RACE WAR POLITICS

One of the more disturbing aspects of race war politics, is the way in which the killing of a white person is seen as less serious than the killing of a non-white person.

The Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation has gone overboard in its reporting of the murder of Anthony Walker, as have many others. This was a truly horrendous and cowardly murder. Mr Walker was set upon by a gang of white youths in an unprovoked attack and was killed by a blow from an axe, which was embedded in his skull.

Those responsible should be imprisoned for life. And life should mean life.

But a different set of rules apply when the murder victim is white.

Christopher Yates was set upon by 3 Asians and kicked to death, also in an unprovoked attack. Mr Yates was punched and kicked to the ground and then had his head stamped on. The attack was so violent that part of his face was torn away from his head.

Witnesses, whose view of the attack was obscured, thought that the attackers were playing football with something.

The attackers then boasted of ‘killing a white man’. One of them had said: ‘That will teach him to interfere with Paki business’.

The BBC, and the media in general, have only given this murder minimal coverage.

The killers - Sajid Zulfiqar, Zahid Bashir and Imran Maqsood - were arrested 5 months later as they were planning to flee to Pakistan, from where their parents had immigrated to the UK from.

Zulfiqar has a string of previous convictions for possessing drugs, drink-driving, stealing cars and credit card fraud. Bashir has convictions for theft and fraud.

When the 3 killers were convicted, Judge Martin Stephens warned that they would face a minimum 30 year sentence if he decided that the killing had been racially motivated.

However, the judge finally rejected a racial factor, despite the ‘killing a white man’ boast, as the killers had subsequently assaulted black and Asian victims as well in a rampage in Ilford. Therefore the judge recommended that the killers each only serve a minimum of 15 years. This is despite the longstanding criminal backgrounds of 2 of the killers.

It would seem, that in Labour’s politically correct Britain, the subsequent acts of violence were a mitigating factor which led the judge to halve the sentences.

THE PAREKH REPORT [6]

‘England, Scotland and Wales are at a turning point in their history. They could become narrow and inward-looking, with rifts between themselves and among their regions and communities, or they could develop as a community of citizens and communities. Britain as a whole could be such a community, and so could each part or region, and each city, town and neighbourhood. Building and sustaining a community of citizens and communities involve:

• rethinking the national story and national identity;
• understanding that all identities are in a process of transition;
• developing a balance between cohesion, equality and difference;
• addressing and eliminating all forms of racism;
• reducing material inequalities;
• building a pluralistic human rights culture.’

And:

‘Many customary images of Britain are England centred - and, indeed, southern England-centred - and leave many millions of people out of the picture. Increasingly, in Scotland and Wales people have a sense of multiple identity. Englishness is also in the process of being redefined. People in Britain have many differences, but they inhabit the same space and share the same future. All have a role in the collective project of fashioning Britain as an outward-looking, generous, inclusive society.’

The above quotes are from the Executive Summary of the Parekh Report.

The Executive Summary is quite detailed and consists of an overall summary as well as a summary for each chapter - all 21 of them. This allows the reader can see what he has to look forward to!

For example, the summary for Chapter 2, Rethinking the National Story, states:

‘A state is not only a territorial and political entity, but also an “imagined community”. What is Britain’s understanding of itself? How are the histories of England, Scotland and Wales understood by their people? Of what may citizens be justly proud? How has the imagined nation stood the test of time? What should be preserved, what jettisoned, what revised or reworked? How can everyone have a recognised place within the larger picture? These are questions about Britain as an imagined community, and about how a genuinely multicultural Britain urgently needs to reimagine itself. Among other things, such reimagining must take account of the inescapable changes of the last 30 years - not only postwar migration but also devolution, globalisation, the end of empire, Britain’s long-term decline as a world power, moral and cultural pluralism, and closer integration with Europe.’

The above extracts show that the report and its writers were unquestioningly committed to a multicultural society. They were also taken with the notion of ‘rethinking’/’reimagining’ Britain. What they really mean of course, is that history should be rewritten to suit the purposes of the politically correct. That history should become a lie.

The report is hostile to the concept of English nationhood, notwithstanding the devolution of power to Scottish and Welsh parliaments. The report prefers to blur the issue of national identity and advocates the concept of multiple identity.

The report is dictatorial and elitist. It assumes that it is for the politically correct elite to decide the culture of the nation and not the ordinary people. In fact in a democracy it is not for an elite, no matter how righteous it considers itself to be, to decide ‘what should be preserved, what jettisoned, what revised or reworked?’ - regarding a nation’s culture. Nor is it the role of an elite to tell ordinary people what they are allowed to believe.

Such elitism and intolerance is incompatible with democracy and a free society, and this country is still a democracy and a free society, although such values are continually eroded.

This very Monday, 28 November 2005, there was a conference in London regarding the ‘Values of Britishness’. The speakers at this conference included David Cameron MP who delivered the Keynote Address, and:

Rt Hon Jack McConnell MSP, First Minister of Scotland
Lord Neil Kinnock, Chairman of the British Council
Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary General, Muslim Council
Professor Tariq Modood, Department of Sociology, University of Bristol
Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality
Professor Lord Bhiku Parekh, Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster

There were also speakers, including Sir Gulam Noon, to represent business.

It is presumed that Mr Cameron, who apparently believes that political correctness encourages politeness, was the English representative. This is what is known as equality.

That Lord Parekh is still around dispensing his views on Britishness is positively galling.

THE WAR ON TERROR

In the latest episode of Labour appeasement of the IRA, the Northern Ireland Secretary, Peter Hain, announced plans that allow approximately 100 IRA terrorists to avoid prison.

In a new bill, which the House of Commons passed by 48 votes, terrorists wanted by the police for offences pre-dating the Good Friday Agreement will be able to appear before a special tribunal. Even if convicted they will be released on licence immediately and will not spend a single day in jail.

This includes the killers who bombed Enniskillen and Warrington.

The bill is the result of a secret deal Labour struck with the Sinn Fein/IRA in 2001.

Although Mr Hain denied that he had caved in to threats from the IRA to start a new bombing campaign, he said:

‘I think there would have been no guarantee at all that we would have seen an end to the IRA’s terror campaign. That is the point.’

Mr Hain compared the move to events in South Africa at the end of apartheid.

Mr Hain had to apologise for referring to IRA killers as ‘political prisoners’ during a radio interview before the debate.

Of course Northern Ireland is a democracy. South Africa was not as blacks were denied the vote. Mr Hain’s comparison with South Africa is therefore specious.

There is no justification for terrorism at any time, and certainly none in a democracy. Just because a group loses a vote does not entitle them to commit murder.

The appeasement of the IRA and the manner in which Labour have been prepared to tolerate IRA racketeering and bank robbing, is a further affront to democracy. In the long run, appeasement does not work.

THE EU

Below is the copy of a press release which is self-explanatory:

Press Release
The People's No Campaign
Thursday 24th November 2005

"Wear Valley District Council desperate to remove the English 'Cross of St. George' Flag
...and replace it with the European Union 'Ring of Stars."

Wear Valley District Council is tonight attempting to seek planning permission to fly the EU Flag after previously being forced to remove it by People's No Campaigners, Jim Tague and Neil Herron.

The planning application, using £265 of public money appears to be a desperate attempt to legitimise the flying of the EU's 'Ring of Stars' after being embarrassingly caught out flying it illegally.

However, it is still not lawful to fly the flag because it is not the flag of a nation state but of a political project and thus they would fall foul of Section 19 of the Local Authority Guidelines on Publicity..." you cannot use public money to attempt to persuade the public on a question of policy."

Neil Herron states, "The issue of our membership of the European Union is politically contentious and one for national Government and not for promotion by Local Authorities. Their limited resources would be better spent on issues, which are important to the local community and not for political ‘grandstanding’ on behalf of elected members who are in favour of the ‘European Project,' including former leader Olive Brown who is the North East alternate member on the EU's Committee of the Regions.
Quite why WVDC Council, the Council which states on its website, 'our aim – is to become the best District Council in England’ wishes to have the English flag removed therefore is quite beyond me."

