Italian Court Rules 'Acceptable to Discriminate Against Roma'

The fascist takeover continues. You would think that given that fascism is a 'left-wing' ideology (according to the loony right), the right might have something to say about this. Particularly when the Jewish community are comparing recent developments to events in the recent past. From The Guardian:

Italy's highest appeal court has ruled that it is acceptable to discriminate against Roma on the grounds that they are thieves.

The judgment, made public yesterday, comes amid a nationwide clampdown on the Roma community by Silvio Berlusconi's government. Last week his interior minister, Roberto Maroni, announced plans to fingerprint all of Italy's Roma, including children.

The ruling by the court of cassation, which appears to provide judicial backing for the government's policies, was handed down in March, but reported only yesterday. The judges overthrew the conviction of six defendants who signed a leaflet demanding the expulsion of Verona's Gypsies in 2001.

Among those convicted of racially discriminatory propaganda was Flavio Tosi, an official of the anti-immigrant Northern League, who has since become Verona's mayor. He was quoted by a witness at his trial as having said afterwards: "The Gypsies must be ordered out because, wherever they arrive, there are robberies."

Italy Turning More Fascist By The Day

Does this sound familiar:

Fears of rising intolerance towards migrants in Italy grew after a masked group armed with sticks went on the rampage in a multi-ethnic Rome neighbourhood, smashing shop windows while hurling abuse.

In the 10-minute blitz on Saturday, the group of between 10 and 20 men attacked a food shop owned by an Indian migrant and two stores operated by Bangladeshis, disappearing before police arrived.

The assault comes as Silvio Berlusconi's administration launches a crackdown on illegal immigration, and days after a mob firebombed Gypsy camps in Naples. Last month crowds at Rome's town hall welcomed newly-elected mayor Gianni Alemanno with fascist salutes.

Weird thing is, I thought fascism was a 'left-wing' ideology.

Immigration and The Daily Mail - Hypocrisy in Action

Lots of 'scary' headlines about the latest immigration figures in the national press. The Times took a suitably alarmist stance:

A record number of foreigners were granted British citizenship last year, according to Home Office figures published today.

Just over 164,600 people were given citizenship —- the highest number of applications granted in any year.

The seven per cent increase in persons given citizenship followed a fall in the previous year.

Since 1997 when Labour came to power almost 2 million people have been awarded citizenship, the figures show.

An estimated 591,000 people entered the country, ten per cent up on the previous year, meaning net migration into the country was about 190,000. The overwhelming majority —- 86 per cent —- of immigrants were non British citizens.

“This continued the trend of high immigration to the UK experienced since 1998,” said the Office for National Statistics which published the International Migration figures.


Mmm, scared yet? How about this (watch out for the meaningless statistic):

The number of migrants granted UK citizenship reached an all-time record last year as separate figures revealed more than 200,000 Britons moving abroad.

A raft of statistics released by Whitehall revealed 164,635 foreign nationals were granted UK passports in 2007 - the equivalent of one every three minutes.

The figure is up seven per cent on the previous year and takes the total since Labour came to power to almost 1.2m.

Did you spot it? Incidentally, that last extract is repeated in the Daily Mail. And the good old Express? Why, they are suggesting the figures aren't reliable and are actually much higher:

MINISTERS have no idea how many immigrants are coming to Britain, according to a damning report by MPs.

The official statistics are “totally inadequate” for grasping the scale of population changes, the Parlia-mentary investigation has concluded.

As a result, public services are in danger of collapsing because the lack of reliable data means the Government is incapable of planning ahead.

None of these papers really touch on why there is a rise in immigration (the Daily Mail doesn't even mention where they are from). After all, that would mean treating readers like intelligent individuals instead of mindless zombies. According to the National Statistics website the majority of asylum seekers come from: Afghanistan, Iraq, Zimbabwe, Iran and Eritrea. Notice any connection there? Two countries have been devastated as a result of our military adventures. These two countries have become increasingly dangerous as a result of our interference. Consequently, it seems quite right and proper that as we fucked their countries, they should come here to enjoy the freedom and democracy we have failed to deliver over there. If we bomb the shit out of their utilities and make their daily lives almost impossible, who can blame them for coming here?

