QUOTE OF THE MONTH [bonus]

‘Britain is trapped in a multicultural mess of its own making. What’s provoking this situation is a hostility towards Christians and a fawning over Islam, which is rooted in fear.’

Kieran McCaffey, a spokesman for the American Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, speaking about the absurd decision by British Airways to ban its employees from wearing a crucifix.

Nadia Eweida, who dared to wear a crucifix and has become a cause celebre for her stand, is currently off work and without pay. She now faces the sack.

BA [as it prefers to be known in order to downplay its Britishness] has previously replaced the Union Flag on its planes with ethnic graffiti - a policy it was forced to abandon.

BA does allow Sikhs and Muslims to wear religious dress.

RACE WAR POLITICS

The longstanding England hater, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, has recently launched into another Anglophobic attack on the English.

For an earlier example of Alibhai-Brown’s open hatred of the English see the English Rights Campaign item dated 28 September 2005.

This time it is the white working class who have come under attack in an article entitled ‘Migrant Pride and Prejudice’.

Needless to say she begins her article with a sneer at those who are opposed to mass immigration:

‘From the day the Windrush arrived from the Caribbean in June 1948 has there been a time when the indigenous population has not panicked over outsiders raiding their blessed islands? When was the national conversation over this issue benign and temperate? The latest outbreak of hysteria is over Eastern Europeans, many more of whom have landed since the EU expanded to include their countries. The situation is said to be “unprecedented”.’

Alibhai-Brown then complains that people are objecting to the current levels of immigration:

‘One of the contagious whinges of the anti-immigrant lobby is that that they are not “allowed” to debate immigration when they know the subject has been churned around forever and ever and always irrationally. It lies at the core of our national identity. Our citizenship test should ask: “Are you British enough to loathe all future incomers who may well compete with you?’”

What has changed is not the hostility but the liberal consensus which was once progressive, egalitarian anti-imperialist and pro-immigration. Immigration is now opposed by influential individuals of the centre left and some settled immigrants too who really should know better. Post war regeneration, the welfare state, Thatcher’s revolution, globalisation all depended on the availability of cheap migrant workers. The great EU experiment is even more dependent on the movement of labour. Un-welcomed Ugandan Asians have created over 30,000 jobs in the Midlands. The London Olympic bid cashed in on the cultural changes immigrants have bestowed on the most exciting capital in Europe. Some middle glass bigots claim they are against immigration because they care deeply for the poor workless classes who are driven out by low migrant wages. Is this why most employ Poles to do all their building and domestic work?’

This is of course the same ‘liberal consensus’ which has plunged Britain into its present predicament, where we face an ever-escalating threat from Muslim terrorism from within.

Her contention that Britain needs immigration is rubbish. Britain has always been an emigrant country which is why the Australian and North American nations, for example, were created. We do not need immigration and certainly the Ugandan Asians were not doing us a favour by coming here, any more than the current day so-called asylum seekers. We did them a favour.

It is to be noted, that Alibhai-Brown casually uses the term ‘middle class bigots’ to describe those who oppose immigration.

She continues:

‘Xenophobic tabloids now have their arguments made by the Today Programme (which has turned vigilante and even finds illegal workers so they can be deported) and by tight little nationalists like Frank Fields. There is a campaign to convince Britons we are about to be overcome by a flood of garlicky strangers. And once again inconvenient truths are shunned. New migrants come to work. Can’t have that even if our buoyant economy demands it. Only 7% claim benefits. Others live in cramped accommodation, earn, pay taxes and return home.’

The idea that the Today Programme puts forward xenophobic arguments is laughable.

To speak of only 7% claiming benefits is tripe. The new immigrants from Eastern Europe are not allowed to claim benefits at once, although many are sending welfare benefits to their families back home.

To describe Frank Field as a ‘tight little nationalist’ is presumably a response to his recent articles expressing concern as to the level of immigration [see English Rights Campaign item dated the 5 July 2006]. Alibhai-Brown can only resort to idiotic abuse rather than an intellectual argument.