Jim Tague states, " In light of the Council's wish to become the best District Council in England I trust they will be consulting the whole of the District on their preference of which particular flag they would like see flying...the Cross of St. George or the EU's Ring of Stars. Surely a council with such aspirations would not fear the outcome of full public consultation. After all, as servants of the people I am sure that they would not wish to be seen as acting as our masters."

It is expected that this issue will have implications for all other Local Authorities who are also unlawfully flying the EU Flag and I am sure that our pro EU Government will be watching events very closely.

G K Chesterton in his poem 'Secret People' states:
"For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet."

If Wear Valley District Council and other Local Authorities continue with their arrogant affront to England and the English people then they will find that the people who haven't yet spoken are ones to be feared when they do find their voice.

Ends:

Contact;
Neil Herron
0191 565 7143
07776 202045
http://www.neilherron.blogspot.com/
http://www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk/
Jim Tague
07704 664 223

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

‘Tolerance is a tremendous virtue, but the immediate neighbours of tolerance are apathy and weakness.’

Sir James Goldsmith [founder and leader of the Referendum Party]

IMMIGRATION

Future historians may look back on 2005 as being a turning point in British history. Not only did Labour get away with rigging a general election, but the consequences of that, and the Tories’ unwillingness to properly tackle the immigration crisis, has led to a complete abandonment of any pretence at controlling immigration.

This will have continuing far reaching consequences and threatens the very existence of England, in which the English will become a racial minority in around 50 years unless the current policy on immigration can be reversed.

2005 was also the year in which wanton Muslim terrorism struck in England. This act of barbarity has not jolted the British ruling class out of its lethargic, snobby complacency as it should have done.

The sheer scale of immigration, both legal and illegal, is horrifying.

In the summer it was revealed by the National Audit Office [NAO] that the government had lost 128,500 failed asylum seekers. This is at a time when we are supposed to be fighting a war on terror and when England has become a target for Al Qaeda terrorists.

The NAO discovered that the government was only deporting 1,000 failed asylum seekers per month at a time when the number of unsuccessful new claims stood at 2,150 per month.

The Home Office figures showed that there were 283,500 failed asylum seekers who could be deported. Astonishingly, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate’s [IND] records only showed 155,000. The balance of 128,500 are missing. It is believed that they might have arrived before the IND’s database was set up in 2000, or that they might have gone home of their own accord [some hope].

However, 20,000 of the missing 128,500 are shown on local authority records as being in receipt of benefits!

Furthermore, a further 49,000 failed asylum seekers were still in the country because they had not lodged an appeal. The IND database assumes that all failed asylum seekers will lodge an appeal and hence does not register them as being ready for deportation until the appeal has been turned down. Since the 49,000 never appealed, the IND did not twig that they should be deported.

The incompetence involved is not confined to counting the immigrants. For example, a private contractor continued to receive payments for escorting failed asylum seekers to the Yarls Wood detention centre in Bedfordshire for 7 months after the centre had been burnt down in a riot.

The NAO urged the government to make greater efforts to promote assisted voluntary returns, which involves failed asylum seekers being offered free plane tickets and financial support. The current cost of voluntary returns is only £1,100 per departure. The current cost to deport an asylum seeker forcibly is many times that and on occasion special planes have been chartered to fly a handful of asylum seekers back to their own countries.

To be effective, this financial inducement for voluntary returns needs to be increased. But that could only be done after border controls are re-established, otherwise immigrants will come here in order to qualify for the money for assisted returns.

It was further revealed in the summer that the asylum system is such a shambles that it takes 2 months before there is even an initial assessment for a claim for asylum, and that an asylum seeker can expect to stay for 2 years even if his claim is complete nonsense.

There was, in the summer, a backlog of 35,000 cases subject to appeal and that it was taking 25 weeks to decide an appeal. 80% of appeals are refused. But even then, the NAO found that it would take an average of 403 days before the asylum seeker was deported - if he is deported that is.

Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch UK said:

‘Any person who utters the word asylum is guaranteed nearly two years in Britain. They also have an 85% chance of staying here indefinitely because of the failure to remove.’

With an 85% chance of staying here come what may, it is little wonder that the so-called asylum seekers keep on coming.

The rate of removals, far from increasing in the light of events, have in fact been falling. Only 14,906 failed asylum seekers were deported in 2004, which was only 80% of the number of deportations in the previous year. At the same time, there were a further 59,400 asylum claims refused. This is four times the number of removals.

At the current rate of deportations, it has been estimated that it would take 20 years to clear the backlog of failed asylum seekers - and this assumes that there are no new ones.

Jeremy Oppenheimer of the IND recently told the Public Accounts Committee, which was reviewing the NAO report, that the IND did not even know where 75% of failed asylum seekers were living. It was also revealed that 500 failed asylum seekers who had been jailed for as a result of their criminal activities in Britain had been set free. This was because it was alleged that they could not be sent back to their own countries as those countries were deemed to be dangerous and there was no agreement, regarding returned asylum seekers, with their governments.

As a sign of the times, despite the closure of Sangatte 3 years ago, so-called asylum seekers are massing at Calais once again. At any one time up to 800 illegal immigrants are living rough near Calais as they try to get across to England. They are being catered for by local charities which are providing food and clothing. The French Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, has admitted that the situation is getting steadily worse, but has pledged that there will not be another Sangatte opened despite calls from so-called human rights groups that one should be.

One Calais resident complained:

‘You see these men loitering about the town all day. Many get involved in crimes. They can be very menacing. They will wait for their chance, and then break into lorries to try and get to England. Nothing seems to be done to prevent this happening.’

Recently 2 East Africans were accused of beating up a couple and there have also been robberies and sex assaults.

A sign of how much money organised crime rackets are making out of people smuggling, was highlighted recently by the arrest of 5 asylum seekers, who had been granted leave to remain in Britain. The suspects had then set up an multi-million pound immigration racket which was responsible for the smuggling of 100,000 illegal immigrants into the UK and another 100,000 into other European countries. The men had become millionaires as a result, and had further claimed many tens of thousands of pounds in benefits as well.

The gang used recruitment officers in Turkey to induce Kurds to pay up to £8,000 per time to be smuggled to Britain. The racketeers brought properties in Britain and abroad and invested in cafes, snooker halls and restaurants to launder their money.

Once in Britain, the immigrants disappeared into London’s Turkish community and the black economy.

At £8,000 per immigrant, 100,000 immigrants leads to a total income of £800million. Then there are the 100,000 immigrants smuggled to the other European countries. This shows the amount of money that is being made by organised crime as a result of the asylum shambles.

Another example is that of Obaidur Tipu and Mohammed Bar who made up to £1.8million from a fraudulent immigration service. The 2 men falsified applications for leave to remain in the Britain for immigrants, supported by forged letters stating that their clients had already been living here for more than the required 14 years.

As if all this is not bad enough, recent court decisions have virtually abolished any prospect of deporting phony asylum seekers. In a decision relating to 100 so-called asylum seekers from Zimbabwe, it was ruled that although an asylum seeker may be lying through his teeth about being a genuine refugee, he should still be allowed to stay because to send him back would be a breach of his human rights as he might be persecuted if he was sent back.

This was the decision of the Asylum Immigration Tribunal chairman, Mark Ockelton, who even criticised the government for not checking to see what happens to deportees. This was in a test case of an unidentified man known as AA, who had entered Britain in 2002 and had gone underground. He only claimed asylum after ‘encountering’ the police. He claimed to be an activist with the Zimbabwe opposition, the MDC, but did not even know what the initials stood for. The tribunal dismissed his claim for asylum as ‘fraudulent’, but Mr Ockelton said:

‘He has become a refugee by making a false claim to be a refugee. We fear our decision will seem to demonstrate or confirm refugee law is inherently prone to abuse.’

He said it.

