Institutionalising Islam in our schools

The other day, Bernard left a comment with a link to an editorial in the Church of England Newspaper, warning of the encroachments of Islam into our national life. The editorial has now been replaced with a more recent editorial, although you can still read it at a couple of blogs, such as Jihad Watch. One of the interesting points that the editorial made was this:

At all levels of national life Islam has gained state funding, protection from any criticism, and the insertion of advisors and experts in government departs national and local...we hear of municipal swimming baths encouraging ‘Muslim women only’ sessions and in Dewsbury Hospitals staff waste time by turning beds to face Mecca five times a day — a Monty Pythonesque scenario of lunacy, but astonishingly true. Prisons are replete with imams who are keen to inculcate conservative Islam in any inmates who are deemed to be culturally ‘Muslim’: the Prison service in effect treats such prisoners as a cultural block to be preached to by imams at will. Would the Prison service send all those with ‘C of E’ on their papers to confirmation classes with the chaplain?! We could go on.

The point is that Islam is being institutionalised, incarnated, into national structures amazingly fast, at the same time as demography is showing very high birthrates.

Today, we see yet more evidence of this phenomenon of Islamic institutionalisation:

Imams will teach in state schools under Government plans for tackling extremism to be announced next week.

Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, admitted today that a minority of children could be “at risk” from extremists and said that schools must be able to deal with radicalisation.

British-born imams will be drafted in to schools to instruct children about Islam and the Koran as part of the Government’s “Prevent” strategy, which aims to weed out extremism before it takes root.

Lessons will include teachings from the Koran and discussions about equality between the sexes, the sanctity of life and the rights of the individual. Mr Balls said the citizenship lessons would help young people to feel “part of their society, and resilient to those who seek to divide rather than unite”.

The battle against radicalisation in schools is a major plank of the Home Office’s wider policy on extremism but the National Union of Teachers (NUT) met fierce opposition when it suggested a similar scheme in March. The NUT proposed that Muslim clerics and other faith leaders should go into every state school as an alternative to faith schools. Critics warned this could allow extremists to target pupils.

But the Government believes that if the imams are British-born they will imbue children with the multicultural values.

Because, of course, no British-born Muslim has ever turned to extremism, have they? And "multicultural values" (whatever they may be)? They're just what we haven't had enough of lately!

Attitudes to immigration

A poll for Channel 4 has revealed that the public is not exactly ecstatic about the unprecedented levels of immigration that this country has been experiencing over the past ten years or so. 83% of Britons told pollsters that the country faces a "population crisis", a view shared by 58% of "settled migrants". Fifteen percent of respondents were in favour of halting immigration altogether, and fully 84% wanted to reduce it.

Why do the public feel this way? Well, it seems that many of us are not quite so enthusiastic about the myriad benefits of diversity as the liberal-left might wish. While a quarter of people believe the leftist canard that "immigration has led to a rich and varied culture in Britain", 58% say that British culture has been "damaged and diluted" by immigration. Multiculturalism seems to have been convincingly rejected too: 69% of people say that it isn't working, a view shared by 45% of settled migrants, and even 41% of recently-arrived migrants. 66% of Britons also believe that migrant workers undercut British workers and take their jobs.

There's not a lot here that's new, to be honest. The proof that the public was strongly opposed to both immigration and multiculturalism was already pretty overwhelming - this is just another shot in the cannonade of evidence. The important issue is not so much whether people have concerns and objections, as whether any government will take heed of these concerns, and act accordingly. Personally, I doubt that they will.
Responding to the Channel 4 poll, Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch said:

This is stunning confirmation that the public want to see firm and effective action to reduce the scale of immigration. It is a view shared by two-thirds of previous immigrants. The Government cannot remain in denial much longer.

Well, the first two sentences may be correct, but, alas, I fear that he underestimates the capacity of the present government to ignore any fact that does not fit their worldview. They allowed, and continue to allow, unlimited mass immigration against the wishes and without the consent of the public. I expect that they will "remain in denial" up to and beyond the next election. We can't expect any action from Labour. Meanwhile, the Tories have at least called for a limit to be imposed on immigration, but, as we all know, what they say and what they might do should they come into power may prove to be two very different things...

"It never occurred to us"

Did anyone else watch "Rivers of Blood", the BBC2 documentary on Enoch Powell's famous speech, on Saturday night? I did, and I must say that I was pleasantly surprised. Although I didn't agree with all of its conclusions, it was far from being the hatchet-job that I was expecting, and it certainly seemed strongly sympathetic towards Powell's critique of multiculturalism, even if it did, rather bewilderingly, imply that his speech was responsible for bringing state-sponsored multiculturalism about. It was also a pretty well put-together programme, with plenty of interesting talking-heads, balancing out the predictable ("he was a wicked racist!") contributions of a couple of race hustlers, and the execrable Roy "Tub of Lard" Hattersley. Plus, the Socialist Worker and the New Statesman both hated it, which can only count in its favour! As a regular critic of the BBC, I must say that on this occasion they've actually done rather well. Now, if only they could get it right the other 99% of the time...

If you didn't catch it, then it's been uploaded to Youtube, and the first segment can be seen here. It's all interesting, but I was particularly intrigued by some comments from Lord Lester, the left-wing barrister, and former advisor to Roy Jenkins, who as Home Secretary in the mid-1960s first articulated the leftist doctrine of multiculturalism. Speaking at the very end of the film, he said:

The model we had was, everyone would share the broad values of being British; what we did not expect, was that there would be those who would unwisely suggest that, for example, Sharia law should be applied in this country, or that the punishment of stoning for adultery might be looked at...It never occurred to us that there would be those kinds of unwise challenges to the broad values of a liberal democratic society.

It really is astonishing that the liberals who launched the multiculturalist agenda that has dominated (and disrupted) society for over forty years never even considered the possibility that not everyone was going to accept the "broad values of a liberal democratic society", however they might be interpreted. They never thought it possible, that encouraging people to continue living their lives as though they were still in some backwater village in Pakistan, would also have the effect of encouraging them to continue to adhere to the moral, social, and political codes prevalent in those backwater villages. Their naivety was simply astounding!
Of course, while Lord Lester, and, apparently, Roy Jenkins by the end of his life, may have realised that something is not quite right, there are still a Hell of a lot of liberals who have not achieved this realisation. They still believe, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, that the increasing size and influence of the Islamic population in Britain is nothing to fear, and that, indeed, it is those of us who oppose Islamification who are the real threat to this country. I have had plenty of liberals tell me that even should Muslims eventually become a majority in Britain, it will be no problem, because they will have accepted all our values. Well, they haven't done so in the last forty years, but have rather become more extreme with each passing generation. The fact is, these liberals who decry any attack on Islam as part of some "racist" conspiracy may well find, that in thirty or forty years' time, they, like Lord Lester today, will be complaining that "it never occurred to us" that British-born Muslims would actually start executing apostates, or establishing separate Sharia jurisdictions in cities such as Birmingham or Oldham. But by then, of course, it will be too late for them to do anything about it.

