THE NEED FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

Below is a copy of a press release issued by the Scottish National Party:

Constitution Unit Can't Duck West Lothian Question
Westminster

Responding today (Tuesday) to the Constitution Unit's (CU) report into the so called West Lothian Question, and the impact of Scottish MP's voting on English only issues, Pete Wishart, the SNP's Constitution Spokesman at Westminster said the CU had essentially missed the point and that this was an issue that desperately needs a solution. Speaking today Mr Wishart said:

"The Constitution Unit, having just discovered the implications of the West Lothian Question, like so many before it, has sadly retreated from addressing the issue because independence for Scotland stands out as the clearest answer.

"Like others, since Tam Dalyell so elegantly first put this key constitutional question, they would appear to have left it unanswered because of this logical answer.

"The reality though is that England does have a majority of MPs against a number of the Government's policies. In order to get controversial English legislation through they have relied on a compliant contingent from Scottish seats.

"English MP's have every right to feel aggrieved that the Government's lobby loyalists from north of the border will determine controversial English outcomes on legislation. Legislation that does not affect their constituencies and to whom they are not answerable. This cannot be right and in no way can this be described as fair.

"The London Government has ignored the consequences of devolution on the Commons but time and events will show it can't keep its head in the sand forever.

"This is a constitutional mess and will have to be addressed in a mature fashion that doesn't duck the solution of independence. If the majority in England - whether voters or MPs - are not in favour of a policy the Government should not use MPs from north of the border to impose it on them. After all we are told we live in a democracy."

END.

Published 10/01/2006 04:30 PM

THE EU

Below is an article which appeared in yesterday’s The Sun:

EU junket 'to aid poor'

HUNDREDS of EU politicians and welfare officials enjoyed an extravagant weekend junket to discuss poverty.

Britain’s pensions minister James Plaskitt was among 250 delegates at Villach in Austria. They ate gourmet meals and many visited health spas.

Even the chairs for their meeting were flown 200 miles from Vienna because the originals were judged to be too uncomfortable.

The conference was called to discuss the EU’s 32million jobless, and 70million living on the poverty line.

The delegates spent six hours in talks. Many spent the rest of the three days relaxing in five-star hotels, attending gala receptions and entertainments in a brewery.

Far right regional governor Joerg Haider hosted the brewery trip. He has praised Hitler and said ruthless WWII German Waffen SS troops had ‘courage and conviction’.

The conference caused anger in Villach. Hairdresser Cleopatra Leidenfrost, 21, said: ‘Our taxes should not be squandered in such a lavish way’.

FREE SPEECH

‘Add to this the voices of Christian extermists whose interpretation of the Bible dreamt of Christ’s (pbuh) after the establishment of an extended Israel and the picture emerges of a cross Atlantic state of mind where the desire for control of universal resources and religious vision were coming together to accept a happening that would pave the way for realising this dream. It is a pity that thousands of people, whose only fault lay in their desire to earn a livelihood for their families, had to suffer a horrendous death to satisfy such dreams.

The question arises, how far people with power would go to achieve their desired goal, ie a terrorist outrage to create a perception of threat? There is one precedent which may help one’s thinking. Wiles Copeland in his autobiography ‘The Game Player’ (pages 68-69) confirms that President Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to destroy America’s fleet and hundreds of his own people. In a meeting between CIA Admiral Sydney Sauers and President Trueman, information was given that President Roosevelt got the intelligence and decided to let the Pearl Harbour attack happen as a way of arousing the otherwise apathetic population.

It would not be out of place to look at the happenings of 11th September in the light of what happened at the time of the Pearl Harbour tragedy. Our political establishment is not concerned with morality or principles. Such considerations are only used to make contemplated ventures acceptable to the general public ...

The people with motives in this crime have never been questioned. What we have instead is the names of a few unknowns who after 14 hours of flight training became so skilful that they could accomplish an aerial feat of such precision. What we have instead is the name of a loner, a known CIA recruit, sitting in a remote hiding place in Afghanistan where one is lucky to have electricity for two hours in a day, but who is able to control a worldwide organisation with precise information and direction, provides logistic support, moves financial resources through institutions which are fully controlled by the superpowers and their allies.

One has to be extremely naive to accept such a story. We are told that Al-Qaida is a threat to the world. Obviously this is an organisation by the Muslims for the Muslims but the strange fact is that we - the Muslims - have never heard of it. We have never been approached by its operators; it does not seem to need our help. It must be a very self-contained, self-supporting unit. It must be the most exclusive miracle of all times.

The 11th September tragedy has a particular poignancy for us Muslims. It has brought us under suspicion; it has opened the way for racist and religious hatred to express itself. Thousands of our co-religionists are rotting in jails in the most uncivilised conditions.

The rules of international law have been suspended, democracy is being eroded and dictatorship is on the march.

What should we do? We must not lose heart. Our strength is our ideology; our commitment is to human good.

We must come out of our seclusion. We must engage ourselves in the socio-political process. We must join forces with like minded people and work for freedom of choice, freedom of expression and freedom of action and the right to self-development to everyone’s maximum potential without any charge. Let us bear witness to the legacy of the Prophet (pbuh) who was a blessing to mankind and prove ourselves to be a blessing for our fellow beings.’

Dr Mohammad Naseem, writing in September 2004

‘"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes”, said Mark Twain. Modern communications help the lie travel even further, although Velcro having replaced lace-ups, the truth is not all that slow anymore in getting ready –– mainly thanks to the internet.

After 9/11 it took months before any meaningful discussion got under way to piece together what really happened. After 7/7 in London this discussion is already in full swing. Many lies have travelled the world in the run-up to the “War on Terror”, itself a grand smokescreen for land grabs, geopolitical advances and social control. It should not be a surprise to our security services to find people sceptical of their integrity after they sold us the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction, then told us to be constantly on guard because an attack was inevitable and now tell us how shocked they were when it actually happened. Nor should it surprise them that any serious investigator would include them amongst the suspects ...

Governments take a natural liking to propaganda. Nazi Germany’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels taught them: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." And George Orwell, the great predictor of the times of double-speak and thought-control we now live in, agreed: “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

Now you would think that this applies to fascist and other dictatorships, not a democracy. But what is fascism, if not the unholy trinity of government, corporate, and media power? The Project for the American Century contains a useful list of tell-tale signs of fascism.

Qui Bono?

One way of getting to the truth is to ask: Qui bono? Who benefits? To any impartial observer it must be evident that Muslims, whether in the West or the East, have not been net beneficiaries of recent events. Western governments and companies, particularly arms manufacturers and security service providers, on the other hand, have, as have the oil cartels and their bankers who were also the first to cash in on the tragedy.