It should be remembered, that in order to get to Britain, a so-called asylum seeker from Zimbabwe needs to travel by, over or through: Malawi, Zambia, Angola, Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Congo, The Central African Republic, Cameroon, Chad, Sudan, Nigeria, Benin, Togo, Niger, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Malta, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Luxembourg, Belgium and Holland. This ignores a whole host of other African and European countries both to the east and west of a route to Britain and which are far closer and easier to get to from Zimbabwe [eg Greece or the Ivory Coast].

The idea that anyone fleeing Zimbabwe enters this country as an asylum seeker is an absurdity. Of course Britain should help, but should do so through financial aid and not by allowing economic migrants to barge their way into our country.

Another recent example of the asylum farce was that of Ebun Agbaje, a Nigerian, who alleged that she should not be deported as she was afraid of black magic in Nigeria. She claimed that ‘some form of spirit or dark arts’ had caused a car crash which had killed her parents. She further claimed that the same Voodoo spirit had caused her to fall ill.

Although her asylum claim had been rejected, Mr Justice Bean ruled that she should be allowed to appeal as a medical specialist claimed that the trauma of being sent home could breach her human rights.

Meanwhile, notwithstanding the war on terror, it was revealed that 86,000 people from Algeria and Pakistan, both countries with strong links to Al Qaeda terrorism, were granted visas last year without interviews at all. Both countries have been linked to the terrorist activity in Britain.

Meanwhile, more than 230,000 east Europeans registered to work in Britain since the expansion of the EU. Officials estimated that 70,000 of them had already been here illegally.

Meanwhile, the problem of illegal immigrants entering Britain by enrolling as students, quite often in phony colleges, continues. 37 universities revealed, under the Freedom of Information Act, that 17,000 foreign students were granted places on a course but simply never showed up. This amounts to 6% of the 294,000 foreign students allowed into Britain last year. The Home Office has admitted that it has no idea of how many students are frauds, and organised crime rackets are known to offer forged recommendation letters and enrolment on fake courses.

A student visa costs £85 and allows the holder to work for up to 20 hours per week. It is a very easy route into the Britain. There are no checks on who leaves after finishing their studies. The NAO investigated this and found, for example, that 40% of Ghanians allowed into the Britain as students simply disappeared.

Furthermore, there are even greater numbers of extensions of student visas. For example, 425 Jamaicans applied to enter the UK as students and government figures showed that there were 780 Jamaican students in the UK in total. Yet the number of Jamaicans given visa extensions totaled 13,220.

The number of student visa extensions increased by 50% to 190,000.

An official survey last year found that of 1,200 colleges and language schools, no fewer than 300 were bogus and were simply a scam operated by organised crime rackets as a front for illegal immigration.

Despite a series of new rules designed to crack down on phony colleges, which include obliging colleges to report non-attendance, it has recently been revealed that the colleges are happy to turn a blind eye to such non-attendance and/or doctor the attendance records. Desmond Mason, the principal of the independent Westover College in Bournemouth has said:

‘People are happy making money out of selling student visas and the Government doesn’t seem to be interested. Some colleges are encouraging students not to come to classes so that they can have more students on their books than they can actually accommodate.

The Department for Education and Skills [DfES] providers register is full of rogue schools that have been reported numerous times for not abiding by the regulations.’

The DfES register ensures that colleges have premises, but does not ensure that they are capable of offering genuine courses.

Tony Millns, the chief executive of English UK, which is lobbying for a compulsory accreditation scheme, has said:

‘The DfES register has no quality dimension at all. My guess is you can get on the register by spending between £300 and £500 for company registration and other basic paperwork.’

294,000 student visas were issued to non-EU citizens last year.

Meanwhile, a UN report warned that 100,000 illegal immigrants enter Britain each year, and further criticised the Government for hiding the true number of illegal immigrants living here. The report by Khalid Koser of the Global Commission on International Migration, further warned that the scale of mass migration to Britain would continue.

A previous report by Professor Salt had estimated that the number of illegal immigrants in Britain was in the region of 570,000. This figure is arrived at by deducting the number of foreign nationals who are known to be living here legally from the total number who stated in the 2001 census that they were born overseas.

Needless to say, not all illegal immigrants diligently fill in their census forms. Furthermore, this 570,000 figure ignored the estimated 715,700 to 772,400 asylum seekers who were in the system at the time of the April 2001 census. Since the vast majority of those claims will have been adjudged to be false, and since there is no effort on the part of Labour to deport those failed asylum seekers, the overwhelming majority of them will be still here.

Then there are all the other forms of illegal immigration which have continued since 2001, as well as the continued inflow of so-called asylum seekers.

Previous estimates have put the number of illegal immigrants in the UK as being up to 1million, and this is the figure the English Rights Campaign has used [see English Rights Campaign entry dated 16 February 2005 for the item dated the 12 January]. It is clear however, that the true figure is therefore currently at least 1million.

Although the above immigration statistics apply to Britain or the UK as a whole, there is no disputing the fact that the overwhelming number of immigrants migrate to England. The result of this is that the population of England has now increased to a record 50million, according to the Office of National Statistics [ONS]. Roughly two thirds of the increase in population growth is caused by immigration.

Since the 50million figure was reached, in mid-2004, there has been a wave of new immigrants from eastern Europe. Nor does the 50million figure include illegal immigrants.

The result of this mass immigration is congested roads, a strain on public services [eg schools and hospitals], increased house prices and a shortage of housing, and increased unemployment. Professor John Guillebaud, co-chairman of the Optimum Population Trust, has commented:

‘A small and crowded country like Britain cannot cope with the environmental pressures created by the rise in human numbers we are witnessing.’

Since taking office, Labour has almost quadrupled the level of net migration. It was 59,000 in 1997 and was 222,600 in 2004 [the latest figure]. These figures exclude illegal immigration.

Another report by Migrationwatch UK, has revealed that Labour has let in 1.2million immigrants in the 7 years after taking office. Obviously that figure is increasing by the week. Migrationwatch has estimated that four-fifths of the increase in population growth is a direct result of immigration.

Immigrants themselves have children once they settle here, and this is an extra aspect of immigration population growth in addition to the simple numbers of immigrants settling here. Migrationwatch has calculated that 71% of the population increase is due to simple immigration [this is not dissimilar to the two-thirds increase cited by the ONS] and that once children born to immigrants are added in, then the figure reaches 81% of the total increase.

The 1.2million immigrants is equivalent to the combined population of Birmingham and Nottingham. The figure does not include illegal immigrants. Once illegal immigration is taken into account, Migrationwatch has estimated that immigration is running at 2million every 10 years.

Needless to say, this has an impact on England’s ability to absorb and assimilate such numbers of immigrants. Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch said:

‘In a recent BBC/Mori poll, 23% of Muslims said the area where they lived did not feel like Britain any more because of immigration.’

A Home Office spokesman said:

‘These figures reflect the reality of globalisation in the 21st century ... Forecasts put forward by Migrationwatch are highly speculative. It has made no allowance for illegal entrants who leave and makes the misleading assumption that the average levels of migration since 1997 will continue over ten years.’

Meanwhile, a study by the London School of Economics revealed that Britain’s visa rules were the softest in Europe. EU neighbours demand visas from 132 countries, whereas Britain only demanded them from 104 countries. The connections with The Commonwealth was partly responsible for this.

A report by the left wing Institute for Public Policy Research [IPPR] concluded that 25% of the population of London had been born outside the UK. The report only dealt with the figures to 2001 and excluded the children born to immigrants. East European immigration in the last couple of years has been substantial.

[In a sneaky piece of political correctness, the IPPR classified children born to British service personnel overseas as immigrants - as if they are foreigners.]

Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch pointed out:

'The rate of immigration has trebled, it will add 5million to the population over 30 years. This is not scaremongering. These are the Government’s own figures.

There is a democracy point here - 70% of the population believe there are too many immigrants coming to Britain.

Interestingly, 60% of Asians agree with that. And the Government is simply riding roughshod over the views of the public. I think that is a very serious mistake and it will not help integration.’

Recent figures from the ONS show that a total of 494,100 non-Britons immigration to the UK last year. This is an increase of 21% over the figure of 406,800 in 2003. 117,300 of these were from EU countries.

