QUOTE OF THE MONTH

‘The only type of training that interested management was in the new creed of political correctness. Our schedules were awash with race awareness days, diversity weeks, asylum seminars, though most of these events were worse than useless, their sole aim being to instil guilt into employees ...

As caseworkers, we were compelled to approve almost every entry application that came across our desks, even if we suspected that there was fraud involved.

Patently bogus student visas would be pushed through; in another section of the directorate, work permits would be routinely dished out even when it was obvious they were part of a wider scam. Indeed, the unit in charge of the operation of work permits would not even bother to check whether the jobs being filled were genuine.

The same was true with marriages, where another series of rackets operated. Yet when I would query a certain application, I would be rebuffed by my team leaders and told “not to question immigration rules”.

The truth is that during my time as a civil servant, I worked for a Home Office where mismanagement and the doctrine of political correctness led to chaos and incompetence, while immigration rackets went completely unchecked.’

Steve Moxon [who was sacked from the Home Office 2 years ago after exposing the visa scam allowing east European immigrants to enter the country without any checks at all - which led to Beverley Hughes’s resignation] writing in the Daily Mail.

IMMIGRATION

Margaret Hodge has recently revealed that 80% of the white voters in her constituency of Barking, in east London, are thinking of voting for the BNP [a party which the English Rights Campaign does not support] in the local elections.

She has put this down to a ‘fear of change’ and:

‘The Labour Party hasn’t talked to these people. This is a traditional Labour area but they are not used to engaging with us because all we do is put leaflets through doors. Part of the reason they switch to the BNP is they feel no one else is listening to them.

But where we haven’t done enough is on affordable housing for families. The poorest whites feel the greatest anger because there is no way out for them. But where we haven’t done enough is on affordable housing for families and the quality of life for families. The poorest whites feel the greatest anger because there is no way out for them.’

Margaret Hodge admitted that:

‘What has happened in Barking and Dagenham is the most rapid transformation of a community we have ever witnessed.’

Meanwhile, the Joseph Rowntree Trust has found that 25% of London voters might back the BNP.

This has caused a small kerfuffle.

Lord Parekh has surfaced and commented:

‘It is not just a question of people feeling alienated or voting for another party, but also becoming restless and taking the law into their own hands. White working-class feelings of neglect or marginalisation have to be addressed at the national level.’

So, according to various parts of the PC industry, ordinary working-class white people are considering voting for the BNP, whose open hostility to immigration is well known, for all sorts of reasons other than an opposition to mass immigration.

It would seem that Mrs Hodge believes it is the good sense of the BNP housing policy that is attracting these voters.

The British ruling class is in denial.

THE WAR ON TERROR

Justice Sullivan is the latest judge to render Labour’s purported war on terror a farce. He has ruled, in the High Court, that an Arab known as MB, who had been granted British citizenship after arriving in the UK with his family in the 1990s, should not be subject to a control order preventing him from travelling abroad.

The control order, which included the removal of his passport, was imposed as MB was believed by the security services to be trying to travel to Iraq in order to attack British and US troops as a part of the insurgency.

MB had been stopped by the police and MI5 at Manchester airport. He had claimed that he was going on holiday to Syria. He claimed that he had been subject to racist abuse by MI5.

MB, who had missed his flight from Manchester, travelled to Heathrow to catch another flight to the middle east. But he had been followed by MI5 and was detained under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act.

MB complained that his human rights had been broken.

Justice Sullivan agreed and pronounced that the imposition of the control order was an ‘affront to justice’ and that the Government’s anti-terror legislation was ‘incompatible’ with the Human Rights Act:

‘The issue raised in these proceedings is whether the Act gives the respondent the fair hearing to which he is entitled. The answer to that question is no.’

One of Justice Sullivan’s complaints was that MB had been detained by a decision of the Home Secretary without judicial involvement.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, was jubilant:

‘This completely scandalous system of punishment without trial is definitely in tatters. This policy - like its predecessor legislation, the Belmarsh disgrace - has been rightly and roundly condemned by the High Court.’

