If I were living in Britain today I would probably be looking to leave.
Fourteen winters ago, I spent a semester in London as a parliamentary intern in the British House of Commons where I had stints with two Members of Parliament from the Labour Party. My second placement was with a MP from Glasgow named Jimmy Wray.
Jimmy and I got along famously. I was one of the few people who could understand his thick Scottish burr. We were a perfect match.
We worked so well together that Jimmy wanted me to return to London to work for him after the 1997 general election which Labour under Tony Blair was widely expected to win. The Conservative government of John Major was clinging to power trying to put off the inevitable for as long as possible. Sure enough Blair and Labour ended 18 years of Conservative rule as planned. However, the plan to return to Britain was never realized. In fact, I have not been across the Atlantic since.
I was disappointed at first. After the obligatory culture shock and equally obligatory adjustments I enjoyed my time over there immensely. I enjoyed walking to work from the hostel on Great Portland Street to Westminster. This commute was far more interesting than taking the Tube not to mention better exercise. I would pass the shops on Oxford Street and Piccadilly Circus through Trafalgar Square onto Whitehall past Number 10 Downing Street. On weekends, I liked walking through Regents Park or Hyde Park. I also visited the Old Vic, the London Zoo and Abbey Road. While many scoff at British cuisine I quite liked eating jacket potatoes as well as fish and chips. Throw in the occasional soft serve ice cream with half a Cadbury Flake inserted in the cone (this was before I stopped eating dairy). I also liked being in a country that was the cradle of modernity. Where would Prime Minister's Questions and Speakers' Corner be without the Magna Carta? I would have loved to have lived in Britain.
But life went on. Five years after my time overseas, I would find myself in the United States where I have been ever since, having evolved from a Canadian socialist to an American conservative. Looking back on it now I would have to conclude that it is just as well that I did not move to Britain. If I were living in Britain today I would probably be looking to leave.
In the fourteen years since that winter, Britain has become a place where common law is breaking down, liberty has been surrendered and history is no longer valued. The main reasons for this are the excessive political correctness of Britain's political and cultural elites, the assertiveness of Britain's growing Muslim community and the unwillingness of political and cultural elites to stand up for common law, exercise liberty and remember its history.
Of course, I am far from the first person to lament the current state of affairs in Britain. Melanie Phillips and Mark Steyn have written extensively on this subject and frankly have far more first-hand experience where it concerns the day to day travails in which Britain finds itself unable to properly negotiate.
According to the United Kingdom 2001 Census, there are more than 1.5 million Muslims in Britain comprising nearly 3% of the population. That might not seem like an impressive figure. But when one considers that a third of that population is under the age of 16 and more Muslims have found their way onto British soil in the decade since, one must take pause. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4385768.htm) It is worth noting that in 2007 the second most popular name for baby boys in Britain was Muhammad. It is quite possible that by now Muhammad might have supplanted Jack for the number one spot. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1890354.ece) Muslim numbers are large enough to have achieved critical mass sufficient for Britain to have fundamentally altered the character of British law, liberty and history.
The backbone of the British legal system and much of the English speaking world is common law (Scotland is different although it does incorporate some elements of common law). There would have been no United Kingdom without a common set of laws that were applicable to all persons. However, the influx of Muslims in Britain has created judicial bodies which adjudicate matters through Islamic Sharia law, a legal system that amongst other things considers the word of a woman to be worth half that of a man.
A year ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said it "seems inevitable" that Sharia law would be incorporated into British law. Earlier this month, the Archbishop said that there was a "drift of understanding" in British society towards his view. He cited the views of Lord Phillips, the former Lord Chief Justice and soon be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Last July, Lord Phillips publicly concurred with Williams that Sharia law could be utilized in civil matters:
It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by law other than English law . . . In some countries the courts interpret Sharia as calling for severe physical punishment. There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here.
– http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2242340/Muslims-in-Britain-should-be-able-to-live-under-sharia-law,-says-top-judge.html
How can Lord Phillips be so confident? At the very minimum, Britain is on the verge of creating one law for Muslims and one for everyone else. What is to stop Muslims for wanting everyone else to submit to Sharia law? Only days after Lord Phillips made his remarks Sarfraz Sarwar, a Muslim leader in the small town of Pitsea, said Sharia law should apply to criminal matters and that criminal offenses should be punishable by flogging in town centers such as Pitsea. (http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/2380729.muslim_leader_in_call_for_sharia_law_in_uk/) Where's Enoch Powell when you need him?
