All posts tagged britain

Martin Luther King’s Letter To The British Parliament

28537.preview

My Lord Chancellor, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, My Lords, and Members of the House of Commons,

For the past couple of months, I have been pondering on what message I should deliver on my birthday. Initially I wanted to write a letter to the American people, but since I devoted my life towards trying to make America a better place, I opted to deliver a message to those outside of my home country. I then deliberated on whether I should write to the people of Africa or Europe. After deep contemplation and analysing the events of the past six years, I decided to deliver my message to the British Parliament. I hope you will act on what I have to say and relay my message to the good people of Britain. I am also addressing this letter to you because I never had the privilege of addressing both Houses of the British Parliament during my lifetime.

Britain has always held a special place in my heart. I’m amazed at how a small island country can give the world so much. In terms of contribution to the world, Britain excels all, including my own America. Where would the world be without Williams Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, the English language, the industrial revolution, football, the telephone, the Beatles, Isaac Newton, the Rule of Law and of course the Magna Carta?

Despite all these positive contributions, all is not well with Britain. She has become “a thing-oriented society rather than a person-oriented society.” For Britain to be part of the beloved community, she has to do away with the giant triplets of racism, economic exploitation and militarism. In the next couple of pages, I will discuss the ways these evils manifest and what can be done to make Britain an integral part of the beloved community — a community based on justice and equality where the lion and lamb; the rich and poor; the classes and the masses shall lie down together and every person shall sit under his or her own fig tree and none shall be afraid.

Economic Exploitation and Poverty 

A number of you may find it strange that the first evil that I address is economic exploitation rather than racism. This is understandable especially as I am famed for my fight against racism and the “I have a Dream” speech, which I delivered in 1963. Just as I was passionate about fighting racism, I was equally passionate about fighting poverty and militarism because all these three evils are interlinked. To paraphrase what I once said to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a nation that will racially abuse its citizens of colour will “thingify” them and make them things; It will also exploit poor people economically. As a nation exploits the poor, it becomes attractive to foreign and domestic investments, and it will have to use its military and police might to protect these economic interests. So you can see that all of these problems are tied together.

Since the onset of the Great Recession, the British political establishment has fought tooth and nail to bring the economy back on its feet.  However, in the process of resolving the crisis, the government has resulted in using a sledgehammer to crack a nut on the head of the downtrodden.

Prior to the financial crisis, a number of financial institutions, motivated by greed engaged in a series of unethical behaviour, which led to the worst economic crisis since 1930. As unemployment, property foreclosure and despair became the order of the day, the so-called City fell to its knees and the government came to its rescue by using £1 trillion of hard-earned taxpayers money to bail out financial institutions. The public became enraged against the banks with the latter accusing the former of “banker bashing”. Shortly after, the narrative changed from the irresponsible behaviour of the so-called Masters of the Universe to the so-called irresponsibility and immorality of the poor. As the government’s fiscal position deteriorated, words like austerity, scrounger and benefits began dripping from the lips of the political elite. Rather than acknowledge the plight of the poor impacted by the crisis, the political elite embarked on the biggest assault against poor folks since the implementation of the Poor Laws of 1834. Instead of declaring war against poverty, war was declared against the poor through the government’s austerity programme.

In order to press through these austerity measures, the political establishment embarked on a campaign to demonise what Franz Fanon calls the “Wretched of the Earth.” Once the media joined the bandwagon in bashing the poor, the lame and the homeless, the tide of public opinion began to turn against the downtrodden thereby making it easier for the government to implement its reforms. The vulnerable segments of British society have become the principal targets of the government’s spending cuts. Benefits for the unemployed and the disabled have been slashed, youth centres around the country have been closed while students have to incur excessive debts in order to get a quality education. Some of the victims of the war against the poor have paid with their lives like Mrs. Linda Wootton, a woman with a heart condition who died shortly after the government declared her fit for work. Her husband expressed the feelings of many of the least of these when he said, “I sat there and listened to my wife drown in her own body fluids. It took half an hour for her to die – and that’s a woman who’s ‘fit for work’. The last months of her life were a misery because she worried about her benefits, feeling useless, like a scrounger.”

As the poor, the underclass, the least of these, the downtrodden and the 99 per centers experience the British nightmare; the rich, the upper class, the most of these, the uptrodden and the 1 per centers are experiencing the British dream. I also find it strange that the downtrodden are portrayed as scroungers of the state. If the political elites engage in deep analysis, they would find out that the real scroungers are much closer home. Besides the financial sector, which was bailed out with £1 trillion of taxpayer’s funds, other scroungers include but are not limited to the nuclear and defence sectors, and rich farmers who enjoy government subsidies worth billions of pounds. Members of Parliament who fiddle their expenses also fall into the scrounger category. In modern day Britain, there is a kind of socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. It is a tragedy that while financial institutions are too big to fail, the downtrodden are too small to save.

When the legal rules in Britain were written, a strange formula to determine who was a criminal declared that the influential and mighty shouldn’t be criminalised. While it is illegal for a British teenager to steal a bottle of water worth 50p, it is not illegal for a British Oligarch to use a special purpose vehicle domiciled in a tax haven to avoid paying taxes running into millions of pounds ; while a person who claims unemployment benefit when working is liable to go to jail, a bank dealer who fixes LIBOR, which references financial instruments with notional values of hundreds of trillions of pounds is not liable to go to jail; while a homeless person can go to prison for begging, a high frequency trader who bribes an exchange to flash information relating to buy and sell orders before the information is publicly available walks freely on the street.

As the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, there has been a lack of political will to address the unsustainable level of inequality in the land.  I wonder how Britain can justify the richest 1% having as much wealth as the poorest 55% of the population and I also wonder how Britain can justify 36,000 landowners owning 50% of the rural land in England and Wales. Britain prides herself on being a developed country, she prides herself on being a civilised country, and she prides herself on being a rich country, yet in the midst of plenty, there is so much lack. Many Brits are living on “a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.” In the last year, nearly a million people had to rely on food banks while 400,000 of God’s children are currently homeless. How can this be? It’s time to say NO to poverty. There is enough wealth for everyone in Britain to be well fed and housed; the wealth of the land ought to be used to satisfy the needs of many as opposed to satisfy the greed of few. There can be no real wealth without commonwealth. If Britain does not use its wealth to bridge the gap between the haves and the have not, it could be on its way to a spiritual death.

I understand that the Bank of England committed a total of £375bn to Quantitative Easing. Instead of using this money to purchase assets, which favour financial speculators and continue to reinforce inequality, may I suggest where this money can be deployed? It can be deployed into the “wrinkled stomachs of the millions of God’s children who go to bed hungry at night”; it can be deployed towards ensuring a guaranteed income for all Britons; it can be deployed towards providing affordable housing for every homeless person; it can be deployed towards subsidising students tuition fee and it can be deployed towards making sure that no old person goes to bed cold. If there is enough political will, poverty in Britain can be consigned to the dustbin of history.

It is time for the political establishment to be in tune with the yearnings of the masses. At the moment, the political class does not speak or understand the language of the least of these. I guess this is because many of you come from more privileged backgrounds. Because the political elites are out of reach from poor folks, they have become out of touch with the pain of poor folks, hence poverty deliberations are now out of scope for poor folks.

Some may ask, “How can I empathise with the marginalised?” The best way to appreciate the sufferings of the masses is to step into their shoes. In short there needs to be a compassionate revolving door between the political establishment and the marginalised constituency, rather than the well-oiled revolving door that currently exist between the political elites and financial firms. When I wanted to understand the plight of the poor in Chicago, I moved into one of the Chicago slums with my family. I suggest you do likewise; perhaps you could spend the summer recess along with your family members in the deprived areas of Britain. Not only will it bring you closer to the people but it will also allow you to have a better appreciation of their plight. Once the political elite is in sync with the masses, politicians will stop sending derogatory tweets like “Image from #Rochester” targeted against the working classes or making vile statements against the disabled like, “There is a group (people living with disabilities) ……. they are not worth the full minimum wage and actually I’m going to go and think about that particular issue, whether there is something we can do nationally without distorting the whole thing, which actually if someone wants to work for £2 an hour.”

The political establishment should strive to come to the defence of the marginalised. For too long, politicians have supported the classes to the detriment of the masses. When the European Union imposed a cap on banker’s bonuses, the British Government filed a lawsuit against the EU to reverse the cap. The Treasury spent £65,000 of taxpayer’s money in preventing the EU from imposing a ban on short-selling of financial products and another £41,669 on suing the European Central Bank for discriminating against UK clearing houses. In 2011, the Prime Minister vetoed the EU treaty so as to protect the City from over 20 financial regulations. Shouldn’t the government stand up for poor folks just as it stands up for rich folks?

Some of you may say, “I am really disappointed with Martin Luther King’s economic analysis.” My response to such people is that they have “not really known me, my commitment, or my calling.” I am also conscious that I might be called a communist because of my suggested radical economic reforms; for the sake of clarity, I am not a communist. “Communism is based on an ethical relativism, a metaphysical materialism, a crippling totalitarianism, and a withdrawal of basic freedom that no Christian can accept.” In addition, as Pope Francis rightly pointed out, “The communists have stolen our flag. The flag of the poor is Christian. Poverty is at the centre of the Gospel.”

Militarism

There is no doubt that Britain is a military super power possessing some of the most sophisticated weaponry. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2013 Britain spent $57.8 billion on military expenditure, which translates to 5.2% of total government expenditure thus making Britain the 6th highest military spender in the world.  The UK government also provides the arms industry, export subsidies to the tune of $1bn per annum. I cannot remain silent as the British government commits billions of dollars in military expenditure while God’s children queue for food at the various food banks flooding the country. Neither can I remain silent as cuts are made to public services that benefit the least of these. I have read about the funding crisis in the NHS and I ask myself why can’t financial resources be diverted from the Military Industrial Complex, which benefit a few to the NHS Compassionate Complex which benefits all?

I am also concerned that the military industrial complex like the financial sector has captured the political class. At the height of the Arab Spring, the Prime Minister led a high-powered business delegation to the Middle East. A third of the people in the Prime Minister’s entourage were senior executives from leading British defence and aerospace companies such as BAE Systems, QinetiQ and The Thales Group. Around the same time of this visit, the British Defence Minister was attending a military arms fair at Abu Dhabi along with executives from ninety British companies. These companies were exhibiting their wares including armored vans for riot control and rubber bullets.

In another instance, shortly after the British led NATO operation had dislodged Gaddafi from Libya, the then Defence Secretary issued a rallying call for British companies to seize the moment saying, “Libya is a relatively wealthy country with oil reserves, and I expect there will be opportunities for British and other companies to get involved in the reconstruction of Libya. I would expect British companies, even British sales directors, to be packing their suitcases and looking to get out to Libya and take part in the reconstruction of that country as soon as they can.” Instead of being captured by the military industrial complex, the political elite should allow itself to be captured by the poverty compassionate complex.

In its 2013 Human Rights and Democracy Report, the Foreign Office published an overview of its activities in defending human rights and promoting democracy around the world. Included in the report were  28 countries of concern involved in gross human rights violations. Of the 28 countries, 23 have contractual arrangements to purchase arms from the United Kingdom. Isn’t it ironic that as Britain preaches with one side of her mouth freedom and democracy, with the other side of her mouth she urges some of the world’s most brutal despots to buy arms, which they sometimes use to suppress the people they govern?

I also have to talk about an issue, which many of you might find uncomfortable; please be rest assured that I am doing this in love. A couple of centuries ago, Britain was the pre-eminent colonial power whose empire stretched from Australia to Zambia. It was an empire so wide that Kings and Queens could boast that the sun never set on the empire. Since the collapse of the empire in 1947, there are still some remnants, which prevail in the 21st century. There are currently 14 so-called British Overseas Territories for which Britain still retains sovereignty. Since many of these territories are located far away from the UK, it is no surprise that countries like Spain, Argentina and Mauritius dispute Britain’s sovereignty over Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and the British Indian Ocean Territory respectively. While Britain calls these areas – British Overseas Territories, the United Nations refers to them as Non-Self-Governing Territories. According to the UN, there are 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories still under colonial rule. Of the 17 territories identified, Britain accounts for 10 of these. To put it bluntly, Britain is currently colonising 10 territories with a combined population of 235,259 people. By acting as colonial masters to a quarter of a million people, Britain is in breach of UN General Assembly Resolution 2621 (XXV) which states, “The further continuation of colonial cases in all their forms and manifestations is a crime which constitutes a violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and the principles of international law.”  When a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council that claims to champion democracy and human rights breaches such a fundamental principle of freedom, how can it have the moral justification to tell people like Putin or Saddam Hussein not to invade Crimea or Kuwait? I urge you to put the necessary mechanisms in place to grant independence to these territories and to give back the land to the original inhabitants.

Racism 

Britain has come a long way from the type of racism that prevailed when I visited Britain fifty years ago. Gone are the days when a person could publicly make racially explicit comments against ethnic minorities or when a landlord could boldly tell a black tenant that he’d prefer renting his house to a black dog than to a black man. In today’s Britain, racism has not disappeared in its entirety. Racism has shed its de jure skin and put on a de facto skin. The individual racism in Britain has morphed into institutional racism. Evidence of the institutional form can be seen in the British judiciary system where Negroes and Asians get tougher sentences relative to their white counterparts; it can be seen in the British media where biased coverage against people of colour prevail; it can be seen in the British educational system where Negro scholars are excluded from the ivory towers; it can be seen in the British police force where Negroes are stopped, searched and arrested at an alarming rate; it can be seen in the British work place where people with “funny sounding names” don’t get shortlisted for interviews and where the unemployment rate for Negroes and other ethnic minorities are at elevated levels. In spite of the rhetoric’s emanating from the political class about tackling racism, little has been done. As far as racial issues are concerned, the political elites exhibit “a high blood pressure of creeds and an anemia of deeds”. For the purpose of this letter, I will not dwell much on this issue of institutional racism; I am only bringing it to your attention to remind you of your responsibility to the people on the less privileged side of the colour line. However, I will dwell on another manifestation of racism i.e. the treatment of immigrants.

I am deeply disturbed about UK’s attitude towards its immigrant population. Since the Great Recession, the political establishment has turned its back on immigrants. The emergence of parties like UKIP has resulted in a battle among the political elite to outdo each other in demonising and ostracising immigrants. Scripture tells us, when a foreigner resides in your land, you must not mistreat them. Britain once used to be tolerant towards immigrants. Where did it all go wrong? Politicians are scaremongering and blaming every woe that befalls Britain on “those who do not look or speak like true Brits.” The comments coming out from politicians range from:

The Bad –  “GO HOME OR FACE ARREST”,

The Ugly – “In some areas of the UK, down the east coast, towns do feel under siege, with large numbers of migrant workers and people claiming benefits,”

The Outrageous – “Any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door.”

The rhetoric coming from the political elite can be linked to the increase in racism prevailing in the land as the demonisation of immigrants only serves to trigger the latent racial instinct in the hearts of many people. As the media continues to poison the mind of the general population against immigrants, the Office of Communication (Ofcom) turns a blind eye. Every rape, murder, theft, arson is attributed to one immigrant group or the other. The Roma community in particular has been the principal target of these attacks. Programmes like My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, My Big Fat Gypsy Christmas and My Big Fat Gypsy Christening reinforce stereotypes about members of the Roma community. Ever since politicians and the media turned up its verbal assault against Eastern European immigrants, should it be any surprise that there has been an uptick in violent attacks against these children of God?

