I am afraid TFC and myself rather highjacked the CHP thread on this subject, so have started a proper one.

Will cut and paste as necessary from CHP, where our opposing stances are self-apparent

The difference is, aldwickk, I am still here trying to help put things right & not jumping ship when things get a little bit difficult.
I am a white indigenous brit, but I find that many of my countrymen behave badly at home & abroad, & also live with the memory of past achievments (1966 World Cup etc etc) instead of moving forward with the times.
Feeble achievments: F1 All british drivers underperforming (Lewis Hamilton to prove himself); Cricket World Cup underperformed; Last footy World cup, well we didn't win that either; Olypics, Moto GP, Golf majors, Tennis etc etc.
Of course, Britain does excel at other things which get less publicity, but it's the high profile sport which we so desperately want to be good at.
Just another thought - It's interesting to note, on the subject of immigrants, how many british boxers, past & present have come from ethnic minority groups; Where would british boxing be without Amir Khan?

or Kid Lewis in 30s (I think) .....nice Jewish boy who loved his mother! ..... + a few similar who ended up in Chicago slugging it out with Capone (native born American of course) and his ilk

And here is another difference.
I am a keen (but very bad) sportsman. Cricket, Golf, Football, even tiddlywinks if I think there may be a pint afterwards. Give me the choice between being a nation that is crap at sport and ranked beside San Marino or my countrys proud and distinguished heritage being left untouched by the liberal minority and I will happily accept never going to a major championships again, and having a serious pi$$ up when we win a bronze at the olympic synchronised swimming!!
My childrens future is far more important to me than whether we can cut it at Augusta or Las Vegas, and I fear for their future in a nation where being part of the indiginous population can disadvantage you and retrict your voice and opinion.
Alan

Alan .... as i wrote earlier, i too disagree with postive discrimination and open-door immigation and several other relevant bits ..... however, and i suspect you concur, there is a Grand Canyon between that and some of the bigotted, blind prejudice and neo-Nazi views that have been expressed on this thread.

given that the law is ultimately just a reflection of the society we live in, i suspect quite strongly that some of the current excessively liberal (don't really want to use that word, but can think of no other) laws and rules will be modified within (say) the next 5 years or earlier if we are lucky.

unfortunately, for such is the nature of things, it is equally likely that some time down the line (15/20 years?) the pendulum will have swung too far towards authoritarianism etc ..... and so the cycle will continue

ohhhhh NO !!!!!!!!!....l have recently been informed l have blackies in my family tree ,,,,,,,,But its perfectly ok with me . They have been hanging there for over 3 weeks ...lolol Merely a joke to introduce a little levity into such a serious issue; and not wishing to start a trend in anti immigrant jokes ...........Harry. Lest you have not noticed l am not English.Prepped and schooled here but born in Brive-La- Gaillarde.l dont give a toss about the British empire...lmressed by it- but not inclined to really think about it. ..Ditto reg. the French empire in Africa, lndo China, and the middle east. .......................................................On a more serious note i passed a social security office recently in Deptford. And was shocked by the number of blacks who claim benefit who drive hi-performance vechicles. Now these offices have cameras patently visible on the exterior so how is it that these people are not caught for claiming benefit fraudulently ........or are you English running scared of these criminals ? ln addition a barrister friend of mine told me of some blackie he prosecuted for Armed Robbery at the CCC .This crime has a usual tarrif of 8 years to Life imp. But the Judge was also a black and sentanced him to 18 months imprisonment .Had the man been white he would have received 7-12 years . lnevitably my friend immediately filed an application of leave to appeal on the grounds of inadequacy of sentance . This was later granted with the presiding Justice remarking that the original judge should be reported to the LC s office for patently having an agenda more befitting of racism turned on its head and reeked of cronyism ((Very rare for a brother judge to appear so critical of another .Well so says Michael Mansfield who is a neighbor of mine ))...Cant tell you what the appeal Justice said off the record but what on earth is a pickerninny ( ??) as i cant find in English dictionary..............@+ J

Plus you English hardly have room to talk .l wont go into it ....But when the Jews were being persucuted by Hitlers demented motley bunch as early as 1935 , l dont recall the English accepting applications for British citizenship made on behalf of the aforementioned Jewish peoples ..........l often wonder why ?.........Unlike King Peter of Sweden who himself wore the yellow star in an illustration of his support of the Jewish peoples . ...........