But she saves her main venom until the end:

‘And all because of prejudice and envy. Young Poles and Lithuanians can find work and make something of their lives while our own people are either too lazy or expensive to compete. Tax paying immigrants past and present keep indolent British scroungers on their couches drinking beer and watching daytime TV. I resent that. We are despised because we seize opportunities which these slobs don’t want. Two fit white British men loiter outside my local bank. They beg. I asked if they wanted to clear out my back garden for a fair wage. They said I was one crazy lady. Andrew, Polish and obliging did the job cheerfully and efficiently. God bless bloody foreigners who do our dirty work and are then damned by an ungrateful, obtuse nation.’

So here we have it. The great Marxist herself suddenly is a believer in an international free market for labour when it is damaging to the interests of England. Given the backward status of the former communist East European countries, it is nonsense to pretend that there is one single European market in anything – no matter how much the EU might like to pretend otherwise.

Those who find themselves pushed out of employment by immigrants have every right to complain. There is no reason for them to be insulted for having their own opinions either.

Yet Alibhai-Brown condemns them as ‘too lazy or expensive’, ‘indolent British scroungers on their couches drinking beer’ and ‘slobs’, and the British as a whole as being ‘an ungrateful, obtuse nation’. Such a rant is simply another example of Alibhai-Brown’s Anglophobia.

In fact, according to the Office of National Statistics, 35 per cent of Muslim households have no adult in employment, which is more than twice the national average. The Muslim Alibhai-Brown makes no mention of that.

But it gets worse. In a more recent article entitled ‘Muslims are a much misunderstood community’, she has the gall to draw a moral equivalence between British soldiers and Muslim suicide bombers:

‘Those who wanted a war in Iraq have also become inadvertent propagandists for terrorist cells in Britain. I have never understood why suicide bombers are more heinous than our soldiers who rip up civilians with cluster bombs used from a distance so you cannot see the havoc. Contrition and apologies for these acts would disarm Islamist mobilisers of their best weapons. But the British state, as we know, never says sorry.’

The English Rights Campaign is unaware of any occurrence of British soldiers bombing civilians with cluster bombs - even by mistake – in the recent past, and cannot recall any such specific incident at all. Suicide bombers do of course deliberately target civilians in order to spread terror. There is no moral equivalence.

Nor even is any casualty incurred on a battlefield an excuse for suicide attacks, or any other form of terrorism, either in the UK or elsewhere.

Alibhai-Brown is simply an apologist for Muslim terrorism, in addition to being an Anglophobe. It is she who is the ‘propagandist’ for terrorist cells in Britain.

One should also compare the tolerance of Alibhai-Brown’s articles in a national newspaper [The Independent] with the intolerance of others who have been victims of the British Inquisition for writing in local newspapers criticising immigration [eg see the English Rights Campaign items dated 15 and 25 August 2005].

Tony Blair’s concept of the battle of ideology obviously counts for little at The Independent, which is more than happy to fund and promote terrorist apologists.

Instead of telling Alibhai-Brown where she can go, the British ruling class has feted and fawned over this Marxist Anglophobe for so long that she has come to genuinely believe that, no matter how vile, each and every bout of her verbal flatulence is an utterance of the most profound national importance.

IMMIGRATION

The Tories’ recent statement on immigration has been met with a few supportive comments from some quarters. Nevertheless, it has not been promoted with much enthusiasm by Dave Cameron himself nor by the Tory Party generally.

The statement only concerns itself with economic migration. It does not advocate an end to mass immigration at all. In fact it openly advocates that there should continue to be an annual flow of net migration into Britain.

Given that there are many Britons who emigrate each year, then the Tory policy is a policy for the continuation of substantial mass immigration. Even the Labour MP Frank Field has pointed out the turnover effect of the current levels of emigration/immigration [see English Rights Campaign item dated the 5 July 2006].

In support of their analysis the Tories even quote approvingly an extract from a controversial speech given by Trevor Phillips last year [see English Rights Campaign item dated the 5 October 2005]. The English Rights Campaign firmly rejects Mr Phillips’s race zealotry, and rejects both his and the Tories’ commitment to the British Inquisition.

