Immigration: a matter of law and custom

by Richard North

Immigration: a matter of law and custom

000a letter-022 lang.jpgI am a white Englishman, born in London where, with no wind and stilled traffic, you might just hear the sound of Bow bells. I was taught English, first to speak and then to read and write, and do tolerably well in my native tongue.

Thus, when my local council communicates with me, I really do not need an attachment to the letter – a personal letter addressed to me by name, from a named official – telling me in ten different languages what to do if I don’t understand the letter I have been sent.

Neither do I need to see in the waiting room of my local hospital – an English hospital in an English city – garish leaflets printed variously in Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Gujarati and Bengali.

Nor do I appreciate the irony that on the Indian sub-continent from where these languages emanate, there are so many different languages that no single Indian can speak them all. English is an official language, the language in which most official documents are published – including Supreme Court judgements.

And there lies the cause of much of our ills and frustrations in this benighted country of ours. Much, for instance, has been said and will be said about the vexed subject of immigration, and there is rightly much resentment at the politicians who have so recklessly opened our borders and removed any vestige of effective controls.

But many of the problems we now encounter arise not entirely from the presence of incomers in the country. We have dealt with waves of immigration before, and this country has a proud tradition of assimilating new people and absorbing their traditions. Not by accident has the curry transcended mere food and become an art form.

The problems so often come about by the pusillanimous attitude of officialdom to immigrants, their pursuit of “multiculturalism” and their unwillingness to insist that they conform, to our standards rather than the other way around. These are the officials who so thoughtlessly and unnecessarily attach leaflet in ten different languages to a personal letter to me.

000a brukha-022 court.jpgFrom the same stable, we get an insolent, 21-year-old “madam” turning up in a burkha at Blackfriars Crown Court, charged with intimidating a witness, and the refusing to remove her veil to allow her face to be seen.

Her barrister, Claire Burtwistle, then has the nerve to tell the court the woman is not prepared to lower her veil at all while men were in the room. “In front of women, it is not an issue”, she says. “It is simply men that she will not allow to see her face”.

The egregious Burtwistle goes on to suggest that a female police officer or prison officer could identify the defendant and confirm to the court that it is the same person as in the police arrest photos.

And then we get the “multi-cults” nibbling at the edges. Prosecutor Sarah Counsell not only accepts this insult but even consents to it, as does the craven policeman in charge of the case. He says he is “content” that he recognised the defendant while she was hiding in her burkha.

Fortunately, this time, the judge is made of sterner stuff. He refuses to accept the affectation of this Muslim woman that her burkha is a religious necessity. It is not. Instead, he tells her that she must remove her veil before she can enter a plea.

Judge Peter Murphy said the principle of open justice overrode the woman’s “religious beliefs” – or, in this case, politically-motivated affectation – and warned there was a risk a different person could go into the dock pretending to be her.

Unfortunately, the woman, resident in Hackney, east London, not so very far from where I was brought up, apparently cannot be identified for “legal reasons”. This is a pity. Her name should be placed before the public so that she can be duly shamed for insolence.

But at least she got a tongue-lashing for Judge Murphy, doubtless delivered in the politest and most gentlemanly of tones, as he told her: “It is necessary for this court to be satisfied that they can recognise the defendant”. He added: “‘While I obviously respect the right to dress in any way she wishes, certainly while outside the court, the interests of justice are paramount”.

This is how it should be. In this our England, it is for the foreigner to conform. It is for the immigrant to obey our rules and have some regard to the sensibilities of the settled population. And, most of all, it is for English officials, appointed under British law and paid in pounds sterling by British taxpayers, to uphold the laws and customs of this country.

And if they did, we would perhaps have considerably less friction over the vexed question of immigration, notwithstanding that, had our laws and customs been honoured in the first place, our borders would not have been so recklessly opened.

32 responses to “Immigration: a matter of law and custom

  1. If I were the judge I would have imprisoned Clare Burtwistle for contempt of court until she had purged her contempt. It is not for her to suggest to the judge what should be done in the case of a witness insulting the court by dressing like a Dalek.

