5.12.07

Living Amongst One's Own Kind is Good for Our Health!

On 4 September 2009, Reuters reported thus:

"LIVING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE OF SIMILAR ETHNIC BACKGROUND MAY HAVE SOME HEALTH BENEFIT, hints a new study from the United Kingdom.

In the study, FEWER ACTIVITY-LIMITING LONG-TERM ILLNESSES WERE REPORTED BY PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN NEIGHBORHOODS THEY FELT WERE MORE THAN HALF MADE UP OF PEOPLE WITH WHOM THEY SHARED A COMMON ETHNICITY.

This effect was seen among white (primarily of British and Irish ancestry), Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and African race and ethnic groups… Dr. Mai Stafford, from University College London, told Reuters Health in an email correspondence.

A HEALTH BENEFIT OF LIVING IN NEIGHBORHOOD WITH PEOPLE OF THE SAME ETHNIC BACKGROUND WAS EVIDENT FOR ALL ETHNIC GROUPS - except those of Caribbean ethnicity."
“Except those of Caribbean ethnicity”.

Perhaps this is why, over the last 61 years, the West Indian has proved so determined to live alongside us? As opposed to living alongside their own, that is?

Anyway, it looks like the indigenous, white 'racists,' 'Nazis,' 'Fascists,' bigots,' 'dinosaurs' and 'little Englanders' were right all along, doesn’t it? No one actually wants to be enriched by all manner of other peoples and cultures. We all want to live amongst our own kind.

And yet, over the last 44 years, the politicians have built up an enormous body of race law to ensure that the possibility of so living, for the native, white majority of these islands, was diminished to the point of impossibility.

At the same time, of course, all the governmental and most of the media propaganda has been of the happy-clappy, cohere-with-the-alien, be-enriched-by-the-Multicult, variety. Oh yes, the politicians and the bought media have been playing a very sinister game with the British people over the course of the last fifty years.

On 12 April 1994, the Criminal Justice And Public Order Bill was debated in parliament.

During this debate, Harry Cohen, Labour MP for Leyton and Wanstead, said this:

"In 1985, I INTRODUCED THE RACIAL HARASSMENT BILL under the ten-minute rule. IT WAS THE FIRST BILL PRESENTED TO PARLIAMENT TO MAKE RACIAL ATTACK A CRIMINAL OFFENCE...

The state, especially, must make its anti-racist position absolutely clear in the law… One other reason for such a law is the rise of the British National Party… IT IS A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY AND I WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO BANNING IT... If the Government say that there would be civil liberties problems in banning the BNP, THEY NEED TO MAKE ITS ACTIVITIES ILLEGAL… That is why a new law is so important… RACISM EQUALS DEATH. IT IS IN MULTICULTURAL, MULTIRACIAL SOCIETIES WHERE PEOPLE LIVE TOGETHER THAT ONE HAS HARMONY; THOSE SOCIETIES EQUAL LIFE.

We need a law; we need the state to come out firmly to say that racism will not be tolerated."
Apart from Cohen's desire to have an organisation banned which is entirely legal, above board, does not commit mass murder on London buses or within the Underground system, has never marched unhindered throughout the streets of England waving placards calling the 'faithful' to 'murder' and 'behead,' and, in its ethnic composition, happens to be entirely British, Cohen preposterously asserts that it is 'in multicultural, multiracial societies where people live together that one has harmony.'

The facts, as the University College study 'hints' at, are these: throughout all history, whenever unassimilable immigration has occurred, tension and chaos have resulted. No indigenous population has ever wanted to be colonised by another, let alone many others as the British have been. Human beings, along with the rest of the animal kingdom, want to live amongst their own kind, with those whose behaviour they recognise and understand, they don’t wish to live alongside those they do not know or care for. That is an absolute lesson of history.

During the same 1994 debate, Gerald Kaufman, MP for Manchester, Gorton, said this:

"If you attack someone, that is odious, but IF YOU ATTACK SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK OR AN ASIAN OR CHINESE OR A JEW, THAT IS EVEN MORE ODIOUS…

The racial element carries with it an additional punishment, to say to people… because you committed that crime, which had a racial concommitant, YOU SHALL BE PUNISHED EVEN MORE, TO TEACH YOU and to send a message to the ethnic minority communities that… THEY SHALL HAVE SPECIAL PROTECTION’… IF YOU ATTACK SOMEONE, THAT IS ODIOUS, BUT IF YOU ATTACK SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK OR AN ASIAN OR CHINESE OR A JEW, THAT IS EVEN MORE ODIOUS…

Parliament needs to send a signal to members of the ethnic minorities in this country that PARLIAMENT HAS A SPECIAL CONCERN FOR THEM.
In other words, as Orwell might have said, if he'd been a creep like Kaufman, 'people are equal, but some people, especially ethnic minorities, are more equal than others.'

