Mainly For Brummies But All Are Welcome To Join In The Birmingham Fun & Chat


Multicultureism a failed doctrin

#1 by berniew , Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:22 pm

Seems David Cameron is to admit multiculturism has failed in the light of Wiki Leaks documents showing concerns by British and US inteligence that separate communities that have very little contact with each other has become a breeding ground for Islamic extremists . Lets see what he proposes probably need to get your bhurkas out girls .
Bernie

berniew  
berniew
Posts: 942
Date registered 12.28.2009


RE: Multicultureism a failed doctrin

#2 by Sheldonboy , Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:18 pm

It will be interesting to see if he is just chilli rattling or if he actually dares to upset our friends and neighbours.


I started out with nothing and Iv'e still got most of it left

 
Sheldonboy

Founder Member
Forum Administrator
Posts: 43.451
Date registered 12.22.2009


RE: Multicultureism a failed doctrin

#3 by phil ( deleted ) , Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:41 pm

I have always said I was in complete agreement with old Enoch when he said that multiculturalism could not and would not work in this country. He said the only way forward was integration, for this he was cried down and called a racist, even his own party shunned him. Now we have a Prime Minister and leader of the Tory party saying the same thing. I don't suppose that anybody will be making apologies to Enoch.

Phil


Make Love, Not War

phil

RE: Multicultureism a failed doctrin

#4 by Sheldonboy , Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:47 pm

Enoch Powell was championed by many for certain reasons. He was also responsible as Minister for Health for bringing in many immigrants to staff our struggling hospitals.


I started out with nothing and Iv'e still got most of it left

 
Sheldonboy

Founder Member
Forum Administrator
Posts: 43.451
Date registered 12.22.2009


RE: Multicultureism a failed doctrin

#5 by phil ( deleted ) , Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:55 pm

Enoch could speak fluent Punjabi and his aim in life when younger was to be Viceroy of India, he was a very clever well educated man born in Stechford Birmingham. There is no way that this man was a racist. Just because a man doesn't like certain aspects of immigration it doesn't make him a racist.

Phil


Make Love, Not War

phil

RE: Multicultureism a failed doctrin

#6 by berniew , Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:55 pm

We will see if anything of any substance is to be done or just the same old sound bites , unfortunatly I know which my money is on
Bernie

berniew  
berniew
Posts: 942
Date registered 12.28.2009


RE: Multicultureism a failed doctrin

#7 by Sheldonboy , Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:43 pm

Posted by phil
Enoch could speak fluent Punjabi and his aim in life when younger was to be Viceroy of India, he was a very clever well educated man born in Stechford Birmingham. There is no way that this man was a racist. Just because a man doesn't like certain aspects of immigration it doesn't make him a racist.

Phil


I certainly never said he was a Racist, unfortunately after some of his later speeches he was adopted by some people who were.


I started out with nothing and Iv'e still got most of it left

 
Sheldonboy

Founder Member
Forum Administrator
Posts: 43.451
Date registered 12.22.2009


RE: Multicultureism a failed doctrin

#8 by phil ( deleted ) , Sat Feb 05, 2011 9:30 pm

SB

Thats the trouble, certain people will twist words and take advantage to turn things their way. Enoch should have had more sense that afternoon when he made his speech at the Midland Hotel it was obvious he was being set up, why else would the amount of press and TV coverage that was there be there.

This is the speech that was made, read it and see how true it was. I think everything he has said has come true. It takes a bit of reading but it is worth the effort.

Phil

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: At each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: 'if only', they love to think, 'if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen'. Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical. At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it, deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalized industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: 'If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country.' I made some deprecatory reply, to the effect that even this Government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: 'I have three children, all of them have been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them settled overseas. In this country in fifteen or twenty years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.'

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation? The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that this country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In fifteen or twenty years, on present trends, there will be in this country 3 1/2 million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to Parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's office. There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of 5-7 million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by different sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact above all which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimized lie several parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: 'How can its dimensions be reduced?' Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent. The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment twenty or thirty additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means fifteen or twenty additional families of a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancées whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 325,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay. I stress the words 'for settlement'.

This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. These are not, and never have been, immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so. Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.

Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous grants and assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent. Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects for the future.

It can be no part of any policy that existing family should be kept divided; but there are two directions in which families can be reunited, and if our former and present immigration laws have brought about the division of families, albeit voluntary or semi-voluntarily, we ought to be prepared to arrange for them to be reunited in their countries of origin. In short, suspension of immigration and encouragement of re-emigration hang together, logically and humanly, as two aspects of the same approach.

The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr. Heath has put it, we will have no 'first-class citizens' and 'second-class citizens'. This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendants should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow citizen and another or that he should be subjected to inquisition as to his reasons and motives for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it 'against discrimination', whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming. This is why to enact legislation of the kind before Parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to the gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United states, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knows no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service. Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants - and they were drawbacks which did not, and do not, make admission into Britain by hook or by crook appear less than desirable - arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different for another's.

