Racist rant or signs of the times...

For the sake of political correctness, one must start by saying that obviously this behaviour is no longer acceptable in public, and probably soon not allowable even in private!

The following video has GRAPHIC CONTENT in that it shows a woman who looks to be drunk, pouring abuse at the fellow travellers on her train.

What she out pours is possibly something that has been felt by any native member of a society that has been swamped by foreigners.

The sense that they have lost all control over their country and are now subjected to minority concerns over and above their own needs and aspirations.

The woman concerned was identified and arrested, and as the law stands that was correct, she did transgress boundaries that are now disallowed and illegal.

But the fact remains that I suspect the vast majority of working class English citizens have these thoughts in their heads, especially if they live in a major city, where the immigrant population are more predominant and visible.

That is something that legislation can never deal with, the inherent animosity that an indigenous population feel when they perceive that their country has been 'occupied' by 'alien' (to them) groups or invaders (as they are seen to be).

The woman was undoubtedly fortunate not to have been assaulted or killed, when this video would have formed part of the evidence that would be used in trial over her assailant.

Would the assailant have been found guilty or not?

Was this woman's rant sufficiently abrasive to warrant her death had just ONE knife wielding opponent been on that train?

Thankfully we will never know as she survived the incident, but we do know that getting drunk and speaking your mind is no longer possible in England.

Free speech is no longer possible, we have now curtailed the right to speak freely, no matter how offensive what we say may be seen to be by others.

I am sad about that.

It means that the populace will bottle up those thoughts no longer permitted to be spoken, and that at some point in time, possibly very soon, those thoughts could become collective action, not just words spoken in anger and regretted later when reason returned.

The society we have created these last 50 years in the UK is a volatile mix of ethnic groups who unfortunately have in many cases been encouraged to retain their ethnic identity and not required to assimilate into the culture and traditions of their host country.

Whilst there is no need for immigrants to forsake their ethnic identity, religions and traditions, there should be a need for those same immigrants to at least respect the host countries culture, religious beliefs and traditions.

Racial harmony, if that is truly possible, can only survive when we accept that being a resident in a country other than that of our birth is a privilege, not to be abused by demanding that our host country changes to meet our requirements.

I have lived 'abroad' for 26 years out of my 60 years alive, and respect that in Spain, where I first was allowed to live, and in Malaysia, where I currently reside, the native indigenous population hold the rights, and I hold privileges extended by those people.

Maybe the UK needs to reappraise their social policies regarding both free speech and the rights of immigrants before the English people rise up to deal with what they see as a problem for themselves.

Better to have open discussion and even heated arguments in the streets, than bloodshed.

BTW it looks like the video has been removed from this hub, not sure whose censorship that was/is, but it is censorship, you can find the rant, if you wish, by Googling:

Racist British Woman on the Tram - Full Video!!

Unless and until they also censor that.

Tolerance, so much demanded, needs also to be shown by those who demand it.

The Rant

Immigration

What rights should immigrants hold in a host country?

  • Full rights equal to those native born?
  • Limited rights according to their length of residency?
  • No absolute rights until they become citizens of that country?
See results without voting

More by this Author


Comments 35 comments

aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 4 years ago from Malaga, Spain Author

Hi Aribahdencheefukr, certainly is illegal in the UK to call anybody anything and yes you would get arrested.


Aribahdencheefukr 4 years ago

In regards, to some on here claiming it is "illegal" in the U.S. to be publicly "racist", is in fact very untrue. A black man can legally call a white man a "cracker" just as any other race can demean another. Aside from its negativity in morality, it does not hold a judicial "Charge".


aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 4 years ago from Malaga, Spain Author

Hi DoItForHer,

Thanks for the comment.

"I'm not saying to let it go as she was way out of line; she needs to be accountable for her crime. But perhaps addressing a possible underlying problem, a problematic core-issue, could do more to correct the problem than simply jailing her or kicking her butt."

I don't think she was a junkie, I suspect she was drunk, and that drink released her 'inner' feelings, and as she was/is obviously ill educated (not unusual in working class families) she let rip with what she was frustrated about, the "underlying problem, a problematic core-issue".

Working class, indigenous Brits do perceive uncontrolled immigration to be the "underlying problem, a problematic core-issue" as the UK is minute compared to the USA in it's ability to absorb migrant workers.

In other words the woman felt like a dispossessed minority in 'her own' country, and maybe it was the constant exposure to the multitude of nationalities present on any London tube that spurred her outburst?

To we 'civilized' people this of course is no excuse, but to a working class, low educated, possibly unemployed single mother, it was sufficient to trigger a response that was 'inappropriate' in our politically correct world.

Where I live, (Penang, Malaysia) we have a new funicular railway that takes up up Penang Hill, a beautiful (cool) destination. For indigenous Malay citizens the cost is 8 ringgit, for non locals (i.e. anyone not holding Malay citizenship) it is 30 ringgit.

The Malay's see no discrimination in this, and lets face it, as a 'foreigner' my income dwarfs the local populations, so comparatively speaking the 'cost' is probably less for me than for a Malay.

But the Malay feels 'protected' and 'privileged' by this discrepancy in their favour, and can also afford to use the service, which they could probably not if it were 30 ringgit for everyone.

Of course were we to attempt to introduce a discretionary structure in the 'civilised' world, based upon indigenous birth,the liberal left would scream blue murder.

My fear, stated many times, is that by ignoring and attempting to suppress the resentment that working class English folk feel, they will start a chain reaction of unrest that will be difficult to stop.

The English rarely rise up in arms against a perceived threat, but when they do the 'bulldog spirit' accompanies the uprising.


DoItForHer 4 years ago

Considering what could have happened if the woman was assaulted, you asked, "Would the assailant have been found guilty or not?" I am not familiar with UK laws as I am from the US, but would like to answer the question as I feel there is likely some correlation with UK laws.

