NATIONHOOD AND NATIONALITY
In a skirmish that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown had with some English nationalists recently, Alibhai-Brown is quoted as previously making the following comments:
During the skirmish, Alibhai-Brown made the following comment:
Alibhai-Brown is a Ugandan Asian refugee and Muslim who immigrated into this country in 1972. She has done little else other than attack the English ever since.
In February this year [see English Rights Campaign entry dated the 14 February 2005], Alibhai-Brown wrote an introduction to a British Council exhibition which was touring the Middle East in which she said:
At a time when British troops are in Iraq and when we are supposed to be fighting a war on terror, such comments can do nothing other than encourage anti-British hatred amongst Muslims, can only be helpful to Al Qaeda and other anti-Western terrorist groups and their supporters, and cannot be other than damaging to this country and the safety of our soldiers and citizens.
Shortly after 7/7 she held to this view when she wrote in the Daily Mail and repeated the above quote verbatim.
Alibhai-Brown need not fret herself. She is not English.
The criteria which might be considered regarding nationhood and nationality has been raised in the English Rights Campaign entry dated the 21 July 2005.
It is a matter of fact that Alibhai-Brown is not ethnic English. She does not share English culture, either politically or religiously. Instead, she is openly antagonistic towards the English. She was not born in England, but is an immigrant. She does not consider herself to be English, as she herself states.
Legally, she is not English either. She has a British passport - not an English one. There is no such thing as an English passport. It is possible for someone to acquire British citizenship, but impossible for someone to become English.
Whether she has or is entitled to dual nationality is unknown [ie it is not known if she retains Ugandan nationality since the fall of Idi Amin, or whether she has a right to Indian nationality].
In the article in The Independent entitled ‘My hopes of progress are turning to ashes’, which led to the above mentioned skirmish, Alibhai-Brown complains about the sense of pride and patriotism flowing from the impending Ashes victory for England’s cricket team. In reference to the English, she wrote:
It is to be noted that Alibhai-Brown acknowledges that the English are an ethnic group. Once again, this underlines the fact that one cannot become English. Ethnicity cannot be acquired.
She then goes on to say that English children should be taught English history, and says that the English are:
She then continues:
And:
She then manages to turn the article around to the 7/7 terrorist bombings:
[As a matter of fact, one of the bombers had been born in Jamaica - only 3 had been born in England.]
She concludes:
If only that last sentence were true. The ball is not in England’s court. England has no means of democratic outlet, and no means of addressing the manner in which Labour have rigged the constitution and the last election. We are powerless.
Alibhai-Brown is a longstanding opponent of devolution in general, and an English parliament in particular. Her opening comments about being sympathetic towards the English are nothing more than flannel. The thrust of her article is an attack upon English nationalism.
There is a constitutional problem with Scots and Welsh continuing to vote on English affairs, despite having home rule for themselves. And the English are being fleeced financially. An English parliament is the only solution to that, and that gives rise to English nationalism.
Alibhai-Brown caricatures the English as being ‘open and promiscuous’ etc, and then invents another caricature of the English nationalists as being, in effect, white supremacists and racial purists [this is very similar to Vince Cable’s recent Demos report]. She then talks of ‘white Britons’ giving up on Britain and taking ‘refuge in England’.
The number of Scots and Welsh [also white Britons] who Alibhai-Brown avers intend to ‘take refuge in England’ is not quantified.
The English Rights Campaign and the overwhelming majority of English nationalists do not argue for an independent England. What we want is internal control of our own affairs. In that scenario, we will all remain British [that is a statement of fact].
There will therefore be no change in Britishness, only an internal change in the governance of England.
The end of Alibhai-Brown’s article is as silly as it is nasty. She is trying to portray the suicide bombers as victims of English racism, and she implies that the terrorists were driven to their terrorism because they ‘must have been rejected by indigenous locals who hate Pakis’ [note the objectivity] and possibly felt ‘homeless’.
This is a nasty little trick to try and perpetuate the notion of the victim status of immigrants. Racism did not play any part in the terrorist bombings at all. We know so because one of the terrorists told us so in his pre-recorded video, in which he said:
Mohammed Khan was clear enough. This was someone who had been globetrotting to Pakistan and white water rafting in Wales. He had a good job and had even visited the House of Commons as a guest of the Labour MP Jon Trickett, with whom he had been on friendly terms for 17 years and was considered a family friend.