Nevertheless, the flannel and political correctness produced by the Tories has proved far too much for UKIP [aka the UK Immigration Party], whose own commitment to mass immigration remains intact. To UKIP the Tory policy is not politically correct enough.

Recently UKIP issued a press release in support of the Labour immigration policy, which had been criticised in a report that had pointed out that failed asylum seekers ended up sleeping rough when their benefits were withdrawn after their appeals were rejected. UKIP expressed ‘solidarity with the government’!

A UKIP spokesman said:

‘If these people are in this country as refugees, and they have had that claim rejected, then our obligation to provide for them ceases … If people aren't refugees then why does the taxpayer have an obligation to do anything for them?

At the end of the day, the taxpayer is paying.

We agree [with the government] that people whose refugee status is unfounded should not be here. They have a choice to either live outside the system in the UK or to return home.’

The point is that the so-called asylum system is nonsense and should be abolished. The UK should withdraw from the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees at once and refuse to take any further so-called asylum seekers, who have crossed a multitude of other countries and even entire continents to get here.

Failed asylum seekers are illegal immigrants and should be deported [they should have no choice in the matter at all]. Labour is not doing that. This is especially dangerous when we are supposed to be conducting a war on terror. The continuing terrorist plots recently highlighted by MI5 show the importance of this.

But UKIP truly excelled itself regarding the recent Tory statement. They dismissed the Tory policy as racist. The UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, said:

‘The overall effect of such a policy is the imposition of a colour bar, which favours the 450 million white Europeans who live in the EU. It also makes it more difficult for those people hoping to come here to work from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and the Indian sub-continent. If Britain needs people with skills, then it should permit only the very best, regardless of their country of origin.

The absurdity of the Tory argument is that an open door to EU citizens is fine, but that the door should be slammed shut on the rest of the world, including many Commonwealth countries.
This is a Party which is quick to throw insults at others about being racist, but there is something inherently nasty about this new policy.’

The danger posed by UKIP’s determination to give immigrants from the Commonwealth the same ‘right’ to enter Britain as immigrants from the EU was dealt with in the English Rights Campaign item dated the 14 February 2005.

Such a policy is madness.

The English Democrats are the only responsible party unequivocally advocating a complete end to mass immigration.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

‘I believe there are a number of people – not only from Poland but from a number of other countries – who are feckless naturally, but they seek a better life and they go abroad.

Currently, the UK has become a destination of choice for such individuals. Poland doesn’t shirk responsibility for such individuals. We are aware that such a problem exists. We know that there are those who have succeeded in the UK and have jobs and are doing very well, thank you, especially considering the difference in wages between the UK and Poland.

But these people are registered as unemployed in Poland, so they are living a fiction and raising unemployment figures in Poland while they are doing very nicely in the UK.

This is something we would like to do without.’

Lech Kaczynski, Polish President.

RACE WAR POLITICS

The latest attack by the England haters upon the English was a programme on Channel 4 entitled ‘100% English’.

The programme, put simply, dismissed the English as being mongrels due to the alleged lack of ethnic purity of the English – as alleged by some unsubstantiated DNA tests from some firm in the USA, conducted on some new and unknown methodology.

The ‘findings’ were contrary to all previous understanding of ethnicity and history.

Furthermore, the programme makers hid the fact that they had deliberately excluded people who were already known to be of longstanding English descent.

In other words, the programme was rigged.

The underlying subtext is that those who consider the English to be a racial group, which they are in fact and law, are racist and that mass immigration is natural.

Below are some press releases which set out in detail the duplicity of the programme makers and Channel 4:

(From We are the English)

Folks

We've included below our comments concerning tonight's Channel 4 programme "100% English", followed by a press release that we have been asked to forward on, with a short introduction by Tony Linsell. Please read them all. The press release takes about 5 minutes to read and explains a lot about what it is to be English in the legal sense and also rubbishes many of the claims made on the programme.