The lady was doing something that would be considered criminal in the US. We cannot verbally abuse someone in that manner, especially on a transit system.

Using physical violence to stop her would be excessive force; using lethal force would be even worse. The assailant would most likely be found guilty, but how guilty?

The length of the prison sentence of the would-be assailant would be tempered by being antagonized by the woman. If one were to stab someone for no reason, then the a longer prison term becomes more likely.

Instigating or antagonizing a situation like that gets legal consideration. If I were to stand in front of an African-American and say, "I hate you blacks," then when I get popped in the face, I can expect to go to jail right along with my new friend. Or there is a good chance that they would simply let both of us go admonishing us to act a little better. In either case, I would get little pity from a judge or a cop for my illegal, instigating behavior.

Also would like to point out that the woman most likely has some psychological problems. Or maybe she is an addict who is losing it. Something like that. The first thing I thought was, "This woman is ill and needs help," not, "Oh, what a racist!" For her to say that stuff in front of a bunch of minorities, in front of a camera, and especially in front of her child, is abnormal even for a hardcore racist. (She most likely knew about the likelihood of being caught on video -cameras are everywhere- especially in the UK. They are especially prevalent on transit systems in the US, and our transit systems have signs that post that cameras are in use. I would be surprised if it was much different in the UK.)

I'm not saying to let it go as she was way out of line; she needs to be accountable for her crime. But perhaps addressing a possible underlying problem, a problematic core-issue, could do more to correct the problem than simply jailing her or kicking her butt.


aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 4 years ago from Malaga, Spain Author

Hi ElderYoungMan and AM, thank you those are spot on brilliant observations and reading the comments made to date, people are seeing what is happening.

ElderYoungMan, one observation, you refer to 'black faces' but from a short recent trip, I would say that in general the British have grown familiar and accepted 'black' (and brown) folks into their culture, and apart from the Yardies and dispossessed black youth, it seems the 'black' community has assimilated well, I saw that the real (perceived) threat now comes from Eastern Europeans, but as I say, my trip was short so that is just a 'snapshot' of what I saw.

Yes the 'Empire' has now reached a state of collapse and is passing (as all empires do) and the consequences are being felt.

But empires are merely Gods way of reaching the world also, and the Brits did some good things as they looted the world, one being that the empire opened up the world to missionary outreach.

Ironically it is the former 'black' colonial subjects who are now evangelising the UK.

God has a sense of humour!


ElderYoungMan profile image

ElderYoungMan 4 years ago from Worldwide

I guess this lady would really be pissed off if she were an African in Africa. The bottom line here is that she doesn't really understand the depth of her "British" history. At the height of it's imperial occupation of the world, all of the dark folks had no rights and were primarily cattle for the Euro-empires. It isn't so much that the dark folks have taken over. The real problem is that this current kingdom is in decline (God deals with an empire's currency first, then its people). This lady thinks that the decline in her own living circumstances has something to do with all of the dark folks and that's funny. The bad news is that you can expect more of this unrest as this thing plays out. The kingdom of Iron is finished (Daniel). Next is Iron and Clay, which won't mix and hold together.


A M Werner profile image

A M Werner 4 years ago from West Allis

John, you have the "perfect" Christian attitude I believe all Christians are called to have. While some are called to experience the transient life and do what you are doing, others are set in one place or another to do what they must - but in Christ, the stationary ones have to know that just being there doesn't give them special rights to occupy the space. It points directly to Luke 9:27-28. If we tell Christ we are going to follow Him, we have to accept the fact that He has no land here on earth, thus, neither will we. I'm not saying it would be easy to accept someone coming in and rooting us up as a family or people but history is filled with these moments on every corner of the map. No place or people have not experienced it. If our attitude is already right with the Lord before the uprooting begins, then where the Spirit takes us from there should not be frightful. I hope that made sense. You are correct, geographically and in worldly terms, mankind is going to fight over this stuff and find reasons to push, swindle, and take what they want. I just believe in Christ, we have to know that nowhere on earth is really safe from this fraud and greed despite the rules and system of justice set up. The rules are really just an illusion of a peace, when there is no peace.


aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 4 years ago from Malaga, Spain Author

Hi AM. thanks for posting your comment, always welcome.

I take your point:

"...the idea that someone or some group of people have a special right to some piece of land. I truly hate that concept myself. I don't have the experiences you have for the Lord has seen fit to keep me in the same area of my birth nearly all my life."

However, this is a two edged sword, for denying that any 'group of people have a special right to some piece of land' makes Gods promises to Israel redundant, but that is a separate matter.

The real question is, if a large number of people who did not share your values or traditions, and wanted to NOT assimilate into your culture, but instead expected YOU to move aside and accept their cultures, moved into the town where you were born, would you be content to allow those changes to your life to take place, and allow them to displace you from your 'piece of land' that your family may have 'occupied' for generations?

I own no land, claim no land and have no desire to do more than live wherever God sends me to do so.

I accept all people as I find them, make no demands that they change, and in my current location, accept that I may not explain my faith in Christ UNLESS a Muslim asks me to do so.

I am a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven, currently relocated to planet earth, born into the UK, relocated to Spain for 25 years (by choice) but a denizen of (currently) Malaysia and ready to go where God sends us, or return home as soon as I am called.

Not everyone understands their geographic location in spiritual terms I agree, but land and territory will ALWAYS be an issue in world terms.