    • Possibly you don’t understand how our courts work.
      The barrister argues the case for her client. She can put forward any old garbage she wants. It is for the judge to decide that it is garbage-which has happened.
      Penalising legal representatives for doing their job is the first step to the loss of our freedoms.

  2. We now know who our enemies are. they are the British GramscoFabiaNazis.

    These are the ones who will have to “go to” the South Sandwich island, for ever. Or Northern Novaya Zemlya if there asre too many of them, as there will be. We’ll have to do a deal with shootinputin187 after all then.

    This barristerette will be going too. She’s “chosen poorly”.

  3. Pingback: Immigration: a matter of law and custom -

  4. Just the sort of anti-Islam, anti-‘foreigner’ spleen we have come to expect from the Colonel Sibthorps. It has no reason except dislike of those who are in some way different. A miserable rant.

    • David Davis | 24 August, 2013 at 8:12 pm | Reply | Edit

      Who’s Colonel Sibthorp?
      I’ve not heard of such a writer. Nor have any of the duty-Chimpanzee Type Writers in the Nissen hut.

      Is he well-known? Are we in the hut out-of-the-loop in some way?

  5. Who’s Colonel Sibthorp?
    I’ve not heard of such a writer. Nor have any of the duty-Chimpanzee Type Writers in the Nissen hut.

    Is he well-known? Are we in the hut out-of-the-loop in some way?

  6. Paul Rowlandson – presumably you believe this lady (who is charged with a very serious offence) should be allowed to appear before the court with her face concealed? If so, do you think this concession should be extended to all, or should Muslim women be recognised as having legal privileges denied to the rest of us? How far do you think Dr North would get if he were to appear in the dock with a woolly hat on and his face hidden by a bandana? What’s good for the goose ….

  7. I really don’t think that the GramscoFabiaNazi Political-EnemyClass actually knows how deeply, deeply and irremediably-angry people now are.

    Things are on what I would call “a fast simmer”.

    If it did understand what I have stated, then it would already be driving its terror-Police (it has thousands and thousands and thousands, in white/blue/yellow Pandacars) round urban residential streets, hauling people out of their houses at 4am and shooting them summarily in their front gardens. It’s what I’d feel I then needed to do as “Home Secretary”, in order to …

    “restore public order and social confidence in the authorities in a strategically-focussed way and promote peace, for the children, going forward”, …

    if I was them.

  8. Hugo – Muslim women should not be allowed to appear before the Court with their faces concealed. It is important that their facial expressions and general demeanour should be visible in Court. But that was only a small part of Richard North’s rant. The wearing of the burqa is not so much a religious requirement as a cultural one. The Quran does not require anything like it. It comes from a cultural-religious tradition, and that communal tradition is what Richard North was attacking. In France such hostile attitudes have led to the situation where women are imprisoned for wearing the burqa, a situation which I hope most libertarians would find unacceptable.

  9. If the wearing of the Burkha is a cultural requirement, it is one that sits ill with the British way of life. Also, I do not think you are being fair to Dr North by describing his informative article as a ‘rant’ just because you happen to disagree with him.

  10. What would happen if a British girl went to a Muslim country, committed a serious crime and demanded the right to appear in court dressed in shorts and bikini top? Would the judge adjourn the case to consider her request?

  11. Pingback: Immigration: a matter of law and custom -

  12. I have just come back from a beauty spot 30 miles from my home . It is 10 years since I went there in high summer and back then it was an English scene with the odd foreigner. Today I was in a minority white scattering surrounded by hundreds of bagged women and their bag-enforcing escorts.
    White upper-middle and upper class progressive-socialist scum have created this situation. It is they who must face the people of England’s wrath.

    Should the scum of the state be able to dictate how people dress?. No they fucking should not. Should the same scum of the state get away with inducing millions to come here who otherwise would not have?

