Election Fraud: Is Britain Finally Waking Up to the Disaster of Multiculturalism?

Getty

If ever you’ve worried that parts of Britain now resemble some hideously corrupt, Third World Islamic basket case hell hole then you’re going to loveSir Eric Pickles’s gloriously robust report on electoral fraud.

His target, it’s clear, isn’t just the Muslim communities in places like London’s Tower Hamlets (and Birmingham and many Northern towns) which have imported to Britain the kind of political skullduggery and malpractice routine on the Indian subcontinent. More broadly what Pickles is attacking is the bankrupt philosophy of Multiculturalism and the entrenched, institutional political correctness that have made it all possible.

Consider, for example, this passage on the use of “foreign languages” at polling stations:

The languages spoken in polling stations (and other places such as the count) has recently become an issue with concerns that promoting the use of non-English languages could disguise coercion or influence within the polling station. This has not been helped by the Electoral Commission facilitating what it calls “community languages”. Such an approach undermines integration and leaves the door open to fraud. These are not ‘community languages’ – they are foreign languages.

Here is a bloody-minded Yorkshireman being about as blunt as you possibly can in an official report. The reason Muslim communities get away with flouting and corrupting British values, he is saying, is because the relevant authorities are turning a blind eye.

In this instance, he is referring to the practice of “booth capturing”, explained here for Breitbart last year by Jonathan Foreman.

Few people in the UK have heard of “Booth-Capturing”. In India and across South Asia it is a political phenomenon that is all too familiar. It is one of the most visible and outrageous illegal methods that are used to undermine democratic elections in the region.

Essentially, thugs working on behalf of a political party physically take over polling stations and use the threat of violence to prevent supporters of opposing parties from voting. (It helps that many parties have youth wings whose real purpose is the supply of necessary muscle).

Of course, these thugs speak in languages like Urdu and Bengali in order to make it harder for English speaking authorities – mainly the police – to prove that voters are being intimidated.

The obvious solution to this is to do what the Pickles report suggests and insist that from now on only English (or for historical reasons, Welsh) can be spoken at polling stations. Why, given the scale of the problem, hadn’t the Electoral Commission already suggested and instituted this?

Why, of course, because like many other authorities – from local government to the police – the Electoral Commission is so crippled by political correctness and so fearful of being accused of “racism” or “Islamophobia” that it has simply failed to do its job. This is why – as we’ve seen everywhere from the rape gangs of Rotherham to the Trojan Horse schools in Birmingham to the electoral malpractice at Tower Hamlets to the widespread use of Sharia courts to enforce civil matters in Muslim ghetto areas – Islam has been given the power to create a state-within-a-state in many parts of Britain, where Muslims have effectively been given carte-blanche to act outside the law of the land.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Labour’s Hypocrisy on Immigration Is Breathtaking

EVERY time I pop to the shops, I’m reminded that the Britain of my childhood has gone for ever.

These days I’m as likely to hear Bulgarian, Polish or Romanian as English. And while I have no objections to any of these no doubt decent, hard-working, law-abiding people individually, I cannot help but feel the country I grew up in is no longer my own.The burgeoning popularity of Ukip suggests that I’m not alone. But until recently it wasn’t something you could admit in public without being called “racist”. This was one of the Labour party’s most successful and dangerous achievements in the wake of Enoch Powell’s 1968 Rivers of Blood speech.For four decades, Labour created a climate in which even to question the idea that mass immigration, “multiculturalism” and “diversity” were an unmitigated good was tantamount to being a member of the National Front.Typical of this was Labour’s response during the 2005 general election campaign to a speech by the then Conservative leader Michael Howard in which he said: “It’s not racist to talk about immigration. It’s not racist to criticise the system.

It’s not racist to want to limit the numbers. It’s just plain common sense.” According to Labour spokesman Peter Hain these were “scurrilous, Rightwing, ugly tactics”.

But will Hain, I wonder, condemn the comments by a senior politician earlier this week that “It isn’t racist to be worried about immigration or to call for immigration reform”?

