Pandering to Racism 932

 in Uncategorized by

Here in Ghana people are stunned by the announcement that a bond of £3,000 will have to be submitted by visa applicants to the UK, redeemable on return.

It is unpleasant for a nation to be singled out as comprised of particularly untrustworthy individuals against whom special measures are needed.  Theresa May appears quite deliberately to be singling out countries whose citizens are normally black or brown – India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Ghana and Nigeria.  They are all citizens with extremely close ties to the UK.  For example, all of those countries supplied large numbers of men to British armed forces in two World Wars; with little resulting gratitude.

The true level of Britain’s regard for the Commonwealth is disclosed in all its arrogance; citizenship of the Commonwealth countries with the longest link to the UK will become a positive disadvantage in visa application.  Israeli settlers living in Occupied Palestine on the West Bank, incidentally, will still be allowed to enter the UK without any visa at all, despite membership of neither Commonwealth nor EU.  Paradoxical, isn’t it?

The measure shows the arrogant British disdain for these countries – of which India pre-eminently but also Ghana are fast growing and important trading partners.  Undoubtedly Ghana will retaliate with measures which hurt British businesses; many of my good friends are senior Ghanaian politicians, and they are all furious.  The rhetoric the British employ about transformation from colonial status to a modern partnership of equals is exposed for the tissue of lies it has always been.  This is a straightforward racist measure, aimed at securing the racist vote to the Tories.

Not does it make any sense.  If you are intending to enter the UK under false pretences, and have the intent illegally to settle and start a new life there, then £3,000 is scarcely a deterrent given the substantial economic gains you intend to make over the long period you intend to stay.  It will rather seem a good investment; people will find the money.  The people it will deter are those who never intended to overstay.  The extra cash upfront,  to the businessman for a business trip, for the student coming to study, for the tourist will drive them to go elsewhere, to the UK’s net loss.

More cruelly it will deter decent middle class people from coming to see grandchildren in the holidays, from going to the niece’s wedding,  from going to graduation.  Those things will become the prerogative of the wealthy, those with plenty of cash to spare.

This does nothing to deter illegal immigration.  It merely demonstrates populist racism, demonstrates contempt for some of the UK’s best-disposed friends, and demonstrates that the government thinks the right to travel is only for the rich.  It is contemptible.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

932 thoughts on “Pandering to Racism”

1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 32
  • Bozo crowned with thorns

    and the great thing about Putin, BF, as Russia relinquished superpower status it embraced great-power status, and now Putin might be the world’s leading advocate of humanitarian law among heads of state. Russia has been reading the UN Charter to the USA since the Seventies, and now again they’re on the same page as the victims of US aggression.

    Russia’s criminal as in corrupt, sure, same as USA USA USA. But much of the repression Putin gets attacked for in the NATO bloc press is an unresolved tension about foreign support of rights defenders. On the one hand, freedom of association and information can’t stop at the border. On the other hand, distortion of rights and organized vilification are recognized forms of foreign interference (in A/RES/36/103), and the US government uses them to weaponize foreign NGOs. So the principles on rights defenders take no position on foreign support. Take Pussy Riot’s US support: is it principled affiliation of civil society and the public at large, or state dirty tricks as a pretext for great-power confrontation? It’s a longstanding question: CIA and DIA were up Scharansky’s butt.

  • Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    ” Take Pussy Riot’s US support: is it principled affiliation of civil society and the public at large, or state dirty tricks as a pretext for great-power confrontation?”

    Yes, there was a lot of high-fives in the US over Pussy Riot, and for a lot of the wrong reasons, as you imply.

    Violating the sanctity of the Orthodox church was as bold and ‘in your face’ non-violent resistance as you can get. But I think the religious fervor was a cover for Putin’s embarrassment and THAT was the reason for detention.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    @ Macky (18h47)

    “No, but I did see this piece of other good news;

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23064355”
    ______________

    I’m sure you’ll be pleased to hear that I entirely agree. It is always good when undesirables are kept out of the country, be they illegal immigrants or Zionist hate-mongers.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    @ Macky

    Welcome back, Macky, and thank you for posting on-topic again at 18h13.

    “..is contra the principle of universal human rights and freedoms, which is what we as a country agreed to abide by when we voted for adoption of “The Universal Declaration” at the UN.”