The number of British people returning to the UK fell from 105,800 in 2003 to 88,000 in 2004. A record number of Britons emigrated, the figure rising to 207,600. 119,600 more British people left than returned.

The net immigration figure has increased to 222,600, an increase of roughly 50% compared to the 2003 figure of 151,000.

Furthermore, there were a total of 494,100 non-British immigrants. This is made up of 117,300 from the EU, 76,200 from the Old Commonwealth, 143,000 from the New Commonwealth, and 157,700 from other foreign countries.

With a net migration of 119,600 of Britons leaving and 494,100 non-British immigrants arriving, this constitutes a major change in the racial balance of the country.

The numbers from the New Commonwealth have almost trebled since Labour took office, from 58,700 in 1997 to 143,000 in 2004. This is almost 3 times the figure of New Commonwealth immigrants Enoch Powell cited when he made his 1968 speech, in which he said:

‘Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancees whom they have never seen.’

There are now far greater numbers of immigrants from other countries in addition.

The immigration figures cited in this entry are enormous. There is no control over immigration at all. It is no wonder that England is steadily sliding towards being a country riven by racial conflict. 2005 has been a turning point.

These are immigration figures and not figures for the increase in the proportion of the population accounted for by the immigrant communities. The immigrant communities double as a proportion of the population roughly every 20 years. It is Labour policy to turn the English into a racial minority in their own country within roughly 50 years.

Unless there can be a reversal of Labour policy, then the outlook for the English and a stable and prosperous England is grim.

THE PAREKH REPORT [5]

‘Having sketched our vision of a relaxed and self-confident multicultural Britain ... we analyse the obstacles standing in its way ... The obstacles include racial discrimination, racial disadvantage, a racially oriented moral and political culture, an inadequate philosophy of government, a lack of carefully thought-out and properly integrated administrative structures at various levels of government, and a lack of political will.’

And:

‘The very language used to describe and define race relations in Britain is a source of considerable conceptual and political muddle. Such terms as ‘minority’ and ‘majority’ signify fixed blocs and obscure the fluidity and heterogeneity of real life. The term ‘ethnic group’ traps the group concerned into its ethnicity, and suppresses both its multiple identity and its freedom of self-determination. The term ‘integration’ is even more misleading, as it implies a one-way process in which ‘minorities’ are to be absorbed into the non-existent homogeneous cultural structure of the ‘majority’. We are fully aware of these and other limitations of the dominant language of debate. Inventing a wholly new vocabulary does not help, for such a language would be too abstract, artificial and unrelated to the idioms of everyday life to be intelligible, let alone provide a vehicle for meaningful dialogue. We have therefore thought it best to avoid parts of the current vocabulary when we could conveniently do so, and to make suitable qualifications and warnings when we could not.’

The above two quotes are from the Preface of the Parekh Report.

What a lot of politically correct rubbish!

The control of language is of course a key aspect of political correctness. By controlling the language, it makes it more difficult for people to express themselves and it is, therefore, a control on the way people think - which is the intention.

It would seem that the Parekh Commission toyed with the idea of inventing a new language, or possibly even using Esperanto!

But it is too easy to just laugh this off, when it is in fact no laughing matter. The Parekh Commission and their supporters are deadly serious. They really do mean what they say, and Labour was so impressed with this thinking that it appointed the chief mover in the Parekh Report, Trevor Phillips, to the chairmanship of the so-called Commission for Racial Equality.

The above extracts highlight 2 key aspects of the report. Firstly, an unquestioning commitment to multiculturalism and the portrayal of those not in favour of this as racist. Trevor Phillips’s recent statements calling for integration and not multiculturalism by itself need to be viewed with that fact in mind [see the English Rights Campaign entries dated the 18th and 24th September 2005, and the 5th October 2005].

Secondly, Mr Phillips’s recent rejection of the word ‘assimilation’ and his advocacy of ‘integration’ instead, also needs to be compared with the Parekh Report. The report dismisses the concept of integration. A key aspect of the report is the denial of the existence of the British nation - especially an English nation. It denies the existence of an ‘homogenous culture’ and therefore rejects assimilation/integration as being impossible as there is allegedly no national culture into which the ethnic minorities can assimilate/integrate [this will be dealt with in more detail later].

Mr Phillips’s recent rejection of ‘assimilation’ and his advocacy of ‘integration’ is disingenuous. What Mr Phillips now describes as integration he had previously described as multiculturalism in the Parekh Report. He is merely playing with words. His political views have remained unchanged.

The first paragraph quoted above shows how obsessed the commissioners were with race and how determined they were to use government power to impose their views on the rest of society. This is entirely consistent with the specifics of what Mr Phillips has been saying more recently.

The idea that one cannot refer to someone’s race for fear of trapping the individual into a racial group and ignoring other factors is hysterical. The allegation again demonstrates the zealotry of the commissioners. The assertion of ‘multiple identity’ is in keeping with the recent attack upon English nationalism by Vince Cable [see the English Rights Campaign entry dated the 11th September 2005]. Again, this shows that the Anglophobia we now face is part of a longstanding and sustained campaign.

LABOUR FLANNEL

In an article in the Daily Mail entitled, ‘Enterprise: the only way we can compete with China and India’, written by Gordon Brown, the Labour Chancellor and prime minister in waiting, starts off as follows:

‘Few can doubt that Britain’s post-war history of economic decline - when we suffered high unemployment, poor educational standards and low levels of business creation - arose from a poverty of aspirations.

For too many young people the British work ethic was insufficiently strong, the ambition to learn too weak, the enterprise ethic too narrowly held. For decade Britain - the home of the creative genius of the industrial revolution - had no-go areas for enterprise ...

Move forward to Britain’s Enterprise Week 2005 which moves into top gear today, with enterprise master classes, business placements and work experience for young people.

Competitions which did not even exist a few years ago abound, for the British Entrepreneur of the Year, Young Entrepreneur of the Year, the Daily Mail’s Enterprising Young Brit, the Enterprise Area of the Year, the inner-city Fastest Growing Company and the Most Enterprising School of the Year.

All of these - alongside two highly-rated television programmes, The Apprentice and Dragon’s Den, which I will be visiting today - signal a vision of Britain where there should be no ceiling on talent, no limit to potential, and no cap on aspiration.

The message is being sent around the world of a Britain that is breaking from a past of low ambitions, a Britain that now seeks to encourage challenge and inspire young people to make the most of their talents and be all they can be.’

And:

‘We know that only those advanced industrial countries that encourage the skills, inventiveness and creative talents of the young will meet and master the challenge from Asia.’

It would be truly horrifying if Mr Brown actually believed this. But given the article’s timing to coincide with Enterprise Week 2005, it might be put down to being a lot of flannel.

As if Britain’s demise from being the first industrial nation and the world superpower ‘arose from a poverty of aspirations’! As if young people did not want to be successful and wealthy. As if the millionaire lifestyle was something they were not interested in.

Even after the Second World War, despite our semi-bankrupt status, we were still a world power both economically and politically. Although, unlike Germany and Japan, we did not recover from the Second World War. We just went downhill.

According to Mr Brown, this decline had nothing to do with the blind adherence to free trade, or loss of empire and the captive markets. Nothing to do with socialism and the accompanying nationalisation of the staple industries, which proved so disastrous.

Nothing to do with the restrictive union practices, the demarcation lines, wildcat strikes, work to rules, 3 day weeks, closed shops etc. Nothing to do with the adherence to the discredited Keynesian economic policies with the ever burgeoning government spending and indebtedness. The reflation and following inflationary spirals. The Stop/Go era and forced devaluations after a failed fixed exchange rate policy.

Nothing to do with the price controls, wage controls, going rates, pay norms etc.

It apparently had nothing to do with the class war politics and the politics of envy [of which Mr Brown was an advocate]; the tax rates of up to 98%; the steady drift towards the desired revolution, with communists deliberately disrupting the economy and society; those who Margaret Thatcher described as ‘The Wreckers’; or the Winter of Discontent.

