Blair defends plan to deport 20 foreigners

[Atlas]

Blair Defends Plan to Deport 20 Foreigners
Nov 22 8:23 AM US/Eastern

Up to 20 foreigners are in custody in Britain awaiting deportation to countries that have a record of torturing or abusing detainees, Prime Minister Tony Blair said Tuesday, but he defended his efforts to counter Islamic extremism.

Civil rights activists have condemned Blair's efforts to deport people to several north African and Middle Eastern countries with questionable human rights records.

But Blair insisted his government had a duty to protect Britain's security, and needed new powers to counter the threat of international terrorism. On July 7, four suspected suicide bombers killed 52 people on London's transport system.

"We have got to be able to make sure we return people if they are a threat to the security of this country," Blair told a House of Commons committee.

The government is trying to sign agreements with several nations guaranteeing that foreign nationals returned there will not be mistreated. So-called memoranda of understanding have already been signed with Jordan and Libya and the government is seeking similar deals with eight other countries, including Algeria, Lebanon and Tunisia.

Civil rights activists and the U.N. special envoy on torture have warned, however, that such assurances have no weight in international law and would not sufficiently protect the deportees. Britain cannot deport people to countries where they may face torture or mistreatment because it is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.

"I don't intend on returning anyone, incidentally, unless we can get assurances from that other government," Blair added. "And by and large we believe ... that governments who give us such an assurance will abide by that."

Blair told the committee that the threat of international terrorism would be "with us for some time." He said extremism found its roots in a "perversion of Islam" that was difficult to tackle.

"It is going to take a long time to eradicate in this country and elsewhere," he added.

The prime minister, whose proposed anti-terror legislation has been watered down by lawmakers in the House of Commons, insisted new powers were needed to tackle "mass casualty terrorism."

"The point about these terrorists is that they will kill as many people as they can kill," he added.

The Commons rejected Blair's proposal to allow terrorist suspects to be detained for up to 90 days without charge, and set the maximum at 28 days _ double the current limit. Although his proposal was criticized as a violation of human rights, Blair denied that he was casual about civil liberties.

"But I do believe you need to send some pretty strong signals out there with people who might want to come into our country to cause trouble or conspire to commit terrorist acts," Blair said.

"I would like them to get the message that if you do that, life is going to be difficult for you and you are likely to be turned back to your own country. We need to make it quite clear to people the waters within which they swim are going to be deeply inhospitable to this kind of extremism."



http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/22/D8E1HO3O5.html

[Lenny]

If only the title of the article had been: "Blair Defends Plan to Deport 20,000 Foreigners" instead of "Blair Defends Plan to Deport 20 Foreigners", then we'd be in business :cool:

[The Retard]

They should just bring back the guillotine.

[Starr]

Britain cannot deport people to countries where they may face torture or mistreatment because it is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.


They may be terrorists or dangerous criminals, but we cannot send them back to where they belong if there is a possibility they may be "mistreated." Is that not pathetic?:rolleyes: The muslims must have a good laugh about that level of retardation.

[Jimbo Gomez]

They may be terrorists or dangerous criminals, but we cannot send them back to where they belong if there is a possibility they may be "mistreated." Is that not pathetic?:rolleyes: The muslims must have a good laugh about that level of retardation.


They have contempt for our weakness, with good reason.

[Jimbo Gomez]

If only the title of the article had been: "Blair Defends Plan to Deport 20,000 Foreigners" instead of "Blair Defends Plan to Deport 20 Foreigners", then we'd be in business :cool:


Try 2 million...

[Vindex]

Hes kicking 20 out and letting thousands in.

[Atlas]

Well, at least it is a good start...

[Vindex]

No, it is a token gesture to clam the sheeple down and make them feel more secure. The massive groid flood will keep going, and the repression against Native Whites will keep going.

A good start would be tony and the uber elite and there familys getting burned out of there big homes.


Well, at least it is a good start...

[Scales]

If only the title of the article had been: "Blair Defends Plan to Deport 20,000 Foreigners" instead of "Blair Defends Plan to Deport 20 Foreigners", then we'd be in business :cool:
Yeah, forced deportation of people based upon their race or religion alone, then we'd be cooking with gas (pardon the pun).

I'm not hugely in support of the state selecting people for their genetic pattern, or which deity they worship, I must admit. I tend to prefer the idea of removing people from general society who have actually committed a criminal act, crazy liberal that I am.

[Jimbo Gomez]

What's wrong with removing people who have no business being in the country in the first place?

Welcome aboard by the way.

[Felix the Cat]

This year, the official population of Britain topped 60 million...

There are now more people living in the British Isles than there are in France, despite the fact that France is a much larger, more fertile and temperate country

This is insane.

