May 21, 2001
UNworthy
The United Nations should keep out of British politics
THE
HYSTERIA STARTS
Britain
is going through the motions of an election.
As always, there is the usual doom mongering and hysteria. Some
of this hysteria surrounds the issue of immigration. William Hague,
the Conservative leader,
has ratcheted up the rhetoric
on immigration, claiming that Britain is a "soft touch" for
"bogus" asylum seekers. The Labour
Party and their Liberal
Democrat allies have accused Hague of covert racism. So far,
so normal.
A
BUREAUCRAT SPEAKS
Where
this becomes less than normal Is that another person who condemned
the leader of the opposition was a United
Nations High Commission for Refugees. That's right, a leader
of a democratic party condemned by a group of nations that include
such paragons of human rights as Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Syria. This
is not the real shame of it. That the UN
is a nest of hypocrites should be well known to all but the terminally
stupid – however there is another issue. I pay their wages.
As a taxpayer in a developed country, my taxes went to paying for
this. If a career civil servant in Britain made such a blatantly
partisan statement, then they would be out. In the United Nations,
the bureaucrats are above the law, Zimbabwe style.
HYPOCRISY
ON DISPLAY
The
irony of the situation is that Hague's
plan is not radical. He accepts that political asylum is something
Britain should continue to offer, and presumably continue to subsidise
through the benefits system. He denounces
MPs who call for a rethink of immigration policy beyond carefully
set Central Office lines. He does not protest that Balkan refugees
who come through Italy and France could happily stay in either of
those two countries. Furthermore, he does not criticise judges
who clearly move beyond the spirit and letter of the law in consistently
ruling for an open borders policy (unlike the Labour Home Secretary,
Jack Straw). The issues are not just those of immigration and multiculturalism,
but of public spending and in the question of legislation on the
extent of democracy in the UK. Hague is silent – yet even his
silence is rewarded by condemnation from the United Nations.
AT
THE ROOT
Our
old friend the United Nations again pops up. Why can't we change
our laws so that we can restrict benefits to political refugees,
the United Nations won't let us. Why do we have to put up with judges
usurping the lawmaking prerogative on Parliament? They are basing
their decisions on the UN Charter of Human Rights. In short, we
are not allowing a proper debate on immigration, simply because
of our membership of a corrupt and undemocratic body. I
believe that immigration is overall a good thing, but it has
the capacity to hurt a large minority of the population. For this
reason, the issue needs debate and honest discussion – something
it is not receiving. An open debate may lead to a settlement that
is considerably less liberal than I would like, but the alternative
of a growth of the neo-fascist right is far worse. So any attempt
to suppress the debate is instrumental in encouraging fascism –
and this should be dealt with accordingly.
|
