Sunny Hundal website

  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • The Politics of Representation (pt 2)

    by Sunny
    13th October, 2006 at 9:21 pm    

    The Asian tabloid Eastern Eye has an amusing interview this week with the self-appointed representative of British Sikhs - Jagtar Singh, spokesperson for the Sikh Federation.

    Amusing, because it lays bare some of the motivations that drive our so-called “community leaders”.

    A few weeks ago I briefly looked at factors influencing the Muslim Council of Britain’s behaviour. This is a follow-up.

    The EE article starts by stating: “A British group has told Sikh youths to assert their identity even if it means turning to radicalism.” At this point alarms bells should be ringing already. Turn to what sort of radicalism exactly?

    He states: “Sikhs have not been blowing up trains nor blowing up buses.” I hope he’s not disappointed by that fact. He adds: “We are not protesting in the streets [with banners] asking for people to be killed. As long as it is within the law, we believe in pro-active campaigning.”

    What does “campaigning” entail exactly, you may ask. This is an important question because it doesn’t just concern this organisation or British Sikhs, but goes to the heart of an important debate in modern multi-ethnic Britain: the politics of representation.

    Just before New Labour took power in 1997, Michael Howard encouraged the formation of the MCB so there was one organisation the government could talk to. Particularly since 9/11, the organisation has become more prominent and seen as “representing British Muslims”.

    That makes Hindus and Sikhs jealous. Why should Muslims get all the money, media coverage and attention? We want it too, the ones with political ambitions say. The EE article states: “He said the Government is making a mistake in simply focusing on the Muslim community in community cohesion. ‘We think that is a major mistake. The fact that we are different should be valued and understood and that is where the emphasis should be.’”

    In other words, please pay some attention to us too. As the journalist Amardeep Bassey uncovered earlier in a Five Live documentary, the organisation has its own skeletons in the closet. And yet Ken Livingstone is happy to engage with them.

    In a later article I will explain why this form of communal politics in modern Britain backfires in the faces of minority groups, whether face or race based, and the population in general. But this will give you an idea.

    On an email list (sikh_news_discussion) earlier this year, Kashmir Singh of the British Sikh Federation (different to SF mentioned above) argued why British Sikhs need to be monitored as a separate ethnic group. He said: “Ethnic group data is needed in order to ensure that we [Sikhs] get our fair share of jobs, promotions, businesses, delivery of services, grants, development funds by central / local government departments and employers, etc.”

    He added: “If we are not monitored, then we do not count, and we will not get our fair share; other ethnic groups will get our share instead.”

    It’s easy to join the dots here. Faith-based organisations are engaged in a power struggle with race-based organisations for money, credibility and power. This is why the Hindu Forum wants British Hindus to identify themselves as the latter rather than a vague British Asian identity.

    This is why Inayat Bunglawala is so annoyed with Ruth Kelly’s insistence they only get money if they follow its demands. What did he expect?

    Lastly, my detractors will say I’m biased against faith organisations since they pose a threat to race-based organisations that claim to represent minority groups. Wrong; I’m against both kinds. I’m against their politics and their clamour for money and power.

    Most of all I think they put obstacles in the way of a more egalitarian society. I want everyone to be treated equally.

    [cross-posted on comment is free]

                  Post to

    Filed in: Organisations,Race politics

    50 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. You know things are bad when … « Not Saussure

      [...] Which, to my mind, provides a useful backdrop to Sunny’s excellent discussion, in Pickled Politics and Comment is Free, of ’some of the motivations that drive our so-called “community leaders”’. It may also provide something of a warning about the implications of Gordon Brown’s enthusiasm — in a speech completely overshadowed by Jack Straw’s views on veils — for ‘Cultural action against terrorist extremism’ as outlined in pages 12 and following of his Chatham House speech. [...]

    1. ZinZin — on 13th October, 2006 at 9:48 pm  

      Bang on the money Sunny.

      The face of political multiculturalism give us more power,rights and money.

