Sunday, 1 July 2018
On 1 July 1916, in addition to the wounded, 19,240 British soldiers were killed. They achieved nothing. Only the French achieved their objectives in the southern sector of the Somme. And in contrast with the British experience, French women weren't engaged in a bitter power struggle with the men. These days we have an arsenal of weapons to protect the UK. From what? "Johnny Foreigner", though that's a term I've only heard used (contemptuously) by the Left. But Johnny Foreigner takes advantage of ineffective border controls to occupy these islands. So why have weapons and armed forces? Johnny Foreigner uses marriage to live here. Mrs Thatcher promised to close this loophole back in 1979, but didn't. The contrast between British servicemen risking their lives while foreign men occupy the UK was starkly revealed on 12 May 1982 when the European Commission of Human Rights determined in favour of three women whose husbands weren't allowed to live in the UK. The Falklands Conflict was at its height; and those three women weren't even British. They had British residency, which meant they could live in their own countries (Malawi, Egypt, The Philippines) and the UK, and - if their husbands were of different nationality - their husband's country. So, with a possibility they could live in three different countries, what gave those women the "right" to complain? And surely the European Commission of Human Rights was wrong to support them. Meanwhile 255 British servicemen were killed on and near the Falklands, and a similar number, we are told, subsequently committed suicide. Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says "Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law." (!) So, no armed forces, then? A present-day recruitment ad. for the Royal Navy shows it helping ferry Africans across the Mediterranean. If Johnny Foreigner was returned to Africa that would be all well and good. But he isn't. Bringing him to Europe makes a nonsense of having armed forces.
Monday, 19 March 2018
This headline was used for the following article I had published in my then local newspaper on 20 August 1987: "I set out for Asia in 1959, but everywhere I went I was not allowed to work. After living like a tramp - not eating, always saving my money for fares - I finally returned to the UK in 1962 when, under Labour pressure, the Commonwealth Immigration Act was deliberately delayed to enable people who wanted to come to live and work in the UK to do so. If I had been able to work in Asia through marriage, my whole life would have been different. Also, one reason I got married in 1966 was because foreign and Commonwealth men use this as a means to occupy the UK. I am now divorced. It was not until 1969 that the UK closed this loophole. But in 1974 Roy Jenkins, under feminist pressure, reopened it. 1975 was International Women's Year. So I asked of the UN that some future year be designated International Men's Year. I was informed that such a request could only come from a government. My request of the British Government was met with the response that there is no popular demand for one. In 1977 I knew that people who were not allowed to live and work in the UK were appealing to the European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and sometimes winning. So I complained to the ECHR that foreign and Commonwealth men can live and work in the UK through marriage even though I cannot live and work in their countries through marriage. The ECHR's response was that it could only investigate a complaint by someone who was a victim of a decision by a public body. So I put my complaint to the Equal Opportunities Commission, which was hen campaigning against Conservative Party policy to end this 'concession'. The EOC's response was that my complaint was outside its ambit. I then complained to the ECHR about the EOC failing to support my complaint. I was informed I should challenge the EOC in the UK courts. To this end I sought legal aid but, though I qualified on financial grounds, I was not given a legal aid certificate. In May 1982 the ECHR determined that complaints by the three women whose husbands were not allowed to live and work in the UK were admissible. So while British men were dying on and around the Falklands, foreign lawyers were determining that foreign people have rights to occupy British sovereign territory. Not only is that the last thing the ECHR should do, but it acted against its own rules. Article 26 of the Convention had not been complied with; not all domestic remedies had been exhausted, because it was not until July 7 1983 that the House of Lords determined that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 does not apply to immigration control. This was in the case of Regina vs Entry Clearance Officer, Bombay, Ex parte Amin. If Mrs A, B and C are happily married then they have no real grievance. They can live with their husbands in their own countries. But in addition to not being happily married, or wanting children, or living elsewhere, I have the grievance that native British men have no rights to prevent immigration. And they might as well not have the Parliamentary vote. When Mrs Thatcher was elected in 1979 she emphasised that she would honour all her promises. Imagine my surprise when it was announced on October 29 1979 that she had given up on this issue. When the Minister, Timothy Raison, was asked by Douglas Stewart on Radio Four why foreign men would still be allowed to live in the UK through marriage while we cannot do that, he said it was because of the fuss. It is a similar situation to the First World War. While British men are in conflict with other men, some British women with male supporters are in conflict with British men. The EOC has its origin in the Queen's 1967 Christmas message. The very last thing the Queen should do is support one section of the community against the other."
