Wednesday, September 05, 2012

New Britain’s Undesirables

In a recent post, Green Infidel described some of the signs of the accelerating destruction of Great Britain under the stewardship of Prime Minister David Cameron and the Coalition government.

Some excerpts are below.

Ummah Jack

New Britain’s Undesirables

A long time ago, back in 1997, a new Labour government came to power, bearing a slogan: “New Labour — New Britain“. Its leader, Tony Blair, promised a new “Cool Britannia”. Later, Blair vowed to “defeat” the “forces of conservatism”. The fifteen years since his election have taken the country on a long journey through rampant, deliberate and unprecedented levels of immigration, empowerment of Islamist groups, reducing the BBC to a propaganda station and a gradual battle with the country’s own people and culture. And now, in the last few weeks, five stories emerge to illustrate the desirables, and undesirables, of this New Britain.

First, the undesirables — who are unwelcome in the New Britain:

1. John Tulloch: A July 7 2005 bombing victim, born to British parents, lecturing at a London university college — and facing deportation from Britain.

His “crime” — being born in India, while it was still a colony. By a decades-old legal quirk, it meant he was ineligible for UK citizenship. So he was forced to hand back the passport he had “wrongly” received, and now faces possible deportation. Below is John Tulloch just after the 2005 terror attacks: (image from the Daily Mail website):

As a comment below the article shows, he’s not the only one to face such an experience:

“I’m in a similar boat. We can’t settle in the UK, where I was born 70 years ago, because my wife’s a Kiwi and would be deported on my death. When she applied for UK citizenship, when we lived there, she was asked, by a Sikh official, if our marriage (at that time of 30 years; now 40, was one of “convenience.” I kid you not.” — protem, Burgundy, France, 3/9/2012 10:23

This implies that the visit to the Sikh official happened in 2002 — long after the “New Britain” revolution started…

Some possible reasons, and ways Mr Tulloch could avoid being deported, are also mentioned in other comments:

“The problem is Mr Tulloch you were prepared to work in the UK, if you were a scrounger you would have a lovelly big and free house in London and never have to work again. Shame on this government.“ — jo-jo was a man, bahrain, 3/9/2012 5:02

“Yet if he had set off the same bomb that injured him he would be welcomed with open arms by the idiots in charge.” — alzie, Cumbria., 3/9/2012 10:28

“WHY IS HE FACING DEPORTATION? “ Easy, I know why. It is because he is actually legitimately British, and as reported, born of British parents serving the country in a British colony, he has devoted his life to the education of others in this country, he also has paid his taxes and has no criminal record, thus he does not qualify to live in the cesspit of the world otherwise known as the UK. Oh, I forgot…. and suffered horrendous injuries and shock whilst going about his lawful business perpetrated by terrorists truly foreign to this country. Yup, obviously he must be the first out of the door so we can harbour and give succour unto illegal benefit scroungers, terrorists and honour bliar’s human rights rubbish. We are trying to leave the cesspit so if he wants to come with us he is more than welcome. — Lara, London UK, 3/9/2012 5:21

Sadly, far-fetched as these comments may sound, they allude to frequent events: wannabe terrorists, criminals and benefit receivers entering as illegal immigrants being given leave to stay — and often receiving British passports in the process. They are almost always never asked to hand them back.

2. Next, 4 UK Christians, fighting for the right to express their faith. 2 of them for wearing small crucifixes.

The government’s lawyers had this to say:

Christians should leave their religious beliefs at home or accept that a personal expression of faith at work, such as wearing a cross, means they might have to resign and get another job, government lawyers have said.”

The official reason for such a statement:

“James Eadie QC, acting for the government, told the European court that the refusal to allow an NHS nurse and a British Airways worker to visibly wear a crucifix at work “did not prevent either of them practicing religion in private”, which would be protected by human rights law.”

Is that really so? Will we now then see the government ban the Muslim Burqa and Hijab from its offices — on account of such a ban “not preventing Muslim women from practicing religion in private”?

To see how such a proposition would sound in reality, let’s make a very slight change the original sentence:

Hindus should leave their religious beliefs at home or accept that a personal expression of faith at work, such as a ‘Bindi’ on the forehead, means they might have to resign and get another job, government lawyers have said.”


Muslims should leave their religious beliefs at home or accept that a personal expression of faith at work, such as wearing a Hijab, means they might have to resign and get another job, government lawyers have said.”

What would be the reaction to such a sentence being uttered by a government lawyer? Accusations of hate? Bigotry? But apparently, it’s perfectly ok to say something similar about Christians…

The lawyer also had this to say:

“Government lawyers also told the Strasbourg court that wearing a cross is not a “generally recognised” act of Christian worship and is not required by scripture.”

For many Christians, wearing a Crucifix is an important part of their faith — and something they have done for most of their lives. Whereas in Islam, many women do not wear the Hijab or Burqa. So who’s to say that the Crucifix “is not a generally recognised act of Christian worship” — but that the Hijab is an act of Muslim worship?! Naturally, the ever-unbiased British justice system is assumed to be the best judge of that!