      This is the problem with MC with its focus on the group over the individual those who shout loudest get the money, power and influence. Weaker members of the group such as women and homosexuals are ignored as the loudest voice is always the most reactionary voice. The reactionary voice is favoured for another reason that it is authentic fitting the cultural relativists ideal (soft racism)forgetting that these communities are not homogenous and have differing viewpoints within them.

      Happy that Kelly is demanding more of the MCB it is about time that their paymasters start calling the shots. Bunglawala may have to cut his cloth accordingly if Sufi organisations get a slice of the cake.

      My question is why pander to such organisations?

    2. razib — on 13th October, 2006 at 10:08 pm  

      well…if was a cultural traditionalist i would understand why such moves are necessary. some jewish leaders here in the states have said that ‘a little anti-semitism is good the jews.’ as it is, intermarriage rates are nearly 50%, and most of the children are not raised as jews. that being said, even if ‘a little’ anti-semitism is good for the coherency of the jewish group, it is probably not the ideal for jewish individuals. and there you have it: the more separatism and tension that ‘community leaders’ can generate the more they seem indispensable as individuals with circle the wagons and form into groups.

    3. ZinZin — on 13th October, 2006 at 10:23 pm  

      Good point Razib.

      Muslim organisations have used the Islamophobia myth to gain power and influence in this “faith community”.

    4. Sukhjit Singh — on 13th October, 2006 at 10:34 pm  

      How pathetic that this organisation which has no mandate to speak for Sikhs does exactly that and tries to emulate and follow the Muslim example of multicultural politics. They are only interested in foreign issues like Khalistan and promoting a narrow version of Sikhism rather than addressing the challenges facing modern British society. This really is the runt, the grubby runt of modern religious identity politics. And it goes for the Hindu Forum people as well.

    5. Amir — on 14th October, 2006 at 12:27 am  

      All in all, I couldn’t give a monkeys about community leaders or religious commissars – self-appointed or otherwise. It’s one of the small prices each and every one of us must pay for living in an Open Society. ‘Democracy’ – looked at objectively – is a system in which a small group of people rules and mass participation is confined to choosing leaders in elections managed by competing elites – lobbyists, NGO’s, community spokespersons, businesses etc. There are many different elites involved, who have to work both in contention and in compromise with one another.

      The biggest threat to our peace and privacy (encapsulated in the liberties of Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights) is not the MAC, MCB, MPAC or any other M-something-something-C you can think of. As far as I’m concerned, these centre-of-right Islamic organizations command little-to-no influence in the wider Diaspora, unlike our Syrian Ambassador George Galloway or Afghan sister Yvonne Ridley.

      The real danger is a lot more sinister. Apart from war or internecine conflict, the most potent force for destabilization in world politics is mass immigration. Contrary to the stale clichés of irresponsible libertarians like Chris Dillow, there is nothing at all ‘altruistic’ about allowing millions upon millions of unassimilated immigrants to settle down on our tiny Island. It’s not altruistic, but masochistic.

      Wishy-washy ‘progressives’ are afraid of the ‘cruelty’ that might be involved in setting strict but sensible quotas, so they opt for the far greater cruelties – greater because permanent – that visit us as a consequence of our multicultural mess: riots, rocketing crime, alienation, irreconcilable social divisions.

      If any of you were so naïve as to entertain the view that those nasty riots in Paris (x4), Brussels, Amsterdam, Oldham, Burnley and Birmingham were ‘one-off’ affairs – think again. They are the birth pangs of what awaits us if we continue to abuse our country and our borders in such a suicidal way.

      PLEASE, listen to this eight-minute interview with the great Patrick J. Buchanan.

      As Chuck D (our favourite PP rapper) would put it: ‘Don’t tell me that you understand,… until you hear da’ man!’


    6. Yakoub/Julaybib — on 14th October, 2006 at 12:28 am  

      I am extremely ambivalent about identity politics. On the one hand, I desperately want to get more involved and pro-active about the way the media is vomiting all over Muslims at the moment. My blog, site and reading are turning that way. But on the other hand, I recognise identity politics has its dangers.