A M Werner profile image

A M Werner 4 years ago from West Allis

John, that is one powerful video and I can see it has generated a lot of talk but I think the single most powerful moment for me came in the middle of the video. The incident caught my eye right away, and I have to admit, brought on a tear. This world is a battlefield and a person that doesn't want to see it that way, doesn't seem to belong anywhere in it. There are all these determinations of where lines are drawn and where rules start and end, and all of those lines were drawn with the same hateful violence that poor woman was spewing - the idea that someone or some group of people have a special right to some piece of land. I truly hate that concept myself. I don't have the experiences you have for the Lord has seen fit to keep me in the same area of my birth nearly all my life. But midway through the video there was one heroic scene which made it all make sense, and should be the truth we all strive to attain. The young man seated behind the heated woman was upset and wanted to get up and get involved. Out of nowhere, another young woman came to him and started hugging him, calming him down - a peacemaker. Despite all the things being said, I think that hug and act of peacemaking said more than anybody else. Peace


aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 4 years ago from Malaga, Spain Author

Hi christiansister, I agree, but scripture tells us that what we aspire to will only happen AFTER Christ has returned and dealt with the enemy for the final time.

So it will happen, and we will see it, but not whilst we walk this earth before Christ returns.


christiansister profile image

christiansister 4 years ago

I believe that we are citizens of the world and that governments and rules of governments have been taken over by the power hungry and manipulative.

We should see all humans as our brothers and sisters and we should strive to be kind and loving to all our brothers and sisters everywhere.

With that being said, I am not disillusioned enough to think that this ideaology can exsist in this world that we live. But, it is my beautiful hope that one day it will be reality.

With much love and many prayers of peace to all people.


aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 4 years ago from Malaga, Spain Author

Hi feenix, My son works with 320 young people from all over the world and America who give their time to help the street kids, I feel blessed that he chose to go into full time ministry, especially as prior to coming to faith he was a druggie and on the wrong tracks, he's off to India later this month to train others and now has three years in the ministry, hopefully in March I will get over to NYC to spend some time with him!

Thanks for coming back.

John


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Hello, aguasilver,

Thank you for your generous comment.

And I am very grateful to your son for the work he is doing here in NYC. More people like him are really needed in this city.


aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 4 years ago from Malaga, Spain Author

Hi feenix, thanks for commenting, and you are correct, it's not what we look like or which 'tribe' we come from, it's the sense of belonging,loving and respecting a country that defines who belongs, and who is the 'invader'.

I have lived outside of my birth country for over 25 years, and always seek to assimilate with the country I am a denizen of.

It's a privilege, not a right to reside in someone else's country.

Glad you dropped by, and look forward to reading your work.

John

PS. My Son (British passport, born and raised in Spain, more Spanish than English) lives and works in NYC, lives in Flatbush and works with Metro Ministries...


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Hello, aguasilver,

This is a useful, awesome, interesting and thought-provoking article.

And quite frankly, the "racist white woman" on the tram captured my heart. I completely understand the reasons why she is so angry and frustrated. It is a hell of a thing when your country starts looking like a foreign country.

Now, I am saying all that and I am a black man in America. However, as is the case with the vast majority of American blacks, my roots in this country go all the way back to the Mayflower and before. I did not migrate to the U.S., nor did any of my ancestors, going back several-hundred years.

In fact, if being American were based on who has the deepest roots in this country, I am more American than many, if not most, of the whites in the U.S. are.

However, at this point in time, millions-upon-millions of "foreigners" are pouring into the U.S. and turning my beautiful country into a place that I hardly recognize.

Thus, I am just as angry as that woman of the tram was.


AntonOfTheNorth profile image

AntonOfTheNorth 4 years ago from The Land Up Over

Hey Aquasilver,

Just to answer your questions (in as much as I can)

"...as a Brit, can I just immigrate to your country?"

You can immigrate here, though I've heard varying stories about how easy it is. Everything from no issues at all to a nightmare. The current government has been accused of being paranoid by the left, but has many of the same concerns I see in your hub. Britain is easier than some only because we share a monarch and a similar educational standard, not to mention significant historical/cultural connections. It is easier, for example for someone from England to demonstrate their employment qualifications than it is for someone from Indonesia.

"I have a Sikh Indian friend here who lived in Canada for 4 years until he needed to renew his passport, and had to return to Malaysia, how easy is it for him to gain readmission?"

Of course, this depends on his activities while here, and also on his employability as most of Canada is still feeling the economic effects of the downturn. Provided he was employed for the four years, or has family and hasn't been on the wrong end of any laws, I wouldn't think it would be difficult. I have heard of individuals having difficulty if they were here on temporary work permits getting those renewed, but well . . .

"My uncle immigrated to Toronto after WW2 and lived in Canada for the rest of his life, does that give me any benefits in relocating there?"

My understanding is that having living family here would be useful. I'm not sure if they define that as immediate or extended, and I'm fairly certain that, if he is no longer alive it wouldn't help much, unless there was property bequeathed or some such thing.

I've known those who have lived here most of their adult lives, but still aren't citizens (landed immigrant or permanent resident are the terms used here for those).

The First Nations (political term for the aboriginal populations) are actually the only 'indiginous persons' in Canada as all the other 'foreign nationals' come from other countries. British Isles, and France in the colonial days, but just about every country in the world now. My own heritage is Hungarian, Irish and Scottish. I am only third generation Canadian on my father's side and fourth generation Canadian on my mother's.

As Canada is a much younger country than Britain, (the current Euro-based culture only created a country in 1864. Until then we were British subjects), we are a country of immigrants. Most of my generation and the vast majority of the population are less than 2 or 3 generations from 'newcomers' (the exception being First Nations, who have oral history going back thousands of years). It is understandable that we have a different viewpoint on the whole thing.

cheers


Robbswater 4 years ago

Not a very nice thing to do to another person what this woman did, BUT if the shoe was on the other foot and SHE was being abused would her abuser face punishment? because she is white?


aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 4 years ago from Malaga, Spain Author

Again, good points.

I have a friend, a banker who I deal with, who is a 'First Nation Canadian' adopted, and raised by Dutch Canadian 'parents'.

She openly admits that the policy of positive discrimination due to her birthright made it possible for her to get a banking position (allocations) in the first place, and rise faster through the system.

She happens to be an excellent banker and after many years in the RCB, now runs her own operation.

