English Rights Campaign

to defend the rights and interests of the English nation

Monday, October 31, 2005

THE LOONY LEFT

Britain is celebrating diversity in all sorts of different ways.

When the police stopped Nyararia Mukandiwa, whose car had been weaving erratically across the road, he refused to give a blood specimen to test for his level of blood alcohol, on the basis that he was a witch doctor and that the sight of blood would turn him into a zombie, whereupon he would be a risk to himself and others.

Mr Mukandiwa is a 33 year old African who had arrived in Britain 2 years ago on a student visa.

The police charged him with failing to provide a specimen.

In the resulting legal battle, funded by legal aid, Mr Mukandiwa was acquitted by the Huddersfield magistrates’ court. The court had been told by Richard Werbner, Professor of African Anthropology at Manchester University, that mhondoros, which was what Mr Mukandiwa was claiming to be, go into a trance and lose consciousness and become ‘another being’ at the sight of blood.

The Huddersfield magistrates decided that Mr Mukandiwa had a ‘reasonable excuse’ to refuse to provide a blood specimen and found him not guilty.

However, the Crown Prosecution Service appealed and Lord Justice Baker, of the High Court in London, dismissed the original verdict as being ‘fatally flawed’ and commented that: ‘The judge seems to have been mesmerised in this case’. Lord Justice Baker pointed out that Mr Mukandiwa could have avoided the sight of blood by simply closing his eyes or turning his head away.

The case has been sent back to court with directions that Mr Mukandiwa be convicted and sentenced.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

QUOTE OF THE MONTH [bonus]

‘Political correctness has three features. First, political correctness is a set of attitudes and beliefs that are divorced from mainstream values. Second, the politically correct person has a prescriptive view on how people should think and what they are permitted to discuss. Third, and most importantly, political correctness is embedded in public institutions, which have a legislative base, and which have coercive powers. It is this third aspect that gives political correctness its authority. Without this capture of power the views of the politically correct would simply be another view in the marketplace of ideas. A person, an institution or a government is politically correct when they cease to represent the interests of the majority, and become focussed on the cares and concerns of minority sector groups.

The minority capture of public institutions by the politically correct is a basic cause of people losing faith in the institutions of government. There is a profound belief that the current government is not concerned with nurturing the fundamental values and beliefs of our society.’


And:

‘The effect of the hate speech proposal is that only politically correct speech is permissible. Under the guise of protecting minorities, we lose one of the most important values in a free society; the right to freely express one’’s opinion. The whole point of freedom of speech is that it protects opinions that one sector of society might be deeply opposed to.’


And:

‘The minority, therefore, has come to dominate the majority, which is an inherent feature of political correctness. This is not done with the intention of protecting minority rights, which is a legitimate aspect of any democracy. Instead, the intent is to ensure that minority world views take precedence over the reasonably held views of the majority.

Political correctness is a real challenge for National and other moderate centre-right parties. There is a natural abhorrence of the agenda of the politically correct, it being so rooted in leftist liberalism. Simply railing against political correctness will not do. There needs to be a clear political programme to reverse it; to remove the viewpoints and language of the politically correct from the institutions of government. Unless there is such a programme, the public who are intensely irritated about political correctness, are unlikely to believe anything will materially change, other than the most obvious examples of government silliness. There needs to be a commonsense strategy that deals with the central issue; what to do about those state institutions that foster the ideas of political correctness.

Political correctness is grounded in the capture of state institutions, with official spokespeople, legislative powers and ultimately sanctions for breach. Without these features, the attitudes and beliefs of the politically correct would be just another viewpoint in society, able to be debated and discussed in the same manner as any other set of ideas. Political correctness requires capture of state institutions by a minority so that the public institutions that deal with discrimination have now been taken over by people who are outside mainstream values.

Removing the power of the politically correct means removing their institutional and legislative base.’


Dr. Wayne Mapp, MP for Auckland’s North Shore constituency in New Zealand, speaking in June 2005.

The National Party has recently appointed Dr Mapp to a new ministerial role as Political Correctness Eradicator and he is charge with stamping out political correctness in public institutions.

An new government in England will have to carry out a similar exercise. Since the Tories were more than happy to preside over the spread of political correctness when they were last in government, they are obviously unfit for the task.

Labour have of course encouraged the spread of political correctness to an even greater extent.

That is why the English need a new political party to represent their interests. The English Democrats are that party.

If we are to rid the country of this poisonous creed then we will have to adopt firm measures to do so. This is not an issue for the faint hearted.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

THE RACE CARD

One of the traits of modern society is that certain people are very quick to play the race card, and that the playing of such a card is supposed to send the rest of us into profuse apologies.

Recently that card was played by Darcus Howe on Radio 4's Midweek, hosted by Libby Purves. Darcus Howe has seven children by four different women and was on the programme to talk about his forthcoming Channel 4 documentary, Son of Mine. The film explores Howe's relationship with his 20-year-old son, Amiri, who has been in trouble with the police on several occasions. Howe met Amiri's mother during a holiday in Trinidad. He saw him only three or four times a year until the boy moved to London aged eight.

This time Darcus Howe made the mistake of playing the race card against Joan Rivers. The following was the response:

‘Darcus Howe: ...since “black” offends Joan.

Joan Rivers: Wait! Wait! Just stop right now. Black does not offend me. How dare you? How dare you say that? Black offends me? You know nothing about me, you just sat down here, how dare you?

DH: The use of the term “black” offends you.

JR: The use of the term black offends me? Where the hell are you coming from? You've got such a chip on your shoulder. I don't give a damn if you're black or white, I couldn't care less, it's what the person is. Don't you dare call me a racist.

Libby Purves: I don’t think it was personal, Joan.

JR: Oh, I think it was. When someone says “the term ‘black’ offends Joan”. I will not sit here...How dare you say that to me?

DH: I think this is a language problem.

JR: No I don’t. This is a problem in your stupid head. You had a child, you left him. Your wife said you weren’t there. You married a woman. You deserted her. Now your son looks like he has problems. Where were you when he was growing up till he was eight years old?

DH: Can I continue the interview?

JR: Yes you can. But don’t you dare call me a racist. Don’t you dare call me a racist. I’m sorry but...but...

LP: I have great sympathy for both sides.

JR Both sides? Then you are a racist. Aren’t you amazed...well...well, please continue. But don’t you dare call me that, you son of a bitch.

LP: Darcus, can you just...

JR: Yes, do continue about what a wonderful father who helped his three children...

LP: Darcus, can you just say that you don’t think Joan is a racist and then perhaps we can move on.

JR: You’re damn right.

DH: I don’t know whether she’s a racist or not.

JR: You said the word black offends me. It’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.

DH: I don’t know you.

JR: And nor would I choose to meet you.

LP: Hey listen...

JR: Yes, please talk about his stupid film.

DH: I didn’t think you brought me here to be insulted.

JR: I didn’t know I was being brought here to be insulted by someone who was going to call me a racist.

LP: I think it’s time to move on now... Andrea, what about plant photography?’


Well done Joan Rivers.

Monday, October 24, 2005

THE WAR ON TERROR

Despite the Independent Monitoring Commission [IMC] stating that it was unable to reach a view on whether the IRA was honouring its commitment to confine itself solely to politics, Labour have decided to reinstate the allowances for both the Westminster Parliament and the Belfast Assembly to Sinn Fein worth £750,000 per annum.

The allowances had been suspended in March following the murder of Robert McCartney and the £26.5million bank robbery in Belfast.

The IMC, in its latest report, stated that the IRA had been involved in one shooting and 10 assaults between March and August and further raised concerns about the involvement of the IRA in organised crime. The report stated:

‘It is too early to be drawing firm conclusions about possible overall changes in behaviour.’


The report further stated that it was too early to reinstate the allowances.

Nevertheless, Peter Hain has reinstated the payments and the Westminster MPs will once again be drawing £126,000 for staff, office costs and housing expenses. This comes to £630,000 for the 5 Sinn Fein MPs. Sinn Fein will also once again receive £120,000 for its members in the suspended Belfast Assembly.

Meanwhile members of Robert McCartney’s family have moved out of their homes in the Short Strand area of Belfast, an IRA stronghold, following increased threats in a sustained campaign of intimidation.