As for the others, presumably the mainstream media are suggesting we send back asylum seekers from Zimbabwe? Despite the fact that the very same media outlets have been exposing how dangerous life is in Zimbabwe. So what is it to be, eh? Help the people of Zimbabwe, or turn our backs on them? It wasn't so long ago that the Daily Mail ran a headline screaming:

Don't Zimbabweans have human rights?

Make up your minds chaps. Either you want the people of Zimbabwe to have asylum here, or you do not. Which is it going to be? Just how deep is your concern for the people of Zimbabwe? Is it simply political opportunism? Fear-mongering? Or a genuine desire to protect their human rights? I think we know the answer.

Immigrants, Capitalists and Tax

Remember this:

Labour's 'open door' policy on immigration costs every household £350 a year, it was claimed yesterday.

David Coleman, an Oxford University academic, puts the total annual bill to the taxpayer at almost £8.8billion.

In a submission to a House of Lords committee, he said there had been an 'absent-minded commitment' to increase the population by one million every five years.

Perhaps not that individual story, but something like it repeated ad nauseum in papers such as the Daily Mail and the Express. A quick search on either paper's website should find a plethora of stories such as this one (a staggering 41,630 articles on the Daily Mail alone using the search terms 'immigrants', 'cost' and 'tax'). Of course, this created the usual fuss about immigration. After all, £8.8billion does appear to be an awful lot of money lost in taxpayers money. There is, however, a section of society that costs us far more and you are unlikely to ever see them on the front page of the Daily Mail day after day. Yes, you guessed it, those pesky capitalists.

For around three years now, Private Eye has been trying to extract information about tax lost due to avoidance and evasion from HM Revenue and Customs. In typical fashion, the department tried everything they could to get out of revealing such information, perhaps aware of how damaging this might be. Then, as is the norm in these days of 'burying bad news', the figures were released on budget day amongst a raft of other paperwork sure to distract the public. The figures were shocking and underlines that the section of society most deserving of our scorn and hatred are not the immigrant communities, but the capitalists. The following is taken from Accountancy Age:

HM Revenue and Customs dramatically abandoned its attempts to keep details of the 'tax gap' secret just before the Budget.

HMRC estimates the sum lost to tax avoidance and evasion to be somewhere between £11bn and £41bn each year. Total government tax receipts for 2008 are expected to reach £575bn. The take from corporation tax alone is only £52bn.

That means up to £41bn is lost every year due to capitalists avoiding their obligations, that's five times as much as the cost to the taxpayer of the 'influx of immigration' (as the Mail puts it). So, presumably we will see a prolonged attack by the mainstream media on this section of society. Don't count on it. The interests of the capitalists will always take priority over those seeking to improve their lives or fleeing from persecution. The real criminals in our society are not the immigrants, they are the capitalists and whilst sections of society continue to attack 'foreigners', the rich and sitting in their expensive yachts laughing at our stupidity. It's time for the laughter to stop.

Daily Express - "Two Million Homes for Migrants"

Typical calm and composed headline on the front page of the Daily Express today, bless them (image taken from Obsolete who also posts on this). Today's front page must be an Express reader's dream come true. Immigration and Princess Diana. Anyway, the content of the report contains many questionable claims, not least the idea that we will be building two million homes for migrants. The report itself suggests that we might need to if trends continue. In other words, nothing is set in stone that we will need to build two million homes. However, various other aspects also stick out.