But while to the immigrant entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country. They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. On top of this, they now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by Act of Parliament: a law, which cannot, and is not intended, to operate to protect them or redress their grievances, is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk either penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine. I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me. She did give her name and address, which I have detached from the letter which I am about to read. She was writing from Northumberland about something which is happening at this moment in my own constituency:

Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet streets became a place of noise and confusion.

Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7 a.m. by two Negroes who wanted to use her phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying her rates, she had less than £2 per week. She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said 'racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country'. So she went home.

The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most in a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out.

Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letterbox. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. 'Racialist', they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word 'integration'. To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction. But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one to boot.

We are on the verge of here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate. Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of action domination, first over fellow immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a Minister in the present Government.

The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker: whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organize to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding.

Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.


Make Love, Not War

phil

RE: Multicultureism a failed doctrin

#9 by mikejee , Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:03 am

Phil
While I think I would agree that Powell was probably not a racialist, but someone who was worried about things he thought might happen, I do not agree with him for many reasons, not least the fact that , as do all politicians, he very definitely picked and chose what he wished to consider. It is probably just unfortunate that one of those he chose to praise, John Stonehouse, is now known to be a crook, and is thought likely to have been passing low grade information to Russia for part of his career, but this does show his lack of practical judgement. His comments on Sikhs are understandable, though I personally would probably not insist on them wearing a helmet rather than a turban; but he completely ignores the obnoxious practice of other extefrnal religions such as the Catholic church in trying to interfere with the rights of British people to run their affairs properly. It is only recently that their deliberate collaboration with paedophiles has been proved, but this was happening while Enoch was procrastinating, and suspected by some.
Apparently "charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies" cannot speak English. While I would agree that some the Indian subcontinent might not be able to, but I haven't heard indian children ever described as piccaninnies; this was always reserved for those of African or West Indian descent. These do speak English, though with a strong accent and often using a patois. At the time of the speech I would think it very likely that 90% of the total British population would find it just as difficult (or more) to understand quite a number of inhabitants of the Black country, not too far from Enoch's own constituency. My mother still has great difficulty in understanding a strong Glaswegian accent. Don't see any mention of either of these groups of people in the speech.
As I said before, I don't think he was a racialist, and I am sure that he would treat Jamaicans, Indians or whoever with respect if he was to meet them . As you quite rightly say Phil, he was a well educated intelligent man. Unfortunately his background and upbringing made him the sort of unworldy intelligent man who thought the best education was a public school education, and that that learning latin and greek and doing "something in the city" were more important than actually producing or developing anything useful. While he would probably not have been invited to join the Bullingdon club, he wouldn't have objected to them. I have not read his biography, as I believe you have, Phil, but I do wonder why he truely went into politics. He could have remained in academic life and I think he would have been better suited to it.
Many politicians, of all persuasions, go into it because they are not capable of doing anything useful. I don't consider ancient languages as particularly useful, but someone has to do them, and he did them well.
Mike


mikejee  
mikejee

Founder Member
Posts: 3.071
Date registered 12.26.2009


RE: Multiculturalism a failed doctrine

#10 by phil ( deleted ) , Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:40 am

Mike

You raise some interesting points, I agree that being brought up the way he was, he was not very worldly wise. Lets face it he was a life long Tory from a Tory family background, brought up in a background of upper class universities and public schools and So he would look on any working class person (black or white) as inferior even though coming from Welsh coal mining stock originally. I have to state that I do not agree with all the things that he said that day, but some of them made a lot of sense especially those about the proposed race relations bill. He foretold that it would make the white British person a second class citizen in their own country.

Yes some of the things he said in the speech he made that day and others elsewhere would have been hard to understand by the ordinary people that he represented in the house and I can only repeat that he was ill advised to give that speech that day in front of a barrage of press and TV cameras. They had seen an advanced copy of his speech and were there because they knew it would raise controversy.

I also have to say that I put his downfall down to lack of support from his own party who could not distant themselves from him quick enough. Thats why I find what Cameron is saying as so distasteful even though what he says may be true. After all his party along with all the others have nurtured multiculturalism when integration is the path we should have been pursuing.

Phil


Make Love, Not War

phil

RE: Multiculturalism a failed doctrine

#11 by berniew , Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:44 pm

I think that the goverment policy to set up so called free schools will isolate communities even more because muslims will set up schools for their own communities especially girls only schools .
Bernie

berniew  
berniew
Posts: 942
Date registered 12.28.2009


RE: Multiculturalism a failed doctrine

#12 by phil ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:05 pm

Bernie

This lot haven't a clue what they are doing they are just stumbling around blindly in the dark, Cameron goes on about the Big Society while causing cuts to charities and organisations that can help him achieve his aims.

Phil


Make Love, Not War

phil

   

Bankers Levy
Multicultureism a failed doctrin

Thank you for visiting our humble forum, make this your forum by joining us and posting your own thoughts and questions.
Xobor Create your own Forum with Xobor