The BNP and all that

21 Oct 2009

The BNP and all that

Current mood:discontent

The election of 2 members of the British National Party  to the European parliament doesn’t surprise me, it is bad news for several reason’s,  ultimately BNP seats are seats that UKIP haven’t won and it will prevent much needed voting reform in this country, namely a move to  proportional representation in Britain, as was used in the Euro elections and has led to the election of the BNP.  Currently with our first past the post system 7 out of 10 seats are safe and never change hands and so only 3 out of 10 seats actually matter and that’s bad for democracy and guarantees either labour or conservatives winning a general election.   

The word multicultural is used in the media all the time, anyone why dares to question it is immediately branded a racist.  Why is it that the Scotlands 'Scottish National Party' isn’t branded as racist, or Irelands 'Sinn Fein'.   Why are single faith  Muslim schools not criticized for not being multicultural.
It is because hypocrisy is the greatest luxury, this country has never not been multicultural, especially in the area of music, Jimi Hendrix first made it famous in this country, Bob Marley’s record label ‘Island Records’ was a was founded by British record producers, ‘Madness’ and ‘The Specials’ where huge groups in my youth that combined the sounds of West Indian ska music with British Pop.   You simply cannot outlaw culture, but while people preach multiculturalism over here they don’t go to Iraq where they country is divided between Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds and say they should get multicultural, or pitch up in Israel and sell the magic of multiculturalism to the Jews and Palestinians, or go down to the former Yugoslavia and say the Serbs and the Croats should get multicultural or visit Rwanda and tell the  Hutu’s and Tutsi’s to get rid of their own identities in favor of multiculturalism  ditto Pakistan and India, China and Tibet etc. Etc.  In fact they rarely preach multiculturalism from anywhere other than the safety of their leafy middle class mock tudor suburban houses.   If there was proper integration in this country the BNP wouldn’t get elected but there are different races and cultures living separate lives in different areas.  Lack of integration plays into the BNP’s hands, there is a feeling that white working class people have been left behind in this country and this was the subject of the BBC’s white season   http://www.bbc.co.uk/white/ of course they are being left behind because there are now competing for jobs with workers from all over Europe and as I predicted in earlier blogs this would lead to rising unemployment and has helped the BNP whose slogan is ‘British jobs for British workers’.   This mantra was espoused by Gordon Brown but in his case it was empty rhetoric, matched by no real actions to help British people secure jobs over EU workers, and of course the phrase has come back to bite him.  The BNP haven’t won seats from the conservatives,   they’ve won them in traditional northern labour areas.  The fact that  labourhas been in power for 12 years means the blame for the rise of the BNP must rest with the labour party which has so disillusioned  voters they have deserted them for the BNP.  Here is a report from a respectable broadshhet newspapers that states:

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a ‘truly multicultural’ country, a former Government adviser has revealed.  The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and ‘rub the Right's nose in diversity’, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.  He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to ‘open up the UK to mass migration’ but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its ‘core working class vote’. As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants. Critics said the revelations showed a ‘conspiracy’ within Government to impose mass immigration for ‘cynical’ political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s., he revealed the ‘major shift’ in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank.  He wrote a major speech for the immigration minister, in 2000, which was based on drafts of the report.

He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

He wrote: ‘Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

‘I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.’

The ‘deliberate policy’, from late 2000 was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates.

On Question Time on Thursday, Mr Straw was repeatedly quizzed about whether Labour's immigration policies had left the door open for the BNP.    Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a ‘driving political purpose’ behind immigration policy.  But he acknowledged that ‘nervous’ ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters. ‘Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom. But ministers wouldn't talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland’

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: ‘Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite. Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.

This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons'
 

In my view there are benefits to multiculturalism but also draw backs, many of the Eastern European countries who's workers have flocked here are racist and homophobic,  Islam is homophobic and un British in its attitudes relating to the freedom to gamble, drink, and womens rights.  In Islamic Afghanistan a new law lets husbands starve the wives if they refuse their demands for sex.  Saudi Arabia is one of a number of countries where courts impose Islamic sharia law corporal punishment, including amputations of hands and feet for robbery, and flogging for crimes such as ‘sexual deviance’ aka ‘homosexuality’ and drunkenness. In court the testimony of a woman is not regarded as fact but as presumption. The reasons women are forbidden to testify in proceedings are

Women are much more emotional than men and will, as a result of their emotions, distort their testimony.
Women do not participate in public life, so they will not be capable of understanding what they observe.
Women are dominated completely by men, who by the grace of God are deemed superior; therefore, women will give testimony according to what the last man told them.
Women are forgetful, and their testimony cannot be considered reliable.

As a result of these laws women are vulnerable in cases of assault and/or rape.

Saudi Arabia imposes severe restrictions on women, including barring them from voting.  Women are not banned from employment, however they are not allowed to work in a mixed sex workplace.  The permission for a woman to go out of her house for work, is subject to these conditions:

1.      The work should be in a place that is only for women, and there should be no interaction with non-mahram men, such as if she works in teaching girls, whether in administration or technical support.

2.      The work should be suited to the woman's body physique and mentality.

3.      It should not lead to her neglecting her household duties.

4.      Her work should not lead to her travelling without a close male relative.

5.      Women are allowed to work with their husbands' permission

In Saudi culture, there are severe restrictions upon a woman's freedom of movement. Most scholars and religious authorities have declared it haram (forbidden) for women to drive cars. The reasons women are forbidden to drive are: -

Driving a car involves uncovering the face which is considered obligatory for women to cover in Saudi.
Driving a car may lead women to have interaction with non-mahram males, i.e., they can be stopped by policemen at the scenes of traffic infractions.
Women driving cars may lead to overcrowding the streets and young men may be deprived of the opportunity to drive.

Saudi Arabia is one of the few countries in the 2008 Olympics without a female delegation - women's sports are banned.

There are some people who want to import sharia law to this country like the group Islam4UK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6334091/Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-Britain-claim.html
this is a link to a web site detailing some barbaric sharia law incidents http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_adul1.htm

Another drawback to multiculturalism is the rise of radical militant Islam in this country which come to a head on  7 July 2005 London bombings with a series of coordinated suicide attacks on London's public transport system during the morning rush hour. The bombings were carried out by three Muslim Pakistani British men and one British citizen of Jamaican descent who had converted to Islam.
I never have and never will support the BNP but I believe I have set out some of the the reasons for their success.  What do you think?