Somehow I’m guessing not. Though the words sound remarkably similar to Howard’s the MP speaking them this time was none other than Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. As breathtaking hypocrisy goes, this takes some beating.

Not only does it breach Labour leader Ed Miliband’s pledge last week that: “What we will never do is try to out-Ukip Ukip” but it is also an outrageous attempt to duck responsibility for a crisis which is of Labour’s making.

The increase in immigration since the late 1990s was significantly influenced by the government

House of Lords

Between the 1997 arrival of Labour’s Tony Blair as prime minister and the departure in 2010 of Labour’s Gordon Brown, immigration in Britain soared by 45 per cent – from around 327,000 immigrants per annum to 596,000.And those are just the ones officially recorded by the Office For National Statistics.Once you add illegal immigrants that figure may double to more than one million a year.

“The increase in immigration since the late 1990s was significantly influenced by the government’s Managed Migration policies.”

That’s a quote from a 2008 House of Lords economic affairs select committee telling us something that Labour is now very reluctant to admit: that the 2.3 million migrants added to the UK population between 2000 and 2009 didn’t arrive here as a result of some forgivable border control oversight.

They came as a direct consequence of Labour policy. We know this because of a Labour whistleblower called Andrew Neather – a former speechwriter to Tony Blair, as well as Labour home secretaries David Blunkett and Jack Straw – who later became a newspaper columnist.

In one of his articles he revealed that Labour’s wholehearted embrace of mass immigration had a “driving political purpose” – to “make the UK truly multicultural”.

Read the rest at The Express

Memo to the BBC: It’s Not the ‘Far Right’ Which Decapitates Aid Workers or Rapes Schoolgirls

September 18, 2014

Here is the news: in Australia, a plot by Islamic State sympathisers to capture random members of the public and chop their heads off has been foiled by security services; in Syria, two Americans and a British hostage have been beheaded by an Islamist nicknamed Jihadi John – and another innocent Briton (a taxi driver captured while working for an aid convoy) has been told he is next on the list; across Britain, in the aftermath of the Rotherham enquiry, more and more evidence is emerging that in towns and cities all over the country mostly underage white girls have been systematically groomed, raped and trafficked by organised Muslim gangs, with the complicity of local government authorities, charity workers, police officers and the broader Muslim community.

Luckily, thanks to the BBC, we know what the real problem is here. It is, of course, our old friends, “Islamophobia” and “the spectre of a far right” backlash.

Both of these alleged threats featured prominently on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, including an interview with a former, self-confessed “far right” thug who revealed – presumably to no listener’s especial surprise – that the organisation to which he had belonged was racist, prone to violence, and likely to react strongly to issues like the Rotherham rape gangs.

Today also ran an interview with Tell Mama – the one-man activist organisation run by Fiyaz Mughal which has long since been exposed for its exaggerations and its threadbare methodology in cooking up an alleged spate of “anti-Muslim” hate crimes.

When, for example, last year Tell Mama reported that there had been 212 anti-Muslim incidents, it turned out that 57 per cent of these comprised disobliging comments on Twitter or Facebook, many of them emanating from outside Britain.

And the BBC Today show rounded off with a Muslim spokeswoman who was given space to assure listeners that mosques around Britain were already doing a great deal to combat extremism but hadn’t been given credit for it.

Phew. So that’s all right then.

Except, of course, it’s really not all right.

Perhaps it wouldn’t matter so much if this BBC feature were a rare aberration. But it’s not. It’s long-term house policy. Barely were the bodies of the 52 victims of the 7/7 London bus and tube suicide bombings cold than the BBC’s reporters were out pounding the streets looking for evidence of the real issue of concern – not Islamist extremism and its numerous fellow-travellers, of course, but yes, for the spectre of Islamophobia and an anti-Muslim backlash by “the far right.” It responded in the same way after the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby – complete, of course, with an interview about the “cycle of violence against Muslims” and the “underlying Islamophobia in our society” by our friend Fiyaz Mughal of Tell Mama.

