|
||
In Case You Hadn't Noticed: Britain's Got Fascists
While the rest of the world has been distracted by Susan Boyle, the people of Britain have just sent two representatives of a far-right, white supremacist party to the European Parliament. Yep, you read that right. Almost a million excuses for my fellow countrymen just voted for a party whose main policy platform is the deportation of all people of immigrant heritage - not just illegal migrants, but any citizen of immediate black, minority ethnic or Jewish descent.
At home in London, I have found myself glaring at every other white person I see on the street, thinking did you vote BNP? Some of us were that stupid - are you one of them? Eventually I couldn't stand it anymore; I emptied out my savings and scrambled onto the next plane off that scuppered isle.
Which is how I found myself at 8am this morning in New York's Central Park, which seems to be essentially Narnia with a lot more dogs, washing down a pastrami bagel with a tasty Chinese concoction called 'bubble tea'. New York City: what an unearthly, alien, wonderful place. Ninety years ago, my ancestors arrived at Ellis Island, fleeing Lithuania's anti-Semitic purges. Now I can't get on the subway without seeing murals celebrating the city's rich history of immigration.
Whilst it remains terrifically tricky to access US citizenship, leaving millions living in this country illegally, the pro-immigration lobby in the United States is impressively well-supported: most Americans are sympathetic towards immigrants, at least in principle. President Obama has pledged to make immigration reform a Year One policy priority, and pro-immigration activists are taking every opportunity to hound him into keeping his promise. This month Deepak Bhargava announced the launch of the nationwide 'Reform Immigration for America' campaign on this site. By contrast, the most radical pro-immigration expressions I've heard whilst working in the British Parliament have been muttered admissions that yes, on balance, immigrants do contribute to the British economy.
Inevitably, of course, such sentiments are often followed up with qualifiers - 'well, we need someone to do all the dirty jobs!', 'well, where would we be without Friday Night curries?' - that are at best facetious, at worst disgustingly xenophobic. Google UK's top hits for 'pro-immigration' are a home office page on new, stricter immigration controls followed by a handful of reports on protests in Mexico and Germany. Even in the nominally liberal media, only a few columnists have been brave enough to challenge the orthodoxy that recently saw the Daily Mail publish what amounted to a racial purity test. I am not ashamed of my country: I don't think I have it in me. I'm a patriot. But I am disappointed, and I am deeply angry.
Here in NYC, the politics of immigration are subtler. For a start, distinction is drawn between people of immigrant heritage and illegal immigrants, only the latter of whom appear to face sustained resentment from certain sections of the right. In London, conservative resentment is dealt indiscriminately to anyone with a background which is not 'white, British'. We have no real semiotic equivalent for US constructions like 'African-American' and 'Sino-American'.
New York remembers what London has forgotten: that we are all immigrants, even white Britons who can trace their ancestry back to Saxon mud-hut dwellers. Immigration is what Britain is all about: since records began it's been the waves of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Romans, Normans, Spaniards, Celts, Hugenots, Jews, Italians, South-East Asians, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Africans, Jamaicans, Australians, Eastern Europeans and Americans that have kept us vibrant, whole and growing as a nation. It's racists and recalcitrants in power who are the real scum muddying up the waters of change and vitality roaring around our islands, keeping the poor poor and the rich ignorant.
When I return to squelchy London, I'll be bringing home peanut M-and-Ms and postcards of Liberty Island. I wish more than anything that I had room in my rucksack for the deep-rooted impression that migrants do not just contribute to Western culture: they are what makes it great.
Laurie Penny is a British freelance journalist and a columnist for LabourList.
Follow LabourList on Twitter: www.twitter.com/labourlist
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I'm perplexed. Penny, you've been in New York how long?
America has a very straightforward citizenship program. It really is simple - be in the country some almost trivial amount of time, prove you can converse at a rudimentary level in English (this is not to exclude anyone; it's simply an acknowledgement that the road signs are written are English), and take a very simple test. Then you take the oath, and you can become an American Citizen. Millions do this, every year.