  13. Just as an aside, it might be worth observing that Indian women manage to dress modestly in their stunningly beautiful sari’s (yes, I know the apostrophe’s wrong!). And we can see the ultra-orthodox Jewish women similarly modest in their conservative attire and wigs. But the Burkha is something else. It is out of place in this country and out of keeping with the British way of life, as is the whole Muslim religion, culture, call it what you will.

    • To be fair, there’s not much difference between the ultra-orthodox Jews and the Muzzies, and historically the ideas currently being enforced by the “radical” muslims came from Judaism, particularly the insane nonsense about modesty. And pig meat. The only difference really is that the Haredim aren’t doing terrorism at the moment, because they’ve got Chabad Lubavitch and AIPAC etc, haha. In cultural terms, you can’t get a slice of ham between the two groups. The cultural experience for modern people finding their neighbourhood turn orthodox Jewish are much the same as for those who get a muslim influx.

      Moderate (i.e. post Bronze Age) Jews are getting worried about it.New York’s Jewish community is on the verge of turning majority black hat-

      “We’ve read stories recently of Haredim in Israel comparing Israeli politicians to Hitler and throwing stones at women praying at the Kotel; of Haredim in New York fighting to restrict the prosecution of sex abuse claims; of Haredim in Germany threatening the fragile truce on circumcision by defending the practice of adult men sucking blood directly from the penises of infants.”

  14. Was there some particular reason for posting this piece, other than to establish beyond reasonable doubt that North is an authoritarian collectivist death cultist?

    • I asked myself the other day “What is most likely to make Thomas Knapp sound like Paul Marks before he took himself in hand?” Richard’s article was first to catch my attention.

    • The main difference between Paul Marks and myself is that I argue against actual claims on the part of others instead of creating mental effigies of my opponents which correspond to what I wish they have said rather than what they have actually said.

      North pretty plainly claims that there is a “right” to keep others from covering their faces, speaking different languages, etc., and that said “right” can be legitimately enforce by having an overgrown street gang draw invisible lines on the ground and chant witch doctor incantations over them to make them collective “property lines.”

      My view of North’s advocacy of “law and custom” closely corresponds to Anthony Montague-Browne’s retort when admonished to respect naval tradition (often falsely attributed to his boss, Winston Churchill).

      • Thomas,

        We’re back to this problem that on the one hand, you take the view that the State has no legitimate property rights, being an illegitimate institution but, since the State denies anyone else from having property rights, then nobody is left with any property rights, period. It is effectively arguing that, say, if America invaded Canada, Canada would have no right to defend their land, since Canada is not a legitimate property collective. But neither would individual Canadians have the right to prevent Americans entering Canada, because Canada is the only property collective there is.

        Whetherr or not “The UK” is legitimate, it’s what actually exists. It denies anyone else setting up an exclusive commune on its land, and thus in your philosophy there are no property rights at all, and we are all required to just accept that. You are by that principle imposing the lack of legitimacy of the British state upon its subjects. This is nonsensical from any libertarian perspective.

      • Why should a defendant not be required to show her face in court?

        • Why should she? What does her face have to do with whether or not she committed a crime? If the judge wants to see her ass, does he get to see that too?

          • Thomas, let’s leave aside all questions of immigration. When someone is tried in court, of course his face must be visible. He must be identified by witnesses. Indeed, the accused’s friends and relatives need to see his face to make sure a police officer isn’t impersonating him in a guilty plea.

            I suspect most Islamic countries have the same rule.

      • IanB,

        You make an interesting argument.

        Interesting because it’s usually difficult to make an argument completely devoid of reason and logic. Congratulations on your accomplishment.

        • This is known as the “I don’t have an answer, and really I’ve lost the argument, so I will switch to high handed dismissals” strategy.

