Some of you may be interested to note just how much money, time and breath is wasted in parliament when it comes to proposed laws, debates, and green and white papers which must flurry about there, mostly completely devoid of any consultation process or manifesto promise, or declaration of intent, or even disclosure prior to a general election, as each of the party leaders beat their drum on other issues such as will we increase VAT or will we increase National Insurance.
The following green paper falls into such category as 'waste', yet I think it warrants public scrutiny so that's why I've shown it here.
It was heralded as quite an important chance to look at 'who we are as a people'. It is called 'The Governance of Britain', but like everything else this government puts its hands to, that is not all there is to it. In fact it was a document [and may well be resurrected again once the people are busy looking at how much VAT they are paying], which sought to discover what it means to be 'British'.
Some may remember this being given quite a bit of media space as Gordon Brown pranced around the country promising 'Citizens Jury's'?
However, after 3 years, like so many other promises this government has made for public audience, it remains in dust and cobwebs, hopefully on a similar shelf next to Labour after this election.
Presented to Parliament by the one and only "The English are a race not worth saving" Jack Straw, as 'The Governance of Britain' and by 'Command of Her Majesty', it was given much media time and I for one remember it well.
Its main purpose was to create the equivalent of a Written Constitution, but those who view the document will see other items of interest including a plan to change the makeup of The Lords. [No doubt to position placed Lords as decided by either Cameron or Brown as being some Black, some Asian, some Muslim, some Female, some Homosexual, but no 'British' white males.] God forbid they would ever share power with anyone who is a white British heterosexual male as they'd have somebody to argue with.
This particular entry sums up a classic example of utter lies and deceit, along with what amounts to 3 years of wasted time and duplicity. Further, in respect of having not moved forward one jot in terms of deciding 'who we are', it belies a kerfuffle of politics when both Cameron and Brown, know this document was prepared, know there is a poltical question to answer, know we British have an argument, a legitimate right to ask 'who are we', a legal right to state 'we are white indigenous Britons', and an international right under the United Nations Universal Declaration of Universal Human Rights to not be pilloried or to suffer persecution for our political thoughts and opinions, or for our culture, or race, or religion, or in fact any damn thing that makes us 'British'. Yet! They are behaving like they don't know of this document, they're unaware of international law, they appear to be blind and deaf, even to the European Convention on Human Rights despite they signed us up to it, and I gather that is why they left this document on a dusty shelf at Westminster.
11. Only a confident UK will be able to adapt to the economic challenges of globalisation. Only a country sure of its identity will be able to come together to ensure our mutual security: common, inclusive values can help us overcome the threat from extremism of all kinds. Only a nation certain of its national purpose will be able to pull together to meet the common challenges of global climate change. And only by coming together as a diverse country and debating our common values, our citizenship and our constitution can we begin to forge the sense of purpose and renew the common bonds that will allow us to meet these challenges together.
Incidentally, I think it rather peculiar that a British Government would need a green paper and a debate, a law and a constitution, to decide 'who' the British people are since they wouldn't be in government without them. But the point I am making is who do YOU think you are, if not 'British'.
I've been re-reading The British Nationality Act 1981 too. This basically updates the British Nationality Act and all other amendments from 1948 when the original British Nationality Act which closely followed the Race Relations Act, which many will know the late Enoch Powell MP and some others had some problem accepting as being in British interests. However, as we know, their arguments were unheard rather like ours are today it seems, despite there has been a raging cultural problem for 50 years which is recognised by this green paper:-
Thankfully, there are people like us around who won't let them away with their disgusting filthy lies, nor will we abandon our people, our country, our religion, our race or our connection with international law which thankfully still offers a modicum of protection from lying thieving dictators like Cameron, Brown and Clegg.
Incidentally, where are the voices of the 122 MP's who signed the Early Day Motion [EDM], which sought parliamentary debate to ask the British Government to recognise the indigenous people of Britain by signing the United Nations Indigenous Peoples Charter, which most other nations signed in 1992?
181. Identity is important because it shapes people’s sense of self. Some components of our identity are given to us and are matters of fact. But others are the subject of at least a degree of choice: faith, political affiliations, occupation, for some, nationality. Yet even those elements that are ‘chosen’ are not the result of a completely free choice. The influence on identity of family, geography, education, ethnic background and origin, and how we are perceived by others, is huge.I think I'm looking for another word here but HYPOCRITES will do for now!
0 comments:
Post a Comment