Saturday, October 22, 2005

THE PAREKH REPORT [2]

The Parakh Report was published on the 11 October 2000. Leaks as to its contents had already been circulating and the Daily Telegraph had already condemned it as ‘sub-Marxist gibberish’.

Pre-publication comments by the then Home Office minister, Mike O’Brian described the report as a ‘timely report which adds much to the current debate on multi-ethnic Britain.’

Jack Straw, as Home Secretary, had been present to help launch of the commission back in 1998.

By the day following publication we were treated to the spectacle of Jack Straw, in full retreat, galloping faster than a routed and broken cavalry regiment. Mr Straw even quoted George Orwell [the passage is the English Rights Campaign’s Quote of the Month for this month]. Regarding the report’s attack on the concept of Britishness, Mr Straw said that he ‘frankly did not agree’ with the report’s authors who he accused of ‘washing their hands of the notion of nationhood.’

Mr Straw even went so far as to say that he was ‘proud to be British’!

Even The Guardian editorial managed a mild criticism!

The part which the press most reacted to related to Britishness and paragraph 3.30 in particular.

The report asked 'Does Britishness have a future?' and answered the question:

'It is entirely plain, however, that the word "British" will never do on its own. Where does this leave Asians, African-Caribbeans and Africans? For them Britishness is a reminder of colonisation and empire…For the British-born generations, seeking to assert their claim to belong, the concept of Englishness often seems inappropriate, since to be English, as the term is in practice used, is to be white. Britishness is not ideal, but at least it appears acceptable, particularly when suitably qualified - Black British, Indian British…'


Paragraph 3.30 then says [italics are the English Rights Campaign emphasis]:

'However, there is one major and so far insuperable barrier. Britishness, as much as Englishness, has systematic, largely unspoken, racial connotations. Whiteness nowhere features as an explicit condition of being British, but it is widely understood that Englishness, and therefore by extension Britishness, is racially coded. "There ain't no black in the Union Jack", it has been said. Race is deeply entwined in political culture and with the idea of nation, and underpinned by a distinctively British kind of reticence - to take race and racism seriously, or even to talk about them at all, is bad form, something not done in polite company. This disavowal, combined with "an iron-jawed disinclination to recognise equal human worth and dignity of people who are not white", has proved a lethal combination. Unless these deep-rooted antagonisms to racial and cultural difference can be defeated in practice, as well as symbolically written out of the national story, the idea of a multicultural post-nation remains an empty promise.'


There are nearly 400 pages worth of such and similar views in the report.

Paragraph 3.30 is as disingenuous as it is evil. The paragraph starts by dealing with race and nationhood, then links race with racism, and finally applies the comments concerning racism to race and nationhood - and it does so in way that the more gullible [ie white lefty/liberals and do-gooders] would not notice.

Of course the English, as a racial group, are white! But being English is not the same as having ‘deep-rooted antagonisms to racial and cultural difference’. Nor is being white the same as being English. Nations have historically been formed by racial groups. So what? Being English is not an offence, although the Parekh commissioners treat it as such.

The comment about a ‘post-nation’ is not casual, but a sincere objective. The aim is to destroy any sense of nationhood or patriotism.

The Parekh Report recommended the creation of a 'community of communities' to replace Britain, which was to be required to ‘formally declare itself to be a multicultural society’ [Vince Cable's recent comments have not come out of nowhere]. This also needs to be remembered when dealing with Trevor Phillips’s more recent comments about multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism has not been foisted on Britain by the Teletubbies or Pinky and Perky. No, it has been foisted on us by the British ruling class in general and the race war industry in particular, above all, INCLUDING TREVOR PHILLIPS.

Of the report, The Times wrote:

‘The key figure behind the research idea, conceived in 1997 as Labour swept to power, was the broadcaster Trevor Phillips. His idea was to produce a key piece of research looking seriously at how Britain would develop during the early years of the new century.

Although the trust says it has kept out of party politics, members hoped that many of its ideas would be used by a Labour Government.’


The product of this report and its implementation by Labour is 7/7.

In promoting the report, Lord Parekh wrote in The Independent:

‘National identity is not given once and for all and cannot be preserved as if it were an antique piece of furniture.

The so-called white majority itself consists of groups of people divided along cultural, religious and other lines. This is equally true of the minority. Since Britain does not consist of cohesive majorities and minorities, we should think of it as a looser federation of cultures held together by common bonds of interest and affection and a collective sense of belonging.’


Gary Younge [a black communist] of The Guardian wrote:

‘The Telegraph’s front page headline yesterday: “Straw wants to rewrite our history” begs two central questions. Who do they mean by “our” and precisely what version of history are they talking about... The “our” the Telegraph refers to is essentially white, English and nationalistic. For huge numbers of Scots, Welsh and Irish, not to mention those of Caribbean, Asian, African and Chinese descent the idea that “the description of British will never do on its own” is not news...

Unlike the French tricolore or the American stars and stripes, we do not have a national emblem that stands for a set of notional egalitarian principles or a constitution that would give it meaning. The union flag is a conqueror’s flag that owes its design to the subjugation of England’s neighbours and its reputation to the predatory expeditions which saw Britain steal huge amounts of land, labour and natural resources...

So “Britishness” like the union flag is not neutral.’


Meanwhile, on the 19 October, at the Pavis Centre of the Open University, Stuart Hall made a speech to launch the report. This was ‘webcast to viewers and listeners across the world, including the USA, Mexico and Australia’ [the publication of the report was presented as an international event]. Stuart Hall answered questions after his speech, even from as far afield as Mexico City.

The following is a quote from that speech, which is particularly relevant given Trevor Phillips’s recent comments about equality [given that Stuart Hall is a black communist, it is not surprising that the speech is one long tract of race zealotry and communist ideology]:

‘The first concern is the tension between difference and equality. The projects for social justice, for an end to racial violence and discrimination; the projects for greater social equality and the guarantee of civic and social rights to everyone as an intrinsic aspect of citizenship - all of these projects have customarily been underpinned by a commitment to equality. We should notice at once - given the frequency with which it is invoked - how deep are the ambiguities around this idea. Liberal theorists who support a universal citizenship founded on civic nationalism and individual autonomy believe difference, in any real sense, has no place in the public domain at all. It should be reserved for the private sphere. And they feel that it is possible these days, although I think it’s heroic of them, to separate neatly what is now public from what is now private. However, the equality which they advance - the equality of opportunity, the equality to compete, the equality of so-called level playing fields (and if I hear that term “joined up government” once more! - it belongs to the lexicon of language which should really be ditched)... that is the kind of equality which they have in mind, the equality of the level playing field where we all begin from the same place. And, of course, given our various talents etc we are all going to end up in a different place, but that’s the game. This is, of course, a negative version of equality, it is drawn from the repertoire of classical liberalism - no matter how long ago that was - its commitment to end the constraints to enter social competition, which otherwise should recognise no wider, social or collective commitments. Universal as this liberal discourse now appears to have become, it has never on its own been able to bring social justice to particular groups at risk; or to recognise the persistent strength of collective inequalities; or even to acknowledge that, as human beings, we are dialogically constructed - that is to say, we depend intrinsically on other people and on the “other” - and that we are not simply national, calculative atoms but are also always embedded in a variety of particular relationships and forms of life which have real rights, claims and needs of their own.

Racism is one such particularism which has stubbornly refused to yield in response to the negative version of right, justice or the “good life”, and this is because the differences which racism constructs operate at a deeper level that the formal play of citizenship, equality and individual autonomy. This is compounded by the fact that racism, far from having, as it were, one strand, has in the contemporary world radically expanded its forms.

