Posted on 05/03/2014 5:57:08 PM PDT by Enza Ferreri
You can see the video of this speech by clicking on the "Enza Ferreri Blog" link above. Here is the transcript.
Liberty GB, for which I am a candidate, is a new patriotic, conservative party contesting the 2014 European Parliament Elections in the South-East constituency on the 22nd of May.
People sometimes ask us why they should vote for us and not UKIP, adding that a vote for Liberty GB will be a wasted vote.
Let me answer those questions.
I want to start with the BBC’s Question Time programme in Barking of the 6th of March. People’s worries about the alien invasion that part of East London has been subjected to were motivated by “personal perceptions” not corresponding to reality, said Leftist journalist David Aaronovitch.
These days the objective “reality” can only be established by costly studies commissioned by the government or a Leftist university institute. When people hear the words “study”, “report” or “research” they automatically assume that it’s conducted according to scientific principles of investigation.
That unfortunately is not necessarily the case. Many studies are flawed in various ways, especially when they try to arrive at a conclusion which suits the researcher’s ideology or that of the provider of his funds. Take the research done to establish whether immigration affects British housing and employment. These are problems deeply felt in the South East. The question can be answered with a simple arithmetic calculation coupled with a basic knowledge of how the market law of supply and demand works.
Researchers should answer this question instead: how is it possible that huge numbers of new additions to a population in a short time can NOT affect things like housing and employment?
It’s as simple as 2 plus 2 equals to 4. You have, say, an area with accommodation for 1,000 households. In this area live 950 families. Relatively suddenly there’s an influx of other 200 families. Now there are 1,150 households but still 1,000 homes. Demand will far exceed supply, which in turn will drive up prices and increase homelessness.
The only research that is needed is finding out the size of population and the available housing: the rest is deductive logic. Certain consequences are inevitable.
This is so true that even pro-immigration people keep calling for the building of new houses, therefore implicitly admitting that immigration does have an impact on lack of accommodation.
Similar scenario for employment. If, as a simple example, there are on average 100 job seekers for 1 vacancy, the outcome for job seekers will be greatly different than if there are 200. More people competing for the same jobs - same demand for labour force and more supply - means more unemployment and lower wages.
And again, the easy confirmation of this comes from the fact that employers are among the most ardent supporters of immigration, which provides them with ample – and therefore cheaper - workforce.
Of course things tend to be always a bit more complicated, but in this case the complications are small details in a very clear fundamental, overall picture.
During the same Question Time programme, David Aaronovitch called a man we at Liberty GB have christened “the homeless patriot” racist without using the actual word, when he asked him how seeing black faces in the street makes them not your streets any more. Incidentally, the homeless patriot had never uttered the word “black”.
What would Aaronovitch say about the fact that you can walk and use public transport anywhere in London for hours and hardly ever hear a voice speaking English? Does that qualify for those no longer being your streets? I get annoyed by that and I’m not even English-born, I’m Italian – although I’ve lived in London 30 years -, I can imagine what it must feel for English people.
In addition to the number, we have the question of the kind of immigrants. Many of them are Muslim. Most Westerners don’t really know what Islam is and, hearing that it’s a religion, make the natural assumption that it’s something similar to our own experience of a religion: Christianity. They think it’s basically the same thing, just replacing the Bible with the Quran, God with Allah, Jesus with Muhammad.
The reality is very different. Islam is not so much a religion as a political doctrine and system of law and government. Islamic law, sharia, doesn’t constitute just moral commandments as in Christianity but laws of the state.
Divine laws, according to Islam, should replace human, imperfect laws. Everywhere. All over the world. How? By Muslims’ assuming power and domination over the various countries and peoples of the earth. Peacefully if possible, but using force and violence if necessary.
When Muslim leaders and representatives say that Islam is a religion of peace, what they actually mean is that, once all the world is united under Muslim rule, there will be peace. They equivocate, knowing that Western people ignore that.
It doesn’t take much to understand that there is a big difference between self-described followers of a religion – Christianity - committing acts of violence that go against the core precepts of that religion and self-described followers of another religion – Islam - committing acts of violence that they are ordered to perpetrate by that religion.
Britain, when Muslims reach a certain number, will follow the same fate as all other places where they try to impose sharia. And we already see the first signs now.
This takes us back to the original question. What’s wrong with UKIP? UKIP understands the problems of immigration, but doesn’t deal with them effectively. Freezing it for 5 years is not enough.
What about the immigrants already here and their successive generations? UKIP has no answer to that. Liberty GB will deport illegal immigrants, expel foreigners found guilty of imprisonable offences, examine the case of legal immigrants living in Britain since 1997, expel foreign imams and home-grown hate preachers, help repatriations, demand that immigrants assimilate into British life.
UKIP’s website has hardly any mention of Islam, and the party is hesitant in recognising that the problem of the Islamisation of Britain exists. Liberty GB clearly declares in its manifesto that Islam is incompatible with our democratic system, and has many policies dealing with its threat.
On same-sex marriage too, UKIP hasn’t been firm and uncompromising in its opposition as Liberty GB is.
In the past, voting for UKIP was also considered a wasted vote, but it turned out to put pressure on the Tories about leaving the EU. Now, voting for Liberty GB may put pressure on UKIP about immigration and Islam, making its positions more straightforward.
To know more about our policies, visit libertygb.org.uk.
Please support, join, donate to, and most importantly vote Liberty GB. My name is Enza Ferreri. Thank you.
British version of Geert Wilders party in Netherlands?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.