The control order is to remain in force pending the outcome of an appeal by the government.

Meanwhile, 3 Appeal Court judges have unanimously ruled that David Hicks, aka the ‘Australian Taliban’, who was captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and who currently resides at Guantanamo Bay, is entitled to claim British citizenship. Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, had been trying to block Hicks’s application for a British passport. Hicks’s mother was born in London.

The US claims that Hicks attended an Al Qaeda training camp and of fighting against British and US troops. The Australian government has refused to press for his release.

It is now expected that Jack Straw will be trying to secure Hicks’s release. No doubt a whole host of so-called human rights lawyers and activists will be working themselves into a lather over Hicks’s rights [as well as earning a nice chunk of legal aid fees for themselves].

We are therefore in the ridiculous situation where the so-called war on terror is subject to judicial approval, that immigrants are being granted and can retain British citizenship no matter the extent to which the hate this country and mean us harm, that immigrants have a human right to kill British troops abroad, that such immigrants cannot be deported but they are free to leave as they please, that such immigrants cannot be subject to control orders or be detained if they choose to remain in the UK, that even those foreigners who have taken up arms with Al Qaeda against British troops can demand British citizenship even though they were not born here, and the Human Rights Act is cited by unelected and unaccountable judges in order to overturn decisions of elected politicians.

So much for the war on terror.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

John Atkinson, a former detective sergeant in the police, has been cleared of a charge of threatening public order. This charge stems from a comment made that the North Wales police officer Miss Michele Williams in which he described her as a ‘dyke’. Miss Williams was not present at the time.

Mr Atkinson made the remark in a private conversation with former colleagues in the North Wales police, in October last year. He had earlier attended a funeral of another police officer and had been out to dinner in which he had had a few drinks. He stopped to talk to some former colleagues on duty in Wrexham. But the police van contained a number of new recruits, including a lesbian, Sarah Fellows, who claimed to have been ‘shocked and insulted’.

In the course of a conversation he referred to acting Chief Superintendent Williams as ‘that diverse dyke’. Miss Williams is unmarried and chairman of the force’s race and diversity forum, which has meetings between the police and various minority groups, including lesbians, gays and bisexuals.

At the time the police did not react to the remark and drove off. But 10 minutes later they returned, arrested Mr Atkinson for contravention of the Public Order Act alleging that his remark could have caused ‘harassment, alarm and distress’. Mr Atkinson was handcuffed and then put in a cell overnight. He was questioned the following day.

At the trial, the police claimed that Mr Atkinson had been drunk and had asked: ‘Where is your fucking diverse super? The fucking diverse dyke, where’s Michele?’

During the trial, Miss Fellows admitted that she had also been ‘shocked’ by the comments made by the chief constable of North Wales, Richard Brunstrom, who last year had described certain people as queers in relation to activities in gents toilets.

Mr Brunstrom was not charged.

The Chairman of the bench said:

‘Considering the evidence, we do not think that Mr Atkinson intended to harassment, alarm or distress. Therefore, the prosecution have not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.’

THE LOONY LEFT

As Tory activists left their recent conference in Manchester, they were handed a leaflet entitled: ‘Be the Change’.

In the leaflet David Cameron told activists that ‘personal action is the most powerful way to bring about change’. Ten changes ‘to change your world and environment’ were recommended to Tory activists:

1. Take the bus when you can
2. Get to know your neighbours better
3. Pick up one piece of litter from the street everyday
4. Re-use your plastic bags when you go to the shops
5. Switch to energy efficiency light bulbs at home
6. Reduce your thermostat by 2 degrees
7. Support your local shopkeepers
8. Don't overfill your kettle
9. Fill out a donor card
10. Give blood.

Words fail.