TFC,
Pickerninny. I believe (though I stand to be corrected) that it was a word first created and used by J M Barrie in his novel Peter Pan. It was the name of a tribe of Indians in Never Never Land and the name was chosen to portray a sense of stupidity (Pick-A-Ninny, ninny being a word to describe a foolish person).
The word has been used (infrequently) to describe someone as foolish, though one could argue it has racial undertones as the tribe was Indian.
Think thats right. Hope it helps.
Alan

Alan . As always -very helpful .A positive font of knowledge . Thank you for both the definition and its real origins. . /...l think in this case the noun was employed in dual fashion. Both foolish and foreign ..........18 months for armed robbery .? What next ? Hardly a deterant, and morelike, a positive endorsement/ green light , to commit one of the most serious crimes in the criminal calander without rightful punishment .................................

I got a very interesting e-mail yesterday, which I will reproduce parts of below. I will leave out the senders commentary, and I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but......
The rise in support for the BNP and other far right parties may be attributable to similar feelings and the thought that the UK does not possess an MP with big enough balls to say this sort of thing, though I think the silent majority may well agree with much of the sentiment.
It is easily dismissed as a racist ranting, as a precursor to a 21st century facism and the sort of thing Hitler may have been saying about the jewish population in the 1930's.
Then read it again. It is more liberal than that and has a fairly reasonable tone, and if it does encapsulate the thoughts of middle England (and I suggest it does) then we ignore it at our peril, for ignoring it will only make the language stronger and reduce the liberal tone to a lonely voice on the edge of hearing.
This is not from a minority fringe party, or a combat 18 style bunch of neo nazis. It comes from the highest ranking government ministers in Australia.
Anyway, enough of my thoughts, what do you other posters think??


Australia Now, Canada / America Tomorrow?????



Excerpts from an on going debate in Australia.



This is true and can be checked at



http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/australia.asp Muslims who want to live under Islamic Shari law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.



A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Shari law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you", he said on National Television.



"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia: one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Shari law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option", Costello said



Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off. Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off", he said.



Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.



Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks onBali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Aust ralians."



"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia." "However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand." "This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national iden tity. And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle."



"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom"



"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .. Learn the language!"



"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."



"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."



"If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.



"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,



'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'."



"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here So accept the country YOU accepted."

The australians have it spot on!
First class post.

while the general undertone of alan's post is sound, there are certainly some aspects that jar - e.g......
1) Excepting the original convict exports, Australia is and always has been a multi-cultural society ..... As denial of this has been put as the mainstay of the argument, I would contend that whole basis is thereby flawed.

2) There seems to be a confusion between accepting there is a God, who could be Jehovah, or Allah or any other, and then narrowing it by implying that He should be the Christian version ...... In any case, I think it is more than stretching a point to contend Australia (or UK) is a Christian country and part of Australian culture ..... At best, the majority are almost certainly agnostic and probably care 10 times more for their cricket and rugby teams than any religious leaning.


For all that, and though I am a great supporter of freedom of choice and speech, I equally accept that in a "free" society there is the contradiction that that freedom has and must have limitations.

Almost but not entirely as and aside ......

Earlier in this thread, there were gripes about the heavy Asian population in Dewsbury and Halifax and Bradford and the effect on the locale .... While that is certainly so, it has been conveniently forgotten that the (grand)fathers and thus their direct families, were invited and encouraged to come over to man the wool mills and do all sorts of relatively menial tasks that the indigenous whites did not want to touch ...... No right to gripe now!

