The Week That Everything Changed In Britain


[VDARE.COM
note:
Anthony Browne, the Environment Editor of the London
Times,


wrote

us in August about the stir caused by his August 4
article, “Britain Is Losing Britain.” Last week, he
tells us, things got a lot more stirred, and Browne
himself received the penultimate British accolade, a
denunciation in Parliament. The next step: arise Sir
Anthony!  Which will be richly deserved – he may have
sparked the debate that can save his country
.]

I always knew it was inevitable, I
just didn`t expect it from the third most powerful
politician in the land.

The first law of immigration reform
in all western countries is that anyone who dares say
that not all forms of immigration at all levels are
beneficial to everyone in every possible way, will at
some point be denounced as a

racist
and a

fascist
. It was on a BBC national radio show that I
was told I was `just a clever racist`, which I guess was
at least half a compliment.

A presenter on another show said I
must be racist because I had dared mention in passing in
a think tank book out last week [Do
We Need Mass Immigration?
published by the

Civitas Foundation
] that immigration is causing
record levels of TB and HIV in Britain. He didn`t
contest the point, but said that since people with

TB
are mainly coming from Asia (where skins are
generally brown) and

HIV
is mainly coming from Africa (where skins are
generally black), I must be a racist to raise the issue.

But it was David Blunkett (the Home
Secretary i.e. Britain`s interior minister) who
denounced me by name in Parliament as "bordering on
fascism", for a series of

articles
I had written in the Times newspaper
trying to get a more honest and rational approach to
immigration. Since Mr. Blunkett chose to denounce me in
Parliament, he had a thing called
Parliamentary privilege
, which meant he was
automatically legally protected from any claims of
defamation.

I can only guess it was an attempt
to silence me and make my views beyond the pale – but it
had precisely the opposite affect. Three national
newspapers (including a left wing one) came to my
defense, denouncing Mr. Blunkett for being cowardly, and
writing editorials in support of me and

against the government`s "McCarthyism."
  One

pointed out
that I couldn`t be a fascist because I
am in many ways quite liberal.

Countless television and radio
shows demanded interviews so I could explain "why I am
not a fascist", a unique interview experience. I

defended myself
in the Times (December 04 ) [access
free with registration
], pointing out that since
unskilled workers, ethnic minorities, global development
and the environment are all losers from large scale
immigration, immigration reform is a cause of the left
as well as the right. One politician I was debating
whether or not I was a fascist with on TV greeted me as
"the famous Anthony Browne".

By denouncing me as a fascist, the
Home Secretary had turned me into a one day cause
celebre.
I even got fan mail from black Britons
saying immigration was disastrous for them and urging me
to keep up the pressure on the government.

All of which gave me hope for
immigration reform in Britain. It was the week that
everything changed, and Britain woke up.

People realized that it was not
necessarily fascist to want less immigration not more.
TV and radio have been given the freedom to discuss the
previously taboo issue, and in the name of balance any
immigration debate now has to include one of the growing
band of immigration reformers, rather than just the
usual

immigration lobby groups
declaring all immigration
is wonderful for everyone. Top national TV talk shows
are covering this previously unmentionable issue. Local
BBC radio stations, normally so timid about controversy,
are phoning me up for extended interviews about the
merits and demerits of mass immigration, without feeling
compelled to have someone on to oppose me or denounce
me. The debate has been legitimized.

More and more newspaper
commentators are now questioning the received wisdom
that Britain has to have mass immigration in order to
survive as a nation. John Humphrys, Britain`s most
respected TV and radio journalist (sort of a British
version of Walter Cronkite) wrote a column a year ago
that we should have open borders and let everyone in;
last week he wrote "It is not racist to be worried
about immigration. It is irresponsible not to be."

This is just truly remarkable.

The turning tide was recognized by
the left wing Observer newspaper, which last week
(December 1) ran a

very balanced feature
on the "onward march of the
lobby against immigration", without denouncing anyone as
racist or fascist.

It is not just myself and a new
pressure group called

MigrationWatch UK
(founded by Britain`s former
ambassador to Saudi Arabia) that have helped make
immigration debatable, but immigration itself has. There
have been a series of immigration stories that are so
extreme that it is difficult not to report it in any way
other than with concern.


Open warfare
broke out on the streets of North
London between rival Kurdish and Turkish organized
criminal gangs, killing one and injuring dozens. The
police gave an official warning that they would no
longer be able to control the ethnic conflict between
rival organized criminal gangs of Kurds, Turks,
Albanians, Kosovans, Pakistanis and Jamaicans as they
rival for supremacy across British cities.

Immigration has overtaken gay sex
as the main cause of HIV in Britain, because we have
large amounts of immigration from areas devastated by
HIV without any health checks at all. The government`s
response is not to try and control immigration or impose
health checks, but to

blame British people and warn them to start wearing
condoms again
.

A

report
last week showed TB in London is now at
higher levels than China, Brazil and Tajikistan, as
Third World immigration brings Third World diseases with
it. Even the government didn`t attempt to blame British
citizens for that.

Britain already gets the highest
number of asylum seekers of any country in the world –
despite the fact we are at the remote end of a peaceful
continent, and they all had to come through many safe
countries to get here. But new figures showed the number
of claimants still rose by a quarter over the last year
to over 100,000.

The government, unlike European
counterparts, has totally failed to control this at
every attempt, and last week gave up pretending the
asylum seekers weren`t economic migrants and could be
kept out, and just gave

British work permits
to 1200 of them sitting in a
refugee camp in France. The capitulation of any pretence
of border control was so extreme that even opposition
politicians felt free to denounce it.

Britain has many advantages over
the US in this debate. We have no

national credo
that Britain was built up by
immigration. We are already one of the most densely
populated islands in the world, with most British people
thinking it is overcrowded. Most immigration is focused
on London, the centre for the media and government, so
all journalists and politicians see its effects first
hand every day. And although the government broadcaster,
the BBC, feels compelled to brainwash the people about
the delights of multiculturalism at every opportunity,
the national newspaper media is both incredibly powerful
and overwhelmingly right wing (there are few left wing
papers, and they are the worst selling).

Now that the debate has opened up
in Britain, we just need to make sure it moves in the
right direction. All three main political parties still
insist that Britain needs mass immigration to survive.

In many ways, the battle has
just begun
. But it has definitely begun.

[Anthony
Browne
is the Environment Editor of the London
Times. Contribute to
the debate via


comment@thetimes.co.uk
]

December 07, 2002