THE PAREKH REPORT [12]

‘4.12 The essential problem with the nationalist or assimilationist model ... is that it is based on a false premise of what Britain is and has been. Britain is not and never has been a homogenous and unified whole - it contains many conflicting traditions and is differentiated by gender, class, region and religion as well as by culture, ethnicity and race. Assimilation is a fantasy, for there is no single culture into which all people can be incorporated. In any case, it seldom leads to complete acceptance, for the demand for assimilation springs from intolerance of difference, and for the intolerant even one difference is one too many. Furthermore, assimilation cannot be justified morally. It attempts to suppress difference and condemns to second-class citizenship, in fact if not in law, everyone who does not accept majority norms. A fundamental practical problem is that assimilation cannot be pursued in an age of increasing globalisation. For no government, least of all the government of a state such as the United Kingdom, can insulate its citizens from cultural, religious and intellectual influences emanating from outside the state’s physical borders.

4.13 ... The first challenge to traditional liberal theory is that the political culture and the public realm are not, and cannot be, neutral. Their values and practices can therefore discriminate against certain members of the community, marginalising them or failing to recognise them. This was seen in the Satanic Verses affair and in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, for example. The public realm must be open to revision in the interests of those it is in danger of disregarding ...

4.14 A second defect of the liberal model is that its attempt to combine a monocultural public realm with a multicultural private realm is likely to undermine the latter. For if only one culture is publicly recognised and institutionalised, other cultures will be seen as marginal, peripheral, even deviant and inferior. For example, the days of rest supported by British and European law and custom are those that coincide with traditional Christian holidays rather than with the holidays of any other faith. This makes participation in public life convenient for people from Christian traditions but inconvenient for those of other religions, and it implies second-class for all traditions other than Christian ... Furthermore, the separation of public and private realms means that there is little or no intercultural debate, and therefore mutual learning, either in public or in private.

4.15 A third defect concerns the state’s right, and indeed duty, to intervene in the private sphere to protect and promote human rights standards, based on equal respect and dignity ... For example, the state has a duty to regulate how children and older people are treated. It exercises this duty with substantially more legitimacy if it gives public recognition to cultural diversity, and if it is seen to be sensitive to the ways in which universal human rights are realised in different specific settings.

4.29 Like any other society, Britain needs common values to hold it together and give it a sense of cohesion. At the same time it must acknowledge that its citizens belong to a variety of moral traditions and subscribe to and live by a range of values. Therefore, common values cannot simply be the values of one community, even if it is the numerical “majority”, but must emerge from democratic dialogue and be based on reasons that individuals belonging to different moral and cultural traditions can agree on. They should not be so defined that they rule out legitimate moral differences or impose a particular rule of life on all. Nor should they be seen as fixed and settled forever, as new insights and experiences are likely to call for their reconsideration.

4.36 Britain needs to be, certainly, “One Nation” - but understood as a community of communities and a community of citizens, not a place of oppressive uniformity based on a single substantive culture. Cohesion in such a community derives from widespread commitment to certain core values, both between communities and within them: equality and fairness; dialogue and consultation; toleration, compromise and accommodation; recognition of and respect for diversity; and - by no means least - determination to confront and eliminate racism and xenophobia.’

It is worth requoting an extract of paragraph 4.12:

‘Britain is not and never has been a homogenous and unified whole ... Assimilation is a fantasy, for there is no single culture into which all people can be incorporated ... Furthermore, assimilation cannot be justified morally.’

This is the true face of political correctness. It is the true face of Labour policy. It is a communist face.

Is it any wonder that we are now having to deal with Islamist terrorism?

The idea that the terrorist bombings in London last year were simply the result of a few mad mullahs who inflamed innocent Muslims is pathetic and wrong. It is the result, primarily, of Labour policy and of the snobby political correctness of the British ruling class in general. It is the result of race war politics.

Patriotism is the basis of national unity. That we are all in it together, have shared interests, a shared history and have pride in our history and our country. Political correctness seeks to foster hatred and division.