Many of the government’s anti immigration policies have not been well thought out. Thousands of immigrants are detained in deplorable conditions, while there is a proposal to expel foreign students from Britain after their graduation. The government’s immigration regulation, which shifts responsibility on landlords to check the residential status of prospective tenants could result in housing discrimination against non-white people. More shocking is the recent consultation paper issued by the Home Office on terrorism, which calls for nursery school staff and registered child minders to report toddlers who are at risk of becoming terrorists. I find it absurd that a toddler who can barely walk could be a terrorist. This proposed policy has the potential to criminalise Arab and Muslim toddlers. I thought nothing could be as disturbing as the criminalisation of Negro youths until I heard of the proposed criminalisation of Muslim toddlers, which is reckless at best, and callous at worst.  Is Britain gradually morphing into a Gestapo society where landlords, teachers and child minders are co-opted as spies?

Politicians must reassess their attitudes towards immigrants. Whenever the political elites complain about the influx of immigrants, they must bear in mind that there are over 5.5 million British emigrants permanently living abroad; whenever British politicians suggest immigrants are lazy and live on benefits, they must also bear in mind that there are a number of Britons who go to poor countries around the world and prey on vulnerable young boys and girls and use financial inducements to sexually exploit their victims. In framing the debate about immigration, the political class has developed a historical amnesia by failing to anchor immigration to Britain’s role in meddling in the affairs of other countries. Centuries ago, Britain went uninvited to many countries to enslave the people, take their lands and plunder their resources. In his book titled “All the Countries We’ve Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To”, Stuart Laycock argues that Britain has invaded 90 per cent of the countries in the world; he cites that only 22 countries have never been invaded by Britain. Since the wealth of Britain was built on the bent and broken backs of the black and brown people of Africa and the Indian Subcontinent, Britain has no moral justification to stigmatise hardworking immigrants who come to this country to seek better opportunities than they can find at home.

Other Matters

As a minister of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and also as the son, grandson and great-grandson of Baptist ministers, I must say something about the treatment of Christians in Britain. The United Kingdom has a rich Christian heritage. Britain played a major role in spreading the Gospel to the four corners of the world. Thanks to King James I, the Bible is now accessible to the masses. Britain gave us great Men of God like John Wesley, Smith Wigglesworth, William Booth, Charles Spurgeon and George Jeffreys. However in today’s Britain, the environment is becoming hostile to Christians who are ridiculed and in some cases persecuted because of their faith. Some laws have been enacted which put pressure on Christians to compromise their faith. I also understand some people say that God is dead in Britain. I would like to talk to them about it because “it disturbs me to know that God died and I didn’t have a chance to attend the funeral. They haven’t been able to tell me yet the date of his death. They haven’t been able to tell me yet who the coroner was that pronounced him dead. They haven’t been able to tell me yet where he’s buried.”  I appeal to you to make Britain more conducive for Christians and provide them with the protection that you provide followers of other faiths.

Conclusion

It is not my intention to be hostile or to make you feel guilty, so if I come across as hostile or preachy, please accept my apology. Prior to dictating this message to Alatenumo, I considered titling my letter “Why Britain May Go To Hell?” But I thought this would be unfair to the British people as the masses are already experiencing hell on earth. I decided it was not the British masses that needed addressing but those in high places. As rulers in the highest place in the United Kingdom, the buck stops with you.

When I see the despair on the faces of the least of these, I see people whose voices have been silenced and whose cries have failed to reach the ears of those in high places. As lawmakers in the land, you are in the privileged position of making a positive impact on the lives of the downtrodden. You need to realise that Britain can never be a first class nation as long as she has second-class citizens who are stripped of their dignity and humanity. When the history books are written say a hundred years from now, how would you want to be remembered? Would you want to be remembered as that generation of politicians who restructured Britain on the symmetric foundation of justice and equality, or would you want to be remembered as that generation of politicians who structured Britain on the asymmetric foundation of injustice and inequality? The choice is yours and history is watching.

Selah.

Yours in love

Martin Luther King Jr.

(Translated by Ahmed ‘Alatenumo’ Sule)

Leave a comment
by Ahmed Olayinka Sule on April 23, 2015  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics, Short Stories
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by Ahmed Olayinka Sule on April 23, 2015

https://zangodare.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/martin-luther-kings-letter-to-the-british-parliament/

Dear Prime Minister, IMMIGRATION – IMMIGRATION – IMMIGRATION

It seems like eternity since you gave your speech at the last Conservative Conference, which ended a few weeks ago. The tax cut proposal was a masterstroke along with your commitment to protect the NHS budget for England. The highlight of the conference for me was when you said voters who back UKIP at the next election risk, “Going to bed with Nigel Farage and waking up with Ed Miliband.” That was really funny but also true.

What I am about to write in the next couple of pages is groundbreaking and equally shocking. I hope you will not misconstrue what I write. I also implore you to keep the contents of this letter confidential as I have a reputation to protect.

With less than eight months remaining before the General Election, I am concerned that this might be my last letter to you as Prime Minister. If you don’t act fast enough, you might have to move back to Notting Hill Gate. The key determinant as to whether you remain in No 10 or move back to Notting Hill Gate depends on how you tackle the 800 pound gorilla i.e. IMMIGRATION. I am concerned that you are not doing enough to tackle immigration and you have allowed Nigel Farage to take control of the narrative.

If you take on board what I have to say in the next couple of lines, you will not only succeed in retaining your seat at No 10, but you will also go down in history as the man who made Britain an immigrant free zone.

Some parts of your immigration policy are commendable such as the time when you took part in a sting operation at the home of a suspected Albanian illegal immigrant. I had never felt so proud to be a Brit. The image of you in your dark suit and white shirt along with Theresa May posing with the three enforcement officers in the kitchen was a joy to behold. Infact, I downloaded the picture from the Internet and have used it as my screen saver and I have a blown up version of the image displayed in my bedroom. Unfortunately, my wife is not really happy with the picture as she thinks that it is a cheap publicity stunt, but I have warned her not to take the picture down. May I suggest that when next you embark on a sting operation to fish out illegal immigrants, try to wear sunshades and carry a gun; you will really look cool.

Another innovation that your government has implemented in the past was the deployment of the anti-immigration van with the inscription “GO HOME OR FACE ARREST” in Black and Indian populated areas. Unfortunately, your government withdrew the vans after the ethnic minority people started complaining. I suggest you bring the vans back, only this time you can change the inscription to “No Blacks, No Roma, No Indians, But Dogs and Cats Are Welcome” after all we are an animal loving nation.

Inspite of these novel ideas in tackling immigration, your governments approach towards immigration has been haphazard. One part of your government is hard on immigration while the other part of your government is soft on immigration. It seems you are not taking the issue of immigration seriously. Enoch Powell’s addressed the issue head on in his River of Blood speech when he quoted a man who said, “In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

[When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them – Leviticus 19:33]

Prime Minister, your government is underestimating this issue of immigration. Every problem we have in Britain is due to immigration. In football, Luis Suarez (a Uruguayan immigrant who once played in the Premiership) single handedly knocked England out of the recent World Cup in Brazil. If we had banned all immigrants from coming to Britain, England would have been the World Cup champions. The hung parliament in the last election was caused by immigrants; George Osborne was jeered at the Olympic Stadium because of immigrants; the recent changes in Britain’s weather has been caused by immigrants; Alfie Moon burnt his house in EastEnders because of immigrants; Scotland almost pulled out of the union because of immigrants; the recent gyrations in the financial market was caused by immigrants; Pies Morgan was sacked from CNN because of immigrants; Andy Murray’s underperformance in 2014 was caused by immigrants. In short, IMMIGRANTS ARE THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL.

The immigrants are taking everything that belongs to us. They are taking away our bacon rolls, our tea, our pint of beer, our slot in Coronation Street, our sense of humour, our jobs, our wives, our girlfriends, our houses, our toilet rolls, our computers, our televisions, our music, our joy, our smile, our cakes, our milk, our bread, our toys and even the air we breathe.

[“Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt. – Exodus 23:9]

I recoil in my seat when I read the Daily Mail and see headlines like “By 2066, white Britons ‘will be outnumbered’ if immigration continues at current rates” or “How white British pupils will be outnumbered in English state schools by 2037”. Ever since I read the headline, I have had difficulty sleeping. Can you imagine Britain populated by Blacks and Indians? That would be a recipe for disaster. Very soon Britain could become like America and elect its first non-white Prime Minister. Britain must put an end to immigration or else immigration will put an end to Britain.

Once again, I urge you to keep the contents of this letter confidential so that people will not think that I am a racist. In case you also think that I am a bigot, I beg to disagree, after all my best friend is black and from time to time, I donate money to a number of African charities. I even dated a black woman before I met my wife. I am also a fan of Serena Williams and last week my wife put her bra in the dustbin and sent it to Africa as part of the “Bin Your Bra” campaign. So how on earth can I be a racist?

With less than eight months to take the lead on immigration, it’s time to embark on some radical reforms. I have a number of suggestions and I hope that you will have the courage to implement them.

I don’t need to remind you that Britain is becoming less British. Everywhere I go, I see immigrants. On the train I hear people speaking in funny languages. You should propose a law that makes it illegal for anyone to speak any language apart from English, German, French or Dutch. Anyone caught speaking languages such as Polish, Yoruba or Punjabi should be deported. We could deploy immigration officers to schools, churches, and trains to enforce the law.

[“Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!” – Deuteronomy 27:19]

You should also develop a mechanism for differentiating between good immigrants and bad immigrants. We need to separate the wheat from the chaff. We could use an enhanced points system based on different classifications. We should first use a colour code classification to differentiate immigrants. If a person is black, brown or yellow he/she should be classified as a bad immigrant. If the person is white then classify them as good immigrants. However it should not stop there as not all whites make good immigrants and not all black, brown and yellow people make bad immigrants. We then have to introduce country classifications. Immigrants from good countries should stay and immigrants from bad countries should leave. The good countries are wealthy countries populated by mainly white people. Countries that fall into the good category should include Germany, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, USA, Holland and other Western European countries. Bad countries should include all African countries, all Asian and Latin American countries. East European countries should also be included in the bad country category. Where a bad country is populated by both black and white people (like Zimbabwe and South Africa), we could add additional points for white citizens who are descendants of settlers that came from the good countries. The final basis for separating good and bad immigrants should be on the size of their pockets. Immigrants that have bulky pockets should remain while anyone who has lean pockets should leave. The minimum threshold to remain in Britain should be 200 points.

Let me give you some brief examples of how it should work.

A Canadian lawyer wants to come into the Britain: This is a no brainer. He is white (+300 points); he comes from a good country (+50 points); he is financially loaded (+50): Total of +400 points. Verdict: He is welcome.

A Roma medical doctor: She comes from a bad country (-250); she is not really white (+20); she might be wealthy (+50): Total of -180 points. Verdict: She is not welcome

A Black South African doctor: He comes from a bad country (-250); he is black (-200); he comes from a middle class background (+50): Total of -400 points: Verdict: He is not welcome

A White South African banker: She comes from a bad country (-250); she is white (+300); her ancestors came from a good country (+150) she is middle class (+50): Total of +250 points: Verdict: She is welcome.

A Polish engineer: He is white (+300) He comes from a bad country (-250) he comes from a middle class family (+50): Total of +100 points: Verdict: He is not welcome.

A struggling Brazilian mine worker: Once again, a no brainer. He is not really white (+20) comes from a bad country (-250); he is not rich (-100): Total of -330 points. Verdict: He is not welcome

[Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed – Psalm 82:3]

You can see how remarkable this immigration formula is. It rids Britain of not only non-white immigrants, but also poor immigrants. The only snag is that it can’t filter extremely rich immigrants who happen to have the wrong sort of colour or come from the wrong sort of country. Of course we need such rich immigrants to fuel our economy especially the corrupt ones who have millions and if possible billions of Pounds stashed in banks throughout the Western world. We can make an exception for them by offering them sport visas. You may be wondering what has sports visa got to do with immigration? Please hear me out. The sports visa route is based on the innovative fund raising exercise earlier carried out when your party raised £160,000 from the wife of someone who once worked for your good friend Vladimir Putin. By donating £160,000 to the Conservative coffers she won the auction to play a tennis match with you and the Mayor of London.

We could offer fast track sports visas to African dictators, Russian Oligarchs and corrupt Chinese Communist officials and their families to come to Britain to participate in the Wealthy Games. If an individual can donate £100m, he and his family will be granted fast track sports visas to participate in a number of sporting events with members of your cabinet. For instance during the Games, the Sports Secretary could organise an egg and spoon race between say the Education Secretary and a disgraced head of a Chinese agency.

Another thing you must not forget to do is to always talk about immigration and immigrants. Every sentence you make must begin with or end with the word immigration. You could get your speechwriters to reflect these in your future speeches. Never forget to blame the immigrants. Even though immigration was not the cause of the financial crisis, even though immigration was not the cause of an output loss for the UK of £7.4 trillion; even though immigration was not the cause of the LIBOR and foreign exchange rigging; even though immigration was not the cause for the government’s bail out of our financial institutions – please blame everything on immigration.

[He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing – Deuteronomy 10:18]

The most critical success factor required for the government’s immigration reform to work is for it to be properly communicated. People can get very sensitive about immigration and your government could be accused of racial insensitivity. It is therefore critical to deploy people from ethnic minority backgrounds to promote your immigration reform. They should serve as your foot soldiers in making Britain an immigrant free zone. It is for this reason that I suggest that you appoint an Immigration Tsar. To shield your government from accusations of racism, I suggest this role is given to an ethnic minority.

There will always be individuals willing to betray their own people. I understand that in the black community such people are called Uncle Toms. More often than not, the people willing to play the role of traitors to their race are the so-called educated middle class elite. They are more likely to have excelled in their profession and live comfortable lives. They are so divorced from the sufferings of their people that they have a myopic view of racism. They are not bothered about the fate of the millions of their people at the bottom of the rung of the social ladder; instead, they are more concerned about being the token person at the top of the ladder. They get satisfied feasting off the crumbs of tokenism and once satisfied they will belch saying, “I am the only black person in my office” or “I am the only Indian lady on my street and all my neighbours are white”. Such people are ideal candidates for the position of Immigration Tsar. I have included in appendix one of this letter a draft job description for the post of Immigration Tsar.

[Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it – Hebrews 13:2]

Finally, Prime Minister all hope is not lost. You need to be bold and resolute. Ignore what everyone is saying. Ignore the pleas of the so-called human rights activists, ignore the cries of the poor, ignore the cries of the disabled, ignore the cries of the homeless, and ignore the cries of the unemployed. Britain has to arise again and recapture its former glory. We can’t achieve this glory with an immigrant and poor population. In the words of the old patriotic song:

Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves! Britons never, ever, ever shall be slaves.

[I know that the LORD will maintain the cause of the afflicted and justice for the poor – Psalms 140:12]

Selah

Your humble servant

Al Alatenumo Reckless

alatenumo@gmail.com

http://www.scribd.com/Alatenumo/documents

or

C/o

suleaos@gmail.com

Appendix 1

Draft Job Description For Immigration Tsar

Title: Immigration Tsar

Reports to: Home Secretary

Summary of Position

This is a newly created post, which will sit within the Department of Home Affairs. The Immigration Tsar will report directly to the Home Secretary and will be responsible for betraying immigrants and people of ethnic minority backgrounds.