To the biological racism of skin colour or anti-Semitism we must now add the proliferating forms of racism of cultural difference, of ethnic violence and cleansing, and of religious bigotry which the end of the Cold War and the ethnicization of conflict in its wake has brought into existence. This means that what we might, in our cynical wisdom, define as the old anti-racist agenda of racial justice and social equality, not only remains in force but has compulsorily been intensified. Its need now is greater than it was before and this is because the problem of resisting racial oppression, injustice and violence is compounded by the new need in multicultural societies, not negatively to stop disadvantage, but positively to advance a recognition of diversity as a basis of social being and as a positive goal of social action of government practice, of delivery as a political objective. The fact is that multicultural drift, which is the condition we have been experiencing, can co-exist with racism. There is no intrinsic opposition, no necessary opposition, between multiculturalism and racism: both can flourish. In the moment of the celebration of the arrival of Windrush when Britain congratulated itself on having become, having crossed the line to, a multicultural society, the Stephen Lawrence inquiry opened. Does one cancel out the other? Not at all, both exist, both are real, both are to be found in a society.

Quite apart from this society being unified by some 94 per cent consensus among its mainstream majority, I would suggest that, as a rough guess, on the multicultural question it’s divided into three parts. One group simply couldn’t understand modern life without it. They are mainly young and they live in cities. They just wouldn’t understand modern urban metropolitan existence in which people were ethnically and culturally homogenous: they’re with it. Another group sees that it has happened, thinks that you probably can’t do anything much about it. They have mainly moved out of the urban centres and they think that, as long as they don’t go down to the South East or to any big cities, multiculturalism will leave them alone and certainly will not propose to their daughters. The third group are militantly hostile to multiculturalism. It undermines everything about their being, especially it underwrites the degree to which they are not part of so-called mainstream society. And a minority of those are perfectly prepared to stick knives into multiculturalism, or to throw it into the Thames or to set it alight if they pass it on the streets. Now, that is the real situation produced by multicultural drift. It is not some kind of consensual, homogenous unity from end to end that this is a “great thing” and so we don’t need to think about it anymore.

The new claims which arise, then, from this situation, especially among the ethnic minorities, are, in my view, for a genuinely universal racial justice, for equal outcomes to the major social and economic processes and also - also - for the recognition of difference. That is to say, for both a politics of equality and a politics of recognition.’


And:

‘Paradoxically, cultural belongingness is something of which everybody partakes, everybody is particular in this way. It’s what Marx once called a concrete universal. By definition, a multicultural society must always involve practices and debates between more than one group. There has, therefore, to be some framework in which serious conflicts of outlook, belief and interests can be negotiated, and this can’t be simply the framework of one group writ large or universalized - which was precisely the problem with Eurocentric assimilation. The specific and particular difference of a group or community cannot be asserted absolutely without regard to the wider context provided by all the other to whom particularity acquires a relative value.’


The English Rights Campaign has already responded to Trevor Phillips’s concept of equality in the item dated the 24 September 2005, in which the difference between equality of opportunity and the equality of outcomes was dealt with. Stuart Hall deals with this too and condemns the concept of the equality of opportunity as being ‘classical liberalism’.

[In which case the English Rights Campaign is a classical liberal blog and not a right wing one!]

Stuart Hall and Trevor Phillips are in agreement as to the definition of equality, which is not surprising given that they are both communists.

They are also in agreement in their hostility to the concept of a free society. To them the ordinary people, especially the English, are their’s to manipulate and control. They are also both hostile to the concept of assimilation. Both call for a more aggressive prosecution of the British Inquisition.

On the date of the report’s publication, the Daily Mail also had a forceful editorial that included the following observations:

‘In ordinary circumstances, the report’s clunking prose, flawed argument and lamentable ignorance of history would be risible. But this exercise was launched by Home Secretary Jack Straw. Its conclusions have been welcomed by the Home Office. If not yet official policy, the report reflects New Labour attitudes.’


The Runnymede Trust itself now boasts that ‘over two-thirds of the recommendations of the report acted upon’.

That is the problem. Despite the loud complaints at the time, Labour simply kept its head down and then quietly implemented the report. A trick they are also using with regionalisation, if the face of the lost North East referendum, and with the EU constitution, in the face of the Dutch and French referendums.

The Parekh Report oozes Anglophobia and race war politics from every page. It is a thoroughly evil document.

A detailed examination of the report’s contents will begin shortly.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

THE LOONY LEFT

The Hull City Council’s Corporate Equality Unit has issued a diktat setting out those words deemed to be offensive. This list includes such terms as: ladies, senior citizens, elderly, immigrants, disabled and infirm.

Terms such as duck, luvvie, love, flower, darling and dear are also banned, as are sweetheart and lassies.

In Hull, women must be referred to as ‘women’ only, and other terms are banned.

The phrase ‘mentally handicapped’ is banned. The politically correct term is: ‘people who experience mental or emotional distress’.

All these terms are treated as being on a par with more offensive terms such as dyke or nigger.

A council spokesman said that terms such as love and pet were commonly used in the north of England and conceded that:

'There is obviously a world of difference between these terms, and the council accepts these should not have been banded together under one catch-all heading of unacceptable.’

A liberal democrat councillor, Carl Minns, has described the diktat as ‘political correctness gone mad’.

Unfortunately for Mr Minns, the term ‘mad’ is banned too.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

First it was tie pins and now it is bumper stickers.

Deputy Chief Fire Officer Eugene Johnson, of the Wiltshire and Swindon Fire Authority, removed a 3in by 2in sticker of the English flag from the bumper of a fire engine, claiming that it could be considered racist.

The sticker had been there for almost a year.

Mr Johnson said that the flag ‘had no place’ on the back of the vehicle.

Once again the usual cliches about this incident being ‘political correctness gone mad’ have been churned out.

To undermine any sense of English patriotism is the purpose of political correctness.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

THE PAREKH REPORT [1]

It is plain common sense that one can influence a report by the choice of those who are appointed to compile it. In the UK, reports into matters dealing with race are packed with lefties and race zealots, especially if carried out on behalf of the government or one of the lefty pressure groups - such as the Runnymede Trust, which is described in the Parekh Report as ‘an independent think-tank devoted to the cause of promoting racial justice in Britain’.

The Runnymede Trust set up the Parekh Commission in 1998:

‘It was made up of 23 distinguished individuals drawn from many community backgrounds and different walks of life, and with a long record of active academic and practical engagement with race-related issues in Britain and elsewhere. They brought to their task different views and sensibilities and, after a good deal of discussion, reached a consensus. The report is the product of their two years of deliberation.’


So who are these ‘distinguished individuals’ whose 2 years of deliberation produced the Parekh Report? Below is a list of them and their background as in the year 2000, when the Parekh Report was produced.

1. Lord Bikhu Parekh [a Labour nouveau toff] chaired the commission. Lord Parakh was the emeritus professor of political theory at the University of Hull. A former deputy chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] and a trustee of the Runnymede Trust. His publications include Marx’s Theory of Ideology and Rethinking Multiculturalism: cultural diversity and political theory.

2. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, senior research fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre and also a research fellow at the Institute of Public Policy Research. She has served on several other race committees. Her publications include After Multiculturalism [2000].

3. Muhammad Anwar, a research professor at the Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations and Head of research at the CRE. Publications include Race and Politics, Race and Elections and From Legislation to Integration?

4. Colin Baily who was chief constable of Nottingham Police. He has also been the Association of Chief Police Officers chairman of the Race Relations subcommittee.

5. Amina Begun, a social worker. Also youth and community worker and trainer in community development and co-founder of Women United Against Racism in Tower Hamlets.

6. Michael Chan, professor of ethnic health at the University of Liverpool, director of the NHS Ethnic Health Unit [1994-97], Chairman of the Chinese in Britain Forum, and a former CRE commissioner.

7. Lord Navnit Dhoakia [a Labour nouveau toff] had previously worked for the CRE and was a member of the Home Office Race Relations Forum.

8. David Faulkner, senior research fellow at the University of Oxford Centre for Criminological Research. Publications include Public Services and Citizenship in European Law.

9. Kate Gavron, who was the commission’s vice-chairman, was a trustee of the Runnymede Trust and a Trustee, Research Fellow of the Institute of Community Studies, specialising in the Bangladeshi community in East London, and a member of the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia.

10. Stuart Hall, emeritus professor of sociology at the Open University. Publications include Questions of Cultural Identity, chapters in Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies and Revising Multiculturalisms.

11. Bob Hepple QC, Master of Clare College and professor of law at the University of Cambridge, and former commissioner at the CRE. Publications include Discrimination: the limits of law [co-editor], and Equality: a new framework, the report of the Independent Review of Enforcement of UK Anti-discrimination Legislation [co-author].

