Beyond Belief

On the BBC World Services' UK Politics Today programme this morning migration to the UK was discussed by Labour MP Ann Cryer and Conservative MP Mr. Mercer. The former said that 80% of marriages in part of her Keighley constituency was transcontinental, and that in three primary schools (another on stream) 95% of the pupils didn't speak English. She complained about it, but she made no suggestion whatsoever as to what should be done. She could have suggested that the government change the law along the lines of Conservative policy at the time of the 1979 General Election. In which case, those young men who come from Pakistan and Bangladesh to live in her constituency would remain in their own countries.

The Conservatives' policy of 1979 was defeated by the notion of "equality". But even if Englishmen could live in Pakistan and Bangladesh through marriage it would have nothing like the same demographic effect on those countries as does allowing their young men to take up permanent residence in England. Like is not being compared with like.

It's no wonder Bangladeshi men want to come here. If they apply to the Grameen Bank for a loan they won't get one. It lends to women only. If it had been for men only Dr. Yunus would not have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2006.

Nevertheless, Bangladesh rates higher on the Happy Planet Index than the United Kingdom.
Mr. Mercer said there was no unemployment in his Newark constituency, because immigrants were busy building houses for themselves to live in. At least he didn't pretend that it was beneficial to the UK.
A few hours later, BBC Radio 4's Sunday Worship (from Aberystwyth) thanked God for the stability that prevails in Britain.

Discrimination = Good

William Whitelaw, Mrs. Thatcher's first Home Secretary, stated on 7 April 1978 (Conservative Central Office, 487/78): "All countries are entitled as a mark of their national sovereignty to have their own nationality and immigration laws...

"... [I]n 1969, Mr. Callaghan concluded that marriage was being abused by many young men of working age as a means of entering, working and settling in this country. His words were true then and I believe they are as true today...."

The Conservatives duly promised at the time of the 1979 General Election to "end the concession introduced by the Labour government in 1974 to husbands and male fiances."

The Equal Opportunities Commission vigorously opposed this measure, and its 1978 Policy Statement concludes: "Although nationality law is excluded from the provisions of the Act, the Commission, in order to fufil its statutory duty, must draw to the attention of the government and the public those areas in which discrimination on grounds of sex are prevalent and make recommendations."

It is fair to discriminate. A judge who couldn't discriminate right from wrong or good from bad wouldn't (or shouldn't) be a judge.

In campaigning to enable foreign and Commonwealth men to occupy the UK through marriage the EOC promoted inequality, because:

1. Native British men often cannot live and work abroad through marriage.

2. The UK's "equality" laws entitle foreign men to deprive native British men of work and promotion. (Even though their countries don't have such laws.)

3. The unequal ratio of the sexes of young people (more young men than young women) is exacerbated.

4. Overcrowding is exacerbated. (England is reputedly the most crowded country in the world.)

5. People in multi-national marriages have a choice of countries to live in. This is a great advantage if there is a natural disaster, war, etc.

6. While foreign men are taking advantage of this loophole, British servicemen are dying (and being wounded) in Iraq and Afghanistan (and anywhere else they may be sent).

7. Foreigners like it here or they wouldn't be here. By contrast, many Englishmen (besides myself) have much unhappiness because of this self-inflicted (more accurately, enforced) situation. Few inequalities are worse than that.

8. Native British men do not have the same access to British law as do other people. (My request for legal aid concerning this issue was turned down by the Law Society on 31 January 1979, ref: LW1(G)/14/1/78/12966 Z - though it was not denied to other people.) Nor do Britons have any "rights" regarding immigration to the UK.

On 28 May 1985 the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled in the case of Mrs. Abdulaziz, Mrs. Balkandali and Mrs. Cabales that not allowing their husbands to live and work in the UK amounted to sex discrimination.

Inasmuch as sex discrimination is natural (we'd none of us be here without it) it is good.

Shocking

BBC Radio 4 News reported 23 October that the United Kingdom's population is predicted to increase by 5 million over the next 10 years, and this was described as "shocking" by the Conservatives.

It is the Conservatives who are "shocking". Because in 1979 (under Mrs. Thatcher) the Conservatives did not honour their election promise to end the concession whereby foreign men can live in the UK through marriage. The figure at the time was about 10,000 men a year taking advantage of this immigration loophole. If each of those 10,000 men/year has 2 children, then, if the Conservatives had honoured their pledge, that would mean that these days about 1 million people would now be living somewhere other than the UK.

It is problematic whether the UK exists in 10 years (bearing in mind the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn in 2014). England (the land of the English) will seem misnamed.