 |
 |
|
|
|
| Montreal, July 19, 2003 / No 126 |
|
by
Ralph Maddocks
The late Pim Fortuyn was slandered by his political opponents in Holland who accused him, among many other things, of being on the "far" or "extreme" right. This was a preposterous smear tactic, one so beloved by the Left. What annoyed them was that he pointed out the obvious, especially when he opined that Holland was not an immigrant country, and has one of the most dense populations in the world, some 16 million people in a country roughly the size of Rhode Island. He believed that Holland had to get its own society in order before it could accept more immigrants. Given the high average tax rates paid by the Dutch, simply allowing in more poorly educated people with no income would become increasingly a frightful burden. |
|
He believed too that Holland could not function with large groups of people
from countries that had not experienced centuries of Judeo-Christian-humanist
developments. He felt that cultural developments which are diametrically
opposed to Dutch values – such as arranged marriages, revenge killings,
and female circumcision – must be confronted and that discrimination against
women in fundamentalist Islamic groups was completely unacceptable. He
believed in a democratic society with all citizens having the same rights
and obligations.
Hardly the beliefs of a right wing extremist. Fortyn wanted to repeal Article 1 of the Dutch constitution, which forbids the government and individuals from discriminating on "religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex, or on any other grounds whatsoever." As written, this constitutional clause potentially forbids frank and open discussion of the crime problem in Holland, which is largely one of predominantly Arab youth gangs. So that made him, in the view of the left wing, a racist, sexist, anti-religious bigot. In reality, he was a civil libertarian who believed in free speech and was proposing that free speech protection in Holland be escalated to the level of the US First Amendment. At least to the way it was before that zealot John Ashcroft went to work with his Patriot Act. The appearance in Europe of demonstrations against growing immigrant populations may be a genuine reaction from an indigenous population but they could also be the result of orchestration by agents provocateurs to enable the EU to push its agenda of further state control by inventing such obnubilate crimes as "xenophobia" and "right wing extremism." If this unrest grows, showing resistance to additional state control, then it is quite likely that the EU will accelerate the unrest by more violent means. Who knows, perhaps we shall see public buildings being bombed or public transport disrupted at times of great usage (e.g. a World Cup football match). How much football hooliganism is related to real racism? Or is it simply being stage managed from behind the scenes in order to introduce more state control? The EU enjoys social engineering – especially since they are in a position to enact it – and if it can be achieved on a larger scale then more control can be called for to deal with the increasing unrest, which presumably – given the increasingly pliant populations involved – will be accepted without much protest. Today's governments seem to feel free to reconstitute our values and identities in their quest to achieve a culture (or multiculture) of inclusiveness and diversity regardless of the views or wishes of the majority of their populations. Among the powers they assume in order to bring these changes about are those required to consign our freedoms of conscience, expression, association, etc., and often plain provable facts, to the refuse can of history. Political correctness in particular has become an invaluable tool in their hands by undermining free speech. While no developed state seems to have a monopoly in this area, the European Union in its search for unlimited growth is perhaps the one most evidently pursuing this quest today. Free speech has been so devalued that people are being sent to prison for crimes such as "inciting the public," and one reads that there are now more Germans in prison for such thought "crimes" than there were under the benevolent democratic regime of Eastern Germany before it fell. The EU decision to criminalize xenophobia could likely include simple criticism of immigration for example, or deprecation of Islam. It does not take much reflection to conclude that crimes against Islam are statistically more likely to be charged against a Caucasian than someone from, say, the Middle East or Africa. In fact, there seems to be an increasing amount of legislation directed at white nominally Christian men with respect to specific groups such as immigrants, women, the disabled, etc. In October 2002, after a row over September 11 with a Moslem immigrant, who called him a ''Zionist pig-f*****'' and said that all Americans deserved to die, an Englishman, Alistair Scott, was convicted of "religiously aggravated, threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour." Such apparent one-sidedness is particularly alarming. The police are notably reluctant to act against people distributing material which is not just offensive but may inflame real violence. In leaflets and at meetings, Islamic fascists call for ''death to the Jews'' and London is considered such a centre for Al Quaeda and other Islamic terrorist activity that it has been dubbed "Londonistan." Yet, because of diversity, virtually nothing is done. Civitas, a UK organisation devoted to the study of Civil Society has challenged Britain's 1.5 million Muslims, to accept the values of a liberal democracy, just as their predecessors the Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and others have done. At present, Ministers of religion, including Muslim imams, are allowed permit-free employment in Britain despite evidence and concern that many use their positions