In a recent post, Green Infidel described some of the signs of the accelerating destruction of Great Britain under the stewardship of Prime Minister David Cameron and the Coalition government.
Some excerpts are below.
New Britain’s Undesirables
A long time ago, back in 1997, a new Labour government came to power, bearing a slogan: “New Labour — New Britain“. Its leader, Tony Blair, promised a new “Cool Britannia”. Later, Blair vowed to “defeat” the “forces of conservatism”. The fifteen years since his election have taken the country on a long journey through rampant, deliberate and unprecedented levels of immigration, empowerment of Islamist groups, reducing the BBC to a propaganda station and a gradual battle with the country’s own people and culture. And now, in the last few weeks, five stories emerge to illustrate the desirables, and undesirables, of this New Britain.
First, the undesirables — who are unwelcome in the New Britain:
1. John Tulloch: A July 7 2005 bombing victim, born to British parents, lecturing at a London university college — and facing deportation from Britain.
His “crime” — being born in India, while it was still a colony. By a decades-old legal quirk, it meant he was ineligible for UK citizenship. So he was forced to hand back the passport he had “wrongly” received, and now faces possible deportation. Below is John Tulloch just after the 2005 terror attacks: (image from the Daily Mail website):
As a comment below the article shows, he’s not the only one to face such an experience:
“I’m in a similar boat. We can’t settle in the UK, where I was born 70 years ago, because my wife’s a Kiwi and would be deported on my death. When she applied for UK citizenship, when we lived there, she was asked, by a Sikh official, if our marriage (at that time of 30 years; now 40, was one of “convenience.” I kid you not.” — protem, Burgundy, France, 3/9/2012 10:23
This implies that the visit to the Sikh official happened in 2002 — long after the “New Britain” revolution started…
Some possible reasons, and ways Mr Tulloch could avoid being deported, are also mentioned in other comments:
“The problem is Mr Tulloch you were prepared to work in the UK, if you were a scrounger you would have a lovelly big and free house in London and never have to work again. Shame on this government.“ — jo-jo was a man, bahrain, 3/9/2012 5:02
“Yet if he had set off the same bomb that injured him he would be welcomed with open arms by the idiots in charge.” — alzie, Cumbria., 3/9/2012 10:28
“WHY IS HE FACING DEPORTATION? “ Easy, I know why. It is because he is actually legitimately British, and as reported, born of British parents serving the country in a British colony, he has devoted his life to the education of others in this country, he also has paid his taxes and has no criminal record, thus he does not qualify to live in the cesspit of the world otherwise known as the UK. Oh, I forgot…. and suffered horrendous injuries and shock whilst going about his lawful business perpetrated by terrorists truly foreign to this country. Yup, obviously he must be the first out of the door so we can harbour and give succour unto illegal benefit scroungers, terrorists and honour bliar’s human rights rubbish. We are trying to leave the cesspit so if he wants to come with us he is more than welcome. — Lara, London UK, 3/9/2012 5:21
Sadly, far-fetched as these comments may sound, they allude to frequent events: wannabe terrorists, criminals and benefit receivers entering as illegal immigrants being given leave to stay — and often receiving British passports in the process. They are almost always never asked to hand them back.
2. Next, 4 UK Christians, fighting for the right to express their faith. 2 of them for wearing small crucifixes.
The government’s lawyers had this to say:
“Christians should leave their religious beliefs at home or accept that a personal expression of faith at work, such as wearing a cross, means they might have to resign and get another job, government lawyers have said.”
The official reason for such a statement:
“James Eadie QC, acting for the government, told the European court that the refusal to allow an NHS nurse and a British Airways worker to visibly wear a crucifix at work “did not prevent either of them practicing religion in private”, which would be protected by human rights law.”
Is that really so? Will we now then see the government ban the Muslim Burqa and Hijab from its offices — on account of such a ban “not preventing Muslim women from practicing religion in private”?
To see how such a proposition would sound in reality, let’s make a very slight change the original sentence:
“Hindus should leave their religious beliefs at home or accept that a personal expression of faith at work, such as a ‘Bindi’ on the forehead, means they might have to resign and get another job, government lawyers have said.”
“Muslims should leave their religious beliefs at home or accept that a personal expression of faith at work, such as wearing a Hijab, means they might have to resign and get another job, government lawyers have said.”
What would be the reaction to such a sentence being uttered by a government lawyer? Accusations of hate? Bigotry? But apparently, it’s perfectly ok to say something similar about Christians…
The lawyer also had this to say:
“Government lawyers also told the Strasbourg court that wearing a cross is not a “generally recognised” act of Christian worship and is not required by scripture.”
For many Christians, wearing a Crucifix is an important part of their faith — and something they have done for most of their lives. Whereas in Islam, many women do not wear the Hijab or Burqa. So who’s to say that the Crucifix “is not a generally recognised act of Christian worship” — but that the Hijab is an act of Muslim worship?! Naturally, the ever-unbiased British justice system is assumed to be the best judge of that!
3. Last but not least, those protesting against the radical Islam which has become so prominent in the New Britain.
They came last week to Walthamstow in London, to protest against the attempted enforcement of Sharia law in the area. The reception by radical Muslim and “anti-racist” groups such as United Against Fascism was predictable. What was new, however, was the type of treatment meted out by the police, meant to be protecting their right to democratic assembly and protest…
Read the rest at Green Infidel.