Posted by jrackell on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:12 | #

Is there anything significant in Woolas’ use of the term ‘indigenous population.’  It seems like a big concession.  I’ve never heard it used except by the BNP (though maybe I read too narrowly), if that’s the case he’s either being cynical and coopting their rhetoric or truly believes there really is an indigenous population of the British Isles (which the British Establishment is in the process of destroying.)  We’re not a propositon nation then or a nation of immigrants? Has he let the cat out of the bag?

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:25 | #

I reiterate:

Universal declarations of land use legitimacy which purport to promote peaceful resolution of conflict must found legitimacy on carrying capacity creation because peace does not limit population.  To ignore carrying capacity creation is to demand war and to ignore carrying capacity creation while saying “peace” is to promote war via hypocrisy.

The Solutreans notwithstanding, do you guys really want to hang your hats on “indigenous”?  Aside from the fact that it disadvantages the pioneering populations of European origin, it seems wrong-headed unless you are speaking of nature preserves—in which case there are other issues like what technologies to disallow for said indigenes.

Posted by Bo on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:09 | #

Indigenous as a label would carry an entirely different weight and meaning in Europe than it would in the USA. Using indigenous would carry in Europe a certain loss of assumed legitimacy based on history, pre-existing institutions, values, and so on.  But it is, at least, a verbal formula which provides authority and legitimacy in most contests on a verbal level.

We have a different legacy in the USA which many white Americans attempt to bridge by claiming to be indigenous or native which is promptly contested by academia, legislators, and administrators who point to earlier waves of Asian immigrants as the true natives. The Solutreans seek to trump the Asian migration with an even earlier European migration, but that will be a tough sell.

That’s one reason we’ve clothed our message in the dress of multiculturalism which we are accustomed to on a global level. It provides us with a different kind of legitimacy and authenticity which we can use to create institutions within the context of multiculturalism for the benefit of the diverse white American peoples. This doesn’t go down well, either, but better than the prior style of “European Americans” which went down badly and secured no traction.

One great benefit of all this commotion is that the diverse white Americans are looking at history once again and, when we can keep them focused on the Mongol, Turkish, and Arab barbarities serves our purposes well. Unfortunately so many of us want to discuss ancient conflicts between Ireland and England, or Russia and Poland. While that has an outlet in our verbal formula that insists up front that we are diverse, we need to keep up our educational efforts in that cause.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:08 | #

Woolas is a spoiler, John.  He is there to scam the Tories and BNP.  The end, though, is to maintain Labour in power and maintain the overall direction of the MultiCult.  There is a golden opportunity for the BNP to put him on the spot by asking some very simple questions.  Such as:-

Does he accept that the English, Scots and Welsh are distinct peoples genetically clustering within the European race?

Does he accept that they, and they alone, are the native peoples of the British Isles?

Does he accept that they - and especially the English - are suffering marginalisation, displacement, dispossesion, and deracination as a direct result of the racial policies of both governing parties since 1948, and especially under New Labour since 1997?

Does he accept that no government ever saw fit to consult them about those racial policies and, therefore, that they have never given their consent to them?

Does he accept that moral legitimacy does not therefore attach to them?

Does he accept that the English, Scots and Welsh have the same right to live free and sovereign in their homeland as any other indigenous people, for example those included under the UN General Assembly approval of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Does he want to see the English, Scots and Welsh resist the slow process of racial replacement which is forecast for them by the government’s own statisticians?

Is it the intention of his party from here on to allow the English, Scots and Welsh to seek to stabilise their future, or are they to be demonised and forced into silence if they try?

And so on.  It isn’t very hard to make these weasels reveal themselves.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:20 | #

GW, they’ll never place themselves in a situation where anyone, let alone a questioner from the BNP, can ask them those implicitly highly embarrassing nay incriminating questions.  (Which only proves they know exactly the magnitude of the wrong they’re doing.)

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:31 | #

You’re right, of course, Fred.  Ambush is the only way to do it.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:33 | #

Phil Woolas confirms what his appointment is all about:-

Phil Woolas: lifelong fight against racism inspired limit on immigratio

When Phil Woolas was growing up in Lancashire his grammar school was entirely white until the Ugandan Asians arrived. “The first Asian boy who joined my school was nicknamed Banana,” says the new Minister for Borders and Immigration. “The teachers called him Banana, the boys called him Banana. He even called himself Banana. I thought it was appalling.”

It was, he says, fighting racism that got him into politics. At sixth-form college he joined the Labour Party and ran a campaign against “Paki-bashing”. He chose to stand for election as an MP in the Oldham East & Saddleworth constituency, which has a high Pakistani and Kashmiri population. “It’s had a race riot, it’s had a huge BNP [British National Party] presence and it’s a marginal seat. It’s a complete crucible,” he says. “But we’ve never had a BNP councillor - I hope I’ve had something to do with that by getting in and getting dirty.”

Mr Woolas describes dealing with immigration as “my lifelong purpose” but he is not going to be pandering to what he calls Hampstead liberals.

“I’ve been brought in to be tougher and to change perceptions,” he says. The Government must, he insists, face up to voters’ concerns about the level of immigration - particularly as a recession looms. The economic downturn changes everything, he says. “Clearly if people are being made unemployed, then the question of immigration becomes extremely thorny.”

Employers should, he believes, put British people first, or they will risk fuelling racism. “In times of economic difficulties, racial stereotyping becomes stronger but also if you’ve got skills shortages you should, as a government, attempt to fill those skills shortages with your indigenous population.”

This is not about colour. He uses the example of the high level of unemployment among the Bangladeshi community in Britain, many of whom he believes could be retrained to fill a shortage of chefs. “Britain has to get working again. The easiest thing for an employer to do is to employ an immigrant. We need to help them to change that.”