Hideously white, part 94,000

If members of the public were asked to identify one thing that embodied British culture, many would pick the Proms. Weeks of classical music; the Royal Albert Hall; Union Flags and Land of Hope and Glory on the last night - what could be a better modern symbol of the nation? And it's certainly popular: hundreds of thousands of people attend the the thing itself, and millions of people across the World tune in to watch.

This, however, is not enough for Margaret Hodge, who holds the post of culture minister in one of the most uncultured governments we have ever seen. Delivering a speech on "Britishness" to the left-wing Institute for Public Policy Research, Hodge complained that the Proms were insufficiently inclusive:

The audiences for some of many of our greatest cultural events - I'm thinking particularly of the Proms - is still a long way from demonstrating that people from different backgrounds feel at ease in being part of this.

I know this is not about making every audience completely representative, but if we claim great things for our sectors in terms of their power to bring people together, then we have a right to expect they will do that wherever they can.

By contrast, the BBC reports that

...Mrs [sic] Hodge praised other institutions for "creating the icons of a common culture that everybody can feel a part of" - such as the Angel of the North, the British Museum and the Eden project as well as TV and radio shows "from Coronation Street to the Archers" and shared public holidays.

Quite how one can "feel a part of" the Angel of the North is unclear, unless one is speaking literally. But, generally, Hodge's preference for Corrie over Elgar speaks volumes about Labour's philistine outlook on the world. It evinces an instinctive preference for popular culture over high culture, purely because it is popular. The actual artistic or aesthetic merit of a thing is irrelevant to Hodge: all that matters is how many people tune in.

How many people tune in, and how many of the right sort of people tune in. Because, aside from the philistinism that Hodge's comments betray, there is also an evident racial subtext: when she talks about "inclusiveness", she is quite clearly complaining that the Proms are just too hideously white. This is not the first time that a Labour culture minister has attacked the arts for this heinous crime: in 2005, David Lammy accused arts organisations "of being 'too exclusive' and not doing enough to promote black people in senior roles".
The fact is, that events like the Proms tend to attract white people, in much the same way that rap concerts tend to attract a disproportionate number of blacks (albeit balanced out by middle-class white teenagers attempting to be edgy). Classical music is white music: it is our cultural heritage, not that of non-whites. This is not to say that non-whites can't enjoy classical music, and no doubt some do, but it does explain why the audience at events like the Proms is overwhelmingly white. Non-whites aren't being excluded: they're just not interested.

The other main reason for Hodge's attack is that the Proms, and particularly its famous last night, are proudly, openly, and traditionally British. Its white attendees wave the Union Flag and listen to Land of Hope and Glory, with nary an emblem of multiculturalism in sight. Watching the last night, one could almost imagine that the war that the left has waged against this country's heritage for many decades had never happened. For the left, which delights in the damage it has done to this country in the name of multiculturalism, this is just unacceptable.

Shock of the day: multiculturalism not good!

I imagine that by now most UK-based readers will have read about the Royal United Services Institute's very welcome comments about the weakening effect multiculturalism has had upon British society, and the encouragement that this has given to Muslim terrorists anti-Islamic activists. For those that haven't, here is the most important part:

"The UK presents itself as a target, as a fragmenting, post-Christian society," the report says, and is "increasingly divided" on its history, national aims, values and political identity.

"That fragmentation is worsened by the firm self-image of those elements within it who refuse to integrate."

The report places most of the blame for this on a "lack of leadership from the majority, which, in misplaced deference to 'multiculturalism', failed to lay down the line to immigrant communities, thus undercutting those within them trying to fight extremism".

"The country's lack of self-confidence is in stark contrast to the implacability of its Islamist terrorist enemy, within and without.

"We look like a soft touch. We are indeed a soft touch, from within and without."

It's hard to really disagree with that, although I'm sure that some leftists, race hustlers, and Mohammedans will attempt to do so. The report has already been cited as an example of "Islamophobia" at Islamophobia Watch.

The point about the national lack of cultural self-confidence is particularly interesting, and would appear to be borne out by the results (pdf) of a Pew Global Attitudes Project poll, released last autumn. According to this, only 31% of Britons surveyed agreed with the statement "Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others". Just 8% agreed completely, while 64% disagreed. British levels of agreement with the statement were the second lowest of all the countries surveyed, behind Sweden, and Britain was one of only four countries where the majority expressed disagreement (the others being Germany and France). By contrast, levels of agreement with the statement were 82% in Pakistan and 86% in Bangladesh, with the average level of agreement in Muslim countries running at 74%. The highest levels of agreement worldwide were found in India, where an impressive 93% of respondents believed their culture to be superior.

Figures like these explain why this country has so often capitulated in the face of demands from immigrant communities (particularly Muslims). India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh have all sent large numbers of immigrants to Britain, and there is little reason to doubt that those immigrants share in the sense of cultural superiority which is common in their home nations. Accordingly, they are likely to feel strongly driven to uphold and promote their culture, even in the face of apparent public or state opposition. By contrast, since the indigenous population has been brainwashed into believing that all cultures are essentially equal, they have very little reason to resist cultural change, particularly if doing so is likely to involve any personal inconvenience. The determined (not so) few beat the indifferent many.

It's difficult to see that anything is likely to be done to change this. The institutionally leftist teaching profession has been indoctrinating the young into cultural relativism for over thirty years now, and looks set to continue doing so. Last April, the head of the National Union of Teachers (an immigrant herself) told the NUT's annual conference that teaching "Britishness" in schools was "racist". And earlier this month, a report from the Institute of Education denounced British culture and history as "corrupt" and "morally ambiguous", and said that patriotism should be discouraged in schools. Yet at the same time, schools and teachers across the country happily take part in such ridiculous charades as "Black History Month", which, as the Department for Children, Schools and Families puts it

...provides a wonderful occasion to celebrate the diversity of our society and the contributions Black and Asian men and women have made to the development of British society, technology, economy and culture.

So, British patriotism is discouraged and frowned upon by the same teachers, who happily promote and "celebrate" the heritage of immigrant children. This must surely have the effect of further reducing the already low levels British cultural self-confidence, while further increasing the already high levels of immigrant cultural self-confidence. Which is probably what the leftist teachers and educationalists want...

Are we all doomed, then? Perhaps. If there is some saving grace, then it may well lie in the possibility that there is a difference between what people believe they believe, and what they really, subconsciously, believe. By this, I mean that there may well be a discrepancy between how people view the statement "all cultures are equal", when considered as a purely abstract notion, and how they respond to different cultures, when brought into actual contact with them.
That the left has been successful in promoting the idea that a belief in British/European cultural superiority is racist, fascist, and generally evil, is undeniable. And so only a minority are prepared to admit, even to themselves, that our culture is superior to that of pretty much all other nations (especially Islamic ones). However, it is possible that they know, in their hearts, that this is the case. 54% of British respondents to the Pew poll agreed that "Our way of life needs to be protected against foreign influence". Although this figure is lower than than in most nations (but much higher than the probably doomed Sweden, where only 29% felt this way), it is still a clear majority, and as such is encouraging. One can also look at the strength of the recent outcry against Rowan Williams's Sharia law remarks. It is hard to believe that the real anger that was felt by so many, at the prospect of widespread Sharia law in Britain, would have existed, had it not been based, at root, on the idea that British culture is superior to Islamic culture. Nonetheless, so long as schools (and much of the media) remain bastions of liberal orthodoxy, there is likely to be a significant problem.