The claims by MigrationWatch are based on the idea that
migration will grow from around 130,000 per year to 171,500 per year by 2026. Quite how anyone can make those kinds of projections is beyond me. In all likelihood, immigration will slow down over the coming years, rather than accelerate. Besides, a massive percentage of immigrants come over here to work for a limited period of time before returning to their country of origin. Believe me, being married to a recent immigrant, I have seen many of our friends go back to their country of origin once they had spent a couple of years here. These figures seem to suggest that the immigrants that are likely to come over will never leave and hence create pressure on the housing market. This could not be further from the truth. It is highly unlikely that those who come over will stay here permanently.

Another aspect of the story that seems quite curious is what the Express ignores. According to the figures, four out of ten of these new houses will be required to house immigrants. That means that six out of ten of the houses will be needed for non-immigrants. According to the figures in the article, new households will rise to 246,000 per year and 39% will be for migrants. According to the Express' figures, that means that by 2026, 4,428,000 houses need to be built. With 39% for migrants, this translates as 1,726,920 homes for migrants. This, in turn, means that 2,701,080 houses will need to built for non-migrants (the remaining 61% of housing). According to the Express, this means that 263 (1,726,920/18 and then divided by 365) houses will need to be built every day for migrants. However, this also means that 411 homes will need to be built every day for non-migrants (2,701,080/18 and then 365). And yet, for some reason, hardly any comment is made about the requirements for house building for non-migrants, even though they will be putting a massive strain on services. An extra 40% more housing will be required for non-migrants than migrants. Shouldn't the Express be focusing on this majority, rather than the minority of housing that is required for migrants? Using the analogy of the Express (migrant housing will be equivalent to 5 Birminghams - a pointless analogy, but let's go with it anyway), non-migrant housing will be the equivalent of nearly EIGHT Birminghams. And yet, strangely, the volume increase of migrants puts a strain on local services, but the massive volume rise in non-migrants will not. Puzzling, unless of course the argument is that immigrants don't work and contribute to the economy, whereas non-migrants do. An unsurprising slant by a paper such as the Express.

In short, the report is indulging in nothing more than old-fashioned scare mongering - shock horror. The housing shortage clearly has nothing to do with the amount of rich bastards buying multiple houses, no it's the immigrants that are to blame. And therein lies the problem. There are obviously serious concerns about the lack of housing in the UK, for some reason the Daily Express feels that the fault lies at the door of immigrants. Perhaps if they dug a little deeper, they might understand the true causes of housing shortages. But then, they are hardly likely to bite the hands that feed it, are they?

The Daily Express - they really hate immigrants.

Hain's Apology For Migration Figures: Storm in a Teacup?

The BBC are certainly making a great deal out of this one (so much for multiculturalism). From their website:

Work and Pensions Secretary Peter Hain has apologised after the government admitted 300,000 more immigrants were working in the UK than it first said.

New figures show that the number of foreign nationals employed in the UK since 1997 is 1.1m, not the 800,000 officially recorded.

Mr Hain has written to his Tory shadow Chris Grayling to admit that incorrect figures were given in Commons answers.

Mr Grayling said the admission was "an extraordinary development".

It comes as the government is expected to extend controls on the number of Romanian and Bulgarian workers coming to the UK.

It has been all over their television out put as well. Just one question: so what? These are workers doing jobs that we cannot be arsed to do. Quite frankly, it is about time we abolished border controls altogether and allowed the free movement of people between artificial boundaries. Do you think the Daily Mail might run with that?

The BBC - A Left-Wing Organisation?

Right, I am confused. For some time now, I have been led to believe that the BBC was run by a bunch of lefties, determined to eradicate the right-wing and turn the UK into some kind of socialist agenda. For months I have been led to believe that the BBC is pumping out a steady stream of leftie propaganda. For months I have been convinced that the BBC is part of some vast left-wing conspiracy conducted by the mainstream media. And then I switch on BBC Breakfast this morning and, later in the day, I catch this on their website:

Migration 'causes pressure in UK'

Impartial?? Mmmmmm. Thinking I might have got this all wrong, I read on:

Almost every UK region has difficulties in housing, health, education and crime because of increased migration, according to an official report.

