Hell in a Handcart: The European Report

The British continue their fall from being a free country. Tommy Robinson, their most famous political prisoner, is back in jail, with the establishment no doubt hoping their moslem allies kill him in prison, as has happened to other people railroaded by the government. Bruce Bawer in FrontPage Magazine tells us about it.

Trial by trial, imprisonment by imprisonment, dishonest news report by dishonest news report, the miserable bastards who make up the British establishment are steadily transforming Tommy Robinson, a working-class husband and father from Leeds, into an imperishable symbol of the quiet determination, indomitable courage, and love of liberty for which Britain used to be known but which that selfsame establishment has labored effortfully to stamp out during these opening chapters of the Islamization of that once-great nation.

Even those of us who have been closely following Tommy’s treatment by the British courts during the past couple of years – and who, perusing the charges against him, have recognized just how outrageously he has been treated by a judiciary committed not to justice but to the silencing, and if possible personal destruction, of this latter-day Jeremiah – were stunned by the verdict handed down on Friday after a two-day trial.

This was a rehearing of the same case that last year landed Tommy in prison (more specifically, in what amounted, in violation of the Geneva Convention, to solitary confinement), an ordeal from which he emerged, after two months, looking physically and psychologically all but broken. The charges themselves were absurd to begin with: he was taken into custody near the courthouse in Leeds, where he was doing a live report on Facebook video about an “Asian grooming-gang” (i.e. Muslim child-rape) prosecution that was underway inside. He didn’t do or say anything that any BBC or Guardian journalist in similar circumstances might do; but he was arrested anyway – on the grounds that his reporting from out on the street had somehow threatened to prejudice the trial going on inside the building – and was charged with contempt of court.

The speed with which he was tried, convicted, and incarcerated after his arrest in Leeds – the whole process took just a few hours – shocked observers who still thought of British justice as something serious and worthy of respect. His release from prison two months later came after the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, in an unusually blistering ruling, declared that the court proceedings against him had been illegitimate in a number of ways, and ordered his immediate release.

Keep reading at the link above. This travesty will probably stand long enough to kill a brave man, which is the judge’s intention.

In news from Scotland, a student has been expelled for stating that there are only two genders, which as anybody with any sense at all knows, is plain fact. Here is Sofia Carbone in Human Events to explain.

According to the 17-year-old student known only as Murray, the events unfolded after the teacher pulled up a website in front of the whole class that only gave two gender options.

“If I am [entitled to my own opinion], then why did you kick me out of class? It’s not very inclusive.” – Murray, 17

“[The teacher] basically started going off on a tangent about how bad that was, and how old fashioned it was,” Murray told a YouTube account known as ‘I, Hypocrite’.

This is when the student stated the scientific fact there are only two genders. In turn, he was removed from class, later given the reason his ‘opinion’ was ‘not inclusive’. However the teacher stated his own opinion, that there are more than two genders, is “acceptable” in contrast.

After sitting outside the classroom for thirty minutes, the teacher finally came out to speak with Murray, who recorded the entire encounter.

“You’re entitled to your opinion,” the teacher told Murray.

“If I am, then why did you kick me out of class? It’s not very inclusive,” Murray inquired.

Meanwhile, in the UK…. pic.twitter.com/9ATvHuUQ1P

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) June 14, 2019

Within a day of the video being posted, it had gone viral.

The school came across the video and called Murray and his mother in for a meeting.

According to Murray, during the meeting the school officials made clear he was not getting in trouble for his comment. Rather because he recorded the teacher which is a direct violation of one of the school’s rules.

The lesson to take from that, I think is that do not ever, tell the British schools the truth, tell them what they want to hear. This is, of course, the country that indoctrinates 5-year-olds with LGBTQWERTY nonsense, after all. And above all, don’t tell the world what these twits are doing. Family? what’s that? The State will raise you so that you too can be a confused twit.

No place left in (formerly great) Britain for honest people.

Noted in passing that the British Ambassador to the United States has been doing a very good job of smearing the President to his government. I thought that was the BBC’s job, but I guess he wanted to help out.

And in Europe, the EU keeps digging. David Wojick writing in PAPundits International tells us about that.

A month ago I predicted political turmoil in EU HQ and here it is. The strong (American like) showings by both the left and right in the parliamentary elections have destabilized the old, comfortable, left wing center.

The issue is who gets the top political positions? It is sort of like who will now be president? Except under the EU’s Byzantine structure there are several presidents, or sort of, I think.

As I understand it there is the President of the EU Commission, the President of the European Parliament, the President of the European Council (whose members are the EU countries), plus some other bigwig posts.

Britain having its own internal turmoil, with May on her way out, has left Germany (with Merkel probably also on her way out) and Macron’s France to defend the liberal center and that defense is decidedly weak, to say the least. Amusingly, Spain is now being cited as a power.