Khan’s motives were religious, including the concept of Jihad [see the English Rights Campaign entry dated the 2 August 2005 for the obligations of British Muslims as set out by the Muslim Parliament of Britain]. He was a Muslim fundamentalist. His loyalty was to the Muslim Ummah. He did not regard himself as English at all.
He was not a victim of English racism.
The idea that cricket, or the cricket pundits, have anything to do with the causes of Muslim terrorism is pathetic.
Alibhai-Brown is another who can keep her grubby little smears to herself.
‘Once, as a rabid anti-imperialist (which I still am), I would have applauded anybody who publicly humiliated the English. If it was done cleverly and with panache it was even more satisfying. Like other nationals who had been subjugated for so long, these small affronts were liberating, a way of confronting that arrogance of Englanders.
But these days I feel more disquiet than wicked delight when the English are gratuitously slagged off.’
During the skirmish, Alibhai-Brown made the following comment:
‘I would never want to be English that is my point. That is a promise too. Anyone can be British which is why I claim that proudly.’
Alibhai-Brown is a Ugandan Asian refugee and Muslim who immigrated into this country in 1972. She has done little else other than attack the English ever since.
In February this year [see English Rights Campaign entry dated the 14 February 2005], Alibhai-Brown wrote an introduction to a British Council exhibition which was touring the Middle East in which she said:
‘Too many young Muslims are emotionally homeless. Racism makes them believe they cannot belong in Britain.’
At a time when British troops are in Iraq and when we are supposed to be fighting a war on terror, such comments can do nothing other than encourage anti-British hatred amongst Muslims, can only be helpful to Al Qaeda and other anti-Western terrorist groups and their supporters, and cannot be other than damaging to this country and the safety of our soldiers and citizens.
Shortly after 7/7 she held to this view when she wrote in the Daily Mail and repeated the above quote verbatim.
Alibhai-Brown need not fret herself. She is not English.
The criteria which might be considered regarding nationhood and nationality has been raised in the English Rights Campaign entry dated the 21 July 2005.
It is a matter of fact that Alibhai-Brown is not ethnic English. She does not share English culture, either politically or religiously. Instead, she is openly antagonistic towards the English. She was not born in England, but is an immigrant. She does not consider herself to be English, as she herself states.
Legally, she is not English either. She has a British passport - not an English one. There is no such thing as an English passport. It is possible for someone to acquire British citizenship, but impossible for someone to become English.
Whether she has or is entitled to dual nationality is unknown [ie it is not known if she retains Ugandan nationality since the fall of Idi Amin, or whether she has a right to Indian nationality].
In the article in The Independent entitled ‘My hopes of progress are turning to ashes’, which led to the above mentioned skirmish, Alibhai-Brown complains about the sense of pride and patriotism flowing from the impending Ashes victory for England’s cricket team. In reference to the English, she wrote:
‘New Labour and devolution created fresh challenges for these patriots. England was no longer Great Britain. It was part of a changed United Kingdom, now ruled by too many Scotsmen. From what I heard during my sessions at the Edinburgh book festival this August, the Scots not only despise Englanders, they want precious little to do with the edifice which holds us together, Great Britain.
I have a lot of sympathy with the English who feel left out in the cold by this constitutional rearrangement, and even with those who resentfully ask why English people are denied the right to express their ancestral identity and ethnicity. It is indeed unfair that children are taught it is cool to be Afro-Caribbean or delightful to be a Bhangra-dancing Punjabi, but that there is something shameful and ridiculous in proclaiming your Englishness.’
It is to be noted that Alibhai-Brown acknowledges that the English are an ethnic group. Once again, this underlines the fact that one cannot become English. Ethnicity cannot be acquired.
She then goes on to say that English children should be taught English history, and says that the English are:
‘The most adventurous, open and promiscuous, wilfully and joyously appropriating, replicating and incorporating different cultures and ideas and peoples from the world.’
She then continues:
‘Yet today’s understandings pull in the opposite direction. Currently the most ardent advocates for England want to tame these wild and defining characteristics of Englishness. They want to remake Jerusalem. They want green and pleasant villages and church spires and cricket greens where no impertinent outsiders will be admitted, as they have under the messy and inclusive British flag.
Reading between the lines, these calls for purity are pitched by cricket pundits imagining the England they want - an England unsullied by the likes of us or gypsies or Albanians, I reckon.’