Hat-tip: Thanks to Alison at ATW for flagging up the Pew poll, back in October.

"Christian Ramadan"

Dutch Catholics have re-branded the Lent fast as the "Christian Ramadan" in an attempt to appeal to young people who are more likely to know about Islam than Christianity.

The Catholic charity Vastenaktie, which collects for the Third World across the Netherlands during the Lent period, is concerned that the Christian festival has become less important for the Dutch over the last generation.

"The image of the Catholic Lent must be polished. The fact that we use a Muslim term is related to the fact that Ramadan is a better-known concept among young people than Lent," said Vastenaktie Director, Martin Van der Kuil.

This is what happens when you have an education system which seeks to deprive native children of a knowledge of their own heritage, or to teach them that their own heritage is wholly evil, while at the same time continually promoting all immigrant cultures as wholly good and benign. So successfully have the youth of the Netherlands been deracinated, and, to a large extent, socially Islamified, that in order to understand a major part of their own religious and cultural heritage, they must have it explained to them using the culture and religion of the immigrants as a point of reference, as though Dutch culture were merely a derivation from Islamic culture. And I doubt that the situation is much, if any, better in the UK, or in many other Western European nations. This hardly bodes well for the future: if a people lack even the most basic knowledge of their own heritage and culture, how are they going to protect and preserve it?

"A very multicultural store"

A MUSLIM store worker refused to serve a customer buying a children’s book on Christianity because she said it was “unclean”.

Shopper Sally Friday felt publicly humiliated at [the Reading] branch of Marks & Spencer when she tried to pay for First Bible Stories as a gift for her young grandson.

When she put the book on the check-out counter, the young assistant refused to touch it, declared it was unclean and summoned another member of staff to serve instead.

This, presumably, is the kind of "community diversity" that the Bishop of Oxford (in whose diocese this store is) wants us all to relax and enjoy. In a similar vein to the Bishop's remarks, an M&S spokesman said:

Reading is a very multicultural store and we are surprised and disappointed by this reported incident.

He seems to regard multiculturalism as a bar to this kind of thing happening, and thinks that this has happened in spite of the multiculturalism of this particular store. When, in reality, it is the very failure to assert British cultural values, combined with the promotion of cultures which are in many ways completely incompatible native British culture, which has caused this, and similar, incidents. After all, regarding other religions as unclean is a part of Islamic culture, and if the government and others, in the name of multiculturalism, encourage Muslims to maintain all of their traditional attitudes and values, even when they openly conflict with British ones, then this kind of thing is inevitable.

An individual bearing the wonderful title of "a source close to the shop assistant" has claimed that Mrs Friday misheard what was said. And that is, of course, always a possibility. But while the apparent use of the word 'unclean' serves to exacerbate the situation, the fact is that, no matter how polite the worker was, she still refused to serve a customer. Even if the word 'unclean' had not been used at all, then it would still have been left hanging deafeningly in the air. And it is simply unacceptable, if only because it is exceptionally rude, for an employee - who has, one assumes, agreed to take up their position of their own free will - to refuse to serve a customer, on the grounds that they regard the customer's purchases as somehow immoral.

Hat-tip: JuliaM, in the comments

The Dhimmi Mindset

One of the strongest indicators of a dhimmi mentality, both on an individual and a societal level, is the willingness to anticipate Muslim outrage, and to act to remove the potential source of offence, even in the complete absence of any actual complaints from the Muslims. An example would be the recent craze for prohibiting images of pigs, or stories about Winnie the Pooh and Piglet. Well, today has furnished us with two paradigmatic instances of this same phenomenon of voluntary submission. First, via Dhimmi Watch:

A BRITISH children’s author who named a mole Mohammed to promote multiculturalism has renamed it Morgan for fear of offending Muslims.

Kes Gray, a former advertising executive, first decided on his gesture of cross-cultural solidarity after meeting Muslims in Egypt.

The character, Mohammed the Mole, appeared in Who’s Poorly Too, an illustrated children’s book, which also included Dipak Dalmatian and Pedro Penguin, in an effort to be “inclusive”.

This weekend Gray said he had decided to postpone a reprint and rename the character Morgan the Mole even though there had been no complaints.

“I had no idea at all of the sensitivities of the name Mohammed until seeing this case in Sudan,” said Gray. “As soon as I saw the news I thought, oh gosh, I’ve got a mole called Mohammed this is not good.

“I feel incredibly sorry for that teacher,” added Gray. “Luckily for me, I’m in a position where I can avoid this.” The book has sold 40,000 copies in Britain and abroad since 1999.

And Exhibit Two:

Shepherds dressed in old sheets, Christmas carols and the competition to see who will play Mary and Joseph… nativity plays have been a feature of British primary-school life for generations.

But a survey has revealed that headteachers are watering down or ditching the centuries-old Christmas story in favour of secular tales to avoid upsetting pupils of other faiths.

Only one in five schools are ­planning to perform a traditional nativity play this year. They are now outnumbered by schools that say they will be either putting on a non-religious play, such as Scrooge or Snow White, or giving no performance at all.

Almost half the schools said they planned to put on modern reinterpretations of the Christmas story, with extra characters, new songs and modern themes, such as The Bossy King, Whoops-a-Daisy Angel or The Hoity-Toity Angel.

The findings will add to fears that Christian teachings are being abandoned by schools, despite the wishes of parents. Recent surveys show an overwhelming majority of families would like the nativity play, telling the story of Christ's birth, to live on in schools.

Of course, since they (or at least, the majority of them) are only white British Christians, their cultural sensitivities can safely be ridden over, roughshod.

One point common to both these cases (and to the various pig ban cases as well) is that no Muslim, or virtually no Muslims, have actually complained. Certainly, I've never heard tell of a Muslim objecting to a nativity play, and Kes Gray himself acknowledged that, for 40,000 books sold, no one had complained about his fictional mole's name. But that doesn't stop either Gray, or the legions of do-gooder headteachers, from behaving in this utterly craven manner. They have become so well-indoctrinated into "cultural sensitivity" that they are now more sensitive to perceived "Islamophobic" slights than all but the maddest of mad Muslims. Were it not so utterly contemptible, one might actually be rather impressed with the capacity of multiculturalism to so completely brainwash its adherents.

Islam is a threat to Britain, and to her cultural identity. If present demographic trends continue, then it will, before long, become an enormous, potentially overwhelming, threat. But, as Klein Verzet wrote last month, for the time being, the threat posed by Islam, significant as it is, is as nothing against the threat posed by the little Vichyists of the politically-correct, pro-multiculturalist, liberal-left.

"Say goodbye to the Britain you once knew"

Singer Morrissey has sparked controversy by claiming British identity has disappeared because the country has been "flooded" by foreigners. The 48-year-old former Smiths star, whose parents were Irish immigrants, suggested that immigration was one of the reasons he would not move back to Britain.

Morrissey, who has spent most of the last decade living in LA and Rome, told NME magazine that countries like Germany still had their own identity and complained of not hearing "British accents" on the streets.

Asked whether he would move back to Britain, he said: "Britain's a terribly negative place. And it hammers people down and it pulls you back and it prevents you.