No. According to Mr Brown, Britain’s decline ‘arose from a poverty of aspirations’. And the solution to that ‘poverty’ [a favourite socialist word] and the means by which we will now compete with countries such as India and China, is lots of gimmicks and competitions.

Maybe we should be thankful he has not cited ‘Big Brother’.

Or perhaps that would be too close to home.

IMMIGRATION

The English Rights Campaign has received an email from someone with a different perspective on the immigration problem. This time the problem identified is from an Indian male point of view.

The email has been sent in response to the English Rights Campaign entry dated the 9 October 2005, dealing with immigration and arranged marriages.

The issue the writer has raised is that of dowries. Those who are demanding or receiving dowries from their future wives in India are merely obtaining money in return for British passports. It is in the national interest that this should cease.

Once again, it is clear that arranged marriages to spouses from the Indian subcontinent should be stopped. There are plenty of Asians in this country with whom other Asians can marry.

But also it seems this is in the interests of male Asians too.

The email is reproduced below in its entirety:

Hi

My name is Vinayak

I just viewed your post on immigration at
http://erc21.blogspot.com/2005/10/immigration.html

I'm surprised that so many Indians in the UK are marrying Indian women FROM the Sub - continent.

Probably many of them are unaware of a looming problem ... the often being used by Indian women.

I request you to post the following comment to the above URL / your blog.


That was a good blog post !

I feel your readers should know the other side of Indian Marriages, especially the misuse of laws by Indian wives these days.

Do you know that 1000s of innocent Indian men are being victimized by the misuse of anti dowry law - a particular Section 498A of Indian Penal code?

Many newly wed wives unable to adjust with their husbands, some who are unable to live in a new environment and even greedy Indian wives are known to file FALSE dowry cases against their husbands and In - Laws. They falsely accuse their husbands' of treating them with cruelty AND demanding dowry during marriage.

Since dowry is legally prohibited and severely punishable in India, many of these newly married men stand the gruesome prospect of being arrested and thrown into and Indian prison ... for years !!

The intention of these Indian wives of course is to settle scores or extract money from their in laws.

Once a dowry case is filed the Indian police are forced to arrest the husband and in some cases, even their un suspecting parents & sisters are arrested and jailed. Unable to bear the insult some have committed suicide.

As most of the male victims would be innocent and would not have EVEN stepped into a police station, let alone be arrested, they are forced to NEGOTIATE AND PAY these women.

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is badly lacking the "..due process of law .." i.e. Under any normal legal process, an accused is considered innocent unless proven guilty. However under Sec. 498A - I.P.C., the accused is immediately assumed to be guilty and has to loose liberty immediately....

There are 1000s of victims all over India.

It is reported that ".......In Andhra Pradesh (one of the Indian States), for example, a third of all the pending cases related to “atrocities on women” as on June 30 2005 are those under sections 498 and 498(A). In the first six months this year, 3801 new cases under just these two sections were instituted..........."

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=79802

This is a smear on the image of India.

If any reader here is about to get married or if you are facing a difficult relationship with your wife, please be aware. Take necessary precautions !!

Best regards


Vinayak


--

--

http://batteredmale.blogspot.com/
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-Y2MTaSA0RLDVTunp3KQgKh0-
http://my2cents.rediffblogs.com/
http://spaces.msn.com/members/Vinayak123/

http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/dowry-forum-1.html
http://phpbb-host.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=2&mforum=dowry

http://groups.google.com/group/DLMI?lnk=li
http://groups.google.com/group/DivorceCases?lnk=li
http://groups.google.com/group/DivorceFAQ?lnk=li

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

Another attack on our culture has recently taken place at the Liverpool Register Office.

A picture of a newly wedded couple signing the register and another picture of Romeo and Juliet on a swing have been removed. The claim was that the pictures were offensive to homosexuals.

This is in anticipation of the new civil partnership ceremonies for homosexuals which come into effect next month.

Instead, two landscape paintings costing £3,500 have been put up.

Janet Taubman, a superintendent registrar, said:

‘We had two very beautiful pictures up before but they would be unsuitable for the new services. They were innocent pictures but the new paintings are less likely to offend same-sex couples.’

Carol Codd, who helped choose the replacements said:

‘The landscape fits in because its neutral and its very difficult for people not to like a landscape. They also don’t point to one particular ceremony.’

However, Tris Reid-Smith, editor of the Pink paper, a homosexual magazine, said:

‘It’s a complete waste of money and a travesty to remove a perfectly good painting. I am not in any way offended by a painting of a heterosexual couple. Gay people are not put off by heterosexual couples getting married.’

TORY SOCIALISM

At a recent hustings meeting in Leicester for the Tory leadership contest, David Cameron revealed a little bit more about his politics.

According to one member of the audience, Simon Whelband:

‘There were a few eyebrows raised when Mr Cameron said political correctness was good because it encouraged people to be more polite to each other.’

This is an astonishing statement.

We have been warned.

THE PAREKH REPORT [4]

‘Several fundamental beliefs ... in our view are, or deserve to be, shared by most people in Britain.

First, all individuals have equal worth irrespective of their colour, gender, ethnicity, religion, age or sexual orientation, and have equal claims to the opportunities they need to realise their potential and contribute to collective wellbeing. The principle of equal moral worth cannot take root and flourish within a structure of deep economic or social inequalities.

Second, citizens are not only individuals but also members of particular religious, ethnic, cultural and religious communities, which are comparatively stable as well as open and fluid. Britain is both a community of citizens and a community of communities, both a liberal and a multicultural society, and needs to reconcile their sometimes conflicting requirements.

Third, since citizens have differing needs, equal treatment requires full account to be taken of their differences. When equality ignores relevant differences and insists on uniformity of treatment, it leads to injustice and inequality; when differences ignore the demands of equality, they result in discrimination. Equality must be defined in a culturally sensitive way and applied in a discriminating but not discriminatory manner.

Fourth, every society needs to be cohesive as well as respectful of diversity, and must find ways of nurturing diversity while fostering a common sense of belonging and a shared identity among its members.

Fifth, although every society needs a broadly shared body of values, of which human rights are an important part, there is a risk of defining the values so narrowly that their further development is ruled out or legitimate ways of life are suppressed. While affirming such essential procedural values as tolerance, mutual respect, dialogue and peaceful resolution of differences, and such basic ethical norms as respect for human dignity, equal worth of all, equal opportunity for self-development and equal life chances, society must also respect deep moral differences and find ways of resolving inescapable conflicts. Human rights principles provide a valuable framework for handling differences, but they are never by themselves enough.

Lastly, racism, understood either as division of humankind into fixed, closed and unalterable groups or as systematic domination of some groups by others, is an empirically false, logically incoherent and morally unacceptable doctrine. Racism is a subtle and complex phenomenon. It may be based on colour and physical features or on culture, nationality or way of life; it may affirm equality of human worth but implicitly deny this by insisting on the absolute superiority of a particular culture; it may admit equality up to a point but impose a glass ceiling higher up. Whatever its subtle disguises and forms, it is deeply divisive, intolerant of differences, a source of much human suffering and inimical to the common sense of belonging lying at the basis of every stable political community. It can have no place in a decent society.’

The above is from the Preface of the Parekh Report.

Much of it sounds very innocuous and nice. But it has been written by the politically correct and out-and-out communists, and therefore needs close examination - especially as we can see how it has worked out since.

The above 6 points will be dealt with in turn:

1. Talking of ‘equal worth’ is all very well, although it depends upon what is meant by ‘equal worth’. The term is flannel and designed to engender uncritical agreement.

The sentence that ‘the principle of equal moral worth cannot take root and flourish within a structure of deep economic or social inequalities’ is disingenuous and plain wrong. Someone’s ‘moral worth’ is not determined by the amount of money they have. Morality is not determined by money.