If Sharia law is formally enshrined in British law one can kiss political liberty goodbye. As it stands now there isn't much liberty to speak of in Britain these days. Last week, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders was denied permission to enter Britain to present his film Fitna, documenting violence carried out in the name of Islam. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith referred to her fellow European parliamentarian as an "undesirable person." Yet the Home Secretary had absolutely no problem permitting Hezbollah spokesman Ibrahim Mousawi from entering the country last May. Either the Home Secretary doesn't consider terrorist mouthpieces undesirable or is simply afraid of offending Muslims.
Whatever the motivations of the Home Secretary it represents an infringement of political liberty. If Muslims in Britain had wished to protest Wilders' presence peaceably then fine. Denying Wilders entry into Britain denied Britons an opportunity to listen to his arguments and make the choice of accepting, rejecting or ignoring them. Somehow I don't think this will be the last time someone who has views that are not acceptable to Muslims will be denied entry into Britain. If Wilders' colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali decides to touch down on British soil do not be surprised if the Home Secretary deems her an undesirable person as well. Fortunately, Hirsi Ali and Wilders are both welcome in America.
President Obama caused a bit of a stir when he returned a bust of Sir Winston Churchill to the British Embassy in Washington. The bust was lent to President Bush by former Prime Minister Blair in the wake of the September 11th attacks and sat in the Oval Office until the end of his tenure in the White House.
One could take President Obama to task for alienating a long-standing ally. On the other hand, one could make the argument that Churchill isn't valued by British political and cultural elites in the way he used to be. In July 2007, Britain's Department of Education & Skills removed the study of Churchill from the history curriculum of its secondary schools in favor of "relevant issues" like global warming and genetically modified foods.(http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/07/british_schools_cut_churchill.html)
If Britain's Ministry of Education doesn't place any value on Churchill then why should we expect any different of President Obama?
I am certain this development was pleasing to Britain's Muslim community. After all, it was Churchill who in 1899 wrote, "The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property . . . must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men." (http://freebornjohn.blogspot.com/2006/02/winston-churchill-on-islam.html)
When a country cannot be bothered to teach its children about its most important historical figures one cannot expect them to grow up with the knowledge of the development of their national identity and the measures it took to maintain that identity, much less take even a modest amount of pride in them.
If there is a silver lining in all this, it is that it is not too late to reverse these trends although the time is at hand. Such a reversal would most likely happen if a political figure were to emerge who was willing to say enough and mobilize support around such a sentiment. It is difficult to imagine Britain's current state of affairs happening under the watch of Churchill, Margaret Thatcher or an Enoch Powell. But they don't make Churchills or Thatchers like they used too. I am no more optimistic about the Conservative Party under David Cameron than I am about the Labour government of Gordon Brown. While Powell enjoyed popular support he exercised little political power.
This isn't to say there isn't promising political talent. Conservative MP Michael Gove comes to mind. Of course, how much support he can mobilize amongst Tories much less Britain's silent majority remains to be seen. But perhaps reversing such a trend is a task too much for a single individual no matter how charismatic and persuasive. It would require a cultural shift amongst the current and next generation of British political and cultural elites. Such a shift would need to emphasize a common law that applies to all, a political liberty that can accommodate vast disagreements without violence or threat of it and an educational system that appreciates and is proud of Britain's history.
It is a lot to ask but anything short of it could result in Britain eventually becoming an Islamic state. This is my lament for Britain.
Interesting Aaron
Did you ever get to Glasgow? My Granny came from Motherwell in 1895, at age five. Therefore, I guess the exodus from “Not So Great Britain” is nothing new. The funny thing is that the 40 or so decedents from Granny’s family all thought of themselves as Scots, even if we were mixed with Irish, Brits, French, German, and Lithuanian.
I spent three years in Huntingtonshire and saw first hand the start of the British march to socialism. By the way look around the U.S. today and you will see vestiges of most of the issues raised in this article.
Maybe it is time to rephrase the old saying and convert it to the meek will inherit the U.S. everyone else will migrate.
