It seems there's been yet another spurious anti-Semitism row in the UK after Gypsy leaders accused Michael Howard (the right-wing opposition leader who, along with the Murdoch gutter rag The Sun - AKA The Scum - has been running a really quite distasteful campaign against gypsies) of using Nazi-like tactics. Michael Howard is the son of Romanian Jewish immigrants and his grandma died in the Holocaust. In recent years it's emerged that Howard's father was allowed to stay in Britain only because a Labour MP intervened on his behalf.
Still, I don't think the Nazis are the most appropriate comparison for Howard. A better likeness is the western politicians who refused to allow Jewish refugees into their countries, particularly the USA. I'm sure that none of these politicians actually intended that the people they were sending on to other countries, including the Netherlands which was subsequently invaded by Germany, would end up being murdered, but they had the opportunity to save millions of people's lives, and passed it up for political reasons.
Which is exactly what Howard is likely to do, given his campaigning record. Time after time he has aimed for the vote of gutter-press reading morons, and the anti-gypsy campaign is yet another example. The Independent reported today (page 5) that the Tories have proposed to follow an Irish example in passing anti-trespass laws, but that these laws had in fact been used against vulnerable families who travel alone, and not against large traveller encampments. So a mother goes to collect her child from school and returns to find her home gone, but of course the police cannot confiscate 100 caravans.
Many of these illegal travellers' sites, by the way, are on the travellers' own land, not other people's property or public property. From the 1960s until 1994, local authorities were obliged to provide travellers with sites. The John Major government (which included Michael Howard) removed this obligation. The laws being broken are usually planning laws, which essentially ration land use, allowing house building only in its "proper place". These laws are sometimes plain stupid - in one case, a family living in Hawes, which lies in the middle of the Yorkshire Dales National Park, were told they could not build a house for their own family, but only for use as holiday accommodation. And there's a dire shortage of houses in that region, resulting in house prices going through the roof in a low-income area and locals being unable to buy houses in their own home towns.
There's also a housing shortage down south, as well as house prices which are among the highest in Europe. Much of the land around London is "green belt", meaning protected countryside. An awful lot of that region's residents are wealthy commuters from London and other regional centres like Reading, Crawley and so on, and some of these people would be up in arms if "their" countryside was to have houses built on it. Sooner or later something will have to be done about this, either by encouraging people (and businesses) to move up north, or by building more houses in the precious Surrey countryside. I suspect that, before long, some people will thank the travellers for forcing the issue on Britain's increasinly untenable planning law régime.
As salamu 'alaikum,
I don't know if you know the answer to this but...
What relationship, if any, is there between Roma communities and non-Roma Muslims in England (I say it like that because apparently some Roma are at least nominally Muslim)?
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
To my knowledge, none. There is a Muslim population in Romania concentrated around the Black Sea coast, definitely some Roma and (I think) some Turkish. There are mosques in Constanza city. They are probably Hanafi, as are most Muslims in the Turkish sphere of influence. But I don't know if Muslims in this country even know of them.
Some of the Roma in the UK (presumed to be Romanian) have the habit of begging with their children, and have also been known to use dolls rather than real babies. They used to do this outside mosques and also on the Edgware Road where there are a lot of rich Arabs. So I think a lot of Muslims have taken the low opinion of Gypsies that many others have.
>but they had the opportunity to save millions of peopleâÂÂs lives, and >passed it up for political reasons.
That was then, this is now. Hindsight is a wonderful benefit. It is all if's and but's though! If they had know...
>Which is exactly what Howard is likely to do, given his campaigning >record.
Why? Because Howard was against "illegal" out-of-control immigration, and was highlighting that the floodgates in Britain were open to anyone? His campaigning record is good, and he has put the Conservatives back into a strong position just 3% away from Labour.
By the way, it is not the early 1940's. There is not a "major" all out world war going on like WWII. There are no people fleeing persecution from countries nearby. The only people coming here illegally are those mainly for economic reasons and that is wrong.
Britain takes its fair share of "genuine" asylum seekers. Not those from Kosovo who remain here for economic reasons. If you were a true genuine asylum seeker you would go to the next nearest country for asylum not one thousands of miles away, or halfway around the world.
Everyone in Britain, and I mean everyone, not just white people, know that the number of illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers coming into the country is very high and unsustainable, and the Labour government has done little over the last 8 years to deal with the issue. This has caused a lot more racial tension on the streets of the UK, and a lot of people now unfairly take that out on non-whites who are British and have lived here legally for decades. Also, a lot of illegal immigrants in London are white! They come from Australia and South Africa and outstay their welcome. We should promptly return all illegals and bogus asylum seekers. It's not fair on the people already here legally from all backgrounds. The UK has a bad habit of being overly fair, and our country has been abused as a result.
Howard campaigned hard on real issues that people were concerned about that Labour had failed on over the last 8 years. That is why his party has been successful in gaining 33 seats, becoming a lot stronger and closing the gap to Labour. Tony Blair has learned a thing or two in this election, and dealing with the immigration problems is one thing that will hopefully be near the top of his agenda now. Let's face it, a lot of his agenda he borrows from the Conservatives anyway, being on the right side of the Labour Party. That's why they have been successful, and why they got into power in the first place back in May '97.
>Time after time he has aimed for the vote of gutter-press >reading morons,
Gutter press would be people who read the Guardian and Independent as well as the Sun, Mirror etc... I.E. Liberal and Labour supporters, who don't even know what their parties stand for, and what their policies are.
Regards
John