There as also a very interesting programme on Radio 4 a couple of weeks ago about this sort of thing, though it was focussed on Glasgow ..... The Asian family in question told how, when they came over with only a few pounds to their names, they were prepared to work far harder than others and as a result made a great success of their lives ..... In fact, though the mother still speaks in heavily accented English, the family was clearly more than welcome in their neighbourhood.

Surely it is the relatively small number of indolent and/or fanatical and/or criminal element who are the bane and who deserve our opprobrium ...... this may and should be applied to Asian or black or oriental or white alike, though the easy focus is on those of different skin colour

Cynic,
So as a defence we are back to the point where we debate how long one has to have their ancestry in a country before one is a member of that country??? I would suggest that 5 minutes or 5 millenia is irrelevant. The important part is to behave and act to the accepted norms.
I know this opens up a debate about indiginous criminals acting outside the acceptable norms, but we lock them up and take away their rights, because we can no longer stick them on a boat elsewhere.
As to the religious aspects, Australia is a Christian country. This is not defined by how many people attend church every Sunday, or the viewing figures for "Songs of Praise". It is the quality that defines legislature, morals and the like. A loose thread to hang together by. You would never describe India as a christian country, but it is the single largest religion in many areas, though still in a minority when measured by the aggregate of other religions.
Finally, my ancient ancestors almost certainly came over to defend the UK at the behest of Ethelred the Unready, but it gives me no right at all to spoil the lives of my neighbours, run around as if I were still in those far back days, or demand "Danegeld" of the government. My ancestors were invited, the Carribean and Asian immigrants of the last century were offered the opportunity. There is a huge difference.
Alan

"no right at all to spoil the lives of my neighbours" ... that to me is the nub of the matter, for though you do not say it, i know you intend it to be far more far-reaching.

confess i do not understand how you differentiate between "your ancestors" and the black/asian immigrants who were also "invited" ...... i would certainly agree that they were invited with the tacit understanding that they would (ultimately) blend into "our" society, and in the main, they almost certainly have.

just to nit-pick ...... indian law is still soundly based on the laws of england and their (Hindu/Sikh etc) moral principles are sometimes different from "ours" but generally perfectly acceptable to "us" too.

No. I mean what I write.
I am taking either a common sense / usage view of the word neighbours, or the classical legal view of the word. Either mean much the same in this context, and no more at all.
I have no intention of the sentence being more far reaching, and perhaps there is another issue in this debate (nationally, not here on these boards). People Infer things that are not implied and take debate to be a racial attack.

by more far-reaching, i was not at all implying other than one has a social and indeed moral obligation to live in general harmony, which means neither sacrificing the goat on the front lawn nor playing objectionably loud music nor stabbing a guy just because he is "different" nor even sunbathing naked in full and open view of the general public (naturist locations excluded!) ..... or in German/Jewish parlance, be a Mensch not a Schlock (even if you are a goy!)

Patricia Hodge states that long term British citizens should take priority over recent immigrants in the social housing queue. She is rounded on by her own colleagues and Ken Livingston, who say this is a racist thing to say and that she is wrong. They accuse her of firing support for the BNP by such a statement.
I suggest that the current system actually fires support for the BNP.
So the question is, Who has the right of the argument. Which is more damaging to race relations? A system that is bias toward those who have lived here their entire life, or one that treats new arrivals equally from the moment they arrive?
Now there is a debating point.
Opinions?
Alan

easy ..... Patricia Hodge ..... and you know my stance overall on immigration and integration makes many contributors here look 10 miles right of Oswald Moseley