This 4th of July we solemnly observe the Loss of Independence Day.
Dear Mr Goldstein,
For once, I can agree with some of what you say.
I arrived in Britain in 1978 when Labour was at the height of its power, and Britain at one of its lowest points in history.
I escaped Britain in 2000 after the rise to power of Britain’s new Liberal Fundamentalist regime under Tony Blair. I have written a book about that titled “Escaping Britain: Eat Drink, and Be Merry. Eccl 8:15” (http://www.freedomvrights.com/books-mcmillan.html – ISBN 978-84-935461-0-6) I’d be happy to supply you with a copy, but I expect you would not be interested.
What I would like to address, however, is your implicit assertion that the English were somehow the harbingers of freedom by way of Magne Carta. I accept that Magne Carta introduced the idea of Habeas Corpus, but the bulk of that Charter was to entrench the power of the Lords and Nobles of the day, rather than secure the freedom of the people as a whole. Take for example clause 21 – earls and barons should only be amerced (placed at the mercy of another) by their peers, according to the degree of their offence. Clause 61 of the Charter provided for enforcement through a council of 25 Barons, and any 4 Barons could complain and seek redress if the king breached any of the provisions of the Charter.
Furthermore, Magna Carta was not unique. There were many similar charters in Europe at the time.
On the other hand, the Scots did provide a unique statement of freedom in the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, some 100 years after Magna Carta. They declared this: “for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”
Unfortunately, the Scots directed their plea towards the Pope. It is not for the Pope to declare freedom – as the Declaration says, it is something you have to fight for. It is NOT a RIGHT. Unfortunately, as is usually the case, those of the Scots who proclaimed to want freedom were easily bought off. Travel Scotland today, as I presume you have (to an extent), and you can see the relics of that betrayal of the people of Scotland by their so-called leaders – many castles, and lots of grand sounding titles.
The same old story! There are always those who think that their superior upbringing, birth, intellect, or even compassion, invests in them some special authority over others. Magna Carta was an instance where the Nobles and Barons thought that they should not be subordinated to the king. I suppose we could say that there was a ‘trickle down’ effect which did help the common folk to an extent – but it also introduced the tyrannical concept of rights, something that will take decades for people to recognize as one of the greatest delusions of modern times.
But perhaps life is a little like a dodgem car at a fair. Eventually the ride ends! Then we have to re-evaluate all our preconceptions of what freedom really means. I think we are rapidly approaching the point, but we are not yet there.
And by the way, Churchill was never really admired by the British during his life. He was an outcast before and during the first part of WWII, and again after the war. He was regarded as a warmonger. Even the Americans often despaired at his meddling in war planning, something he was not very good at. His strength was his oratory – if he had kept to that, many lives may not have been lost in vain.
Otherwise, by my actions I agree with you that Britain is no great place to live at present: but then again, from recent experience of the US, I’m not so sure that is any haven of liberty and prosperity either.
But life goes on – until we muster the fortitude to face the reality of our present servitude to a tyranny of rights; rights which protect those who threaten us, and do us harm, and are useless to those who ‘play by the rules’.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
There are some facts one must consider when looking at the fast fading future of the UK:
The birth rate in the UK was 1.92 babies per woman in 2007. This translates to 690,013 live births. However; 89,702 of these were to Muslim Immigrants. So not only is the UK breeding at under the accepted replacement rate of 2.1 babies per woman, the ratio of citizen births vs. immigrant births is beginning to tilt in favor of the immigrants.
As the population skews further toward the Muslim immigrant, a person naturally begins to make more and more decisions from a 'go along to get along' viewpoint. The overriding concern becomes "Leave me alone! I'll do whatever it takes just to be left alone." This is the best manner to describe Britain's refusal to allow entry to Geert Wilders while welcoming Ibrahim Mousawi with open arms. Openly insulting the Dutch isn't likely to result in days of riots and bloodshed.
This is a variant of the same 'insult a Christian but not a Muslim' reasoning that is popular in the United States. If one insults Christianity he/she wins on two levels. First they become endeared to the 'brie and wine' set of social progressives. Second; the response of most insulted Christians would be to immediately begin to pray for that person's soul. This constitutes a hedge against the chance that the mouth breathing, knuckle dragging troglodyte just belittled may actually be right. It's a 'win-win' for the social progressive.