in the mosques to incite anti-western feeling among their followers. Civitas has called for revoking the EU agreement which governs the business of asylum seekers and immigrants. The arrival of criminal opportunists, conducted by people-smugglers who make more money out of this traffic than out of drugs, will need a very different approach to that currently used which quite obviously isn't working. So deeply has political correctness penetrated society that a recent survey by a group of psychologists found that 90% of the 10,000 people in six countries questioned about their attitudes towards political correctness expressed frustration and inhibition, but interestingly very few were prepared to ignore it. The cunning manifested by the adherents of political correctness is such that they are now able to stifle almost any debate in which they become involved. It all began with changing normal expressions like maiden name which had to yield to "family name" or "birth name." Mankind became "humankind" and those of us who thought ourselves old and ugly learned that we were really "chronologically and aesthetically challenged." There were various kinds of prefixes connected to the simple word "challenged;" financially "challenged" for broke, horizontally "challenged" for fat, intellectually "challenged" for stupid and on and on. So we all laughed, thinking that this mild lunatic phase would pass. How wrong we were. Next we begin to hear words like inclusiveness and multi-culturalism on one side and words like intolerance, xenophobia, racism and far right wing on the other. The London Metropolitan Police and the Surrey Police, to name but two, even have "Diversity Directorates" (really!) which encourage the public to report the names, addresses and descriptions of all perpetrators of such thought crimes. Anyone in fact whom they may hear uttering opinions they dislike, opinions on religion, race or someone's disability or sexual preferences. In the UK last Christmas, a campaign was launched soliciting people to report drivers they suspected of being intoxicated, the reward for so doing was to be £500 ($1,105 Cdn.). This is the kind of thing for which millions of our countrymen and women fought and died during the Second World War in an attempt to restore freedom of speech to Nazi Germany. Even the US government has been proposing essentially the same thing in the aftermath of their post 9-11 panic. This kind of activity presents numerous occasions for the discontented to exploit the opportunities it provides for taking revenge on those they happen to dislike. It is truly appalling that both countries should now imitate the tactics of tyrants like Adolf Hitler. Those who forget the lessons of history... Elsewhere I wrote of Robin Page, a well known UK broadcaster who was arrested and held overnight on suspicion of "stirring up racial hatred" by a police force which spent two months advertising for people to come forward to report on him before they even contacted him about some comments he was alleged to have made at a meeting (see TRANSNATIONAL PROGRESSIVISM • PART ONE, le QL, no 116). The police, which had failed even to visit Mr. Page on several occasions when his farm was broken into, had no problem driving some 200 miles to arrest him. Seemingly the police now no longer patrol the streets preferring instead to patrol the thought processes of the tax paying public. A year before the above incident that same Gloucester police force inaugurated "Operation Napkin" wherein senior police officers were sent to ethnic restaurants to consume multiple course meals and listen for "racist hate speech." In spite of the use of considerable manpower and financial resources only one arrest was made and no charges were filed.
Canada has been lucky thus far in avoiding serious physical confrontations between its immigrants or asylum seekers and the indigenous population, a grave problem in other countries where rates of legal and illegal immigration are high. Perhaps there is something about the Canadian character which isn't as confrontational as in some other countries. Perhaps critical masses of immigrants have not yet been achieved and although from time to time we hear moaning about immigrants taking our jobs, these are usually jobs which Canadians would not accept anyway at the rates of pay offered. The rabid multiculturalists among us must be disappointed to see that the majority of our immigrants seem to embrace the values of Canadian society without arousing resistance from the indigenous population. The massive influx of so-called asylum seekers into Italy and the UK is causing serious resentment among the indigenous populations of those countries. In Italy, in June alone, almost 3,000 clandestini poured into Lampedusa, which is closer to Africa than Europe and has a population of 5,000. By way of comparison, imagine the effect of 1.1 million immigrants arriving in Montreal in June. Just in time for the annual July apartment hunt too! Formerly, migrants from Albania, Morocco and Tunisia invaded Italy's permeable coastline but the latest waves originate from the poorest countries along the Horn of Africa, with the vast majority travelling through Libya. Italy's centre-right coalition is beginning to look as though it could fracture under the strains of this immigration. The pugnacious right-wing Northern League, led by Umberto Bossi, has confronted its coalition partners head-on over the issue, brandishing its xenophobic agenda like a battleaxe that could rend the Italian government as the remainder of the European Union watches Berlusconi make jokes about a German MEP. Bossi and his associates have threatened to quit if action is not taken immediately to arrest the ceaseless flow of illegal immigrants arriving by the boatload practically each day. A controversial British plan to create a "protection zone" outside EU borders to stem the flow of asylum seekers was not backed by EU