Disordered Minds At Work
Many of the things wrong in Britain are attributed to politicians. Many of the things they try to put right are however obstructed by disordered minds in the Law and public institutions at variance with what most people see as plain English and/or common sense.
There are instances of these more or less every day, frequently involving immigration and ethnic minorities at the expense of the native people of this country. Here are three such from the week beginning 28th July.
The International Cricket Council (ICC) has a sensible code which says, “Players and team officials shall not be permitted to wear, display or otherwise convey messages through arm bands or other items affixed to clothing or equipment unless approved in advance by the players’ or team officers’ Board. Approval shall not be granted for messages which relate to political, religious or racial activities or causes”.
Moheen Ali, a British born Asian muslim displayed a “Save Gaza” and “Free Palestine” wristband during this week’s Test Match against India. These are clearly political messages and he has been referred to the ICC. However the England and Wales Cricket Board (EWCB) has made it clear that it believes Ali has not committed an offence on the grounds that Ali’s messages are “humanitarian”.
“Humanitarian” implies there are no political angles, no arguments about needs – like rescuing people from a mudslide or earthquake.
While it might just be argued that “Save Gaza” was simply a humanitarian response to a terrible man-made horror, only the extremely naïve and ignorant could think this is true of the phrase “Free Palestine” which is seen by the Israelis as intensely political. In any event Mr Ali ignored the requirement to obtain the EWCB’s approval for the wearing of any armband. Why has the EWCB shown such tenderness towards him in a game which has more rules than any other?
In another branch of English public life, in 2008 a 15 year-old Nigerian illegal immigrant brought a case of unfair dismissal and race discrimination against a couple who employed her as a full-time maid (illegally of course). The employment tribunal awarded her £6,187 compensation for “injury to her feelings”. Costs were met from the legal aid system of course. Four years later, with the ex-maid still here, this decision was “set aside” by the Appeal Court saying that the illegality of the maid’s employment contract made upholding the employment tribunal’s decision tantamount to condoning the illegality and that would never do. No order for deportation to Nigeria was made.
Now the Supreme Court of England no less, sitting at a cost of well over £10,000 a day, but completely missing the real illegality which is the maid’s presence in this country, has overturned the Appeal Court’s decision and sent the case back to the Employment tribunal.
No such official tenderness is shown to an indigenous British citizen, married 10 years who wishes to resume life in his own country with his South African wife and their children. The wife has to apply for a visa (cost £900) before she sets out for Britain. Richard Fabb (Guardian 9th July 2013) experienced the same obstacle for his Australian wife – who along with all other spouses of British citizens now has to wait 5 years before she obtains “indefinite leave to remain”. Mrs Fabb has already spent 4 years in Britain on a patrial visa, her grandfather, and mother are British, she has two sons who are patrial British by descent from their father. Mr Fabb is not willing to be separated from his wife and children so he is an exile from his own country.
Now this is the doing of a politician – one Teresa May, Conservative Home Secretary (9th July 2012). Her mind is evidently so disordered, she cannot see that the laws which she and her predecessors are responsible for always without exception, favour the EU foreigners to whom no such mean-minded restrictions apply, as opposed to fellow Crown subjects of British descent, almost all of whom have served Britain faithfully.
Like the judges, the only thing British politicians seem to care about is the physical presence of individuals in the United Kingdom – whether they are illegal or EU or from anywhere. For a country to repel its own indigenous people in favour of those with no historic connection to it, is actual madness: a subjection to an egalo-liberal ideology which holds that ethnic origin and marriage are irrelevant when deciding who should be in our country or not.
When David Cameron avows (29th July), hand on heart, that his government is building an immigration policy that “puts Britain first”, which Britain is he referring to? It is revealing that after 3 million people have been admitted to Britain in 10 years, he has to say this.