Duties & Responsibilities

  • Act as spokesperson for the government on immigration issues
  • Convince people of ethnic minority backgrounds that immigration reforms are for their benefit.
  • Defend the government’s immigration reforms against accusations of racism
  • Tell less privileged people from ethnic minority backgrounds to take personal responsibility and to lift themselves by their own bootstraps

Qualifications

  • The candidate must be of African or Asian origin
  • The candidate must be of African or Asian origin
  • The candidate must be of African or Asian origin
  • Strong verbal and written communication skills
  • Ability to deny the existence of racism in Britain
  • Ability to downplay the tragedy of slave trade, the opium war and colonialism
  • Ability to turn a blind eye to the atrocities of the British Empire
  • A confident person with an over exaggerated view of his/her own ability
  • The candidate must be of African or Asian origin

Traits

Vain, selfish and ignorant

Remuneration

Thirty pieces of silver

Leave a comment
by Ahmed Olayinka Sule on October 26, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics, Social justice
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Ahmed Olayinka Sule on October 26, 2014

https://zangodare.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/dear-prime-minister-immigration-immigration-immigration/

Prime Minister Cameron, It’s Time To Discontinue The De Facto Jim Crow Immigration Reforms

Segregation_543533

Dear Prime Minister,

Not since when Winston Churchill led the country during the Second World War has a leader occupied No. 10 Downing Street under such tough times. The fact that you are still standing three years after stepping into office is a testament to your mental toughness, wisdom and tact.

One of the burning issues on your in tray when you assumed office was immigration. At the time you assumed office, you inherited a broken immigration system created by the previous government and set about clearing the mess. I presume that you felt that it was not sustainable for Britain to have lax border control and this is not an unreasonable approach to take. After all, if a country does not control and monitor immigration, the country could face the risk of becoming overpopulated, thereby putting pressure on the finite resources available for the citizens of the country. So as you rightly pointed out in a speech, “Immigration has to be properly controlled. Without proper controls, community confidence is sapped, resources are stretched and the benefits that immigration can bring are lost or forgotten.” In order to control immigration, your government set a target of reducing net immigration from 252,000 a year in 2010 to below 100,000 a year by 2015. After this target was set, the government has put in place a number of structures and policies towards achieving its immigration target.

Unfortunately, in trying to achieve this target, the government has adopted the principle of “the end justifies the means”, without giving serious consideration to the linkage between the ends and the means. Your government’s approach to immigration can be summarised as follows: “As long as we achieve our  ‘end’ to significantly reduce net immigration into the country, it doesn’t matter what type of ‘means’ we use. We hope to achieve our ‘end’ BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

The problem with this approach is that as long as the means to achieve the ends is bad, the end no matter how good intended will be bad. As Martin Luther King eloquently put it many years ago, “Ends are not cut off from means, because the means represent the ideal in the making, and the end in process, and ultimately you can’t reach good ends through evil means.”  Sir, while your advisers, ministers and the media may tell you that the current immigration reform is fair, just and humane, I have come to tell you like the little boy in Hans Andersen’s fairy tale – The Emperor’s New Clothes, that your government’s immigration reform is unfair, unjust and inhumane. In short, the government’s immigration reform is nothing more than a De Facto Jim Crow Immigration Reform.   Before I explain why I have likened your immigration policies to Jim Crow, let me recap on some of the ‘immoral means’ the government has implemented or is proposing to implement to achieve its ‘moral end’ of reducing net immigration.

Ever since the government set its target to reduce net immigration, it has come up with a number of ill-advised, ill-intentioned and ill-conceived rhetoric, policies and actions. A number of people in your government have been making inflammatory statements, which only succeed in polarising rather than uniting the country. In many other speeches a number of government officials have tried to link immigrants with benefit fraud, crime and laziness.

Your government is also intent on turning private landlords into agents of the UK Border Agency (UKBA) by making sure that “private landlords check their tenants’ immigration status with consequences for those rogue landlords who fail to do so.” Furthermore, raids are currently being carried out in a number of ethnic diverse areas like Daltson, Stratford and Walthamstow where people of colour are detained based on what the government describes as “specific intelligence.” People of colour or people with non-British accents are being arrested on the buses, trains and on the streets until they can prove their legitimacy to live in Britain. The Home Office has been putting pictures of the arrested immigrants on Twitter. In short the country is gradually metamorphosing from Great Britain to Gestapo Britain.

A couple of days ago, the government implemented an anti-immigration scheme by having a number of vans with the inscription “GO HOME OR FACE ARREST” boldly displayed, plying the six ethnic diverse boroughs of Barnet, Hounslow, Barking and Dagenham, Ealing, Brent and Redbridge. This scheme was widely condemned even by people in the government like Vince Cable who described the government’s approach as “stupid and offensive.” Leaflets and posters telling immigrants to go home have been distributed in a number of boroughs that have a large concentration of non-white people. The government has stated that effective from November 2013, visitors from India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nigeria and Ghana will have to pay a £3,000 refundable bond before they can get a visa to visit Britain. According to the government, these countries, which are populated with black and brown people, were selected because they have a high proportion of visa over-stayers in Britain.

In August 2012, the UKBA revoked London Metropolitan University’s Highly Trusted Status for sponsoring international students. As a consequence, the university, which has a high concentration of non-whites, lost the right to recruit international students from outside of the EU. Almost 2,700 students were affected as they had 60 days after the revocation to gain admission into another school otherwise they faced deportation. According to the UKBA, one of the reasons why the status was revoked was because “a significant proportion did not have a good standard of English.” There was a lot of public uproar over the decision and in April 2013, the university was given back its licence for a probationary period.

One may say, “Why compare the government’s immigration reform with Jim Crowism when all the government is doing is to control net immigration?” Others may argue, “There is no basis of comparison to Jim Crow as the government’s policy is fair and not racist.”  If one looks at each of the government’s approach to immigration in isolation, one may arrive at that conclusion, however when one looks at the government’s actions holistically, one begins to see a pattern, which bears the hallmark of Jim Crowism.

Like Jim Crow, which segregated blacks from whites, the government’s immigration reform also segregates classes of immigrants. Through the government’s reform, it has created two classes of immigrants namely black immigrants and white immigrants; rich immigrants and poor immigrants; upper class immigrants and lower class immigrants; white Western immigrants and white non-Western immigrants. Unlike the white rich and Western immigrants who are treated like human beings, the black, brown and white non-Western immigrants are dehumanised, demonised and ostracised by the government’s de facto Jim Crow immigration reforms

Britain plays host to immigrants from the four corners of the world and particularly from her ex-colonies. However, one wonders why the immigration reforms are negatively impacting black, brown and Eastern European immigrants. For instance the introduction of the £3,000 refundable cash bond impacts visitors from India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nigeria and Ghana, which are countries populated with black and brown people.  According to the Visit Britain website, the number of visitors to Britain in 2012 from three of these “BLACKlisted” countries were as follows

Country

Number of visitors to Britain in 2012
India

339,000
Nigeria

154,000
Pakistan

73,000

While visitors from some white majority populated countries were as follows

Country

Number of visitors to Britain in 2012
France

3,787,000
Germany

2,967,000
USA

2,840,000
Australia

993,000
Canada

704,000

The above statistics are quite revealing. Visitors from countries that have fewer visitors to Britain are made to post cash bonds while the visitors from countries that have higher number of visitors are free to come to Britain without posting cash bonds – a case of different strokes for different folks. Just like the Jim Crow mantra was “Separate but equal”; the mantra of the government’s de facto Jim Crow immigration reform seems to be “ALL IMMIGRANTS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME IMMIGRANTS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.”

Selah.

The stop and search raids currently taking place in areas that have large concentrations of non-whites or white non-Westerners bears the hallmark of an amalgamation of Jim Crowism and the Pass Laws implemented in South Africa. During the Apartheid regime, the Pass Law Act was passed to restrict the movements of non-white people in certain parts of South Africa.  Non-whites were required to carry passbooks with them in certain areas and could be arrested if they failed to produce the passbook. While there are no laws requiring non-whites to carry passbooks in Britain, what we now have in place is a de facto pass law. The recent raids in black populated parts of Britain has created an atmosphere of fear in the black community and the people feel that they have to carry their passports with them wherever they go so as to avoid being arrested for failing to prove their legitimacy to stay in the country. Already, blacks and Asians are disproportionately stopped and searched by the police relative to their white counterparts and this de facto pass law will only increase the frequency of the searching of blacks and Asians. It would be interesting to find out why raids are carried out in the areas of large concentrations of non-white such as Daltson, Peckham and Stratford while areas with little concentrations of black people go unraided.

Like Jim Crow laws, which succeeded in driving blacks out of the southern states of the USA, the government’s de facto Jim Crow immigration reform seems to be intended to drive the black, brown and white non-Western immigrants out of Britain back to their home countries as evidenced by the message displayed on the so-called racist van i.e.  “GO HOME OR FACE ARREST.” Just as Jim Crow laws prevented blacks from going to certain places such as restaurants, hotels, toilets, playgrounds and schools, the government’s de facto Jim Crow immigration policies are preventing some black immigrants from entering buses and train stations for fear of being detained. Even the schools are impacted by the de facto Jim Crow immigration reform as evidenced by the revocation of the Highly Trusted Status of London Metropolitan University, a school populated by majority non-whites and non-westerners, partly because some of its students did not “have a good standard of English”.

While Jim Crow laws discriminated against an unpopular minority in the USA, the government’s de facto Jim Crow immigration reforms discriminates against an unpopular minority in Britain i.e. the black, brown and white non-Western immigrants. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see that there is a hierarchy of immigrants in this country. At the top of the pyramid are the Western immigrants from countries like Germany, France, Australia, USA and Canada while at the bottom of the pyramid, are the immigrants from countries ranging from Nigeria, India, Pakistan to Romania, Bulgaria and Poland.

During the Jim Crow era, Americans were accustomed to seeing signposts with inscriptions such as “Colored Waiting Room”, “Public Swimming Pool – White Only”, and “Imperial Laundry Co – We Wash For White People Only”.  In 21st century Britain, the black, brown and white non-Western immigrants now see more subtle signs such as “GO HOME OR FACE ARREST”, “Text HOME to 78070”, “106 ARRESTS LAST WEEK IN YOUR AREA.” I am sure that a number of older Afro-Caribbean’s will look at these signboards with nostalgia remembering the signs that first greeted them when they landed from the MV Empire Windrush ship – “NO IRISH, NO BLACKS, NO DOGS.”

Selah.

While to suggest that these recent immigration reforms are in response to UK Independent Party (UKIP) eating into your parties electoral base is speculative and unverifiable, however what is known is that the government is fixing this broken immigration system without consideration given to the humanity of the immigrants who are targeted.  Jesus once said, “For what shall it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul.” I can imagine the Master sitting on his majestic throne telling the British government, “For what shall it profit a government to gain some votes and lose its soul over a pottage of de facto Jim Crowism”. Prime Minister, I am concerned that three years into your reign, your government has lost its soul. In the quest for winning the hearts and mind of voters, it has embarked on a campaign of oppression, repression and suppression against the marginalised segments of society. Even though the disabled, the immigrants, the homeless, the unemployed, the aged and the youth did not cause the recent financial crisis, they have been negatively targeted by many of the government’s policies while the major culprits of the crisis are walking free on the streets of Britain smiling all the way to the bank. As each month goes by, the government’s immigration policies become harsher on the vulnerable segment of society.

The government’s immigration reforms are becoming so harsh that even the UKIP is saying, “Spot checks and being demanded to show your papers by officialdom are not the British way of doing things.”  Even though the YouGov poll states that 61% of the public don’t think that the ‘Go home, or face arrest’ vans for illegal immigrants are racist, a responsible government should not make decisions that impacts lives based on YouGov polls or the number of positive comments in some tabloids or the number of “likes” on Facebook.  Martin Luther King got it right when he said, “Ultimately, a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.”

The government’s de facto Jim Crow reforms have a number of implications, some of which are already happening and others which may happen in the future if it continues at this pace. The reforms are fueling the racial tension in the country thereby resulting in a rise in racial intolerance. The inflammatory rhetoric coming from a number of government officials often sends a wrong signal to closet racists and open racists that they have government approval to carry out racial crimes. One should therefore not be surprised at the high incidence of race insults on the football pitch, TV screens and on the trains in recent years.

In addition, the current immigration reform is polarising the British society. In 2012, the government published its Integration Strategy in which the government hoped that millions of individuals would come together around common values, aspirations and interests. Sir, with these de facto Jim Crow immigration reforms in place, black and brown people no longer feel part of this society. The reforms are also creating room for suspicion and when people of one race are suspicious of people of the other race, how can the society be effectively integrated?

When landlords are pressurised to become agents of the UKBA or when citizens are told to report “suspected illegal immigrants to our Border Agency through the Crimestoppers phoneline or through the Border Agency website” this promotes a polarised society. Why? The word “suspected illegal immigrant” is very subjective. Anyone who does not fit the profile of a “true Brit” is likely to fall under the “suspected illegal immigrant” label. So when a lady has an Eastern European accent, she is likely to be tagged a “suspected illegal immigrant”; when a person does not look like a Caucasian, he is likely to be tagged a “suspected illegal immigrant.” Sir, unlike other immigrants in this country, the black and brown immigrants stand out because of their skin colour in a majority white populated country. They cannot hide under the shade of white skin tone that prevails in this country. Thus they become the main target of the adverse effects of the de facto Jim Crow Immigration reforms and so it is no surprise that they are being arrested, searched, by the police, asked to go home in the train, refused employment and accommodation because they look like “suspected illegal immigrant.”

Moreover, the immigration reform risks jeopardising the British economy. It is a known fact that economic power is shifting from the West to the East and South. Most of the fastest growing economies of the world are populated with brown, black and yellow people. If leaders in countries like India, Nigeria and China feel that Britain is hostile to their citizens, they may divert the businesses, investments and trades which could jump start the British economy to other countries that are more open and friendly. Also, many bright students who would have otherwise studied in Britain may choose to study in other countries such as the USA, Canada or Australia thereby depriving Britain of future scientists and entrepreneurs. Furthermore, as these students become the leaders of tomorrow, they will not have any ties with Britain and future investments could flow to other countries instead.

In addition, Britain needs to realise that she does not have a monopoly of immigrants coming into her country. Remember that there are Brits in different parts of the world. There is a possibility that some of these countries that are impacted by the government’s de facto Jim Crow immigration reform could retaliate. For instance, what would happen to the British expatriates working in the Nigerian oil sector if the Nigerian government decides to revoke the visa status of British workers in the oil sector or if the Thailand or Ghanaian Governments embark on say an anti immigration scheme whereby they have a billboard with the message “WE’VE HAD ENOUGH PEDOPHILES IN THIS COUNTRY. GO BACK TO BRITAIN OR FACE ARREST”?

Sir, the government’s de facto Jim Crow immigration reform bears some semblance to some of the stages identified by Greg Stanton in his 1996 paper titled “The Eight Stages of Genocide”. The first stage that Mr. Stanton of Genocide Watch describes is the classification stage, in which people are divided into the categories of “them” and “us”. This can be seen in the subtle classification of immigrants into black and white immigrants, rich and poor immigrants; western and non-Western immigrants in which the white, rich and western immigrants are classified as “US” while the black, brown, poor and white non-Western immigrants are classified as “THEM.”

The second stage is the symbolisation stage. This occurs when the people who have been classified as “them” are given names and symbols associated with the classification. Government officials and the media have given illegal immigrants various labels such as “criminals”, “benefit cheats”, “lazy”,” dishonest”, “untidy” and “immoral”. Mr. Stanton describes the third stage as dehumanisation, in which “one group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases”. The emerging pattern of the treatment of illegal immigrants especially the Romanians suggests that this stage is in full force.

