Wednesday, 21 May 2008

Asylum Seekers wrong, Sanctuary Seekers Good

by John of Gwent

On the face of it you would be forgiven for thinking this is another example of Political Correctness taking us so far beyond the locked doors of bethlehem that none of us can ever hope to return to the world of sanity. The Daily Mirror wishes to reveal its latest 'Scoop' story. Some may say Pooper-Scoop but I for the moment wish to plead otherwise.

Sir John Waite, "Co-Chair" of the Independent Asylum Commission, a man who makes a habit, (or perhaps a living, but as I cannot see the IAC's accounts, I do not have the evidence before me to decide which) from painting those who would come to our shores from afar in the best possible light whilst simultaneously painting those who receive them in the worst. Now he wishes us to cease and desist referring to these individuals as seekers of asylum, because of its negative connotations, and refer to them as seekers after Sanctuary instead.

I know. You're wondering what substances the foermer Privy Counsellor has been exposign hiomself too. And doubtless when you hear I think that's a brilliant piece of inspired thinking you'll assume I have been sitting with the gentleman partakling of the same vices in even larger measures.

But I say this is a golden opportunity which the British National Party leadership should seize upon, and seize upon today as a magnificent piece of modern thinking.

Why ? Well unless you can quote me chapter and verse of the UNHCR international agreements on refugees can I respectfully suggest you pop over to wikipedia and read their words on Sanctuary and Asylum. Not least because it has therein all the links you'll need to those legal obligations we have signed up to, obligations that I consider the mark of an honourable and civilised society. The term 'asylum seeker' is almost always "bandied about" by 'snotrag tabloids' in the same paragraph as that used to describe the actions of freeloaders, economic migrants, illegal immigrants. Yet those wikipedia pages could not be clearer in establishing the "bona fide" of the true seeker of asylum, or sanctuary, as one running in fear of their life from the mob.

The mob in question could be Hutu, Or Tutse. It could be Catholic, Or Protestant. It could be White, Or Black. It could be Married with Children All Born in Wedlock. Or it could be Married And Disliking Those Whose Religions Allow Many Mothers-In-Law.

Or it might even be the relatives of a 16 year old killed by a police car 'responding to the activation of its ANPR system' without bothering to turn on its blues and twos beforehand (a point raised in accounts of eyewitness testimony on several BBC Radio News broadcasts yesterday but still left as an ambiguity on the BBC News website.)

By the way, did you get much sleep last night, Mr Brunstrom ? After all it was YOU who campaigned tirelessly for those ANPR systems to be fitted to traffic cars nationwide. If you had concentrated on the crimes your constituents cared about instead of this crusade, a teenager would stil be alive this morning. Have a nice life, Mr brunstrom. Pity that girl can't as a result of what YOU did. Sorry, I digress. Now where was I ...

Ah yes...

Yes, persecution comes in all forms. And the persecutors may be acting on the spur of the moment, or they may be acting following the oratory, or following the example, or they may even be in the pay of, the leaders of the state in which that action is carried out.

But as I read of Sir John's latest idea, it struck me that a more brilliant way of distinguishing those truly entitled to the protection our country proudly offers to the genuinely persecuted, from the freeloaders that wish to come here to make an (often untaxed) buck I cannot imagine.

And what an opportunity to set in the minds of the general population the clear difference between the two.

Carpe Diem, Mr Griffin.

I say a spokesperson from the BNP should get off a Press release right now welcoming Sir John's common sense approach in differentiating between those fleeing here directly from a country where they fear persecution, imprisonment, torture, rape for the purpose of ethnic genociode, death or worse, whom we have a legal and a moral duty to protect and assist, and those who wish to come here to earn money, legally or otherwise, and care not how they get in the door. Do it Now. Be The first political party to seize the opportunity this presents to separate these two cases in the minds of the general population.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Britain a sanctuary?, oh Christ, I've heard it all now!..a "sanctuary" for what? for who?, not the man who leaves his bin lid too high, or the law abiding citizen who becomes a victim of crime, the motorist or the tax paying cash cow. This OTT control freak government has made the indigenous population nothing more than worker ants to be trodden on at any time (or proletariat as the USSR's communist regime called them), no wonder that bastion of sensiblities, "clever" Trevor Phillips thinks of us as sub-human!