"Also, with the issue of immigration, it's very difficult because although I don't have anything against people from other countries, the higher the influx into England the more the British identity disappears.

"So the price is enormous. If you travel to Germany, it's still absolutely Germany. If you travel to Sweden, it still has a Swedish identity. But travel to England and you have no idea where you are.

He added: "It matters because the British identity is very attractive. I grew up into it, and I find it quaint and very amusing. But England is a memory now."

He agreed that immigration was enriching the British identity but added "you have to say goodbye to the Britain you once knew".

In a follow-up phone interview, Morrissey told the magazine: "I just think that it could be construed that the reason I wouldn't wish to live in England is the immigration explosion.

"And that's not true at all. I am actually extremely worldly and there are other reasons why I would find England very difficult, such as the expense and the pressure."

He said: "My favourite actor is an Israeli, Lior Ashkenazi, and my favourite singer was born in Iraq and now lives in Egypt. So I'm not a part of Little Britain. And by that, I don't mean the show, obviously."

Asked about his parents moving to Britain, he said: "It's different now. Because the gates are flooded. And anybody can have access to England and join in."

Admitting that he would be "pilloried" for his comments, he added: "You can't say, 'Everybody come into my house, sit on the bed, have what you like, do what you like.' It wouldn't work."

NME wrote: "Morrissey, the son of immigrants who has lived for most of the past decade in either LA or Rome, wants others to have the freedom to travel the world like him, but implies he would shut the gates to people coming to live in the UK.

"He might once have been the voice of a generation, but given his comments in these two interviews, he's certainly not speaking for us now."

A hypocrite he may be. And perhaps he doesn't speak for the second-rate hacks at the NME. But the concerns that he voiced about immigration, and about its effects on British society, are shared by the overwhelming majority of British people.

Assuming, that is, that he did voice those concerns. He is apparently planning to sue the NME for libel over the article in question.

But really, whether a faded eighties musician did or did not criticise immigration is irrelevant when compared to the real issue here. And the real issue is, of course, immigration itself, and its impact. There can be no doubt that immigration has had a huge impact on our society and culture. Even the national language is in the process of being replaced - English is now a second language for fully 40% of primary school children in London. Whole parts of London - and many, many other towns and cities - are entirely given over to immigrants, and those of recent immigrant stock. Indeed, there are even some parts of this country into which it is simply not safe for native Britons to set foot. Thanks to Muslim immigration, we now have in this country some 600,000 people who wish to see the imposition of Sharia law across Britain - an attitude of a kind which this country has not witnessed for hundreds of years. And, perhaps worst of all, we are now experiencing the widespread active suppression of native British culture, in order to make the immigrants feel more at home. Even the indescribably vile Keith Vaz has acknowledged that British society is changing. In his Newsnight debate with Nick Griffin he said that "it is wonderful that this country has been transformed" (video link, if you can stomach it, here; he says those precise words at 4:49). And that is the heart of the matter. Not, "has the country been changed by immigration?" (it's abundantly clear that it has been), but "do we like the change, do we want to quicken the rate of change, or do we, on the other hand, want to reverse the change?". Keith Vaz would choose the former option, I (and Morrissey, according to the NME) would choose the latter.

'tis the night of Halloween...

...and strange and inhuman creatures are out and about.

Oh yes indeed. And none stranger than the beings that dwell deep in the offices of the left-wing think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). For the IPPR is about to publish a report on the subject of "Britishness" and race relations, which, from its content, one might suppose more suited for the first day of April than for any other day of the year. Calling for a "multicultural understanding of Britishness", the report graciously concedes that immigrants to the UK should learn to speak English

...if - but only if - the settled population is willing to open up national institutions and practices to newcomers and give a more inclusive cast to national narratives and symbols.

Note to those unfamiliar with leftyspeak: "settled population" means the native population of this country, while "open up national institutions and practices" means "give up national institutions and practices", and "give a more inclusive cast to national narratives and symbols" means "recast our culture into something unrecognisable, in order to please those immigrants who refuse to make any effort to integrate".

In order to "give a more inclusive cast" to Britain's unspeakably evil culture, the authors of the report propose a number of changes to our way of life, including:

"Birth ceremonies", at which state and parents agree to "work in partnership" to bring up children.

Now, I don't like to overuse cliches, but this really is like something out of Brave New World. Raising children is not a "partnership" between parents and the state, it is the right and - more importantly - the duty of parents to raise their children as they see fit, with the government only stepping in where the parents prove themselves incapable of doing this for themselves. Otherwise, the state has no business interfering in the manner in which people raise their offspring.

I also wonder whether these ceremonies will be compulsory? If so, what is going to happen if parents refuse to take part? Prison? Forfeiture of the children to the state? And if such ceremonies are not to be compulsory, how many cretins do they think they are going to persuade to take part?

Action to "ensure access" for ethnic minorities to "largely white" countryside.

It's true that the countryside is "largely white". A bit like the country as a whole really, only more so. It's a shame that the IPPR are so offended by the sight - or even the mere thought - of large numbers of white people. Still, the way some people go on, you'd think that the British countryside was some hotbed of Nazism, and that any black person who ventured into it would be lucky to escape without being lynched. This is, of course, rubbish. If black people want to go for a day's hill-walking, they need only jump in the car and drive, the same as the rest of us. If they want to buy a house in the country, then they only need to raise the necessary funds and it's theirs. The same as the rest of us. And as for the threat of "racism": well, I'd bet that it's a lot safer being a non-white person in the depths of rural England, than it is being white in some such centre of vibrant diversity as Brixton or Brick Lane. There is simply no need for any action along the lines proposed.

An overhaul of Britain's "imperial" honours system.

Why? Because Benjamin Zephaniah gets upset that we have the phrase "British Empire" in some of our honours?

The fact is, that the honours system reflects our history and our heritage. To seek to alter our honours system because it has become politically incorrect constitutes an assault upon the heritage that the system represents. It is an attempt a) to make the British people ashamed of their cultural heritage, and b) to, in the long-run, engender the belief that we have no cultural heritage at all.

Flying flags other than the Union Flag.

I assume they refer to the flags flown on public buildings. I don't know what other flags they mean, but I'd guess it's not the national flags of Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to which they refer. Nor even, in this instance, the EU flag, although I don't suppose that the IPPR would be wholly averse to seeing that replacing the Union Flag at some point in the future. I assume, therefore, that the flags in question are those of the home countries of the UK's major (and most vocal) immigrant groups, such as Pakistan.
Clearly, this proposal should also be opposed. This is Britain, not any other country, and if the IPPR and the government really want to induce enhanced civic unity and loyalty to Britain then they should be aiming to strengthen our traditional symbols of nationhood (which, incidentally, also includes our honours system - see above), rather than undermining them. But, I'd guess that the real reason for encouraging the flying of foreign flags is that it will further promote the cultural deracination of the native British people, leaving them more willing to accept the destruction and replacement of their culture and way of life.