I have another friend who immigrated to Australia 40 yeas ago and started off selling advertising space in Sydney harbour, then sold ad space for TV, then..... you get the picture.

Today he runs a major community service in OZ (The Flying Doctor Service) and is a highly respected part of the Australian community.

So one gained from positive discrimination, the other by sheer talent and hard work as an immigrant.

Of course there is a point when someone should gain parity with a native born citizen, that point should be when they have qualified for citizenship, and asked to become a citizen, and passed the citizenship requirements.

What should those requirements be?

I would suggest that they could be as follows:

Fluency in the language both spoken and written.

A clean tax record for their period of non citizenship.

A clean criminal record (foreign criminals should be deported on the spot when found guilty of any crime that would demand a custodial sentence of more than (say) six months, and automatically upon conviction of a second offence).

Have demonstrated that they understand the customs of the country, and respect those customs.

Have not been a non productive member of the society.

It could be argued that many native born citizens would fail this test, but there is obviously no question that ANYONE born in the country is granted automatic citizenship, with the full rights AND responsibilities that this entails.

However first generation immigrants should need to prove that they deserve to gain citizenship.

Anybody with a legal right to abode in the host country is obviously able to practise their religion of choice or none, I would be more content if this was reciprocal, i.e. if we restricted the practice of religions that forbade the practice of other religions in their own country of birth, but this would be showing the same intolerance as those states, and surely we need to show that tolerance is the right way to progress.

Canada is a large country sparsely populated and if your indigenous population have bitten on the poisoned chalice of restricting their own births to the place where replacement is no longer possible, then obviously within 50 years your demographic make-up will reflect a majority for those who breed faster and with larger families.

This is each individuals choice, maybe not a wise one, but a choice none the less.

Tell me, as a Brit, can I just immigrate to your country?

I have a Sikh Indian friend here who lived in Canada for 4 years until he needed to renew his passport, and had to return to Malaysia, how easy is it for him to gain readmission?

My uncle immigrated to Toronto after WW2 and lived in Canada for the rest of his life, does that give me any benefits in relocating there?

In Spain, where I have held residency for 20 years, I can apply for citizenship after ten years,and I may, if only because a Spanish passport costs 12 Euros and can be got from any police station, whereas a Brit passport costs 180 Euros and takes up to five weeks).

That does not seem unreasonable.

As a denizen resident of 25 years, I still cannot vote in national elections, but may in local ones. I do not vote as frankly in some areas of Spain this has led to town councils being run by foreigners, as on the Costas' we frequently outnumber the native born Spaniards.

I do not think that is right.

My children can apply for nationality; having been born there; at age 18.

So far my 22 year old son, who now works in child ministry in New York, has declined to change nationality, however he may if he decides to apply for his green card, because as a Spaniard he would have a quota chance whereas Brits have no quota.

Shades of the Neil Sedaka song "There was a time when strangers were welcome here" ring in my head!

This is no doubt a complexed situation, when I was born there was somewhere around 1.5 billion people on our planet, that was 60 years ago, at the end of October this year, we passed 7 billion soul on planet earth.

Like the song says, there is not so much space now, we need to decide who has the 'privilege' of sharing our space.


AntonOfTheNorth profile image

AntonOfTheNorth 4 years ago from The Land Up Over

Hi, Aquasilver,

"We need to RESPECT the fact that indigenous people should have more rights than 'immigrants' who are hosted by those natives."

I'm uncertain about 'more' rights, though I agree that, at the stage where an immigrant is still an immigrant (lots of debate on where that line is) that yes, they are a guest in a new country and the norms of the host country should apply.

I was in Fiji some years back, which underwent a similar influx of foreign nationals during the British Empire period. The result is a current population roughly 50% indigenous and 50% of Indian descent. The Fijian constitution (at least at the time) made land ownership illegal (with some small exceptions) for anyone who was not indigenous Fijian. Of course now factions for the Indian descendents (4th and 5th generation born there) are saying the constitution is rascist.

When does an immigrant get the full rights of citizenship? When does an immigrant become a 'normal' member of that society?

One could argue when they conform. When they embrace the culture. Okay

Culture is a living thing, however. It is not a rigid, unchanging standard that one must meet.

I don't dispute the notion that, if I go to Fiji, I do so knowing that I will only be able to lease my home, as that is the law of the land. If I go to Malay, I follow that code you have provided. If I move to Britain, I follow the laws there.

But when do I have the right to advocate change? If I move to Britain because my country is no longer safe, or I can't get a job, or just because there is more opportunity there than in my country, as long as I follow the laws of that country, why shouldn't I advocate for a house of worship that suits me, or an education system that reflects my values? Particularly if the government is willing to listen?

And if my children are born there, aren't they entitled to all the rights of any native born? They didn't leave a country to go there. That is where they were born.

I thank you for writing this and posting the video. I've spent a great deal of time thinking about this since reading it and I consider it time well spent.

In Canada, the idealists (I'm one of them, I think) think of our culture as multiculturalism that works. Yes of course that's a rosier picture than others may believe and certainly it is far from perfect. We have our own shameful history in our treatment of aboriginal peoples (Residential school legacy being one). We have our conflicts over our dual official languages (English and French), and certainly there are many people here who feel the same about our immigrant populations as the lady in the video.

But I count my life richer for having both French and English as official languages. I have a great deal of respect for anyone who chose Canada over their native land. Yes there are those that take advantage of the system, but here our population is growing only because of immigration. Our live birth rate is exceeded by our death rate. Not because we die unreasonably fast but because there are fewer having children.

There is always a risk when cultures collide.

The mitigation is actually trying to understand why an individual behaves the way they do.