Besides unilateral military action, 9/11 brought us the various stages of the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay and other cancellations of democratic rights and due process. But it did not, ultimately, stifle debate nor were people willing to fully surrender their freedom of speech. There have been endless attempts to control the internet and reduce all people living in the West to a diet of CNN infotainment, just as there have been attempts to ban the satellite broadcast of information not fit to be served to the American public by the likes of Al-Jazeera, but to date they have not overcome a still strong and determined civil rights movement. Hopes are high that London 7/7 will change this. The interception of email is high on the priority list of Tony Blair’’s counter-terror measures, for example, and it is also on the agenda of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) ...

Hitherto the British government had thought that scaring people of an inevitable terrorist attack was good enough, but received ridicule and accusations of fear-mongering in return. A television series, The Power of Nightmares, questioned whether these security warnings were politically motivated. During the recent British general election the anti-war movement seriously dented the government’s majority and scored an extra-ordinary victory with the election of anti-war candidate George Galloway who, not one ever to mince his words, even flew to the USA and took on the American Senate’s committee.

London needed a real terror attack in order to numb people sufficiently for the government to push through legislation that they had not been able to push through even before their electoral fiasco. Immediately following the attack there were raids and city centre evacuations, and France and Italy likewise moved quickly to round up alleged suspects. The farce of democracy could be suspended and government and opposition could pull together. Policymakers in the US, too, are hoping that these events will stop that European trend of permitting opposition and unite them in support for the American Enterprise. Sacrificing a few of their own people is not too high a price; former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright thought even the death of half a million Iraqi children a price worth paying.

Unfortunately for US and UK policymakers, critical voices were not as easily silenced this time as after 9/11. Some even squarely laid the blame at the government’s door and their illegal foreign exploits. Just as after the Madrid bombing the electorate did not swing behind the government but behind the opposition who called for a pull-out of Spanish troops from Iraq, the majority of Brits have no inclination to throw their support behind the government’’s favoured identity card scheme ...

Here are some interesting leads for any budding Sherlock Holmes:

Peter Powers, an ex-Scotland Yard anti-terrorist officer, admitted on BBC Radio 5 and ITN News that his PR firm were running a terror attack simulation exercise on the morning of the explosions at precisely the same locations where the bombs went off. Coincidence? Impossible. Collusion? Improbable. Well done, Watson, collusion it must be then, which would also explain why the evidence was removed. I am referring to the broken cameras on the no. 30 bus belonging to London Transport.

One of the problems of modern propaganda is the fast-moving flow of information. Little time to sort things out, leading to inevitable contradictions. For example, al-Qaidah was, of course, going to be responsible, but al-Qaidah would have targeted us because of our involvement in Iraq, yet, we are told by our politicians that this attack had nothing at all to do with Iraq but was an attempt to interfere with our values and way of life. Not al-Qaidah then, home-grown bombers. As the above cited blogger observes cynically, however: watch for the 'mastermind' to eventually be connected to the governments of Syria or Iran. But at least for now the alleged bombers are dead and not likely to put up a defence. If the new anti-terrorism laws were extended to British citizens, things would be easier, of course: they could be arrested and wouldn’t have to stand trial either.

Then there is the timing and method of the blasts. First the various explosions were spread out over more than an hour, until people began to ask why, seeing that the Israeli intelligence service Mossad had been able to warn Netanyahu (who was conveniently on location) not to leave his hotel, why couldn’t the British public be warned after the first bomb had gone off instead of being told lies about a perceived power failure? To fix this nagging problem it was then announced that the bombs were set off simultaneously using timers. A day later, however, we are told that Yorkshire-based suicide bombers (fanatical Muslims, like the one of them who was married to a Hindu lady) and now also a Jamaican were responsible for the carnage. Now have you ever heard of a suicide bomber using a timer on his charge of explosives and then waiting around for it to go off? Stupid and impossible. So there were no timers? But the police can’’t just have made it all up, can they? Improbable. The truth is: someone is lying to us somewhere.

The Truth

What is more, in a multi-million people city like London there are inevitably people who see things they were not meant to see, like station closures before the event, for example, or the shooting of alleged perpetrators by police in Canary Wharf which was hushed up very quickly. As the saying goes: you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time.

The aftermath of 7/7 is filled with moving speeches by politicians who make us believe that the suffering of the London public is unique in the world and in history. Within a few days of the bombs going off in London the casualty figure was matched by the death of innocent civilians in Baghdad, where bombs are a daily occurrence, not to mention the rest of Iraq. A train collision in Pakistan brought three times the death toll of the London bombings. But lives are cheap elsewhere. Yet, no amount of fancy talking is going to stop the truth from slowly emerging and the finger being pointed at the real perpetrators sitting in high office.’

Dr Sahib M Bleher, writing in 15 July 2005 and posted on the Islamic Party of Britain website

‘So the industrial nations have remained in dispute regarding the main issues of the summit but despite this they have agreed to attack the Muslim issues. In their communiquéé they agreed to support the PA in fighting what they called terrorism against the Jews and approved the legitimacy of the Jewish state which has usurped Palestine. Also, they have agreed to support the government in Iraq which is under American occupation. Also they supported the solutions proposed for Darfur leading to separation or (at least) an autonomous rule. It is clear that all their agreements are on those issues that attack the Muslims' interests.

O Muslims:

You can see these states, especially the colonialist states and those which have ambitions over our countries, may disagree on everything but they are united against you and against your Deen. Here they all move in one direction; they want to keep the issue of the Muslims in a state of crisis, separated and disconnected; they want the Muslims to be under their sphere of influence and under Jewish influence, so that, as they themselves admit, they can prevent the Muslims from returning as one Ummah in one state; the Khilafah Rashidah which will put the world in its right place and give back the rights to its people, and spread goodness to all corners of the world.

The Kafir colonialists, especially America and Britain harbour a hidden hatred against Islam and the Muslims, and at the first opportunity show their hatred but what their breasts conceal is far worse. They forget their differences when it comes to Islam and the Muslims. The London explosions, which took place at the time of the G8 summit, revealed this crusader viewpoint and hatred of Islam and the Muslims to the extent that every Muslim in Britain, even British citizens, have come under suspicion where even some British organisations have begun calling openly for 'waging a crusader war to expel Muslims from the streets of Europe.' Also there have been revenge attacks against Muslim men and women who show any adherence to Islam, such as women wearing Hijab or men with beards and even attacks against some mosques.

A few hours after the bombings on Thursday 7/7/2005; before any investigation and before revealing even the reality of the bombings as to whether they were planted or human bombs, the hateful crusader comments began to be made: Blair immediately pointed to 'extremist' values while hinting at Islam. Others declared that Islam is, "an evil and brutal religion." In this manner their crusader hatred of Islam and the Muslims has appeared. They know that many explosions have been carried out by extremists from their own countrymen though they did not describe them in this way nor did they describe their religion, values or culture in an inappropriate way but confined their discussion to the individuals involved ...