To complain to Channel 4 about the programme e-mail them here viewerenquiries@channel4.co.uk
To complain to the producers of the programme e-mail them here mail@walltowall.co.uk

Our View

The programme was entitled 100% English and the content was 100% rubbish. The science on which the programme was based was bad and misleading. This was not a serious attempt to look at what it is to be English. Make no mistake about it, it was actually an attack on what it is to be English and what it is to feel a sense of Englishness. They spoke much about DNA but DNA is not a factor that people consider when they think about who they are. I share DNA with chimpanzees but if I jumped in the cage at Twycross Zoo I certainly wouldn't be accepted as one of the gang. Englishness is about a shared sense of history, culture and heritage. It is a sense of being a part of an extended family. It is not easy to define and would have been equally difficult, if the same questions had been levelled at someone of Afro-Caribbean descent. What would they have been able to answer when they were asked, off the cuff, what it takes for someone to be Afro-Caribbean? If they had been asked if simply having an Afro-Caribbean grandfather qualifies someone to be Afro-Caribbean they would have been equally stuck as some of the English people were who appeared in the programme. The fact remains that the Afro-Caribbean would know that he was part of the Afro-Caribbean community and those English people knew that they were part of the English community. It is not something we routinely ask ourselves about, it is just something that we sub-consciously know.

Are they seriously trying to tell us that some of these people who appeared in the programme who knew that their grandparents and great-grandparents were English (the person would for example receive 25% of their DNA make-up from each of there 4 ENGLISH grandparents) are somehow 35% Russian, 20% African and 15% Moroccan. I don't think so!

The whole programme was conducted in a mocking and derogatory manner which certainly would not have been tolerated if it was looking at any other ethnic group other than the English. It is the normal "mongrel nation" rubbish, an attempt to convince English people that they have no culture and nothing to lose from mass immigration and that we are nothing more than a mish mash of everyone else. We should ask ourselves about the motives behind the programme. Why do they make a programme that attempts to water down any sense of an English identity? Would they ever make a programme about Afro-Caribbeans or Asians or the Scots and then try and tell them that their is no such thing. Why is it always the English, why is not the Scots, the Welsh, the Poles or the Pakistanis who are ever portrayed as "mongrel" Why are other cultures actively promoted while at the same time anything that could be seen as encouraging any notion of an English communal identity either discouraged or jumped on from a great height.

Maybe it's because they fear that a renewed sense of an English identity would mean the English realising what they have lost and demanding it back!

Waes Haeil
WATE.com
www.wearetheenglish.com



Tony Linsell - Author and writer on English issues.

Channel 4 has squandered the opportunity to make a serious programme about English identity and has instead set out to mock and insult those who took part. The producer falls back on stale anti-English Leftist views from the 1990s and a DNA test which cannot do what the programme makers claim for it. Englishness, like any other ethnicity, cannot be determined by a DNA purity test. The predictable and lazy prejudice of the programme makers is evident from the fact that they chose the English as victims rather than another ethnic group - such as Romanies, Irish or Afro- Caribbeans.

Press Release

On Monday 13th November at 8 pm Channel 4 is screening a programme entitled “100% English.” That programme is not a programme about who is English and who is not. It is a programme about the race and ethnicity DNA purity tests produced by a DNA company based in the deep south of the United States. Channel 4 has warmly endorsed those DNA purity tests as the tests for establishing a person’s race and ethnicity in total opposition to the tests laid down by the UK judiciary under the Race Relations Legislation. Just like the Nazis endorsed the work of earlier scientists to undertake a purity of race and ethnicity categorisation, Channel 4 has done likewise. Channel 4 has allowed the English racial identity claimed by the participants to blind it to the true implications of its programme.



The central premise of the “100% English” programme is that a person’s race and a person’s ethnicity is totally determinable by reference to a DNA race and ethnicity purity model produced by a commercial DNA company based in the Southern United States. It is a race and ethnicity purity model that no other DNA research institution or commercial company in the world follows. It is therefore not possible to independently verify whether the results of the DNA tests used in the 100% English programme are correct or even whether the results are actually those of the participants in the programme. Something Channel 4 is quick to exploit in the 100% English programme by not pointing out this limitation to the participants on air or otherwise.