What is happening is actually pretty simple, but the liberal media simply does not want to report it. Trump-like populism is advancing. The old rules gave these top posts to the parties with the most votes but these are not centrist liberal parties so the liberals do not want to give up power.

And so that’s the salient reports from Europe lately. Hell, Handcarts, some easy travel required. After all, it’s downhill from here.

Monday Videos

Has Britain already Brexited? According to some lawyers, yes. Here’s how they lay it out.

My opinion? According to the law, I think they are right. I also think that will make no difference to the case. Britain’s politicians have been hanging about in Brussels too much to understand that all are under the law. Washington could use a few demonstrations as well, Mr. President.

Bolton on Brexit, Brazil, Venezuela, and other stuff. From Sky News, because American networks have no time for news.

Remember when these were a staple for us all? Now we don’t see them nearly as often. A good thing, they were overused. But this is pretty good.

An agnostic Jew on the war on American Christianity. I just found this yesterday, and I’ll be watching with you. It’s outstanding

And this, from Katie Hopkins

The Ottoman Legacy

Ottoman_Empire_Coat_of_Arms_by_TurkForce

As Bookworm said the other day, the news, while there is a fair amount of it, just kind of feels stale. Maybe a bit of ennui has set in, we’ll cover most of it soon, but it’ll probably keep till the first of the week.

This is the second in the series of articles from 2013 that I promised you, giving some background on the Ottoman Empire mostly and why you should care. 

Once again, this was published by Jessica, but as she acknowledged it is the work of her co-author Chalcedon451, who is a professional historian. So enjoy, it’s not often we get this good an insight on much of anything.

Bosnia, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Kuwait, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, the Gulf region and Saudi Arabia, the trouble spots of the last half century or so, and what do they have in common? They all used to be part of the Ottoman Empire which existed from the 1200s until its demise in the aftermath of what we call World War I, but which was, for the Turks, a war which began in 1911 and did not end until 1923. Oh, yes, and they are all, also, Muslim in religion.

The Ottomans ruled over one of the world’s great empires, and they did so by following a simple model: they conquered a place and then they identified a section of the former rulers who could be trusted to run the place for them at a price; if that tended to produce a policy of divide and rule, so much the better, after all if the head of one clan proved to be unreliable, you could transfer your support to his rival, and as long as, in the final analysis, your army was the best in the region, you won. It led to a lot of local graft, of course, but as long as the Ottomans collected enough money, like in most protection rackets, the locals were left alone once they paid up. Now and then a ruler would get greedy, but if he caused unrest locally, that often provided an excuse to cut him down to size.

The Ottomans lacked much of an interest in ruling. They were warriors and they liked the things warriors liked. They were Muslims, but they did not go overboard; Christians, Jews, and others were all tolerable provided they paid up and kept their noses clean; indeed many of the Grand Viziers of the Ottoman Empire were of Greek race who, once they had turned Muslim, were allowed a pretty free reign. Non-Turks were segregated according to ‘Millets’ – so there would be an Orthodox Christian one, a Maronite Christian one, a Catholic Christians one, and so on and so forth. Underneath the Muslim banner others were welcome to co-exist – as long as they knew their place. Such was the violence of the Ottoman reaction to disobedience, people seldom needed telling twice; indeed few of them lived long enough for that to be able to happen.

This method served the Ottomans well, but it left behind it much flammable material, and what we have tended to see in the aftermath of the Ottomans is the same pattern. Unrest followed by the imposition of a strong man. We saw it in the former Yugoslavia with Tito; we saw it in Syria with the Assads; we saw it in Iraq with the Hamehsemites and then Saddam; we saw it in Libya with Gaddafi, and we have seen it in Egypt with Nasser and Musbarak; we see it in Saudi Arabia with the House of Saud.  Remove the strong men – the successor of the Ottoman viceroy if you like – and the ethnic and religious hatreds break out and chaos ensues.

Our strange belief that in these parts of the world, with their type of history, we can somehow build democratic states is a product of such ignorance it is hard to credit it exists; but it does.

[This post is by my editor, Chalcedon 451, and originally appeared on All along the Watchtower.

 

Islam and the West

jihad

[This is one of those weeks, isn’t it? There’s a fair amount going on, the coup in Washington continues, as does the attempt in Westminster to throw off the people’s sovereignty. As we have said so often, it’s really the same battle across the west, from Poland to Australia.

But Islam is still out there, making trouble without and within, Not a good idea to take our eyes off that ball either.

Back on April 22, 2013, Jessica published here a cross-post from her blog, by her co-author Chalcedon451 (He’s now editor here, although inactive due to other duties). I think it remains good information, so here it is again.]