Why is it that the Muslims killed in Palestine, the Muslims killed in Iraq, the Muslims killed in Afghanistan, the Muslims killed in Chechnya, the Muslims killed in Kashmir, the Muslims killed in Fatani in Thailand, the Muslims killed in the Moroland in the Philippines, the Muslims killed here and there, whose blood is unjustly spilled day and night by the Jewish state, America, Britain, Russia, the Hindus, Thailand and the Philippines, at the hands of the tyrants of all nationalities is justified? Why is it that those whose blood has been spilled unjustly are said to have been killed in self defence by the G8 countries! However, when Americans, British, Jews, Russians, Hindus and others are killed, the world is turned upside down for their sake!

Why do those Kuffar in the West and the Jews expect that the massacre of Muslims will not result in violent reactions from Muslims?

Why do they not expect that the violation of honour, desecration of Qur'ans and the sanctities, the brutal crimes in occupied Muslim countries such as Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir and Chechnya will push some people to take revenge, to meet killing with killing. Why do they not expect this?

Why do they not solve the problem by stopping their aggression against the Muslims and stop spilling their blood? Why do they not look at the reason for the problems and remove it rather than focussing on the effect and leaving the cause?

O Muslims:

It is a clear fact that the Kafir colonialists differ greatly in their conferences except when the matter relates to attacking Islam and its followers, whereupon they unite. At the first opportunity they show their aggression and hatred publicly. What happened after the London explosions in terms of the hateful and extreme statements of Bush, Blair, Putin, Chirac, Schroeder, Berlusconi and even Japan, Canada and then Australia from afar; all of this exposes the hidden hatred against Islam and the Muslims even before they clarified the reality of what happened or investigated the matter.

O Muslims, we know that such material actions, such as explosions and the like in cities among civilians will not solve the problem of the aggression of Kuffar against the Muslims, let alone the fact that is not allowed inside the cities or among civilians. What will solve the problem is the creation of a state for the Muslims, the Khilafah Rashidah, which will return the Ummah to the situation with which Allah will be pleased; the position of the best Ummah brought forth for mankind. It will bring back her glory and power and cut the hand of every Kafir colonialist who extends his hand (to harm) the Muslim countries and it will protect Islam, the honour of Muslims and their sanctities. It will begin the conquests and spread goodness to all corners of the world.

Hizb ut-tahrir is steady in following this path, it will not undertake material actions nor does it view that as a correct solution. It does not accept the killing of civilians or the harming of those who have security. But despite this, it takes the view that because the powerful nations spill the blood of Muslims, violate their honour and desecrate their sanctities, that these are the real reasons which produce these material reactions. If the big nations wanted to put a stop to these actions they would have thought and reflected on the questions that we mention above - but we know that the arrogance of these states will stop them from thinking in a sound manner and following the correct path.

O Muslims

The world is in distress, and the big powers are more disturbed and are actually the reason for the disturbance. Only Islam can lead the world, save it and spread goodness throughout the world. All of this will begin, O Muslims, by the serious and sincere work with Hizb ut-Tahrir to resume the Islamic way of life by establishing the Khilafah Rashidah state.’

Hizh ut-Tahrir website, 9 July 2005

Most English people would regard the above 3 quotes with some alarm. The horror of 9/11 and the sight of planes crashing into the twin towers is an image many can still remember, along with the pictures of those jumping to their deaths in order to avoid being burned alive.

In the above quotes it is averred that the British government is itself responsible for the 7/7 terrorist bombings, in the same way, apparently the US government is responsible for 9/11, or that the terrorist bombings have been brought upon the English and the West by their acts of aggression towards Islam and Muslims around the world.

Dr Naseem caused a row shortly after the July 2005 terror attacks for his extremist comments. A report dated the 6 August 2005 from the BBC website states:

‘Following the anti-terrorism proposals unveiled on Friday Dr Naseem told the BBC's Radio 4 Today programme that he saw "similarities" between Mr Blair's approach to Britain's Muslim community and Hitler's demonisation of Jews early in his time as German Chancellor.

"I think he is not very wise in the way he did it. I am saying he is not handling the situation wisely, because he says one thing at one time and another at another," he said.

'Dangerous times'

"He [Hitler] was democratically elected and gradually he created a bogey identity, that is, the Jewish people, and posed to the Germans that they were a threat to the country.

"On that basis, he started a process of elimination of Jewish people.

"I see the similarities. Everything moves step by step. I am saying these are dangerous times and we must take note of this."

He added that the measures proposed by Mr Blair would be "appropriate" if there was evidence that foreign nationals were in the country fomenting terrorism.

'Abusing hospitality'

"A government is entitled to take measures to safeguard the country and the nation, but the problem is that the government speaks with so many tongues that one is confused.

"Up to last week, we were given to believe that the terrorists were home-grown, 'clean-skinned' and Muslim.

"The measures being taken are against those who come to this country who are asylum-seekers and they are supposed to be misusing or abusing hospitality.

"Mr Blair told the Cabinet last week that people blame anything but faith, including poverty, discrimination and the war on terror for the bombings, so the message seemed to be that they are blaming everything else, but they should be blaming faith".’

Dr Naseem is also a major doner to the Respect Party, which had a representative, Salma Yaqoob, on the BBC Question Time programme this last week. Furthermore Dr Naseem is also connected to the Islamic Party of Britain. A report from the Guardian dated the 25 November 2005 states:

‘Gay activists have called on George Galloway's Respect party to dissociate itself from a donor amid claims he is linked to a party that advocates homophobia.

Dr Mohammed Naseem stood for Respect in Perry Barr, Birmingham, at the last election and donated £15,457 to the party - 29% of its campaign budget.

But Dr Naseem is also an executive member of, and home affairs spokesman for, the Islamic Party of Britain, whose website says: "Islam condemns and outlaws homosexuality. As far as Islamic law is concerned, the state does not interfere in the privacy of people's homes, but it would need to safeguard public decency by preventing any public advocacy for homosexuality." Lewd public displays would attract the death penalty.

Peter Tatchell of the gay and lesbian campaign group OutRage! said: "Proof of the homophobic rot at the heart of Respect is the party's open embrace of people and organisations that support the death penalty for homosexuality."

But the attack was rebuffed by Dr Naseem, who said the Islamic party was now little more than a thinktank. "These things are a matter of personal choice," he said. "I am not concerned with what people do in their bedrooms."

A Respect spokesman claimed that OutRage! was trying "to score a rather shallow and political point".’

This does not mean to say that the comments in the above quotes should not be made in a free society that recognises free speech. But the tolerance of free speech can be eroded in an emergency, such as war or a breakdown in society.

Originally, Labour intended to ban the organisation Hizh ut-Tahrir, which is already banned in other Western countries. It has since changed its mind.