The fourth stage is organisation. The stopping, searching and detaining of suspected illegal immigrants based on “specific intelligence” is evidence that this stage is on going. The polarisation stage, which is the fifth stage, occurs when the propaganda machine is put in force to reinforce prejudice and hate. Very often, laws are implemented to help achieve this aim. This stage is evident in Britain, not only from the utterances of some government officials, but also from the de facto Jim Crow immigration reform.

The sixth stage is the preparation stage. In this stage, victims are identified and separated. According to Mr. Stanton, the victims are “often segregated into ghettoes, deported into concentration camps or confined to a famine-struck region and starved”. While illegal immigrants in Britain have not been sent to concentration camps or famine-struck regions, they are being identified and segregated in addition to being harassed by UK Border Agency officials and the police based on their colour, accent or because of a tip off based on “specific intelligence.” While I believe that your government is not intent on committing genocide on illegal immigrants, I believe it is important for you to reflect on these stages, as the ill-treatment of immigrants in Britain appears to be increasing exponentially, starting first with inflammatory rhetoric, proceeding to harsh laws and progressing to deportation and incarceration. Hopefully it will not reach the extermination or incineration stage.

Selah.

As a result of your government’s approach to immigration, the rest of the world is beginning to see Britain as a patient suffering from Schizophrenia. With one side of her mouth, Britain tells the world that she is open to foreign investment, foreign businessmen and foreign students and with the other side of her mouth she tells the world that Britain does not welcome foreigners. One cannot tell the Indians to open up to British businesses in February 2013 and then tell the Indians in Britain to GO HOME OR FACE ARREST in July 2013. It is time that you call your advisers and ministers to order and come up with a well thought, reasonable and humane immigration policy rather than implementing policies that court controversy, polarise society and dehumanise people.

In conclusion, I would like to clarify what I am saying and what I am not saying regarding the government’s immigration reforms. I am not saying that Britain does not have a broken immigration problem; I am not saying that anyone who attempts to fix Britain’s broken immigration is a racist; I am not saying that some immigrants are not milking the system and taking advantage of Britain’s broken immigration system.

What I am saying is that segregating immigrants on the basis of race, accent or financial status is immoral and a crime against humanity; What I am saying is that not ALL immigrants are milking the system; What I am saying is that the government’s current approach to fixing Britain’s broken immigration system is polarising the society, which leads to no good.

Selah.

Ahmed Olayinka Sule, CFA

suleaos@gmail.com

http://www.scribd.com/Alatenumo/documents

http://about.me/ahmedsule

cc

Rt. Hon Nick Clegg
Rt. Hon Ed Miliband

Rt. Hon Theresa May

Rt. Hon Mark Harper
Members of Parliament

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

Operation Black Vote

Human Rights Watch

Leave a comment
by Ahmed Olayinka Sule on August 6, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics, Race, Social justice
Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Ahmed Olayinka Sule on August 6, 2013

https://zangodare.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/jim-crow-british-immigration/

The Condemn Summit Against the Poor, the Marginalised, the Infirm and the Vulnerable

image

He said also to the one who had invited him, “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

 Luke 14: 12-14

“I am sympathetic to cutting the deficit, but I am highly sympathetic to sick and vulnerable people not being subjected to something that will make their lives even more miserable.”

 Lord Patel

“We’re all in this together”

George Osborne

Prologue

With the third year anniversary of the signing of the Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement fast approaching, some selected leaders of the CONservative and Liberal DEMocrats Coalition Government aka CONDEMN Coalition gathered together at the Rose Garden of Downing Street to mark the occasion. The theme of this year’s summit was aptly named “The Condemn Summit Against the Poor, the Marginalised, the Infirm and the Vulnerable”. The coalition leaders met to discuss the government’s treatment of the poor, the marginalised , the infirm and the vulnerable (PMIV) and map out strategies to make life more unbearable for the PMIV.

Later that day, while Alatenumo X was on his way to send the video recording of the summit to the government’s Director of Publicity, he accidentally dropped the DVD on the floor. Bipasha Patel, a DJ found the DVD on the floor and put it in her bag. When Bipasha got home, she took the DVD home, inserted it into her computer and realised that the DVD contained the recording of the Condemn Summit Against the PVIM.

The next couple of pages detail the proceedings of the Condemn Summit.

Ahmed Olayinka Sule, CFA

http://about.me/ahmedsule

April 2013

Characters

Davido CAMERONGATE, President of Rich Great Britain

Nicholas CLEGGATE, Deputy President of Rich Great Britain

Vincent CABLEGATE, Secretary of Commerce, Rich Great Britain

Boy GEORGE GATE, Minister of Finance, Rich Great Britain

Ian DUNGATE, Secretary of Welfare, Rich Great Britain

and introducing……

SIR. ALTER EGO GATE

Chronological Table

6 May 2010 British General Election takes place
 
11 May 2010 David Cameron becomes Britain’s youngest Prime Minister in 198 years.
 
12 May 2010 David Cameron and Nick Clegg hold first press conference at Downing Street Rose Garden
 
23 April 2012 Tory MP, Nadine Dorries describes David Cameron and George Osborne as: “two arrogant posh boys with no passion to want to understand the lives of others“.
 
20 July 12 Louise Casey, warns that the state must start telling mothers with large families to take “responsibility” and stop getting pregnant
 
19 Sept 2012 Police allege that Government Chief Whip swore at police officers calling them “plebs”
 
19 Sept 2012 Nick Clegg apologies publicly for his parties failed promises
 
25 Mar 2013 David Cameron delivers landmark immigration speech, which László Andor of the EU describes as potentially capable of provoking “knee-jerk xenophobia”
 
01 April 2013 Welfare reform commences
 
04 April 2013 David Cameron says Trident nuclear deterrent is the best insurance policy.

  [After all the leaders are sited on the comfortable leather seat on the lawn of the Rose Garden, President Davido addresses the Condemn Coalition leaders]

DAVIDO:  Welcome to today’s summit. Thank God that the sun is out today …   we can comfortably brainstorm and discuss the issue of the day. The purpose of today’s gathering is to deliberate on our policies towards the poor, the vulnerable, the infirm and the marginalised (PVIM). We will discuss, the progress we have made so far in making life miserable for these people and discuss strategies for heaping more pain, tears and sorrow on them. However, before we begin, let me introduce Sir Alter Ego Gate. (turning to Alter Ego Gate) Sir Alter Ego, would you like to say something the Condemn Coalition leadership forum?

SIR ALTER EGO: Thank you Mr. President for inviting me to this historic summit. For those who do not know me, my name is Sir Alter Ego Gate. My role in this summit is to express our innermost thoughts and actions. I appreciate that you are politicians and have to be cautious in what you say and do… so no need to worry I will eloquently bring out what is in the subconscious on to the conscious surface.

BOY GEORGE: Thank you Sir Alter Ego. Let us begin the first session by discussing how far we have gone in making life miserable for the poor, the marginalised, the infirm and the vulnerable (PMIV). The Condemn Coalition Government was formed during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The stock market was tanking, unemployment was high, financial institutions were on shaky ground and the government debt was at an historic high. One of our key priorities as a government was to bring down the deficit, which was jeopardising our Triple ‘A’ credit rating…..

VINCENT: (sarcastically) Which has now been downgraded

BOY GEORGE: (ignoring Vincent) So we had to develop a plan to bring down the deficit. To make sure that the public did not regard the Conservative as the ‘Nasty Party’, we had to get the buy-in from our Liberal Democrat colleagues. Once this was achieved, we were ready to talk to the electorate.

NICHOLAS: (smiling) I remember when Davido and I stepped out on the Rose Garden to deliver our first press conference. It was like a partnership made in space. The public fell in love with the Condemn Coalition. We looked sincere…. two men in suits smiling at each other and at the nation.

VINCENT: I don’t see it that way; little did we know that we, the Liberal Democrats were selling our birthright for a pottage of political power. We turned back on all of our electoral promises.

NICHOLAS: But I publicly apologised for the U turn we made on the tuition fees. Boy George, can you put on the DVD showing my apology.

(Boy George puts on the DVD and all watch the video clip showing Nicholas apologising http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUDjRZ30SNo)

DAVIDO: We decided to change the narrative by attributing the over bloated government debt on the excessive welfare bill incurred by the government. The welfare bill constitutes the largest components of government expenditure, so I instructed Boy George and Ian Dungate to trim the welfare bill.

DUNGATE: (with fist clenched) In introducing my welfare reform, I used the age-old principle of hanging a dog to give it a bad name. I painted all those poor people on benefits as scroungers.

SIR ALTER EGO: We are jumping the gun here. When we decided to sort out the deficit, whom did we want to bear the hit of our austerity measures?

BOY GEORGE: Our targets were the poor, the infirm, the elderly, students, immigrants, Negroes, nursing mothers, charities, the unemployed, the bloody plebs  and the homeless.

SIR ALTER EGO: in short, anyone that does not look like us, dress like us, talk like us or anyone who does not have our kind of privileged upbringing,  will bear the pain.

BOY GEORGE: Absolutely.

DUNGATE: So we set about our Welfare reforms……

VINCENT: Which is not a bad thing, it is only the manner in which it was implemented that was very evil.

DAVIDO: Vincent, I am tired of your ranting. Why are you always defending the PMIV? Are you a Communist in disguise? You are either part of the Condemn Coalition Leadership Forum or not. If you feel the need to always defend the PMIV, then the door is open for you to leave.

BOY GEORGE: As Davido said in an earlier speech: “we need to build a more responsible society”

SIR ALTER EGO: You mean a society where responsibility rests with poor, immigrants, the elderly, the infirm, and the bloody working class while the rich , the powerful and the influential are not required to be responsible.

BOY GEORGE: Yes Sir.

DUNGATE: Britain is a broken society. Our economy is in shambles, our credit rating has been downgraded, government debt is at elevated levels, inflation is creeping in, our infrastructure is failing, Scotland wants independence, our grip on the Falkland Island is being threatened; and what is the cause of all of these woes?  The poor people living on benefits; immigrants coming into the country; the disabled people constituting a nuisance to the public; the elderly refusing to die; the students complaining about increase in tuition fees; nursing mothers refusing to go to work and the bloody plebs sitting at home. I could go on and on. Our reforms are not about hurting the poor, but it is about trying to make them richer. When the poor complain, I just laugh. What is the big deal, after all I can even afford to live on £53 a week?

SIR ALTER EGO: Well said Dungate. These people you mentioned make me sick. I hate to have them around me.

VINCENT: That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. Is it the PMIV that caused the financial crisis? Is it the PMIV that caused the government debt to balloon? Is it the PMIV that caused our triple ‘A’ rating to be downgraded? Remember, that prior to the financial crisis, the total public debt was $972 billion in 2006, which was 42.7% of GDP, within five years of the crisis, it jumped to $2 trillion. So who caused the crisis? Was it not partly caused by the loose monetary policies that encouraged the excessive build up of debt? Was it not the government’s bailout of the financial sector? Was it not the insane craze for yield that encouraged financial institutions to develop aggressive securitisation practices? Was it not the light touch regulatory approach towards financial institutions? Was it not the inaccurate credit ratings on many securitised products? Was it not people who over borrowed that caused the financial crisis? Yet you lie to the electorate and heap the blame on the PMIV.

NICHOLAS: I wonder why everyone is attacking our policies. After all, we want what is the best for the country.

BOY GEORGE: As I have said many times before, we are all in this together. We all have to make sacrifices whether rich or poor.

SIR ALTER EGO: All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

VINCENT: We may say that we are all in this together, but the reality is that we are not all in this together. The PMIVs are bearing the brunt of the austerity while those responsible for the crisis are still roaming freely on the streets. Davido, while you are ready to go to Europe to defend the mighty, why can’t you show a little compassion towards the PMIV?

SIR ALTER EGO: Vincent, why should he show compassion to the PMIV? They are lazy people who deserve their lot. They drink a lot and they pretend to be poor or sick so that they can milk the system.  They are people with low morals. All they need to do is to work hard and be responsible rather than depending on the government for handouts. The PMIV should stop playing the victim. They should stop smoking their cigarettes and stop watching television; they should get up and work. They claim to be poor, yet they smile, have access to the Internet and watch Sky TV. They even have children. As Louis Casey rightly pointed out last year, the government should interfere to prevent mothers that have problematic children from having babies. We should also tell women that it is irresponsible to keep having children when they are already struggling to cope.

VINCENT: So the PMIV do not have the right to have children?

SIR ALTER EGO: Absolutely, they do not have the right to give birth to children. A new class system has been identified by two university dons and left to me only the top four classes on the social ladder should have the right to procreate while the lower classes comprising of the emergent service workers, traditional working class and the precariat should be prevented from having children. After all what is the point of bringing children to the world who will suffer and become a drain on the nations resources. If Britain is to become Great Rich again she would have to do away with the poor, the infirm, the immigrants, the Negroes, the elderly and the homeless and the bloody plebs.

DAVIDO: Sir Alter Ego, that is a radical statement. On this matter, I disagree with you. That is not a nice thing to say and the Condemn Coalition will not stand for such evil principles.

SIR ALTER EGO: I am just saying what is on my mind. How can we make Britain rich if we don’t do away with the poor? How can we make Britain healthy, if we do not do away with the infirm? How can we make Britain white, if we do not do away with the Negroes? How can we make Britain a first class country, if we do not do away with the bloody working class? How can we make Britain British, if we don’t do away with the immigrants especially those Bulgarians and Romanians?

NICHOLAS: Immigration Immigration Immigration!!! It is a pity that Tessie Maygate is not here to talk about our immigration strategy, but I will try to cover our immigration strategy.  We are committed to reducing net immigration over the course of the Parliament. We need to be tough on immigration as the influx of immigration is causing a strain on our educational, healthcare, transport and welfare systems. These immigrants are a pain in the backside. They think that they can come here and suck the system dry. They all come over here to live on benefits while hardworking Britons go to work. They all come to Britain and fail to integrate into the society. Many immigrants cannot even speak English.

DAVIDO: This is one area that I am very passionate about. I have given several keynote speeches on immigration since I became President. Migrants are filling gaps in the labour market left wide open by a welfare system that for years has paid British people not to work. That is where the blame lies – at the door of our woeful welfare system and the last government who comprehensively failed to reform it.

DUNGATE: With Bulgaria and Romania soon to join the EU, Britain should expect an influx of immigrants into the country.

SIR ALTER EGO: (looking sick) I can’t bear the thought of Bulgarians and Romanians coming to Britain. We have enough problems with the Negroes and to add the Bulgarians and Romanians to the equation will be disastrous for Britain.

BOY GEORGE: (turning to Davido) When you gave that speech on immigration a couple of days ago, it brought tears to my eyes. I was so proud of you. Never have I felt so proud of my leader. It was the most eloquent speech that I have ever heard on immigration. Not since Enoch Powell’s “ Rivers of Blood” speech has anyone articulated the danger of uncontrolled immigration.

DAVIDO: (smiling at Boy George) Thanks for the complement. I am blushing George. You sure know how to flatter people. I guess this is why you were able to charm Mrs. O to marry you (laughter).

VINCENT: You guys have lost the plot. You are committing what the philosophers call the fallacy of composition. You are asserting that what hold true for a member of a group holds true for the group as a whole. Just because SOME immigrants milk the system, do not work or are involved in criminal activities does not mean that ALL immigrants do the same. A report revealed that EU migrants are only half as likely to claim benefits compared to the general British population. Infact EU migrants constitute 13% of the British work force and only 7% claim out of work benefits and only 5% of non-EU migrants claim benefits. In short, with all due respect Davido, your argument that 40 per cent of migrants claim benefits is porky pies.