I find most often that I have much more in common with the stranger than not.

cheers


aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 4 years ago from Malaga, Spain Author

Hi Anton,

Let me show you a small section of the 'code' where I live:

"At the time of Malaya's independence from the British in 1957, the population included many first or second-generation immigrants who had come to fill colonial manpower needs as indentured labourers. Chinese entrepreneurs, who typically settled in urban areas, played a significant role in the commercial sector. The Communities Liaison Committee (CLC), comprising leading politicians from different racial backgrounds, supported the promotion of economic equality for the Malays, conditional on political equality for the non-Malays. CLC member E.E.C. Thuraisingham later said, "I and others believed that the backward Malays should be given a better deal. Malays should be assisted to attain parity with non-Malays to forge a united Malayan Nation of equals."[6]

As a result, Article 153 of the Constitution states that,

It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

Article 160 defines a Malay as being one who "professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay customs and is the child of at least one parent who was born within the Federation of Malaysia before independence of Malaya on the 31st of August 1957."

"professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay customs and is the child of at least one parent who was born within the Federation of Malaysia before independence of Malaya on the 31st of August 1957." hmmmmm.....

Now let's put that into an English constitution:

"professes the religion of Christianity, habitually speaks the English language, conforms to English customs and is the child of at least one parent who was born within the UKGB before the loss of the Empire,(say)5 July 1945"

As an 'Englishman' I could happily accept those constraints in the UK, as I accept them in the country of residence I presently am a denizen of.

If there was a 'bill of rights' which safeguarded the rights of the indigenous Britons, then maybe the unrest would bnot happen.

You are correct that nobody 'owns' anything, but our society, and especially British society, regards property laws as sacrosanct, one of the things that Malay politicians will quote to me as a positive aspect of Colonial Rule was the fact that as rulers, we defined the land boundaries precisely and after Independence it was therefore easy to ensure that people were NOT dispossessed of their property for simply being of the wrong (in Malay terms) race or religion.

The crux of the matter is, should a society allow economic migrants to change the traditions and culture of that society when the indigenous population have never agreed to such a dilution of their rights?

To the householder awakening from a deep sleep, to find that there are people living in their attic, who have broken through from the house they occupy next door, the intruder seems like a burglar no matter how much they may consider they have the legal right to be there.

In the UK there have been many cases reported where immigrants, legally allowed into the country, have simply taken houses over whilst the owner was away on holiday, or have broken through and occupied loft space from next door.

Our Malay constitution was formed to protect the native Malay from exploitation by the Chinese and Indian Malays who we Brits had imported to run the place.

This was a necessary move, for the native Malay is a simple and peaceable person with not too many aspirations, they will work hard for enough days to get sufficient money to live or pay their bills, then not turn up for work as they take time off to spend with their families and friends.

Infuriating as this may be to employers, it shows they respect their lives more than money, but exposed them to competition that they are simply not equipped to contend with, nor have the inclination.

Things are not black and white in this world, New York may have been the first melting pot city to experiment with multicultural diversity, but it is not a model that can be universally applied.

We need to RESPECT the fact that indigenous people should have more rights than 'immigrants' who are hosted by those natives.

Living in someone else's culture is a privilege, not a right, and the privilege entails observance of the host countries traditions, culture and laws.


AntonOfTheNorth profile image

AntonOfTheNorth 4 years ago from The Land Up Over

Hi Aquasilver,

Just one comment on your burglar analogy. . .

I wonder about the comparison of a private home with a country. I don't own my country, I'm a citizen of it. It doesn't belong to me, it belongs to all of its citizens.

While I would prevent an unlawful invasion, I would make no attempt to stop entry of the person who rents my room over the garage, unless they were also doing something illegal.

The burglar in your analogy is not a legal immigrant. (an illegal immigrant perhaps?). The 'burglar' is there perfectly legally.

I understand that emotions run high on this issue, and I get the warning that you are raising. I accept it is not about race.

I submit, though, that it also shouldn't be about ownership. In a democracy, it belongs to all of us, and the majority, (right or wrong) holds title.

cheers


aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 4 years ago from Malaga, Spain Author

Hi Anton,

Thanks for the civilised debate!

"If the woman in the video, indeed if the working class Brit feels that their country has been given away to foreigners, why are they blaming the foreigners? It isn't their fault. If true, it's the British government's fault. Why would we expect someone not to take advantage of a benefit that they are offered?"

Is a bit like saying that the police are to blame for the fact that burglars can enter your house with impunity knowing that the police are unwilling or incapable of doing anything to deter them.

The burglar would still be a burglar and the householder would be right to be aggrieved at their actions.

Who is to blame comes secondary to the householders sense of addressing the invasion of their rights.

You are correct of course that it is the fault of those who implemented the open door policy that are to blame, however it is the right of those aggrieved to state their case plainly to the burglar.

When I left school in 1966 it was virtually impossible to NOT be able to find a job, from my year of three forms (about 90 kids) only ONE guy declined to work at something and claim benefits, and his whole concept was that as he wanted to be a pop star, he was too busy to work elsewhere. (He now runs a restaurant in Eastern Europe and has nine children).

Conceptually we, the baby boomer generation, had no desire to take anything from the state and expected to work (and become rich and famous) by our own merits.

Anybody who would not work or get busy was such an odd situation, they would have been avoided.

Forty plus years later the 'welfare state' has nannyfied the UK to such an extent that we regularly see youngsters refusing to seek work; because they get almost as much from the benefits offices.

This has nothing to do with immigrants of course, however there are some immigrants who use the system and abuse the system.

Having a large family automatically jumps someone to the head of the housing list, being a single mum with three children precludes even the concept of seeking full time employment, being refused a job because you do not speak fluent English is worthy of a complaint to the Equal Rights Commission, and compensation for not being given the job.

These sort of things tend to aggravate an already volatile situation.

My point is plainly that no matter what the politically corrected concept entails, it makes not one jot of difference when the working class mostly under educated masses decide that enough is enough, and take matters into their own hands.

If that happens, then the very people who have been enticed to seek a better life in the UK will be the main casualties, blood will flow on the streets, and we could see a revolution.

I do NOT want that to happen.