The tests used in this programme are the novelty consumer versions of far more sophisticated tests offered by the DNA company to law enforcement agencies. The intent of the real tests is to link a suspect’s DNA sequences to physical features. In the novelty tests, and probably also in the real tests, those DNA sequences are given the names of races and of ethnic groups. The tests mean that to the extent that a person’s DNA does not match the race pure versions as set by the DNA company, that person is determined to be of impure race origin. The tests also postulate that there are pure versions of DNA for ethnic groups, for example that there is a DNA pure version of an English, Jewish, Pakistani or Afro-Caribbean person.



If the UK State were to undertake racial profiling or racial classification by reference to a person’s DNA, the DNA company would be well placed to offer the purported means by which the UK State could do so. This begs an interesting question. Since the alleged DNA results in the programme were interpreted for the programme by a professor at one of London’s Universities, one really has to ask whether the tests are being validated against the National Police DNA database, and whether race and ethnic categories are being assigned to persons on the database using the DNA company’s model of race and ethnicity. What Channel 4 is at pains to conceal in the programme is that the race and ethnicity elements of the DNA tests are flawed. The DNA company admits the tests cannot determine whether the DNA sequences of a person are thousands of years old, i.e. predating the existence of the English and England, or whether they were acquired from an ancestor just outside living memory. Channel 4 simply ignores the inconvenience of this limitation in its programme.



What Channel 4 does in this programme is to declare all those who it alleges do not have DNA that matches the DNA race pure European or the DNA ethnic pure English, as determined by the DNA company, to be non European and to be non-English. Channel 4 seems to have forgotten that it was not long ago that people where declared not to be European because they did not have the physical features judged by scientists to be those of the racial pure European. The consequences for the people affected were disastrous.



Yet despite Channel 4 best efforts every one of the participants in the programme are in English Law 100% English. In 2001 the Court of Session declared the English to be a racial group for the purposes of the Race Relations Legislation. The English racial group consists of the people who by reason of descent or origin or total integration are of the people who constituted the English prior to the inception of the British State in 1707. Being born in the geographical area of England does not by that reason alone make a person a member of the English racial group. The reason being is that in English Law racial group means racial origins not country of origin.



The Commission for Racial Equality publicly acknowledges the racial group status of the English. With the inclusion of an English ethnic group tick box, as distinct from an English national identity tick box, in the 2007 Test Census issued by the Office of National Statistics, it is clear that Central Government has begun the process of accepting the implication of the Court of Session judgement. The Government needs to do so in order to push through its agenda of community integration in a multicultural framework and its agenda of tackling the rise of the Far Right.



The continuing rise of the Far Right is judged in some circles to be linked to the Government’s previous, policy driven, exclusion of the indigenous populations of the UK from the benefits of the Race Relations Legislation. A link summed up in the frequent references by Ministers to engaging the so-called “white working class,” who, according to Ruth Kelly, the Minister for Communities and Local Government, “feel left behind” by multiculturalism. Channel 4 could have chosen to address these issues and contributed to raising the awareness among the general public of the existence of the English racial group and of the universality of the Race Relations Legislation. Instead Channel 4 choose to align itself with the attitudes prevalent in the Left of the 1990’s. This being the attitude held, even in high political circles, that the indigenous populations had no racial identity and no rights under the Race Relations Legislation because, as it was alleged, those populations had interbred with others too much to have the required racial and ethnic purity.



In a contest between Channel 4’s race and ethnicity purity tests and the position under English Law, Channel 4 has not the slightest chance of emerging as the victor. English Law is categorical on the point; a person’s membership of a racial group is not determined in any way whatsoever, and with no exceptions, by reference to the possession of a required type of DNA or any other scientific test. No doubt for good reason. In English Law a person is a 100% of a racial group if that person (a) believe he or she is a member, (b) other members of the racial group accepts that he or she is a member and (c) that person is not also a member of another similar type racial group by virtue of the tests at (a) and (b) above.



