Wednesday, 4 March 2009

Political 'Hot Air' - The Blue Variety

ConHome are trailing a speech by Dominic Grieve, shadow Justice secretary, which calls for fresh thinking on multiculturalism and in which he condemns decades of political correctness.

It can be argued that politicians today speak at great length on various matters, not necessarily to any effect and possibly purely because they like the sound of their own voices. This latest 'offering' does nothing more than highlight what is wrong yet, in the extracts given , does nothing to provide solutions.

The last quoted extract on the ConHome website is an example of 'hot air' and brings Dominic Grieve and his party no credit.

"The lack of a credible response from the mainstream right to the current issues of multiculturalism has now left a gap, which is being filled by extremist voices. UKIP and the British National Party have taken advantage to suggest policies not based on a reasoned morality but which play on fear and encourage hatred."

Firstly to 'lump together' UKIP and BNP is akin to stating there is no difference between chalk and chesse and shows Dominic Greive's total lack of understanding about those two parties. Secondly, with regard to UKIP, to suggest that they are 'suggesting policies not based on reasoned morality but which play on fear and encourage hatred' again shows he has not studied the policies UKIP are advocating. Thirdly, whose fault is it, if not that of the Conservative Party - who are after all supposed to be Her Majesty's Official Opposition but who have, on recent evidence, been prepared to have the title but not actually to do much opposing - that there has not been a 'credible response' to the problems we have with multiculturism.

It is, to say the least, a tad rich for Dominic Grieve to opine that UKIP are 'playing on fear and encouraging hatred' when those policies are but addressing a problem that hundreds, if not thousands or hundreds of thousands, are saying and thinking. Politicians of the three main parties appear to have overlooked one basic fact and that is by allowing the introduction of an alien element, or elements, into a country profoundly affects that country's social structure.

Whilst immigration can and surely does improve a country, there is another factor which again has been overlooked by politicians of the past (with one notable exception, namely the late, great Enoch Powell) and that is the danger that has come to pass in that immigrants have, through the creed of diversity, been elevated into a privileged or special class.

To quote Enoch Powell in his infamous speech of April 1968 otherwise dubbed the 'Rivers of Blood':

"There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it 'against discrimination'......The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the imigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.".

The efforts of those trying to 'order society' is akin to throwing a match on gunpowder. To quote Enoch Powell once again:

"The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do........ But while to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they find themselves made strangers in their own country."

Another delusion to which those who are wilfully, or otherwise, blind to realities can be summed up in the word 'integration'. To be integrated into a population means to become, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from its other members. Whilst the majority may with to 'integrate', it is ridiculous to ignore the fact that there are those 'hotheads', religious zealots and/or 'activists' whose only intention is to impose their way of life on the host nation. In February 17th 1968 there appeared in the local press a statement by John Stonehouse, a Labour Member of Parliament and a member of the then government, who said (and whilst one ethnic group is mentioned, it does apply to all immigrants, whatever their ethnic origin):

"The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should that be 'rites') leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned."

In conclusion, 'waffle' such as that exhibited by Dominic Grieve serves no purpose. It is time for some plain speaking that spells out exactly what the problem is. One extremely basic point exists, one which I have covered previously, and that is the simple fact then when going to another country - whether that is to visit or live - one respects that country's laws, society and way of life. Until politicians accept that basic point they will, unfortunately, continue to spout 'waffle' and 'hot air'.

Of course, on the subject of immigration as in so many other matters, the ability of any of the three main parties to legislate and govern is constrained by their continued acceptance of membership of the European Union.