Free Speech Matters

Last Saturday, a week ago today, 3 men were killed (and 3 others badly injured) by a Libyan with refugee status in Reading's Forbury Park. This was just after a Black Lives Matter demo had taken place in the Park... The next day a football match was held between Manchester City and Burnley. The players "took the knee" in support of the Black Lives Matter movement - insultingly overlooking the Reading tragedies as if they had never happened. And then a small plane flew overhead trailing the banner "White Lives Matter Burnley". The chap who did this got the sack from his job. ... This was illegal, because Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights says "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression."..... Article 3 of the Convention says "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." So, back on 10 June 1977, citing Art. 3, I complained to the European Commission of Human Rights that the British Government allows foreign and Commonwealth men to live in the UK through marriage even though I (and other British men) often can't live in their countries through marriage. My complaint was rejected on the grounds that I hadn't been subject to a decision that applied to me personnally..... The chap responsible for flying that banner over Manchester was subject to a decision that applied to him personnally.... I rest my case.

A Patriotic Task for Goalkeepers

Footballers campaign against racism. They're now all wearing "Black Lives Matter" on the back of their shirts. The worst racism is having porous borders. Which must ineluctably lead to the end of the British race. Except that there's no such thing as the British race. Border controls relate to people with other nationalities. So wanting strict (but fair) border controls is Nationalism. Or, since it is defensive, it can be described as Patriotism. So why don't footballers campaign against Britain's porous borders?

Cash, Crash... and Change

Britain's economy has crashed, but that doesn't stop workers in the Equality and Diversity industry being paid for by the British taxpayer. So if we're all going down at least we all go down equally. Except that it's not equal. Because the taxpayer also funds legal aid in immigration cases. So we pay for the loss of territory, money, and jobs, and so for more "Equality" workers and immigration lawyers, etc..... It's widely said - in response to the Black Lives Matter movement - Britain needs to change. It most surely does. Foreign women are entitled, because of "equality" laws, to deprive British men of work and promotion both because they're foreign and women..... It's hard to imagine there's another country in this whole, wide world that, in addition to having "equality" laws that state everyone must be treated equally, has "positive action", that legally entitles native British men to be put last on a recruitment list.

Lord Peter Hain

Lord Peter Hain says (BBC Radio 4, 30 May) he is "anti-racism and supports gender equality and gay marriage". In which case he should oppose foreign men being able to use marriage to live in the UK. Because British men often can't live in their countries through marriage, and even if they could, these countries don't have "equality" laws enabling British men to deprive citizens of work, promotion, etc. And same-sex marriages that involve foreigners (from outside the EU) result in even more foreigners exploiting these inequalities - occupation of territory, work, etc...... Lord Hain, being an African and who therefore sees Britain as an outsider or foreigner does, is doubtless well aware of these injustices. You would think he would be more concerned with the Chinese takeover of Africa than with exacerbating the status of native British men. (Though for all I know he does oppose foreign men using marriage to live in the UK.)

35 Years of Wrong "Rights"

Some Leavers voted for the UK to leave the European Union in the 2016 Referendum because they don't like human rights interventions in immigration cases. But European human rights are nothing to do with the EU. They are the province of the Council of Europe, set up in Strasbourg in 1951 in response to Second World War atrocities. Therefore the last thing human rights should do is to enable minorities to establish themselves in Europe..... In 1977 I knew that the European Convention on Human Rights would be used to challenge Mrs Thatcher's intended policy to stop foreign men using marriage to live in the UK. So on 10 June 1977 I complained to the European Commission of Human Rights that the British Government allows foreign men to live in the UK through marriage even though I (and other British men) cannot live in their countries through marriage.... This, surely, is what human rights were meant to prevent. I cited Article 3 of the Convention: "cruel and inhuman treatment". But the Commission rejected my complaint on the grounds I hadn't been subject to a decision by a Government body. So I complained to the Equal Opportunities Commission, which I knew was campaigning against Conservative Party policy to end this concession. Its response was that my complaint was outside its ambit. So I complained to the European Commission about the EOC. Its response (eventually) was that I should challenge the EOC in the UK courts. To this end I applied for legal aid for which I was financially eligible. But the Law Society rejected my request.... 35 years ago today the European Court of Human Rights determined in favour of 3 (non-British) women whose husbands weren't allowed to live in the UK. This was the final nail in the coffin of Mrs Thatcher's 1979 election manifesto promise. The British Government's response was to make it harder for foreign wives to live in the UK. ("The Times" 29 May 1985, page 1.) Which is a cause of much hardship, as described in this blog of 22 February 2017.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it must be a wife

Lawyers are deeply involved in immigration, often at public expense. Muslims can bring 4 "wives" to live in the UK. So it's about time lawyers prosecuted the Home Secretary and/or Prime Minister for allowing bigamists to live here..... Doubtless the 4 wives Muslims are allowed to bring to the UK aren't called "wives" for the purpose of conforming to British law. Because bigamy is illegal. But if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it must be a wife.

The Rule of Law

It's normal to think people who enter a country illegally are breaking the law. But they're not if the intention is to claim asylum. People in Northern France scheming to cross the English Channel to England and who haven't claimed asylum in France are breaking the law by being in France. The Rule of Law is one of the pillars of the European Union. So they should be deported. But they aren't, which enables them to cross the Channel legally...... Asylum seekers are entitled to 3 appeals. That's 4 cracks of the whip! It's like having a referendum, not liking the result, and having 3 more. If native Brits don't like the first decision they don't have any appeals to contest it. Justice requires balance. And that's a serious imbalance..... There's a huge backlog of immigration cases. Allowing appeals takes time, and time enables newcomers to form friendships, put down roots, and devise a means of disappearing underground if the last appeal fails. This situation is a failure of governance, incompetence and a dereliction of duty for failing to protect our borders. It has also been going on a long time.