Not so easy.
I read that having family or friends to live with puts you lower on the list than arriving at Heathrow pleading asylum. This cannot possibly be right. All other modern nations insist that if they grant you the right to stay there, you must be self sufficient and that includes housing.
The net effect is that those who have already contributed to the wealth of the nation have to remain in shared conditions with other generations, struggling to get on the housing ladder and unable to gain access to social housing while newly arrived immigrants are given a home (free till they find work) and have got on the housing ladder by buying the damn thing before the locals can even move out from living with Granny! This is on the basis that they might contribute something in the future.
No. This is positive discrimination, and I abhor that term because all discrimination is negative to someone, in this case those who have the most right to be protected from discrimination. If this puts me 10 miles right of Oswald Moseley, then history has misjudged a man who was clearly a communist!! Either that or your assertation is way off mark, for the view expressed above is smack bang in the middle of common sense and decency toward all people, regardless of origin. It is also the view that the vast majority of this country hold. If they are blindingly wrong, where does that leave democracy? But they are not wrong, democracy is alive and well, and the reason why the BNP (whom I personally have no time at all for) increase their support and gain a stronger voice.
Alan

Another point(s) that springs to mind.
Oswald Moseley has the claim to fame of wanting to discriminate wildly against the immigrant population, and that is a terrible thing. But can someone please enlighten me as to why discrimination against an existing population is so holy and righteous. It strikes me that it the same cat, skinned differently, but we are almost breastfed these days on the idea that one is terrible and the other is an act of intelligent and reasoned behaviour!! The real modern day Oswald Moseley is the one shouting from the rooftops that one class of person be given preferential treatment over the other. That is the argument of those who oppose Hodges statement.
On the subject of intelligent, the liberal classes have long sneered at those who believe that the only real advance is no discrimination at all among the population and that the influx of immigrants must be tightly controlled. For 50 years they have trotted out their mantra that to think any way other than they do is ignorant, uneducated, Sun reading nonsense and bigotry of the worst order. I think it is time to address that too. It is no longer good enough to answer a majority view by saying the majority do not have an understanding of the issues, or by attaching the label Nazi or Facist and hoping the argument goes away. It hasn't. it is stronger than ever.
So now is the time to ask; "If these liberal policy makers are so very clever as to spot how everyone else has it so wrong, how come 50 years of their policy has actually achieved worse race relations and demonstrated their inability to convince the population of their argument. To manage to harden attitudes to the contrary". Perhaps the non-liberal side of the debate has now earned the right to throw words like ignorant, uneducated, Guardian reading bigotry about. And answer the difficult questions with the label communist.
I love a good debate as much as anyone (more than most), but if, after 50 years of debate and evidence I was so demonstrably wrong, even I would accept the opposing viewpoint, or at least give it the chance to prove itself equally wrong.
Alan

Alan having little better to do this morning other than beaver away in the office(!)

Property inflation has been rampant for the last 10+ years and has little to do with the increase in the immigrant population. Nevertheless, if we take that being a property owner is almost an innate right, then it is indisputable that there is a shortage of low(er) priced housing stock, especially in the wealthier regions of the country. The policy of selling off council house stock has arguably worsened that situation, though of course, one was only ever a tenant.

Your opening sentence actually confuses two issues i.e. the political asylum seeker (us Jews in 30s or the African Asians more recently) and the economic refugee or straightforward immigrant as seemingly permitted under EU law (for simplicity, I shall lump them as one).

The former is something of a special case, whereas I think we are really intending to debate the latter.

While your objection to positive discrimination certainly has moral or even general validity, we are starting from an existing scenario where there are already large (some would say excessive) numbers of economic refugees. Those who arrived in 50/60s not only came under a different set of rules (effectively invited to fill an economic need), but have generally integrated into society.

IF what I read is correct, it is the influx over the last 10 years or so, exacerbated by the massive expansion of EU membership with its accompanying freedom of movement, that has caused so much potential unrest.


So, given the irreversible status quo (new immigration policies may be in the wings), if we want to help (young) people onto the property ladder, then I would have no qualms in discriminating in favour of those who have already garnered enough citizen points, however imperfect or relatively arbitrary that system may be.

=========

As an aside, Genghis Khan and his rampaging horde are generally portrayed as no more than bloodthirsty barbarians, whereas the truth is very different.

Similarly, Oswald Moseley may just be a misunderstood Communist in a black shirt as you assert. However, he and his band of disciples had all the appearances of acolytes of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, and that is how history will judge him, until such a time as it is re-written.