Barbara Roche, who was the MP for Hornsey and Wood Green at the time of the above debate, said this:

"The racial element carries with it an additional punishment, to say to people, ‘YOU HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME… BECAUSE YOU COMMITTED THAT CRIME, WHICH HAD A RACIAL CONCOMITANT, YOU SHALL BE PUNISHED EVEN MORE’."

Sir Ivan Lawrence, MP for Burton, added:

"We believe that… AN ASSAULT MOTIVATED BY RACISM IS MORE SOCIALLY DIVISIVE AND CORROSIVE OF THE VERY FABRIC OF OUR TOLERANT SOCIETY AND, FOR THAT REASON, IS ITSELF MORE SERIOUS… The Commission for Racial Equality and other organisations are in favour of the measure… There were strong criticisms of the working of the present legislation, PARTICULARLY FROM THE BOARD OF DEPUTIES OF BRITISH JEWS."

The bill that Gerald Kaufman tried to foist on the British people was defeated.

However, many of those who have, latterly, risen to the top of New Labour's parliamentary pole voted for it. These include:

Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, John Prescott, Peter Mandelson, David Blunkett, Stephen Byers, Alan Milburn, Geoff Hoon, Peter Hain, Harriet Harman, John Reid, Tessa Jowell, Robin Cook, Clare Short, Alstair Darling, Chris Smith, Nick Brown, Ian McCartney, Frank Dobson, Margaret Beckett, Ron Davies, Paul Boateng, Estelle Morris, Mo Mowlam, George Robertson, Gavin Strang, Ann Taylor, Paul Murphy, Andrew Smith, Barbara Roche and Keith Vaz.

All of the above would, subsequently, rise to Cabinet rank in Tony Blair's government with the exception of Barbara Roche and Keith Vaz.

When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, he decided to give the job of Europe Minister to Vaz. Which is interesting. You see, he is an African Asian. Not exactly the kind of man most of us would have chosen to represent the will of the vast majority of those whose ancestors are buried in Europe, I wouldn‘t have thought.

Blair would make Barbara Roche Immigration Minister when he came to power. In this position, she was the first ever person to tell us that we NEEDED another 150,000 LEGAL immigrants entering the country every year in order to help us out. It's pretty easy to see why Roche would have little sympathy for those who wanted to keep Britain British. Her grandparents were a fascinating mixture of Polish, Russian, Spanish and Portuguese.

Keith Vaz, himself, said this:

"We live in a multicultural society… We must today send out, not just to the black and Asian community but to the country at large, the message that WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO DO NOTHING. Action must be taken to protect our fellow citizens."
The MP, Diane Abbott, who is black, said this during the debate:

"Racism is a phenomenon, a social and political manifestation, that OUR SOCIETY WILL NOT TOLERATE. Racial attacks ought to be singled out in the way set out in the new clause because of what they represent politically -- A THREAT TO THE STABILITY OF SOCIETY THAT NO AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUAL ATTACKS ON ELDERLY, POOR OR DISABLED PEOPLE COULD EVER REPRESENT."
If anyone out there thought that New Labour might have undergone some politically incorrect Damascene conversion because the 'new Study' referred to by Reuters was prepared, principally, by Dr Mai Stafford, whose research is funded by New Labour's Department of Health, well, as recently as 29 July 2008, The Daily Mail was telling us this:

"In the first major changes to homicide laws in 50 years, ministers have ruled that other categories of killer… should be offered new partial defences of PROVOCATION. They include those 'SERIOUSLY WRONGED' BY AN INSULT. Beneficiaries of this change may include those who strike out after long and bitter disputes with neighbours… Instead of receiving a mandatory life sentence for murder, they too could escape with a manslaughter conviction."
Robert Whelan of the Civitas think-tank accused the Government thus in The Mail's article:

"By creating all these special categories, THE GOVERNMENT ARE MAKING SOME PEOPLE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS before the law. It seems SOME LIVES ARE WORTH MORE THAN OTHERS."
And then there was this:
On 14 July 2009, Gordon Brown’s 'Cohesion' Minister, Shahid Malik pronounced thus in the House of Commons:

"Fairness is what the Department for Communities and Local Government, my Department, and the Government are all about, BUT FAIRNESS DOES NOT MEAN TREATING EVERYBODY EQUALLY; it means addressing the different needs of different people."
Malik seems to be suggesting that the needs of one lot (the British) can be treated with less fairness than another lot. (Gypsies)

I’ll remind you one last time of what George Orwell was saying in 1945:

"All animals are Equal but SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS".
I think you’ll agree that New Labour is nothing if not Orwellian.

Total Pageviews