Tuesday, 6 February 2018
Not all men had the Parliamentary vote when Britain went to war in 1914. Politicians didn't want to take all the blame for the War. Hence the 1917 Representation of the People Bill. Which extended the franchise to women as well as working men. And which came into force on 6 February 1918. The deaths of so many young men made it obvious that many young women wouldn't be able to marry. This was a major reason why Prime Minister Lloyd George changed his mind about women having the vote. Patricia Hewitt, before becoming Tony Blair's Equality Minister, rightly predicted that her - and others - campaign to defeat Mrs Thatcher's 1979 policy to stop foreign men using marriage to live in the UK would be successful, just as women's struggle to win the vote was successful. Thus the appalling First World War, fought by Britain to preserve the British Empire, has resulted in foreign and Commonwealth men being allowed to occupy the UK by finding someone to marry. Which is a major reason for the UK having more young men than young women, for the past many decades. That is ironic, and has obvious unhappy consequences. Today's centenary is being celebrated in the Houses of Parliament. But 6 February is a day of mourning. In 1952 King George VI died. His daughter sparked modern feminism with her Christmas Day Message in 1967. Please see this blog "How we got here" on 17 April 2016.
Tuesday, 10 October 2017
Discrimination will have nowhere to hide, says Mrs May (BBC Radio 4 "Today") about her "ethnicity audit" (as though public money couldn't be better spent!) This is a smokescreen to hide the two BIG inequalities she's responsible for: (1) Allowing the UK to be occupied by other peoples; (2) Allowing those same people to deprive (because of "equality" laws) Britons of work, housing, etc. It should be possible to use the laws that govern the Equality and Human Rights Commission (more public money!) to prosecute the Prime Minister. But the system discriminates - unfairly. In 1980 I had legal aid for my divorce, so I applied for legal aid to bring a case against Mrs. Thatcher - but the Law Society refused it. Good luck to anyone who tries to bring a case against Mrs. May. "Lock 'er up!" (For the dual meaning in English of "discrimination" please see "Language Traduces Thought".)
Tuesday, 18 April 2017
Much is said about:- Democracy: The people who campaigned successfully against Mrs. Thatcher's 1979 election manifesto policy to stop foreign men using marriage to live in the UK clearly didn't give a fig about democracy (unless it suits them); Human Rights: "Rights" is a device that gives a law, or required law, imperative. The European Convention on Human Rights was drawn up in response to the atrocities suffered by Jews and others during the Second World War. It has been used to enable people from outside Europe to take up permanent residence inside Europe. That is surely the very opposite of what was intended. There is nothing in the Convention about immigration control, but lawyers argue that an Article "can be interpreted to mean...." The word "interpreted" is usually used to render meaning from one language to another, but in this case it is the same language! I believe my 1977 Complaint about foreign men being able to live & work in the UK through marriage, while I & other British men can't live in their countries, was exactly the kind of Complaint the European Commission of Human Rights was intended to investigate - but it didn't. The Rule of Law: This is the third pillar on which the European Union is based. Not only are people illegally in the UK not deported (about a million), but people work, with public money, specifically to prevent them being deported. In the 1970s the Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, had amnesties for illegals, and he also refrained from deporting illegals "so as not to harm community relations". The same reason was given for not investigating the death of pensioner Albert White who was killed while on a National Front march; Equality: It is clearly unequal that foreign men can live in the UK through marriage if British men cannot live in their countries through marriage, and that people in a transnational marriage (outside the EU) have the privilege of being able to live in two countries while other people cannot. It is also clearly unequal that "equality" laws entitle foreign and Commonwealth people to deprive Britons of work and promotion if they marry a British citizen or British resident; Discrimination: This word has two meanings in English. One is good - judgement. The other is bad - unfairness. There should be more discrimination, not less. More judgement would reveal that what is said to be unfair isn't really unfair. Please see this blog "Cultural and Linguistic Relativism", 24 November 2010. Don't knock discrimination. We would almost none of us be here without it; Liberal: "Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle". That graffito in London's Covent Garden sums up well those who campaigned against Mrs Thatcher's 1979 policy to stop foreign men using marriage to live in the UK; Prejudice: This implies pre-judging; not giving a fair hearing. My only time in court