    If what you say is correct then this would indeed be extremely disturbing.

    So disturbing that I’m rather surprised that Craig, who’s no novice in matters of international law, didn’t pick up on this in his introductory post(or subsequently).

    Perhaps it was just an oversight on his part, or perhaps you are more of an expert than he!

    For us non-experts in international law (and indeed for Craig), would you mind just to expand a little bit on this and tell us which provisions of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms would be violated by the government’s proposed measures against over-staying?

    Thank you again, and I look forward to your info.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    @ Jives

    “You know exactly what im talking about”
    ____________

    No, I honestly don’t. Please do set out what you are talking about. Don’t be shy!

    I just thought that everyone would be delighted that vicious paedophiles had got their just desserts. Surely I’m not mistaken? Aren’t you also delighted, personally?

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    @ Jives

    I really think it would be better if you followed Jon’s good words of advice (or warning) and dropped the insults and intemperate language. They do nothing for your image and neither do they add lustre to this blog. Aren’t you worried about getting deleted?

    BTW, you still haven’t come out and said what exactly what you mean. How am I using “horrific child abuse as leverage”? Leverage for or against what? I really don’t know why you’re being so cryptic.

    [Mod: refers to posts that are now deleted]

  • Flaming June

    Well said UKDave on Medialens.

    BBC Question time last week
    Posted by UKdave on June 27, 2013, 4:12 pm

    Here is a letter I sent to Guardian about BBC failure to ask Melanie Phillips on Question Time what she meant by ” Neutralising Iran”

    Dear Editor,

    Your reporter, Michael White, does a grave disservice to Boris Johnson in his review of last night’s Question Time [“Russell rules Question Timey-wime”]. He says that Boris made a remark about ‘neutralising Iran’ whereas, to my recollection, it was the Zionist ‘jihadist’, cuddly Melanie Phillips, who made that sinister and outrageous remark. However, none of the participants, including the chair David Dimbleby, asked her to explain exactly what she meant by this suggestion. Given her record as an ultra-uncritical supporter of Israel a reasonable bystander might infer that she meant the current Israeli policy of bombing Iran back to the Stone Age if it does not immediately cease the perfectly legal activity of enriching uranium.

    The BBC is a public broadcaster and so it has a duty to critically question remarks made on air that could be interpreted as an incitement to war-criminality on a colossal scale. Phillips may be able to get away with making such remarks in the pages of Daily Mail, a paper that supported Mosley’s fascists in 1930s, but not surely on BBC Television.

    In contrast to the hysterical paranoia of Melanie Phillips over Iran Boris Johnson was eminently sensible in questioning the validity and efficacy of the underlying motive of the West (i.e. US-Israel) for regime change in Iran. He also, if in muted tones, disagreed with Cameron’s policy on arming the so-called ‘rebels’ in Syria, the majority of whom are now Islamists of various stripes. So Michael White is also wrong to say that he was “loyal-ish to Cameron”.

    Finally, White makes no mention in his review of the most worrying exchange on Question Time. A member of the audience, who said he was a paid up Lib-Dem member, repeated asked Lib-Dem cabinet minister Ed Davey for assurances that no weapons would be supplied to the Syrian rebels without a vote in Parliament. He received no such assurance; rather he was told, each time he asked, that there would 21 June 2013 be a vote in Parliament if ‘military action’ was proposed- not the same thing at all.

    Yours sincerely

  • Kempe

    “It might be of interest to note that had these offences occurred in the countries of the “heritage” of the convicted persons, they would now be preparing to face their maker. ”

    Unfortunately so would the victims, or they might just get a 100 lashes if the judge was feeling lenient.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    @ Fred (18h25)

    “Any word on the Ian Brady tribunal yet?”

    It appears that my brief and polite reply to your question has already been deleted, so I’ll just give you the gist of it, which was
    1/. I haven’t heard anything
    2/. Try asking Flaming June as she always follows the news very closely.

    NOTE TO MODERATOR

    Why do you delete my post and leave the 3 posts from Jives, which are full of personal insults? Does Flaming June get special treatment from you?

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    @ Kempe

    I fear you might be right.

    I should have made myself clearer by writing what I had originally meant to but then didn’t…

  • Aidworker1

    Did anyone see this article in today’s Mail? I confess I don’t normally read it.

    Has Habbabkuk seen it?

