Nigel “Thirsty”
Farage and his fellow saloon bar propper-uppers at UKIP have decided to
frighten potential voters into their camp by suggesting that children born to
those who have migrated to the UK should also be called migrants, and indeed
that they should be “classified”
thus. By doing so, those people would have been “reclassified”. Thus far the press has given the Kippers an easy
ride on that.
Fortunately, the ridiculousness of the idea has
been pointed up: all the Queen’s children would fall into that category, as
Phil was born in Greece, and so would the Leader of the Opposition, together
with the children of London’s occasional Mayor. And that’s before considering
those born overseas to servicemen’s families and other British citizens.
But what Farage and his pals have so far got away with is
the idea of reclassification. As
the Independent told, “Nigel Farage’s Ukip has called for the
children of immigrants to themselves be classed as migrants”. A UKIP
spokesman said that “the issue of ‘hiding’
those born to migrants from statistics had ‘ramifications for healthcare and
other public services’”. Really? Do go on.
Party spokesman again: “If
the figures for migration don’t include children, you’re not taking the correct
facts into account for public policy ... [it is] not the children that are the
problem, it is hiding them that’s the problem”. Hiding them? The sounds like
something out of The Diary Of Anne Frank, which is a less than pleasant echo of
the past. But it is a more recent policy that the Kippers are echoing.
“Reclassifying”
citizens is straight out of the Hendrik Verwoerd
playbook, one of the most insidious weapons of control used by the Apartheid
state in South Africa. Some would be reclassified more favourably: rebel West
Indian cricketers were given documentation to say that they were classified “white”. Those the state wanted to punish
were reclassified less favourably.
The Apartheid state became an international pariah: economic
and sporting sanctions isolated it from the international mainstream after the
1960s. The idea of having different classifications of citizenry was at the
time considered abhorrent, the worst kind of bigotry. Now we have UKIP
proposing just that, behind a smokescreen of “only telling it like it is” and dismissing criticism as “political correctness”.
Well, Mr Thirsty, I don’t give a rat’s arse about your
excuses. Talking about “reclassifying”
those born in this country in order to exhume a bigotry that was once
fashionable is bang out of order. If Farage thinks that he is being
misinterpreted here, then let him say so. But there won’t be any say so: UKIP
has been caught letting the cat out of the bag. The party is a cesspool of
prejudice.
Hopefully the public will “reclassify” their view of this shower in short order.
Oh dear! Is Ed M. in trouble yet again?
ReplyDeletewhat about the children of children of children ........of immigrants? Presbumably there is a cut off point for reclassification somehwere before they reach the french Farage seeking asylum in England?
ReplyDeleteHave to wonder if Farage would be happy to have his own children 'reclassified' thusly, given that his wife is a german immigrant?
ReplyDeleteHow about the spouses of immigrants? Then Farage, his German wife and mixed nationality children can all be "reclassified".
ReplyDelete@ SteveB
ReplyDeleteIf Adam and Eve had draped themselves in flags instead of fig leaves may be we wouldn't have all this trouble?
Or perhaps they would have argued over the design of the flag and whether it was worn the right way up or down, or should only be worn on special days? I bet the snake was one of those nasty foreign types.