The concept is unworkable. Immigrants from the Third World are bound to be poorer, in general, than the indigenous population as they are coming from poorer countries. That is an inescapable fact. The government cannot wave a magic wand and financially enrich Third World immigrants - nor should it try to do so. The most effective way to help those living in the poorer countries of the Third World is through effective foreign aid and support for refugees in their own or neighbouring countries. Not by transporting them over here. The fact that there has been substantial immigration means that economic inequalities are inevitable.

2. This point shows that Vince Cable’s recent outburst against English nationalists is part of an ideological creed and is not based on any recent objective analysis. The report specifically does not refer to citizens as belonging to a country - either British or English [the report advocates the replacement of the British nation with a ‘community of communities’]. It asserts that Britain is a ‘multicultural society’ and makes no mention of the need for immigrants to assimilate into the host society [the report condemns the idea of assimilation as do the politically correct to this day].

3. This point deals with equality. Its definition of equality is that of the politically correct and multiculturalists. It rejects the notion that people should all be treated the same, which it dismisses as a cause of ‘injustice and inequality’. Instead it alleges that equality should be defined in a ‘culturally sensitive way’ and applied in a ‘discriminating’ manner. In effect this is a call for political correctness, a favourable treatment for ethnic minorities, and positive discrimination, which in turn is discrimination against, in the main, the English. It is a call for the English to be treated as second class citizens in their own country.

4. This point is an attempt to reconcile diversity with the need for cohesion. It makes no mention of the need for patriotism or the need for assimilation [or integration for those who object to that term] or the need to assess the ability of immigrants to assimilate into the host nation. Within 12 months of this report, which was published in October 2000, there was 9/11 and the accompanying open hostility among Asians towards Britain [see English Rights Campaign entries dated the 19 and 20 June 2005] More recently there has been the 7/7 bombings and the subsequent failed terrorist attacks. More recently still, there have been the interracial rioting and murders in Birmingham. The report makes no prediction of this, or identify the looming problems which we now face.

This failure shows how useless the report is. It was too busy peddling political correctness and allegations of racism that it ignored/failed to see the looming catastrophe which is now upon us.

It is patriotism which needs to be nurtured and not diversity. People should be allowed to get on with their own lives without a bunch of anti-British politically correct zealots, in pursuit of their own ideological ends, trying to interfere in order to exploit differences as a means of creating division and hatred.

5. Despite listing a number of values and ethics, the report makes no mention of freedom. No recognition of even the concept of the freedom of the individual. Of course such concepts are completely alien to the politically correct, who believe that only opinions and statements that they approve of are allowed.

Freedom of the individual and the willingness to live and let live, which is intrinsic to a free society, are the means by which traditional British tolerance reconciles differences.

Democracy is also a means of reconciling differences. This too needs to be respected and not ignored as it is in the report. Democracy is more important than so-called human rights, which have simply been interpreted as a means of implementing political correctness. Democracy is a vital ingredient of a free and tolerant society, and should not be dismissed as ‘majoritarian politics’ [to quote Cherie Blair].

Nor is there any mention of the need for, and the merits of, patriotism.

6. Last and not least, needless to say, the report could not resist wallowing in the issue of racism in lurid terms. The report’s definition of racism is important. The dictionary definition is:

‘(1) The belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others (2) abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such belief.’

[Collins English Dictionary]

Yet the report inserts its own definition. That definition is capable of wide interpretation, and is widely interpreted in the report. It is so wide as to include almost anything and is to the exclusion of common sense. It draws in ‘culture, nationality and way of life’, and does not confine itself to the common sense understanding held by most people. It does not confine itself to hatred, race or hereditary factors.

The recognition of foreigners as being so, is not racism. Nor is the recognition of difference the same as intolerance of difference, and certainly not the same as racism. The lack of a quota of ethnic minorities is not racism.

A particular culture might be superior to another. The political culture of the UK, despite all its flaws, is more advanced and superior than that of, say, either Zimbabwe or The Sudan. But to say that, or to recognise that, is not racism.

To speak of the racism of the domination of some groups by others leads to the ridiculous situation of Christmas Lights being banned as being offensive to other faiths. Or of the systematic removal of Christianity, or of British history, from the school curriculum.

Multiculturalism condemns any concept of a national culture, which by its nature will be treated differently to the culture held by those who have only recently set foot in Britain. A national culture will be the dominant culture. That is not racism

Being English is not racist.

ST GEORGE’S DAY

Press Release

A Judicial Review hearing has been listed at 10.30am on Monday 28th November at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London to decide:-

Is St George's day special in England?

The case is being brought by Tony Bennett the licensee of the Otter Public House,Norwich, against Norwich Magistrates Court, which ruled that it wasn't and therefore refused an extension to celebrate the 23rd April this year.
Tony's Counsel is NEIL ADDISON of
NEW BAILEY CHAMBERS
The Corn Exchange
Fenwick Street
Liverpool L2 7QS
Tel. 0151 236 9402
Fax. 0151 231 1296
DX. 14193 Liverpool

Tony's solicitor is Robin Tilbrook of Tilbook's, Quires Green, Willingale, Essex, CM5 0QP
Tel: 01277896000
Fax: 01277896050

Tony's counsel says:-

"As I see the issue in the case is a simple request that the High Court make a Declaration that the Magistrates Court acted irrationally and made a perverse decision when it decided as follows:-

"the Bench does not consider the 23rd April special because there were no national celebrations" AND

"the function for which Mr Bennett applies for a special order of exemption is not part of any national or local celebrations organised primarily by third parties instead it is organised by Mr Bennett."


Our argument is clearly that St Georges day is a special day in England (just as St David's Day is special day in Wales), there are national celebrations and therefore the decision by the Magistrates was not one that any reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could have arrived at. In consequence any functions organised by Mr Bennett should have been regarded as part of those national celebrations and not considered in isolation."

For more information please contact:-
Robin Tilbrook,
Tilbook's solicitors,
Quires Green,
Willingale, Essex, CM5 0QP
Tel: 01277896000
Fax: 01277896050


The English Democrats will continue to defend the right of the English to celebrate their culture and history and we ask the wider English Community to support us in this by circulating this press release to as many newspapers and organisations as you possibly can.

Thank you - English Democrats

RACE WAR POLITICS

Lambeth council, a longstanding component of the loony left, has banned the term ‘Christmas Lights’. They are now to be known as ‘Winter Lights’.

This edict was issued by council officials who claimed that it was a move to avoid offending non-Christians.

The move has been condemned even by the Labour Lambeth MP Kate Hoey, who described it as ‘absolutely stupid’.

Ataur Rahman, administrator at the South London Islamic Centre said:

‘Christmas Lights do not offend us in the slightest. Every faith has its celebrations and we respect them.’

However, Lambeth council is pressing ahead regardless and publicising the switching on of the lights by describing them as either Winter Lights or Celebrity Lights.

The Lambeth council is currently controlled by a Tory/Lib Dem coalition. A statement from the council said:

‘The term Winter Lights simply reflects the fact that a number of religious festivals take place over the winter period when the lights are switched on.’

A spokesman further stated that there would be a carol service and a Christmas tree in the town hall.

This demonstrates cross party adherence to political correctness and that the Tories and Lib Dems can be just as loony as the looniest Labour lefty.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

Political correctness is no laughing matter.

A cartoon in a police magazine showed police officers climbing out of a van, taking off their shoes and tip-toeing to a mosque as a terrorist makes his escape from a side window clutching bags of explosives. But the joke was lost on Bedfordshire Chief Constable, Gillian Parker, who said:

‘I understand the importance of humour and recognise that the ability to laugh at ourselves helps us cope with the difficulties we often face.

The stereotypical portrayal of religious communities and the use of places of worship in a sacrilegious manner are bound to offend. Insensitive actions only serve to make our life more difficult. We have worked hard to achieve relationships and I feel that the portrayal of Muslims as terrorists has unnecessarily jeopardised this.

The subject could be seen as offensive, particularly due to heightened community tensions throughout the United Kingdom.

Where it is feasible, we continue to consider the individual customs of all communities when we enter their homes and places of worship. I make no apology for this.’

One doubts whether Mrs Parker would be making the same kind of comments if the cartoon had featured a Christian church.

