December 15, 2011

Who do they think they are, coming over here and stealing our jobs?

Following the Second World War, the issue of immigration has been on the front line of politics in the UK, and often it is used to win votes and score points against opposing parties; indeed, several British political parties and groups exist purely due to their anti-immigration stance. I’m not the only one who’d rather spoon soil into my mouth than vote for any of these parties, but the pro-immigration stance is often overlooked. I don’t think it’s unfair to say that the majority of white Britons living in the UK believe that immigration levels are too high, and as such, there is a feeling of “casual racism”, not directly racially abusive per se, but a general negative stance towards different nationalities. Similarly, the majority of press coverage and literature is usually anti-immigration. James Slack, writing for The Daily Mail, commented that Labour “threw open the doors” in what they describe as a “secret plot to make a multicultural UK”. Meanwhile Steven Glover, also writing for the Daily Mail, even suggested that Labour “used immigration to create a nation of Labour voters”. I could go on with dozens more; this is just a mere sample of the wave of anti-immigration press that grips Britain today. The British National Party preys on the patriotism and heritage of the British people, and as such the majority of BNP voters are doing so based on a plethora of evil, fascist lies that are spoon-fed down their throats like a regurgitated worm. A complex web of myths and lies surrounds immigration in the UK today.

First of all, let’s start at the beginning; migration populated the British Isles in the first place. Recent studies have found that the human race most probably started in Africa, and spread around the world. For thousands of years people from all over the world have travelled to Britain and made it what it is today. Migration ranges from Chinese populations, Gypsies and up to 20,000 black slaves in London alone by 1764 [The Guardian]. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries respectively, we have seen an influx of Irish migrants fleeing starvation in light of the Potato Famine, and Jews fleeing mainland Europe from Hitler. So let’s get one thing straight; immigration is by no means a modern phenomenon. What arguably put it in the forefront of British politics was Conservative MP Enoch Powell’s infamous “Rivers of Blood” speech in 1968.

It simply cannot be denied that migration is good for the economy. Migrants provide much needed and sought after skills in the UK, and contribute to new technical processes and methods in the workplace. Immigration also provides skilled workers for much-needed sectors. The National Health Service has suffered from a shortage in staff from its formation in 1946. Recruitment campaigns were launched across the globe just years into the development to the NHS. Thousands of nurses travelled from the Caribbean, Malaysia and Ireland in particular. By 1971, an estimated 12% of nurses were from Ireland. In 1960, Enoch Powell himself, who was Health Minister at the time, appealed to doctors from the Indian sub-continent to come and work in Britain.  In response to this, more than 18,000 doctors from India and Pakistan moved here. Today, the Philippines, Nigeria, Ghana, New Zealand, Pakistan and South Africa are among the largest exporters of nurses to the UK. In the Rhonda Valley in Wales, more than 70% of GPs are south Asian.

Plus, product innovation is boosted by the mixing of people’s from different backgrounds and cultures. An increase in migration equates to an increase in population, and a higher demand for goods and services, in turn, creating more jobs. In 2004 migrants payed £41.2 billion in taxes. To add to this, the argument that immigrants are “scroungers” and a drain on public services is majorly flawed; in 1999 immigrants in the UK paid 10% more in taxes than they consume in public services and benefits, compared to the 5% surplus that UK-born taxpayers pay.

The arguments of BNP voters are flawed in every way possible. Most have no idea what they believe in, just that they want to “send them back”. Two years ago vice.com posted an interview with several young female BNP voters called “Babes of the BNP”. Give it a read, no doubt you’ll find it as hilarious, and slightly upsetting, as I did. One of the interviewees hypocritically says she’s moving to spain, ironically, which will render her an immigrant, too. Another young lady is friends with “Nazi Danny”. Lovely. The final girl wants all non-UK born people to be repatriated. Oh, except her grandmother, who is African herself. However patronising this may sound, it really isn’t their fault. They have no idea what they’re talking about.

Part of what makes this country great, for me personally, are the vast arrays of people from all over the globe. Walking down a high street in any major British city really shows the how multicultural society is today. The diversity in food, drink, dress, skin colour and language can be seen everywhere, and it is beautiful.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human rights, Immigration, Racism

November 30, 2011

HIV Sufferers Murdered by Church

(First of all, I must stress that this church is not typical of all faiths and this piece isn’t supposed to be an anti-religion tirade. The Synagogue Church of All Nations is a fundamentalist Evangelical group and is in no representative of the Christian faith)