      I’m 43, but I remember what a bunch of biggotted bunch of scumbags many of the white middle class suburban kids I went to school with were - lucky my best mate was South Asian and I ended up walking on the Rock against Racism march, etc. Lots of my fellow pupils didn’t wake up. Now their starting to get power and be the establishment abd their polite racism is shedding its veil, ha ha. I saw this first hand as a teacher and now I’m seeing the same play wide. There’s a point where you say to yourself, I want to spend my life fighting this, cause its gonna take more than a lifetime to knock it on the head.

      But I think you have to tread carefully. Strategic identity is okay to fight this little battle, but it has to acknowledge wider humanity and group diversity. Nasty identity politics - the cultish kind - always demands homogeneity. Plus, I think it’s important to acknowledge that the big problem is not race, or religion, but power. That’s why class and gender are key issues, too.

      Two things the Prophet (aws) said, and I am paraphrasing here. One is: don’t serve rulers, but invite them in if they come to see you. And the reason God gives victory is in order to protect the weak.



    7. El Cid — on 14th October, 2006 at 12:35 am  

      You may not like the source, but this is blatantly unfair:

    8. Sukhjit Singh — on 14th October, 2006 at 12:42 am  

      Those articles are always skewed as if it is ‘minorities’ who are at fault — always have snide comments about how they are in some way to blame. But all Sikhs would support her right to wear a crucifix on a chain. I hate the way that the Daily Mail always always always spend their time demonising us, and the the El Cids of the world fly into a rage and take it out on us. Screw all that. It is British Airways that needs to sort themselves out. Dont blame us.

    9. Amir — on 14th October, 2006 at 1:03 am  

      Sukhjit Singh

      ‘Those articles are always skewed as if it is ‘minorities’ who are at fault’

      How, or in what respect, is the Daily Mail article targeted at Sikhs or Sikhism? The culprits, in this case, are politically-correct Leftist establishments and Guardian-reading Caucasian liberals, who, in the past 20-30 years, have infected and infiltrated every inch our society – like a multiplying bacterium. The strange paradox of our culture is that political correctness looks harshly upon reformed, tolerant Christianity and seeks to remove it from public life in both Britain and America. Yet it gives a free pass to unreformed, ferocious Islam, which is actually much harsher than Christianity in its condemnation of the things that political correctness loves, i.e., freedom of speech and expression, political pluralism, gender equality, gay rights, and so on and so forth.


    10. Sukhjit Singh — on 14th October, 2006 at 1:09 am  

      Amir, no Sikh wants Christianity to be suppressed in this country, or have a lady remove her crucifix. I bet half the names on her petition are by Sikh employees of BA. British Airways needs to sort themselves out, dont target minorities and club us all together as the same.

    11. Amir — on 14th October, 2006 at 1:17 am  

      Mr. Singh,

      ‘Amir, no Sikh wants Christianity to be suppressed in this country, or have a lady remove her crucifix.’

      Oh, I know; don’t worry. That goes without saying. And yet, you imply that the Daily Mail is sneekily trying to scapegoat your co-religionists? This is simply not true.

    12. Sukhjit Singh — on 14th October, 2006 at 1:41 am  

      Mr Amir — the Daily Mail should make it plain and canvas the opinions of her fellow Sikh workers, rather than solely using their wearing of a steel bangle appear to be another example of how, by stealth, Christianity is being undermined in comparison to other ‘more assertive’ faiths….this is different from a bunch of identity politician jerk offs and their ‘demands’….you might be nuanced enough to understand this, reading the comments you invariably get under articles like this they are invariably full of people mouthing off at us, rather than, or as well as, at the silly beaureucrats of British Airways.

    13. Amir — on 14th October, 2006 at 1:43 am  

      ‘articles like this they are invariably full of people mouthing off at us’

      How so? Could you quote me a segment of the Daily Mail article so as to prove your point.