leaders. Although, as could be expected from this group of PC zealots, they paid lip service by agreeing to reinforce cooperation to counter illegal immigration. Italy does have a law on its books which toughens asylum conditions and introduces fingerprinting along with strong penalties for immigrants who break the law. However, the statutes regarding application of the law have yet to be agreed upon. Italy's Foreign Minister, Franco Frattini, said that Italy would back the creation of transit camps in the Mediterranean for would-be immigrants, with a maritime control centre for the southeast Mediterranean based in Cyprus. He promised also to reach an agreement with Libya to close its "frontiers at those entry and exit points" used by Africans attempting to reach the shores of Europe. Bossi accused what he called "certain people on the Left and certain Catholic forces of having built up a nice little business worth several billion [lire] over immigration. Do they not realize that all the grumbling over so much tolerance towards illegal immigrants is deepest precisely among the Catholics themselves? There are whole parties that are to blame for refusing to address the scourge of illegal immigration in a firm manner." In the UK, as result of Human Rights legislation, illegal immigrants or even visitors to Britain from third world countries who are HIV positive are entitled to stay indefinitely while they receive National Health Service care. Very little reliable data is available – mainly because the Department of Health has, in effect, forbidden GPs and hospitals to keep such records, or even to ask for proof of entitlement. In one northern town last year, 2,000 patients were told to find a new GP because their doctor's office was being refitted to treat immigrants. Asylum-seekers and their dependants entitled to health care have already overburdened the NHS and on top of this, thousands who are not entitled to free treatment at all are able to arrive without fear of checks at the point of entry, in order to exploit the system. The number of new HIV cases is estimated to have gone to more than 6,000 in 2002 and the cost of treating one such person is estimated to be £15,000 ($33,000 Cdn.) per annum, or some £1 million ($2.21 million Cdn.) per person over a lifetime. Hardly surprising since, probably due to political correctness, no medical examinations are performed on immigrants, unlike in Canada or the USA. The UK Home Office stipulates that immigrants will be treated if there is no medical care for their condition available in their own countries. An interesting approach considering that most destroy their identification before arrival. According to a report in the Sun, among the other benefits accruing to the so-called asylum seekers who reach England's foggy shores are that they must be given a home within an hour of making the request. In case you might think this to be a question of finding a simple roof to put over person's head, let me elaborate. They are entitled to accommodation which must have a stove, a refrigerator, utensils, crockery, towels, a sink or bath, one bedroom per person with a duvet, linen, drawers and a lockable wardrobe. Apartment hunters in Quebec should take note! One should not be surprised then to learn that 16,000 illegal immigrants applied for asylum in the UK between January and March of this year. Government statistics regarding illegal immigration into the UK are somewhat fluid and seem to depend on the evidence thrust in the face of the particular politician being questioned, but as far as can be determined one in three asylum seekers entering the European Union last year came to Britain, and it cost the UK taxpayer almost £2 billion ($4.42 billion Cdn.) to deal with them. Enlargement of the EU will mean that citizens of the ten new Eastern and Southern European countries will be entitled to UK social security benefits, council housing, treatment on the NHS and schooling when their countries join the European Union next year. The UK Government is passing legislation currently to allow 73 million people the right to live and work in the UK from May 1, 2004. Interestingly, every other major European democracy, including Germany, France and Italy, will bar Eastern Europeans from working for up to seven years! No prizes for guessing what the future may look like in the UK unless something is changed. This rush to diversity and multiculturalism produces some interesting, if unbelievable, stories. One which appeared in the North of England last week, involved the case of a Pakistani asylum seeker who won the Labour stronghold of Long sight (a 42% ethnic community) in the May elections, allegedly by ignoring local issues and basing his campaign on opposition to war in Iraq. The councillor, one Liquat Ali, speaks virtually no English and is having English lessons, at the taxpayer's expense naturally, and has the use of a $50 an hour translator to assist him in his council duties. Another example of this super sensitivity to all but the indigenous was the order issued this week to all immigration staff at the Dover port to stop wearing summer clothes – in case the sight of bare flesh should offend newly arrived asylum seekers. Workers have been told to discard blouses, T-shirts and vests and wear winter outfits even during the hot weather, a bizarre ruling which assumes that those allegedly fleeing war or persecution are unlikely to have far more to worry about than a British official's choice of summer clothing. Multiculturalism seems little less than a cup of hemlock for the West, as it appears to be succeeding in its attempts to undermine the principles upon which western democracy was built. Although it operates much more subtly, multiculturalism is no less a threat to our free institutions than those who would terrorise us. Will the western peoples ever wake up and identify multiculturalism for the delusion it is?
|
| << index of this issue |
|
