We need to talk about immigration. In modern Britain, the criticism of religions and the public defences of immigration tend to coincide. Equally, the discussions of immigration tend to occur when religious cultures have achieved a tense climax in their historical trajectories. However, many seem to neglect the case that debates concerned with religious divisions are irrevocably bound to the necessary debate over immigration vis-à-vis nationhood. Given our defences of a freedom of opinion on religious matters, it now seems that we must also confront a similar freedom of opinion on immigration. That old ghost of the holocaustal European conscience – immigration – must be opened to free debate without religious minority groups warning of Nazis or other pathetic antiquated reports on extremely unlikely events. That discussion on immigration, religious culture and nationhood is absolutely essential if we are to begin discussing them sensibly.

More often that not, it is immigration-focused individuals, organisations and parties such as the BNP whose views on religion are suppressed by religious and racial hatred legislation and the forceful lobbying of religious minority groups. Although I do not vote for the BNP, I listen carefully because I value their voice among the squawking democratic cacophony of voices. Neither does their opposition offer guidance towards reasonable policy. The opposing groups of these voices include the Muslim Council of Britain – a club of repressive Brit-dwelling radical Muslims bathing in a pool of democratic rights that they do not understand. The publicly useful discussions of immigration in the UK have a long way to go if we are to all participate in them seriously. At present, they are nothing more than slagging matches.

During his reign, Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP caused public outrage over his verbal attacks on Islam. After criticizing Islam as a “vicious wicked faith” in an undercover BBC documentary in January 2004, Griffin and party activist, Mark Collett were brought to court over charges of inciting racial hatred. To my knowledge, they have been acquitted of those charges on the grounds that they were merely expressing their repulsiveness at a religious faith. Indeed, there is no crime in that. The only potential crime that might arise would be if the activists were to express themselves on particular cases of action and direct physical consequences were to ensue – then it is likely there would be a worthwhile case for prosecution. Yet, dare we admit it: Nick Griffin and the campaign of the BNP have forced the public to face the matter of immigration seriously.

Why is it that we cannot talk about it? Why can we not talk of this one thing – the one issue that might better our understanding of one another’s and our own culture, what precisely “we” might stand for, and how citizens under the protection of the nation-state might best be governed? Immigration: British politicians certainly don’t mention it for fear of losing their seat in a constituency, loss of reputation or in the worse cases, the fear of losing their lives. The fact that we are unable to discuss the issue of immigration is perhaps one of the most troubling anxieties that the European conscience seems destined to not overcome.

By the end of July, MP for Birkenhead, Frank Field had effectively called for “an end to mass immigration”. Field cannot be brushed off as a leader of parochial village-like Britain – he is a spokesperson for the most sincere brand of the nation’s global awareness. The point is clear: the current levels of immigration are simply unsustainable. “Why is the Government blindly leading the country to a disaster that will result if this open-door policy continues? The most charitable view is that it has no idea of the erupting scale of the movement of people” he declared. Frank Field represents a new Britain – a Britain enjoying the fruits of globalized political culture of the twenty-first century but whose citizens, bulldozed by ill-considered immigration policies, have been made to feel homeless in their own homes. In all reality, the MP for Birkenhead has recognised nothing beyond the traditional awareness of the average woman or man on the streets of Britain – yet, like only a few others in post-war parliamentary history, he has testified in his deepest conviction to this appalling issue and address why the voters may end up voting for a modified BNP if the Labour and Conservative Parties refuse to address such an obstacle. It is the defining issue confronting the nation following the recent enlargement of the EU into the former Soviet territories of Eastern Europe. The immigration problem can no longer be ignored. It needs to be confronted.

The freedom to speak about, write and print ideas is a fundamental freedom of a modern liberal society. On 14 June 1643, the Lords and Commons of Parliament had issued an order calling for the necessary licensing and regulation of printing. Foremost, it demanded that no literature “shall from henceforth be printed or put to sale, unless the same be first approved of and licensed by such person or persons as both or either of the said Houses shall appoint for the licensing of the same.” Parliament wished to control all printing of literature, specifically with regards to varied religious doctrines and critiques. The following year in 1644, John Milton published his critique, Areopagitica: A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing, without a license. In this text, he opposed this censorship by arguing that “Who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God’s image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself…”. He held that the inner-dynamics of individual learning depend upon the capacity of individuals to weigh up bad doctrines against good, truthful against the seditious, the Christian belief in the Trinity against the claims of schisms and sects. Through his assessment, professing the necessity of printed books, Milton’s Areopagitica became one of the original classic defences clarifying the liberty of the published expression. I mention this case because the liberty of religious expression shares much in common, and almost equates with the liberty of expression on immigration concerns.