My father, who was most certainly what we would today call a right wing bigoted fascist, was predicting what I see happening today 50 years ago, and there are many working class people who would relish the opportunity to level the playing field.

When we, as a society,suppress these sentiments and make them unacceptable to discuss and expound, we put the lock on the pressure cooker, and with each perceived or actual injustice that the indigenous population feel, the heat is increased.

I have been fortunate, born working class and by accident of life allowed to be given a wide and varied life experience that has led to me viewing each individual as I find them.

Education and exposure to the world allows us to be acceptant of differences, and (for instance) living in the country that hosts me, I can accept that the Chinese will automatically try to cheat me in business, not for any other reason than that is their make-up, it is considered normal for them to lie to me, they do not even consider it lying, it is genetically in their instinct. I do not dislike the Chinese for this, indeed I have many Chinese friends and love many aspects of their culture and character, but then I have travelled enough to be able to make allowances for what are tribal or genetic traits.

My 'rant' here is NOT about race, I do NOT condone the woman's actions and I do not view all immigrants or people of different cultures as a threat or alien to me.

I am a mongrel myself!

But I do fear that left to continue boiling and suppressed, we will see an uprising in Europe that will cause unnecessary bloodshed, which could be avoided if only those who govern would seek to redress the perceived imbalance that the indigenous population are beginning to be riled about.

I have been that angry working class youth, and thank God that I was able to escape the frustrations that anger produces, but we do need to defuse this sort of situation, or suffer the consequences.

All actions have opposite reactions, and the policies that have been allowed to reign supreme during the last 50 years, also have consequences attached to them.

We would be bad 'elders' in our society if we ignored the warning signs that this incident suggests.


AntonOfTheNorth profile image

AntonOfTheNorth 4 years ago from The Land Up Over

Hi, Aquasilver

I hear what you are saying. I don't live in Britain so of course I have no idea what the situation is or what I think about it.

Generally speaking, I don't think its a matter of political correctness. In my experience, those who bemoan political correctness have been of the position that speaking their mind in a way that will be offensive to someone else is more important than the offense they cause. (I hasten to add that I don't think that is what you are doing here. I think you are writing a reasoned opinion that simply troubles me)

If the woman in the video, indeed if the working class Brit feels that their country has been given away to foreigners, why are they blaming the foreigners? It isn't their fault. If true, it's the British government's fault. Why would we expect someone not to take advantage of a benefit that they are offered?

I have no issue with an opinion that the country should be less open to immigrants (I disagree with regards to Canada, but as I say I know little about the political realities in Britain). However, the people on the tram didn't create that policy. It is certainly possible that many that were attacked were born in Britain as well, just like her.

It may be what one is feeling, but if I'm feeling like robbing a bank or stealing a purse or smacking a stranger, civilization requires that I curtail that feeling to prevent the action.

What you call politically correct is what I call the extension of that social instinct to speak fairly.

And if your brother-in-law really feels that government policy is wrong and that unworthy people are receiving benefits he does not believe they are entitled to, then he should say so. The only way democracy has any hope of working is if people speak.

But it has to be more than just 'you all are the object of my disapointment so I am entitled to verbally assualt you on the bus.' It's the assault part that most object to.

The opinion is just an opinion.

cheers


aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 4 years ago from Malaga, Spain Author

Hi Anton,

Thanks for the comment.

"The notion that one can "tell it like it is" implies two things:

1) that the speaker knows what it is and is not just expressing their opinion

2) that they should be free to express their opinion without consequences.

The right of free speech entitles you to say what you think without government reprisal. It does not remove the entitlement of someone who disagrees to respond. It does not allow you to spout hate.

She wasn't just expressing an opinion, she was attacking people who's only action was to appear different."

Very well defined.

"1) that the speaker knows what it is and is not just expressing their opinion"

I would suggest that this is the case, for most people seem to be cowed under the political correctness movement that has made it almost impossible to declare any opinion that fall foul of PC rules.

My brother in law, who in my youth was a declared liberal thinker, has over the last 40 years matured into a radical right winger with socialist theory mainly just a ghost in his thinking.

The reason for this is his recognition that (at least in his thinking) he has been disenfranchised by the state he once supported wholeheartedly in favour of people who he now considers unworthy of such preference in housing, benefits, employment and free hospital treatment and now (for him) pensions.

I have heard him (in private) bewailing the ills of the society he thought he was creating with his liberal outlook.

When I suggested that he act to change things by doorstepping for any political party that he felt would improve his lot,his reply is simply that should he do that, if he became politically active, he would be selected for harassment in media and those he dealt with.

The people are cowed under a yoke of PC rules and opinion. they feel the discontent, yet will not mention it in public for fear of being labelled by any of the many tags that are used to belittle and berate any opposition to the agenda.

Racist, Bigot, Religious Fundy, Homophobic.... the list is long and suited to silence any individual who is concerned to be called such things.

The whole concept is adopted from the Stasi as a method to silence any opposition.

Had I been minded to put even ONE reference to God in the hub, it would have attracted a plethora of skilfully worded abuse and references to my sanity, intelligence and soundness of mind in general.

This is the society we now live in.

"2) that they should be free to express their opinion without consequences."

Not at all, life bears consequences for all of our actions, we just have to be prepared to receive the consequence of the action. I speak freely about matters that concern me in all situations, where I live my free speech could easily require that I am incarcerated or deported for challenging the status quo.

On Hubpages people get censored for offending the HubPages code of ethics.

Both my country of present residence and my platform for writing (HubPages) have that right, to censor my words and require that I pay for my freedom by facing their consequences.

The fact that you may face consequences for your actions is merely a reminder to ascertain whether the consequence is worth the action.

Had I spoken out against Mr Hitler in Germany in 1940, I would have been dealt with severely, were I to speak out in favour of Mr Hitler in Germany today, I would still be dealt with severely.

