- David Kurten
Traitor Theresa signing Global Migration Pact is moral blackmail and national suicide
Theresa May will be known in history as a Prime Minister who continually promised voters conservative policies, but implemented the exact opposite. She promised to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union, the Single Market and the Customs Union, but has done a volte-face, and is now trying to shackle the country into a backstop which will leave us permanently tied to all three.
In another U-turn which is just as damaging to the country, she has decided to sign the UK to the United Nations Global Compact on Migration. Most people have never heard of this, but it is clearly important as representatives of the 192 members of the United Nations are going on a jolly to Marrakesh on the 10th and 11th December to sign it. Perhaps coincidentally, this coincides with Theresa May’s attempt to put a permanent end to the UK’s sovereignty in the House of Commons.
This is typical of her modus operandi. She has hailed her terrible Withdrawal Agreement as delivering an end to free movement of people from the EU, but has agreed to sign the UK into the Global Migration Compact which regularises mass migration from the whole world. The mainstream media has hardly mentioned the coming Global Migration Compact, so unless you are watching carefully you will miss her brazen duplicity.
The Compact is being hailed as the first ever agreement to cover all aspects of international migration, and is being propagandised by videos of smiley, happy, hyper-diverse communities so beloved of liberal globalists, but as usual the devil is in the detail.
The aim of the UN agreement is essentially to make illegal immigration legal.
The aim of the agreement is essentially to make illegal immigration legal, and it expands the definition of ‘regular migration’ to include pathways which are now ‘irregular’. It states: “We commit to adapt options and pathways for regular migration in a manner that facilitates labour mobility … with a view to expanding and diversifying availability of pathways for safe, orderly and regular migration.”
It is also pickled in the language of human rights: migrants should have the right to migrate, the right to legal advice and assistance to help them migrate, the right to healthcare, the right to ‘inclusive and equitable education’ and the right to access other basic services in the receiving countries. In other words, if you oppose it you are repudiating someone’s human right—i.e. right to be human. This is shameless moral blackmail. The language of human rights is never far from a penalty for opposing the political agenda being set forth, and that is the case in the Compact.
Opposition to the regularisation of rapid, mass migration is to be criminalised as a hate crime, and this is what is set forth in Objective 17 of the Compact which is entitled: ‘Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration.’
This is to be achieved by a number of definite actions which include:
Enacting, implementing or maintaining legislation that penalizes hate crimes and aggravated hate crimes targeting migrants,
Establishing mechanisms to prevent, detect and respond to racial, ethnic and religious profiling of migrants by public authorities,
Promoting awareness-raising campaigns targeted at communities of origin, transit and destination in order to inform public perceptions regarding the positive contributions of safe, orderly and regular migration, based on evidence and facts, and to end racism, xenophobia and stigmatization against all migrants;
Engaging migrants, political, religious and community leaders, as well as educators and service providers, to detect and prevent incidences of intolerance, racism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination against migrants and diasporas, and support activities in local communities to promote mutual respect, including in the context of electoral campaigns.
It is, of course, right that migrants are treated equally before the law, but the expansion of hate crime is already an odious concept. Anyone with a protected characteristic is able to gain fast-track access to the justice system by claiming they perceived that any slight offence was motivated by hostility. If migrants become a protected group, then it will almost certainly become an offence to criticise migration, as it could be perceived as hostility.
In the future, anyone who states simple and well-known facts about the profile of criminals engaging in certain types of criminality would also find themselves falling foul of the law. It is well known that the rape and grooming gang scandal which has tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of victims has been perpetrated mainly by Pakistani Muslim men. Peter McLoughlin wrote a thorough account of the failures of the state in dealing with this in his 2014 book Easy Meat due to political correctness and the fear of being called a ‘racist’. Today, everyone from Sarah Champion to Sajid Javid to the Quilliam Foundation now acknowledges this fact, yet the Migration Compact will make criminal profiling on the basis of ethnicity illegal. Facts about crime and criminality which need to be known and understood in order to fight it, will be suppressed, and the police will be hamstrung. The antidote to politically correct policing is not more political correctness, it is to rip-up the strictures of post-modern idiocy and to return to common sense, where the job of the police is to catch criminals and lock ‘em up, and if that means offending a lot of bleeding-heart liberals then so be it.
If migrants become a protected group, then it will almost certainly become an offence to criticise migration.
Even more onerous is the implied threat that political parties and media outlets which oppose migration could find themselves censored, and that propaganda promoting the hyper-diverse world of the future will be accelerated and normalised. It will allow the EU to cut funding to political parties which criticise migration and silence the political opposition, so that elections can be rigged. This completely and openly undermines democracy.
In the Soviet Union everyone could vote, but there was only one party to vote for. In the future fake-democracy of the European Union, for example, there will be more than one party to vote for, but they will all represent the same liberal, corporatist hegemony which promotes the dismantling of nations with strong cultures and a valuable heritage, in favour of hyper-diverse states. This echoes the words of Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, the first winner of the EU’s Charlemagne Prize, who assumed in his 1922 book Practical Idealism that: ‘in the future, the diversity of nations will be replaced by a diversity of individuals.’
Migration can be beneficial when it is orderly, purposeful, controlled and sustainable, and leaves intact the culture and heritage of the host nation. This may include young people taking courses at foreign universities to learn skills which they can then use to benefit their own countries when they return home, or entrepreneurs who want to expand their businesses to trade abroad and employ local people.
What is destructive in the long term however is the rapid influx of cheap labour. This has an initial benefit to global corporations who can undercut local workers and increase their profit margins, but it has a terrible effect on communities and nations. Local workers find themselves fired and re-employed on zero hours contracts on the minimum wage. This is simply not sustainable, and many people in that situation make an educated calculation that they would be better off on welfare.
Almost no-one is against beneficial migration to the UK, but after 20 years of unsustainable migration, people want an end to the rapid and unsettling changes to their local communities. This includes migrants of the Windrush generation who came to work and contribute to the country, and for the most part, are grateful to be in the UK and love and value it as their home.
The last thing people want now is another increase in migration or a permanent normalisation of illegal immigration. Those who have proposed and agreed to this Compact do not experience the effects of rapid, mass migration. Insulated in their globalist bubble and travelling from gated community to swanky hotel, Theresa May and her ilk are once again trampling on the concerns of ordinary people who wish to conserve national identity and heritage.
The dangers of the agreement were powerfully summarised by Marcel de Graaff, a populist MEP from the Netherlands. Fortunately, there is a growing rebellion, and not all of the members of the United Nations will sign this odious agreement. The United States, Hungary and Poland were the first to say they will refuse, but they have been joined by Australia, Israel, Czechia, Austria, Bulgaria, Italy, Switzerland and Croatia.
For the time being the United Kingdom finds itself trapped in the globalist-corporatist May - Merkel - Macron axis, and will sign up due to having Theresa May as a fake-Conservative Prime Minister. The one small mercy is that it is not a legally binding agreement, although judges will begin to make case law with a respect to the Compact until it is normalised and made binding over the course of time.
There is a petition against it which you can sign on the government petition site. It has already gathered over 100,000 signatures in less than two weeks. The other action to take is to write to your MP. Many of them will not even be aware of its effects and its intentions, but with the vast majority of MPs sitting in constituencies where there are grave and serious concerns about the continuing unprecedented levels of immigration, it can only be hoped that they can put pressure on the Prime Minister to withdraw from her latest ill-conceived and undemocratic agreement.
(David Kurten is a UKIP London Assembly Member)
Comments