Throwing foreigners out - even "innocent" ones - is exactly what Britain needs

[Dances with Wolves]

Yeah scales, you're all for africans and other assorted turd world flotsdam to mix freely in White Western society, as long as they haven't commited any crime, huh. Destroyer that you are.

Hey, I'm surprised the war criminal Blair hasn't started the deportation of native Britons. I guess he wants them to suffer.

[Starr]

Yeah, forced deportation of people based upon their race or religion alone,

What is wrong with that, and what is wrong with these people living in their countries of origin? why is the thought of a nation where everyone is of the same race and shares at least somewhat similar values such a negative thought to you? I don't get it. Why does it seem like some(not you neccessarily) are all for blacks, asians, native americans,etc having their own space, but when it comes to whites, that is a bad thing?

[Lenny]

Try 2 million...http://www.inspire21.com/Images/eCardART/1000miles.jpg

[Kodos]

What is wrong with that, and what is wrong with these people living in their countries of origin? why is the thought of a nation where everyone is of the same race and shares at least somewhat similar values such a negative thought to you? I don't get it. Why does it seem like some(not you neccessarily) are all for blacks, asians, native americans,etc having their own space, but when it comes to whites, that is a bad thing?

Deporting assimilated asians probably won't fly starr, lets start with foreign muslims, people who refuse to learn english, welfare leeches, agitators and criminals.

[Dances with Wolves]

So you're saying that people who should be on the cover of National Geographic yet speak perfect english should not be tossed? I don't think that will fly either. However, if there is ever going to be a fight over who to eject, it will be over that group of people.

[Starr]

As screwed up as so many people are some of the things you mention would not fly to well, either, otto.

[Dances with Wolves]

You'll have Whites trying to kill you to defend the agitators, criminals and other assorted turd world trash.

[Scales]

The ethical issues aside, the logistics of racialism as a political movement are just too flakey.

You (the hypothetical ethno-nationalist) can restrict immigration, you can enforce cultural integration (to a degree), you can ban religious garb or counter-cultural ideologies or literature. You can even create occasional gated communities as tacit racial sanctuaries.

But the moment you try to set up a racist state in the West, you will trigger instant civil war (even on the off-chance that society is unstable enough for you to get as far as that), or failing that, the surrounding countries or states will move in and crush your movement before you so much as get to handing out copies of My Awakening.

I believe it's going to take the either a race-war culminating in the complete destruction of modern social infrastructure or a total social re-structuring in the aftermath of a near-extinction level event for anything even smelling like Nazism to make it back into the West.

Racism will always exist -I disagree with those who say we can ever have a situation where it's truly gone; but a racialist ideology gaining power over a western nation just cannot happen without a preceding societal meltdown on a grand scale.

My views as a non-racist pale into insignificance in that context, really.

[Scales]

What's wrong with removing people who have no business being in the country in the first place?
Welcome aboard by the way.

Cheers, glad to be here.

Regarding your question, it depends what you mean by 'no business being here'. I'm all for removing people who, through deed and word, oppose the interests of the nation that they live in, sure.

[Dances with Wolves]

The ethical issues aside, the logistics of racialism as a political movement are just too flakey.

You (the hypothetical ethno-nationalist) can restrict immigration, you can enforce cultural integration (to a degree), you can ban religious garb or counter-cultural ideologies or literature. You can even create occasional gated communities as tacit racial sanctuaries.

But the moment you try to set up a racist state in the West, you will trigger instant civil war (even on the off-chance that society is unstable enough for you to get as far as that), or failing that, the surrounding countries or states will move in and crush your movement before you so much as get to handing out copies of My Awakening.

I believe it's going to take the either a race-war culminating in the complete destruction of modern social infrastructure or a total social re-structuring in the aftermath of a near-extinction level event for anything even smelling like Nazism to make it back into the West.

Racism will always exist -I disagree with those who say we can ever have a situation where it's truly gone; but a racialist ideology gaining power over a western nation just cannot happen without a preceding societal meltdown on a grand scale.

My views as a non-racist pale into insignificance in that context, really.

Wrong. Separation will be the most likely scenario (for a short while), not a societal meltdown. What happens after that is anybody's guess. The West was ethno-centric before, it can and must be again. As the people on your side are so found of saying, It's all about re-education. What the West is groaning under now is simply an aberration. The world cannot long survive in a Judized state. It is against nature.

I do see people like you being eliminated quickly however, if not for what you've already done to the West, then for standing in the way of survival.

[Dances with Wolves]

Cheers, glad to be here.

Regarding your question, it depends what you mean by 'no business being here'. I'm all for removing people who, through deed and word, oppose the interests of the nation that they live in, sure.