3. Last but not least, those protesting against the radical Islam which has become so prominent in the New Britain.

They came last week to Walthamstow in London, to protest against the attempted enforcement of Sharia law in the area. The reception by radical Muslim and “anti-racist” groups such as United Against Fascism was predictable. What was new, however, was the type of treatment meted out by the police, meant to be protecting their right to democratic assembly and protest…

Read the rest at Green Infidel.


Anonymous said...

Ladies and gentlemen, what you see before you occurring in Great Britain is what we here in the U.S. will face should the Democrats and their progressive allies(cultural Marxists and outright Communists) gain a stranglehold in our government.

This is not atheism or even secularism but a grotesque form of favoritism and the creation of a superclass of citizen who has more rights than others. The ones who suffer the most are your average native Brit who now feels the bootheel of his own supposed government and the newly minted Muslim and minority superclasses.

Even now, here in the U.S. we see the shape of things to come with Muslims getting preferential political and legal treatment. With most politicians too afraid to speak out or if they do, protest only in the most mild manner possible.

In some respects the conquest of the West is already completed thanks to our legal and political classes who have sold us out. For ideological or monetary reasons.

Cyrus said...

Whilst I would hope the 4 Christians success in their lawsuit, would their defeat not create precedent to counter all the unsightly heathen head gear?

Anonymous said...

A long time ago, back in 1997, ...

To construct the analysis on the veneer of soft British left/right animosity i.e. Conservative v.Labour is a flawed analysis.

Before the nineteen eighties when enquiring of the honesty grafters and veterans which way they had voted they would give you the answer with a wink of cynicism and a forced smile of consensus.

During and after the nineteen eighties the ultraliberalism beast finally manifested as a hybred of left and right a consensus of the political class to destroy a nation of people.

Some veterans of today no longer ken the wink of cynicism or the forced smile of consensus and are now pigging out at the table of ultraliberalism constructing an exclusive welfare system more fitting of a private milita.

How long before the offspring of the robbed-out honesty grafters and that new formed ultraliberal private milita face-off on the streets of Great Britain.

Jolie Rouge

Anonymous said...

Mr. Weston,

Thank you very much for your information at GoV. Without this information people on the continent
in Europe would not know about you nor about EDL and BFP. The MSM do not report about these things.
Very much success with your patriotic leadership which is also of great interest for Western civilization as a whole !


Desiderius said...

Despite the article's name, there's really nothing new about Mr. Tulloch situation that's happening in Britain. Remember, with UK's "enlightened" society, your ethnic and/or national identity can be completely determined by the place of your birth. It is precisely because of the same "if a dog's born in a stable, then it IS a horse" idea, we have seen incalculable Pakistani and other Islamic descended rapists, gangbangers and international terrorists persistently labeled "Britons". And now, the same ethnomasochistic political elites that have been responsible for the ongoing multi-culti enrichment are applying their wisdom upon Mr. Tulloch, a white British man who in their eyes is an Indian, because India had at some point been a geographic location of his birth.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to direct my comment to "Anonymous" who posted the first comment on this topic. You said that what happened in Britain will happen in the USA if the Democrats get their way. Note that the anti-Christian act reported was done under the Conservative government in Britain. Now retired, I have worked in private business and in a government agency. No one ever interfered with my Christian practice working for the government (run by Democrats and liberals) but the private "free-market" corporation (run by conservative Republicans) was un-friendly to Christians while placating Muslims. It's just not so simple as Dems vs Repubs.

Green Infidel said...

@ Jolie Rouge (& "anonymous" others):

Agreed that it's not necessarily a left-right thing. Many radicals like Abu Hamza were in Britain during the 80s, during the Thatcher years. Those were also the years of the Honeyford affair, and the Salman Rushdie book-burnings.

And the Tories were also no angels on immigration-turning a blind eye to employment of illegal immigrants even by some of their own government departments. Nonetheless, was it not Labour who were so focused on hatred for their "ideological enemies" that they wanted to "rub their noses in diversity"? Where I worked in London in the mid-2000s I was dealing with many people who could barely speak a word of English-but who flushed at me their British passport. This was not something as easy to get before the New Labour days. Also the destinations of those immigrants was different: East Anglia, Cheltenham, Peterborough-places that were hardly hotbeds of immigration at that time. Britain was being truly "rubbed in diversity". By people who could barely hide their contempt for British history, achievements or values - but made laws simply out of spite for those on the "other side of the fence" (a good example being the fox-hunting bill.). And by people who no doubt realised a large potential new voter base (most immigrants, especially from Islamic countries, being Labour/left-wing voters)

In conclusion-yes, the Tories were not perfect by any means. And many voted for new Labour honestly believing they would be the best for Britain (a better NHS, railways etc). But it was under new Labour that the immigration flow really became a tsunami. A tsunami brought about deliberately, to destroy British culture and its values, and help defeat new Labour's "enemies".