The above views concern acts of Muslim terrorism at a time when there had been one bloody day of terrorism [7/7], when there had been another failed day of terrorism 14 days later, and when there have been several attempted acts of terrorism since - albeit foiled by the police. The impact of such comments upon those Muslims who already hate this country and mean us harm, can only be imagined.

The tolerance of free speech must apply to all. It cannot apply only to those who peddle, or advocate views deemed fashionable by, political correctness. It cannot only apply to those who attack this country.

A more pertinent question might be to ask why it is that those who hate Britain and the West so much, and dismiss us as ‘Kafir colonialists’ in our own country, are allowed to remain here?

Meanwhile two members of the BNP [a legal party which the English Rights Campaign does not support] have been prosecuted for comments made at a BNP meeting, and face up to a 7 year jail sentence if convicted.

THE NEED FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

Below is a copy of an item from the Campaign for an English Parliament website:


During the last week there has been much commentary on Gordon Brown’s proposed exultation of Britain and Britishness. The consensus seems to be that at best it was designed to show Brown as a man of vision ready to lead Britain, and at worst it was a cynical attempt by a Scot to pander to the voters of Middle England.

But despite questioning his motives nobody has actually asked the question ‘should Gordon Brown be Prime Minister?’ The answer to that question is ‘no’.

It is generally assumed that Gordon Brown will be the shoo-in Prime Minister when Tony Blair steps down. The British people will not get a say in this, it will be a bloodless coup and Brown will just step in and take control of our lives. There will be a leadership contest but with a lack of any discernable talent or able-minded competition on the Labour Front Bench it is difficult envisage anything but a Brown succession.

But just why should Gordon Brown succeed Blair? It is bad enough that Brown is part of a UK Executive that exercises complete control over England when he himself is democratically unaccountable to the English people over vast swathes of Government policy, but when he becomes Prime Minister he will head up a UK Executive that effectively makes England a Scottish electoral dictatorship.

Gordon Brown has no mandate from the UK electorate on all matters that have been devolved to Scotland.

Issues that are devolved to Scotland include:



* health
* education and training
* local government
* social work
* housing
* planning
* tourism, economic development and financial assistance to industry
* some aspects of transport, including the Scottish road network, bus policy and ports and harbours
* law and home affairs, including most aspects of criminal and civil law, the prosecution system and the courts
* the Police and Fire services
* the environment
* natural and built heritage
* agriculture, forestry and fishing
* sport and the arts
* statistics, public registers and records



Gordon Brown is elected to represent the people of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, and those Scottish constituents that vote for him are giving him the mandate to represent them at Westminster on the issues that are reserved to the UK Executive.

Those reserved issues include:


* constitutional matters
* UK foreign policy
* UK defence and national security
* fiscal, economic and monetary System
* immigration and nationality
* energy: electricity, coal, gas and nuclear energy
* common markets
* trade and industry, including competition and customer protection
* some aspects of transport, including railways, transport safety and regulation
* employment legislation
* social security
* gambling and the National Lottery
* data protection
* abortion, human fertilisation and embryology, genetics, xenotransplantation and vivisection
* equal opportunities



However, Brown’s constituents do not elect Brown to represent them on issues that are devolved to Scotland. To fulfill that remit, and to represent their interests in those devolved policy areas, they elect a representative to the Scottish Parliament, and it is that MSP rather than Gordon Brown that has their mandate on devolved areas. On all devolved matters Brown has no mandate from his own constituents. Likewise, he has no mandate from the people of England over whose education and health systems he seeks to exert his authority. We English cannot vote for or against him, and those Scots that can are unaffected by his decisions that pertain only to England. In fact Gordon Brown is democratically unaccountable to any UK voter on important legislative areas such as health and education - as far as these areas are concerned he is an unelected representative - and yet, bizarrely, he expects to lead a UK Executive and assume executive control of England in these areas. He has no moral authority to do so.

The UK system of cabinet government works on the principle of collective responsibility. Brown will decide the Executive’s political direction and he will pick his cabinet members accordingly, cherry picking those MPs that will tow the line. At no stage will the people of England be asked their opinion on this. Come the General Election English voters may, by the ballot box, opt to kick out English members of the Brown cabinet, but no English voter will be able to hold Brown accountable for his record on English health or education.

The English can, of course, chose to vote for another party - as they did in 2005 - but the Labour Party has gerrymandered the UK constitution to ensure that they have permanent majorities in Scotland and Wales, and they can rule England bolstered by their Scottish and Welsh MPs - MPs who vote on English matters without English MPs having the right to vote on the concomitant legislation in Scotland and Wales. And the Labour Party does all this despite not commanding the plurality of the English vote (The Conservative Party gained 72544 more votes in England).

It is simply inconceivable that Gordon Brown should be allowed to become Prime Minister. He has no mandate to legislate for England and his high-office would be reliant on the English over-looking glaring constitutional anomalies for the sake of being governed by an electoral dictatorship of Government design and Scottish provenance.

A Brown premiership will result in a constitutional crisis that will make the UK, and England in particular, ungovernable. The English public and English MPs will, quite correctly, tell Brown that if he wants to legislate on education and health then he should do so for his own constituents by buggering-off and sitting in his own (Scottish) parliament. That is the way that it will be, this is our imminent future; an MP representing a Scottish constituency can not be UK Prime Minister; the Kingdom is dis-united.

It goes without saying that a Scottish led UK Executive should, theoretically, be perfectly able to legislate for the UK as a whole without anyone raising any ethical objection. However, when that executive seeks to legislate for England alone it loses any democratic legitimacy, even more so when it relies on the votes of Scottish and Welsh MPs to impose its will in the Commons.

In order for Brown to succeed to Blair’s throne English legislation must be removed from the UK Executive’s remit. And that means that there must be an English government to take responsibility for those devolved matters that are presently devolved to Scotland; those areas over which Brown has no mandate. Until that time a Brown premiership is inconceivable.

Britain may once have been, for all intents and purposes, a unitary state in which we were all equally affected by the legislation of the UK Government but those days are passed. These days, post-devolution, it is often just the English that are affected by legislation drafted and administered by the UK Executive. Why should an executive whose cabinet is hand-picked by a Scot – one that is democratically unaccountable to the English population on most of the policy areas contained in the UK manifesto - govern England? That is the question that we should ask ourselves.

And while we asking that question our motto should be ‘No Legislation Without Representation’.

It is quite something that we have arrived at a point where the prospect of a Scottish Prime Minister raises grave concerns over representative and accountable democracy. Privately Labour MPs must be concerned about the damage that a Brown leadership will do to Parliamentary democracy and to the Party, and so to should anyone that values Britain and the Union.