Anyone who believes that ‘assimilation cannot be justified morally’ is unfit to exercise any form of government power, especially if he is involved in race relations in any way. Labour has gone out of its way to promote the authors of the Parekh Report. That is because such peoples’ views are Labour views.

The report invents and then caricatures several models for dealing with minority cultures. The nationalist model is described thus:

‘The state promotes a single national culture and expects all to assimilate to it. People who do not or cannot assimilate are second-class citizens.’

The liberal model is described thus:

‘There is a single political culture in the public sphere but substantial diversity in the private lives of individuals and communities.’

The pluralist model is described thus:

‘There is both unity and diversity in public life; communities and identities overlap and are interdependent, and develop common features.’

The report itself prefers the creation of a ‘synthesis of the liberal and pluralist models - Britain as both a community of individuals and a community of communities’. The liberal bit is a fig-leaf of unity for their pluralist model, coupled with the idea that the state should promote all cultures equally rather than being a national culture.

It cannot be stressed enough, that the report advocates that Britain should cease to exist as a nation in order to create its ‘community of communities’. Britain is described as a ‘multicultural post-nation’ and the report asserts that ‘national allegiance is now played out’ [this has already been dealt with in the earlier entries on the Parekh Report - eg see the English Rights Campaign entry dated the 9 March 2006].

The brief reference to the Satanic Verses speaks volumes and is used to attack ‘traditional liberal theory’. The support for the views of those who wished to ban Salman Rushdie’s book, and kill Salman Rushdie himself, is extremist and unacceptable. At the time, the condemnation of those who advocated the murder of Salman Rushdie was unequivocal. Today, it is those who advocate the murder of some cartoonists who are portrayed as the victims, whereas the cartoonists are condemned.

The report rejects the concept of a national culture, and consequently the concept of nationhood at all. It even balks at the Christian background of national holidays. It is totally intolerant of English national culture.

The report’s third attack on its liberal model is that the state has a ‘right, and indeed duty, to intervene in the private sphere to protect and promote human rights standards, based on equal respect and dignity.’ Human rights as defined by the politically correct, that is. In a free society, which the Parakh commissioners obviously do not believe in, the state’s interference in peoples’ private lives should always be kept to a minimum.

The report uses so-called human rights as a means of by-passing both freedom and democracy. It openly condemns the values of the ‘majority’ and instead believes that the majority [ie the English] must be treated as being no different to even the smallest minority. Such a view is completely incompatible with democracy and a free society. It is incompatible with English nationhood. It is a communist view and the true nature of political correctness.

Such Anglophobia has recently caused a small brouhaha in Newcastle where a senior Liberal Democrat councillor wrote:

‘There is no need for an English parliament because there is no England.

Scotland, Wales and Ireland are fairly homogeneous nations, each with its own clearly defined character and culture. That is why devolution (or independence) has been quite successful in all three. In England, the picture is far more complex. There are millions of Scots, Welsh and Irish living in England. The overwhelming majority of non-white migrants also live in England, along with many hundreds of thousands of other Europeans and people from other parts of the world. England is the genuine mongrel nation, and I welcome that. This fact however, makes identity far more complex and difficult than in the other British nations.

For example, I regard myself first and foremost as a Northumbrian, then as British, and finally as European. Here in the north-east we only began to be part of the nation after 1603. Before that, the independent kingdoms of England and Scotland played havoc with the area, and used it (and abused us) for their own dynastic ends. I have no loyalty to England. For me, the British state has meaning and relevance precisely because it has little connection with a brutal past based on ignorance and exploitation.

The answer to the West Lothian question is the creation of a fully federal United Kingdom, based on Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England. There would still be disparities of size, but these would be far less than a separate English parliament would create. The failure of the referendum in the North-east in 2004 doesn't invalidate the concept. Devolution is working in Scotland and Wales; and independence has given most of Ireland a new lease of life. We just need to expand that successful formula to the rest of the United Kingdom.’