Few things in life can be as life changing, terrifying and daunting as being told you are HIV positive. Nobody can begin to understand what life must be like for someone who is a victim of the virus. HIV sufferers are often forced to keep their condition to themselves to avoid the inevitable abuse that they would endure if they were outspoken over their condition. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) attacks the body’s immune system, increasing the risk of the carrier contracting a serious disease and is spread through the exchange of bodily fluids. As such, many people with HIV are branded as either sexually promiscuous, drug addicts, or both. However, many cases of HIV are passed from mother to child, and through (though I must point out, very, very rarely due to advanced screening) blood transfusions. Finding the right support can help sufferers from turning to alcohol and drug and from spiralling into a deep depression often ending in suicide. Indeed, nearly a third of patients in the UK with HIV have considered suicide and since 1990, 271 people have taken their own lives over their condition. The reasons people turn to suicide include not being able to be in a stable relationship, not being able to get a job, or being in poor physical or mental health. Sixteen year old schoolgirl Paige Rawl from Indiana was born with HIV, and has suffered a torrent of abuse at her school from both student and teachers. Shockingly, a school sports coach even suggested using her illness as a deterrent to scare opponents from the school. This is just one example of many, and I could write thousands of words on prejudices against HIV sufferers. But no, the main reason of this post is for something much more sinister than HIV.

After hearing what Paige had to go through, its no wonder than some suffers of HIV might look for so called “miracle cures” to fight their disease. Last week Sky News reported that at least six people in Britain had died after being told by religious figures that they had been “cured” of HIV. HIV, as I’m sure everyone knows, is not curable. Lets get that point clear before I continue. No sane person in this country should believe otherwise. Yet pastors in the Synagogue Church of All Nations in South London told three undercover Sky reporters that they could cure their (nonexistent) HIV. Every month the church has a prayer line, which attracts people from all over Europe to come and be cured of a whole variety of conditions. The church claims that it has a “100% success rate”, and aim to cure the conditions with prayer alone. Oh, and some “anointing” water. After showing fake evidence of their condition, the undercover reporters were sprayed with water while the “healer” chanted some bollocks about the devil being sucked out of their body. Apparently, “it is God’s plan to bring your blood level, you know, your immune levels back to normal”. Documents have revealed that in the UK, at least six people have died across the UK because they have stopped talking their medication after being told the church had healed them. As well as HIV, other illnesses included cancer, heart disease and anorexia. Why do we still tolerate cults like this who base their beliefs on mass delusions? What we have seen here, and this is no exaggeration – is murder. These people visited a church and confided in people who were seen as respectable. They were told not to continue taking their cocktail of medication that was keeping them alive, as they were cured. And then they died. That is most definitely tantamount to murder. The people responsible for this should be charged accordingly. I certainly won’t be letting this go lightly.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human rights

November 29, 2011

We Found Gove in a Hopeless Place

My first experience of strikes as a child was a “day off school”. I didn’t know what it was about. I couldn’t care less. Now, this “Day of Action” as its being dubbed by the TUC is set to become one of the biggest strikes Britain has ever seen. The furore surrounding the public sector pension changes announced by the Conservative-led coalition earlier this year will tomorrow see millions of public sector workers go on strike, claiming, quite rightly, that they’ll effectively be working longer whilst receiving less when they retire. The government is planning a rise in annual contributions to £2.8bn by 2014-15, beginning with a £1.1 billion increase in 2012. As a Labour Party member I give my full support to our public sector workers, who have been forced by this Tory-led government over their vicious attack on their pensions, into striking. A poll on the BBC website suggests that 61% of people are in favour of the strike. Some, however, sit on the other side of the fence.

Following the BBC poll, education secretary Michael Gove, hilariously suggests the strike action is a result of militant groups “itching for a fight”. Speaking at the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange, he commented that these people, apparently, want to make economic recovery harder, and seek to provide a platform for conformation for these so called “militants”. He claims they want families to be unconvinced, and mothers to give up a day’s work to look after their children – yet no mention about working fathers. Many workers involved in Wednesday’s strikes will be doing it for the first time in their lives, and Gove’s comments make it clear that the government are becoming desperate.

Leave a Comment

Filed under strikes, unions

September 8, 2011

Blanket ban on gay/bisexual blood donors lifted – but it the new legislation going far enough?