If we had to justify ourselves by pointing to the wonders of the Renaissance, then commentators would begin to suspect that our culture had done little of significance since then. The observant among you will have noticed that those wishing to say something obliging about Islam always refer to its ‘golden age’ and its influence upon our own civilisation; those using such a line fail to draw the obvious conclusion.

But let us stop a moment and ask where tribes out of the Arabian desert picked up the wonders of the learning of classical Greece? The answer is from their conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire; at best Islam gave back to us some of the things it inherited when its adherents conquered civilizations far more advanced than their own. This explains the thing which seems to puzzle some commentators, why Islam has had no more golden ages.

Those who look forward to Islam having its own Renaissance have missed several points, among them the fact that after the fifteenth century Islam conquered no more civilizations more advanced than its own. The gifts it is supposed to have given to the West were not home-produced, and Islam appears to be lacking in the capacity to produce its own scientific and artistic and literary inventions. What is was brilliant at, fighting, it has remained good at, but the Scientific and Industrial advances of the West finally allowed us to put the blocks on the Ottoman Empire and then to push it back.

The Sufi branch of Islam has produced both wonderful art and some mysticism which, influenced as it is by the civilizations conquered by Islam, has great merit. But it is hardly the dominant strain of Islam in our world, and indeed has trouble holding its own.

Recent history, that is the last three hundred years, has been hard for Islam as a religion. Until the late eighteenth century there was no doubt that the Ottoman Empire was one of the world’s greatest powers, the latest and greatest empire to take Islam even further than its predecessors; history was a success story for Islam. Since then it has not been. The West has grown richer, stronger, more powerful and more successful; Islamic countries have tended to head in the other direction. This has created much resentment.

My own view is that the West has been remarkably blind in its dealings with the Islamic world. We have repeatedly condemned the Russians for their treatment of the Chechens and other Muslim minorities; it is hard to see what else the Russians could do, unless they want Islamic extremist states on their borders. We have backed elements in the ‘Arab spring’ who bear us no goodwill at all; anyone know what did happen in Banghazi? At the time of 9/11 we ignored the fact that most of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, just as we have ignored Saudi links with other terrorists. We have failed to support the old Shah of Persia and General Musharraf of Pakistan, men who, whatever their failings, were a bulwark against radical Islam. Whether or not we should have invaded Afghanistan (and I wrote against it at the time), we should certainly not have removed Saddam Hussein from power at the same time, and before dealing with Iran.

It may be that our politicians know so little history, or are so blinded by the need for oil or the spectres of the Cold War that they simply cannot see clearly. The Russians are not our enemy; Mr. Assad is not our enemy; the Chinese are not our enemy. None of these regimes are very pleasant, but all of them have real problems with radical Islam. It is too much to hope that one of our own politicians will realise that we can make common cause with these regimes against a common enemy – radical Islam. If we’d look long enough at the Russians, we might even find that they are now Christians.

We used to hear a great deal about a coalition of the willing – we in the West are the ones unwilling to join such a coalition.

[ There is a second article in this series, and a response from me, events willing, they will be along soon. Neo]

The Peace Prize

The Norwegians finally got it right. So often, their picks for the Peace Prize have been head-scratchingly obtuse, perhaps unless one was a European Progressive. But this time, they have picked an actual hero. From FrontPage Magazine.

This year the Norwegians have finally done themselves proud. One of the two Nobel Peace Prize winners is Nadia Murad, a Yazidi girl who was captured by fanatical Muslims belonging to the Islamic State in northern Iraq. These Muslims in ISIS have killed thousands of defenseless Yazidis, whose only crime was that they were not Muslims. Murad was beaten and repeatedly raped. Six of her nine brothers were killed. Yet she escaped, and now perseveres, having been named by the United Nations as a “Goodwill Ambassador for the Dignity of Survivors of Human Trafficking of the United Nations,” in spreading her own tale and that of her people, a task which takes her around the world, telling the Yazidi story and listening to others tell of similar atrocities, about the trafficking of women prisoners who are war booty for the jihadis.

Listening to the radio, I heard with alarm several people on a talk show describe Nadia Murad as a “Yazidi Muslim.” She is not a Muslim. She must never be thought of as a Muslim. She is a Yazidi, a small religious sect with roots in Kurdistan and Armenia, that has always been the object of Muslim hatred. The killings of Yazidis by the Muslims, Arab and non-Arab, of the Islamic State have, during the last few years, been conducted “on an industrial scale,” as Amal Clooney, Murad’s lawyer, told the U.N.

Nadia Murad stands up not just for the Yazidis, but for all the other non-Muslim or non-Arab minorities who have been oppressed — harassed, persecuted, and often murdered — by their Muslim captors, and not just in Iraq. Over the centuries the Armenians, Maronites, Greek Orthodox, Jews, Samaritans, Zoroastrians, Alawites, and orthodox Shia, have all suffered from Sunni Muslims. Nadia Murad now has her bully pulpit, for her own mistreated people, and she obviously intends to use it.