The mongrel who wrote that openly sets out his snobby contempt for the English and that he sees immigration as a means of undermining English nationhood and democracy. Regionalisation is advocated as a means of breaking up England and preventing the creation of an English parliament. The sentiment is pure Anglophobia.

Political correctness has infected all the main political parties and not just Labour. The British ruling class as a whole is fully committed to this creed.

The snobby disdain for democracy was also voiced by Cherie Blair last year in her rejection of ‘majoritarian politics’ [see the English Rights Campaign entry dated the 8 August 2005].

When the Parekh Report calls for a ‘determination to confront and eliminate racism and xenophobia’, it is really calling for the destruction of the English ‘substantive culture’. Once again, this is the communist view and is the true nature of political correctness.

Traditionally, England has depended upon democracy and the freedom of the individual as its defining political culture. That has been steadily eroded by the onslaught of socialism in general, but more specifically by political correctness, which sees the attitudes and activities of ordinary people as an obstacle to the re-ordering of society along politically correct and multiculturalist lines. To the politically correct, the existence of an English national culture is racist per se. The politically correct seek to destroy the national culture by subverting democracy and freedom by citing human rights and multiculturalism. To that end, they favour mass immigration.

Democracy and freedom of the individual need to be reasserted. The various models invented by the Parekh Report should be ignored. With democracy and freedom of the individual, an individual is allowed his minority culture irrespective of government opinion. The national culture is the English culture, as it should be. This is, after all, England. The English are the majority - although Labour’s aggressive policy of mass immigration is intended to end that and reduce the English into being a racial minority in their own country.

Those who advocate race war politics and reject the assimilation of immigrants into the host community as immoral, are treating the ordinary people as toys. They have no place in government, or the various government quangos. These extremists must be unceremoniously routed out. The quangos in which they inhabit must be closed down.

52 people were killed on 7/7 terrorist bombings last year and many more injured, some seriously.

The fight between English nationalism and political correctness, is the fight between good and evil. It is as clear-cut as that.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

The latest victim of the British Inquisition is a 10-year-old boy, who was reported to the police and then prosecuted after a name-calling spat in the school playground.

Allegedly, the 10-year-old had called another pupil a ‘Paki’ and ‘bin Laden’. The other pupil had also allegedly called the 10-year-old ‘white trash’.

Apparently, 3 boys were interviewed by the police, after a complaint from the mother of the alleged victim. The police gave 1 of the boys a reprimand and another a final warning [the boy had already been given a reprimand]. But the defendant did not agree to be given a reprimand, of which a record is kept on police file, after taking legal advice.

A reprimand may affect how the police treat someone at a future date if they break the law again.

At Salford Youth Court the boy denied a racially motivated offence. He admitted using the term ‘Paki’ only. The boy’s mother said that he was now friends again with the alleged victim, and that the boys play football and spend time in each other’s houses.

Judge Jonathan Finestein, presiding, urged the CPS to reconsider the decision to prosecute and said:

‘There are major crimes out there and the police don’t bother to prosecute. If you get your car stolen it doesn’t matter but you get two kids falling out over racist comments - this is nonsense.

Have we really got to the stage where we are prosecuting 10-year-old boys because of political correctness?

Nobody is more against racist abuse than me but these are boys in a playground. I think somebody should consider reversing the decision to prosecute.’

The judge adjourned the case until the 20 April so the Crown Prosecution Service can decide whether they wish to proceed with the prosecution.

A Greater Manchester Police spokesman said:

‘We take all reports of crime seriously and remain totally opposed to racism in any form. We will continue to take appropriate action against anyone found to be acting in a racist manner and remain committed to the thorough, detailed investigation of any allegation.’

The leader of the NASUWT teaching union, Chris Keates, accused the judge, who is Jewish, of ‘feeding the pernicious agenda’ of right-wing extremists and that he was ‘trivialising racist taunts and abuse.’ She further said:

‘The timing of his remarks is particularly unfortunate. The local elections are imminent and candidates from the extreme Right are being fielded in many cities. Comments which dismiss racial abuse as “political correctness gone mad” simply feed the pernicious agenda of extremists.’