12. Judith Hunt, chairman of Camden and Islington Health Authority. Publications include Fairness of Failure: equal opportunities recruitment [co-author].

13. Anthony Lerman, formally executive director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, editor of Patterns of Prejudice [1983-99], member of the Runnymede Trust Commission on antisemitism [1991-93] and of the Imperial War Museum advisory committee on a permanent Holocaust Exhibition. Editor of The Jewish Communities of the World and Antisemitism World Report.

14. Matthew MacFarlane, chief inspector of Nottinghamshire Police, and responsible for strategy and policy on race and community relations issues. Former staff officer to the Race and Community Relations Sub-Committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers [ACPO], and attended hearings during the Lawrence Inquiry on behalf of ACPO.

15. Andrew Marr, BBC political editor and formerly editor of The Independent. Publications include The Battle for Scotland, Ruling Britiannia and The Day Britain Died.

16. Sir Peter Newsam, who had been chairman of the CRE for 1981-85.

17. Sir Herman Ouseley, Chairman of the Caribbean Advisory Group of the Foreign Office, and former chairman of the CRE, former chairman of Lambeth Borough Council and the Inner London Education Authority, and council member of the Institute of Race Relations.

18. Sue Woodford-Hollick, founding commissioning editor of multicultural programmes at Channel 4, vice-chairman of the Caribbean Advisory Group at the Foreign Office, member of the general council of the Royal Commonwealth Society and of Broadcast Diversity Network, and co-founder of EQ, a project to increase black and Asian representation in politics.

19. Sally Tomlinson, emeritus professor of educational policy at Goldsmith’s College, University of London and member of the African Education Trust. Publications include Multicultural Education in White Areas, Ethnic Relations in Schooling and Hackney Downs: the school that dared to fight.

20. Seamus Taylor, head of policy: equality and diversity at Haringey Borough Council, chairman of Action Group for Irish Youth, and adviser to the CRE on research study on discrimination and the Irish community.

21. Anne Owers, director of Justice and former general secretary of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, chairman of Trustees of the Refugee Legal Centre, and was on the Church of England Race and Community Relations Committee. Publications include Providing Protection: asylum determination systems, and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: their implementation in UK law [which she co-edited].

22. Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Greater London Assembly, Chairman of the Runnymede Trust [1993-98], member of the Home Office Race Relations Forum. Publications include Windrush: the irresistible rise of multiracial Britain [co-author].

23. Sarah Spencer, director of the citizenship and governance programme at the Institute of Public Policy Research, former general secretary of the National Council for Civil Liberties. Publications include Strangers and Citizens, and Migrants, Refugees and the Boundaries of Citizenship.

It will be noted that the above ‘experts’ are nearly all lefties, and the commission is packed with those who are already race zealots. There are no outsiders. The content of the Parekh Report should therefore not come as a surprise.

It would be complacent to underestimate the report’s influence. The Runnymede Trust, on their website, comment on the report today thus:

‘When the report of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (The Parekh Report) was launched in October 2000, it "created a bit of a stir", according to its ever-diplomatic Chair. In the words of the editor of the report, it had been "misunderstood, grossly misrepresented, and often deliberately distorted". Three years on, the debate continues, but the "heat" of those weeks immediately after publication has been replaced with the "light" of serious engagement with the vision set out in the report. By the end of 2003, with over two-thirds of the recommendations of the report acted upon, the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain can be seen to have been influential in shaping the latest phase of thinking on race equality.’


Labour has not only acted on the report, but has since promoted several members of the Parekh commission. Anne Taylor, who is now the chief inspector of prisons, has recently been in the news concerning her views on the racism of the English flag. Sir Herman Ouseley has become yet another Labour nouveau toff [they are getting quite common these days].

And of course, Trevor Phillips has been promoted to the chairmanship of the CRE. Presumably, this is because of Labour’s reverence for the Parekh Report. Certainly, Labour cannot plead ignorance of the views of the report [especially as it supports those views], and hence its authors. Whatever policies Trevor Phillips has pursued as head of the CRE, both pre and post 7/7, those policies were predictable and Labour is entirely responsible for them.

This is made all the more obvious by the howls of protest which greeted the report’s publication. This will be dealt with next.

Monday, October 17, 2005

NATIONALISATION OF THE FAMILY

Recent research by London University’s Institute of Education has revealed that 45% of working mothers relied upon their own parents for childcare when going out to work, rather than resorting to childminders or nurseries.

Only 37% of families resorted to paying for childminders or nurseries.

The research was based on a survey of 19,000 children.

That families prefer to rely upon grandparents is sensible and it is to be expected that many mothers prefer not to hand over their children to strangers.

There have been several critical reports over the standard of care in nurseries.

But Labour prefers children to be in nurseries. This is why Labour is increasing taxation and then handing over taxpayers’ money to subsidise the cost of nurseries. This is wrong.

Mothers are quite capable of deciding for themselves how their children should be looked after and how to spend their own money. Under the present system, those mothers who rely upon grandparents lose out as they do not receive the subsidies which would be available had they resorted to a nursery.

Labour should stop trying to nationalise the family. Subsidies for nurseries should be phased out and taxes should be lowered for all mothers.

Labour should stop discriminating against grandparents and those mothers who prefer to bring up their own children.

Saturday, October 15, 2005

VOTE RIGGING

Fresh from successfully rigging the outcome of the last general election, Labour remain intent on rigging the next one.

Its latest proposals for reform of the electoral system following widespread reports of irregularities during the last general election, contained in the Electoral Administration Bill, still do not change the law to insist upon individual registration. Labour are still determined to allow people to register to vote on someone else’s behalf.

Peter Wardle, the chief executive of The Electoral Commission, has condemned this:

‘We are disappointed that our fundamental recommendation for a move to individual registration is not included.

It wouldn't be considered acceptable for someone else to vote for you, so it shouldn't be acceptable for someone else to register on your behalf. And without action in this area, voters cannot have full confidence in the security of the postal voting system. We will continue to set out our arguments for action in this area as the Bill passes through Parliament.’


The comments of Richard Mawrey QC who heard a case of systematic postal ballot fraud in the run up to the last general election should not be forgotten. Having read out a statement from the government in which they stated:

‘The systems already in place to deal with allegations of electoral fraud are clearly working.’


The judge said:

‘Anyone who has sat through the case I have just tried and listened to evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic would find this statement surprising.’


He condemned the government statement as demonstrating ‘a state not simply of complacency but of denial’.

He further said:

‘The systems to deal with fraud are not working well. They are not working badly. The fact is that there are no systems to deal realistically with fraud and there never have been. Until there are, fraud will continue unabated.’


[see English Rights Campaign entries dated the 5 and 6 April 2005.]

The judge condemned the procedures regarding registration as ‘hopelessly insecure’. He said:

'An application for a postal vote can ask for a postal vote to be sent to an address other than that of the voter - this gives a positive assistance to fraud. Postal ballot packages are sent out by ordinary mail in clearly identifiable mail. Short of writing “STEAL ME” on the envelopes, it is hard to see what more could be done to ensure their coming into the wrong hands.’


The new proposals tighten up the rules for registration, but they still allow for one person to register for an entire household. Ann Cryer pointed out the problems that were being experienced during the election:

‘People are going to homes, demanding that the voters there give up their ballot papers. The Asian community tend to stick together. If one of their elders comes to the door and asks them to do something, they by and large do it.’


That is why individual registration should be introduced. There should be a return to the old rules regarding postal ballots. The ballot box should be the normal way of voting.

Labour cannot be allowed to continue to rig elections.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

The staff at Wakefield Prison have been criticised by the chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers, for wearing tie pins bearing the English flag. In a section of a report dealing with race relations, Anne Owers states:

‘We were concerned to see a number of staff wearing a flag of St George tie pin. While we were told that these had been bought in support of a cancer charity, there was clear scope for misinterpretation, and Prison Service orders made clear that unauthorised badges and pins should not be worn.’