The Department of Health has announced today that the lifetime ban on gay and bisexual men giving blood, implemented in the 1980s to combat the spread of HIV, will be lifted. The operative word there, of course, being lifetime; the change which comes into effect in England, Wales and Scotland on November 7th still excludes men who have had sex with another man in the past year. However, there is nothing logical about the new legislation and gay and bisexual men will continue to be discriminated against, even if they use protection, even if they are HIV negative and even if they are in a committed relationship. Realistically, active gay and bisexual men will still be banned from giving blood, whereas a middle-aged straight man could shag a riddled whore and stroll to his local medical centre and donate. There is nothing logical, fair or scientific about that. Although, admittedly, this is a step in the right direction, LGBT activists have called for a donor screening system that takes into account the individual’s behaviour, regardless of their orientation, something which has already been implanted in many countries. Take Russia for example, a country where state-sponsored bigotry is the norm and homophobia is rife. Yet, there is no blanket ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood. Gay men are not more likely to have HIV/AIDs; people who have unprotected sex are. Gay, straight, black, white, ginger etc. This common conception that gay men are more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases is based on dated, bigoted myths from the 1980s, when HIV/AIDs was widely thought to be exclusively gay, and was wittily dubbed “The Gay Plague” by a nation who knew little about the disease and how it was spread. The risk is based on the individuals behaviour, not sexual orientation. The questionnaire that is required to be filled in before blood is donated has the question “Are you a man who has ever had oral or anal sex with a man, with or without a condom?”. What strikes me as odd, is the fact that gay men who practice safe sex with a condom, absolute protection (barring breakages) against the spread of HIV/AIDs, are still excluded. HIV antibodies take between one to three months to show up in tests. So, clearly, the one year ban is still extreme. A ban on everyone, regardless of sexuality, who has had unprotected sex in the last six months (just to be safe, like), would be sufficient.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

August 22, 2011

Nothing more than an extension of Tory rule?: A critique of New Labour (rough draft)

The Labour victory in May 1997 is largely thought to be down to their reinvention as a new and current party, which some suggest was nothing more than a political continuation of the Conservative governments of Thatcher and Major that preceded it. The various personalities involved in New Labour, and the directions the party has pursued, have been looked at to come to a conclusion as to whether the party’s underlying values have been changed or not. Does New Labour reflect a continuation of post-war Labour politics, or is it merely an extension of Thatcherism? During the 1980’s and 1990’s the Labour party went through radical reform of its internal organisation in an attempt to modernise itself, and new models of democracy were proposed, in order to distance itself from the Labour party that was in opposition for so many years.

For many, the Labour victory in 1997 marked the beginning of a return to the Britain pre-Conservative rule of 18 years, and marked a reverse of the socio-economic transformation of Britain that had been affected by this. But arguably the Blair government of 1997 did the opposite of this, and rather than repealing the changes brought in by Thatcher, many were left or taken to a new level.

In order to conclude whether New Labour reflects a continuation of Conservative rule, the policies of the Thatcher and Major governments must be looked at. Thatcher is the first and only British prime minister of the twentieth century to lend her name to a political ideology, Thatcherism. Arguably Thatcherism stems from the “New Right”. The Conservatives took power from Labour in 1979, when the failing Labour party more or less continued with Heath’s policies. Along with this, a series a strikes in 1978-1979, the “Winter of Discontent”, had left the country in an almost ungovernable state. The intellectual groundwork for the basis of the Conservatives’ attack on the Labour government was set in motion during the years 1975-1979. Sir Keith Joseph renounced the policies of Heath and called for a new set of policies and ideals that would form the basis of the New Right, namely: attacks on the trade unions, tax cuts and a tightening of the control of the money supply.

Conservative rule between 1979-97 could be described as neo-liberalistic. Neo-liberalism involved liberating private enterprise from government regulations, something which Thatcher achieved through privatization. Thatcher’s neo-liberalist strategy compromised of liberalization, deregulation, privatization and a reduction in direct taxes. Liberalisation was the promotion of free market forms of competition as the ideal basis for market forces. Deregulation involved giving economic agents more power and less governmental restrictions. Next, privatisiation, which involved reducing the public sector’s share in businesses. reducing the New Labour had distanced itself from its recent past through a series of internal organization reforms. But, when it came to the aforementioned areas that Thatcher administered, the New Labour government continued them.

Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer was Geoffrey Howe, and Nigel Lawson was also with him at the Treasury, being a gifted economist. Keith Joseph led the Department of Trade and Industry. Six years in opposition had given the Conservatives time to rethink their strategy. Under Macmillan the Conservatives had maintained and even extended the Welfare State, something which Geoffrey Howe opposed vehemently. He argued for a scaling down the role of the state and the amount of money spent on public services. The Conservative party manifesto proposed lower taxes, a limitation on the power of trade unions, an end to mass immigration and free enterprise over nationalistion. Howes first budget lowered the standard rate of tax to 30%, but increased VAT, an indirect tax, to 15%. By 1980, inflation was at 22% and unemployment was at 3 million.

Despite being anti-trade union, the Conservatives had little set in stone plans on how to restrict their power. The public image of the trade unions was at its worst following the winter of discontent . As such, much of the action taken against the trade unions by both the Thatcher and Major governments was pragmatic. In their election manifesto of 1979 the Conservatives set out to initially introduce three changes. First of all, the trade union picketing laws were to be looked at, and picketing would only be allowed at an employers’ own place of work. Secondly, compensation for workers who were dismissed from theirs jobs for refusing to join a trade union. And finally, a secret ballot was to be introduced for trade union elections. Employment Secretary James Prior began drafting the Employment Act (1980), although he stressed his preference for voluntarism, and believed that legislative action should be kept to a minimum if possible. Blair’s first government did introduce some favourable legislation to trade unions. However visible reform to the trade unions was seen as the only way to show that the Labour party had moved on. According to opinion polls in the 1980’s. Labour’s support for the trade unions had deterred voters.