Immigration is an unavoidable centrepiece in the effective governance of any human society – liberal or illiberal. Therefore, a working principle of any liberal society is that its people and governors are able to speak freely on the redistribution of resources whereby each reasonable individual is able to consider herself in a variety of social arrangements following a hypothetically reasoned plan of redistribution. If we cannot talk of this basic issue – which inevitably includes discussing the redistribution of people – then there is nothing left in a basic political society of citizens that can be worth talking about. To crudely cast off a public debate on the redistribution of individuals as “right wing” or “racist” should no longer be an option. Excessive human rights legislation coupled with a New Labour tendency to misinform and extensively disseminate this misinformation, has pushed immigration so far to the back of the public agenda that even when it became essential to talk of it, it has easily been buried or diverted. Thus, in post-war Britain, Labour continues to set the voting agenda against immigration and quietly, its “opposing” crowd-pleasing Conservative Party, led by David Cameron, agrees to steer the agenda clear from any standpoint on immigration.

The dilemma is clear: the very simple defences of English liberties are not getting through. It has become evident that the current New Labour government will readily impose and strengthen human rights legislation in support of religious minority groups at the cost of suppressing the fundamental personal freedoms of all. Its tendency to undermine the personal freedom of individuals – such as the freedom of expression – is an essential shortcoming of its underlying “Third Way” European political philosophy. In July 2005, it proved its tragically socialist-interventionist outlook when it attempted to rush the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill through Parliament, to meet the requests of the Muslim population in the UK. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 made it an offence in England and Wales to incite hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. The greatest fear in forcing through the bill through parliament was the limitations it would impose upon comedians, writers, journalists and everyday people to express themselves on religious matters. Accordingly, in October 2005, the House of Lords suggested two amendments to the bill which would still continue to protect the freedom of expression on religion. The Labour government opposed the amendments, attempting to push the bill forward in its original form. With overwhelming opposition to New Labour, the bill was only later accepted and given royal assent after being “watered down” by the Lords’ amendments. Had the bill not been amended by the Lords in late 2005 and opposed so heavily in the Commons in early 2006, New Labour would have pushed the bill through in its restrictive form, threatening the freedom of expression with regards to religious convention. In the completed Act, the strategic opposition to the current government’s position paid off.

The 2006 Act will, thanks to its critics, now ensure the protection of the freedom of expression: “Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs of practices, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”
 
The ignorance of the Labour government over immigration issues, and the freedom to speak of them, is now blatantly obvious. The former Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, had already been sacked from his job earlier in the year following his inability to track and record the flow of over 1,000 immigrant criminals, let alone consider their suitability for deportation. Worse still, the Head of Removals at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, David Roberts, informed a parliamentary committee that he had not “the faintest idea” of how many illegal immigrants there were in the UK. John Reid is doing nothing more than surviving his role as Home Secretary but the bets are already on – he’ll be gone by the end of the year.

The UK immigration system that the Countess of Mar referred to, in late July, as “one horrible mess” should not simply be understood its administrative department – she should have spoken too about the entire suppression of speaking freely about immigration issues. On the immigration system, she saw how the current Home Secretary, John Reid, will simply continue to perpetuate the problem – the problem being, as the Countess suggested: “A whole industry […] built up with false papers, false passports, false stories and a whole lot of legal people who are bleeding the taxpayers really.” The Home Office has proved its complete incapability by not recording any worthwhile longitudinal or cross-sectional data on illegal immigrants located in the UK – I can write this without any fear of libel since it is now a widespread fact that the “essential” figures do not exist. Until that predicament of persistently avoiding immigration is resolved, no reform or abolition of the currently deteriorating system can be achieved. That is, until the electorate call for a change on the issue, no change will be due.