    14. Sukhjit Singh — on 14th October, 2006 at 1:46 am  

      Yeah Amir go through the back catalogue and read the comments about how we are ‘demanding’ that British people ‘change their way of life’ whenever there is an article like this —- no we bloody well are not.

      And it wouldnt do any harm to insert a few sentences explaining that, would it? Hmmm? I don’t think so.

    15. Amir — on 14th October, 2006 at 1:59 am  

      The article isn’t anti-Sikh. You can’t quote anything from the aforementioned which proves your point. Case closed.

      I haven’t read the comments; that’s not what we were discussing.

    16. Sukhjit Singh — on 14th October, 2006 at 2:00 am  

      I am referring to the readers comments they place under the main article.

    17. Sukhjit Singh — on 14th October, 2006 at 2:02 am  

      Oh Amir you’re so pompous. The broader point I make is about the demonisation of minorities by ommission in articles like this, the insinuation that Sikhs are corroding the expression of Christianity, and how it wouldnt do any harm to EXPRESS this in articles. That is all. If that sets ants in your pants, go and scratch them in the corner.

    18. Amir — on 14th October, 2006 at 2:03 am  

      There are no readers comments!? I just checked. It says:

      “No comments have so far been submitted. Why not be the first to send us your thoughts?”

      Time: 2.02am

    19. Sukhjit Singh — on 14th October, 2006 at 2:05 am  

      Amir, I was talking broadly about how the same points get played out in the public debate and I have read that crap time and time again in the past in Daily Mail message boards and articles. You dont know it you dont see it you dont want to hear it, fine, but dont go around saying that perception doesnt exist.

    20. bikhair aka taqiyyah — on 14th October, 2006 at 3:21 am  


      You and Pat are a coo coo. I am from Southern California and Mexicans dont want to turn any part of California or the U.S. into Mexican land. Yes there are some, such a small minority I dont understand why they are taken seriously, who talk about stolen land and Mexifornia but most Mexican Americans are culturally, religiously, and socially, very American. Pat is peddling racial and ethnic hysteria.

    21. Sunny — on 14th October, 2006 at 3:51 am  

      Pat Buchanan is as coo-coo as they come and I’m not surprised Amir is begging us to recognise that mass immigration is going to be the end of civilisation as we know it. Give it a rest mate…. I think it’ll work better at the Migrationwatch website.

    22. Amir — on 14th October, 2006 at 4:07 am  

      Sunny and Bikhair,

      Demography is an essential part of human history and of stable civilizations. I recommend that you purchase Timothy Garton Ash’s newest release Free World, and in it you will find ample references to demographic trends (in Europe) and speculation as to their likely social and cultural consequences.

      Now, ask yourselves this: Is Professor Ash a bit loopy, a bit coo coo? – as both of you so facetiously put it? I don’t think so.

      Deny it if you will, but here are the United Nations’ official projections.

      See here and here, also.


    23. Amir — on 14th October, 2006 at 4:25 am  


      Call yourself a black conservative? ;-)

      I. Don’t. Think. So.

      Check out one of my favourite right-wing blogs: Black and Right.

    24. Sunny — on 14th October, 2006 at 4:28 am  

      Yeah yeah yeah yeah. Amir gimme as many links as you like. Do I have a t-shirt that says I care. Not really.

      Please stick to the topic. You’re turning into one of those idiots on CIF who reads a post about science and astronomy and tries to find a way to relate to Islam and start cussing Muslims. Frankly this has very little to do with immigration and I’d prefer if you stopped trolling threads with your Pat Buchanan ass-licking. Otherwise I will start deleting this shit and ban you.

    25. Amir — on 14th October, 2006 at 4:46 am  


      Post 22 contains hyperlinks to UN population projections and a link to Garton-Ash’s Free World.

      Even democrats are now beginning to listen to Pat Buchanan. He’s a 21-first-century Oswald Spengler.

    26. ZinZin — on 14th October, 2006 at 12:22 pm  

      Afternoon all
      Amir been stirring it again.

      “A British group has told Sikh youths to assert their identity even if it means turning to radicalism.” At this point alarms bells should be ringing already. Turn to what sort of radicalism exactly?