Supporters of an English parliament should oppose Brown’s succession and send out a clear message to the Labour Party that under the current constitutional arrangement a Scottish Prime Minister is an untenable proposition. And those that support the continuance of Britain and the Union should know that when the prospect of a Scottish Prime Minister becomes untenable the Union is at threat. The Labour Party’s blithe contempt for democracy has led to this inexcusable situation, and if Brown and his supporters want to ensure his succession against a rising tide of anti-Scottish sentiment they must force the Government to rectify the constitutional imbalance. Until that time, and so long as 100 of us remain alive, we will not submit to the rule of the Scottish Raj, no matter how British they proclaim themselves to be.

Author
Gareth Young
Campaign for an English Parliament

http://thecep.org.uk/news/ViewItem.asp?Entry=919

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

‘Better far that the last of the English should fall fighting and finis be written to our history than to linger on as vassals and slaves.’

Winston Churchill

THE LOONY LEFT

Prison staff have been told not to refer to prisoners as ‘cons’ by the Her Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons, Anne Owers. This is because the convicts, in a focus groups study at Leeds jail, had complained that the term was disrespectful.

Mrs Owers [one of the Parekh commissioners] also complained that:

‘We heard too many staff referring to prisoners as “bodies” or “cons”.’

Brian Caton, the General Secretary of the Prison Officers Association, said:

‘Unless there is discipline in prisons we are not going to tackle the underlying problems of respect. This is political correctness gone berserk. The vast majority of prisoners call prison officers “screws” and we don’t make anything of it. It is just the way it is.

Just because we call them cons does not mean we are any less professional in how we deal with them.

Not only do prisoners now want us to call them by their first names, but treat them as if their misdemeanours are everyone else’s, and they are not.’

The Tory MP, Phillip Davies, said:

‘HMIP, instead of pursuing a politically correct agenda, should be concentrating on the things which actually matter to ordinary decent people.

People would like to see tougher sentences and a tough regime, rather than this sort of namby-pamby approach.’

In her report, Mrs Owers also complained that prisoners in the segregation unit had to get up at 7.30am every day.

Last year Mrs Owers complained about the wearing of Cross of St George tie pins by prison officers, in a section of a report dealing with racism [see English Rights Campaign entry dated the 13 October 2005].

THE NEED FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

Below is a copy of an item on the ePolitix website:

Scots MPs 'should abstain on English laws'

An SNP MP has urged his Scottish parliamentary colleagues not to vote on issues that do not effect their constituencies.
Angus MacNeil said the current system was "hugely unfair on England".
His comments came after a report from the Constitution Unit suggested that the government's narrow majority would leave it increasingly reliant on the votes of Scottish Labour MPs to force through reform of England's public services.
And Conservative peer Lord Baker also said that English matters should only be voted on by English MPs.
The SNP has previously suggested that the 'West Lothian question' could be solved by Scottish independence.
MacNeil urged MPs from all parties to sign his motion and back 'English votes for English MPs'.
"In my part of Scotland we know what's fair and what's not and in my first few months here at Westminster it has become clear that it is hugely unfair on England and English MPs for Scots to vote on their purely domestic matters," he said.
"Scotland now has its own parliament dealing with health, education and crime.
"Scots have taken responsibility for these issues and it is surely time for the same respect to be shown to England.
"As a Scottish nationalist I would like Westminster to become an English parliament.
"England has the right and ability to govern itself. In the meantime, there is no good case for Scottish MPs voting on issues that do not affect Scotland."
He also urged the prime minister to "wake up to this issue".
Failure to take it seriously "could damage relations between Scotland and England", he warned.
"It is not in Scotland's interests to be dictating decisions in England," added the MP.
"The sooner both countries become equal, independent partners on these islands the better as far as I am concerned."

BRITISHNESS

Below is a copy of a report from the BBC website:

SNP dismisses Brown's flag call

Chancellor Gordon Brown has been accused of "waving the wrong flag at Scotland" after calling for Britain's national identity to be celebrated.
The Fife MP said Labour supporters should "embrace the Union flag" and reclaim it from the far right.
But Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond said Britishness "went bust long ago" north of the border.
And he said Labour's opposition to a Scottish holiday on St Andrew's Day was a "fatal weakness" in the argument.
In his speech to the Fabian Society in London, Mr Brown said the modern Labour Party and its supporters should be unashamedly patriotic.
He said this could encompass "progressive" ideas of liberty, fairness and responsibility rather then right-wing beliefs.
"Instead of the BNP using it as a symbol of racial division, the flag should be a symbol of unity and part of a modern expression of patriotism too," said the chancellor.
"All the United Kingdom should honour it, not ignore it. We should assert that the Union flag by definition is a flag for tolerance and inclusion."
Mr Brown said promoting integration had become even more important since the London bombings.
"We have to be clearer now about how diverse cultures which inevitably contain differences can find the essential common purpose also without which no society can flourish," he added.
However, Mr Salmond claimed that the chancellor was motivated by self-interest.
"His repeated attempts to resuscitate British identity are looking increasingly desperate, a necessary move to make himself acceptable as a British prime minister.
"However, you cannot sustain a national identity just because someone wants to be national leader," he said.
"For two generations and more it is Scottish identity which has been on the rise. Bulldog Brown is waving the wrong flag at Scotland."
He said there was also a renewed sense of Englishness rather than Britishness south of the border.

Public holiday

And he added: "To suggest a new British Day while his own Labour colleagues in Scotland oppose the grassroots campaign to celebrate properly St Andrew's Day illustrates the fatal weakness in Brown and Labour's position."
Last year the Scottish Parliament voted against a bill to create a new public holiday, instead supporting a move to examine ways in which 30 November could be celebrated without the loss of a day's work.
Former Conservative prime minister Sir John Major agreed with the concept being put forward by Mr Brown.
But he said the government had damaged Britishness by steps such as introducing devolution in Scotland.

‘We should assert that the Union flag by definition is a flag for tolerance and inclusion.’

Chancellor Gordon Brown

‘You cannot sustain a national identity just because someone wants to be national leader.’

Alex Salmond
SNP leader

ENGLISHNESS

Subject: "Britishness" OR "Englishness"? Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:57:04 EST


"Britishness" OR "Englishness"?

The English Democrats, as English Patriots, rephrase Gordon Brown's call for the celebration of patriotism.

We realise that Gordon Brown's purpose is to promote himself and his career but the English Democrats would reassure him that we don't constitutionally object to him becoming the Prime Minister of the U.K. - provided that there is a fair Devolutionary settlement for the English Nation - first!

The English Democrats rephrase Gordon Brown's flag flying call as a call for every English Patriot to put up a flag pole and to fly our flag - the Saint George's Cross!

(Everyone is entitled to do this, under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992, under which a national flag, flown on a single vertical flagpole, is excluded from any planning control).

The English Democrats also rephrase Gordon Brown's call for a "Britishness day" as a call for St George's Day, April 23rd, to be our own English National Day.

