Ever Been Had?!

A quarter of a million people are in Libya waiting to come to Europe. 10,000 have been picked up by warships and coastguard vessels in the past 3 days and taken to Italy. But we're told the purpose of these ships is to defeat the people traffickers! Instead, they are doing their work for them! And, of course, this encourages others who want to come to Europe to head for Libyan ports. Col. Gaddafi had an arrangement with the Italians to take back illegals. Britain and France helped depose Gaddafi and kill him. People traffickers provide a service. Just as immigration lawyers do. Politicians denounce the traffickers. So why don't they denounce the lawyers? Unlike people traffickers, immigration advisory services are directly funded by the poor British taxpayer! While traffickers are ... well, in part, they're indirectly funded by the poor British taxpayer (who funds the Royal Navy).

France, home to the Sorbonne & rational thought

Britain's new Home Secretary Amber Rudd is in Paris tomorrow to discuss the jungle at Calais where 9,000 people, almost all young men, are trying to enter England illegally. If they succeed, they are never sent back to France. If, on arrival, they were immediately deported the jungle would soon close. Every year 30,000 people are refused entry to the UK. (Chris Huhne's 2010 figure.) My Japanese girl friend and I were sent back to France on 12 August 1979. Please see this blog's "Inhuman Wrongs" in 2008. If the people at Calais were granted asylum in France they would then be able to buy a ticket and come to the UK. Anyway, what's wrong with France? England's King Henry V liked it so much he wanted all of it (according to Shakespeare).

What we need is Will

Nothing is more important than the occupation of territory. But a judge dismissed my case about not being able to live in Hong Kong as "frivolous", and he didn't give me the chance to refute it. Please see "Sauce for the Gander" in 2013, my Comments at the end. And the European Commission of Human Rights dismissed my 1977 complaint about foreign men being able to live in the UK through marriage even though I (and other British men) often cannot live in their countries through marriage. The reason given was that I hadn't been the victim of a decision by a Government body. Today (BBC Radio 4 "World at One") we are told that a foreign criminal used the European Convention on Human Rights to prevent his deportation from the UK because he has a girl friend here; another was also prevented from being deported because he once had a cat. (!) The legal expert said that the Prime Minister, who had 6 years of experience as Home Secretary, could see no way to prevent such rulings in the future. As Shakespeare said, Where there's a Will there's a Way.

Corollary (a challenging word for Japanese to say)

One reason Prime Minister Lloyd George changed his mind in 1917 about extending the parliamentary vote to women was that because of the slaughter taking place among young men it would be impossible for many young British women to get married. That is no longer the case. What it would have been impossible for him or anyone else to imagine is that empowering women has brought about a surplus of young men in the UK. But that is what has happened. This is because of the successful feminist campaign to defeat the Conservatives' 1979 election manifesto policy to stop foreign men using marriage to live in the UK. The corollary of "rights" is responsibilities. I am grateful to the many women who have expressed support for my epetition at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/129594

An Abnormal British Muddle (incl. lavatory humour)