  15. Ian B there is a world of difference between the Ultra-Orthodox Jews and the Islamists. The Jews believe there is room in the world for non-Jews. They don’t believe themselves under a biblical in junction to kill Gentiles. They live by their rules and don’t presume to tell us how to live, or to impose their moral values on the rest of us.
    And they don’t blow up airliners.
    The injunctions against eating pig meat and shellfish are quite sensible, or at least they were in the days before refrigerators when living in a hot climate. I agree the Ultra-Orthodox Jews are eccentric, to say the least, in interpreting these rules to the letter, even to the extent that they cannot switch on a light on the Sabbath, but that is their prerogative. So long as they don’t try to impose their rules on the rest of us, that’s fine by me.

    • I was just pointing out that their “modesty” dogmas are just as absurd and cut from the same, um, cloth; indeed the Islamic rules are derived from the Judaic ones. Islam seems to be a localisation of Arabian diaspora Judaism, just as Christianity is a localisation of Judaism in the Roman milieu.

      The justifications of the silly dietary laws are post-hoc. There’s no evidence that other Canaanites suffered harm from eating pigs, for instance. The best guess is that, as with the clothing laws (no tassles!) these are a codification of tribal differences as the Jews developed their intense ethnocentricity and bunker mentality. Basically, “they eat pigs, we eat sheep, they have tassles, we don’t” etc. It always has to be remembered that Judaism was the religion of a marginalised tribe on the edge of the civilised world, scratching an existence in the limestone crags of Palestine. It’s easy to see how jealousy of their more civilised neighbours turned to rejection of anything culturally associated with them; hence for instance the rejection of art, a hallmark of cultural advancement the Jews couldn’t match. So, “we don’t do art because… it’s like, evil, or something. Put that on the list next to the thing about bacon sandwiches, Mordecai”.

      But yes, there are fundamental differences. The main split between Judaism and the other two was the ethnocentricity. There certainly was a phase of at least some proseltysation, but Rabbinic Judaism never developed into a relgion for everyone, and is the one that reverted to an ethnic model, whereas Christianity and Islam both adopted universalism- YHWH became the “god of everyone” so you get all the missionary stuff, and Islam like Christianity sees outsiders as potential converts, whereas Judaism retained the idea of the outgroup as something to remain separate from and to plunder when appropriate. Islam has no injunction to kill non Muslims either. It want converts. It kills enemies, but so does Christianity, or at least it used to.

      But anyway, that’s getting off the point. I was just saying that the rules inside orthodox Judaism regarding modesty etc are just as ridiculous as the Islamic ones, and the internal social dynamics in both religions, in their ultra-orthodox forms, seem much the same, and have indeed been replicated to some degree in fundamentalist Christian examples like the Puritans. They’re always covering up hair. Naughty, naughty girls’ hair. Can’t have people seeing that. We’d all go mad with rape lust, wouldn’t we? There’s nothing “in keeping” with the British way of life about Haradi Judaism either, it’s just that there aren’t so many of them.

  16. “What does her face have to do with whether or not she committed a crime?”
    Quite a lot, I should think. A person’s visage, together with their body language, tell you quite a lot about them. Ask Judge Judy.
    As an aside, a lot of posts on this and other topics seem to be coming in out of sequence – in other words posts seem to get inserted where there were none before, which makes it a bit disjointed sometimes.

  17. In court the face must be uncovered to identify the accused to both the court and just as importantly, the public. It is a protection for the citizen so that the state cannot put up someone else pretending to be the real accused and for instance, plead guilty when the real person would not.
    As for how people should dress otherwise, I thought that in England it is every persons right to dress how they damned well please. I most certainly do. mostdo>>

  18. Not long ago, I passed through immigration & passport control behind a woman dressed like the one in the photo in the above article. The immigration officer was a man. What would she do? Refuse to show her face for “religious reasons”? Insist on a woman officer? She raised her veil, was identified and passed through.

    • Doesn’t surprise me. Most of this obsessive covering up is done less to please God than to inconvenience the Infidel. The moment there are severe personal inconveniences attached to the alleged pleasing of God, the Infidel rules get obeyed.

  19. Thank you for this. I’ve reprinted it in an attempt to inspire American libertarians to crawl out of their swamp of cultural Marxism: