Hellbent

There's a surge of illegal aliens coming to Britain caused by Brexit. (BBC News, 27 Nov.) That Britain leaving the European Union might result in an increase of immigration, instead of the decrease that was intended, was predicted at this blog on 10 June 2016. Illegal aliens who cross the English Channel are entitled to claim asylum in the UK. But since they could have, but didn't, claim asylum in France they are clearly not genuine refugees and their claims should be instantly rejected. They should be promptly deported, before they can establish relationships. That is what other countries (e.g., Japan) do. But instead Britain allows them several appeals. Once the last appeal fails they can then easily vanish into society, as described in "Welcome to the Asylum", published by Centre for Policy Studies way back in 2001. The person responsible for immigration since 2010 is now Prime Minister. (!) Mrs May could have and should have, but didn't, reform the system. (Reportedly, she reduced the number of appeals from 17 (!) to 4.) Mrs May is now hellbent on touring the country to encourage people to approve of her Brexit deal which even her own supporters don't like. Immigration caused this Brexit fiasco. Britain's Parliament is now sadly regarded as the "Madhouse by the Thames" - headline in a German newspaper - a singularly appropriate nomenclature for the domain of those running the asylum.

Roots

BBC Radio 4 "The Moral Maze" discussed (25 July 2018) promoting diversity and "positive action". It was said of the BBC "It doesn't get the money if it doesn't have the mix." The heated debate ignored immigration. That's strange because immigration is at the root of this. The Race Relations Act includes the word "nationality". This means foreigners are entitled to deprive native Brits of work and promotion. Other countries would regard treating its own citizens in this way as barmy. Since we in Britain have passively acquiesced to being second-class citizens in our own country for so long it is hardly surprising the Government has taken it a step further by legitimising "positive action" which gives preference to everyone over native British men.

Is there any point in having Armed Forces?

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. In 1914 and 1939 Britain declared war on Germany. On both occasions the Germans didn't want it. German diplomats tried to prevent it. Britain killed thousands of Germans. We regard our "killers" as heroes. Rightly so, in my opinion, because they were doing their duty. War is described as politics by other means; immigration control can be said to be war by peaceful means. Immigration control is genuinely about preventing these islands being occupied by other peoples, while, as pointed out above, in 1914 and 1939 the Germans didn't want to occupy the UK. These days we have a formidable arsenal of weapons. The occupation of other people's territory is mainly driven by men. And the obvious main loophole open to foreigners who want to get around the usual visa constraints is marriage. Mrs Thatcher promised to close this loophole when she was first elected Prime Minister back in 1979, but she 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, since the European Convention on Human Rights was set up in response to the atrocious treatment of minorities during the Second World War, the European Commission of Human Rights was wrong to support them to live in the UK. 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 they were returned to Africa that would be all well and good. But they aren't. Bringing them to Europe, where they are welcomed by an army of lawyers, makes a nonsense of having armed forces. When conscription ended in the early 1960s it seemed good for young British men, but an unforeseen outcome is that young foreign men see Britain as a desirable destination in which to live in order to avoid conscription in their own countries. While they are doing that, young patriotic British men join our armed forces... This is a lunatic scenario which supposedly protects our shores. Amend (or just end) asylum laws! Patricia Hewitt, Tony Blair's Equality Minister, campaigned successfully against Mrs Thatcher's 1979 policy. In her 1982 book "The Abuse of Power" she compared it with women's struggle for the vote. This was called a war. Therefore the roughly 400,000 foreign men who have used marriage to live in these islands since 1979 are here as a result of a war.

"Is there any point in being English?"

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."

A Right Royal Appalling Irony

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.