Read the rest at Breitbart London

One thought on “Memo to the BBC: it’s not the ‘far right’ which decapitates aid workers or rapes schoolgirls”

salgak says:18th September 2014 at 5:27 pmWe keep ignoring those Peaceful, Moderate Muslims. You know, the ones who are too busy to do anything about extremism, because they’re up in the hills somewhere, tending their Unicorns . . . .

Comments are closed.

Everything is the fault of the ‘Far Right’. Everything… | James Delingpole

September 3, 2014

Andrew Norfolk is the heroic, crusading Times chief investigative reporter who broke the Rotherham child sex story. But admirable though he surely is, does anyone else find something a bit disturbing about this statement he made this week?

“I didn’t want the story to be true because it made me deeply uncomfortable. The suggestion that men from a minority ethnic background were committing sex crimes against white children was always going to be the far right’s fantasy story come true. Innocent white victims, evil dark-skinned abusers. Liberal angst kicked instinctively into top gear.”

The thing that disturbs me is this: that Norfolk was apparently less discomfited by the enormity of the crime itself than he was by the spectre of the “far right’s” likely response. I’m sure he didn’t mean it to come out that way. I’ve no doubt he cares deeply about the suffering of the children he interviewed in the course of his investigations.

But the fact that he even raised the issue speaks volumes about the mentality of the liberal-left: so great is its fear of the Far Right Bogeyman that it will do almost anything avoid incurring its wrath – even, in some cases, if it means turning a blind eye to rape, fraud and worse.

Read the rest at Breitbart London

What the left would prefer you didn’t know about multiculturalism… | James Delingpole

September 1, 2014

All right, so it was only a straw poll conducted among viewers of yesterday’s BBC Sunday Morning Live debate programme: 95 per cent of Britons think multiculturalism has been a failure.
But as majority verdicts go, it was a pretty resounding one – and it was delivered despite the BBC’s best efforts to muddy the waters, first by wheeling out two of the nation’s Multi Culti Apologist big guns Owen Jones and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, and second by pretending that multiculturalism means something other than what it actually means.

Multiculturalism is a very specific political philosophy which could scarcely be further removed from the idea that we should live in one big, happy, multi-ethnic melting pot and all just get along. That’s because it means the exact opposite. It’s about separatism, not integration.

It was championed from at least the 1970s onwards by effete bien-pensants like Labour MP turned Social Democrat Roy Jenkins and is essentially a manifestation of the cultural guilt and self-hatred that afflicts the left-wing chattering classes. Rather than accept the truth which to most of us is glaringly obvious – that some cultures are manifestly superior to others – it urges us all to celebrate our differences and to accept values that we may personally find alien or even abhorrent in the name of creating a fairer, more tolerant and inclusive society.

So, for example, we in liberal Western culture generally take a dim view of marrying members of your own family, female genital mutilation, forced or arranged marriages, second-class status for women, voter fraud, systematic political corruption, honour killings, the organised grooming, trafficking and rape of underage girls, and so on.

In some of our immigrant communities, though, such practices are considered more or less acceptable. (And I’m only using that “more or less” modifier out of politeness).

From Breitbart London

2 thoughts on “What the left would prefer you didn’t know about multiculturalism…”

darren.halliday says:1st September 2014 at 5:19 pmMulticulturalism is no longer just about the “celebration of diversity”. Yes diversity is OK when discussing music, food, dance and traditional celebrations. But now, the debate on multiculturalism has to address the issue of state and social policy (as various cultural practices and beliefs are at odds with traditional British values). Do we encourage discrimination based on gender in inheritance matters? Do we allow the teaching that homosexuality is sinful in our schools? Do we allow segregation in public meetings at Universities? Do we allow opinion leaders/educationalists to NOT condemn stoning as a punishment when directly asked (and then practice power over schools)? What is urgently needed is a definition of the boundaries of multiculturalism. We cannot function cohesively as a society, if this boundary is not clearly defined and key (not negotiable) values must prevail in our institutions and law making.
MellorSJ says:1st September 2014 at 5:30 pmI’m more or less in love with the modifier.