He adds: “We need a tougher immigration policy and we need to stop seeing it as a dilemma. It’s not. It’s easy. I’m going to do my best to help the British back to work. The message to them is, if you want less immigration you’re going to have to respond with helping us get everyone working who can.”

Mr Woolas admits that more and more people will want to come to Britain as a result of the global downturn. “We’re the fourth-richest country. Even with a recession we’re still going to be attractive to people from poorer countries. The urgency [to sort the system out] becomes greater.”

It is clear that he wants to reduce the number of immigrants. “It’s been too easy to get into this country in the past and it’s going to get harder,” he says. “As we stand we don’t know how many foreign nationals there are. I want to end up in a situation where we know and the public know how many people are coming in and going out of our country.”

Although he does not think it is practical to talk about a cap on the number of new arrivals, because the Government cannot predict how many people will be emigrating, he says: “We have to have a population policy and that means at some point we will be able to set a limit on migration. This Government isn’t going to allow the population of this country to go up to 70 million. There has to be a balance between the number of people coming in and the number of people leaving.”

Extremists such as the BNP exploit the perception that immigrants receive unfair benefits. Mr Woolas wants to tackle them head on. “I don’t believe that we are a country of Alf Garnetts but there’s a large element that is discriminatory in its attitude,” he says.

The problem, according to the minister, is that “the perception that immigrants jump the housing queue is very strong, even though the reality is very different. We must cut back on the few cases of abuse so people see that the system is fair.”

He is appalled by stories of immigrants being given £1 million houses at taxpayers’ expense. “These are council decisions. They shouldn’t do that kind of thing. I just think it’s wrong, even if it is rare.”

Nor should the NHS accept health tourism. “If you’re here legally you should have access to the NHS. If you are here illegally, or - what’s the word we use? - clandestinely, you shouldn’t. It’s a national health service - it’s not an international health service.”

He opposes an amnesty for people who are already here illegally because he thinks it would encourage more to come. “An amnesty… starts with a discussion among politicians and ends with dead bodies in the back of a truck in Calais.”

He believes passionately, however, that those who do become part of the British workforce should be treated with far more respect. “Since Windrush [the Empire Windrush - the ship that carried the first large group of West Indians to Britain in 1948] we have, compared to other rich countries, been liberal in our border controls, but when immigrants get here I think we’re cruel to them as a society and I want to turn that around.”

Rather than being segregated they should be encouraged to join in. “The immigrant community itself is the strongest advocate of fair and firm immigration rules and the strongest advocate of obeying the law - yet the perception is not that. We have allowed people in here and not helped them to help themselves. Translation [of official documents into other languages] ghettoises people. A Bangladeshi friend told me you can’t get a good job in Bangladesh if you can’t speak English. You don’t need to convince them that they need to speak English - of course they do.”

The hijab can, in his view, be divisive. “People wear veils for different reasons: some out of religious conviction. some because they’re forced to. It should be up to them, but at school you shouldn’t wear one. It’s harder to get a good education if you wear a veil as you’re more cut off.”

Women in Muslim communities should be encouraged to work, even if that goes against their culture. “My guiding light is that we have to talk about these things. It is important for everyone.”

Mr Woolas wants to make it difficult for people to bring in very young girls from abroad for an arranged marriage. “I am about to increase the age limit of entry by a spouse from 18 to 21. The way in which our society treats some of these boys and girls is a crime. If someone so young from a rural area marries and is brought in to an area that is predominantly of one culture and never goes out, that doesn’t help them or society.”

He is also concerned about the number of marriages between first cousins in Indian and Pakistani families. “Anyone who knows my community knows there are higher proportions of physical disability amongst the children of first-cousin marriages. It’s a cultural issue. The morally right thing is to raise awareness of that. The risk of disability is 4.7 per cent - that’s double the average. If your grandparents were first cousins, too, it goes up to 52 per cent. I don’t say you shouldn’t marry your first cousin, I say if you do, be careful and be screened.”

He supports the principle of Muslim faith schools, although he insists “you have to use schools to help break down segregation. They should learn about all faiths - there shouldn’t be exclusive access. Children from other faiths should be allowed in.”

But he also warns Christians that they need to be more accepting of other faiths. The Church of England will, in his view, be disestablished in the end. “It will probably take 50 years but a modern society is multifaith.”

His last words are inspired by his old classmate. “I think it [the immigration system] has been too lenient and I want to make it harder, but I also want to be nice to people who do come to settle here. That’s what I have wanted to do all my life since the boy came to my school and was called Banana.”

Posted by Bill on Sat, 01 Nov 2008 09:34 | #

From a link in today’s Guardian 1st. October 2008

http://clients.squareeye.com/uploads/prog/documents/immigration.pdf

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:43 | #

Dienekes Pontikos comes out for citizenship-law sanity for Greece:

”I am fundamentally in agreement with the basic principle of jus sanguinis, citizenship by descent, rather than jus soli, citizenship by birthplace.”

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/11/article-on-greek-citizenship-and.html

I doubt he would have taken this stance so forthrightly six years ago.

Posted by Tamworth on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:26 | #

Phil Woolas: “That’s what I have wanted to do all my life since the boy came to my school and was called Banana.”

Good Lord, I can see it now: A Boy Named Banana, a new Multi-culti text book on immigrant race relations for the schools.

Posted by Bill on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:06 | #

Same old, same old.

Hospital failed to plan for baby boom
Not enough beds in one of the fastest-growing towns in Britain put mothers and babies at risk

guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 December 2008 13.00 GMT

No mention of the dreaded I word though.  I wonder?

Posted by Bill on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:12 | #

Same old, Same old above.

Sorry, forgot. (again)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/dec/19/baby-boom-shortage