      Good point should Whites vote for the BNP? This is the logical conclusion of political MC if we are to be divided upon specious points of identity.

    27. obscene machine — on 14th October, 2006 at 1:25 pm  

      ‘A British group has told Sikh youths to assert their identity even if it means turning to radicalism.” At this point alarms bells should be ringing already. Turn to what sort of radicalism exactly’

      errr I thought the sikh identity was a pretty well established unique one, i can envisage loads of turban wearing, bearded youth who are scared to assert their identity, hmmm maybe this is a good idea…faith-based representative organisations baaaah…fat headed people eating too much fat of the land, with nothing else to do…oooh this is turning into gang warfare.. yo yo representing west punjab sikhside. peace(just don’t look at our women and write plays set in our temples).

    28. bikhair aka taqiyyah — on 14th October, 2006 at 1:43 pm  


      I am socially conservative and a fiscal centrist. I dont on the other hand believe that the problems of the black community are caused by Mexican or any other immigrants. Consider that these problems are decades old, you have got to be real. Tomorrow a white conservative will turn around and point to the shiftlessness of black folks by using those hard working Mexicans as an example. Muslims cant blame peoples for their problems, nor can blacks, even if there is an immigration problem.

      I dont mean to sound like an elist but why should black AMericans, been here for generations be fighting over jobs that are generally done by non English speaking, uneducted immigrants from south of the border? My family were immigrants and my grandparents did “Mexican” jobs but I, as a first generation American, will not be doing “Mexican” jobs.

    29. bikhair aka taqiyyah — on 14th October, 2006 at 1:52 pm  

      Sukhjit Singh,

      “Oh Amir you’re so pompous.”

      THis kind of activity on Pickled Politics is rather rare for AMir so you should appreciate his presence. We generally dont see him as much on PP. However there are those moments where he descends from his perch atop Mount Zion to defecate his wisdom all over us. Savor it while you can Sukhjit. In fact bottle the shit and sell it.

    30. Sukhjit Singh — on 14th October, 2006 at 2:09 pm  

      Yeah Bikhair I noticed — this dude Amir references right wing holocaust denying racists like Pat Buchanan — beautiful stuff!

      Oi obscene machine, save the sarcasm, the Sikh Federation are a bunch of plonkers and don’t represent Sikhs — in fact their laughable strategy of acting like a cry baby because they are not getting the same attention as Muslim identity politician idiots marks them down as most pathetic, but dont take the piss out of Sikhs otherwise, because theres no need to. And the Hindu Forum are just as laughable with their petty whining and moaning too —-hindusideleicester massive in the area coming through —- wankers!

    31. VTDASGUPTA — on 14th October, 2006 at 3:46 pm  

      This is a bit rich comming from the editor of “Asians in media” - can he please change the name or drop the organisation.

    32. Sukhjit Singh — on 14th October, 2006 at 3:49 pm  

      Yeah but ‘Asians in Media’ isnt trying to have public funds or create religious tension or organise demonstrations is it????? Crap comparison!!!!!

    33. Chairwoman — on 14th October, 2006 at 3:53 pm  

      Sunny - How about a new blog called ‘Sikhs Muslims & Jews’, where the daily post will just say ‘Same old, same old…’ And then we’ll all find different ways to say the same thing…….

    34. Sukhjit Singh — on 14th October, 2006 at 3:54 pm  

      Hindus will feel left out.

    35. Chairwoman — on 14th October, 2006 at 4:13 pm  

      Sorry Hindus, no offence intended.

    36. soru — on 14th October, 2006 at 4:41 pm  

      I think I’ve got a plausible story that explains what’s going on with all this stuff.

      1. Since about Thomas Becket, senior leaders of the protestant (and later Catholic) Church have being given the right to advise the government. Not on the basis of representing a constituency, but on the basis of their ability to indentify in advance the cases where people would go to the stake for their beliefs - a thing always inconvenient to smooth administration. As a sideline, this lobbying also covers the personal concerns and economic interests of full-time clerics and priests.