Robin Tilbrook,
Chairman,
English Democrats Party,
Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex CM5 0QP,
Tel: 01277 896000
Fax: 01277 896050
Website, click here> www.englandsparty.com
Email:- robintilbrook@aol.com

BRITISHNESS

Below is a copy of an article which appeared in today’s Sunday Times:




The Sunday Times January 15, 2006

England is waking up to the patriot game
Minette Marrin



Last week was another Big Concept week for new Labour. First we had the prime minister touting respect, yet again, in his exciting recycled Respect Action Plan, and then we had Gordon Brown, not to be outdone, touting Britishness in an exciting new policy agenda, yet again. None of us particularly objects to respect or to Britishness, but it is slightly irritating to have Blair and Brown trying so hard to flog them to us, rather as if they were trying to sell us our own grandmothers. And one does wonder why.

After Blair’s efforts earlier in the week to persuade us that the all-purpose panacea for social breakdown is respect, and that delinquents and problem families should start showing a bit of respect, or else, Brown made a grandiloquent speech to the Fabian Society, arguing that the only way forward in this competitive global world is Britishness, or — in a word — patriotism. We need, he said, “a clear view of what being British means and how you define national identity for the modern world”.



So he called, in his dour way, for a “British Day” on which the country can unite to celebrate its uniquely British values, which are apparently liberty, tolerance, inclusion and fair play. He demanded that the Union Jack should be reclaimed from the far right and, ideally, flown in every garden just as Americans fly the Stars and Stripes, to show how united and British we all are.

How I laughed when I read his speech and heard the solemn discussion of all this tendentious tosh on the radio, as if there were actually some content in it. The idea that Britishness lies in values that everyone on the planet believes in, apart from a few cannibals, is just verbiage. There is something truly comic about two grown-up, well-educated men like Tony and Gordon imagining that the public will be bamboozled by this meaningless posturing. And there is something distinctly comic about the crude statist assumption behind both men’s manipulations, as if the state could, or should, interfere in such subtle matters of feeling and attitude.

Like the feeling of respect, the feeling of Britishness is not something that can be whipped up in the great British public by meddling politicians, least of all when what they are trying to whip up is not for the good of the country, but for themselves.

In Blair’s case he feels a worrying lack of respect for himself, well corroborated in opinion polls, and so he is trying to associate himself publicly with the idea of respect, in an unsophisticated kind of adman dog-whistling. In Brown’s case, he feels a worrying excess of Scottishness, well corroborated in opinion polls, which might well stand between him and No 10, so he is trying equally crudely to make us associate him with Britishness. He is fooling around with our national sense of identity to support his own personal crisis.

Scottishness is a nail-biting problem for Brown. Generally speaking most people in England quite like the Scots, even though they seem to hate us. Surveys show we find their accents suggest intelligence and reliability. Politically speaking, however, this easy affection is disappearing fast, as Brown is well aware. Devolution in Scotland and Wales — fought for and introduced by new Labour — has much undermined our common sense of Britishness and fostered instead a new and rather irritable sense of Englishness in the South. Meanwhile Scots feel more Scottish and less British than at any time since 1707, according to some surveys, led astray, possibly, by films such as Braveheart.

More importantly the English public is at last beginning to sit up and take notice of the famous West Lothian question — the problem first identified by the then MP for West Lothian, that Scottish MPs at Westminster can vote and carry the Commons on domestic policies such as education and health that don’t affect them or their constituencies. The government has increasingly relied on the Scottish vote to push through purely English legislation, against English votes, and yet the reverse is not true; English MPs have no say over comparable Scottish affairs.

This is obviously unfair, as is the fact that more taxpayers’ money goes to Scotland, per head, for public services than in England, following the old Barnett formula. Devolution has only made this long-standing injustice feel worse.

In response, a feeling of English separatism is growing; the English hardly need Scotland and Wales and would be much freer and richer without them. It is not only those on the far right, now, who complain of the number of Scots at Westminster and their undue influence. Devolution as of now is plainly unjust. Scottish MPs are overmighty and a Scottish prime minister at Westminster, post-devolution, would find himself in a false position.

Remarkably slowly England’s voters are beginning to wake up to all this. The higher their perception of it becomes, the lower will be Brown’s chances of arriving at long last at the summit of his smouldering ambition. So he has to persuade us somehow that he is not all that Scottish at all. No, he’s British. We’re all British (though this leaves out the awkward position of the Northern Irish, who aren’t exactly British.) He might even fly the Union Jack. But these questions are not going to go away.

There are ways of resolving them, of course. Why not try genuine devolution? Why not make the Commons English and only English? Why not create a new upper chamber to deal with matters British? But there is no personal incentive for Brown to promote any of that.

Trying to promote a vacuous Britishness as a way out of this problem is unlikely to succeed. That is partly, by a rich irony, because our national sense of identity, our Britishness, has been undermined by Labour party policies, both before and after Blair — by (among other things) the traditional left-wing contempt for patriotism; by the resulting suppression of national history; by the suppression of national traditions for fear of giving offence to newcomers; by aggressive multiculturalism and by fast mass immigration.
The big ideas of Britishness and national identity are now much too fragile to serve the purposes of an ambitious socialist like Brown. There is some justice in that.

THE PAREKH REPORT [9]

‘1.15 Britain is a land of many different groups, interests and identities, from Home Counties English to Gaels, Geordies and Mancunians to Liverpudlians, Irish to Pakistanis, African-Caribbeans to Indians. Some of these identity groups are large, powerful and long-settled. Others are small, new and comparatively powerless. Some are limited to Britain but others have international links; some of the boundaries are clear, some are fuzzy. Many communities overlap; all affect and are affected by others. More and more people have multiple identities - they are Welsh Europeans, Pakistani Yorkshiremen, Glaswegian Muslims, English Jews and black British. Most enjoy this complexity but also experience conflicting loyalties. The term ‘communities’ can give the impression of stable, coherent, historic groups with tidy boundaries. But situations and relationships are changing. It is simply wrong to think that there are easily measured groups of people - working-class Scots, black Londoners, Jews, Irish, ‘middle’ England - who all think alike and are not changed by those around them. For everyone life is more interesting than that.

1.16 The diversity of its population gives Britain important opportunities in the global markets that now shape the world economy. Britain’s potential to become a community of communities is not something to shy away from - its people should celebrate it. In the world developing now, it is perhaps the country’s biggest single advantage.

1.17 Yet the opportunity is in danger of being squandered. It is endangered by the many varieties of racism and exclusion that disfigure modern Britain and that have been woven into the fabric of British history for many centuries. Racism and exclusion spoil millions of lives and waste the optimism and energy of people who could, and should, be building the country’s prosperous future. Aggressive hostility to Islam is expressed in ways unthinkable in relation to other beliefs. Among the best-educated and prosperous new British, there is a trend for re-emigration to the United States and Canada, countries seen as more open and equal. The state’s attitude to asylum-seekers sends a shiver down many spines. Stories of murder, injustices and outrages - the Deptford fire, Quddus Ali, Michael Menson, Ricky Reel, Imran Khan, the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, arson attacks on Asian shops, graffiti on mosques - haunt many people’s memories. The inquiry into Stephen Lawrence’s murder and its aftermath confirmed that racist attitudes and assumptions are embedded in the routine working practices and in the occupational cultures of most or all public institutions.