On the other hand, to say anything that might even be construed (and the list gets longer by the hour) as a veiled insult to the Prophet or his Religion; and a fatwa is issued. Your family will be killed, your home burned, and you infidel, personally will be hunted through the streets! This is an intolerable set of conditions for today's average British citizen; especially since Britons are no longer allowed, by law, to even defend themselves when attacked in their own homes!
The third challenge is historical. Not only are young Britons not being inculcated as to their great country's history and accomplishments. The PC crowd has cowed the older generations into a feeling more accurately described as 'shame' when it comes to the achievements of the Empire. This is the expected result whenever judgments of historical characters and/or events are constantly reformulated to account for a changing (and in my opinion) more wayward wandering, set of values. Political correctness today demands that all accomplishments accorded to British history be defined as patriarchal, imperialistic, vestiges of a barbaric civilization. The reason that most of the developed world speaks English is lost to the people; as are the contributions the British society contributed toward the pacification and civilization of the greatest portion of the planet.
While the direction of the UK is now decided by either the Conservative, or Labour Parties. Once immigrant citizens outnumber Crown citizens; English Law will be exterminated from Great Britain.
It is a tragedy that the future of a once great country and proud people is to be subsumed and forgotten without firing a shot. Absorbed by an upstart group that has been documented to be the most repressive, vocal, and violent people ever imagined.
Milbrat, look around you. Who has the highest number of children in the U.S.? Does their education and culture match that of U.S. citizens? Guess where we are going?
Mickey G.,
I believe you miss my central point; which is that British birthrates are leading directly to a clash of cultures.
First; the birthrate in the US is right at the replacement rate, so we aren't in as much danger of our population being absorbed by any immigrant population. The future of American politics may very well be decided by birthrates (as I will discuss later). However; as the Britains' need for replacement workers to pay taxes to fund entitlement programs grows, and as less and less true Britains are born, the chances of 'culture clash' due to increased immigration from Islamic populations grows toward absolute certainty.
According to http://flagcounter.com/factbook/us the ethnic breakdown of the US population is as follows;
"White 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate) note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean a person of Latin American descent (including persons of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin) living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.); about 15.1% of the total US population is Hispanic."
While we can see that immigrant populations are indeed on the rise in the United States; the Muslim population, aggressive or otherwise, is estimated at 8 million or only 2.5%. Indeed it is not even mentioned within the web sight.
At this time, I would point out that conservative families 'out birth' liberal families by a wide margin. Conservative families record a birthrate of 2.45 babies per woman while liberal families record a birthrate of 1.11 per woman. Conservative households are raising children at better than twice the clip of liberal households. If anything, this information indicates that the current crop of secular progressives is the political equivalent of the Shakers; which were religiously prohibited from engaging in sex; leaving recruitment as the only method available to increase their numbers. (This may actually go quite a ways in explaining the social progressive views regarding open boarders, and unlimited immigration, as well as the mainstreaming of gay, lesbian, and transgender lifestyles and relationships in our grade schools, although that is a discussion best left for another day.)
The data doesn't allow us to draw the conclusion that the US may be facing a Shira Law vs. Common Law showdown at any time in the future. I'm suggesting that Britain may be facing just such a battle within a generation or two.
"Conservative families record a birthrate of 2.45 babies per woman while liberal families record a birthrate of 1.11 per woman. Conservative households are raising children at better than twice the clip of liberal households."
Then within a generation or so at most, we would outnumber the so-called "Progressives," all things being equal.
And who says Demographics is a dry, dull subject?!
Last Angry Man,
This is exactly why our immediate future is so intertwined with the current dabate being waged over what is to be done regarding the security of our southern border. More importantly; what exactly is to be done 'status wise' with the illegal population already here.
Since current estimates peg the illegal immigrant population in the US as high as 20 million; blanket amnesty would have the result of creating somewhere in the neighborhood of, at minimum, 17 million newly minted democrats.
Add to that the fact that Defense Secretary Bill Gates recently named the collapse of the Mexican government the second greatest threat to American security; makes border security an exceptionally high priority. It is bad enough to have 10 to 20 thousand illegals pouring across the southern border each month. One might reasonably imagine anarchy in Mexico pushing that number of violators up tenfold.