The onus is not on the applicant to prove they want to be American. To be denied a chance at citizenship, the government has to prove you don't deserve it. It's an open, almost friendly, system. Petty bureaucrats notwithstanding.
However - you break the rules, and the full power of the Federal Government will be felt upon your neck. The people who are charged with ensuring you obey the rules are very serious about upholding The Constitution, and the reputation of the INS. (Government officials can, in many cases, be personally sued for Constitutional breaches. But, in my experience, they uphold the Constitution of the United States mostly because they actually believe in it.)
New York is a city of immigrants. Most of the people you meet are from somewhere else. They haven't forgotten it, it's just not that important.
Carolyn Ann
]
Heh. Of course the reality is that the UK's intake of immigrants is among the smaller in Europe; being an island isolates it from the biggest and most destitute waves of asylum seekers. But arguing with BNP supporters is like arguing with creationists - they don't accept such mundane things as facts in opposition to their pre-existing prejudices.
My guess as to why the BNP-supporting Brits are so paranoid about outsiders invading their precious little island is that there's some deep collective memory of the damage and cruelty inflicted by Empire on more or less every corner of the globe. They have good cause to think that everybody hates them, because at one time or another there might very well have been some truth to that. In the narcissistic way of overprivileged crybabies everywhere, they imagine that this hate ought to express itself in hoards of unwashed foreigners coming in to "take what's ours".
Importantly, though, they really are not fascists. Their ethos leans more towards the extreme national socialist end of the spectrum, with strong central control of the economy and labour as well as political and military issues. Pluralism in the UK tends to be associated with the upper classes, and protectionism with the white working class, and the holocaust denying rhetoric of the BNP is part and parcel of an ideology lifted almost wholesale from 1930's Germany.
"Of course the reality is that the UK's intake of immigrants is among the smaller in Europe"
Britain is now the second most densely populated nation in Europe, behind the tiny island nation of Malta. It has overtaken the densely packed Netherlands.
Immigration accounts for 70% of the UK's population growth.
The "Safe 3rd Country Rule" is hardly ever adhered to, with asylum seekers fleeing from unknown evils in faraway lands continuing their hardships by travelling through perfectly acceptable EU nations to seek asylum here!
Being against unfettered immigration is not racist, it is pragmatic. We live together as a nation and try to do well for ourselves. Each new arrival here -even after any assumed tax they would pay, if employed, is deducted - detracts from the average wealth of each citizen. Our over-burdened public services, which are funded massively from tax revenues, cannot cope with increased pressure. Nor can our transport network which is already at melting point.
Two of the four largest groups of immigrants come from Pakistan and Somalia, both of which pose serious security concerns due to the large number of Islamic extremists who originate from these countries, yet our border controls are abysmal and I known second-hand how easy it is to come to the country even if legitimate channels are exhausted.
(to be continued)
...
The standard response of the Left in the UK is to brand anyone who opposed immigration a racist.
This is reprehensible student-union politics. The basic facts are the people who are already citizens of this country, be they ethnically from the British Isles, or anywhere else in the world, have the right to decide what immigration levels are acceptable.
This right is consistently denied them by mendacious governments whose only duty is to line their pockets by feeding on scraps thrown to them by those in big business; and by the naive, idealistic Left who have not noticed that hardly any other country has such lenient and ridiculous border controls.
Bringing up Empire is just ridiculous - the people who my nation sadly invaded and oppressed many, many years before i was born detested the fact that foreigners came to their country and started stealing their national wealth.
It is right and proper to think highly of these people who stood up to imperialism - it is not right and proper to deny those same feelings of independence and nationality to the British.
The reality is that the UK's intake of immigrants is among the smaller in Europe; being an island shileds it from the biggest waves of asylum seekers coming in from offshore conflict zones. But arguing with BNP supporters is like arguing with creationists - they don't accept such mundane things as facts in opposition to their pre-existing prejudices.