The Welfare State, in Thatcher’s eyes, was built upon dependency, and went against her laissez-faire views. The National Health Service presented itself as a particular problem. Thatcher saw it as inefficient, with some areas of the country have better healthcare than others. Numerous measures were brought in to reduce NHS spending, such as increasing prescription prices and charging for doctors’ visits, which saved 12% of the NHS budget. However, the NHS was very popular with the people, and it was seen as perhaps the only great post-war example of international excellence for the UK. While the Conservatives encouraged people to go for private healthcare, they increased money available to the NHS by 60%. New Labour backed foundation hospitals – giving hospitals some limited degree of freedom from governmental controls, putting the power into the hands of the hospital staff. This was one step away from privatization.

From 1983 Thatcher began the process of privatization, beginning with the sale of British Telecom in 1984, and was followed by British Airways soon after. However the most significant instances of privatization was the council houses. This wasn’t done purely for efficiency reasons; current tenants were offered a discount on their council houses. The Conservatives’ “popular capitalism”, as John Redwood described it, continued with tax reform. Nigel Lawson was a radical tax reformer, and got tax down from a possible 83% at the very highest, for high earners, to two rates of 23% for low earners and 40% for higher earners. New Labour failed to re-nationalise the industries that were privatized under the Conservatives, and even went one step further than that and continued privatizing industries, for example air traffic control.

The revision of Clause 4, defining Labour as a “democratic socialist party”, in 1994 can be seen as proof that the Labour party was changed. However, Blair hadn’t discussed it with his shadow cabinet. Local parties balloted their members on whether the old clause (which had remained unchanged since 1918) should be kept, or a the new, revised one be brought in. Out of 470 CLPs, 467 voted for change.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

May 2, 2011

Celebrating the death of a mass murderer?

This morning brings news that will bring great relief throughout the world, the death of the Osama Bin Laden, leader of Al-Qaeda, and  top of the USmost wanted list, killed by US special forces inPakistan. To say this is a statement the Whitehouse has being longing to issue for over a decade is an overwhelming understatement. In fact for almost two decades Bin Laden had become the embodiment of terrorism and the epitome of evil in the East and West alike, responsible for the killing of thousands, and inspired a whole new generation of extremists. In 1992 the bombing of two American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, respectively, and killing 224 people, were traced back to Bin Laden. But what Bin Laden will undoubtedly be remembered as is the mastermind behind the worst terrorist attack the world has ever seen, the 9/11 bombings. The so called “War on Terror” was born. Following this atrocity, terrorist attacks took place in Bali, Madrid and London, inspired by Bin Laden.

Facts and figures aside, the issue for me lies in the reason behind the celebrations today. I am staunchly against the death penalty, and it honestly surprises me that any Western country, in today’s climate, can have such a system in place. You’re probably wondering exactly what capital punishment has to do with the killing of Osama Bin Laden. After all, he wasn’t killed as the result of a trial, at least not in the sense that a “regular” criminal in the United States would be. But my views on capital punishment can partially be applied to this case. To me, life is the absolute basic human right, that should, under no circumstances (yes, that means murder, treason, paedophillia etc) be taken away. Nobody has that right, and everyone deserves at least their life. Now, I’m not familiar with how the death penalty operates in the United States (which I’m using purely as an example). But consider this; a thirty year old man gets a gun, and shoots someone, and they die. He intended to murder, and is placed on trial, and sentenced to death. The method most widely used today is the lethal injection, although there have been cases in several states of hanging, electrocution and gassing. He’s administered the injection, and dies. His life has been taken away – which is murder. A second murder has been committed, purely for reasons of deterrence and “justice”, which isn’t right at all. But, this isn’t me sympathising with murderers. They are sick and evil. Lock them up forever, but don’t kill them. By doing that, you’re reducing yourself to the level of a murderer. You are taking away the one fundamental human right that everybody deserves to have.

Obviously, one man murdering another and being administered a lethal injection is hardly comparable to the death of the most wanted criminal on the planet, the murderer of thousands of innocent men, women and children. But the celebrations in Washington following the news of Bin Laden’s death are shockingly sinister. The cause of celebration is the effect that Bin Laden’s death will have in the long term, not simply the fact that a man has been killed.

Bin Laden is dead, yes, but his ideas are not. In the short term, the world should expect reprisals. His followers are going to try and find a way to exact revenge over the next few days, weeks and months. But, in the long term, the symbolic importance of his death will undoubtedly have a huge impact.

1 Comment

Filed under Capital punishment, Human rights, Terrorism