Her report condemns race as a ‘weak area’ of prison policy and states that there are ‘discrepancies in the representation of black and minority ethnic prisoners in some key areas, such as use of force, segregation and the few available jobs’.

The comments regarding tie pins has caused something of a row. Quite why helping charities should be incompatible with prison policy is unknown. Although it is clear that Anne Owers is very keen on racial issues. This is consistent with her background.

Anne Owers was formally General Secretary of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Refugees, Chair of Trustees of the Refugee Legal Centre, was on the Church of England Race and Community Relations Committee and a director of Justice. She has also had several items published including: Providing Protection: asylum determination systems [1997] and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: their implementation in UK law [which she co-edited, 1999].

The Tory prisons spokesman has commented:

‘This sounds like political correctness gone mad. What is wrong with supporting your country and supporting a charity?’


Don Foster, the Lib Dem culture spokesman, said:

‘There is nothing wrong with being proud to be English.’


Frederick Forsyth said:

‘Who in her wildest nightmares, does Anne Owers think would be offended by this charity tie pin? And why?

There is no justification for claiming that the mere presence of the English national flag is somehow offensive. It shows she is not fit to do her job.’


One of Labour’s habits has been to steadily infiltrate their own supporters, and in particular race zealots, into as many quangos as possible. This fact needs to be born in mind. In Labour’s eyes, that she is a race zealot is a reason for giving her the job.

In addition to the history listed above, and most important of all, Anne Owers was one of the Parekh commissioners who produced the Parekh report in 2000. In which case her objection to the English flag is entirely predictable.

A full examination of the Parekh report will begin shortly.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

NATIONALISATION OF THE FAMILY

A recent report by Civitas has highlighted the way in which Labour continues to undermine marriage.

The report, Fiscal Policy and the Family by Rebecca O’Neill, shows that families can achieve a better standard of living by splitting up.

After taking into account taxation, tax credits, benefits and allowances, a couple with one child who work full-time earning the minimum wage would receive £366 per year in state benefits in addition to their income.

However, if they separated or divorced, the parent who cared for the child would receive an extra £4,355 in benefits. The other parent would lose child benefits, but would get tax credits and income support. Between them the parents would receive an extra £4,017.

This is the opposite of other continental countries where the tax system is supportive of marriage.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

In his recent speech about race, Trevor Phillips boasted of a recent case in which someone had been awarded £1.6million as a result of an allegation of racism.

This was the case of Dr Feyi Awotona, a 50 year old Nigerian immigrant, who was a gynaecologist at the South Tyneside District Hospital, South Shields. Dr Awotona had been fired for ‘gross personal misconduct’ from the hospital in 1998 following an inquiry which arose out of 3 years of friction with other senior staff.

The inquiry was concerned with allegations that Dr Awotona vanished from work, was obstructive, confrontational and was uncontactable on one occasion when she was on call. It was also felt that she was allowing the time spent on a part-time MBA course at Durham University to interfere with her work.

But Dr Awotona claimed the charges were ‘trumped up’ and that she had been fired due to her race and the fact that she was already pursuing the hospital for racial discrimination.

Dr Awotona claimed to have been subject to ‘demeaning’ comments from colleagues and said that the worst instance had been remarks by a Mr Robson, a medical director, who has since died. This related to a new government initiative, and Dr Awotona said:

‘I felt this was sufficiently important a change that its implementation should be handled by a consultant. Mr Robson acknowledged I was enthusiastic and keen to introduce new ideas. But he astonished me by saying that because I was a woman and black there was a limit to what I could do at South Tyneside.

He made it clear his opinion of the worth and respect that should be accorded to me was influenced by my race and gender.’


The industrial tribunal upheld Dr Awotona’s complaints that she had been unfairly dismissed and racial discrimination, but rejected her claim of sexual discrimination.

Once legal costs are taken into account, it is expected that the case will cost the NHS up to £3million.

Irrespective of the law and the facts of the case, the amount of the award is ridiculous. £1.6million! This is as good as a lottery win and an awful lot more than Dr Awotona would ever have earned in Nigeria.

It further needs to be compared with the compensation those who have been injured and maimed in the 7/7 bombings will receive.

That Mr Phillips thinks that this is something to boast about shows how totally unfit he is to be in his present position.

The law needs to be changed.

Sunday, October 09, 2005

IMMIGRATION

A recent study by Migrationwatch on the effect of foreign brides from the Indian subcontinent highlights one of the major causes of the development of ethnic minority ghettos in England.

The number of spouses entering the UK from India, Bangladesh and Pakistan doubled between 1995 and 2001 and reached 22,000. The main cause of this is arranged marriages and the loosening by Labour of immigration rules relating to such marriages.

The study revealed that an estimated 48% of Pakistani, 60% of Bangladeshi, and 38% of Indian males marrying in the UK were wedding a bride from the Indian subcontinent. In Bradford in 2001 30% of children were born to immigrant mothers and the figure in London’s Tower Hamlets was 68%.

In Bradford in 2001 it is estimated that 60% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi marriages were with a spouse from the country of origin.

The study, which quotes from a report by Lord Ousely [a Labour nouveau toff and former chairman of the CRE] called ‘Race Relations in Bradford’, points out:

‘This has a very large impact on the numbers of babies being born to mothers who have immigrated from the Indian Sub-Continent (ISC) for two reasons: first, they will form a high proportion of all women from these ethnic communities (nearly 40% for Bangladeshis for instance) and, second, because mothers from the ISC have a high total fertility rate (2.3 Indian, 4.7 Pakistani and 3.9 Bangladeshi in 2001).

We have compared the numbers of children born to mothers from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in the 5 years 1996 to 2000 inclusive with the numbers of children aged 0 to 4 described as being of ethnic Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi origins in the 2001 census. This indicates that nearly half ethnic Indian children aged 0 to 4 have an Indian born mother and over three-quarters of ethnic Pakistani and Bangladeshi children aged 0 to 4 have a mother born in those countries.

The impact of the high rate of marriages to spouses from the ISC and high birth rates was explained in the following extract from an Annex to Lord Ousely’s report :

“It has a major impact on population growth. About 1,000 Bradfordian Muslims marry each year. If most of those marriages were internal to this country, it would lead to 500 new households which would be likely to average 4 children per household. (This is based on experience from other immigrant groups where family size usually halves that of the first generation by the second generation.) With 60% of marriages involving a spouse from overseas, the number of households goes up to 800 and, with many of the spouses being first generation, family size is likely to be significantly larger. So whereas 500 internal marriages might be expected to produce 2,000 offspring, the 800 marriages are likely to produce 4,000 offspring. This leads to very rapid population growth. In the eighties the Council estimated that the Muslim population would reach 130,000 by 2030 and then level. Now the projection is for 130,000 by 2020 and rising. The number of separate households is predicted to rise from 16,000 now to 40,000 in 2020. This rate of growth concentrated in particular areas puts severe demands on the public services. It has other ramifications. Many of the children arrive at school with little or no English. Many of those who come from overseas have little education and do not possess skills which are transferable to a Western economy. The high family size means overcrowding will be a persistent problem.”

This Annex was not published at the time because it was regarded as too “sensitive”. The decision not to publish reflects the instinct to cover up the reality of the situation which was prevalent at that time.

The impact can also be seen when we look at births to foreign-born mothers in areas which have a high percentage of their population of Bangladeshi or Pakistani descent. In Bradford, for instance, which has an ethnic minority population of 22% (of whom two-thirds are of Pakistani descent), the percentage of children born to foreign-born mothers is 30%. In Tower Hamlets which has an ethnic minority population of 49% (of whom just over two-thirds are of Bangladeshi origins), the percentage of children born to foreign born mothers is 68%.

The high prevalence of arranged marriages with partners from the ISC therefore has a major impact on the ability of these communities, particularly the Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities, to integrate into British society. The communities are being constantly refreshed by new immigrants, many of whom do not speak English, who will have little contact with other ethnic groups and whose children may well arrive at school unable to speak English. The rapid growth in households puts pressure on the housing supply in “ghetto” areas. There is also, of course, a substantial effect on the ethnic population. Between 1991 and 2001 the Pakistani population of Manchester, Birmingham and Bradford increased by between 46 and 53%.