SIR ALTER EGO: One positive side effect of our stance on immigration is that it has increased racial tensions in the country. Racism, which has been overt for the past decade is now more expressive. Negro football players are once again racially insulted on the football field while many Negroes are racially attacked on the buses. Anti Semitism is on the rise and Britain is gradually becoming a more intolerant society. The other day I read about some English fans chanting that Rio Ferdinand and his brother should be burnt alive.

VINCENT: But it is also damaging our economy. Immigrants contribute positively to our economy and we are seeing the sharpest brains from the emerging world heading to America instead of Britain. Your claim that these EU migrants will milk the system is unfounded. When the Poles were admitted into the EU, the same fear was voiced out. Yet the when the Poles came, they worked hard and did jobs that many Brits would not do.

DAVIDO: Contrary to the belief that our immigration policy is racist, I beg to disagree. It is not racist. Britain is open to people of all colours and creed.

SIR ALTER EGO: What Davido is trying to say is that as long as they have a fat bank account, this country is open to such immigrants, however if they do not have money then the doors will be shut. That is what we mean by good immigration and bad immigration. We don’t mind having rich Africans or Indians coming into the country, but we do not want those bloody poor Bulgarians and Romanians into this country even if they are white. We would prefer to open the door of this country to a Pol Pot with money and close to door to a Mother Theresa without money….. that is our immigration policy in a nutshell.

DAVIDO: When I went to India, I expressed regret for our colonial past as I thought this apology would improve trade ties with India and win us the contract to supply the Indian Government with the Typhoon Fighter. I also advocated for a fast track visa regime for rich Indian businessmen and women. However, I remained silent on granting Indian students visa to the country, as they do not have loads of money. To show how sincere I was, I had to humble myself and play cricket with some youngsters. It was very embarrassing getting bowled out by a twelve-year-old girl. However if that is the price to bring in rich immigrants to the country, so be it.

SIR ALTER EGO: In short, we do not see black, white, brown or yellow; what we see is € , £ and $.

NICHOLAS: We have debated about our policies against the poor and the immigrants. What have you got to say about our treatment of the infirm and people living with disabilities.

SIR ALTER EGO: I think so far so good. We have been able to show how callous and cold-blooded we can be. In justifying our welfare reforms, we have highlighted to the general public a couple of instances in which people living with disabilities have tried to milk the system. Just as we have fueled an increase in intolerance towards people of other races, we have also played a key role increasing the societies intolerance towards the disabled. By painting them as lazy, fraudsters and pretending to be disabled, we are succeeding in turning the society against them.

NICHOLAS: The Paralympics almost changed the societies attitude towards the disabled, but alas once the euphoria of the Paralympics was over, the society was able to align with our narrative of the infirm.

DUNGATE: I really felt a sense of accomplishment when my department came up with a novel idea to ensure that cancer patients on chemotherapy in hospitals take part in a work capability assessment to confirm if they are still entitled to collect disability allowance. (looking sad) Unfortunately, it was voted down in the House of Lords.

SIR ALTER EGO: So in short, our strategy is to introduce austerity, but let the PMIV bear the brunt of the pain. To achieve this, we over exaggerate the misdeeds of a few PMIV people while downplaying the misdeeds of the rich, the powerful and the influential. We will continue to label the PMIV as immoral, lazy and evil….

BOY GEORGE: Like I did a few days ago when I suggested that the actions of Mick Philpott who burnt his six children was a reflection of the broken welfare system.

DUNGATE: Boy George, I was really impressed with what you said. Only you could come up with such a well thought  argument. You are a very intelligent man.

SIR ALTER EGO: (applauding) Boy George that was a masterstroke. In that statement, you have engraved in the mind of many British people the link between Philpott’s evil action and the Welfare system. This should help sell our welfare reform as people who were initially hostile to the idea will think of Philpott’s action and then support our reforms. Perhaps, we can even go further. Why stop at Mick Philpott? We can demonstrate that Robert Mugabe’s action is a reflection of our broken immigration system that allows Negroes into the country and we can demonstrate that Oscar Pistorious action is a reflection of our current system, which allows people living with disabilities to be irresponsible.

VINCENT: (shaking his head) What you are doing is very dangerous. You are setting a bad precedent. You are using the time tested divide and rule tactics by setting up rich against poor, black against white, Brits against immigrants, employed against unemployed, abled against disabled, healthy against infirm, young against old and home owners against the homeless. Our society cannot survive in this kind of divided environment.

SIR ALTER EGO: (standing up and pointing his finger towards Vincent) You just don’t get it. The poor, the marginalised, the Negroes, the immigrants, the unemployed, the homeless, the bloody plebs and the youth are not human. They should be treated as animals. We hope to stripe them of all form of dignity. If we can succeed in dehumanising them in the public arena, it makes our job easier. The general public will be happy with us and it will improve our chances of getting reelected in 2015. Infact a spokesman for the British National Party stated that we are stealing their policies. Let me quote him: “It’s cynical opportunism, isn’t it? It’s almost like a ceremonial adoption of our policy”

DAVIDO: What gets my blood boiling is when I hear the charities and especially the churches coming to the defence of the PMIV. Imagine a couple of days ago a coalition of churches comprising of the Methodist Church, the Baptist Church, Church of Scotland and the United Reformed Church published a report titled:

The Lies We Tell Ourselves: Ending Comfortable Myths About Poverty ….. How dare they come up thing such thrash?

SIR ALTER EGO: Do not worry. After all, we are the government, we are in power. We will make life difficult for Christians. We will promulgate laws that will put Christians in the uncomfortable position of having to choose between obeying God and obeying the Condemn Coalition Government and if they choose the former, I will gladly throw many Christians into prison.

DAVIDO: Okay guys, we are running out of time. Where do we go from here? What other obstacles do we need to put in the way of the PVIM or have we already done enough damage?

NICHOLAS: Well I guess we have put the structures to keep the PMIV in a perpetual state of despair. Hopefully, they will never recover.

DUNGATE: I agree with Nicholas.

BOY GEORGE: Same here.

SIR ALTER EGO: Why are you guys afraid to inflict more pain. We have not done enough. I think we should go to the next stage, which is sterilisation. We need to stop the poor, the marginalised, the infirm and the vulnerable from breeding. That will be the final solution. Once this is done, Britain will be rich great again, the government debt will reduce and we will get our triple ‘A’ rating back.

DAVIDO: Sir Alter Ego, your suggestions are too extreme. As President of Rich Great Britain, I will not allow that under my watch. I need to point out that while we keep the PVIM in despair, let us not forget that we are here not only to debase the PMIV, but also to protect the interest of the rich, the powerful and the influential. You are all aware of the strides I have made to ensure that EU regulations do not negatively impact our greatest export. I have also tried to lobby to get lucrative defence contracts for some of our defence champions so that they can export their products to autocratic regimes that could use such products to blow their opponents to pieces. A few days ago, I called for the development of a new nuclear deterrent system to replace Trident.

VINCENT: But here you are talking about cuts to the PVIM, yet you are suggesting we replace Trident?

BOY GEORGE: Are you blind Vincent? Can’t you see the evolving threat from Iran and North Korea?

DAVIDO: Well that is all for this historic summit. I will give Vincent the honour of giving the closing statement.

VINCENT: (clears his throat and puts on his glasses) We have had a lengthy discussion today and I am grateful to President Davido for letting me have the final say. I agree that the welfare bill is excessively high and that steps need to be taken to control it, I also agree that some immigration reform is necessary, I also agree that steps need to be put in place to reduce the government debt as the current rate of government expenditure is unsustainable . Where I disagree with you is with regards to the approach that you are taking to meet these challenges. As the saying goes, you cannot use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Boy George loves to say, we are all in this together…. but is this really the case? The Condemn Coalition’s approach towards the PMIV is insane at best and monstrous at worst.

Boy George may say: “we are discussing economics and you are discussing morality”, but you need to realise that I am an economist and as a student of the history of economics, I learnt that the founding father of economics was a strong believer in morality. In short morality and economics are not mutually exclusive concepts. The PMIV are all God’s creation and should therefore be treated as human beings. As Jesus Christ once said: “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me”

I have to make a confession, the Condemn Coalition has lost its soul. We have also lost base with the PMIV segment of the British society. Perhaps our colleague Nadine Dorries was right when she described some of us as: “arrogant posh boys with no passion to want to understand the lives of others.”  We need to climb down our so-called upper class social ladder in order to see the reality of the people on ground. When we do that we will stop making sweeping generalisations about the PMIV.

I will end by quoting Martin Luther King who said: “all life is interrelated, that somehow we’re caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. For some strange reason, I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality.”

 

[Silence]

SELAH

© Ahmed Sule 2013

Leave a comment
by Ahmed Olayinka Sule on April 6, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics, Short Stories, Social justice
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Ahmed Olayinka Sule on April 6, 2013

https://zangodare.wordpress.com/2013/04/06/condemn-coalition-against-poor/

A “CHRISTmas” Letter To The British Church Under Siege

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Compliments of the season. May the grace of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ be with you in all its fullness and power. I know some of you may be wondering why a person with a non-Christian sounding name has taken the unusual step to write to the British Christian community during this Christmas season. Before you ponder any further, please lend me (a dreg of humanity) your ears.

I hereby declare my bona fide. My name is Ahmed Olayinka Sule. I am a sinner (in fact the chief of all sinners) who has been saved by Grace in JESUS. I was born into a Muslim family and had my Damascus Road conversion experience during my high school years. Shortly after my conversion, I rejected Christ and did not turn back to God until 2000. I acknowledge that I am unworthy to write this letter to the church for two reasons. First, I am not a man of the collar, so I may not be well grounded in theology and second, there is nothing good in my sinful nature as the things that what I want to do, I do not do, but what I hate I do. So I apologize in advance if anything I say appears to be more worldly than spiritual.

In today’s Britain, the British church is under siege. Although the attack on the church may not be as severe as in other countries where Christians are killed and maimed, nevertheless, the British Christian community is facing its most challenging season in living memory. Partly due to political correctness, Britain’s racial past and present and the gradual secularization of the society, British Christians are coming under increasing attack from different segments of British society including but not limited to the media, the government, the judiciary, employers, professional bodies and the general public.

Christians in Britain are continuously seeing their religious freedoms taken away from them. They have been subjected to persecution because of their commitment to the Master, Jesus Christ. Many Christians are being discriminated at work because of their faith. In 2006, Nadia Eweida, an employee of British Airways was suspended for wearing a silver cross on her neck and refusing to conceal it. One then wonders why an employee could be suspended for wearing a symbol of her faith, when other employees can pin a badge of their favorite premiership club onto their jacket lapel. In another instance, a judge told a Christian doctor who was suspended at work (for emailing a prayer request to his colleague), that it is ‘inappropriate’ to say he is a Christian at work. Early this year, The General Medical Council gave a Christian doctor an official warning because he shared his faith with a patient. At a hearing in the European Court of Human Rights in 2012, the UK Government lawyers urged the human rights judges to reject a religious discrimination case brought by four Christians. The UK Government lawyers argued that Christians might have to forgo their jobs if they want to express their religious freedoms at work.

A group of Christians in Gloucester were prevented by the City Council from distributing Christian literature, while in 2008, the Oxford Council dropped the word “Christmas” from the city’s 2008 celebration— an act so ridiculous that even leaders from other faiths had to object to such an act. In Camden, the local authorities instructed a Roman Catholic group to remove the words  ‘Christian’ and ‘God’ from a religious event on climate change.

In the media, Christians are often portrayed negatively. They are stereotyped as inflexible, hostile and unintelligent. According to David Blevins, a former news correspondent, Christians get negative news coverage based on a largely anti-Christian ideology. A former head of the BBC admitted that BBC would never mock Muhammad like how it mocks Jesus, while a Roger Bolton, a former BBC radio presenter said that the UK TV elite assumes that Christians are lunatics.

Christians in the UK are also increasingly being subjected to violent attacks. According to a report published by the Christian Institute, between May 2008 and May 2009, there were more than twenty arson attacks on UK churches, which were reported in the press.  Vicars have also been attacked in different parts of the UK. An organization sponsored by Ecclesiastical Insurance reported that vicars are subjected to more physical attacks than other professionals such as GPs and probation officers. Another report published by the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe stated that 95 percent of religiously motivated targets in Scotland were committed against Christians. A 2006 survey carried out on 90 clergymen revealed that around 50 percent of the respondents said that they had been attacked in the previous year. A couple of days ago, a darts fan was kicked out of a darts competition because the fans felt that he ‘looked like Jesus’.

One of the key champions in the persecution of the church is the UK Government. Over the years, the government has proposed a number of legislations that negatively impact Christians. For instance, a couple of years ago, the government proposed an Incitement To Religious Hatred legislation, which would have criminalized religious debate. Under the proposed regulation, a Christian could have been arrested for saying: “Jesus, is the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to God except through him”. Eventually, the vote for the bill was defeated in Parliament by one vote. Recently, Prime Minister David Cameron expressed his desire for churches in England and Wales to be allowed to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies. This created a lot of uproar and a couple of days later, the Government announced that gay weddings in the Churches of England and Wales would be explicitly banned under new laws on same-sex marriage. A couple of months earlier, the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg had to withdraw comments in a speech in which he called opponents of same sex marriages ‘bigots’.

As King Solomon once said: “there is nothing new under the sun”. Throughout the vestige of time, people of faith have been mocked, arrested, beaten, maimed and killed for their beliefs.  From Scriptures, we read how Daniel was thrown into a den of lions because he chose to worship God; from Scriptures, we read how the three young men were thrown into fire because they refused to bow down to the gods of Babylon; from scriptures, we read how Paul was flogged 40 times minus one because he decided to spread the Good News; from scriptures, we read how Peter was thrown into jail for declaring the Lordship of Jesus; from history, we read how Christian martyrs were torn to pieces by wild beasts at the Roman Coliseum; from scriptures, we read how our Lord and Saviour was mocked, arrested, beaten, maimed and killed because he said that he was the son of God.

Since British Christians find themselves in a society that is increasingly hostile to Christians, what are they to do? Where do we go from here? Do we pick up our bags and leave the UK? Do we succumb to the pressure? Should we abandon our faith? Or should we just fold our arms and do nothing? As we continue to face persecution, there are a number of things that the Christian community should do.

Pray: Christians must and should continue to be spiritually sharpened by devoting time for intense praying and fasting. This should be the starting point, as things need to be sorted out in the spiritual realm before:

a) We begin to see the physical manifestation and

b) Try to act in the physical realm.

We face challenging times and the Master has told us in his Word the importance of prayer and fasting. We should pray for God to give us the grace to endure the persecution taking place and the persecution that is to come. We should also pray for our political leaders that God should touch their hearts. We should also pray for those who despise and persecute us as our Master taught us. We must pray that the atmosphere in Britain becomes more conducive for Christians to operate. Like our Lord and Master, we should also pray: “Father, if you are willing, please take this cup of suffering away from us. Yet we want your will to be done, not ours.”

Unite: As the saying goes: “united we stand and divided we fall.” It is time for the church to be united, after all, we all have one thing in common i.e. we are followers of Jesus Christ. We must stop the “I follow Paul; I follow Apollos” attitude. At the moment, there is so much division in the church. We have the Black church, the White church, the evangelicals, the Church of England, the Catholic Church, the liberals, the conservatives etc.  Very often, the government plays on this division knowing that when it comes up with a controversial policy impacting the church that there will be people within the church community that would support the governments view even if it were detrimental to the body of Christ. What then should be the basis of our unity? There can only be one basis of unity and that is the WORD OF GOD. We should all align behind God’s Word. There should also be regular dialogue among the various segments of the churches and from time to time, the churches should gather together for a time of prayer like they did in September at Wembley Stadium during the National Day of Prayer and Worship.

Engage With Others: There are certain aspects of government’s policies that affect not only Christians negatively, but also people of other faiths such as those practicing Islam and Judaism. We could consider reaching out and co-operating with our Muslim and Jewish brothers and sisters on areas of mutual interest.

Evangelize: One reason why there is a lot of hostility towards Christians is becausemany people do not understand what true Christianity is really about. They have been fed with what they read in the newspaper and watch on television. By evangelizing effectively, we can kill two birds with one stone. First and more importantly, we will be able to populate the Kingdom of God as we spread the good news to all in accordance with the Great Commission and win converts for Christ. Second, as more people join the faith, the government is likely to take into consideration the consequence of alienating potential Christian voters through its anti-Christian policies.

Get Our Acts Together: For the church to be taken seriously, it is important that certain issues within our community are addressed. There are a number of instances in which some sections of the body of Christ have diverted from the teachings of Jesus Christ. For instance, some so-called men of God have used the pulpit to enrich themselves to the detriment of their congregations. Some churches have refrained from investing in the communities in which they operate and rather have used their charitable status to enrich the founders/church leaders. In some churches, children have been branded as “witches” and have subsequently been subjected to physical and psychological torture. Furthermore, the manipulation of Scriptures for the benefit of the spiritual leaders of some of our churches needs to be discontinued.   These activities by “wolves in sheep clothing” often posing as church leaders have been widely reported in the press and this in turn makes the public hostile to the church. To get our acts together, we once again have to align ourselves with the teachings of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Deal With Conflicts Between the Word of God and the Law of the Land: When asked about whether it is right to pay taxes to the ruler at the time, Jesus responded saying these words which have stood the test of time: “”Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”  A couple of years after Jesus said these immortal words, Apostle Paul of Tarsus said: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.”  Does this therefore mean that we should obey the law of the land even if it conflicts with the law of God? Are we to disobey God’s Word all in the name of meeting the requirements of Government laws? Absolutely not.

Very often, the law of the Land aligns with the Word of God. For instance in Britain, it is a crime to commit fraud, it is a crime to steal, it is a crime to murder a person. The requirements in the Word of God are of a higher requirement than that of the law of the land. For example, the Word of God tells us that we should love our enemies and pray for those who ill-treat us. It also tells us that we should not retaliate and that “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” The teachings of our Lord and Saviour Jesus are such that if adopted by the nations on earth, there is no doubt that the world would be a better place.

So back to the issue of a conflict between the two laws—in this event, as Christians, when the law of the land is in alignment with the Word of God, we should and must obey the law of the land; when the law of the land does not contradict the Word of God, we should and must obey the law of the land; however when the law of the land contravenes the Word of God, then we SHOULD and MUST obey the WORD OF GOD and DISOBEY THE LAW OF THE LAND. However, we must bear in mind that as we disobey the law of the land in order to obey the Word of God, we must also be prepared to pay the price and face the music for such disobedience. The Master made it very clear that whoever wants to follow him must carry his/her cross. Perhaps now is the time for us to be like Simon of Cyrene and carry our cross.

As we opt to stand by the Word of God, we are likely to be called names, thrown into prison, lose our possessions, our jobs and our friends, be made bankrupt and if possible be killed. But even if we are killed for standing on the Word of God, so be it. We must be like Daniel and be ready to be thrown into the lions den for refusing to obey the decree of King Darius; We must be like Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and be ready to say to King Nebuchadnezzar: “If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us from Your Majesty’s hand.  But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up”; We must be like John the Baptist and be ready to be beheaded for saying to King Herod: “It is not lawful for you to have her”; We must be like Esther and be ready to say: “I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.”

Our church leaders must be prepared to lead the march and the laity should be prepared to follow the leaders into prisons and while we are locked up for obeying the Word of God, we will transform the prisons from a “dungeon of shame” to a “cathedral of worship”.

Conclusion

As Christians in Britain, we are living in challenging times, but perhaps we need these challenges to wake us up from our complacency. A flip through the pages of church history reveals that very often, church persecution sometimes coincides with church growth. We do not know how the current hostility against the church in Britain will end, but as Christians, we should hope for the best and be prepared for the worst. We should however always have at the back of our minds the words of the Master: “In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”

Selah.

I wish all of you a very wonderful and prosperous year ahead and may the name of our Lord, Saviour and Master, Jesus Christ be glorified today, tomorrow and forevermore.

Have a merry Christmas and a blessed holiday.

Happy holidays.

Ahmed Olayinka Sule, CFA

December 2012

CC

Archbishop of Canterbury
Archbishop of Canterbury (Designate)
Bishop Eric Brown
Bishop John Francis
Brothers in Christ
Christian Institute
Christian Today
General Linda Bond
Most Rev & Rt Hon Dr John Sentamu
Mr Michael King
Pastor Colin Dye
Pastor Matthew Ashimolowo
Pastor Nicky Gumbel
Pastor Nims Obunge
Pastor Yemi Hassan
Premier Radio
Rev Agu Irukwu
Rev Joel Edwards
Rev Paul Chesworth
Revd Dr Mark Wakelin
Rt Rev Vincent Nichols
Sisters in Christ

 

Leave a comment
by Ahmed Olayinka Sule on December 17, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Religion
Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Ahmed Olayinka Sule on December 17, 2012

https://zangodare.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/a-christmas-letter-to-the-british-church-under-siege/

It Is Time For Britain To Tackle The Twin Evils of Racism and “Paedophilism”

Introduction

On a particular day almost 2,000 year ago, a large crowd followed a man who had been doing some great things throughout the day. When the man saw the crowd, he went up a mountain and sat down. A few minutes later, he began to speak to the crowd. He started by pronouncing blessings on certain groups of people after which he discussed a number of contemporary issues of the time, which are still relevant in our world today.

He spoke about how people should treat their neighbours, he spoke about riches and wealth, he spoke about anxiety, he spoke about his father’s kingdom, he spoke about charity. He also spoke about hypocrisy by using a great analogy. He said: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?  How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

Jesus advice to hypocrites is still valid in our world today and especially to modern day Britain. For the past couple of centuries, Britain has been in the business of meddling in the affairs of other nations, while paying little attention to what is happening in her own backyard.

According to Stuart Laycock in his book “All the Countries We’ve Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To”, Britain has invaded around 90 per cent of the countries in the world. Infact, Laycock argues that there are only 22 countries that have never been invaded by Britain. In the past, these interventions were militaristic in nature, however, nowadays, these interventions are more diplomatic in nature.

Britain has always been in the business of telling people, especially those in the darker regions of the world such as Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, on how they should run their lives and what values to embrace. Whether it is the British government, the British media, the British corporate or the British people, they all have one form of advice or the other to give.

For instance, Britain often urges governments implementing dictatorial policies to embrace human rights. In sports, when South Africa was preparing for the 2010 World Cup, the British press was at the forefront of exposing South Africa’s inadequate preparation for the competition. When a number of African countries passed various bills criminalising homosexuality, the British Prime Minister threatened to cut aid to African countries that do not accept homosexuality. The British media is also quick to report and condemn racial incidents that occur in countries like Greece, Spain and Russia.

Twin Evils

Since the 16th century, Britain has been meddling in the affairs of other countries. Whether it is Syria, Libya, Nigeria, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Uganda, India or Argentina—Britain has been telling people around the world what to do and what not to do. Perhaps it is now time for Britain to heed to the words of Jesus by removing the plank in her own eye so that she can see better to remove the speck of sawdust in the eyes of other nations. Perhaps it is time for Britain to stop meddling in other countries affairs and focus on addressing the ills in its society. Perhaps it is time for Britain to focus on eradicating the Twin Evils of racism and paedophilism.

As the darker nations of the world begin to exert their Olympian manhood, Britain would soon begin to run out of adjectives to disparage these nations and would eventually have to look inwards. After all, as the saying goes: “When you point one finger at others, there are three fingers pointing back to you.” Despite pointing at the ills that plague other countries, Britain, as many people are beginning to realise, is plagued by the twin evils of racism and paedophilism.  Before going further, I would like to clarify that I am not suggesting that every person that resides in Britain is a racist or a paedophile neither am I suggesting that majority of the people that reside in Britain are racists or a paedophiles; all I am saying is that racism and paedophilism are two viruses that must be destroyed if Britain is to be restored to full health.

Twin #1- Racism

Britain’s past has often been tainted by racism. Britain was the key player in the Trans Atlantic trade, which took place between the 16th and 19th century. During this period British merchants went to Africa and took millions of Africans to the Americas to work as slaves on the plantations. As the Industrial Revolution intensified and machines began to replace manual labour, Britain removed the cloak of a slave-trading nation and replaced it with the cloak of colonialism. During the colonial era (end of the 19th century up to the mid 20th century), Britain embarked on a civilising mission to “civilise” the “savages” of the darker regions of the world. This process took them to places like Africa and Asia where colonial administrators imposed British rule, British values and British culture on the people of the colonies. While the history books record these two eras of invasions as the Transatlantic trade and colonialism eras, a critical analysis of these British invasions reveal that the invasions were founded using racism as a guiding principle, planned using racism as a guiding principle and executed using racism as a guiding principle.

By the 1960’s, many of the colonies became independent and this resulted in a reverse migration with people from the colonies in areas such as Africa, the Caribbean and Asia relocating to Britain for various reasons including education and employment. As these darker skinned immigrants flooded Britain from the 1960’s onwards, it created a lot of tension. Many people found it difficult to adjust to seeing the people from the colonies living and working in the “mother country”. Words like “Nigger”, “Golliwog”, “Nig-nog”, “Paki”, “King Kong” and “Sambo” became popular adjectives to describe the darker shade immigrants. Many people from the colonies that were looking for accommodation had the doors slammed at them, only for them to look up and read the sign “No blacks, no dogs, no Gypsies”. The football pitch was not immune from racism as black players had to endure 90 minutes of continuous racial insults sprinkled with one or two banana skins thrown onto the pitch as added entertainment or comic relief.  On the television screens, viewers were entertained with programmes such as “Love Thy Neighbour”, “Mixed Blessings” and “Mind Your Language” which reinforced racial stereotypes and aired racial expletives.

Between the 1960’s and the early 90’s, racism in Britain was very plain to see. This era of plain vanilla racism in Britain was a very difficult period for non-whites in the country. By the late 1990’s, attitudes began to change, as expressive forms of racial insults were no longer tolerated by the society. Consequently, racism in Britain entered another era. Just as the Trans Atlantic slave era later metamorphosed into the colonial era — racism, in Britain once again changed its cloak in the late 1990’s from plain vanilla racism to esoteric racism. Unlike the plain vanilla racism, which was more explicit, conscious, direct, exposed and obvious, the esoteric form of racism is more implicit, unconscious, indirect, hidden, subtle and institutional. Tokenism became the order of the day, with a number of non-whites given top positions in government, companies and the media, which projected an image of a more inclusive and tolerant Britain. These token appointees were celebrated, while the suffering masses were ignored. The token appointees were used as benchmarks and the rest of the non-white population were asked to catch up and stop blaming their plight on racism. However, inspite of these token successes, institutional racism still continued in the educational, corporate, criminal justice, prison and healthcare sectors.

Back to the present, Britain is once again reverting to the era of plain vanilla racism. Since the beginning of the current economic crisis, which started in 2007, one can see the emergence of the once discarded explicit, conscious, direct, exposed and obvious form of racism in the workplace, schools, football fields, television and social media. According to a nationally representative survey conducted by OnePoll, the market research company in 2012, a third of the people survey admitted that they are racists. One in ten admitted that they had been accused of being a racist by someone close to them, while 40 percent of the people surveyed admitted using the phrase ‘I’m not a racist, but…’ when discussing race issues. The study also found that one in five accept the fact that people around them make disparaging remarks about different ethnic groups – and are not bothered by it. The results of this survey bears similarity with another opinion poll commissioned by BBC News Online in 2002, which revealed that more than half of Britons at the time believed that they lived in a racist society. Furthermore, a Freedom of Information request by the BBC revealed that between 2007 and 2011, there were almost 90,000 reported racist incidents in British schools.

Because the society is in denial of its racist past, present and if care is not taken, future–racial incidents often go under reported unless the racial incident involves a perpetrator that is generally disliked. In such instances, the incident is widely covered and reported as was done in the case of racial incidents involving John Terry, Jade Goody and Luis Suarez. Where the incident is carried out by more establishment and well-liked figures, it goes under-reported at the very best or ignored at the very worst.

 Twin #2- Paedophilism

The second evil twin that is tainting Britain is paedophilism. As I have said earlier, I am not suggesting that majority of Brits are paedophiles, all I am saying is that the level of paedophilism in the society is at such a level that some drastic actions need to be taken to make paedophilism history in Britain.

Unlike racism in the UK, paedophilism is not as entrenched and pervasive in British society, neither does it have a highly documented history. However, like racism, paedophilism is another tumour, which needs to be removed at the operating table of British society.

There have been a number of disturbing incidents of paedophilism in the UK. For instance, in 2011, the police smashed an international ring of paedophiles, which included 121 Brits (out of the global 184 arrests). Furthermore, 240 of the total global suspects were in the UK and included police officers, teachers and youth leaders, with an age range of 17 to 82. In May 2012, a group of six gang members who preyed on under-age teenage girls in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, England were convicted of sex trafficking. Between 1974 and 1990, a number of children in some care homes in North Wales were sexually abused.

Besides operating within Britain, a number of British paedophiles have taken their trade to other countries. These paedophiles often go to poor countries and prey on vulnerable young boys and girls and use financial inducements to sexually exploit their victims. One area of choice for these British paedophiles is Thailand. Because of their activities in Thailand, they have succeeded in giving Britain a notorious reputation as a country that manufactures paedophile predators. In 2008, two Britons were arrested in Thailand for sexually abusing children under the age of 15. Another British paedophile, Charles David Taylor was also arrested in Thailand in 2010. According to Thailand officials: “Taylor lured children to have sexual activities and released video clips on the internet….he confessed that he would find children to take pictures of and then sell the images on the internet.” Due to the activities of these British paedophiles, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) entered into an alliance with the Thailand police to stop these activities. The name of the joint operation is Operation Naga. According to CEOP: “Operation Naga began when a network was identified by CEOP’s covert internet investigators and intelligence indicated that (British) sex offenders were travelling to the resort town of Pattaya to abuse children. CEOP deployed an operational team to Thailand backed up by an intelligence cell in the UK to support the Royal Thai Police.”

British paedophiles have also set up shop in areas outside of Britain and Thailand. In 2006, Gary Glitter, the former British rock star was jailed for three years after a Vietnamese court found him guilty of sexually abusing two young girls aged 11 and 12. He was also ordered to pay £180 (sic) to the victims’ family. I once spoke to a Ghanaian national who told me of his fear that Ghana is gradually becoming a haven for British and other Western paedophiles who are coming over to exploit vulnerable young people. The Ghana NGO Coalition on the Rights of the Child in a study undertaken in 2006 revealed that Ghana is earning a reputation on paedophile websites as a ‘safe’ destination for child sex. The report also stated that there is a high rate of sexual exploitation of boys in tourism and those local boys deliberately hang around hotels and guesthouses soliciting foreign tourists. The NGO also stated that some Germans, British, Americans and other Western tourists were guilty of abusing local children. Radio Netherlands also reported that Ghana has become a paradise for Western paedophiles.