Other proposals include the removal of Bishops from the House of Lords (a further attempt to strip us of our cultural heritage) and making school religious studies classes "less sectarian" (personally, I wasn't aware that they were sectarian - I mean, it's not like they're teaching from the Chick Tracts, is it?). However, there is one proposal which seems to be getting rather more attention than all the others:

Christmas should be downgraded in favour of festivals from other religions to improve race relations...Labour's favourite think-tank says that because it would be hard to 'expunge' Christmas from the national calendar, 'even-handedness' means public organisations must start giving other religions equal footing.

Given the place in the national psyche that Christmas has acquired, this is, more than any other part of the proposals, an attempt to undermine and destroy our traditional culture, heritage, and sense of national identity. I'd particularly point out that, from the phrasing the IPPR have used, it appears that their preferred option would be to "expunge" Christmas altogether, but that, knowing this to be impossible, they have instead opted to seek its dilution, and the dilution of the Christian heritage which it represents.

And that, really, is the theme running through all of the proposals that the IPPR has come up with: dilution. Dilution of our culture, heritage, and identity. Our national flag, our history, and our national religion will all be belittled, while the flags, heritages, and religions of the immigrant groups in our society will be given enhanced status. The aim, I believe, is to create the impression that Britain has no history, that it has no religious or cultural heritage, that it was, in fact, an uninhabited and unclaimed land until about 1948, when all the ethnic groups now inhabiting it arrived together, all with an equal claim upon it (that it is, in fact, a paradigmatic "nation of immigrants"). Thus they hope to lay the foundations for the creation of some gloriously unprecedented multicultural utopia. They won't succeed in this, of course, but if they get their way in other matters then they will succeed in utterly annihilating our British way of life. Which they probably want even more than they want the multicultural utopia.

Update: I have now posted an abridged, and hopefully somewhat less repetitive, version of the above over at ATW.

Indoctrination in Schools

A SCHOOL was yesterday accused of MAKING teachers dress up as Asians for a day [traditional Chinese costume, was it?] – to celebrate a Muslim festival [not traditional Chinese costume then].

Kids at the 257-pupil primary have also been told to don ethnic garb even though most are Christians.

The morning assembly will be open to all parents – but dads are BARRED from a women-only party in the afternoon because Muslim husbands object to wives mixing with other men.

[...]

Sally Bloomer, head of Rufford primary school in Lye, West Midlands, insisted: “I have not heard of any complaints.

“It’s all part of a diversity project to promote multi-culturalism.”

Well, that makes everything okay then! I must remember to use that line next time I get stopped for speeding...

Compelling children and teachers to dress up in Islamic garb is bad enough, but replicating the overtly sexist practices of Islamic states (which is what the women-only party was doing) is another thing entirely. Ms Bloomer is not only indoctrinating children into possessing the general opinion that Islam is just as good as Western Civilisation (if not better), but is also expressly endorsing some of Islam's most discriminatory practices. Is this the kind of person you would want in charge of your children?

I also wonder whether, in the interests of the "diversity project to promote multi-culturalism", Ms Bloomer will in future force Muslim children and staff to adopt Western dress, for the purpose of celebrating Christian festivals such as Christmas and Easter? No? Well, of course not: we mustn't upset the Special People, must we?

Hat-tip: Najistani

Trevor Phillips Interviewed

A veteran of race politics, it was Phillips who declared that multiculturalism wasn’t working, sounding the death knell for that oh so British doctrine that for 30 years decreed we should live alongside each other, let different communities and races do their own thing and not worry about integration, helping immigrants learn English or inculcating British values. It was a doctrine that died on 7/7 when British-born Muslim suicide bombers murdered their fellow citizens.

Though undoubtedly the right thing to do, Phillips’s condemnation of multiculturalism made him massively unpopular with many of his former brothers – as I found out when I interviewed him about his new job on stage at the CRE’s farewell race convention last year. I was there to talk to him about the role of the new commission. Questions from the floor were hostile. Voices were raised. Many veterans of the race riots of the 1970s saw Phillips as a sell-out, furious that the focus on race was to be lost as the CRE merged into a wider body. Phillips was taken aback by the “bullying” attitudes.

Not, of course, that this has stopped him dishing out similar treatment to others. Trevor Phillips may not be the most extreme race hustler around, and he may find that he is himself targeted by the more hardline elements of the race relations industry, but a race hustler he nonetheless remains. He's right about multiculturalism, though.

This time we are in his offices in Victoria Street without an audience, but he is still uncompromising on his old comrades. “They have to grow up. That militancy must be consigned to the dustbin of history. The CRE was set up to deal with a different set of circumstances. Now we have to chart a course for how we can deal with difference. We have to be more proactive and more friendly.”

Race is, as he puts it, “no longer black and white”. In terms of life chances, a black African girl is likely to do better than a white British boy. A Chinese baby born today will probably be much better paid than his or her white contemporaries. It is no longer the case that ethnic minority kids get a raw deal because of white racism.

Indeed, it could arguably be said that some white children are getting a raw deal because of anti-white discrimination in the education system. After all, there is £178 million set aside each year specifically to help poor non-white pupils, but no comparable funding aimed at the white working class.

But despite such progress, Phillips is aware of the challenges we face to integrate the new arrivals. “We are now in the age of difference, not just in our big cities, but everywhere. We are all struggling to get used to this. But people like Andrew Green at Migrationwatch are saying these new arrivals can’t fit in. I believe that shows contempt for the tolerance of the British people. As a nation, because of being Welsh, Scots, Irish, English and still British we are pretty good at absorbing people. Once we get our brains in gear and stop being frightened about race, we are pretty good in this country at doing the immigration job. We just have to treat it positively. We have to tell immigrants the rules and what we expect.” Tell that to Cambridgeshire police.

Quite. And, far from Sir Andrew Green showing contempt for the British people, I think that it is Phillips who is doing so. After all, he appears to imply that any failure of immigrants to integrate is down to a failure of tolerance on our part, with the immigrants themselves bearing little or no blame. Of course, this is completely wrong. The British people have been exceptionally tolerant of immigrants - too tolerant for our own good, some might say. Those immigrants who have wanted to integrate have been embraced with open arms. However, most immigrants, particularly Muslim ones, have actively rejected British society. After all, given the diametric opposition of our culture and theirs, Muslims at least could not embrace British culture unless they rejected every tenet of their own culture and religion. And given the extreme tolerance we have extended to them, whatever their behaviour, they have had no incentive to do so.
Another particular problem has been the level of immigration. It is notable that those immigrant groups which have integrated best tend to be those that are small in number - the Chinese, for example. By contrast, those that have come here in bulk, such as the Pakistanis or the Bangladeshis, are the least well-integrated. After all, they have been able to retreat into substantial ghettos comprised entirely of their own people, and to thereby minimise their contact with native British culture. A somewhat more "intolerant" attitude towards mass immigration, resulting in a substantially reduced number of immigrants, would have compelled those immigrants that there were to have more to do with the natives, substantially increasing the likelihood of their full integration.

“Governments since the 1960s have been terrified of talking about race because of the spectre of Enoch Powell,” says Phillips. “They are scared of raising these issues for fear of being branded racist. But we must be able to have an honest conversation about racial difference and immigration. We must recognise diversity, not pretend it doesn’t exist. It is okay to say ‘I don’t like what you do’, but not okay to say ‘I don’t like what you are’. Many of us don’t know how to talk to each other. My job is to work out how to make it work.”