Employment prospects for immigrants from Bangladesh and Pakistan are very poor. New immigrants from Bangladesh and Pakistan have employment rates of 42.8% and 44% respectively (compared with 73% for the British born population). The percentage of new Bangladeshi and Pakistani immigrants earning less than 50% of median earnings are at 63.3% and 35.4% respectively compared to 21% for the British-born population.’


Migrationwatch has advocated stricter rules for arranged marriages, including age constraints, and have pointed out that there is a sufficiently large number of Asians in the UK that it is entirely possible for arranged marriages to be arranged with other UK born Asians.

Keith Best, the chief executive of the Immigration Advisory Service, has made the predictable response:

‘This is clearly a racist statement. It distinguishes between the new Commonwealth countries in the Indian subcontinent and Africa and the old Commonwealth countries such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia’.


It is to be noted that Trevor Phillips, in his recent speech [see English Rights Campaign entries dated the 5 October 2005 and 24 September 2005], is too busy drawing up plans for an expansion of the British Inquisition to embrace ‘race equality impact assessment’, ‘equality audits’, ‘and new incentives for shareholders to hold their boards to account on equality issues’ etc rather than deal with the damage being done to our society by continued mass immigration.

Mr Phillips positively rejected immigration as a causal factor in the lack of integration and the growth of ghettos:

‘The speed and scale of immigration have had little impact on the levels of integration in the past sixty years.’


The facts do not support that assertion. It is an insult to the intelligence. Common sense dictates that mass immigration is the major factor. Mr Phillips’s communism and his commitment to mass immigration is clouding his judgement.

Labour has already started backtracking over proposals to curtail arranged marriages [see English Rights Campaign entry dated the 8 September 2005] despite the violence which the habit is causing towards British born Asian brides.

Then there is the issue of the widespread Muslim hostility towards the host English community and the war on terror.

The government should no longer allow arranged marriages to enable immigration into the UK and should take whatever steps are necessary to end such immigration.

Friday, October 07, 2005

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

‘It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from the poor box.’

George Orwell

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

RACIAL ENGINEERING

Trevor Phillips’s recent speech regarding race in the UK has received a large amount of publicity. This is following newspaper reports that the speech was coming, with fairly accurate leaks as to its contents which could only have come from Mr Phillips himself.

The speech, entitled ‘After 7/7 Sleepwalking to segregation’, has been quite controversial, with attacks on Mr Phillips from a variety of quarters including the Muslim communities.

However the speech is merely a repetition, with some updating, of previous speeches that Mr Phillips has given [eg see English Rights Campaign item dated the 18 September 2005]. Mr Phillips is now perceived by some as being opposed to multiculturalism. This is simplistic.

What is important about the speech is that Mr Phillips is setting out the agenda the so-called Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] will adopt for the future. Given that the speech is following the recent bombings in London, then it might expected that it is response to the recent acts of terrorism. That is not the case, as Mr Phillips criticised multiculturalism more than a year ago and has been making other comments since.

But the main point is that Mr Phillips is telling us what the CRE will be doing. He makes that clear in his speech. He is not passing an opinion or engaging in a debate. Despite being an unelected quangocrat, he is dictating.

Notwithstanding Mr Phillips’s tenure of the CRE in the run up to 7/7, he does not take any responsibility for the complete failure to predict those bombings, but he is very eager to take full credit for the CRE for allegedly smoothing things over afterwards:

‘People talk a lot about the race relations industry, usually disparagingly. I am proud to say that this summer, our industry did its part in holding communities together at a time of great stress. We experienced no major conflicts...This is in no small part due to the work of the people often casually abused as race relations busybodies, working on the ground, calming, cajoling and conciliating. Many are paid, but tens of thousands are unpaid, and do it because they want our country to be a better place.

So I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to all those who worked with us in that period: the so-called race relations industry showed itself in reality to be a vital post-emergency service.’


It may well be of course that the reason why there was not widespread violence was because the English are a peaceable nation.

Mr Phillips devotes a large part of his speech sorting out New Orleans and the reasons for the humanitarian disaster there. In this speech he prefers to cite New Orleans as an example rather than the Los Angeles riots which he had cited previously.

The USA is completely differently to the UK. The USA is traditionally an immigrant country whereas the UK is traditionally an emigrant country. The USA did have widespread slavery, an issue which sparked the American civil war, and has had legally enforced segregation and discrimination up until the 1960s. Non of that applies to the UK, for which the legacy of the end of the British Empire is more important.

Mr Phillips describes the USA as being a segregated society:

‘This is a segregated society, in which the one truth that is self-evident is that people cannot and never will be equal. That is why, for all of us who care about racial equality and integration, America is not our dream, but our nightmare.’


Based on that assertion, Mr Phillips maps out a different scenario for Britain. He advocates integration. He immediately deals with the issue as to what he means by integration and rejecting assimilation:

‘There are some old-fashioned types who think of integration as just another word for assimilation. But no-one seriously believes that we should all, speak, look, dress, worship and act the same.

However, there has to be a balance struck between an ‘‘anything goes’’ multiculturalism on the one hand, which leads to deeper division and inequality; and on the other, an intolerant, repressive uniformity. We need a kind of integration that binds us together without stifling us. We need to be a nation of many colours that combine to create a single rainbow.

Yes, that does mean recognising diversity and rejecting assimilation.’


Mr Phillips is playing with words in that he is trying to differentiate the difference between integration and assimilation. Enoch Powell, in the speech quoted in the English Rights Campaign item dated the 15 July 2005 said:

‘To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.’


This is not what Mr Phillips means at all. He simplifies the definition of assimilation and then rejects it. The concept of assimilation, as defined by Mr Phillips, would never exist in Britain in practice. This is because Britain is a free society and how people lead their own lives is their own business. The recognition and respect for the freedom of the individual and the willingness to live and let live tempers and makes practical the concept of assimilation.

But Mr Phillips also rejects ‘an “anything goes” multiculturalism’ on the grounds that it will lead to division and inequality. His definition of equality, as he sets out in his speech, has already been dealt with in the English Rights Campaign item dated 24 September 2005. By equality he means race quotas. He objects to ‘an “anything goes” multiculturalism’ as it will not enforce the correct quota of ethnic minorities of every organisation in the country.

Mr Phillips calls for more integration as a means of avoiding segregation. In furtherance of that end, he sets out ‘what being British is all about’:

‘First and foremost, our shared values: for example an attachment to democracy, freedom of speech, and equality, values which anyone who expects to live in Britain must respect and abide by, both notionally and in practice.

Second, we share common traditions which, whatever we do at home, we all agree to respect and observe in our everyday encounters. Central to these I would say are our common language, our good manners, our care for children.

We also cherish a tradition of poking fun at politicians, priests and do-gooders, and – though I qualify for mockery on two counts – I think that is a tradition not to be tampered with lightly. And as long as new customs do not conflict with our values, let’s embrace them as part of the fabric of our community life. They too will one day join our shared traditions, the outstanding example of course, being the Indian restaurant – now not Indian at all but almost wholly British.

Thirdly, we maintain diverse, individualistic, even eccentric lifestyles in our private lives. No-one tells us how to speak, how to dress, what we should eat or how we should worship. These are all individual choices, to be respected as long as they do not interfere with our fundamental values, or our long-cherished traditions. And unlike some other countries, we tend to embrace new additions to our lifestyle choices – whether it is new music, or new kinds of clothes.’


Of the 3 main points which supposedly define Britishness, Mr Phillips’s first point [and ‘foremost’] relates to shared values. Yet not only is it patently obvious that a very large number of the immigrant communities do not share these values [eg Muslim fundamentalists regarding freedom of speech and even democracy], but there are also large differences of opinions regarding equality. The English Rights Campaign does not share Mr Phillips’s concept of equality at all, and nor would most of the general public.

Mr Phillips’s second point relates to traditions. Most would like to agree that we do have a rather English sense of humour unique to us, and we do laugh at our politicians. But this is an aspect of Britishness and it is not enough in itself. The same can be said of the third point Mr Phillips raises.

In fact one could apply a very large part of the points Mr Phillips cites to almost any Western country. Are not the French, or Dutch, or Australians etc also believers in democracy and freedom of speech? Do they not also have good manners or care for their children? Do they not also like new kinds of clothes?