The findings are contained in a report drawn up to advise ministers on the social impact of immigration.

The Home Office's Migration Impacts Forum is meeting to discuss the effect of eastern European workers.

On Tuesday, ministers published a review of research showing "clear benefits" to the British economy.

The forum, which sits alongside a separate economist-led body, gathers reports on challenges raised by immigration across the country.

In the opening 16 paragraphs, the underlined passage is the only positive comment on the report. Compare that to the reporting in The Guardian:

Migrants - the verdict: hardworking and skilled but with social problems in tow

The first official government study of the economic impact of the biggest wave of migration to Britain in recent years reaches an overwhelmingly beneficial verdict.

"In recent years migrants have made a more positive contribution to the public finances than native workers; have often been highly skilled and accordingly captured higher labour market rewards," concludes the joint Treasury, Home Office and Work and Pensions study.

"They have very little discernible negative impact on labour market outcomes for native workers."

But the Home Office also published the initial findings last night of regional "soundings" of the impact of east European migrants in Britain. It revealed that in seven out of eight regions they have increased pressure on housing and more than half have seen a rise in crime, health and housing problems.

See what they did there?? The Guardian, although acknowledging the supposed negative impact (although this is mainly down to anecdotal evidence), preferred to focus on the positive aspect of the story. The BBC on the other hand, the so-called defender of a multi-cultural society, preferred to focus on the negative impact of immigration, like the TV version of the Daily Mail. Hardly indicative of a organisation dominated by a left-wing agenda.

John Howard - Condemns Burma Whilst Australian Federal Police Train their Burmese Counterparts

Yet another example of the sheer opportunism at the heart of Howard's posturing. From ZNet:

The current protests and crackdown has created more hypocritical condemnations and “targeted” sanctions (targeted so as not to harm Western corporations). Australian Prime Minister John Howard and foreign minister Alexander Downer have made global headlines with their colourful condemnations of the Burmese junta — described by Howard as “loathsome” — while at the same time the Burmese security forces receive training in “criminal intelligence” from the Australian Federal Police at the Australian-run Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation. This is ostensibly to fight the illegal drugs trade. However, the Burmese military are major participants in this trade.

The Canberra Times reported on September 28 that John Kaye, president of the Australian Coalition for Democracy in Burma, said: “One thing we can do immediately is to withdraw the Australian Federal Police who are currently training police in Burma.” “We can downgrade the military delegation in Australia [at the embassy] from Burma”, he told the paper.

A September 26 statement by the Asian Centre for Human Rights argued that it is “the hypocrisy in Asia-Pacific which endured the military regime in Myanmar [Burma]. Foreign Minister of Australia, Alexander Downer already made it clear that Australia will not impose economic sanctions on Burma.

“The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has done little to address the present situation. ASEAN Secretary General Ong Keng Yong merely stated that ASEAN hoped that ‘the situation remains peaceful’. The ASEAN failed to issue a public statement condemning the Burmese junta for using force on the peaceful protestors, including the monks.”

On September 25, Greens Senator Bob Brown, calling for the suspension of military training and trade with the Burmese regime, noted: “Alexander Downer’s fear that the military will subject the pro-democracy protest leaders to ‘very harsh treatment’ is in absurd contrast with the Howard government’s twin policies of training the Burmese military and keeping open unrestricted trade. Mr Downer is all description of the Burmese events and no action.”

Alex Bainbridge, a Sydney-based anti-war activist and Senate candidate for the Socialist Alliance, argued that “The Australian government should immediately withdraw its ambassador in protest and halt all cooperation with military regime in Burma … the Australian government should halt the training provided by the Australian Federal Police for the repressive Burmese police force.”