It's good to hear that Phillips objects to the label 'racist' being used to stifle debate about racial and cultural issues. But, once again, what he says has the faint reek of hypocrisy about it. After all, Phillips has been prominent among those quick to stick the 'racist' label on the BNP, often for saying things not much different from what he himself has lately come to advocate.

So what are his proposals? He thinks that in divided communities such as Oldham or Burnley that rather than quotas to mix the races in schools, or bussing pupils from one part of town to another, the key is getting different kinds of kids together for music or sport – or sending them on summer camps (all things his new body will be advocating and funding).

I don't believe that these plans are likely to work. The children will go away to Summer camp together, probably get along reasonably well, and then go back to their own, separate, lives. If there is to be genuine integration and community cohesion, the key is to genuinely annihilate multiculturalism. And that is going to entail destroying the non-white ghettos, in which cultures utterly alien to our traditional way of life fester. Whether this can be done is unclear.
It is also going to entail what I have already mentioned: an end to mass immigration. Since integration can only be achieved with a limited number of immigrants, it is essential that immigration be very limited. Too many immigrants, and you get the creation of ethnic ghettos, after which, fostering integration becomes difficult, if not impossible.

I will leave off the quotes from the interview here. Suffice to say, that Phillips's ideas for bringing about an integrated society are that we should promote "Britishness", and that everyone should speak English. While I have no objections in principle to either of these aims, I do not believe that they will succeed, at least not in the situation this country is presently in. For a start, "Britishness" has become an utterly meaningless concept. When asked to define it, our politicians blether on about tolerance, fair play, and democracy; all things good enough in themselves, but utterly inadequate as an attempt to truly describe British culture. Tolerance and fair play are indeed part of British culture, but so too is our history, our arts and literature, and, yes, our national religion (Christianity, for those who might mistakenly have assumed that it was Islam). If we are going to promote British culture, and we should, then it must include all these things. Anything less will simply serve to belittle, and, ultimately, to undermine, it. Certainly, one cannot build a common culture out of fair play and tolerance. Nor can one build it out of a shared language. The evident linguistic differences between immigrants and natives are merely veils hiding the more substantive cultural and, yes, racial differences.

I do not know whether we can succeed in creating a unified society. Certainly, I do not believe that we can if we merely promote Britishness of the half-hearted kind generally favoured by politicians. Even if we promote Britishness as I define it, then I am dubious as regards the chances of success. For example, the Muslim population in Britain is numbered in its millions, and growing fast. I cannot see that Islam is in any way compatible with Britishness, correctly understood. Unless they renounce their religion, can those millions of Muslims ever be truly integrated into our society? And that is without considering the tension caused solely by racial differences, a tension that I regard as unlikely to go away, even in the unlikely event that a unified culture is forged.

So, what do I make of Trevor Phillips? Well, he is to be congratulated on recognising the wrongness of multiculturalism, and the extent to which the word 'racism' is used to stifle debate. However, I do not believe that he understands what is necessary to build a cohesive society, nor do I believe that he has really cast off the mantle of the race hustler. I continue to dislike and distrust him, and it will take more than this interview to change that.

Cameron on immigration

David Cameron has, I believe for the first time since becoming Tory leader, spoken about the issue which, of all issues, most concerns the people of this country: immigration. Having hitherto scrupulously avoided mentioning the issue, for fear of appearing to be right-wing (not that there's much risk of that), he told last night's BBC Newsnight TV programme that immigration levels under Labour have been "too high". Which is, to my mind, a bit like saying that Mount Everest is "quite big". Immigration was too high when Labour came to power, now, with over half a million immigrants known to have entered the UK last year, it has gone completely out of control. It would be nice to get the numbers down to just being "too high".

Leaving aside this gripe, however, it is still nice - and very rare - to see Cameron come out with something vaguely sensible. Unfortunately, he followed this up by demonstrating his complete misunderstanding of what the real problem with immigration is, saying:

I do think that people have a very real concern about levels of immigration and not because of different cultures or the colour of their skin. I think that people’s concern is about services. It’s the pressure on schools, pressure on hospitals, pressure on housing. It is important to understand that if your child is going into a reception class and suddenly 20 new kids turn up because lots more families have arrived then that is a big pressure.

Okay, so perhaps calling it a "complete misunderstanding" was inaccurate. He is of course right about the pressures that unlimited mass immigration puts on our schools, our hospitals, housing, our whole national infrastructure. Back in May I wrote about the effect that immigration has had on Slough, and I think that one of the quotes I took from a Times article is worth repeating:

In the past 18 months [Slough Council] has placed in schools some 900 children who arrived in Slough from overseas. In other towns, they might have had to wait weeks or months to be placed, but Slough established a special assessment centre to speed the process. But it’s slow work: the centre can take only eight children a week. Last year two primary schools accepted 50 Polish children and 60 Somalis in just one term.

As I pointed out at the time, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that many of the children coming in have extremely poor English language skills. There is no doubt, that if you are a British child unfortunate enough to be at a school that acquires fifty or sixty immigrant pupils, your education will suffer, just as you will suffer if you are a British couple patiently waiting your turn for a council house, and a few hundred impoverished immigrants move into your area, and jump straight to the head of the queue, on the basis that their "need" is greater than yours.

However, while the impact that immigration has on our infrastructure is clearly important, I think that Cameron is very wrong to claim that opposition to mass immigration is solely due to the structural problems it causes, and that it is "not because of different cultures". I believe that it is quite clear that the problems of different cultures, and, particularly, of the supplanting of the British way of life by the cultures of immigrant groups is at least as important a factor as the structural problems caused by immigration, in turning the public against mass immigration. I don't know whether Cameron's denial of this is down to deliberate dishonesty, or merely to ignorance. Being charitable, and assuming that it is the latter, I would point him in the direction of Sir Max Hastings, and Lord Carey, two relatively liberal figures, both of whom have spoken about the threat immigration poses to traditional British culture. Or he could read the words of Carol Gould, herself a first generation immigrant, at Jewish Comment:

...dare I say that the concept of an Englishman has been so distorted as to be unrecognisable? In the same country in which men used to tip their hats to me and cabbies called my father 'Guv'nor,' we now have British citizens and naturalised immigrants who rant and rave and want women subjugated, gay men thrown off mountains and the 'Infidel' beheaded, and whose entire demeanour is so alien to anything in my entire life experience that I wonder if I have left planet Earth.

Or, Cameron could just speak to a few members of the public, 69% of whom feel that Britain is losing its own culture. If Cameron seriously believes that the dissimilarity between British culture and that of many immigrant groups - most particularly Muslims - has nothing to do with opposition to immigration, and is not in itself a far greater problem than any structural problems, then he is madder than the maddest of mad mullahs.

Nonetheless, while Cameron completely underestimates the importance of culture in opposition to immigration, he is right that there are too many immigrants. If, in the unlikely event that he were to win the next election, he actually proceeded to do something to reduce immigration, I wouldn't much mind why he did that, so long as he actually did it. However, I very much doubt that a Cameron government would do much to tackle immigration. That he has waited nearly two years since becoming opposition leader before raising the issue, and that he does so in such an essentially desultory manner, making no concrete commitments, and not even bothering to fully understand people's views, suggests that this is merely a sop to the substantial public anger over the level of immigration. And if all we want is people who are going to tell us that they understand our concerns and then ignore them completely, then we might as well stick with Labour.