My guess as to why the BNP-supporting Brits are so paranoid about outside invasion is that there's some deep collective memory of the damage and cruelty inflicted by Empire on more or less every corner of the globe. They have good cause to think that everybody hates them, because at one time or another there might very well have been some truth to that. In the narcissistic way of overprivileged crybabies everywhere, they imagine that this hate ought to express itself in hoards of unwashed foreigners coming in to "take what's ours".
Still, they really are not fascists. Their ethos leans more towards the extreme national socialist end of the spectrum, with strong central control of the economy and labour as well as political and military issues. Pluralism in the UK tends to be associated with the upper classes, and protectionism with the white working class, and the holocaust denying rhetoric of the BNP is part and parcel of an ideology lifted almost wholesale from 1930's Germany.
The vote for the BNP was seen as a vote of desperation by many working class families.
The Labour party - the party which Ms Penny champions, regardless of their policies - is responsible for uncontrolled immigration (even people who openly detest our nation and way of life are allowed in), an out-of-control benefits system where it is easier and often more profitable to not work than work, whose Members of Parliament are more interested in feathering their own nests, who ennobles people so that unelected (unelectable) peers (Mandelson, Sugar) can rule our country. Mandelson has twice had to resign from government in disgrace, yet he is the second most important member of the government behind the unelected PM Gordon Brown.
It's very easy for a rich middle-class wannabe socialist to fly over to New York and sip lattes and despair at her fellow countrymen - we despair at the young naifs like Ms Penny who would blindly support a party without thought, a party which has bankrupted our nation and ruined our national identity.
In previous generations, she would be in jail or worse. Labour have tolled the final bell for the UK, and she still supports them without question.
Disgusting.
Where do I start? Pointing out that Ms Penny actually voted for the Liberal Democrats (the party that doesn't like single people)? Asking why you say she would be in jail "in previous generations"? What for?
Or by pointing out that the benefits system is designed to demoralise unemployed people by endlessly asking assuming they must be lazy and ordering that they disprove it?
The US is huge and could take in another 400million people without becoming overcrowded. Britain is a tiny island and cannot sustain immigration at the current levels.
The government, media etc condemns everybody who expresses concern with MASS immigration as a racist. They ignore the huge problems with importing large numbers of uneducated, illiterate people from the third world who have cultural and religious attitudes that are incompatible with a liberal society.
Most of the people who voted for the BNP were not racist, they just voted for the one party voicing the reality on the streets regarding the impact of mass immigration on peoples lives. Particularly regarding muslims and the demands for their right to impose sharia law in the areas where they live. Culture is important, what people believe determines their attitudes and behaviour and many incoming cultures are extremely hostile to freedom and liberty.
People are sick of their kids going to schools where few of their classmates speak english so they learn nothing, they are sick of the massive strains on housing, the health service, lack of jobs, crime and worst of all seeing their community transform into little Bangladesh, Pakistan, Somalia etc.
They do not want their grandchildren condemned to a third world, misogynistic, homophobic, Islamic hellhole which is what Britain may be in fifty years time.
Society is important. Social cohesion is important. Nobody has a problem with the Indians, the Chinese and other groups of non whites who contribute positively to society.
Why is it worse, in your eyes, for a right-wing Muslim to demand Sharia law than for a right-wing Christian to demand the return of hanging and flogging?
Because we are a predominantly Christian country.
If Sharia law ever came to my country, I would no longer obey the law.
American could more than double the population 400 million? Not a chance!
Perhaps in a decade, when the need is there - but right now? No way. The backlash against the required building would cheer many an extreme-Republican.
Besides, America is not being turned into a third world country. From what I've seen (I've seen plenty of this nation, thank you very much!), it changes the people within it. They begin to embrace what America really stands for, not what they left behind. And if schoolchildren aren't speaking, they soon are.
Yes, people come from cultures that are hostile to freedom and liberty. But once here, I see them accepting it - because it allows them the chance to be successful. And believe what they want, and in turn, no one can impose a belief on them. They can't impose on their neighbor, their neighbor can't impose on them. The 1st Amendment in practice.
Illiterate? Uneducated masses? I have to ask - are you stuck in the perceptions of 1900's?