This drunken woman, speaking what is in her heart, abusing those she obviously sees as having abused her in general terms, will face her consequence.

I doubt she will be given any newsprint space to explain her thinking, she will be fined, maybe sent to prison, possibly deprived of her housing, if she is a council tenant, and castigated in the press IF they mention her at all.

She will bear the consequences of getting drunk and actually saying what is in her mind to say in an unguarded moment, just as surely as if she had spoken out against the Stasi in East Germany 20 years ago.

But the fact remains that I believe she WAS speaking for the working class Brits who do feel disenfranchised and abandoned, and if I am correct, then her small outburst may well be the spark that ignites the minds of more people to think about whether what she actually said had any merit.

In many ways any of the writers on the Hub could state what she said in PC correct 'proper' English and get away with it, she chose to speak plainly and in public, and although her speech was abusive by any criterion, she did make a point.

"My countries been given away to f**kin foreigners" was her main point of dissension.

I am afraid that many working class people will agree with her.


aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 4 years ago from Malaga, Spain Author

Hi Chasuk,

Many valid points, but when you state:

"Mass immigration was not introduced "in order to destroy the solid sovereignty of the country," nor has any such policy ever been declared."

It was made apparent from NuLabour documents that this WAS the case. These documents came to light earlier this year. It was plain that they had deliberately set about forcing their multi cultural dream by allowing unrestricted immigration.

The undermining of British Sovereignty has been a long process, starting in the 1930's and continuing to this day, it is almost completed and when completed, if it is, will signify Britain being a puppet state.

The 'danger' is that those working class Brits MAY actually rise up against this.

The preferred method would be a rejection of all the main political parties with a shift to a divided government, which would force the 'powers that be' to reappraise their plans for controlling the populace.

Any changes brought about would be a 'sap' to the people, and would merely delay the inevitable reassertion of control whilst the power elite regrouped and found a new coat to wear more acceptable to the British psyche.

We saw this in the late sixties, when the youth movement rejected all social barriers and we had our 'Summer of Love', which I was a part of, and the way that this was dealt with left me permanently distrustful of politics and the power elite.

The leaders all ended up with what they wanted; mainly a Landrover and a farm in Wales, or commenced careers that have made them part of the power elite. Felix Dennis and Richard Branson are prime examples.

However the alternative would be a reawakening of the British psyche, and this is most liable to occur if the country faces deprivation and hardship.

The collapse of their economy would suffice for these conditions to occur, and might serve to reawaken them to the real threat of NWO control. If that happens, we may see a second civil war, if a powerful 'Cromwell' can arise to lead the people. It should be noted that England has a good record for producing the right man in the wrong times.

These matters are incidental to me, I have no intent of ever returning to an England that no longer exists, and therefore my interest is merely academic, the UK is as alien to me as I would be to them.

But stoking the fires of debate and causing people to think has been my motive for nearly 50 years, ever since I realised that the state had plans for me that did not agree with my plans for my life.

Inevitably if a revolution does occur, the sides would be drawn and each individual would find themselves one side or the other, they would either be part of the revolution or opposed, for in revolutions there are no middle grounds.

The probable battle lines would rest upon either support of England as a sovereign nation in control of her own destiny and run by English people (and I realise that this will also affect Scotland, Wales and Ireland, who will either support or cede from the Union) or support of the NWO plan for a globalist puppet state country, a fascist state where people served the state rather than the state serving the people.

Any cursory examination of who benefits from either option will show which sections of the community would be supporting either side.

Those who consider themselves English would gravitate to one side, those who consider themselves otherwise would by default be on the other side. Not politics, not ethnicity, more a feeling of their identity, would dictate each individuals opinion and stance.


Chasuk 4 years ago

I left the UK in 1996, but I stay apprised of UK current events, and I still have friends there. I'm not sure whether that keeps me in the loop or not, but I try.

Pride in being English is still permitted, although it has always seemed illogical to me to be proud of anything other than one's personal accomplishments. To be English is still to have a distinct identity.

Mass immigration was not introduced "in order to destroy the solid sovereignty of the country," nor has any such policy ever been declared.

There has always been a gap between those who control the country and the working class. Arguably, it has increased recently, but this was after a long period of decline.

Assimilation is only important when the indigenous -- or the merely ensconced -- population is feeling insecure and looking for a scapegoat. When the indigenous/ensconced population is feeling secure, they aren't intimidated by foreignness, but instead frequently embrace it.

Foreigners aren't the problem in the UK, but the celebration of the poorly educated (often aggressive) underclass is. Anti-intellectualism was previously a US problem, but it seems we have exported it to the UK.

A disclosure: I was not born in the UK. I moved there when I was 20, and finally departed the year I turned 36. I found its culture more amenable to my values than the US, and, largely, I still do. I am one of those people who consider myself a citizen of the wold rather than any particular country, feeling no allegiance to any geographical location.


AntonOfTheNorth profile image

AntonOfTheNorth 4 years ago from The Land Up Over

On a positive note, I couldn't help but notice the number of gestures of support for the assualted that went on around the ranter. That shed a bit of hope on the situation.

cheers


AntonOfTheNorth profile image

AntonOfTheNorth 4 years ago from The Land Up Over

There is so much I want to say, but I'd be writing another hub and that's not fair to you.

I hear what you are saying, but some of what you are saying troubles me as much as the video.

"Free speech is no longer possible, we have now curtailed the right to speak freely, no matter how offensive what we say may be seen to be by others."

The notion that one can "tell it like it is" implies two things:

1) that the speaker knows what it is and is not just expressing their opinion

2) that they should be free to express their opinion without consequences.

The right of free speech entitles you to say what you think without government reprisal. It does not remove the entitlement of someone who disagrees to respond. It does not allow you to spout hate.

She wasn't just expressing an opinion, she was attacking people who's only action was to appear different.

You are expressing an opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

She was committing assualt. The only thing that kept it from being violent is the lack of reciprocal hate. There is no difference between what she said and walking up to a stranger and slapping them. The intent is identical.