These matters are not enough to define Britishness.

What defines Britishness, or Englishness, is a shared culture - political, religious, language, customs and national character [eg the stiff upper lip]. But Mr Phillips cannot cite these as he also advocates multiculturalism and continued mass immigration.

Multiculturalism dictates that the cultures of the immigrant communities are equal and must therefore be integrated into society on the same terms as the host culture, in the name of diversity. Immigrants already have their own culture. So the combination of continued mass immigration and multiculturalism must dilute British/English culture - especially when combined with so-called anti-racism [which condemns British/English culture as racist].

[Mr Phillips has previously denied that there is any such thing as a host British/English culture! This will be examined in the near future.]

Nor does Mr Phillips cite the most important aspect of all - patriotism. A belief in one’s own country and a pride in its culture and history. This is usually reinforced by a shared history. Mr Phillips cannot cite this, as immigrants do not have a pride in British history as they are foreigners and already have their own loyalties. They may respect Britain, but that is not the same. Also Mr Phillips, as with all communists and their fellow travellers, hates this country and its history. His whole political career is based on his contempt for Britain and he has spent a large amount of time attacking British history.

Mr Phillips then sets out what he regards as Britain’s drift towards segregation, which he splits into hard and soft segregation. Hard segregation is the issue of where people live and which school or which university they go to. Soft segregation is with whom people socialise.

Mr Phillips is of the opinion that universities have ‘started to become colour-coded’ and that ‘residentially, some districts are on their way to becoming fully fledged ghettos’. He defines ghettos as being ‘places where more than two-thirds of the residents belong to a single ethnic group’.

Mr Phillips points out that the number of residential ghettos are increasing:

‘The number of people of Pakistani heritage in what are technically called “ghetto” communities trebled during 1991-2001; 13% in Leicester live in such communities (the figure 10.8% in 1991); 13.3% in Bradford (it was 4.3% in 1991).’


Not only does Mr Phillips complain that certain districts are becoming ghettos, but he believes that schools are similarly affected:

‘A study by the Young Foundation in London’s east end, to be published as ‘‘The New East End’’ next February, shows that, despite heroic efforts by the local education authority, the choices made by parents themselves in Tower Hamlets are also entrenching segregation. There:

In primary schools in 2002, 17 schools had more than 90% Bangladeshi pupils; 9 schools had fewer than 10%.

In the 15 secondary schools, figures from Ofsted reports since 2000 show that three denominational schools (of which two are Roman Catholic) had fewer than 3% Bangladeshi pupils, whereas two schools had over 95% Bangladeshi pupils and a further three over 80%.’


Regarding soft segregation, Mr Phillips cites CRE statistics that:

‘Last year, we showed that most Britons could not name a single good friend from a different race; fewer than one in ten could name two – and even in London, which is one-third black or brown, a derisory proportion of whites had non-white friends. Just as alarmingly, we showed that young people from ethnic minorities were twice as likely to have a circle of pals exclusively from their own community, as were older ethnic minority folk.

This year we repeated the exercise.

Behaviour in white Britain has not changed a bit. Last year, 94% of white Britons said that all or most of their friends are white. This year it is 95%. Once again a majority – 55% – could not name a single non-white friend, and this was true of white Britons of all ages, classes and regions.

What the figures tell us about the behaviour of ethnic minority Britons is even bleaker. Last year, 31% of ethnic minority Britons said that most or all of their friends were from ethnic minority backgrounds; we found that this trend was stronger among the young than the old. This year the figures show a marked turn for the worse.

The 47% of ethnic minority Britons who last year said that most or all of their friends were white has now shrunk to 37%; and the proportion who have mainly or exclusively ethnic minority friends has grown from 31% to 37%. This is way beyond any statistical fluctuation.

It also remains true that younger Britons are more exclusive than older Britons. It must surely be the most worrying fact of all that younger Britons appear to be integrating less well than their parents.’


Mr Phillips recognises the scale of the dilemma when he points out that ‘within the next decade’ both Birmingham [England’s second largest city] and Leicester will become cities in which the English are a racial minority.

According to Mr Phillips, the solution to the problem of segregation is integration and an integrated society ‘has three essential features’:

• ‘Equality: everyone is treated equally, has a right to fair outcomes, and no-one should expect privileges because of what they are.

• Participation: all groups in the society should expect to share in how we make decisions, but also expect to carry the responsibilities of making the society work.

• Interaction: no-one should be trapped within their own community, and in the truly integrated society, who people work with, or the friendships they make, should not be constrained by race or ethnicity.’


Mr Phillips further states:

‘One crucial error we could make is to forget that equality is an absolute precondition for integration. A society in which most ethnic minority Britons are poorer, less well educated, less healthy and less politically engaged won’t be integrated.’


Once again, Mr Phillips’s definition of equality, as he sets out in his speech, has already been dealt with in the English Rights Campaign item dated 24 September 2005. By equality he means race quotas.

As far as immigrants being poorer, this is inevitable. Ethnic minority immigrants mostly come from the Third World which is poorer. Many are asylum seekers. Many have paid what are very large sums of money for them to organised crime rackets in order to be smuggled here. It is inevitable that statistically ethnic minorities will be poorer on average. It is wholly wrong to cite this as a barrier to integration and if it is, then it is a further reason for mass immigration to be ended.

And in order to achieve what he sees as an integrated society Mr Phillips says:

‘This autumn the Commission is setting out its plans for an ambitious new programme to encourage greater integration. It will inform everything we do, and we want the whole CRE family to play a part in this work.

At its heart will lie three aims:

• a relentless focus on greater equality;

• a drive towards more equal participation; and

• steps to promote renewed interaction between Britons of different backgrounds and different traditions.’


Furthermore:

‘We know that real commitment to equality in government, in our neighbourhoods, and in the workplace won’t happen until minorities have a voice. That is why this year we will be working with you to increase the diversity of those appointed to public bodies and positions such as health boards, school governors and cultural institutions.

We also intend to start the drive early to make political parties more inclusive in their nominations for parliamentary and council seats. Since 2001 the proportion of ethnic minority councillors in the UK has slumped. There are still only 15 ethnic minority MPs when there should be more than 50. That has to change.’


So we cannot complain that we have not been warned of coming attractions!

Mr Phillips continually assumes that only ethnic minorities can properly represent ethnic minorities. This might make him very important, but it is untrue. True representation is determined by principles and not skin colour.

It is to be noted that the Tories have not condemned this speech, despite the prospect of being told who they may appoint as candidates. One presumes that they are eager to seek Mr Phillips’s approval.

There are 2 fundamental flaws in Mr Phillips’s rationale. These flaws stem from Mr Phillips’s politically correct and communist politics.

Firstly, he has set out what he believes to be a problem of growing segregation. He believes that this problem must be solved by government action to ensure integration. To that end he has produced a series of proposals which he is going to implement via the CRE irrespective of public opinion. These proposals include some carrots such as summer camps for children and spending £2million on ‘integrated sport’. Other proposals are sticks, such as the proposals for altering school catchment areas, and the extra red tape of so-called ‘race equality impact assessment’, the enforcement of a ‘race equality duty’, the demand for information of ‘equality performance of potential partners’, ‘equality audits’, ‘and new incentives for shareholders to hold their boards to account on equality issues’.

In other words, there will be a more aggressive prosecution of the British Inquisition.

All of this is to force people to behave in such a way that is consistent with the theory of the multicultural experiment and mass immigration. Mr Phillips is not developing policies to suit the interests of the public. He intends to try to control and manipulate the public to suit the interests of the political theory.

It will not work. Communism had a whole host of theories and they did not work. Communism has collapsed throughout eastern Europe and we only have to look at Zimbabwe to see how it works out in practice.

Even in the UK, we had the theory of Keynesian economics, which advocated increasing the money supply as a means of solving unemployment. The result was inflation and higher unemployment. So the government tried to solve that by introducing public sector wage norms, private sector wage norms, going rates, price controls, wage controls, exchange rate controls, mortgage controls, beer and sandwiches at Number 10 for union barons etc in order to try and stop people reacting to the billions of extra pounds being pumped into circulation.