Channel 4’s production team were given a ¾ of an hour presentation on racial identity under English Law by a solicitor, one of the participants in the programme. Written explanations were provided, as were copies of relevant case law. Prior to filming that solicitor and others put it to the Wall to Wall TV, the production team, in writing, that Channel 4 intended to use the programme to mock people who claimed to be members of the English racial group. It was put to the production team that they would do this by attempting to prove (a) there could be no English racial group because the English are a mongrel people, are they not, and/or (b) that some participants could not be English because they had non-English ancestors and so forth. Assurances were received from the production team that the programme would be a genuine attempt to explore Englishness as a racial identity for benefit of the public at large and that participants would not be identified as being non-English simply by virtue of their recent or distant ancestry or DNA.



As will be seen Monday next (13/11/06) those assurances, which induced consent to participate in at least one participant, amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation by Channel 4. Given that the producers were fully appraised of the implications of English law, the decision to go ahead regardless without taking on board that information must surely mean the programme itself falls foul of the broadcasting code.



It is easy to conjecture that Channel 4 would not have produced programmes doing the same to other racial groups. Few in the English Community would believe that Channel 4 would tell members of the Jewish or Afro-Caribbean Communities that they were not Jewish or Afro-Caribbean because they did not have, according to a DNA company from the deep south of the United States, the required purity of race and/or ethnic DNA. Such a difference in treatment by Channel 4 amounts to less favourable treatment of the English on racial grounds contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976.



There are also good grounds, since Channel 4 were appraised of the Law’s approach to the issue of racial group identity, for alleging the programme amounts to unlawful racial harassment of the English on racial grounds. In other words, the programme was intended by Channel 4 to create or was likely to create a hostile, intimidating, degrading, or offensive environment for the participants and for any other members of the UK public who assert they are members of the English racial group. Channel 4 did so by knowingly and wilfully promoting a misleading, incorrect and unlawful test for membership of the English racial group. Channel 4’s approach means that no one who is genuinely of mixed race origin but who is wholly a member of an English Community could be a member of the English racial group. A view point many in the English Community would find revolting.



If Ken Livingston could be proved wrong, and the Commission for Racial Equality were indeed still interested in taking cutting edge litigation, the Commission would do well to look at Channel 4’s conduct and at the TV company’s compliance with its obligations under the Race Relations Legislation. It may be that like Channel 4, the Commission would unable be able to get itself passed the racial group involved. The issue of the extent to which the media, (as suppliers of goods and services), are subject to the race and other anti discrimination legislation is well due for judicial examination.



The deception on the participants involved in the making of the “100% English” programme and the fraud being enacted upon the general public by Channel 4 is the reason why the solicitor participant, in keeping with the habits of her profession and surely to the amusement of Chancery Lane, threatened to sue Channel 4. A fact referred to in the programme. Interestingly, Channel 4 does not make any attempt to explain the legal reasons behind the threat to the programme’s audience. No doubt leaving the audience with the erroneous view that the participant’s reasons lay with the race and ethnicity category Channel 4 sought to put the participant in, rather than with Channel 4’s conduct.



Channel 4 has promoted Nazi type methods of race and ethnicity categorisations. All should, irrespective of the racial group involved, roundly condemn Channel 4 for doing so. Perhaps if the folks at the Commission for Racial Equality are still awake, the judiciary, who have taken such great care over the sensitive issues involved in race and ethnicity identity may get the opportunity to publicly condemn Channel 4 as well.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

I cross ocean poor and broke
Take bus, see employment folk.
Nice man treat me good in there
Say I need to see welfare.
Welfare say, ‘You come no more,
We send you cash right to your door.’
Welfare cheques – they make you wealthy!
NHS – it keep you healthy!
By and by, I got plenty money
Thanks to you, British dummy!
Write to friends in motherland
Tell them ‘come fast as you can.’
They come in turbans and Ford trucks.
I buy big house with welfare bucks!
They come here, we live together.
More welfare cheques, it gets better!
Fourteen families, they moving in
But neighbour’s patience wearing thin.
Finally, white guy moves away,
Now I buy his house, then I say,
‘Find more aliens for house to rent’
And in the yard I put a tent.
Everything is very good,
And soon we own the neighbourhood.
We have hobby, it’s called breeding.
Welfare pay for baby feeding.
Kids need dentist? Wife need pills?
We get free! We got no bills!
Britain crazy! They pay all year
To keep welfare running here.
We think UK darn good place.
Too darn good for the white man race!
If they no like us, they can scram.
Got lots of room in Pakistan!