A far cry from exercising free speech.

cheers


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands

This hub, plus the video, provide us with a lot to consider ~ things that I actually give consideration to quite regularly, and which I find worrying in many ways.


aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 4 years ago from Malaga, Spain Author

According to the UK authorities I have abandoned Britain because I left 26 years ago and they ex-pulse you after 15 years absence!

So in truth I have no right to speak about UK affairs with any certainty or knowledge, however I did live there during some interesting periods of time, rationing, the sixties, three day weeks and miners strikes, Maggie and council house sales, and the yuppy years, the victory of the Falklands War and the defeat of Maggie.

That was about when I left the place in 1986.

Therefore the England I remember was a different place than it seems to be today.

When I left it was still permitted to be proud of being English, and we understood that being English had a distinct identity connected to it.

England is not America, it is not, or was not, or should not, be some social experiment to see how diverse cultures can be legislated into co-existence.

By virtue of having been a world power with an Imperial Empire, the country has a propensity to allow former colonial nations into the place.

The declared policy of introducing mass immigration in order to destroy the solid sovereignity of the country was in my opinion treason.

There seems to be a growing gap between those who control the country, both the media luvvies and Government officials, and those who make up the 'backbone' of English working class people.

That gap is dangerous for all to stand too near to.

My ethnicity is also a point of contention with me.

My fathers family arrived from Ireland in the 1840's survivors or escapees of the potato famine, but thankfully the 170 years since then have eradicated any Irish identity that may have made me cling to Catholicism or grievances towards the Brits.

My mothers side seem to have arrived much earlier, and with a family name of Thompson and coming from Suffolk, I presume a Danish ancestry, which would mean that for 600 years we were the 'invaders' who eventually succumbed to the Norsemen from Normandy.

So who exactly IS English is also a point of confusion.

But again we seem to have assimilated totally and although I have the occasional urge to go rape and pillage a foreign land, I manage to suppress it under my cloak of English reserve.

Assimilation into the culture you adopt is the key to harmony.

When I relocated to Spain, I sent my son to Spanish schools and encouraged him to be Spanish, and succeeded. His Spanish is as authentic as it can be spoken, and Spain is still his homeland, despite the fact that he lives in New York USA.

My daughter likewise was sent to Spanish kindergarten and infants school, and has a good command of the language and also views herself as Spanish first, but carrying an English passport. She is starting to speak Bahasa Malay and is learning to write in Mandarin.

My Danish wife is fluent in both Spanish and English and can still speak Danish despite having used English as her main language for 15 years. Her German only comes back when we are in Germany.

We have assimilated, I think that is the least we can expect to do when we are denizens on a strange land.

As a point of reference, my Spanish is loud, bad and inaccurate, but then as an Englishman, that is to be expected.

I find that speaking loudly with authority still surprisingly works in most situations. :)


lone77star profile image

lone77star 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

Well the video seems to be back, and it's full of vileness all right. For some people tolerance is a dirty word. "I tolerate you,... barely," and other variations.

My late Dad, back in the '70's talked of the coming polarizations in our world. I didn't really appreciate that until this past decade. It's happening on numerous levels and in numerous aspects of society.

When I lived in Phoenix, Arizona, back during the 9/11 attacks, one Phoenix resident thought he would help out in the sudden war on terrorism. He took a gun to a local gasoline station and because the owner wore a turban, he was automatically the enemy. The crazy thing was, the owner wasn't even Moslem. He was Sikh. But such details don't matter when it's "us" versus "them." Ego versus ego.

My own attitude is that cultural differences enrich us all.

The Normans brought a continental viewpoint to the Angles and Saxons living on the island, but in their own day, so had the Angles and Saxons. And before the Celts it may have been the grandchildren of Atlantis. Who knows?

And if we all go back to Adam, then heck. We're all related. One big family. Under God.


edmob1 profile image

edmob1 4 years ago from United Kingdom

I have not watched the video here or other palces I have seen it posted.I can only presume it was taken down for the very reasons you speak of abuse.

Like Chasuk I get about my day have my prefferences which I excerise free will within the law of the land.

Coming from an age group similar to yours and still residing in the UK, I have noticed a growing xenophobia within the population prayed on by right wing views. But if you remember Alf Garnett I find them equally shallow.


Chasuk 4 years ago

I get up each day, I perform my morning ablutions, and then I engage in that host of activities -- including inactivity -- that constitute my waking life. I repeat this cycle approximately 24 hours later. Eventually, I die, and the cosmos continues as if I had never existed.

I don't care what language you speak, or what customs you follow, as long as they don't adversely affect me. If you make my shopping experience unpleasant by your inability to speak my language, then I shop elsewhere. If I don't like your native cuisine, then I don't eat it.

These are simple interpersonal relationship skills that we all hopefully learned by the time we were 14 or 15. The rules don't change because our neighbors are of a different race or ethnicity.


aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 4 years ago from Malaga, Spain Author

What was interesting in the video was the reactions of the people she was castigating.

Glad to know you see things as I do!

John


aka-dj profile image

aka-dj 4 years ago from Australia

Well said.

I agree wholeheartedly with you. I see similar things happening in Australia also. I came here as an immigrant 46 years ago. WE did exactly what you suggest. We retained our national, cultural identity, but assimilated into our new host society. The younger ones of us did it much more easily than our parents.

I personally blame the multicultural policies of the governments for this. Furthermore, I would not be at the least bit surprised if it turns out to be a deliberate tactic, or strategy, to create future unrest.

We should be Australian 1st, and our ethnic origin second. If it were to remain the other way around, I suggest, they should never have left in the first place.

I am proud to say, and often do, that I've been an Aussie for longer than half the Australian population, (Who are younger than 43, lol).

I chose not to watch the video, as I recon it would anger me beyond my current mood could cope with.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working