Mrs Keates’s remarks have attracted much criticism. Philip Davies MP has said:

‘People want to hear those in a position of responsibility speaking what is clearly common sense. It is the rubbish being spoken by the teaching unions which does the harm.’

Meanwhile, it has been announced by Labour that 5-year-olds are expected to show respect for other religions and cultures. New Government targets state that 5-year-olds will be required to understand that different people have their own rituals beliefs and celebrations.

In future, no doubt, Labour will be accusing 5-year-olds of racism.

The idea that 10-year-olds must be prosecuted for so-called race crimes for fear of extremist right-wing parties getting votes in local elections is as pathetic as it is obscene. The judge’s comments are correct. The NASUWT leader, Chris Keates, should resign.

THE NEED FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

Below is a copy of a letter published in The Herald newspaper:



Lord Falconer wants to write England out of existence
Your Letters: April 06 2006

LORD Falconer promises more Scots in the House of Lords (April 4): "We need to have an arrangement whereby the regions, and Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland, are better represented in the House of Lords."

I wish to suggest that he is displaying incredible political insensitivity and arrogance. On March 10 on the Today programme he arbitrarily ruled out an English Parliament "for all time" without even the slightest consideration of asking the opinion of the English people in a referendum which his fellow Scots got in 1997-98 for a Scottish Parliament. Now he wants to increase the number of Scots in the Lords; and he uses language which terminates England.

Has he never heard of the West Lothian Question? We already have over-representation in the Commons of Scottish MPs in proportion to Scotland's population. We already have Scottish MPs voting on issues concerning England which English MPs cannot vote on for Scotland. We already have Scottish members of the Lords voting on the same issues without any English members of the Lords able to vote as regards Scotland. And now Lord Falconer, who occupies one of the most ancient of English offices, predating the Act of Union by many centuries, that of the lord chancellor, wants even more Scots able to debate and vote on English matters without reciprocity.

Even worse, while he upholds - rightly so - the existence of Scotland and Wales as distinct nations within the UK, he denies the existence of England as a nation. He speaks of "regions" instead of England. He and his party are engaged in a deliberate policy of writing England out of existence and substituting "regions", which, as Lord Bassam of the Department of the Deputy Prime Minister agreed in debate only last week, are of EU invention. In this he is strongly supported by his fellow Scot, Gordon Brown who first introduced the phrase "the regions and nations of Britain" expressly meaning Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and "regions" in place of England. And he is supported likewise by Charles Kennedy, MP for Ross, Skye and Inverness West, who, when he addressed the Scottish LibDem conference in Dunfermline in 1999, stated the regionalism south of the border "is calling the very existence of England into question".

I know this is a hard thing to say, but the time has surely come for it to be said. Lord Falconer and his compatriots would be advised to exercise sensitivity and respect when speaking of England, what concerns England and the ancient political institutions of England.

Michael Knowles, chairman, Campaign for an English Parliament

TAXATION

While controversy surrounding the budget deficits in the NHS continues, and the quiet rejection by Labour of recent reports calling for better and fairer treatment of the elderly, a recent report by Ernst & Young highlights the extent to which Labour are plundering the economy.

The overall tax bill has increased by £219billion since Labour came to power. That is equivalent to £9,000 for every household. Tax revenues are expected to reach £490billion compared to £271billion in 1997.

In reference to the level of taxation, Peter Young of Ernst & Young commented:

‘It’s at an all-time high and we are hitting uncharted waters.’

Analysis by Grant Thornton has also revealed that revenue from income tax will be £145billion this year compared to £69billion in 1996-97. This is a 109% increase.

Yet still defence is being cut, and still the NHS is in a state of crisis, and still our old people are malnourished in care homes while the state seizes their houses.

This is socialism in practice.