Sure you are. By word you've proven you're all for that.:rolleyes:

[Jimbo Gomez]

Cheers, glad to be here.

Regarding your question, it depends what you mean by 'no business being here'. I'm all for removing people who, through deed and word, oppose the interests of the nation that they live in, sure.

The majority of real Europeans, as opposed to their treacherous leadership, does not want them soiling the continent with their presence. That should be enough. Their culture perverts ours and they are biologically alien to our habitat.

[hellsatan]

Britain won't learn; If you aren't white, don't let them in - If they are white, they must be from the more civilised countries in Europe, from Australia, or from the USA or Canada...

Fuck the rest of them; I've got non-white friends but at the end of the day I'd rather sacrifice the few to get rid of the many...

Chris

[Scales]

The majority of real Europeans, as opposed to their treacherous leadership, does not want them soiling the continent with their presence. That should be enough.

Okay, if we take your use of the term 'real Europeans' as meaning Whites (which I think is what you were getting at), a recent survey in the UK, of the whites in Britain, only 6% had a 'fairly low' opinion of ethnic minorities born in Britain. Only 5% had a 'very low' opinion.

The vast majority of 'real Europeans' in my country don't consider non-Whites to be soiling the continent, anyway.

[Starr]

Where did you find this survey? I am more often than not very pessimistic, but 6% seems unbelievably low, IMO.

That being said, we all know how these surveys operate, questions being asked in a way to get the responses that are wanted,etc. And "fairly low" and "very low" could mean many different things. How many people have a "fairly high" or "very high" opinion of turd world immigrants I wonder.

[Jimbo Gomez]

I agree with starr. You can word your surveys any way you want in order to get the desired results. Also, if you take these polls in all-white neighbourhoods where people have no experience with the coloured folks, you'll get different response than if you poll those whites living close to the coloureds.

[Felix the Cat]

Time is the issue here...

In Europe, racialist thinking is bedevilled by association with German nationalism

This is illogical, of course, but the war generation and their children are not rational on this subject

While they remain in power nothing will change, but as they retire and die off (a process that has already begun) we can expect to see a radical cultural change in Europe

(Incidentally, a similar thing happened in the aftermath of the French revolution - because the French attacked their neighbours in the name of Equality, Republicanism and Secularism, these ideas became Taboo in much of Europe for generations after the wars)

[Crowley]

If only the title of the article had been: "Blair Defends Plan to Deport 20,000 Foreigners" instead of "Blair Defends Plan to Deport 20 Foreigners", then we'd be in business :cool:

My thoughts exactly. Britain is finished if they can't deport 20 invaders without a national dialogue. :rolleyes:

[Scales]

Where did you find this survey? I am more often than not very pessimistic, but 6% seems unbelievably low, IMO.

That being said, we all know how these surveys operate, questions being asked in a way to get the responses that are wanted,etc. And "fairly low" and "very low" could mean many different things. How many people have a "fairly high" or "very high" opinion of turd world immigrants I wonder.
A survey commissioned by the Commission for Racial Equality. The pollsters were 'YouGov', a respected opinions gatherer in the UK.

Tellingly, after seeing the results, the CRE seem to have played some rather dodgy games with the figures -despite the fact that the stats are generally positive. The CRE have made statements about it which flagrantly twist the content to imply a crisis of race relations -which suits their agenda.

Trevor Phillips, the head of the CRE, has clearly manipulated the figures in his statement referring to it, to support a business model which requires low integration between whites and non-whites.

Have a look at the survey by all means, and bear in mind that Britain is at least 89% white...

http://www.cre.gov.uk/downloads/yougov_survey.pdf

[Dances with Wolves]

Okay, if we take your use of the term 'real Europeans' as meaning Whites (which I think is what you were getting at), a recent survey in the UK, of the whites in Britain, only 6% had a 'fairly low' opinion of ethnic minorities born in Britain. Only 5% had a 'very low' opinion.

The vast majority of 'real Europeans' in my country don't consider non-Whites to be soiling the continent, anyway.

P.S

Yes, I used to post on MSF, but I'm not 'from it', and I'm not a clown.
It's good to see there's a grapevine of PM'ed insults going on here, anyway, very adult. Very 'high-brow'.

What do you expect? Racism is a CRIME in the UK. Do you expect people to really say how they feel?

[Scales]

What do you expect? Racism is a CRIME in the UK. Do you expect people to really say how they feel?

I believe that the survey is anonymous. Have a look (I've linked to it in the post above yours) -it's not ALL good, anyway. But in my opinion fairly realistic.

[Dances with Wolves]

I believe that the survey is anonymous. Have a look (I've linked to it in the post above yours) -it's not ALL good, anyway. But in my opinion fairly realistic.