The above spoof poem has led to Ellenor Bland, a Tory councillor on the Calne Town Council in Wiltshire, being reported to the so-called Commission for Racial Equality [CRE].

Dave Cameron’s response has been to remove her from the Tory Party’s list of candidates and suspend her from the party.

The poem also appears on a far-right website. It also includes a cartoon of the white cliffs of Dover with the words ‘piss off – we’re full’ scrawled across them.

Mrs Bland was reported to the CRE by the Liberal Democrats. The CRE are currently investigating the complaint.

Mrs Bland did not write the poem. She has been referred to the CRE for allegedly forwarding on an email of the poem. Mrs Bland denies doing this and claims it was her husband who was responsible for forwarding on the email.

Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat chairman of campaigns, said:

‘It is totally unacceptable for elected representatives to be distributing this kind of material. If David Cameron wants to retain any credibility he must take the strongest possible action. Despite his best PR efforts the Conservative Party clearly continues to contain some deeply unpleasant elements.’

At one stage the poem has been posted on the internet chat room of the Tory MP Boris Johnson, who has commented:

‘It’s an utterly dreadful poem and I condemn it unreservedly.’

A senior Tory official said:

‘We do not think this is lighthearted and are treating it very seriously. We dissociate ourselves entirely from the sentiments expressed in this poem.’

Mrs Bland said:

‘It was forwarded on by my husband, who took it in the form that he thought it was sent and that was a lighthearted view, which, again, anybody broadly thinking would not have made anything out of it, as has been made to be at this present time … We have Asian friends and we work well together and all accept each other’s different ways. I have always embraced anybody who comes to our country with a skill.

Anybody who can put anything into the country is fantastic.’

If the Tories wish to wallow in political correctness, then that is a matter for them. Their self-righteousness merely demonstrates that they are a part of the problem rather than a solution to the PC onslaught afflicting Britain.

But why should something so trivial be the concern of the CRE? That the Liberal Democrats would seek to criminalise a joke is typical.

The CRE is a nasty little quango which does little other than promote race war politics. It is wholly unfit to pass judgement on others.

Furthermore, in a public meeting in January 2005, Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the CRE [and former Parekh commissioner], made the following comments in a speech:

‘I was struck by The Guardian’s write-up of today’s announcement – calling this a Government crackdown – I like that. I also welcome the fact that the CRE will have general oversight of government progress in tackling racial inequalities.

All this talk of targets is very pertinent as I am currently reading Joseph Stalin’s biography, where he says that “there will be no deviation from targets”. Now, he had a very definite way of guaranteeing targets were reached. Fiona [Mactaggart], we haven’t yet discussed legal powers to shoot permanent secretaries who miss their targets but I guess that might be our next order of business.’

The English Rights Campaign did not make a fuss over these remarks, even though they are in exceptionally bad taste. It was simply a quiet joke between socialists.

But the fact remains that somewhere between 25-50 million died in Stalin’s purges, pogroms, gulags and organised mass famines. The slaughter was so great that a true number of those who were killed cannot be estimated to even the nearest 10million. These were ordinary people for whom there were no funerals or gravestones. They were bulldozed into mass graves or their bodies burnt.

And now we cannot be sure whether they even existed.

The communist revolution in Russia was dependent upon the slave labour of the gulag system, where the victims were worked to death. This is communism in practice.

And Trevor Phillips treats it as a joke.

No one objected to Mr Phillips’s remarks at all. The Tories were silent. Soon Mr Phillips will be in charge of Labour’s new human rights superquango.

That appointment is exceptionally offensive.

Whatever views one might take of this poem [and the English Rights Campaign sees it as being quite funny], no one has been killed.

That the Liberal Democrats are referring a spoof poem to the CRE says all that needs to be said about them.