While the Howard government rails against the Burmese junta’s repressiveness this does not mean that its victims are recognised as fleeing persecution. Seven refugees from the Muslim Rohingya community, Burma’s most oppressed minority, have been held by Australia in Nauru since September 2006.

So, whilst noisily attacking the Burmese regime, Howard's government trains the police and locks up those that are trying to flee persecution in Burma. There's words for leaders like John Howard - Hypocritical c....

Two Arrested During No Borders March

Taken from UK Indymedia:

No Border campaigners march to Gatwick despite heavy policing

22 September, 2007

For the first time in its 11-year history, Tinsley House immigration detention centre at Gatwick Airport today saw a lively, though short rally in the afternoon. As part of the Gatwick No Border Camp, about 500 people from across the UK marched from Crawley, West Sussex, to Gatwick in a 'transnational day of action against immigration prisons'. They were protesting in particular against a new detention centre that is being built at Gatwick Airport, which is due to open in 2008.

Armed with many banners, placards and leaflets conveying the message that immigration detention is inhumane, they demanded the closure of all immigration prisons and the abolition of the borders that cause all this suffering.

Penned in tiny, designated area along the airport's fence, protesters listened to a number of speeches from ex-detainees and messages of support and defiance. Phone calls from detainees inside Tinsley were then passed on to the crowed via a megaphone. One of the detainees, who has been in the UK for 12 years and had refugee status but is due to be deported after committing a criminal offence and serving his sentence, said: "Why should I be punished twice? I've made a mistake and I've paid for it. Why do I have to pay twice?"

Another detainee, who has been in detention for about 3.5 months and is facing deportation to Angola soon, talked about his suffering in detention and missing his family. He has been in the country for 11 years and has a British wife and three children.

During the rally, the gates were closed to detainees' visitors. Conscious of this, demonstrators sought to make the rally as short as possible in order not to prolong any further disruption to visiting. After the rally, two protesters visited one of those who had communicated with protesters and they were told that detainees were very happy and found the solidarity from people outside bars empowering.

Protest organisers said the policing of the march was "unnecessarily heavy." Two people were arrested under Section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (refusing to give name and address) after being accused by police of acting in an anti-social manner. One of them, who was arrested in Crawley town centre before the march had even started, allegedly threw a rude word at a police officer. The other, who is an independent video-maker, was filming the police and allegedly 'caused distress' to a policeman who himself was filming protesters.

That last line really sums up the nature of the police force in this country. A policeman was 'distressed' because someone was filming him while he was filming the protesters?? Orwellian barely seems to cover it.

No Borders Camp at Gatwick

The media has been awash with stories regarding the latest assault on the immigrant population in the UK. The chief constable of Cambridgeshire police, Julie Spence, claimed that:

"When they arrive they think they can do the same thing as in the country they have come from."

"There were a lot of people who ... because they used to carry knives for protection, they think they can carry knives here.

"We have worked with the communities because they don't necessarily come to commit crime but they need to be told what you can and can't do.

"We can identify a significant rise in drink-drive, which was down to people thinking that what they did where they came from, they could do here."

Essentially, this is the same old rhetoric about those pesky immigrants coming over here and causing trouble. Quite frankly, I couldn't give two shits how many come to this country and make themselves at home here. Which is why I am supporting an airport camp that you might not have heard of.

A little while ago there was a lot of media coverage about the climate camp, and rightly so in my opinion. There has been, however, a distinct lack of coverage on the No Borders camp which has been set up near Gatwick airport. The camp is designed to protest against the siting of a second asylum seeker removal centre near the airport. They have already suffered at the hands of 'dirty tricks' by the local police force who have forced them to move from their original site. However, despite the obstacles placed in their way, the camp aims to continue its protest right through until 24th September. To find out more about their campaign, you can visit their homepage here, which also has instructions on how to participate. If you are unable to attend, please post a link to their site on your homepage. It's time that the establishment's view on controlled immigration was challenged. This is the perfect opportunity to do so.