Britain on the Brink

by A. Millar
The Brussels Journal
June 2, 2009

https://www.legal-project.org/362/britain-on-the-brink

 

Just under a year ago, maverick Labour MP Frank Field gave a speech to The University of Hertfordshire in which he pondered the possibility of "the strange death of Labour England." As Field noted, the Labour Party had itself replaced the Liberal Party nearly a century ago, after the latter failed to tackle issues of importance for the electorate. In recent years "The two issues of immigration and Englishness," he also observed, "have been denied a legitimate role in our parliamentary representative system." And, it must be said, not just these.
 
Tensions have been inexorably rising throughout the last few years as politicians have ignored the issues, or have seemed to be in bed with those who would destroy Britain's freedoms – from employing Islamists as advisors to the government toclaiming that terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims against the public is "anti-Islamic activity." Parliament not only seems to be on a different wavelength to the majority, it appears delusional.
 
The revelation that parliamentarians have been quietly claiming "expenses," in some cases amounting to tens of thousands of pounds, has proved the straw that broke the camel's back. Field thought that straw might be the so-called "English question." And it has contributed to it enormously (it is no coincidence, after all, that no less than five political parties with either "English" or "England" have been established in the last decade). But, perhaps the government could only ever have been brought down by an issue that is not tied to the usual themes, and for which the usual accusations of "racism" and "Islamophbia" can have no effect.
 
It is now widely assumed that the next general election (which will occur some time in the next year) will purge parliament of MPs on a scale unprecedented in British history – with the governing Labour Party set for spectacular decline. However, the upcoming European elections on June 4 may provide some insight to how the parliament might then look.
 
Smaller parties (such as UKIP, the Green Party, and the BNP) are set to win far more votes than previous. Results of a Populus poll for the London Times – released in the last few days – show a drop in the support for all three main parties, with UKIP being the major beneficiary, "[…] rising 13 points to 19 per cent, ahead of Labour and the Liberal Democrats. The Greens rise to 10 per cent, and the BNP is up three points at 5 per cent." 
 
The opposition Conservative Party appears likely, nonetheless, to be the governing party after the next general election, even if the current leader David Cameron has himself become embroiled in the expenses scandal. A weak leader that has left the public exasperated by his failure to tackle the issues of our time, it would, in my opinion, be better to take this opportunity to replace him with someone who understands what conservatism is, and who commands respect.
 
About a week ago, Cameron outlined his vision of a Conservative-led Britain in an article published in the LeftwingGuardian newspaper, entitled "A New Politics; We need a massive, radical redistribution of power." He has a habit of wrapping his message in American buzz, and consequently gives the impression of being behind the times, rather than ahead of them, and out of touch with Britain's problems. Cameron talked, for example, of a "compassionate" Conservative Party after George Bush had talked of "compassionate conservatism." Then, of "Hope," after Obama. Now he wants people to sign a petition for "Change," by forcing a general election. And he's also speaking of "progressive Conservatism," an oxymoron that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada laid claim to during the Second World War.
 
According to Cameron's own definition of this doctrine – "the pursuit of progressive goals through Conservative means" – it seems to be an inversion of neo-conservatism. And one wonders if it should not be called neo-democratic socialism?
 
He is of course quite right when he says that "[…] innocent citizens mistrust and even fear the police – the very people who should be protecting them – and why so many people increasingly feel that the state is their enemy, not their ally." But he is dangerously wide of the mark to talk merely about choice of schools, removing quotas for police, etc.
 
These are necessary, but the regular predictions of riots over the last few years, and the recent prediction of a "summer of rage" were not based on a the large number of people who couldn't get their son or daughter into their first choice of school. I think that should be obvious to, potentially, the next prime minister of Great Britain.
 
The cause of the frustration and seething anger among the public is the convergence of several factors, but pretending that they do not exist greatly exacerbates the situation. The main issues are, I would suggest:
 
1 Mass immigration coupled with the continual traducing of British, and especially English, culture and people under the banner of "multiculturalism."
2 An increasingly visible and belligerent Islamist or jihadist movement in Britain, coupled with the protection of Islam (through hate speech legislation) and the threat of prosecution or loss of employment for those who criticize Islam, Islamism, sharia, etc., or who do not allow Muslim employees exemptions based on their interpretation of Islam (such as the chef that is suing his employer, the Metropolitan Police, for requiring him to cook pork sausages).
3 The suppression of public opinion and of free speech, coupled with a culture of dishonesty when it comes to immigration, multiculturalism and Islamism in particular.
4 Rising crime coupled with an increasingly authoritarian government and authorities that have patently abused their powers, harassing rather than protecting the law-abiding public.
 
All of these issues are interrelated, of course – and there are others – but the first two have become almost inseparable. For, there can be no doubt that many English people feel that they are fighting for the very survival of their country, against an Islamist enemy, and in defiance of the government. Hence, the English flag, virtually unseen in England a decade ago, has now become a popular banner of resistance to Islamism, and can be found on various counter-jihad websites such as Stop Islamisation Of Europe (SIOE).
 
Indeed, so potent has this symbol become that you can find a video of British Islamists, their faces hidden behind Keffiyehs, ritually burning a pile of English flags. It is an act in every way reminiscent of Nazi book burnings. And, their intentions are just as clear, for they say it themselves in the video: "We begin with your flag, we end with your blood."
 
Yet, if this would be considered free speech, ordinary citizens (including representatives of the English Democrats Party) have been threatened with prosecution for flying the England flag – because this, after all, must be "hate speech."
 
Ten days ago, as the expenses scandal continued to unfold in all its sordid detail, a protest at the city of Luton organized by March for England and the United People of Luton, was unfolding, if not descending into minor chaos [video]. The organizers of the demonstration had advertised [video], and intended, it as a peaceful protest and had warned the far-Right to stay away. But tensions are high. Several protestors hid their faces behind black balaclavas – an ominous sight – and nine were charged variously with assault, damaging property and weapons possession.
 
Wayne King, a spokesman for United People of Luton  – who wore a tee-shirt bearing the slogan "No Surrender to al-Qaeda" – said that the protestors were angered that no action had been taken to prevent the "hate-filled preachings" of imam Sayful Islam at the city. In March, Islamist protestors had turned out to heckle British soldiers returning from Afghanistan as "baby killers" and "butchers of Basra" [video] True to form, the police arrested only one of those incensed by this display for "racism." King says that at this point:

We decided enough was enough after the soldiers got heckled as they marched through the town centre by the Muslim extremists.
 
Our community has been racially attacked for the last 10 years.
 
A mosque in the town got set on fire a few weeks ago and it made national news but churches in Luton are regularly being set fire to.
 
We want laws brought in to stop preachers of hate operating here.

"Enough is enough" – a phrase that sums up the sentiments of the country. But Luton is potentially the flashpoint for larger civil unrest. In the last few days Muslims at Luton confronted the Islamists group that protested against Britain's troops, resulting in physical clashes. Farasat Latif, of the Islamic Centre in Luton, who was one of those opposing the Islamists, said that "The community decided to move them on because the police won't. We have asked them, but they did nothing." As usual.
 
MPs across the board should recognize the gravity of the situation, and should address the issues of concern to the public – immigration, multiculturalism, and Islamism in particular. And they must do so now if the country is to be pulled back from the brink.

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the legal project's free mailing list