    Digressing from the topic at hand, especially onto sensitive topics. Not necessarily overtly argumentative, this tactic frustrates its targets with its pointlessness and circularity. Digression onto sensitive topics triggers the strongest reactions.

    Hypocriticising, especially for a fault that the critic then displays him/herself. A simple tactic, often this is pedantic criticism of grammar, spelling or punctuation in a post which itself contains proof-reading errors to provoke exasperated responses from others.

    Antipathising, by taking up an alienating position by asking pseudo-naive questions, for example. This tactic is heavily reliant on deceiving the group it is aimed at and covertly manipulates egos, sensitivities, morals and feelings of guilt, usually to trigger emotional responses. It can also create moral dilemmas.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2349518/Boredom-blame-cyberbullying-incidents-claims-expert-whos-identified-key-tactics-trolls.html

  • Macky

    @Jives, re “Trying to stir the pot here by using horrific child abuse as leverage is beneath contempt”

    He has form on this score;

    “Would anyone, I wonder, share my view that the perpetrators should, after they have served their sentences, be deported to the country(countries) whence they or their forefathers came so that they could practice their bestial predilections on young girls of their own country and religion?”

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/01/uzbek-cotton-slavery-campaign/#comment-389572

    As does Villager, who gave this early warnning of an affinity to Habby Clown;

    “Macky, i think Habbab has a point about ” it was those gangs who were in fact behaving in a racist manner by targetting – exclusively – viulnerable girls whom they considered to be white khaffar trash.”

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/01/uzbek-cotton-slavery-campaign/comment-page-3/#comment-390339

  • Phil

    Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version) 27 Jun, 2013 – 6:59 pm
    “Yes, there was a lot of high-fives in the US over Pussy Riot, and for a lot of the wrong reasons…”

    From hollywood to the nme, the clamour to support Pussy Riot was an ugly gaggle of publicity hungry hypocrits. Pussy Riot’s radical politics were not discussed. Just lots of preening, vain people bemoaning the loss of an artistic freedom they do not exercise themselves.

    Here, there was even a “debate” in a houses of parliament room, chaired by minor musician Jon Robb and sponsored by labour mp Kerry McCarthy. This forum, condemning the lack of free speech in Russia, was held the same day Trenton Oldfield was imprisoned for his boat race demonstration. Oldfield was not mentioned and the one attempt to broaden the discussion to include UK issues was refused. Of course you won’t hear that on punknews.

    http://www.punknews.org/article/49385/pussy-riot-event-held-at-uks-houses-of-parliament

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/19/boat-race-protester-trenton-oldfield-jailed

  • Jon

    Habbabkuk, given that we probably need to reduce some of the intemperate exchanges here, an implication from you that some regulars on this board might be in favour of rape or child abuse isn’t helpful. Do discuss the topic, but without the snark please.

    I should also be grateful if you would reduce the number of times you try to engage discussion with Flaming June. She has made it perfectly clear she does not wish to interact with you, as is her right. I deleted your last contribution since you made another sideways dig at her. If you haven’t seen it, I have added some personal thoughts on moderation on the UN thread (if you wish to discuss, please do so there).

    Jives and others, please don’t rise to the bait. Not posting at all is sometimes a better response.

  • Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    Phil; Oldfield is a dissident, for sure. Putin made an appearance at the church and took communion to give credence to the ‘blasphemy’ charges.

    To be fair to the public who seem to have swallowed the flounder, they are unfamiliar with performance art, or public displays of dissidence.

  • Dreoilin

    I read on the Landdestroyer blog that Pussy Riot were financed from the USA – National Endowment for Democracy. I also read that they have never either written or recorded any songs.

  • Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    And their music truly sucks, Dreoilin. That’s performance art for you; impromptu and totally unrehearsed, but their effectiveness is not daunted.

  • Dreoilin

    I read about some of their exploits, Ben. And I was pretty disgusted. I haven’t heard any of their music, so I can’t really comment. I’ll take your word for it!

  • Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    Their goal is to shake things up, Dreoilin. I think the public orgies went too far, but then i remember Hippies and public sex, which was a statement of those times. Sometimes you have to break on through to the other side.

  • Dreoilin

    Thanks for the link, Kempe.

    Dear god is right … You wouldn’t travel to see them, would you.

    Got to go, g’night all

1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 32

Comments are closed.