Rotherham: 1400 kids groomed, drugged and raped by multiculturalism

Q: When is the sexual abuse of children culturally, socially and politically acceptable?

A: When it’s committed with industrial efficiency by organised gangs of mainly Pakistani men in English Northern towns like Burnley, Oldham and Rotherham, of course.

But obviously you’re not allowed to admit this or you might sound racist. That’s why, for example, in today’s BBC report into the fact that at least 1400 children were subjected to “appalling” sexual abuse in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013, you have to wade 20 paragraphs in before finally you discover the ethnic identity of the perpetrators.

And even then, the embarrassing fact slips out only with the most blushing mealy-mouthedness:

By far the majority of perpetrators of abuse were described as “Asian” by victims.

Well hang on, a second. What this phrase seems to be hinting at is the possibility that the men involved weren’t “Asian” (note to US readers: Asian is UK PC-speak for Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, not orientals) but that the victims mistakenly took them to be so. Is that actually the case or not?

Let’s have a look at the names of the Rotherham men found guilty by Sheffield Crown Court in 2010 of raping or sexually abusing girls as young as 12 shall we. Maybe that’ll help.

Zafran Ramzan
Razwan Razaq
Umar Razaq
Adil Hussain
Mohsin Khan

Nope. Absolutely no clues there, then…

Read the rest at Breitbart London

One thought on “Rotherham: 1400 kids groomed, drugged and raped by multiculturalism”

Crystyn says:27th August 2014 at 1:21 pmQuite frankly, I don’t believe this explanation. It makes the people look more stupid – as if they’re not already. Anyone who doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong shouldn’t be working in the positions they are. They’re being paid to do a job they’re not doing. Time to boot them out so that those who do know the difference between right and wrong can take over.I’m glad to see that Roger Stone has now handed in his resignation. At least I know he’s truly sorry for having turned a blind eye. Shaun Wright, the Chief Inspector and now the Police and Crime Commissioner, should be the next to resign. He’s paid a lot of money to do his job, which clearly in this case he failed to do. Saying sorry is simply not good enough. In a case like this, it’s meaningless.AND FINALLY, Barnardos’ Chief Executive, Khan, should lose his job as well because he gives a bad name to Barnados. On his interview with Eamonn Holmes he came across as rather robotic in his replies, giving well rehearsed replies such as “we must ensure this never happens again” and “there are lessons to be learned”. None of his replies came from his heart or even spontaneous. I’ll never ever support Barnardos.

Comments are closed.

There was nothing ‘illiberal’ about David Cameron’s speech on multiculturalism

Cameron: Best and most important speech

David Cameron’s Munich speech on the failure of multiculturalism and the threat of Islamism is his best and most important since becoming Prime Minister.

What are puzzling me are some of the reactions. Of course, an opportunist leftie like Sadiq Khan MP could have been expected to play the minority grievance card. (Though as Toby Young notes, many on the left are so far playing a very cautious game; see eg today’s mealy-mouthed editorial in The Observer) What surprise me far more are some of the responses I’ve seen from avowed libertarians, such as the mighty, deliciously outspoken blogger Old Holborn.

Usually, I agree with Old Holborn on pretty much everything. Government is a conspiracy against the people, etc. But not with what he says on Cameron’s speech.

Today, Dish Face will tell an eager press that “Britain” (he means you and me) must rejoice in being “British” (he means being like him). It will be lapped up by right wingers and nationalists as a way to ensure conformity, if necessary by force.

What he will not say is “do as you please, as long as it does not adversely affect the lives of others”, the Libertarians motto. He will insist it is for the good of the “State” that he inflicts a thinly veiled attack on Islam. He will insist that the “British” have values that all must adhere to (whilst roundly ignoring the very same values as he bombs wedding parties in far off lands). He will insist that all are welcome (whilst quietly cancelling the 30 year direct debit that supported an authoritarian regime in Egypt) as long as they aspire to be “British”. He will give succour to the thousands of EDF marching in Luton against “the Islamification of Britain” whilst continuing to fund Somali pirates.