THE WAR ON TERROR

A recent report by Politeia, a think-tank, has revealed that the recruitment standards for police officers has been lowered in order to promote the recruitment of ethnic minorities.

The educational standards are now so low that new recruits are ill-equipped to do their jobs. The entry exams were of a sub-GCSE standard.

The Home Office has set each police force a target for the recruitment of ethnic minorities. The attempts to meet these targets has led to falling standards in recruitment.

Politeia’s director, Sheila Lawlor, said:

‘Poor standards of general education, literacy and numeracy may make routine tasks more time-consuming and the overall job more taxing and difficult than it would be for an abler person.

At the same time the police are at a disadvantage with the public. They may appear incompetent or little better than the criminals from whom they are supposed to protect the public and are unlikely to inspire confidence.’

One of the report’s authors, Anthony Howlett Bolton, the former deputy chief constable of Bedfordshire, said that Labour had altered the recruitment criteria in 1998 to: ‘lessen or remove any adverse impact on particular ethnic groups’.

Perhaps this is way Tony Blair was so hung up on 90 days? Because he thought the police are getting a bit slow?

Clearly, the war on terror is almost won.

THE BBC

In listening to the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation’s news broadcasts and looking at its website, one would only be vaguely aware that the ongoing riots across France are in fact race riots, and that Muslims are very much involved.

Channel 4 News has been little better. Last night it had a detailed report on the riots which descended into a pro-multiculturalism propaganda exercise. In promoting multiculturalism, both Channel 4 and the BBC have conveniently overlooked past race riots in the UK, in which people have been killed, and, in particular, overlooked the recent racial violence in Birmingham and the 7/7 bombings.

Multiculturalism has been a failure.

That race is a factor has only recently been touched upon in the BBC television news, and even now the BBC is stressing the poverty, alienation and youth as being the main causes - not Islam, nor race, nor immigration. The French government, according to the BBC, is primarily responsible.

For example, on the BBC website, the item dealing with the Paris riots is entitled ‘France’s city policy in tatters’. The item begins:

‘As rioting by disaffected youths has spread across France, officials have been accused of long-term neglect of the country's impoverished suburbs.

But over the past three decades, French governments of all colours have implemented an array of initiatives aimed at tackling widely documented problems.

The first plan for the suburbs, focusing on better housing, was launched in 1977 ... In the 1980s, hundreds of billions of francs were spent on regenerating housing estates, as well as extra funding for schools and youth associations in the suburbs.

The next decade saw no let-up in government activity. In 1996, tax-free zones were set up, providing incentives for companies to create jobs in the suburbs ... The problem, it seems, is not one of neglect - but one of ineffectual action ... According to many French analysts, the worst wave of urban violence for many decades is a damning indictment of government initiatives.’

And so it goes on.

The website then has a series of quotes from residents of the riot affected areas. For example:

‘Ziwyana Cherif: "I don't think it was racism, just a mistake by the police which they should admit. But I do see racism every day. People's faces change as soon as they see a black or Arab face. The death of those boys was the straw that broke the camel's back."

Mamadou Nyang, 19 ... “I left school two years ago but have never had a job. As soon as I say my name and where I live, they tell me the vacancy has gone. I am happy to do any job, except be a policeman. I hate the police. As soon as they see blacks or Arabs, they just try and cause trouble.”

Bilal, 29, civil servant ... “Even in the civil service, we are victimised. We have to work twice as hard as white French people. That's the problem with France - institutional racism. I don't approve of the violence but it's the only way of sounding the alarm. We demand equality of opportunity.

The police did nothing to stop those kids running 1,000 metres to their deaths at an electricity sub-station. If they want peace, we need justice. Respect must be mutual.”

Mehmet Altun, 15 ... “The police come and hassle us all the time. They ask us for our papers 10 times a day. They treat us like delinquents - especially [Interior Minister Nicolas] Sarkozy. That's not the answer. It would be good to have youth clubs and other places to go - then there would be less trouble.

It's not good to burn cars but that's one way of getting attention, so people can come and solve our problems.” ’

From the quotes cited by the BBC, one would think that the French are unanimous in their hostility towards the police. This is plainly not the case.

This is little more than politically correct neo-communist propaganda. It is offensive that the rioters, who have even been shooting at the police, should be portrayed as victims. They are not.

RACE WAR POLITICS

The Inland Revenue has banned ‘shoe box’ charity collections for Operation Christmas Child, as the organisation which organises the collections, Samaritans Purse, has been accused of distributing Bible stories.

A memo from Michael Scott, assistant director of the National Insurance Contributions Office in Newcastle, tells staff:

‘We are not dictating who you can or cannot support, but you will appreciate that as a department we cannot be seen to promote activities that do not broadly fit with our philosophy or which could bring us into disrepute by association.’

A spokesman for the Inland Revenue said:

‘We have very clear workplace policies regarding the importance of valuing difference. When an organisation demonstrates evidence of being at odds with those core values we cannot make special provision for that organisation to be supported on our premises. To do so would be hypocritical and at odds with our diversity commitments.’

The ban was imposed after complaints from trades unionists.

The charity had been running the appeal since the late 1990s. It sends more than a million shoe boxes from Britain to children in countries overseas, including Azerbaijan, Armenia, Romania, Serbia, Mozambique and Sudan.

Donors are asked to pack the boxes with a cuddly toy, a toothbrush and toothpaste, soap and flannel, notepads, colouring books, picture books, pencils and crayons, tennis balls, caps and gloves, puzzles and sweets.

A spokesman for the Church of England, Lou Henderson, said:

‘It seems unfortunate for any organisation to make it difficult for their employees to make a Christian expression of generosity. It does seem a strange way of promoting diversity.’

ANGLOPHOBIA

One of the Guardian journalists to laud the Parakh Report was the black communist Gary Younge [see the English Rights Campaign item dated the 22 October 2005]. Mr Younge was the leader of the committee set up by Ken Livingstone which rejected the idea of erecting a statue to the Queen Mother in Trafalgar Square on the then vacant fourth plinth, back in 2002.

In his book, No Place Like Home: A Black Briton’s Journey Through The American South, Mr Younge wrote:

‘Sculptures and monuments are not the sort of thing that get me excited. England is full of statues to people who did revolting things but are feted for their bravery and Christian rectitude. They are everywhere: Churchill, Queen Victoria, Wellington. If I see a statue then I presume that behind the official story of derring-do and boundless courage there is inevitably some horrible denial of my history.’

And:

‘Our scorn was reserved for the symbols of Englishness. We kept our seat when the flag was raised, and our mouths closed when the anthem was played. We would not merely miss the Queen’s speech on Christmas Day. We waited until it got to 3pm so that we could turn the television off and deliberately not watch it.

Even when we watched It’s A Knockout we would cheer for the Dutch, the Germans, the Italians - even the Belgians. Anyone but the English.’

If an Englishman wrote anything similar about the ethnic minority communities, then he would probably face a criminal prosecution.

But Mr Younge’s hatred of the English seems to be a positive qualification for his employment by both Mr Livingstone and The Guardian.

Shame on them. But at least it demonstrates their true beliefs and shows the English that we do not need to take any lectures on morality from such people.

THE STRASBOURG SET

Recently the UK Independence Party [UKIP], which purports to be opposed to the UK’s continued membership of the EU, has found itself in the news for little more than continuing in its own fractious way.

Initially there was the resignation on the eve of the national conference and AGM of the party chairman, Petrina Holdsworth, who had got into a spat with one of the party’s Strasbourg Set, Michael Nattrass MEP.

The row started with the following exchange of emails:

‘September 26
From: Petrina Holdsworth
To: UKIP MEPs and members of the National Executive Committee
"At the moment we have an awful lot of people employed by MEPs over here and I'm not sure that all of them are fully utilised."

September 28
From: Mike Nattrass
To: Petrina Holdsworth
"Petrina, when you take your swipes at MEPs you should first understand what you are saying. You suffer from a blind ignorance of the facts and refuse to understand even when your nose is pushed in it. We are expected to attend Parliament, make speeches at 10pm, leave our businesses and families to fly backwards and forwards for UKIP and then look forward to a load of crap from a chairman who does not even try to understand."