It all failed and ultimately we ended up with the Winter of Discontent [or the 3 day week under the Tories]. The theory was wrong and eventually Keynesian reflation economics was abandoned.

The theory of multiculturalism and mass immigration is wrong. It should be abandoned. Mr Phillips may be able to make people’s lives miserable with all his meddling, but he will fail to control the public. This is a democracy and not a totalitarian state [at least not yet]. Mr Phillips cannot control how people think and what they believe.

The second fundamental flaw in Mr Phillips’s rationale is his blind commitment to mass immigration despite its direct and predictable consequences. Mr Phillips is not so foolish that he is unable to see the inevitable attack he will face on this and he tries to fob it off in his speech:

‘I can imagine the glee in some quarters at the picture we are reporting. But those who see this as an argument against immigration should not take comfort from what I am saying. History does not support their case. The speed and scale of immigration have had little impact on the levels of integration in the past sixty years.

For example, among minority groups who seem to have found integration easiest, East African Asians arrived in a rush – over a period of months, whilst Jews took decades to get here in numbers. There are twice as many African Caribbeans as there are Bangladeshis, but their levels and ease of integration are very different.’


He is open about his intention to support mass immigration and that he intends to see the continued rise in the numbers of ethnic minorities as a proportion of the total population. He cites a YouGov poll in support:

‘CRE research shows that for the first time in sixty years we are growing more relaxed about our ethnic differences. We accept that there is a need for immigration:

• in our April YouGov poll, one quarter of our respondents said there should be no arbitrary limit on the proportion of the UK’’s population which is immigrant; while

• two-thirds think a proportion of over 15% is okay.

Since the migrant and ethnic minority populations are still below 10%, we have a way to go before Britons feel threatened by pure numbers.’


This is hogwash. If Mr Phillips genuinely believes that the English people, who are bearing the brunt of mass immigration, want to see more immigrants in the country, that they want to see themselves to being reduced to a racial minority in Birmingham and Leicester and ultimately in England as a whole, then he is delusional. Even a majority of the ethnic minorities wish to see an end to so-called asylum seeking, especially as it is so widely abused.

Writing in February this year, Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch UK said:

‘After years, even decades, of being bludgeoned into silence by false insinuations of racism, people are saying what they really think about present levels of immigration. Sneering at ‘‘the tabloids’’ by the usual suspects will no longer wash.

The opinion polls say it all: 77 per cent disagree that the Government has immigration under control; 75 per cent are concerned about extra pressure on public services and a similar number believe that there are too many immigrants in Britain.

These are astonishing numbers. And it gets worse for the Government. Three quarters of the public do not believe it is being open and honest about immigration and 45 per cent say it will influence their vote at the forthcoming General Election. This explains the hints, nudges, winks and leaks that emerged over the weekend in the lead-up to yesterday’s announcement of a ‘‘five-year plan’’ for asylum and immigration.

It also explains an extraordinarily defensive article by the Prime Minister in yesterday’s Press. He claims that the reason immigration is a difficult subject is nothing to do with political correctness, nor the risk of being accused of racism.

Really? He could have fooled me. His spin doctors have been smearing my organisation, Migrationwatch, for years.’


Like Vince Cable in his recent Demos report, Mr Phillips intends to see the ethnic minorities continue to double every 20 years as a proportion of the total population. His aim is to reduce the English to being a racial minority in England in about 50 years.

The CRE’s YouGov poll did not ask their respondents if they were in favour of that!

It is plain common sense, as Enoch Powell recognised long ago, that the scale of mass immigration was bound to make integration more difficult as the immigrants would not need to interact with the host community and would create their own immigrant communities instead. People will prefer to mix with those with whom they have something in common. Even in communist Russia the government found that engineers tended to socialise with other engineers, doctors with other doctors etc. It is human nature and no amount of meddling will alter that.

The scale of mass immigration will therefore in turn create segregation and ghettos. This is inevitable especially given the complete disregard as to the compatibility of the immigrants to the host English community. The solution is to end mass immigration. If we cannot cope with the size of the immigrant communities already here, then there is no point in letting in millions more immigrants.

But Mr Phillips simply cannot contemplate such a thing. He is a bigot in the true meaning of he word in that his mind is closed [bigot: ‘a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his own’ - Collins English Dictionary]. He is incapable of accepting the obvious and can do no other than bawl racist at those who dare to disagree with him. The vast number of opinion polls which demonstrate the anger at continued mass immigration are completely ignored. As far as Mr Phillips is concerned those opinion polls do not exist and such opinions are racist.

There is a choice of analysis. On the one hand there is that analysis of Mr Phillips that it is the people who are wrong and the theory of multiculturalism and mass immigration is correct. That what is needed therefore are new measures to force people to behave in ways consistent with the theory.

Alternatively, the theory is wrong and we need to revert to the common sense of patriotism, and an end to mass immigration and the politically correct multiculturalism that is presently accompanying that mass immigration.

Mr Phillips’s route involves a greater role for the CRE and the British Inquisition, the alternative involves the disbandment of the CRE and the British Inquisition and the rejection of political correctness.

Although that is the choice, we have no means of making it. Mr Phillips is an unelected, unaccountable quangocrat who enjoys Labour’s full support. He will impose his views on the rest of us whether we like it or not.

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

Dudley Council, in the West Midlands, has banned novelty items and toys featuring pigs from the benefits department following a complaint by a Muslim worker, who had claimed to find the items offensive.

The ban includes toys, porcelain, calenders, and even a box of tissues featuring Winnie the Pooh and Piglet.

Ornaments which have been on desks for years have had to be removed.

The council’s head of finance, Mike Williams, said that a member of staff had been offended by the items. He said that a final decision will be taken as to the continuance of the ban after the Muslim festival of Ramadan.

Monday, October 03, 2005

THE NEED FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

David Davis has voiced his support for a proposal from the Tory leader in the Scottish parliament, David McLetchie, that there should be tax cuts in Scotland.

The plan is to use the powers of the Scottish parliament which allow the MSPs to vary income tax by 3p in the pound. In this case, the Tories intend to cut income tax. Mr Davis said:

‘I agree with the Scottish Conservatives that Scottish people deserve lower taxes. Scotland’s historic entrepreneurship and commitment to educational standards make it superbly placed to become a tartan tiger economy, competing across the globe and raising the living standards for every Scot.’


This is all very well, and Mr Davis’s concern for Scottish taxpayers is very touching, but since the Scottish parliament’s expenditure is £10billion in excess of Scottish tax revenue, then the Scots deserve to be paying higher taxes and not less.

The Scottish parliament’s deficit is funded by a whopping subsidy from England and any tax cuts in Scotland will be again funded by England. This is outrageous.

The Tories are a British unionist party and will not defend English interests.

This simply shows again the need for an English party to represent English interests, and the need for an English parliament.

Sunday, October 02, 2005

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

It has now been reported that the North Wales Police are seeking advice from the Crown Prosecution Service as to whether or not to prosecute Tony Blair. This stems from an allegation that Mr Blair had shouted the term ‘fucking Welsh’ several times at the television screen during the Welsh Assembly referendum in 1999.

Although this was not actually alleged in the recently published diaries of a former Downing Street spin doctor, Lance Price, it is alleged that Mr Price had been pressured into using the term ‘TB f-ing and blinding about the whole thing’ in his published diaries instead of stating that Mr Blair had used the term ‘fucking Welsh’.

The chief constable of the North Wales Police is the ultra-politically correct Richard Brunstrum, who found himself in trouble earlier this year when he described certain people as ‘queers’ when discussing inappropriate activities in public lavatories [see English Rights Campaign entry dated 15 March 2005].

So, it would seem that if Lance Price had alleged that Mr Blair had shouted ‘fucking Welsh’, not that he has, and if those allegations are true, not that they have been made let alone proved, then Mr Blair might be guilty of racism.

Apparently, the North Wales Police have received one complaint about the allegations that there might be allegations that Mr Blair used the term ‘fucking Welsh’, notwithstanding that it is not yet alleged that Mr Blair has used the term.

This farce could not have happened to a more deserving individual.

Mr Brunstrum and Mr Blair deserve each other.