1.18 The essential task, we argue, is to move from ‘multicultural drift’ to a purposeful process of change. Along the way there are profound issues to be resolved. How to decide between the right of a religious community not to be offended by blasphemy or abuse and the right of free-thinkers and secularists to express their views. How to reconcile the right of a newspaper to free speech with the right of groups it attacks to fight back. These are not abstract questions - they crop up all over the country all the time, creating hurt and confusion and mutual suspicion.’

This morbid extract from the Parekh Report is an attempt to paint Britain as being divided and to portray the British - especially the English - as racists.

The comments about the ‘many different groups, interests and identities’ excludes mention of the English as a nation, and only refers to ‘Home Counties English’ as being one of many groups. This is a divide an conquer tactic and is also an attempt to deny that the English were ever a true nation.

Those who the report consider to be ‘comparatively powerless’ [a histrionic description] are intended to be the beneficiaries of anti-racism.

The comment about those who: ‘have international links; some of the boundaries are clear, some are fuzzy. Many communities overlap; all affect and are affected by others. More and more people have multiple identities’, is the argument which Vince Cable has recently peddled in his Demos report. It is a long-standing politically correct argument.

Throughout, the English are presented as being one of many groups, and not as being the host nation, or as composing the overwhelming majority of the population [more than 90% of the population of England are English].

The allegation that by being a ‘community of communities’ is a means of competing on world markets is plainly fatuous. The marketability of goods is not determined by the multicultural pretensions of quangos and pressure groups.

The allegation that ‘racism and exclusion spoil millions of lives’ is hysterical rubbish. Such comments as ‘racism and exclusion that disfigure modern Britain’ is pure race war politics. If Britain was so bad, we would not be suffering the present tidal wave of immigration.

The comment about the ‘new British’ re-emigrating is yet more race war malevolence. If immigrants to this country wish to re-emigrate [eg as many foreign nurses do in order to obtain better pay] then that is not a sign of alleged British racism. It might also be remembered the recent comments Trevor Phillips has made about the USA following the New Orleans disaster [see English Rights Campaign entry dated 5 October 2005], when he held that as proof positive of the kind of society that Britain was in danger of becoming:

‘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.’

Those comments are the exact opposite of the allegations he was willing to peddle in the Parekh Report when he described the USA as being a country ‘more open and equal’.

The whole basis of Mr Phillips’s recent arguments concerning racial integration [as defined by him] and ethnic ghettos is opportunistic. He is simply twisting facts and events to suit himself as he goes along.

The list of names cited as being victims of racism or injustice by the Parekh Report are exclusively black or Irish. None are English. Not one.

One also needs to examine the details of those names cited. Apart from the IRA aspect to the Irish who are cited, those who are black are not necessarily victims to the extent that is implied by the report. For example, the Deptford fire resulted in 13 black people killed and 27 injured in January 1981. A Guardian report of the inquest and aftermath dated 14 May 1981 states:

‘The Deptford fire achieved a symbolic significance far beyond the actual tragedy, a significance that laid upon the inquest expectations that it could not possibly fulfil. For the bereaved families in particular and black people in general, the reaction of white society to the fire epitomised the indifference and prejudice which they feel surrounds them all the time. Initial police remarks apparently suggested that the cause of the blaze was a petrol bomb. The Government failed to express prompt condolences, yet reacted publicly and fulsomely to the Dublin discotheque fire. These two developments helped seal an unshakeable belief that the Deptford fire was caused by white racialists and that nobody cared.

The misery and suspicion were fuelled and exploited by the New Cross Massacre Action Committee. It was decided right from the start that the tragedy was a racialist "massacre". There was not a shred of evidence to back up this assumption, apart from the highly inconclusive eye-witness account of a white man seen outside the house with his arm raised as if throwing something towards it. Nevertheless, the emotive impact of this theory, plus disbelief that any partygoer could have started such a conflagration even by accident, meant that before the inquest started it would have been impossible for any black person to have doubted openly that a racialist attack had taken place ...

Despite the involvement of 50 detectives who spent more than 40,000 man hours and £320,000 on their investigation, the inquiry provoked such bitterness among the black community that the inquest degenerated into a conflict between witnesses and the police.

These young black witnesses had signed statements at the police station, some of them in front of parents or clergymen, claiming that there had been a fight between two guests. But they all then told the inquest that there had been no fight; they had made false statements under pressure from the police. These charges are exceptionally serious and mean either that the police were guilty of a perversion of justice or that the witnesses committed mass perjury at the inquest. They told lies somewhere, either at the police station or at County Hall - but where? Both scenarios are plausible. The police, having decided that the fire stated as a result of a fight at the party, put pressure on the youngsters to support this theory. Since many of them were in trouble with the police already, and couldn't care less what they said as long as it got them home, they said what the police wanted them to say. Alternatively, they told the police the truth; afterwards, realising the importance of the fight to the police theory, and under heavy pressure to support the white attack explanation, they lied to the coroner.

The forensic evidence didn't help. The pool of liquid "like paint thinners" on the living room carpet was balanced by the baffling discovery of an unexploded incendiary device in the garden.’

The inquest reached an open verdict as the jury was unable to determine what had happened. Their task was not helped by the self-appointed New Cross Massacre Action Committee which caused much mayhem. The inquest itself was badly disrupted from the public gallery.

Yet the Parekh Report cites this as an example of British racism and injustice.

In fact the English are the main victims of racial violence as a Home Office report highlights. This has always been the case. The fact is that the racial hatred by the ethnic minorities towards the English in England is the main cause of racial violence. The racial minorities might only make up 8% of the population, yet the ethnic minority communities committed 55% of the racial homicides that occurred between 2001-04 [with white people being the victims]. This anti-white racism is a long term problem.

That the Parekh commissioners did not cite even one English victim of racial violence is a good example of their own Anglophobia/racism, and of their own twisted ideology.

The Parekh Reports demand for ‘purposeful process of change’ as opposed to ‘multicultural drift’ is simply an argument for more state control over ordinary people’s lives. The Parekh commissioners were simply intolerant of ordinary people being allowed to lead their own lives as they see fit.

The phrase that some might need to ‘fight back’ against a newspaper’s free speech is inflammatory. We already have laws which reconcile free speech with defamation etc. The general public are getting along just fine without yet more state interference. There is not all that much ‘hurt and confusion and mutual suspicion’.

The thrust of the Parekh Report’s lurid portrayal of Britain as racist needs to be compared with the 2002-03 British Crime Survey, which revealed that 2% of blacks claimed to have suffered a racially motivated crime, 3% of Asians and less than 1% whites.