From: Petrina Holdsworth
To: Mike Nattrass
"This sort of reply is not helpful, it is just plain rude. If you are incapable of keeping a civil tongue in your head you should keep quiet."

From: Mike Nattrass
To: Petrina Holdsworth
"You are the rude one. To send a message of effective 'no confidence' in the way MEPs employ their staff and copied to the NEC is BLOODY RUDE and DESERVES A RUDE REPLY."

From: Petrina Holdsworth
To: Mike Nattrass
"Mike, there seems little point in continuing this exchange." ‘

Subsequently, Petrina Holdsworth demanded an apology. When she did not get one, she resigned, then rescinded her resignation on receipt of a letter from UKIP’s other MEPs [but not including Mike Nattrass] and on the understanding that Mike Nattrass would be removed as deputy leader.

When it became apparent that she had been duped by UKIP’s leader, Roger Knapman, concerning the removal of Mike Nattrass, Petrina Holdsworth re-resigned.

What is puzzling is why a small comment from Petrina Holdsworth about the effectiveness of the MEPs’ employees, a long-term problem in UKIP, should have provoked such an expletive riddled response from Mike Nattrass?

Those pondering this question then had a further nugget of information to contend with. Apparently, Tom Wise, a UKIP MEP for the Eastern region, has been less than accurate in claiming monies from the EU for employees, and had flagrantly breached the EU’s own rules.

Firstly, Mr Wise had breached the rule that payments to employees must be made directly to the employees or a third party ‘service provider’ and not to the MEPs themselves.

In fact the money for Mr Wise’s employees had been paid into an account in the name of Stags. Mr Wise now admits that he had invoiced the EU for the employees using the term ‘Tom Wise trading as Stags’ - ie the money was in fact being paid to him.

Secondly, it transpires that Mr Wise had been claiming £3,000 per month from the EU for the employment of Lindsay Jenkins as a researcher, when in fact he was only paying her £500 per month, although he had also paid her a further £4,000. The balance of the money, £2,500 per month, which currently amounts to £21,000, was quietly building up in the Stags account [ie in Mr Wise’s account].

In submitting the relevant form to the EU, Mr Wise had had Lindsay Jenkins fill the form in, but she had not put in the amount of the payments and was therefore unaware of how much money was being paid to Mr Wise as a result of her employment. Mr Wise had himself subsequently filled in the part of the form regarding the amount of the payments.

It is understood that Mr Wise has now undertaken to repay the EU the amount of the overpayment. This is hardly the scenario those activists in UKIP had in mind when they campaigned for UKIP in the 2004 EU elections.

One cannot but wonder what the other paragons of virtue are up to? In addition to their own salaries, the UKIP MEPs collectively receive in excess of £1million per annum for their employees and there are further allowances on top.

UKIP has proved itself ineffective in its campaigning. Its vote has collapsed compared to its performance in 2004 and Nigel Farage was positively singing Tony Blair’s praises when Mr Blair made his speech to the EU parliament back in June [see English Rights Campaign item dated the 27 June 2005]. Mr Farage said:

‘If you can reform the European Union, Mr Blair, then I may even change my mind, I may even think it’s worth us staying a member.’

Mr Farage further hailed Mr Blair as being ‘the only European leader who understands why France and Holland voted no’ to the EU constitution!

This was at a critical time when it was vital that EU realists opposed Labour and vital that the UK be allowed a referendum on the EU constitution, which is now being quietly implemented by the back door. Mr Farage could not possibly have helped Mr Blair more.

UKIP has completely abandoned its principles and has gone native. It is supporting Labour.

Mike Nattrass complains about being ‘expected to attend Parliament, make speeches at 10pm’, but he is playing the EU game. He is being a good MEP. That is not the purported purpose of UKIP. That is not why people voted for them in 2004.

Fortunately, UKIP does not have a monopoly on EU realism. The English Democrats Party [EDP] also wishes to get the UK out of the clutches of the EU and also advocates withdrawal.

Since the EDP is not a single EU issue party, and since it is primarily concerned with the governance of England and hence opposes membership of the EU from that standpoint, its MEPs are most unlikely to go native. The EDP is more concerned about winning seats in the Westminster parliament.

In 2009, when there will probably be a general election as well as the next EU elections, UKIP and its Strasbourg Set will be consigned to the dustbin of history. And not before time.

THE PAREKH REPORT [3]

‘ “The Rule Britannia mindset, given the full-blown expression at the Last Night of the Proms and until recently at the start of programming each day on BBC Radio 4, is a major part of the problem of Britain. In the same way that it continues to fight the Second World War ... Britain seems incapable of shaking off its imperialist identity. The Brits do appear to believe that “Britons never, never, never shall be slaves” ... (But) it is impossible to colonise three-fifths of the world ... without enslaving oneself. Our problem has been that Britain has never understood itself and has steadfastly refused to see and understand itself through the prism of our experience of it, here and in its coloniser mode.”

From a presentation to the Commission’

‘8.1 “Stories”, writes Ben Okri, “are the secret reservoir of values; change the stories individuals and nations live by and tell themselves and you change the individuals and nations.” He continues: “Nations and peoples are largely the stories they feed themselves. If they tell themselves stories that are lies, they will suffer the future consequences of those lies. If they tell themselves stories that face their own truths, they will free their histories for future flowerings.” ’

[Ben Okri is a Nigerian poet and writer.]

The Parekh Report is littered with such quotes.

The Parekh Commission was very impressed with and resorted to flowery, sickly prose.

The report is further littered with silly photographs. For example, one is of a black man with his arm around a grinning elderly white lady. Both are looking at the camera. Another photograph shows a burly white man cradling a startled black baby in his arms with bottle of milk shoved in its mouth. The man is gazing away from the baby into the distance a with a silly grin on his face.

It is this kind of prose and imagery which the white lefty/liberals and do-gooders become all misty-eyed about.

The above two quotes demonstrate the report’s hostility to Britain and the determination of the Parekh Commissioners to rewrite British history and to subvert its culture.

It must not be forgotten that Labour’s response to the report was to appoint its instigator, Trevor Phillips, as chairman of the so-called Commission for Racial Equality, [other commissioners were rewarded too] and to quietly implement the report’s recommendations.

Birmingham is the city most recently paying the price of that.

It would of course never occur to the Parekh Commissioners or Labour that the British do not want a ‘future flowering’. That they might be more than happy with their history, of which they have every right to be proud. That they do not want to discard their culture. That the British Empire was a force for good. And that the British are fed up with having to endure a never-ending tide of politically correct, neo-communist drivel.

If some Nigerian poet does not like Britain, then let him return to Nigeria. The Parekh Commissioners, irrespective of their background, can join him!

[The English Rights Campaign is perfectly capable of being inclusive.]

In examining the report there will be some repetition and overlap. This is inevitable. Especially at the beginning of the report, almost every sentence of every paragraph is an attack upon Britain in general, and England in particular.

Nevertheless, the English Rights Campaign will undertake a very full examination of the report’s rationale.

MULTICULTURALISM

In a Newsnight programme following the recent riots in Birmingham, in reference to the Newsnight report, the presenter referred Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to the:

‘Extraordinary and rather saddening claim that people from different backgrounds and different cultures cannot live together, we heard.’

To which Alibhai-Brown replied:

‘I would top myself if I ever believed that. No, I think if we give in to that kind of pessimism then we’re done for.’

Two people were killed in the race riots between Asian and Afro-Caribbean communities.

It seems we are all done for. Please do not write in to suggest ways that Alibhai-Brown might ‘top’ herself.

The point, once again, is that the race zealots and communists are incapable of rational thought. Their minds are closed against the obvious. They are so cocooned in their own ideology that their mental capacity cannot cope with reality.

The policy of mass immigration and multiculturalism is not only not working, it is positively harmful. Unless the policy is changed, then matters can only get worse.