      2. Since mass black immigration in the 1950s, there have been anti-racist or ethnic lobbies. These do claim to directly represent a constituency, because essentially everyone in the represented group is affected by, and opposes, racism. These lobbies gradually extended themselves to deal with cultural issues where there was similar consensus within the group.

      3. Since the retreat of pan-Arabism and rise of Islamism as a political movement and Islam as a persoanl identity, the Muslim lobby has become prominent. However, it can’t quite decide between the two patterns above. The result is that it ends up claiming to represent ‘the Muslim community’, i.e. an ethnic group, while simultaneously expressing the concerns of the wannabe martyrs. Despite the fact that those views are not held, or actively opposed, by a majority of the people they claim to represent.

      That sound about right?

    37. Chairwoman — on 14th October, 2006 at 5:10 pm  

      Soru - I quite like this theory. I can’t, however, see the Queen saying ‘Who will rid me of these turbulent community leaders?’, at least not in public, nor knights of the realm, Sir Paul MacCartney, Sir Cliff Richard, Sir Elton John and Sir Mick Jagger, to name but four, climbing into their chauffer-driven limos and heading off to Regents Park to despatch them.

      Admittedly, it is just around the corner for Sir Paul.

    38. Sukhjit Singh — on 14th October, 2006 at 5:31 pm  

      Good explanation Soru. The Sikh and Hindu angle comes in as a copy cat reaction to the rise and assertiveness of aggressive Muslim Identity Politicians and a desire to distance themselves from Muslims with their own agenda. In Lozells riots we saw the ‘black’ identity politicians backlashing against them both.

      What a mess.

    39. genghis — on 14th October, 2006 at 5:38 pm  

      well done the sikhs, about time you showed your true colours!

    40. Paramjit Kaur — on 14th October, 2006 at 5:38 pm  

      Sunny does have a problem with faith and race groups. So why ‘Asians’ in Media??! What does it matter if it doesnt run after grants and power? It is still a race-based platform. Everything Sunny keeps saying about faith and race is nag-nag-nag like an old woman! Healer, heal thyself.

    41. Iqbal Shofi — on 14th October, 2006 at 5:41 pm  

      ‘Everything’ Sunny says is nag-nag? That is a bit far fetched. He does have a good opinion about a few things - like - er Asians in Media.

    42. genghis — on 14th October, 2006 at 6:11 pm  

      Nah Sunny represents them wimmin, watcha ya call em…oh yes self obsessed and needy!

    43. Sukhjit Singh — on 14th October, 2006 at 6:29 pm  

      what true colour genghis — these people dont represent sikhs —- you mean you appreciate sikh defeeration small minded pindooo idiots as copy catting muslism — how pathetic!!

      As for all the Sunny haters — get a life you saps!

    44. Sukhjit Singh — on 14th October, 2006 at 6:37 pm  

      Paramjit Kaur

      The difference is, unlike those separatist beggars and grasping scroungers of the various organisations of ‘representatived’ (ha! as if they even know what democractioc representation means, the illiberal bullies they are) — he does not call for things to be banned, advocate ‘radicalism’, grasp for public funds, or act like a backwards communalist bigot, as the Sikh Federation, Muslim Council, or Hindu Forum do —-> comprendez??? its not difficult to understand is it, what the difference is between that, and a lobby group of communalist and sectarian extremists is.

    45. VTDASGUPTA — on 14th October, 2006 at 7:53 pm  

      “Yeah but ‘Asians in Media’ isnt trying to have public funds or create religious tension or organise demonstrations is it????? Crap comparison!!!!! ”

      The organisation “Asians in media”
      -stands on a race platform. He gets invites to bbc conferences based on him being seen as a representative voice for asians i.e. bbc conference and some guardian meeting on multiculturism some time ago.
      -It is based on identity politics that seeks to highlight the lack of representation of asians.
      -It attempts to suggest asians within media have a specific grievance that non-asians cannot comprehend.
      -It suggests “asians” have a collective viewpoint.

      having seen sunny’s earlier articles about representation and his continuous regurgitation of Greg Dyke’s “hideously white” statement - he has a specific agenda which he hopes to highlight by calling it “asians in media”. He sought to gain legitamacy by calling up individuals like Yasmin Alaba-Brown to sign some statement when it was set up.