Of course 1% of whites, given that they are the overwhelming majority, constitutes a far greater number than 2-3% of an ethnic minority.

Nor should it be overlooked that there is interracial violence between the ethnic minorities themselves, as has recently been the case in Birmingham where people were killed.

The Parekh Report fundamentally misrepresents the truth for its own neo-communist ideological purposes.

THE LOONY LEFT

Despite the war on terror, Sir Ian Blair has not forgotten his priorities. The Metropolitan police have donated £3,125 to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender [LGBT] History Month, of which both the departments of Education and Health are also sponsors.

The Metropolitan police headquarters were further used to host a reception for the LGBT History Month campaigners back in November.

The LGBT History Month campaign is to take place in February. The aim is for all schoolchildren to be subjected to lessons dealing with homosexuality and ‘gender variance’. Lessons for primary schoolchildren involve children writing sex and swear words on the blackboard. For older children, there are lessons in ‘gender variance’ which claim that ‘people are not always simply male or female’ and that 1% of the public have ‘intersex variations’.

The campaign is run by activists associated with the Schools Out organisation of homosexual teachers.

Publicity material states:

‘History has conspired to keep our lives hidden. Often in correcting this we rely to some degree on circumstantial evidence.’

In other words, they intend to invent allegations of homosexuality about historical figures.

A spokesman for the Metropolitan police said:

‘Engaging with communities is not optional but a clear business reality upon which the successful policing of London depends. Events like this are an opportunity to increase the trust and the confidence of the LGBT community in the police.’

This of course assumes that these activists represent the so-called ‘LGBT community’, many of whom might prefer to keep their private lives private, and also assumes that getting primary schoolchildren to write sex and swear words on the blackboard is a legitimate objective for the police.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

Below is a copy of a recent press release issued by Civitas:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freedom of speech is being suppressed by political correctness


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For centuries Britain has been a beacon of liberty of thought, belief and speech, but now the freedom of its intellectual and political life is being subjected to a subtle form of 'censorship', according to a new study of political correctness published by the independent think-tank Civitas.

Anthony Browne argues in The Retreat of Reason that political correctness, which classifies certain groups of people as victims in need of protection from criticism and allows no dissent to be expressed, is poisoning the wells of debate in modern Britain.

'Members of the public, academics, journalists and politicians are afraid of thinking certain thoughts' (p.xii). Political correctness started in academia, but it now dominates schools, hospitals, local authorities, the civil service, the media, companies, the police and the army. Since 1997 Britain has been ruled by political correctness for the first time. 'The Labour government was the first UK government not to stand up to political correctness, but to try and enact its dictates when they are not too electorally unpopular or seriously mugged by reality, and even sometimes when they are' (p.34).

Anthony Browne describes political correctness as a 'heresy of liberalism' (p.2) under which 'a reliance on reason has been replaced with a reliance on the emotional appeal of an argument' (p.6). Adopting certain positions makes the politically correct feel virtuous, even more so when they are preventing the expression of an opinion that conflicts with their own: 'political correctness is the dictatorship of virtue'.

Whether an argument is true or not is a secondary consideration to whether it fits with the PC view of the world:

'In the topsy-turvy politically correct world, truth comes in two forms: the politically correct, and the factually correct. The politically correct truth is publicly proclaimed correct by politicians, celebrities and the BBC even if it is wrong, while the factually correct truth is publicly condemned as wrong even when it is right. Factually correct truths suffer the disadvantage that they don't have to be shown to be wrong, merely stated that they are politically incorrect. To the politically correct, truth is no defence; to the politically incorrect, truth is the ultimate defence. (p.7)'

Anthony Browne gives some examples (p.8) of factually incorrect arguments that trump factually correct ones, because they are PC:

Issue - Politically Correct Truth - Factually Correct Truth
Women's pay less than men's - Sex discrimination - Different work/life choices, childcare breaks
Explosion in HIV Teenagers - having unsafe sex - African immigration
Rise in anti-semitic attacks - White skinheads - Muslim youths
Africa getting poorer - West not giving enough aid - Bad governance

He argues that PC is much more than just a dispute about words, or the hope of avoiding hurtful expressions: it leads to an incorrect analysis of real problems, which means that the wrong solutions are attempted. People suffer as a result:

'Black communities are encouraged to blame racist teachers for the failings of their boys at school, rather than re-examine their own culture and attitudes to education that may be the prime reasons. The poor sick have ended up having worse healthcare in Britain than they would in mainland Europe because PC for long closed down debate on fundamental NHS reform. Women's employment opportunities can be harmed by giving them ever more rights that are not given to men. The unemployed are encouraged to languish on benefits blaming others for their fate. Poor Africans are condemned to live in poverty so long as they and their governments are encouraged to blame the West for all their problems, rather than confronting the real causes of poor governance, corruption and poor education'. (p.xiv) The end of political correctness?

Political correctness is the invention of Western intellectuals who feel guilty about the universal triumph of Western values and economic prosperity. However, threats to the influence of the West may bring political correctness to an end:

'Political correctness is essentially the product of a powerful but decadent civilisation which feels secure enough to forego reasoning for emoting, and to subjugate truth to goodness. However, the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, and those that followed in Bali, Madrid and Beslan, have led to a sense of vulnerability that have made people far more hard-headed about the real benefits and drawbacks of Western civilisation'. (p.84)

Even the long-unrivalled economic dominance of the West will come under challenge from the newly flourishing economies of India and China. Westerners will stop feeling guilty about their position when it has to be defended against rival cultures and ideologies. Anthony Browne lists several steps that could be taken to limit the malign influence of political correctness before it does further damage:

Free speech should be protected with an equivalent of the first amendment to the US constitution
A binding referendum should be called on any proposal if supported by a certain percentage of the population. Such 'citizens' initiatives' return power to the people, encouraging ordinary citizens to re-engage with the political process
Un-PC groups should be formed and promoted to oppose PC flag-wavers like left-wing charities. A taxpayers' alliance could argue for lower taxes; a homeowners association could campaign on issues affecting homeowners, like council tax and crime
There should be more objective teaching of the history of the West. Foundations should be set up to preserve and promote the Western heritage and values (pp. 86-7).
'In the long run of history, political correctness will be seen as an aberration in Western thought. The product of the uniquely unchallenged position of the West and unrivalled affluence, the comparative decline of the West compared to the East is likely to spell its demise. Finally, Western minds may be free again to reason rather than just emote, to pursue objective truth rather than subjective virtue'. (p.87)

'The Retreat of Reason: Political correctness and the corruption of public debate in modern Britain' by Anthony Browne is published by Civitas, 77 Great Peter Street, London SW1P 2EZ, tel 020 7799 6677, www.civitas.org.uk at £10.50 inc. P&P

For more information ring:
Robert Whelan 020 7799 6677