"It was, he says, fighting racism that got him into politics. At sixth-form college he joined the Labour Party and ran a campaign against “Paki-bashing”. He chose to stand for election as an MP in the Oldham East & Saddleworth constituency, which has a high Pakistani and Kashmiri population. “It's had a race riot, it's had a huge BNP [British National Party] presence and it's a marginal seat. It's a complete crucible,” he says. “But we've never had a BNP councillor - I hope I've had something to do with that by getting in and getting dirty.”
For all the hoo-hah about immigration in UK, the figures tell a different story. All immigrants account for less than 5% of the population. Given that these are spread across UK, it is not exactly swamping the country. Sure there will be pockets but UK is primarily and will remain white. Mr Woolas describes dealing with immigration as “my lifelong purpose” but he is not going to be pandering to what he calls Hampstead liberals."
anyway here we go again! labour dredging up that old rabble rousing formula: unemployment + immigation = no jobs for the indigenous (read white) population! It's Mr Woolas who's stoking xenophobia .
Employers should, he believes, put British people first, or they will risk fuelling racism.
No they shouldn't. They should put first whoever is the right person for the job - if that's a foreigner, so be it. I don't understand why it's the non-eu migrants that are blamed. It's no secret that most non-eu economic migrants communicate in english more effectively compared to other eu migrants in uk. They don't claim benefits and pay for all the services they receive here. Has not the british empire left a legacy within the Commonwealth group of nations that provides for peoples who have a commonality and affiliation to the mother country more so than any european nation?then we get to the core of his (anti muslim) issues:
"The hijab can, in his view, be divisive. “People wear veils for different reasons: some out of religious conviction. some because they're forced to. It should be up to them, but at school you shouldn't wear one. It's harder to get a good education if you wear a veil as you're more cut off.”
you have a choice as long as it is good old phils choice. let freedom of phils choice reign."Women in Muslim communities should be encouraged to work, even if that goes against their culture. “My guiding light is that we have to talk about these things. It is important for everyone.”
and if they dont want to? and yet the evidence against working mothers is the breakdown of society, feral children who now kill and maim with knives and guns.
"Mr Woolas wants to make it difficult for people to bring in very young girls from abroad for an arranged marriage. “I am about to increase the age limit of entry by a spouse from 18 to 21. The way in which our society treats some of these boys and girls is a crime".
the age of consent in the uk is 16, and yet woolas wants to raise the age to 21 for those who arrive here from outside of the uk.
"If someone so young from a rural area marries and is brought in to an area that is predominantly of one culture and never goes out, that doesn't help them or society.”
isnt that equally true for those brits who live in this country?
"He is also concerned about the number of marriages between first cousins in Indian and Pakistani families. “Anyone who knows my community knows there are higher proportions of physical disability amongst the children of first-cousin marriages. It's a cultural issue. The morally right thing is to raise awareness of that. The risk of disability is 4.7 per cent - that's double the average. If your grandparents were first cousins, too, it goes up to 52 per cent. I don't say you shouldn't marry your first cousin, I say if you do, be careful and be screened."
fine to provide the figures but what proportion of south asian descent are marrying first cousins?
"He supports the principle of Muslim faith schools, although he insists “you have to use schools to help break down segregation. They should learn about all faiths - there shouldn't be exclusive access. Children from other faiths should be allowed in.”
so there was no problem before muslim schools? and what is the point of these schools if there is no exclusive access and non faith specific? the fact is that 50% of jewish children go to jewish schools, 2% of muslims go to islamic schools.
- link
In no multiethnic country is there an automatic connection between economic problems and racial/communal tension. Some politicians - and people generally - say there is - politicians often for political gain.
But the state creates the norms and rules through which all kinds of communities operate. For a minister to say that more immigration into Britain -[ or in any country ] would increase racial tension is to imply - wrongly - that such tension is inevitable. By saying this, a minister might make such tension inevitable, instead of discouraging it.
Governments of multiethnic countries should encourage people to rise above racial stereotypes, discrimination and insecurity, once they have allowed immigrants to enter. Leaders set norms - people follow them.
The state bears an enormous - I would say the maximum responsibility - for the existence or absence of racial tension. After all it is the responsibility of the state to safeguard the lives and property of its citizens - rather than implying that racial/economic tension could be inevitable - and also by implication absolving the state of responsibility for any tension.Just how does woolas expect to prevent 400 million eu members from entering the uk?
Woolas's call for a cap on immigration is not the first time he has attracted controversy. In 2006 he said that Aishah Azmi, a Muslim teaching assistant, should be sacked for wearing an Islamic veil in class. In February of this year he raised the question of inter-cousin marriage as a cause of the high incidence of disability within Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities.
The problem IS the economy ...not immigration ... lets fix the economy ...
Given the historical hostility of right-wing parties - from the NF and BNP through to parts of the Conservative party - to black people and Asians (regardless of whether they were immigrants, refugees or British citizens), it's hard to see how Woolas's intervention addresses anything to do with existing racial tensions in somewhere like Oldham - how likely is keeping 'Them' out (or at least cutting 'Their' numbers) going to reduce racial tension, or change attitudes amongst those who think 'They' should never been allowed into Britain in the first place?
Woolas's claim that "If people are being made unemployed, the question of immigration becomes extremely thorny ... It's been too easy to get into this country in the past and it's going to get harder" not only stands past New Labour policy (such as it was) on its head, it assumes that it's all the migrants' fault for having the nerve to want to work in Britain (even if only because the recession may be even worse where they're from).
Throw in his capitulation to the 'numbers game/boat is full' crowd (aka the BNP's statistical wing), and it's game set and match to the neo-Powellites. How very New Labour, to think they can now triangulate to stave off the BNP, and assume the only way to get (white) working-class votes back is to dump on immigrants.
Maybe if Woolas holds on to his seat with an increased majority he'll think it was worth it. Me, I'm less convinced by something that looks more like divide and rule than a coherent policy.
[+/-] show/hide this post
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home