"He doesn't speak any community language!"

In the by-election thread at ATW, a commenter referred to a rather interesting little story about the Ealing Southall contest, which I thought worth sharing with you. It centres around the following quote, from an article on the Respect website (don't say I didn't warn you!):

Already shamed by revelations that he gave £4,800 to Labour days before his nomination, Tory Tony Lit made a further fool of himself tonight on the community [i.e. Indian - FR] Venus TV station (Sky Channel 807). Following a phone-in with our candidate Salvinder Dhillon in Hindi and Punjabi, the presenter invited Mr. Lit to speak in a community language, as his whole contribution had been in English. Lit just kept speaking English. He doesn’t speak any community language! Yet he claims to be a local.

Doesn't that just sum up multicultural Britain today? A candidate in a British election being vilified as an auslander for not speaking Hindi. True, this is only the Respect website, but what business has the TV presenter even asking Tony Lit to speak in a "community language"? Despite what visitors to Southall may think, it is not in India, but in England, and those who seek to be elected to represent Southall in the British parliament should speak English. So, indeed, should all immigrants who have come to Britain. The fact that British-based Indian TV stations are conducting phone-ins in Hindi and Punjabi is, in my opinion, just further evidence of the failure of large numbers of immigrants to even attempt to integrate or assimilate.

Postscript: As exercises in self-delusion go, the headline of the article on Respect's website, "Respect rules the streets of Ealing Southall", must fall among the most extreme cases. Given that their candidate picked up a mere 588 votes (1.6% of all those cast), I think that Respect can be said to "rule the streets of Ealing Southall" in much the same way that the Emperor Norton I ruled America.

"Shocked and distressed"

Ian Murray, a magistrate based in Manchester, has precipitated a row after refusing to sit on the trial of a Muslim woman who attended court wearing a full veil. The woman, Zoobia Hussain, who is charged with causing £5,000 of criminal damage, apparently intends to make a formal complaint against Mr Murray.

Magistrates and judges are supposed to tolerate women wearing the full veil in court unless it "interferes with the administration of justice". Quite how allowing a defendant to wear the full veil in the dock would not interfere with the administration of justice is unclear to me. After all, it is presumably rather an important aspect of the administration of justice that justice be administered to the right person, something that can't be guaranteed if the apparent defendant is completely covered from head to toe. One somehow doubts that a Christian defendant who arrived at court wearing a balaclava helmet would be allowed to keep it on.

Hussain's solicitor described her client as "shocked and distressed" by the incident, adding:

She suffered hurt feelings and felt intimidated and deeply embarrassed by the treatment she received at court.

Diddums.

Really, though, I can't see what the problem is for Hussain. Mr Murray gave no reason for withdrawing from the case; perhaps he should have done. But if he does share the common aversion to the Muslim veil, in all its various forms, then his decision to recuse himself from the case can be seen as simply ensuring that, despite her dubious and offensive choice of clothing, Hussain receives a fair trial. Certainly, she's hardly going to lose out because Mr Murray personally will not be on the bench for her case.

And as for her "hurt feelings": well, if I were facing trial, with the possibility of conviction and a criminal record, I think that my concerns would lie with matters more weighty than the question whether the magistrates treated my sartorial foibles with sufficient sensitivity. Besides which, given the widespread dislike of this item of clothing, and given the anti-British and anti-Western message that those wearing it commonly intend to send out, she can't really expect to be treated any better, particularly when the problems of identification that I have already mentioned are taken into account.

I really doubt whether her feelings are actually hurt one jot. Indeed, she's probably enjoying the attention she's getting, and the delicious feeling of being a poor oppressed victim for Allah. However, like the Shabina Begum case, I imagine that the whole row has been blown up out of proportion by Hussain, probably encouraged, as Begum was, by professional agitators, in an attempt to push an Islamist agenda. Simply put, if they can succeed in their machinations against Ian Murray, then it's unlikely that any other judge or magistrate will dare to raise any objections next time a Muslim woman enters their courtroom - whether as defendant, lawyer, juror, witness, or anything else - wearing a full veil. And that will be another little victory for the forces of Islamification.

How to promote community cohesion: discriminate against whites

The Commission on Integration and Cohesion has today published its report (pdf) on how to bring everyone together in a wonderful multicultural paradise. Apparently, if we follow their instructions, by 2020 we will all be joining hands and singing Kumbaya, as we celebrate the wonderful transformation of Britain, into a country which is home to everyone, except the native British.

Among the Commission's recommendations that have attracted publicity are:

1. Immigrants should be given guidance on the British way of life.

Well, this seems like a quite good idea. Unfortunately such guidance will not address any real discrepancies between the behaviour of immigrants and the traditional British way of life, but will focus on such minor things as telling immigrants not to jump the queue at the post office, or spit in the street. While, it is, of course, desirable that those who do such things should be discouraged, I would far rather see immigrants taught that, for example, in Britain, criticising a dead paedophile is not grounds for beheading.

2. Political parties should ensure that they pick candidates who reflect the ethnic make-up of the local electorate.

We do sometimes hear calls for this. These are usually couched in terms of the candidates being "too white". It seems that the common perception among players of racial politics is that a white candidate can never represent a community which is less than 80% white, but that it is racist to suggest that a non-white candidate cannot represent an overwhelmingly white constituency. This would appear to be the view of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion as well. After all, when they talk about representatives reflecting the ethnic make-up of those they represent, I doubt they were talking about Adam Afriyie representing the approximately 92% white people of Windsor.

3. "Targeted recruitment" to increase the number of non-white council employees.

So, to increase community cohesion, councils should discriminate against white people. Actually, this seems pretty much par for the course for the race relations industry.

4. Establishing a "rapid rebuttal" unit to counter criticisms of immigration.

This again is quite typical of the response of the liberal elite to any criticism of its multicultural social experiment. Rather than pay attention to people's legitimate concerns, they simply try to trick people into believing that all is well. It's the game they've been playing for years and years without success, but that doesn't seem likely to stop them.

There are a few decent ideas in there, such as plans to put more pressure on immigrants to speak English. But as ever, the report seems more concerned with minor matters, or with propagandising on behalf of mass immigration than with really dealing with the concerns of the populace. We now have close to 600,000 immigrants coming into Britain each year. Perhaps cohesion would be better promoted by limiting this number, than by trying to inculcate in people's minds a false belief that immigration on this scale is a good thing. And perhaps more efforts should be made to understand why a native population which is seeing its culture constantly undermined and eroded, and itself constantly vilified, is not overly keen on experiencing more of the same. But I don't think we can expect to see any of that from the race relations industry, for whom there can never be too many immigrants, nor too strong an assault on the indigenous culture.

Too French for France

In The Guardian, I read that in France there are calls for Asterix the Gaul to be removed as the face of a campaign promoting childrens' rights. Jean-Pierre Rozenczveig, of Defence for Children International, apparently feels that Asterix is too French, for a wonderful multicultural society like, um, France. The portrayal of Asterix's resistance to the Roman invaders also has inappropriate connotations, according to M. Rozenczveig, given that France is "aspiring to a happy and peaceful coexistence of all its diverse groups".

Even in terms of a European continent that is busily suppressing its own culture to make way for that of the immigrants, this has to be one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. To paraphrase Obelix, "these leftists are crazy"! Not only are the Asterix books brilliant, but they have been translated into over a hundred languages. It seems unlikely that they would have gained such a vast readership all over the world if they were bigotedly Gallocentric.

But, of course, all this takes a back seat when compared with the fact that Asterix and his friends are hideously white (as Gaul/France, and the rest of Europe, tended to be 2,000 years ago). However, I have the solution. Because I know of a set of cartoons depicting a non-white Arab Muslim and his friends, which I feel fit very well with the new, multicultural image of France. I'm sure they'd go down well...

Immigration: truth, deceit, and hypocrisy

Established British families should be given priority over economic migrants for council housing, government minister Margaret Hodge has said.

She has called for a rethink of social housing policy, to take account of length of residence, citizenship and national insurance contributions.

Social housing was limited and British families had a "legitimate sense of entitlement" to have their own homes.

Could these be the first sensible words ever to pass the woman's lips?

She said white, black and Asian British families, on low incomes, who had lived in an area for several generations could not get their own homes and all felt there was an "essential unfairness" in the system.

"They feel that they've grown up in the borough, they're entitled to a home, and that sense of entitlement is often overridden by a real need of new immigrant families who come in, perhaps locked into private accommodation, poor accommodation, overcrowded. "

No one made them come here and live in this kind of accommodation. In fact, in my opinion, they simply should not be allowed to come here at all, particularly not if they can't or won't provide for themselves.

Nancy Kelley, head of international and UK policy at the Refugee Council, said: "The way to counter some of the views put forward by far-right parties is not to follow their lead."

Put another way, "although people have concerns about the present excessive levels of mass immigration, we should not recognise those concerns, because then people might vote for a party that would do something about the problem. Rather we should try and trick the public into believing that all is well". That, I think, is roughly the gist of what Miss Kelley says.

It is deeply hypocritical, however, for Lady Hodge to talk in this manner, after having for many years been part of a government that has, over a period of ten years, allowed (warning: pdf) literally millions of immigrants into Britain (3.4 million between 1997 and 2005), and at an ever increasing rate. Most of these people are economic migrants, coming here because they have no money where they presently live. Of course such people are going to put heavy pressure on social housing, and on most other social services.

Related to Lady Hodge's comments, and providing an example of the mess that mass immigration at the levels favoured by Labour causes, is a report in The Times on Slough, perhaps the town which in all of Britain is currently suffering most from immigration, demonstrating the kinds of ethnic tension to which it gives rise:

Another Polish woman, an economist by training, told me darkly that she had recently been working in retail “for an Indian” but had stopped doing so “because they don’t respect you”.

A Sikh with a strong Indian accent lent credence to what that Polish woman said when he told me “there are too many immigrants in Slough”. Polish drivers with no car insurance jump red lights, he muttered. And last week he’d been bothered by Bulgarians ringing his doorbell to beg for money.

The provision of social services in Slough is also stretched and undermined by mass immigration:

In the past 18 months [Slough Council] has placed in schools some 900 children who arrived in Slough from overseas. In other towns, they might have had to wait weeks or months to be placed, but Slough established a special assessment centre to speed the process. But it’s slow work: the centre can take only eight children a week. Last year two primary schools accepted 50 Polish children and 60 Somalis in just one term.

Not everyone welcomes the flood of pupils for whom spoken English is not easy. Aneta Kania sends her daughter to St Anthony’s Roman Catholic school but says there are so many other Polish children there that seven-year-old Paulina is making slow progress in English.

And if you're unfortunate enough to be a native child in a class full of Poles and Somalis who can barely speak a word of English then, I would imagine, your own education is going to suffer immensely.

But of course, all this is very racist. Far better to simply close your eyes, pretend it's all going wonderfully, and save up for that house in Dorset.

Racist threatens commuter

Detectives looking for a woman who spat at a commuter and threatened to throw her onto railway tracks have released a picture of their main suspect.

The Polish woman victim was subjected to a physical and verbal assault at Streatham train station after asking the suspect when the next train was due.

Hmm. I bet it was one of those evil BNP people that did it. Unite Against Fascism keep telling me that that's the kind of thing they do.

Or not, perhaps:

Police are looking for an African-Caribbean woman of slim build over the attack at 1450 BST on 6 March.

Wow. Black on white racist violence! Who'd have thought it?

Population Replacement Watch

One in five schoolchildren is from an ethnic minority - almost double the figure a decade ago.

The annual school census reveals a Britain where one in eight pupils speaks a language other than English at home.

The record figures include more than 40,000 children from Eastern Europe who have enrolled at schools since the enlargement of the European Union in 2004.

The statistics emerged as the race relations watchdog warned that Britain's segregated schools are a "ticking timebomb".

The Commission for Racial Equality's director of policy said parents must stop sending their children to schools where most pupils come from similar religious or racial backgrounds.

Nick Johnson also suggested schools should be given more money to admit a racially mixed intake. He said: "We're in fear of turning into a mini-America with racially determined schools.

"Schools are where our children first learn how to get along with people from other cultures and backgrounds. Racially segregated schools prevent this from happening. This is a ticking timebomb."

Calling people "subhuman" for finding this kind of thing worrying is also a bit of a bar to community cohesion, isn't it, Nick? Perhaps you should take that up with your boss, eh?

His comments came as figures published by the Department for Education and Skills showed the biggest year- on-year increase in ethnic minority pupils for a decade.

They account for just under a fifth (19.8 per cent) of England's 6.5million primary and secondary pupils, up from 11 per cent when Labour came to power.

Meanwhile, the number of primary pupils alone who do not speak English as their first language increased by seven per cent from last year to 448,000 - or about one child in seven. Overall, it is around one in eight.

But the Commission for Racial Equality is concerned that there are not enough resources to integrate pupils from such diverse backgrounds. Mr Johnson said he was particularly worried about Tony Blair's controversial city academies and trust schools.

Well done Nick. Never miss a chance to push a leftist cause, no matter how irrelevant.

He added that some of these are using their extra freedoms to "cream off pupils from certain ethnic backgrounds or religions, thus ... increasing racial tensions".

The Conservatives said ministers had been caught off-guard by the increase in non-native English speakers in schools.

Tory education spokesman David Willetts said: "The Government has completely failed to keep up with the rate of change in our school population."

A DfES spokesman said: "The Education and Inspections Act 2006 placed a new duty on the governing bodies of all maintained schools, including faith schools, to promote community cohesion."

How wonderful. Of course, if successive governments had not embarked on the lunatic scheme of bringing people from all over the world to live together in one country, while at the same time continually undermining and belittling the native population and their culture, then we might not have problems with community cohesion on the scale that we do now. But that's wicked hate speech, and having read it, you must now say three Hail Trevs and genuflect repeatedly before a picture of Mandela, in order that your soul may be cleansed of the stain of "prejudice".