      He is driving a “race agenda” thats anti-intergration and seeks to exploit “multiculturism”.

      If sunny REALLY belives in what he espouses, he should either change the name or drop the organisation.

    46. Amir — on 14th October, 2006 at 10:34 pm  


      ‘I dont on the other hand believe that the problems of the black community are caused by Mexican or any other immigrants.’

      I’m not proposing some mono-causal connection between black poverty and the invasion of Mexican immigrants. What I’m actually saying is that the increasing number of illegal aliens is exacerbating an existing problem in the black community. It’s like pouring salt onto a festering wound.

      Mass immigration has suited governments of left and right for many years, not just in America but also in Britain and continental Europe. Why? Because it creates a sub-proletarian underclass who will work for low wages and avoid the strict minimum wage, health and safety and other regulations which have been imposed on employers by previous administrations.

      And yet,… it is the poor, not the well-off, who have to pay the material price of immigration, which benefits big business by keeping wages low, and helps governments by providing a short-cut to economic growth. It is a tribute to the gentle tolerance of black America that, by and large, this has happened without major conflict or friction.

      Here in Britain, the situation is even worse. Respectable folk are so sick of the liberal intelligentsia and their barefaced lies, and so sick of being called ‘racists’ or ‘Islamophobes’ when they are clearly not, that when they see the BNP called the same rude names that they have been called, they think the BNP must be on their side. Sadly for them, the BNP is on nobody’s side but its own. It seeks power on their votes but heaven forbid it should ever win any seats in a general election. Allowing the BNP into Parliament would be a moral and political disaster of unmitigated proportions.


    47. Sunny — on 14th October, 2006 at 11:20 pm  

      He is driving a “race agenda” thats anti-intergration and seeks to exploit “multiculturism”.

      If sunny REALLY belives in what he espouses, he should either change the name or drop the organisation.

      There’s a difference. I run a magazine which happens to be called Asians in Media, now called AIM magazine. It is a brand name. My aim however, as clearly stated, is to get more people of south asian origin into the media and report on the industry. This is so there can be tons of people representing themselves rather than having a bunch of old-skoolers claiming to represent everyone. I don’t claim to represent anyone but my own voice. It’s like being a commentator at a national newspaper. Does Jonathan Freedland claim to represent white people? don’t think so. Neither have I ever claimed to represent the Asian community. I don’t want to. And neither do I want anyone else to represent me. And neither do I rely on govt grants to sustain myself.

    48. soru — on 15th October, 2006 at 12:33 am  

      Sir Paul MacCartney, Sir Cliff Richard, Sir Elton John and Sir Mick Jagger, to name but four, climbing into their chauffer-driven limos and heading off to Regents Park to despatch them. ,/i>

      OK, now I want to turn this into a Channel 4 sitcom.

      Someone give me a budget.

    49. bikhair aka taqiyyah — on 15th October, 2006 at 4:30 pm  


      “I’m not proposing some mono-causal connection between black poverty and the invasion of Mexican immigrants. What I’m actually saying is that the increasing number of illegal aliens is exacerbating an existing problem in the black community. It’s like pouring salt onto a festering wound.”

      I dont agree that they are exacerbating any existing problems. Blacks who have been in the country for generations, hundreds of years shouldnt be fighting over crumbs with illegal non english speaking immigrants. They have far more political, social, and economic power than these people. Not only that blacks are in a better position to elavate themselves above and beyound the problems that they face with or without the existence of mass illegal immigration.

      When illegal immigrants come to this country their choice is only to work cheap whilte native born peoples choose to not work at all it is be between not working and working cheap. Not working exacerbates existing problems of poverty, criminality, and parental neglect.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.