In the last couple of weeks, the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal has filled the airwaves. One year after the DJ/ TV celebrity died, there have been claims that he was a serial paedophile. In October 2012, an ITV documentary was aired on TV in which a number of women claimed that Jimmy Savile sexually molested or raped them when they were teenagers. Since then, other people have come out alleging that they were also sexually molested by Jimmy Savile. Less than a month after the documentary was broadcast, the police said that the numbers of alleged victims was around 300. It was also reported that some of the sexual offences took place on BBC premises and at some hospitals. It was also revealed that BBC editors shelved broadcasting a programme about Jimmy Savile in December 2011.

The outcry resulting from the Jimmy Savile scandal was intense. The media, politicians and general public were outraged. There were calls to set up a public inquiry into the matter. BBC had to apologise for not revealing earlier suspicions about Jimmy Savile. The Savile’s family removed the headstone of Savile’s grave. There were even calls for Jimmy’s corpse to be exhumed and removed from were he was buried. A number of people were arrested on suspicion of connected sexual offences, while a number of high-ranking officials in the BBC have been sacked due to negligence. As the Jimmy Savile scandal was unraveling, Tom Watson, a Labour MP said in the House of Parliament that the police should investigate allegations of a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and Number 10.

While the British society melts its anger on a corporate organisation (BBC) and a dead Jimmy Savile, perhaps it is time for the British society to do some soul searching and ask some hard questions. Could the Jimmy Savile saga be just a tip of the iceberg? How many similar cases have occurred in the past and are occurring in the present, which are yet to be reported? Has Britain become a breeding ground and haven for paedophiles? Why was there a cover up? To what extent have cases of paedophilism been under-reported in Britain? How can victims of paedophilism be encouraged to come out and expose the paedophiles?  Are there people in very high places who are engaged in paedophilism? If yes, why have they not been exposed? Why is there a strong resistance against conducting an inquiry into allegations of child abuse against public figures?

Conclusion

Before any problem can be solved, there has to be an acknowledgement that the problem exists. Unfortunately, modern day Britain appears to be in denial that the twin evils of racism and paedophilism have reached critical levels. On issues of race, the “R” word has become a taboo. Whenever the “R” word is raised, many people become uncomfortable. If one brings up a genuine racial issue, one could be accused of “bringing up the race card”, “fomenting trouble” or “living in the past”. When a person is accused of a racial act, the first line of defence is often: “I am not a racist, after all my best friend is Asian or Black”. The nation has also failed to come to grip that paedophilisim is also at an intolerable level. The intellectuals who should know better often fail to speak out against the twin evils of racism and paedophilisim.

If Britain can adopt the same level of vigour in tackling the twin evils of racism and paedophilism as she does in meddling in the affairs of other countries, I am very sure that racism and paedophilism could be significantly reduced in Britain.  Furthermore, if Britain can remove the plank of racism and paedophilism from her own eye, then she will be able to see better to remove the speck of sawdust from the eyes of the other nations of the world.

In conclusion, the way Britain handles the twin evils of racism and paedophilism will go a long a way in determining how she will be regarded by other nations. Britain faces two choices: Does Britain want to be known as the country that produced, harboured and celebrated people like Winston Churchill, William Shakespeare and Isaac Newton?

OR

Does Britain want to be known as the country that produced, harboured and celebrated bigots, racists and paedophiles?

The world is watching.

Selah.

Alatenumo

November 2012

© Alatenumo

Leave a comment
by Ahmed Olayinka Sule on November 16, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Race, Social justice
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Ahmed Olayinka Sule on November 16, 2012

https://zangodare.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/it-is-time-for-britain-to-tackle-the-twin-evils-of-racism-and-paedophilism/

A Rejoinder: Stop saying sorry for our history: For too long our leaders have been crippled by a post-imperial cringe

This rejoinder is a response to an article written by the Historian Dominic Sandbrook in the Daily Mail titled “Stop saying sorry for our history: For too long our leaders have been crippled by a post-imperial cringe”.

For a link to Dominic’s article click below

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1299111/Stop-saying-sorry-history-For-long-leaders-crippled-post-imperial-cringe.html

Ahmed Sule, CFA

==============================================

Dear Dominic,

Re: Stop saying sorry for our history: For too long our leaders have been crippled by a post-imperial cringe: A Rejoinder

I have read with interest your article titled “Stop saying sorry for our history: For too long our leaders have been crippled by a post-imperial cringe” which was published in the Daily Mail. In your article, you express your displeasure with Prime Minister David Cameron for adopting a spirit of humility during his recent visit to India. You argue that rather than being apologetic and expressing humility for Britain’s imperial and colonial past, David Cameron and other British leaders should be proud of Britain’s past achievements.

As you have rightly pointed out in your article, Britain has made a number of positive contributions to the world. This feat is even more remarkable when one considers the size and population of Great Britain. As a result, it is expected that Briton’s should be and must be proud of Britain’s contribution to world such as the English language, the Rule of Law and parliamentary democracy. Likewise, Briton’s should be and must be proud of the contribution of various Britons such as Williams Shakespeare, Sir Isaac Newton, John Lennon, David Beckham and John Wesley amongst others in the fields of literature, science, music, sports and religion respectively.  Likewise, Briton’s should be and must be proud of Britain’s role in the pursuit of some aspects of justice and international diplomacy.

However, for one to argue that we should not apologise for our colonial and imperial past is to imply that the damage caused by colonialism on the people of the colonies was right and just. Such viewpoint fails to view colonialism from the perspective of the colonised group.

In the next couple of pages, I will seek to address some of the points that you have raised in your article and also explain why Prime Minister David Cameron was right to go to India with a spirit of humility and why our leaders should be apologetic for our colonial and imperial past.

Before, I go any further, I would like to briefly describe my background. I am a British Citizen (Lex Soli) of African Descent. I grew up not only in England, but also in a former colony of Britain and my experience in these two countries has given me a unique perspective to understand colonialism and imperialism from the viewpoint of both the descendants of the colonised group and the coloniser group.

Ill-gotten Treasures

In your opening paragraph, you cite the historical 1911 Delhi Durbar, which marked the coronation of King George V as the Emperor of India. You use this historical occasion to argue that “George V could never have imagined that one day a British Prime Minister would be talking of his ‘humility’ — not his pride — in Britain’s relationship with India”. However, you fail to discuss the history behind the diamond-studded, 34-ounce Imperial Crown worn by King George V on that day. The diamond engraved on the Crown used by the King probably was the Koh-I-Noor diamond, which was illegally taken away from India during the British Raj. This diamond has been a source of dispute between the British authorities and the Indian authorities ever since the late 19th century. In  2000, a number of Indian MPs demanded the return of the 106 carat diamond back to India, while a couple of days ago, Prime Minister David Cameron explained that returning the diamond back to India would set an “unworkable precedent” which could potentially empty the British Museum if the trend continued.

As a young child my parents taught me that when something belongs to someone else, you should not deceive the other person or beat up the other person in order to obtain the item. The history of British Colonial rule in a number of colonies is full of instances in which treasures, artifacts and other precious items were illegally taken from the colonies and shipped to Britain. As at the time of writing this letter, many of these ill-gotten treasures are yet to be returned.

For instance, during the British invasion of Benin in 1897, a number of Benin sculptures including the famous Oba Mask of the Queen Mother Idia were illegally taken by the British and kept in the British Museum. Despite pleas from the Nigerian Government, these sculptures are yet to be returned. Other looted artifacts currently in the possession of Britain include the Egyptian Rosetta Stone, the Ethiopian Tabots etc.

When a leader is aware of such past misdeeds, don’t you think it is appropriate for him or her to exhibit a spirit of humility and apologise for the wrong deed?

Balkanization

You attribute India’s success to the Anglo Saxon foundation and you suggest that its unity could be due to British Colonial rule. However, you fail to provide any premise to support your assumption. If British Colonial rule was a contributory factor to India’s emergence as the second fastest growing economy, how come majority of the countries that constitute the Commonwealth of Nations still experience low per capita income, low life expectancy, high levels of infant mortality and high level of poverty?

You also fail to address the role Britain played in the partition of India into Pakistan and India, yet you seem to attribute India’s unity due to the British Colonial rule. One legacy of British Colonial rule was the balkanization of a number of territories. One area where this was common was in Africa. Territories that shared similar cultures were divided and areas with different cultures were joined together.

Britain was a key player along with other countries such as Germany, France and Portugal in the Berlin Conference of 1884-85, which resulted in the partition of Africa among seven European countries with no regard to the existing ethnic and political boundaries in place. This balkanization of the continent is a contributory factor to the numerous conflicts that continues to exist throughout Africa today. When you consider Britain’s contribution to the balkanization of territories, which has lead to conflicts, and loss of lives, do you still think that British leaders should still stop saying sorry for these past misdeeds?

Historical Apologies are Meaningless

You also state “…by and large, of course, historical apologies are meaningless”. One problem with this statement is that it fails to look at history from the viewpoint of the victim. Apologising for past misdeeds is a sign of remorse and demonstrates that one has learnt lessons for historical misdeeds. Afterall, it was the same Winston Churchill who you quote throughout your article that said, “Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it”.

Moreover, victims and descendants of victims of historical atrocities do not regard historical apologies as meaningless. The descendants of the Tasmanian Aborigines who learnt of how their ancestors were massacred will not regard an historical apology for such genocide meaningless and would not want such atrocities repeated; the Jews will never regard an historical apology for the holocaust meaningless, neither would they want such atrocities to be repeated; the families of the victims of the millions of people who died from starvation during the Biafra war in Nigeria would not regard an historical apology for the loss of lives meaningless neither would they want such atrocities repeated; the victims of apartheid rule in South Africa would not regard an historical apology for the crime of apartheid meaningless, neither would they want such atrocities repeated; a number of African’s whose ancestors were once referred to by Lord Luguard as “having a mind far nearer to the animal world than that of the European or Asiatic” would not regard an historical apology for such statement meaningless, neither would they want such a statement to be used to describe any African again .

Slave Trade

With reference to the slave trade, you note that critics of Britain’s role in the trade “are suspiciously slow to rejoice in the fact that more than any other people on earth, it was the British who brought that age-old exploitation of human beings to an end”. Admittedly, a number of British people and groups such as Williams Wilberforce, the Quakers, Thomas Clarkson, Granville Sharp etc played a significant role in the abolition of slavery. However, these individuals and organizations at the time of speaking against the ills of slave trade were going against the tide. Furthermore, slavery should not have taken place in the first place.

While one should salute the courage of these reformists in their quest in abolishing slavery, I still do not understand why you feel that critics should REJOICE in the fact a number of Britons were instrumental to bringing an end to slavery, especially when Britain was a key player in the slave trade for almost 250 years.

Why should critics of Britain’s role the slave trade rejoice when millions of Africans were transported as slaves to work in plantations before slave trade was abolished?

Why should critics of Britain’s role the slave trade rejoice when slave trader Sir John Hawkins referred to the Africans that he captured as “human cargoes”?

Why should critics of Britain’s role the slave trade rejoice when African’s were described as “’two-legged beasts’ or ‘savages’ that were not quite beasts but were certainly not human either.”

Relative Injustice

You also appear to trivialize the atrocities of British colonial rule by suggesting that these atrocities were not as grave as those committed by other great empires.  To support your argument, you state that there is nothing in British history that equates to the extermination of the ten million people in Belgium Congo or the torture of the Algerians. With this line of reasoning, you appear to define injustice in relative terms, whereby an unjust act that negatively impacts say three people is better than an unjust act that negatively impacts five people. However, the problem with this line of reasoning is that it views injustice from a relative perspective.

When an unjust act happens, there are usually two parties involved namely the oppressed party who suffers loss, pain or sorrow and the oppressor who inflicts the pain. The oppressor often views injustice in relative terms, whereas the oppressed party views injustice in absolute terms. For instance, a woman who has been raped views rape from the physical pain that she suffers and the psychological trauma she experiences, whereas the rapist could justify his crime by viewing the incident relative to the activities of more vicious rapists; a taxi driver who has had his car stolen would view the theft in terms of loss of earnings and the replacement value of the stolen car, whereas the robber could feel justified since he might not have stolen as many cars as his fellow gang members.

An unjust act is an unjust act and injustice is injustice – whether it affects one person, thousands of people or millions of people; whether it is carried out by the Roman Empire, the British Empire or the Ottoman Empire; whether it results in the loss of life, the enslavement of people or the loss of property.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while it is makes sense for Britain to take pride in its past achievements, let us also learn to show remorse and humility for our past prejudices, exploitation and cruelties. David Cameron has adopted the right approach in expressing his humility, however this spirit of humility should be extended not only to India, but also to other members of the Commonwealth of Nations, likewise other leaders of former colonial powers should follow David Cameron’s example.

Ahmed Sule, CFA

suleaos@gmail.com

Friday, 6 August 2010

Leave a comment
by Ahmed Olayinka Sule on August 7, 2010  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics, Race
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Ahmed Olayinka Sule on August 7, 2010

https://zangodare.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/british-empire/

An Open Letter To The Commonwealth Of Nations

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS


by Ahmed Sule, CFA and Kojo Solomon

May 12, 2010

“Individuals pass like shadows, but the Commonwealth is fixed and stable.”– Edmund Burke

“The Commonwealth is a mere club. It has become like an ‘Animal Farm’ where some members are more equal than others”-Robert Mugabe


Your Excellency,

We are citizens of the Commonwealth of Nations.

On October 3rd 2010, athletes from fifty-four countries will gather in New Delhi, India to participate in the XIX Commonwealth Games. This event, which is held every four years, will take place almost eighty years after the adoption of the Statute of Westminster, which proclaimed the Commonwealth to be a free association of self-governing states with a united allegiance to the British Crown.

Since its formation, the Commonwealth has evolved to become an association of fifty-four countries with a combined population of 1.8 billion people spread across Africa, Asia, North America, the Pacific, the Caribbean and Europe. Approximately 96% of the countries that form the Commonwealth were former colonies of Great Britain and at one point formed part of the British Empire, an empire which extended from Australia to Zambia and covered almost a quarter of the earth’s total land area.

Even though the majority of Commonwealth members share a common historical link to the British Empire, they still have considerable differences in opinion as to what the Commonwealth stands for and on issues deliberated at Commonwealth meetings.

To some, the Commonwealth is a voluntary association that promotes democracy, good governance and human rights among its members, while to others, it is viewed as an extension of the British Empire. The Commonwealth is also viewed as an association of equal partners, while to others it is viewed as a platform that enables the richer members to impose their opinions on the poorer members of the Commonwealth. It is also viewed as an amalgamation of countries with common interest, heritage and history, while others see it as a post colonial club. These differences in perception have often resulted in conflict or apathy among members, which has sometimes led to expulsion, suspension and stern exchanges of words.

If the members of the Commonwealth share a common heritage, why do these countries still have conflicting opinions? What accounts for these differences? Is the Commonwealth still relevant in a multi-cultural and postcolonial world? What reforms can be implemented in order to align these conflicting perceptions and make the organisation more relevant in a post-colonial world? In the next couple of paragraphs we will address these questions.

The fifty-four independent states that constitute the Commonwealth can be grouped into two classes, namely the Old Commonwealth and the New Commonwealth. The Old Commonwealth comprises of the United Kingdom and four former British colonies, which gained independence before 1945. These four countries, also called the pre-1945 Dominions, include Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada. These countries were the founding members of the British Commonwealth, which was later renamed the Commonwealth.

The New Commonwealth comprises of the remaining 49 countries. Most of these countries, which are situated in Asia and Africa, gained their independence in the 1960s and 1970s. As a prerequisite for joining the Commonwealth, these countries had to recognise the Crown as “the symbol of the free association” of the Commonwealth.

Upon closer examination, with the exception of South Africa, there is a closer alliance among other members of the Old Commonwealth, which could be attributable to the fact that these countries have a common allegiance to the British Crown.