There is no such thing as anonymous in the land of a thousand cameras.

[Scales]

There is no such thing as anonymous in the land of a thousand cameras.
Well, at least allow for the naivety of the unawakened masses.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Scales, on a related note: in what country do you live?

[Scales]

Scales, on a related note: in what country do you live?
England, Yurp.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Well, surely you realize the nationalist tendencies are far greater on the continent than on your island.

[Scales]

True, but my point was from a European perspective deliberately, in response to your comment:

The majority of real Europeans, as opposed to their treacherous leadership, does not want them soiling the continent with their presence. That should be enough. Their culture perverts ours and they are biologically alien to our habitat.

I'm not unaware of the growth of ethno-nationalism in the states; but my impression was that the theme on this thread is European specifically British, and my personal perspective is one of a Briton.

Maybe the statement 'the majority of Europeans do not want them [non-whites?] soiling the continent with their presence' is true. Nobody wants any group 'soiling'.

But the fact remains that the majority of Brits seem to be saying that they don't see all non-whites as 'soiling the continent' anyway.

[Starr]

Tellingly, after seeing the results, the CRE seem to have played some rather dodgy games with the figures -despite the fact that the stats are generally positive. The CRE have made statements about it which flagrantly twist the content to imply a crisis of race relations -which suits their agenda.

It could suit their agenda either way. Make the results appear more positive for them, then they actually are and anyone reading the results and is not too fond of muds will feel like the odd man out, so to speak.

[Scales]

It could suit their agenda either way. Make the results appear more positive for them, then they actually are and anyone reading the results and is not too fond of muds will feel like the odd man out, so to speak.
Yes, but the agency involved (YouGov) are pretty neutral. The CRE seem to be more interested in making the results seem more negative, despite contrary evidence even in polls they themselves commission.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,1642915,00.html

I suppose it keeps them busy...

[Starr]

Interesting that a large number are classified as "neither high or low" which either indicates they don't care one way or the other(stupid) or they might not be too welcoming of immigrants, but decided to answer the questions in a more safe way.

[Scales]

Interesting that a large number are classified as "neither high or low" which either indicated they don't care one way or the other(stupid) or they might not be too welcoming of immigrants, but decided to answer the questions in a more safe way.

Interesting then that 84% of whites want ethnic minorities and whites to socialise more, which is not a particularly controversial statement in terms of racism, so could be equally rejected without suspicion.

And that 70% agreed with better integration for ethnic minorities, though that may imply a desire for more effort from NW.

But you could be right, so even assuming that's true (which I doubt, given the strictly stated anonymity of such polls), then what about the fact that 95% of people from ethnic minorities claim to have at least some close friends who are white?

[Starr]

[QUOTE=Scales]Interesting then that 84% of whites want ethnic minorities and whites to socialise more, which is not a particularly controversial statement in terms of racism, so could be equally rejected without suspicion.

Which probably means many whites and non-whites are remaining pretty segregated at least when it comes to their social life and personal relationships. A lot of them(some not certainly) may change their minds very quickly about wanting more "diversity" in their personal lives if they were to get to know each other better. And a lot of people will say all of these things "you should do this" "they should do this" without actually wanting or having any intentions of doing whatever it is they are talking about themselves.

And that 70% agreed with better integration for ethnic minorities, though that may imply a desire for more effort from NW.

This isn't surprising and doesn't mean all that much. A lot of people believe that if minorities are immersed in their culture a little more this will change them and make them more like them, or civilized,etc. Since they foolishly believe that, then it makes sense that they would want more integration. Mix a few Africans in with some whites and soon the Africans will be acting and behaving just like the whites with darker skin. All of our "differences" are only skin deep and environmental, after all.:rolleyes:

[Dances with Wolves]

Integration is increasing. Why is that? Do you suppose the government of the UK is FORCING it on the the population? When the UK was 100% white, did anyone ask the people if they wanted to become a part of the turd world?

Hey scales, what do you think would happen if the government repealed all the race laws? If people were free to associate with and separate themselves from whoever they wished, do you think there would be "increasing integration?"

[Scales]

This isn't surprising and doesn't mean all that much. A lot of people believe that if minorities are immersed in their culture a little more this will change them and make them more like them, or civilized,etc.

The point was raised in discussion of 'real European' majority racism. Whether the facts are surprising or not, what it does show is that, at least in the case of that survey, a majority of Brits don't object to ethnic minorities per se. Generally it seems the antipathy -from both whites and non-whites is more reserved for new immigrants.

Bearing in mind that figure of 95% of non-whites having close white friends, and given that there are nine times more whites than non-whites in Britain, alongside some of those other stats, I don't think there is much reason to believe in a silent majority of racist Brits quite yet. My experiences here reflect that.