And:
‘Yes folks, there is white flight into Englishness, and it seems unstoppable. And if the Ashes are won, I reckon this purification and reclamation project will be boosted immeasurably. And many more white Britons will give up on Britain and take refuge in England.’
She then manages to turn the article around to the 7/7 terrorist bombings:
‘And if this disengagement carries on, will Britishness be like an inner-city area, a dejected, hopeless place for poor blacks left behind with nowhere to go? When I think the four British born Muslim men who blew up London, I fret about their lack of connection to this country. Did they feel homeless? Their own people probably told them never to become too English, and some must have been rejected by indigenous locals who hate Pakis.
It isn’t to excuse their acts, which will remain unforgiven. But if even I can feel forlorn and bitter about the different ways my countrymen can make me feel unwanted by drawing up bridges using the arsenal of abuse, how must it be for black and Asian men with no opportunities to make themselves matter to themselves and others?’
[As a matter of fact, one of the bombers had been born in Jamaica - only 3 had been born in England.]
She concludes:
‘Britain could carry on becoming a modern, confident internationalist nation or a sadly balkanised one, progressive hopes turned to ash. The ball is in England’s court.’
If only that last sentence were true. The ball is not in England’s court. England has no means of democratic outlet, and no means of addressing the manner in which Labour have rigged the constitution and the last election. We are powerless.
Alibhai-Brown is a longstanding opponent of devolution in general, and an English parliament in particular. Her opening comments about being sympathetic towards the English are nothing more than flannel. The thrust of her article is an attack upon English nationalism.
There is a constitutional problem with Scots and Welsh continuing to vote on English affairs, despite having home rule for themselves. And the English are being fleeced financially. An English parliament is the only solution to that, and that gives rise to English nationalism.
Alibhai-Brown caricatures the English as being ‘open and promiscuous’ etc, and then invents another caricature of the English nationalists as being, in effect, white supremacists and racial purists [this is very similar to Vince Cable’s recent Demos report]. She then talks of ‘white Britons’ giving up on Britain and taking ‘refuge in England’.
The number of Scots and Welsh [also white Britons] who Alibhai-Brown avers intend to ‘take refuge in England’ is not quantified.
The English Rights Campaign and the overwhelming majority of English nationalists do not argue for an independent England. What we want is internal control of our own affairs. In that scenario, we will all remain British [that is a statement of fact].
There will therefore be no change in Britishness, only an internal change in the governance of England.
The end of Alibhai-Brown’s article is as silly as it is nasty. She is trying to portray the suicide bombers as victims of English racism, and she implies that the terrorists were driven to their terrorism because they ‘must have been rejected by indigenous locals who hate Pakis’ [note the objectivity] and possibly felt ‘homeless’.
This is a nasty little trick to try and perpetuate the notion of the victim status of immigrants. Racism did not play any part in the terrorist bombings at all. We know so because one of the terrorists told us so in his pre-recorded video, in which he said:
‘Our words have no impact on you therefore I am going to speak to you in a language you understand. Our words are dead until we give them life with our blood...
I and thousands like me have forsaken everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation does not come from tangible commodities from what the world has to offer. Our religion is Islam.
What we have is obedience to the one true God and following in the footsteps of the final prophet and messenger Mohammed. This is how our ethical stances are dictated.
While your democratically elected Government continually perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world your support for them makes you responsible. Just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters, now you will taste the reality of this situation.
Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing and torture and imprisonment of my people we will not stop.
We are at war and I am a soldier.’
Mohammed Khan was clear enough. This was someone who had been globetrotting to Pakistan and white water rafting in Wales. He had a good job and had even visited the House of Commons as a guest of the Labour MP Jon Trickett, with whom he had been on friendly terms for 17 years and was considered a family friend.
Khan’s motives were religious, including the concept of Jihad [see the English Rights Campaign entry dated the 2 August 2005 for the obligations of British Muslims as set out by the Muslim Parliament of Britain]. He was a Muslim fundamentalist. His loyalty was to the Muslim Ummah. He did not regard himself as English at all.
He was not a victim of English racism.
The idea that cricket, or the cricket pundits, have anything to do with the causes of Muslim terrorism is pathetic.
Alibhai-Brown is another who can keep her grubby little smears to herself.
posted by erc @ 10:38 pm
<< Home