I am not a Nationalist. I do not celebrate my “Britishness” whilst adoring roast beef, fine ales and my stiff upper lip any more than I celebrate my “Britishness” when drinking Margaux, feasting on Lamb Madras or listening to heavy dub with a joint.

In his attempt to stamp “conformity” on the tiny percentage of radical Muslims in this country, he will alienate huge swathes of the public that do not wish to watch cricket on a Sunday afternoon or prefer to grow dreadlocks and smoke weed. The harmless pastimes of those who choose their own lifestyles will be crushed and derided as “un-British”.

I do not understand the logic of the “libertarian” argument here. Are we to assume that the Islamist terrorists who murdered 2,750 people on 9/11 did so as a kind of protest that their ‘lifestyle choices’ had been disregarded by big, bullying America? And that the Islamist suicide bombers who blew up 52 commuters (and maimed dozens of others) in the 7/7 atrocity had been denied the right by hateful, fascist oppressive Britain to worship as they chose?

If that is the argument then it seems to be in serious denial of something I’d always thought libertarians were good on: ground truth.

When I travel on the tube and glance nervously at my fellow passengers to assess whether or not this will be the journey when my eyes and entrails get spewed over the track, it’s not the people with dreadlocks who bother me. When I go through airport security, I do not worry about the horrendous possibility that an active dope-smoker might be sharing the flight with me. The idea that we all just want to be left in peace, man, and so long as that happens, hey, there’ll be no more violence, no more war may pass muster among the kind of people who think John Lennon was a visionary seer, but it’s not borne out by observable reality.

I wrote about precisely this problem with “libertarianism” in theSpectator, recently. (Too many people seem to confuse it either with libertinism or anarchy)

Libertarianism is not some free-for-all where the only badge of authenticity is how far you are prepared to let it all hang out. But there are quite a few self-professed libertarians who think it is. If you don’t want Dutch donkey-porn broadcast on BBC1 before 9 p.m., if you don’t want heroin vending machines in every classroom, if you’re not fighting to help enable Islamist suicide bombers to blow themselves up when and where they want, then you’re not keeping it real.

Here’s the definition of libertarianism by the US libertarian party (America’s third largest):

‘Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.’

Note that phrase “protecting individuals from coercion and violence.” It really shouldn’t need spelling out. But nothing is less conducive to liberty than having your legs and arms torn off, your torso shredded and your brain atomised by a suicide bomb. Anyone who can’t appreciate this surely needs his head examining.

Tag: multiculturalism

Election Fraud: Is Britain Finally Waking Up to the Disaster of Multiculturalism?

Labour’s Hypocrisy on Immigration Is Breathtaking

Related posts:

Memo to the BBC: It’s Not the ‘Far Right’ Which Decapitates Aid Workers or Rapes Schoolgirls

September 18, 2014

Related posts:

One thought on “Memo to the BBC: it’s not the ‘far right’ which decapitates aid workers or rapes schoolgirls”

Everything is the fault of the ‘Far Right’. Everything… | James Delingpole

September 3, 2014

Andrew Norfolk is the heroic, crusading Times chief investigative reporter who broke the Rotherham child sex story. But admirable though he surely is, does anyone else find something a bit disturbing about this statement he made this week?

Related posts:

What the left would prefer you didn’t know about multiculturalism… | James Delingpole

September 1, 2014

Related posts:

2 thoughts on “What the left would prefer you didn’t know about multiculturalism…”

Rotherham: 1400 kids groomed, drugged and raped by multiculturalism

Q: When is the sexual abuse of children culturally, socially and politically acceptable?

Related posts:

One thought on “Rotherham: 1400 kids groomed, drugged and raped by multiculturalism”

There was nothing ‘illiberal’ about David Cameron’s speech on multiculturalism

Cameron: Best and most important speech

Related posts: