Then, breaking into tears, she adds: “I apologise on behalf of my country, for what we’ve put you through.”
Now, as it happens, I agree with Lilly Allen on the matter of our incursion into Afghanistan, just as I felt that the Iraq war was foolhardy. Other peoples wars are not our concern. Bin Laden was another matter, but it didn’t warrant an outright invasion, just as the mythical weapons of mass destruction didn’t warrant one, either.
However, I will not apologise to anyone for any of this, because I didn’t instigate them. I am not responsible for what happened. The electorate are helpless in the face of the will of politicians when these things happen. We are not responsible, therefore we owe no one any apology and any such apology is meaningless.
Besides, whatever the ins and outs of this particular case, the current migrant issue has two main facets – one being that many of those trying to get across the channel are not refugees fleeing a war zone, they are economic chancers. And if they run across the motorway trying to stop vehicles and get themselves killed doing so, then that is too bad, I have no sympathy.
On an aside, I am in favour of free movement. But this needs to be a two-way street to work effectively and we are nowhere near that situation and I am very much in a minority, so abide by the majority opinion that we secure our borders. Even if I would prefer worldwide, open borders and completely free movement of people and goods across them.
Also, there is the second matter; the real issue here; that of importing large groups of people with political, philosophical and religious beliefs that are sharply in contrast to our own and while that exists, free movement is nothing more than a nice ideal that conflicts with the ugly reality we face. Any comparison with what has happened in previous situations – such as Jews fleeing Nazi persecution, for example – fail because those people had no desire to overthrow the secular laws and customs of the host nation. Muslims do. Sorry, but they do. We are a lower order as far as Islam is concerned and overthrow is in the DNA of the religion, which is why you get this kind of behaviour.
An Islamist girls’ boarding school which taught that men could beat women and that gay men could be killed faces closure after a student whistleblower exposed its worrying practices.
Aliyah Saleem was expelled in front of the entire school in 2011 just for owning a disposable camera.
Following her expulsion Ms Saleem spoke out about her treatment at Jamia Al Hudaa girls’ school in Nottingham, saying she was not taught geography, history, art or music.
Instead, she was taught that death sentence could be given to gay men; that Jews and Christians make Allah angry; and that men should be allowed to beat their wives.
While Islam continues to behave in a primitive and barbaric, medieval manner, we should treat its practice accordingly. What is worrying in this case is that it took so long to act. And, no, their gaff, their rules does not apply, as all schools fall under the auspices of Ofsted, whether we like it or not – that is, they must abide by the law of the land. Besides, when a school preaches such blatant hatred for the host nation, the host nation is within its rights to react to such provocation.
Islam is the problem here. Mass importation of people with such primitive beliefs is inevitably going to make matters worse. So while the hand-wringers indulge in self-flagellation, consider this; where are the Islamic theocracies that practice the beliefs these people want to bring here? Where is the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, et al? Why the deafening silence? Why are they not opening their borders and offering sanctuary to their own kind? And, why no condemnation for their refusal to do so?
No, this is not our problem. We are not responsible for the Jungle and we have no obligation to do anything about any of them. If we choose to do so, then fine, that is an act of charity, but we are not obliged. And we have no reason to feel guilty and I certainly do not.
The Calais ‘jungle’ is a French problem and no-one else’s. They have allowed people to enter their country and set up camp. As an aside, if the French were to ‘move the border’ to the UK, then the ferry companies would be instructed to return to France anyone that the UK rejected, exactly the same as happens with immigration via airports everywhere else. Moving the departure border to the start of the journey is quite common around the world. It means that people can be checked before they depart, which saves everyone involved a lot of trouble.
Free movement might sound desirable to an idealist but it ignores many practicalities. A child born in this country effectively puts the authorities on notice that they will require schooling in four years, a job in eighteen and a home in twenty one years etc. All these things require planning, putting in place and money. An immigrant does not give this ‘notice’.
To some extent the indigenous population is living on the investment of their ancestors. An immigrant, no matter how productive, will never be able to pay for their current needs. Immigration can only be painless if there are spare resources, new immigrants requiring new houses, new schools etc. will always be a problem.
As you say there may also be a cultural problem and I think that is likely to get worse. A poor Polish immigrant to the USA in 1916 would get a job, learn some English and hope that his children would be truly American. A Polish immigrant to the USA in 2016 could well locate in a Polish community and speak Polish for the rest of his life. He can also be in near permanent communication with those that he left behind. Effectively he is a Pole living in the USA, just like a guest in a hotel he pays his bill but has no loyalty to the hotel. His predecessor, or at least the children, joined ‘the club’, they became American.
I use ‘Polish’ as an illustration, the same could be said of any other immigrant to a lesser or greater extent.
I also think that open borders are a good thing but agree that they are an impossible ideal in the world as we currently find it. Many parts of the world are populated with people that we in the west would not consider to be civilised. Maybe in the distant future there will be a world where all countries are reasonably developed but, at present, open borders would just result in a massive flood of people moving in only one direction.
There is an interesting discussion about the way that Islam treats its dissenters going on at Samizdata.
http://www.samizdata.net/2016/10/a-television-show-about-what-happens-to-ex-muslims/#comments
Yeah, saw that. I’m with Perry.
Me too. To stand up to these people and actively reject their religion takes balls of steel, ovaries of titanium when it comes to the women. It should come as no surprise that our government, while sucking up to the Muslim Council of Great Britain, has been pretending that the council of Ex Muslims doesn’t exist. Isn’t it obvious that all religions thrive on their claims that they have massive numbers of followers? also, the growth of an actual community of ex believers makes it easier for other waverers to change sides. Ex Muslims should be given as much encouragement and support as possible.
She does not speak for the UK.