The Council of Europe (home to European human rights) stated in its literature that the international community has long-recognised the privileged position of women in transnational (non-EU) marriages. This is because they can live in their husband's country as well as their own. Patricia Hewitt, long before becoming Tony Blair's Equality Minister, wrote that just as women had won the struggle for the parliamentary vote so they would defeat the Conservatives' 1979 election manifesto policy to stop foreign men using marriage to live in the UK. The comparison is just, though the result isn't. An energetic and determined campaign led to Mrs. Thatcher's Government not keeping its promise. Instead a policy was adopted of making it harder for foreign wives to live in the UK ("The Times", 29 May 1985, page 1.) For example, an income of at least £18,600 a year is required; and if the wife lives abroad for a certain time she loses her "Indefinite Leave to Remain". This latter is a disincentive to leave the UK, bearing in mind that if the husband dies she can only be in the UK as a tourist even if her only home is here. While it is normal for a woman to live in her husband's country, the UK is abnormal in preventing them from doing so. The UK is also abnormal in that, because of "equality" laws, foreign wives are entitled to deprive British men of work and promotion both because they are foreign and female. It would make more sense if foreign wives who leave their husbands lost their "Indefinite Leave to Remain" status. But to do that requires ID cards. And Britain's experiment with ID cards was that they should be voluntary (!) not compulsory. No wonder David Cameron abandoned the scheme. Besides, if children are involved the wives can shelter behind them. In c.1970 I knew an Englishman with a Japanese wife. They were not speaking to each other. And were in a battle for the house. She had just had a baby. I don't know the outcome. But it can be imagined. The introduction of the Commonwealth Immigration Act was deliberately delayed till June 1962 to enable as many people who wanted to to come here. The result was a rush of young men. In November 1962 the Japanese were no longer required to have visas to come to the UK. I thought: Britain is going in two different directions at once; making it harder for Commonwealth citizens to come here and making it easier for the Japanese. In 1967 I lobbied my Conservative MP about immigration. "But they fought for us during the war," he said with a smile. "Times have changed since then." He became hostile. A few years later he was made a lord. In 1975 on Radio 4s "Any Questions?" the first question was "This being International Women's Year what would the panel like to see?" The Presenter turned first to Germaine Greer. After much thought she replied: "I'd like to see a man clean the lavatory." (Much laughter ensued.) Greer, like Hewitt, is Australian. The novelist Mrs. Humphry Ward, also Australian, wrote in a Letter to "The Times", 23 May 1917, that it was an outrage that a rump Parliament extend the vote to women at such a time. 1975 was the year of the Sex Discrimination Act which governed the Equal Opportunities Commission. The EOC was a major campaigner in the struggle against the Conservatives' 1979 policy to stop foreign men living in the UK through marriage. But on 7 July 1983 the House of Lords determined the SDA did not apply to immigration control. Therefore the EOC spent public money illegally. Please see "How we got here" in this blog on 17 April 2016. Thanks!

History Matters

Nostrodamus was famous for correctly predicting that King Henry II of France would be killed in a tournament in 1559. The royal sons were children, so rule went to Queen Catherine de Medici and her councillors. The Queen had brought from Italy sidesaddle riding and underwear (to cover her legs). Protestants in France were a minority but had a capable military commander, Coligny. In 1572 Coligny was invited to Paris for the wedding of the Queen's daughter. Catherine was afraid that Coligny wanted to join Protestants in the Netherlands in their fight with Spain, and that this would bring France into war with Spain. She decided Coligny had to be assassinated. As the assassin fired Coligny's shoe buckle broke. He was only wounded. It took a fight to kill him. The Paris mob went on the rampage killing Protestants. It was 24 August - the St. Bartholomew Day's massacre.

Monstrous Misuse of Language

Scotland, Northern Ireland and the UK all have female leaders. Men who think it more natural that men should lead are called misogynists. This is a wilful misuse of language. Because its purpose is to convey the impression that such men dislike women. Disliking feminists is not the same as disliking women. Quite the contrary. When John Knox referred to the monstrous "regiment" of women he was similarly referring to the rule of 3: Mary, Queen of Scots; Elizabeth Tudor; and Catherine de Medici.

Equality

The Women and Equalities Committee of MPs says (BBC Radio 4 News) that Moslem women are the most disadvantaged people in Britain. Their situation compares favourably with native British men who not only see their country occupied by other peoples but are the target of equality laws. If it were not for this perceived unfairness Jo Cox MP would still be alive. I have found foreigners to be sympathetic but the native British call each other bigots - notoriously the Prime Minister in 2010 used the word to describe a woman who expressed concern about immigration. Yesterday I received a tweet calling me an "old bigot". I'm not so much as the judge who asked me in court "Why are you bringing this case?... Is it because you're black?" Please see "Sauce for the Gander" in 2013, my Comments at the end. When Ghandi was asked what he thought of Western civilisation he replied it would be a good idea. So would equality.