As the former controversial Conservative Member of Parliament, John Enoch Powell warned in his opinions on immigration, our nation is very much underpinned by religious culture. As we witness the enforced programmes of multiculturalism(s) and secularism(s) imposed upon modern society, it will continue to be the case that religious principles – whether we choose them or not – will continue to underpin the state. In 1974, Powell wrote of the English “For us alone, the identity of a nation and Church survives in the symbolism of historical forces, and the link between spiritual and secular sovereignty is still, despite everything, a living reality.” The British people must be assured by their government of the freedom of expression on religious matters since a defence of state, values and even the economy are intrinsically a simultaneous defence of religious culture – a culture which, voluntarily or involuntarily, the country continues to stand. It is this religious culture which underpins the understanding of immigration policy. It is obvious that we can liken our deep hatred of talking about immigration to other European experiences.

For example, the Belgian political party, Vlaams Belang (VB, English: Flemish Interest) is the best example we have in Europe in which the people themselves have voted for a tighter control over immigration yet their power is overtly suppressed. The VB supports the independence of Flanders from the poorer French-speaking areas of Belgium, restricted controls over immigration and opts for a package of free market policy options. With its foremost concern being Flemish independence, the party’s manifesto ensures that it “aims to ensure that the organisation and government of the state are (co-)determined by the need to preserve the cultural identity and the national interests of the Flemish people.” The VB was established in 2004, shortly after the Belgian High Court declared the Vlaams Blok (English: Flemish Block) illegal. The members of the party immediately reassembled and in the municipal Belgian elections in October 2006 are due to become the largest political party in Belgium. However, this is no clear case. For quite some time, the other Belgian parties have effectively formed a pact – known as the cordon sanitaire – which blocked the Vlaams Blok from a power-share in the coalition government on the grounds of morally unsound policies. It remains debated as to whether the cordon sanitaire will continue to block the path of the Vlaams Belang as it strides towards a power share in the coalition. However, one political process is certain – the absolute disgust at the position of the VB has once again brought to the surface that European desire to suppress those people who hope to confront the very issue of immigration.

In late June 2006, the British philosopher, Roger Scruton adequately evaluated this suppression of the VB party, whose members are often celebrated for their courage to freely speak about immigration

“…the opponents of the Vlaams Belang do not wish merely to defeat it in fair and free elections, but to destroy it as a political force. And because they cannot destroy it by democratic means, since it has the habit of receiving the largest number of votes in Parliamentary elections, they wish instead to destroy it through the courts, and to silence and intimidate those who might otherwise confer legitimacy on its efforts.”

Searching only for an assortment of liberal centre-left political parties, the Belgian leviathan cannot withstand the discussion of immigration. That is to argue, it is unable to confront its own people on a fundamental issue – the constitutive citizens that make its entire society function effectively.

The inconceivable disgust that many have brought to the discussions initiated by the VB might be seen as akin to the hatred that some in Britain had for the Tory Member of Parliament, Enoch Powell. Like Powell, the VB has brought to the political arena many compelling issues on immigration control; issues which are instantly subverted in the most barbaric, undemocratic pool of visceral hatred. Some may remember that on 20 April 1968, Enoch Powell delivered the ‘Rivers of Blood speech’ to the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre. Faced with the battle of impoverished race relations in his constituency, Powell offered a simple but devastating vision of modern Britain: “As I look ahead I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood.’” Representing his constituents in Wolverhampton, he told of how many citizens were truthfully overwhelmed by the extent of immigration. The emerging pattern of immigration was exceeding all national expectations:

“Those whom the gods wish to destroy they, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation, to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.”

Powell’s message was clear. His own Conservative shadow cabinet members abandoned him for the speech. Conservative leader, Ted Heath, sacked Powell within days. Among the few people who openly supported Powell were the members of his own constituency party in Wolverhampton – those who knew that he had the courage to express not only the true facts about immigration but the romantic articulation to express what the rest of modern Britain had been thinking for quite some time. As it turned out, upon reflection, many admitted that Powell had in fact spoken for a large part of Britain when he delivered the Birmingham speech. Powell’s speech was just one of those first reminders that every individual is free to speak about immigration – and the more we talk about it, the better we might understand one another.

It seems necessary in a modern Britain that the people and its governors should be free to speak on the redistribution of resources, a situation in which each reasonable individual is able to consider herself in a variety of economic arrangements following a hypothetically reasoned plan of redistribution. If we can no longer discuss the redistribution of people existing within the cohesive structure of “a nation”, there is very little left of a “Britain” to discuss. Meanwhile, like Powell, I feel compelled to continue my role as a citizen of a Labour government: to continue to watch this nation busily engage in heaping up its own funeral pyre.