Carolyn Ann
As a native New Yorker (it was a pleasure meeting you yesterday, by the way), how you see the city is very interesting to me. I'm surprised by the attitude you seem to see in London toward immigrants. I've always been pleasantly surprised by the fact that interracial relationships don't seem to be that big a deal in England, whereas here it's still an issue - the kind that will still inspire people to write angry letters to TV shows that feature them.
I'm also privy to the more insidious ways racism rears its ugly head here. While it's true that the US got a lot out of its system in the 1960s, and racism isn't accepted, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It also doesn't mean that it only exists among whites. I'm Hispanic (Puerto Rican, specifically), and it always boggles my mind the levels of racism that exist within our community! So, many whites look down on Hispanics seeing them all as illegals mooching off the economy (even when they're not), and Hispanics look down on each other both for not being "Hispanic enough" or for being too dark-skinned.
What a crazy mess.
This is the first piece of writing I've seen which makes the point that, for my money, informs the whole debate: the nature of immigration itself. As an archaeologist, the most satisfying part of my universitywas the day when we got our first lecture on the human disapora, and seeing all the blossoming young public-school bigots realise slowly but surely that, racist or white or rich or not, advertising or retail worker, we're all African.
The process of immigration is not, however the victorians saw it, the movement of static groups from place to place, replacing or displacing previous occupants, but that of conjoining and schisming groups. Prior to rapid, low-cost communication, the flow of ideas was easily staunched by the prohibition of travel, but even then of course the system was flawed.
Back to my point, restriction of immigration is no longer an effective measure against societal change, nor is it an effective method to prevent the outsourcing of labour, with the internet as an effectively unpoliceable, nationless market, and with so many products now being intangible, such as web-design and data-processing.
Having ruled out the possibility of strict immigration legislation being good either for business or the status quo, the only reason for rejecting from our shores the majority of the world's thinkers, managers, innovators, doctors, teachers, nurses, etc, would be racism and/or the willingness to be blindly led by racists.
Which can be easily dispelled through rational argument, and...
..um...
..ah.
"Now I can't get on the subway without seeing murals celebrating the city's rich history of immigration."
There's a few in London if you look for them. There clearly are major differences in British and American attitudes to immigration, though. Not least because a far larger percentage of Americans come from families who came to the country relatively recently.
It's somewhat misleading to say the BNP's "main policy platform is the deportation of all people of immigrant heritage."
Deportation (assuming you mean to expel someone from the country) of all people of immigrant heritage isn't even one of their policies, let alone their main policy platform. They support 'voluntary repatriation'.
That's a policy that is as hideous as it is ridiculous - and clearly no one should be under any illusions about what live might be like for non-white communities in Britain if a government seeking to pursue it was elected - but it is different to deportation.
The point is that BNP now are not happy to live up to a simplistic fascist caricature. They're a bit more cunning than that and that's one reason why they've become more electable.
I think it would be good if the left and others could start making positive arguments for immigration because that's a good thing to do in itself. Whether that would ultimately reduce support for the BNP, I don't know.
As misimiki presumably knows, but won't admit, Christmas Day and Boxing Day remain Bank Holidays in England and Wales. Scotland just gets Xmas Day, but they get an extra day at New Year. Divali is not a Bank Holiday in Britain.
If you add to this the presence of Church of England clergy in the House of Lords, but the absence of anyone there to represent other religions, you see what a load of twaddle is being talked.
"the absence of anyone there to represent other religions"
By convention, the Chief Rabbi is usually made a Lord. The most under represented religious group is Catholics (8% of the population, compared to 23% Anglican). Catholics make up a large proportion of the population, but we have 500 years of legislation with an anti-Catholic bias. However, Catholic clergy are forbidden by Canon Law from holding offices connected with the government of any state other than the Holy See, so even if Catholic clergy were elevated to the Lords they would refuse to accept the offer. So if you cannot have Catholic bishops in the Lords there's no point in appointing religious leaders of the minority religions.
Anyway, religion is bunk and should have nothing to do with legislation or government.
Am totally in agreement re separation of church and state, I only mention it to disprove the claim made by the poster before me.