was about my not being able to live in Hong Kong (or anywhere else in Asia). The judge gave me no opportunity to state my case. He was truly prejudiced. Nothing is more important than the occupation of territory ... so he dismissed my case as "frivolous". Please see this blog "Sauce for the Gander" in 2013; Tolerance: "Arsonists hit Le Pen's party HQ and say more attacks will follow" (London Evening Standard, 13 April 2017, page 24). The Left can be peculiarly intolerant; Treatment: How the British treat each other, that is the question. Since 1965 foreigners are entitled by law to deprive Britons of work and promotion. (The Race Relations Act says "nationality".) Since 1975 women are entitled to deprive men of work and promotion. And the Sex Discrimination Act was used to enable foreign men to live and work in the UK (through marriage), even though the Act does not apply to immigration! Misogyny: This word is used to portray men who don't like feminism as anti-female, while the truth is it's just the feminists they don't like - not the same thing at all; Xenophobia: This word is used to criticise people for not liking foreigners, while the truth is those people don't dislike foreigners who stay in their own country or are visiting; Migrant: This should mean someone who legitimately expects to spend his life away from his native place. Applying it to people who may have to return to their own country gives them a legitimacy they don't deserve. It is also misleading to apply it to people who can stay permanently (e.g. EU citizens, transnational marriages) but don't intend to. British Values: Please see this blog of 7 January 2017 "Much is made of British Values - they need to be looked at". Slavery: Euripedes said in the 5th c. B.C that the only thing wrong with slavery was the word "slavery" (farmers whose crops failed sold themselves into slavery). Not much is said about:- Ramifications: Rights Require Responsibility. Enabling foreign men to live in the UK through marriage results in a surplus of young men. Which results in some men marrying when they don't really want to. Which results in untold conflict and misery.... ("The Times" had a Leader on this theme c. 1978.) 5 November 2017: Never mind Brexit or immigration, the scandal that pervades Parliament now is middle-aged male MPs being attracted to younger female staff. What is said to make this so appalling is the abuse of power. While I firmly believe that this is (partly) a result of abuse of power by those (feminists) who prevented Mrs Thatcher keeping her 1979 election manifesto promise to stop foreign men using marriage to live in the UK. This has resulted in at least 300,000 men living in these islands. "The Abuse of Power" was the title of a 1982 book by Patricia Hewitt, who, before becoming Tony Blair's Equality Minister, was a protagonist in the campaign to defeat Mrs. Thatcher's 1979 policy to stop foreign men using marriage to live in the UK. Hewitt had power. And the effect of her abuse of it is still with us today. Everywhere. Even in Parliament.
Wednesday, 22 February 2017
The Supreme Court today ruled the financial requirement (£18,600 income) for people wanting to live in the UK through marriage is not unlawful. But they watered it down by saying that children's welfare should be taken into account. The requirement has its roots in the European Court of Human Rights' finding in favour of three women whose husbands weren't allowed to live in the UK. The Government's response was to make it harder for foreign wives to live here. ("The Times", 29 May 1985, page 1.) Yes, that's right! Foreign wives now separated from their husbands owe their predicament to those people who successfully campaigned against Mrs. Thatcher's election manifesto promise to stop foreign men using marriage to live in the UK. Another result of Mrs. T.'s Government not keeping its promise is that at least 300,000 men are now living in these islands. I believe the Courts could have been employed to ensure the democratic promise was kept. After all, British women can live in their husband's country. But the Law Society refused me legal aid (I qualified on financial grounds). Immigration laws keep changing, and judges meddle endlessly. However, there is a serious imbalance: they only weigh-in on one side in immigration cases, never on the side of Britons who want to prevent further immigration.
Tuesday, 31 January 2017
Edmund Burke, Irish MP for Bristol, was famous for writing a criticism of the French Revolution which inspired Thomas Paine to write "The Rights of Man". (We now say "human rights" because of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt.) Burke established the principle that an MP is a free agent. This enables him to cross the floor of the House, even contrary to the wishes of his constituents. Today this principle is particularly pertinent because MPs are debating Brexit. Many MPs voted Remain in the Referendum on the European Union on 23 June 2016, while a majority of their constituents voted Leave. This is a conundrum big time! Burke also came up with the saying "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Enoch Powell MP called immigration to the UK "a preventable evil"....