In addition to the common allegiance to the crown, another major difference between the Old and New Commonwealth countries (with the exception of South Africa) is that the population of the Old Commonwealth is predominately white, while the population of New Commonwealth countries is predominately black or Asiatic.   Another area of distinction is that the Old Commonwealth countries are more prosperous than their New Commonwealth counterparts. However, despite these differences, all countries within the Commonwealth are regarded as equal in status.

The table below highlights the economic characteristics of the Old and New Commonwealth countries:

Data New Commonwealth Old Commonwealth Total New Old
GNP-$ 2,008,602,000,000 5,060,000,000,000 7,068,602,000,000 28% 72%
Aid-$ 35,649,820,000 822,000,000 36,471,820,000 98% 2%
External Dept PV-$ 336,026,000,000 73,600,000,000 409,626,000,000 82% 18%
Population 2,058,625,284 166,825,877 2,225,451,161 93% 7%
Average of Per capita-$ 5,622 30,532 7,928
Country count 49 5 54 91% 9%

From the table above, it can be seen that with a combined population of 2 billion people, the New Commonwealth countries account for 93% of the total Commonwealth population. Economically, the New Commonwealth countries under-perform when compared to their Old Commonwealth counterparts in a number of economic metrics.  In terms of Gross National Product (GNP), the combined total for the forty-nine New Commonwealth nations of $2 billion is less than the combined $5 billion total GNP for the five New Commonwealth countries.

Furthermore, the New Commonwealth countries account for 98% of the total aid received by members of the Commonwealth. The average per capita income for the New Commonwealth countries of $5,622 is 82% lower than that of the Old Commonwealth countries. When other indicators of well being such as infant mortality, life expectancy, literacy ratio etc are brought into the equation, the New Commonwealth countries once again fall short of the levels attained by their Old Commonwealth counterparts.

The above-mentioned differences, in addition to other differences, have often resulted in conflicts, disagreements and heated debates among member countries on a number of issues. In the past there have been differences of opinion regarding matters such as the imposition of sanctions against the former apartheid regime in South Africa and the ill treatment of the people of Rhodesia.

For the Commonwealth to be relevant in a post colonial and multi-cultural world, it would need to be true to its creed that member countries are equal in status. Furthermore, it must shake off its appendage to the remnants of the British Empire. To achieve this, a number of reforms would need to be implemented. The reforms, which we suggest, are detailed in the subsequent paragraphs.

Membership

With the exception of Mozambique and Rwanda, the remaining fifty-two members of the Commonwealth have historical ties with Britain. The link that bonds Britain with these countries is that these countries were all colonised by Britain and constituted part of the British Empire. Even though the current requirement for prospective countries is for them to have links with Britain or any other member of the Commonwealth, it would be difficult to shake of the perception of the Commonwealth being an extension of the British Empire when 96% of current membership is comprised of former British colonies.

To make the Commonwealth more inclusive, more acceptable and more balanced, it is imperative for the membership base to be expanded to include more countries that were not former colonies of Britain. This should hopefully change the structure of the Commonwealth from a ‘mother-to-child’ alliance to a ‘sister-to-sister’, ‘brother-to-brother’ or ‘friend-to-friend’ association.

Royal Coat of Arms and the Commonwealth Mace:

A Mace is a symbol of authority and represents an official authority. 

The Commonwealth Mace, which has been in existence for over 20 years, symbolises the presence of the Head of the Commonwealth, who is the Queen of Britain. The Mace, which was gifted to the Queen, is used in the presence of the Queen or any other member of the Royal family representing the Queen in her capacity as the Head of the Commonwealth. It is also used at special Commonwealth occasions such as the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings (CHOGM) etc. The Mace is surmounted by the Royal Coat of Arms, which is prominently placed at the top of the Mace while the middle portion of the Mace is decorated with the flags of each of the Commonwealth nations.

Placing the Royal Coat on top of the flags of the Commonwealth countries could be construed as the imposition of British authority over the other 53 countries that constitute the Commonwealth.  Since the Commonwealth projects itself as an association of members that are equal in status and not subordinate to anyone, then placing the Coat of Arms above other countries appears to contradict that projection.

While there is nothing wrong in using a Mace at Commonwealth events, it is inappropriate to surmount the Royal Coat of Arms of a specific country on a mace especially if it used at a multilateral meeting involving the Heads of States of several nations. This presupposes subordination of the leaders of these Commonwealth countries and by extension their citizens to Britain.

We recommend, for the sake of equity, the removal of the Royal Coat of Arms from the Mace. If however, it has to be included, we suggest that it should not be surmounted on the Mace.

Head of the Commonwealth

Like other symbols of the Commonwealth, which often revolve around Britain, the current Headship of the Commonwealth is also linked to Britain. The Head of the Commonwealth is presently the Queen of Britain, who took over this role from her father, King George VI. Although the Headship of the Commonwealth is not vested in the British Monarch, but rather in the person of the British Monarch, it is difficult to divorce the personality of royalty from the position of royalty. Furthermore, by making the British Crown the symbol of the free association of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth once again creates the impression of an association that has been set up to prolong Britain’s influence over its former colonies.

We acknowledge the role the Queen has played in the Commonwealth.  We also appreciate the effort she has put into increasing the profile of the Commonwealth. While we support that she continues her role as the Head of the Commonwealth, we advocate that the constitution of the association should be changed to ensure that after the Queen’s tenure, the role of Head of the Commonwealth is abolished. This will help the Commonwealth to be true to its creed that all members are equal in status and not subordinate to one another. Adhering to this recommendation could help the Commonwealth to be less Anglophile.

Formal Public Apology:

It has been several decades since many of the Commonwealth countries gained independence from Britain. However, despite the injustice, ill treatment and losses suffered by the colonies as a result of British Colonial rule, Britain is yet to issue a formal apology. Why is there a need for Britain to apologise for its colonial occupation? Wouldn’t the colonised people have been worse off if they were not colonised? Is a public apology needed for an event that occurred many decades or centuries ago? An apology is necessary for the following reasons, which are highlighted below:

  • Colonialism resulted in the break up of a number of large united territories into non-viable countries. Furthermore, societies that lived in perfect harmony were destroyed. In areas such as Africa and Asia, colonialism resulted in the Balkanization of the continent. Territories that shared similar cultures were divided and areas with different cultures were joined together. In addition, British Colonial rule resulted in a number of boundary disputes, some of which are still lingering today in areas such as Kashmir, Iraq, Bakassi etc.
  • British colonial rule involved the exploitation of the human, natural and economic resources of the colonies. This often resulted in the extraction of raw materials at cheap prices and the use of cheap labour. The exploitation of these resources sowed the seeds for poverty in a number of African and Asian countries that constitute the Commonwealth.
  • A key tool used by British colonial administrators to control their subjects was the use of psychological and physical torture. The people of the colonies were made to feel inferior and worthless. Communities had to face the twin tools of discrimination and terror in order to submit to the colonial administration.

Below is an extract from a comment made by Lord Luguard, the Governor General of Nigeria regarding the people he colonised:

“…..In character and temperament, the typical African of this race-type is a happy, thriftless, excitable person. …….. His thoughts are concentrated on the events and feelings of the moment, and he suffers little from the apprehension for the future, or grief for the past. His mind is far nearer to the animal world than that of the European or Asiatic, and exhibits something of the animals’ placidity and want of desire to rise beyond the State he has reached…. Perhaps the two traits, which have impressed me as those most characteristic of the African native, are his lack of apprehension and his lack of ability to visualise the future.”

The above statement is a sample of how the natives were viewed in the eyes of the colonial administrators. When the colonial administrators got back to their base, they relayed these prejudiced views to their friends, family and colleagues. Some of these bigoted views are still held today by some of the descendants of the colonial administrators.

In recent years, extracts from Lord Luguard’s statement have been circulating in a number of African blogs and the statement made over eighty years ago still haunts the descendants of the colonised.

Another example of the catastrophic impact of British colonial rule is the tragic story of Barack Obama’s paternal grandfather Hussein Onyango Obama. Onyango Obama worked as a cook for a British Colonial officer. At some point in time, he was accused of involvement in the Mau Mau rebellion against British Colonial rule. As a result he was relieved of his duties and arrested. In a bid to extract information about the Mau Mau movement, the Colonial soldiers tortured him. After spending two years in prison, Barack’s grandfather was released, but at the time of his release he was not only physically scarred, but he was also mentally drained. The once confident Hussein never recovered from his ordeal and up to the time of his death, he harbored a deep resentment against British colonial rule. Could Onyango’s treatment in the hands of the British Colonial authorities be a contributory factor to Barack Obama’s returning the sculpture of Winston Churchill back to Britain? Could Onyango’s treatment in the hands of the British Colonial authorities be a contributory factor to Barack Obama’s alleged lukewarm attitude towards the British political hierarchy?

For those that argue that a public apology is unnecessary since colonialism brought some advantages to the colonised, we would like to quote the Suzanna Arundhati Roy comment “debating imperialism is a bit like debating the pros and cons of rape”.

Considering the above, a public apology for the wrongs of British colonialism would be a step in the right direction. We suggest that the British Prime Minister moves a motion in the Houses of Parliament to apologise for the mistreatment accorded to the colonies during the British Empire. Once the motion has been moved, the Prime Minister or the Queen should issue a public apology to the people of the Commonwealth for the past misdeeds of British colonial rule.

A public apology will not be a new thing as there are historical precedents. For instance, in February 2008, the Australian government issued a formal public apology for the suffering inflicted on the indigenous Aboriginal population. In 2000, the German President Johannes Rau apologised to the Israeli Parliament for the Holocaust. Furthermore, in June 2002, the New Zealand Prime Minister issued a formal apology to the people of Samoa for the injustices they suffered at the hands of New Zealand’s colonial administration.

For the Commonwealth to be truly united, it is necessary for the “mother country”, which links members of this association to issue a formal public apology for its colonial past.

Education

As a follow up to the point mentioned in the previous section, it is imperative for citizens within the Commonwealth to be educated on the complete and true picture of colonialism. In any form of colonialism, two distinct groups exist namely the Coloniser and the Colonised. With regards to the Commonwealth, the Coloniser Group comprises of Great Britain and the Colonised Group comprises the other countries that form the Commonwealth.

Within the Commonwealth, there appears to be an asymmetric knowledge by a large section of the Coloniser group about the impact of British colonial rule (some of which we have discussed in the previous section) on the colonised. Consequently, they often ignore or play down the effects of colonialism due to this lack of education. Rather, they sometimes derive pride in Britain’s ability to colonise and control people from different parts of the world. This asymmetric knowledge occasionally leads to tension when the two groups interact either at official or unofficial levels as the Coloniser group are sometimes accused of being insensitive to the harm caused as a result of colonialism and being dismissive of the culture of the colonised.

Since the Commonwealth involves interactions between these two groups, it is necessary that each party understands colonialism from the others perspective. As people within the colonised group are usually more knowledgeable about the impact of British rule, we suggest that the British school curriculum be expanded to enable young students to understand British colonial rule from the perspective of the colonised. Furthermore, British students should learn about the rich culture, heritage and kingdoms of the colonised people that once existed before it was overrun by the British Empire. This will go a long way in creating a more conducive avenue for constructive dialogue and harmony within the Commonwealth.

Commonwealth Secretariat

The permanent Secretariat of the Commonwealth is situated at Marlborough House in London. Since the establishment of the Commonwealth, the Secretariat has always been located in Britain. Considering the history of the events culminating in the creation of the Commonwealth, it is important that the structure of the body is not centred around the United Kingdom as this easily provides ammunition to critics to tag the body as a post colonial voluntary organisation. We recommend that the Secretariat of the Commonwealth be relocated to another member state.

Dialogue

There is a perception among people within a number of New Commonwealth countries that the Commonwealth has been used as a forum for rich members to impose their opinions, culture and influence on the poorer countries. For this perception to be reduced, it is necessary for there to be a two-way dialogue in which the rich members are willing to listen to and act on the advice coming from the poorer nations within the Commonwealth and vice versa. Historically, a lot of the discussions at Commonwealth summits have centred on democratic reforms and human rights, issues which are often in short supply in poorer countries. We advocate that in addition to these issues, there should also be additional emphasis of bridging the economic disparities existing among its members by removing subsidies and reducing tariffs.

Conclusion

We would like to clarify what we are saying and what we are not saying regarding the reformation of the Commonwealth.

We are not saying that the Commonwealth should be dissolved. We are not saying that the Commonwealth has nothing positive to offer. After all, the association has been an advocate for human rights, good governance and democratic reforms in addition to providing developmental assistance to member countries.

What then are we saying? We are saying that the Commonwealth needs to be reformed, restructured and rebalanced to make it more like a 21st century multilateral agency rather than a 19th century relic. We are saying that the Commonwealth needs to heal the wounds of the past at the same time as it addresses the challenges of the future. We are saying that the Commonwealth should be less Anglophonic and more Globalphonic.

On a final note, restructuring the Commonwealth to make it more relevant in a post colonial world will go a long way in reconciling the two conflicting quotes made by Edward Burke and Robert Mugabe.

Your fellow citizens of the Commonwealth

Ahmed Sule, CFA

suleaos@gmail.com

Kojo Solomon

kojosolomon@gmail.com

NB: See Appendix A for the list of other people and institutions copied

Appendix A

We have copied the following individuals and institutions:

President  Ernest Bai Koroma
Prime Minister  Ralph Gonsalves
Her Majesty The Queen Elizabeth II
President  Anote Tong
President  Armando Guebuza
President  Asif Ali Zardari
President  Bharrat Jagdeo
President  Bingu wa Mutharika
President  Dimitris Christofias
President  Ian Khama
President  Jacob Zuma
President  Jakaya Kikwete
President  James Michel
President  John Atta Mills
President Jonathan Goodluck
President  Mahinda Rajapaksa
President Marcus Stephen
President  Mohamed Nasheed
President  Mwai Kibaki
President Paul Biya
President  Rupiah Banda
President  Yahya Jammeh
President  Yoweri Museveni
Prime Minister  Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
Prime Minister Apisai Ielemia
Prime Minister  Baldwin Spencer
Prime Minister  Barnabas Sibusiso Dlamini
Prime Minister  Bruce Golding
Prime Minister  David Thompson
Prime Minister  Dean Barrow
Prime Minister  Denzil Douglas
Prime Minister  Derek Sikua
Prime Minister  Edward Natapei
Prime Minister  Feleti Sevele
Prime Minister  Frank Bainimarama
Prime Minister  David Cameron
Prime Minister  Hubert Ingraham
Prime Minister  John Key
Prime Minister  Kevin Rudd
Prime Minister  Pakalitha Mosisili
Prime Minister  Patrick Manning
Prime Minister Robert Mugabe
Prime Minister  Roosevelt Skerrit
Prime Minister  Sheikh Hasina
Prime Minister  Stephen Harper
Prime Minister  Stephenson King
Prime Minister  Tillman Thomas
Prime Minister  Tuila’epa Sailele Malielegaoi
Prime Minister  Navinchandra Ramgoolam
Prime Minister  Manmohan Singh
Prime Minister  Michael Somare
Prime Minister  Nahas Angula
President Barack Obama
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
The Prince of Wales
Professor Wole Shoyinka
Commonwealth Youth Movement
The Royal Commonwealth Society
Citizens of the Commonwealth
Rt. Hon Nick Clegg

The Institute of Commonwealth Studies
1 Comment
by Ahmed Olayinka Sule on May 12, 2010  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Ahmed Olayinka Sule on May 12, 2010

https://zangodare.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/commonwealth/