The Bishops in the House of Lords are a disgrace, and should be removed.
As should anybody else who was not elected.
Which leaves....nobody. Welcome to Labour's reform of the House of Lords - remove hereditary peers and replace with cronies of the current Prime Minister, such as the despicable Lord Mandelson - twice disgraced and resigned from government, and now back in power in an unelected capacity.
Disgusting. That's the party Ms Penny supports....
I don't agree with Laurie that a TV programme distracts people to the extent she thinks, but I suppose she needed a title for her article ...
I was amused at the naivety of the poster who claims the BNP are not racist. Yeah, riiiiiiiiight. That is why they do not allow non-white people to join the party. As for Jewish people, well, Nick Griffin's record on Holocaust denial speaks for itself.
The BNP are nationalist, they are right-wing and they are also blatant racists.
The BNP are a far-left nationalist party, they are not right wing.
Check out their (national) socialist policies on their website, and stop using misleading terms.
I'm not going to their website. Some of us have to rely on public computers and I am not risking having their website in the history where someone more impressionable might find them.
Since when was it left wing to advocate hanging? Or to support the monarchy?
I have to take exception to this article. I am not a BNP supporter nor did I vote for them in the EP elections, however to call this party 'fascist" I think is hugely misleading. It is a Nationalist party allegedly seeking to serve the interests of the British people and is firmly anti immigration although Caucasian (and by that they probably mean European) immigrants are to be accepted. Anti Semitic, not in the conventional sense but anti-Islam yes. Anti Jewish - I hardly think so: they have actively sought to win Jewish votes for their anti-Islam campaign.
And why did so many people vote for them? I think that many Brits are sick and tired of the present Government's drive to promote a multicultural society, allowing immigrants to enter the country of their own free will and then abusing the state in terms of benefits and health services while not actually contributing to society at all. How do you respond to a government that eagerly promotes Diwhali over Christmas, because (and I kid you not) Christmas might offend their religious beliefs. And this is in a Christian country with its own church.
It would be more suitable if you painted the picture of what is going on in the UK instead of waxing lyrical over life in NYC.
"How do you respond to a government that eagerly promotes Diwhali over Christmas, because (and I kid you not) Christmas might offend their religious beliefs."
You're kidding yourself, friend. Have a peek at this quite thorough debunking of the anti-Christmas stoires that get put around each year. No one tries to ban Christmas. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/dec/08/religion.communities
This is no more thorough than the original articles, or do you judge thoroughness on the paper the hack writes for?
I've seen this anti-Christmas thing in action a few years ago, and while it doesn't bother me too much as an atheist, I find it quite offensive to demean religious celebrations that have taken place for over 1000 years in this country, and then replace them with foreign religious celebrations (funded by the tax payer of course).
I'd rather have any, and I am utterly against the hypocrisy of removing Christian influence in our society to avoid offense, and replacing with influence of much more despicable religions, such as Islam.
Laurie, you have (seemingly intentionally) failed to address the central question of WHY so many people voted BNP. It's due to a massive loss of faith in mainstream politics in the UK, the main cause of which has been the catastrophic failure of recent Labour Governments to wield power with any degree of competence.
Why don't you address the destruction of the UK economy via Labour's hugely irresponsible economic policy? Or Iraq? Or the degenerate greed of our elected representatives - MPs flipping houses, claiming for duck shelters, sink plugs, even porn films in the Home Secretary's case, for god's sake!!
What a pointless, diversionary piece of piffle this article is. A pretty good demonstration of why at the next election Labour will be cast into the wilderness for years - hopefully for good.
Pretty much the same amount of people voted for the BNP in 2005 as did in 2009. Fewer people voted overall, meaning that they got their seats through apathy, rather than any fervour directed at mainstream politics.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that a lot of people chose not to vote out of anger or disillusionment with the three main parties rather than simple apathy. Or if not, then you need some explanation for the substantial increase in apathy in the last four years.
Your logic is flawed, and if you think people in the UK aren't angry - to the point of fury in cases - you need to get out more.
You can get peanut M&M's in London :-)
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