Milbrat, unless you plan to speak spanish, do not plan on completing high school, are functionally illiterate, play loud music, have a large family you cannot support, and especially like very young girls you are sitting in the midst of a major demographic change in this country already.
Mickey G.,
Not as long as we ensure that blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens NEVER becomes the policy of the United States.
Current economic conditions here are already having an impact known as 'reverse immigration read the story here http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2008/10/immigration-in-reverse.html This is why Americans must insist that ANY comprehensive immigration reform bill have three parts:
1. Secure the border to prevent any further encroachment. Any naturalization program is useless without first turning off the spigot. President Reagan authorized an illegal immigrant naturalization program in the 80's. But without securing the borders; today we're right back where we started from.
2. Any person here illegally must return to his country of origin and apply for immigration through the existing system. This will allow the American people to keep control of the immigrant population and ensure that the 'path to citizenship' in includes assimilation.
3. Allow the creation of a ' temporary guest worker' program to satisfy the requirements of the agriculture, construction, and other needful businesses. Such a program allows immigrant workers to fill open positions that business require. It also allows the government to screen these applicant's background and issue tracking documents. Another advantage of such a program is that government oversight will help to ensure that these people are properly treated and compensated for their work by the businesses that request their services.
Comprehensive immigration reform, like all the other challenges facing this nation, may be successfully managed if these issues are allowed to be debated according to logic and reason. Vitriolic commentary and derisive rhetoric does little to advance either side's case.
…evolved from a Canadian socialist to an American conservative ?!
Yep, the programming is successful. Congratulations, you're an American.
Milbrat:
Oh yes, well aware of it. In the area I live in: I moved away for 1 1/2 years. then returned. In that time, the immigrant population appeared to have grown by a factor of ten. We have all of the hallmarks you might name: crime, "no-go areas," illegals awaiting day-labor every morning, surly people slouching on the street corners, looking and acting shifty. The abject refusal to speak English.
A small story of how "privileged" these people believe they are: A few college students were walking back from a party. They yelled a few times, as the young are wont to do when they've been partying. Someone – a Latino immigrant, legality questionable – yelled back, threatening them with a large knife, and said, "My name is [X], and we're taking over here."
This is less than three blocks from my apartment.
Tells you something of the mindset, doesn't it? "We're taking over here."
Don't drink the coolade of the "we need more workers". We don't because we are importing over a million legal entries each year. Best approach would be to halt all immigration then establish significant hurdles to entry such as a minimum amount of funds to cover expenses and a guarantee of a job for any admitted legally. A good number in today's dollars for the minimum amount of money $1,000,000 to be sure they do not become a drag on the welfare state. We can't afford to educate the world and provide them free housing, and free medical. Remember from West Side Story "everything's free in America".
Aaron,
You said: "I was one of the few people who could understand his thick Scottish burr. We were a perfect match."
Must be the Yiddish. Gosh darn if Gaelic and Yiddish don't sound enough alike you were actually speaking the same language.
Wray exclaims: Cha deoch-slàint, i gun a tràghadh. (It’s no health if the glass is not emptied!)
Goldstein hears: Kadoches slang Irgun a traifener (Fevered snake of an Irgun outlaw!)
Goldstein replies: Ye, ikh bin same gvaldik. Onhern zikh. (Yeah, it's really impressive. I hear that a lot.) – and empties his glass.
Close enough. :D
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said it " "…seems inevitable" that Sharia law would be incorporated into British law."
Clearly, Williams has no understanding of Sharia beyond the apologetics he's getting from Muslim PR men. British Common Law may or may not be able to "absorb" Sharia, but it is certain Sharia will never be "absorbed by" any other body of law. This is the whole point. Muslims don't want to assimilate; which is why they demand to be governed by their own laws independently of ours. So, 'absorbing Sharia' is a one way street with us being the ones absorbed.
It's interesting that European nations are individually passive toward the accomodation of their Muslim minorities, but yet oppose including Turkey into the EU because it "isn't European."
Then the more sharia-besotted European Muslims could move to that part of Europe more comfortable to them, namely Turkey. That poses its own hazards, but better Turkey than the banlieus of Paris.