This is first time that a victim of Jihad and Islamic terrorism has been recognized with a Nobel Peace Prize. If it leads to greater attention to what has happened to the Yazidis, and to other groups of non-Muslims similarly situated, and to a greater focus on the Muslims who are responsible for the attempted genocide of the Yazidis, that would be a salutary development. Meanwhile, be on the alert when the subject of Nadia Murad comes up on any show to which listeners can call in. Make sure that she is properly identified as a Yazidi, a non-Muslim victim of Muslim mass rapes, just as her six dead brothers were victims of Muslim mass murder. Call in, especially, to correct anyone identifying her as belonging, as I have heard someone say, to “a small Muslim sect.” You could, while correcting that error, also add that Yazidis in Iraq have made contact with Israelis, and Nadia Murad herself has visited Israel, and expressed great admiration and sympathy for the country and its people, seeing an obvious parallel: […]

If Nadia Murad keeps telling her own tale, what she endured in all its ghastliness, and does not leave anything out, if she describes how the members of the Islamic State would recite verses from the Qur’an both before and after raping Yazidi girls, if she goes still further and dares to discuss the Qur’anic passages and hadith stories on which the Islamic State bases its behavior, she will have performed a great service, as the first Nobel Peace Prize winner to tell unpleasant truths about Islam. Think of her Prize as a way of cancelling the embarrassment of Arafat’s award. And Muslim states would have a hard time explaining any attempts to criticize or silence such a formidable person. […]

Nadia Murad has so far in her travels addressed audiences in Ireland, in France, in the U.K., in Canada, in Germany, and in the United States, telling her tale, and the tale of her people:

Four years ago I was one of thousands of Yazidi women kidnapped by Islamic State and sold into slavery. I endured rape, torture and humiliation at the hands of these militants before I escaped.

I was relatively lucky. Many Yazidi girls and women went through worse and for much longer.

Over 2,000 are still missing. Many have been killed.

In early August 2014 Islamic State invaded the Sinjar region in northern Iraq with the mission of exterminating the Yazidis. They called us a ‘pagan minority’, and because we don’t have a holy book we have been described as ‘devil worshippers.’”

In Kocho, my village of 1,800 people, over 300 men were shot and their bodies buried in irrigation ditches. Six of them were my own brothers.

Since then the Yazidis have received sympathy and solidarity all over the world. Rightly, many countries and the United Nations have recognised the genocide committed against us by Islamic State. But we now need concrete action to get justice and allow us to rebuild our community and homes. We have been displaced and dispersed around the world. Many countries, including Germany, Canada, and the United States have given us refuge.

There’s little for me to add to such a story, except for my pleasure that one, Nadia Murad survived her ordeal, and two, that the Norwegian Parliament has made such a perspicacious pick after all the insipid (and worse) ones they have made over the years.

May she continue to tell her story, and may it serve her people well.

 

Rivers of Blood

50 years ago today, a member of parliament spoke to the Conservative Association in Birmingham. He spoke about the perils of immigration. He warned of the danger of mass immigration, especially of those with a much different culture. Many called it racist for he mentioned Britain’s black immigrants in less than glowing terms. I think it honest, no matter what their future possibilities, they have underperformed, so far.

Is that entirely their fault? No. Partly it is ours for making their path easier than ours was, we all value things we have earned according to the difficulty, and full membership in the Anglo-Saxon countries, with their ancient and fierce pride in freedom and independence, is one of the most valuable things one can have in this world.

But that was then, and this is now. The blacks immigrating to the UK, like the blacks in the US, are a problem, mostly of education, which we have not handled well. But Muslim immigrants in their mass immigration to our countries lend far more point to his concerns. In fact, the leave him essential.

Britain was more tolerant in those days, but even so, political correctness was lurking about, and here it was offended enough that the career of one of the most interesting politicians in Britain was ended. I’m speaking of course of Enoch Powell. Here’s what he said, it has come to be called The Rivers of Blood speech.


The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.

After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: “If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country.” I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: “I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: “How can its dimensions be reduced?” Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week – and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country – and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I stress the words “for settlement.” This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party’s policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.

Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.

Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party’s policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no “first-class citizens” and “second-class citizens.” This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination”, whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.

Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another’s.

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 found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.

I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:

“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her ‘phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, “Racial prejudice won’t get you anywhere in this country.” So she went home.

“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house – at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. “Racialist,” they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word “integration.” To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population – that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

‘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 one say 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.’

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.


From the Telegraph.

And the video, although read by an actor, since it seems a recording of the speech itself does not exist.

%d bloggers like this: