non-EU foreign nationals.
But what is the definition of nationality? There are several factors which need to be considered:
1. In the past, nationality was defined primarily by blood. It was the shared bloodline that differentiated a nation. This is also reflected in ethnicity. The term British originally referred to the union of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. These peoples are the ethnic British, or Britons (obviously this has changed with the break away of Eire). With the British Empire, the term British was adapted to include all those living in the British empire. The third world immigrants to the UK are not ‘blood British’, although the majority of the population of, for example, New Zealand and Australia are clearly related by blood. The English are an ethnic group. They are descended from the Angles and Saxons who conquered England and intermarried with the Celtic Britons. There remain Celtic fringes in the UK, such as Cornwall, but the difference is too slight to be significant. It is a matter of fact that, unless they are from countries such as Australia or are ex-patriots returning home, immigrants are not ethnic English.
2. Then there is the legal definition of nationality. Is someone entitled to a British passport? This legal definition can be changed, as it has in the past, and many who have immigrated to the UK retain their own nationality in addition to acquiring a British passport. Such people have dual nationality. Currently, British passports are being dished out like confetti by Labour, and previous Tory governments have also been carefree in the distribution of British passports, which is how, for example, Abu Hamza has acquired one. Currently, there is no such thing as an English passport.
3. Then there is the issue of where someone was born. If someone is born in a country than that is an indicator of his nationality. But it is not definitive, as someone might be born abroad. At the height of the empire large numbers of Britons were born abroad as so many British people were involved in the administration in the colonies.
4. Then there is the cultural dimension. Does the person share the culture of the nation? There might be religious, political and other cultural differences which prohibit someone from integrating and being a part of a nation. The differences might be so great that to describe two people with totally incompatible cultures as being of one nation, is meaningless.
5. Does the nation as a whole regard someone as being of the same nation as them? Someone may not be accepted as being a part of the nation for any number of reasons. This may be hurtful to someone who wishes to integrate, but it is a fact nonetheless.
6. Does the person consider himself to be a part of a nation? If he does not then it is clearly difficult for the nation to insist that he is something that he denies he is. Those who emigrated from Britain to the empire retained their British customs and sense of British nationhood. This applied to many who had been born of British parents abroad and had never set foot in Britain until later in their lives. They did not consider themselves to be Zulus or Aborigines, for example.
Some of these factors are more telling than others and also need to be considered as a whole.
The relevance of all this is in assessing the present crisis in the UK.
Is it the case that someone like Abu Hamza is as much a Briton as someone born in the UK and is blood British? To say otherwise is currently condemned as discriminatory and racist. Nevertheless, the English Rights Campaign does not hold the view that he is a Briton at all, and takes a similar view of all those of a similar ilk. He is not English. He and his fellow zealots have dual nationality and should have their British passports revoked and be required to return to their own countries.
The English Rights Campaign blog entry for the 5 March 2005 relates to the extremist Hizb ut-Tahrir organisation, one of whose members stated:
‘I think Muslims in this country need to take a long, hard look at themselves and decide what is their identity. Are they British or are they Muslim? I am a Muslim. Where I live, is irrelevant.’
The question therefore arises as to how do the British react to this? Do they insist that those who deny they are British are in fact so? And what purpose would that serve? And if they are not British, then how should they be treated given their open hostility to our country?
Then there are the interests of the English. We are a nation, yet are being denied control of our own country. England is the country of the English. We are not immigrants, do not have dual nationality, and have nowhere else to go. Irrespective of what the views of the Muslim minority are, why are our views and interests being ignored? It is England which is bearing the brunt of mass immigration, it was the capital of England which was targeted by the terrorists and has been targeted again. Never mind the Muslim Council of Britain, which seems to represent few other than its own council members. We, the English, are entitled to be consulted and yet we are not.
We need an English parliament to represent English interests.
posted by erc @ 10:31 pm
<< Home