Special Edition
Special Issue September 2007

Contents

Editorial
Justice for England March
Wall to Wall Propaganda
The Census + Charities
Nationality & Ethnicity
The Legacy of William Tyndale
Ethnic English Trust & Wycliffe Trust
The Steadfast Trust

 

Nationality and Ethnicity

Considerable confusion and muddle has arisen in discussions relating to nationality and ethnicity. This is in part due to progressives seeking to define and use terms in ways that promote the interests of certain favoured groups (settlers) over others (the indigenous). One of the ways in which the interests of settlers is promoted is by giving them ‘ethnic group’ status and attempting to define ‘ethnic’ in a way that makes it a term that only applies to minority racial groups within a state. Thus, those Chinese who live in the UK are deemed to belong to an ethnic minority despite the fact that there are more than a billion ethnic Chinese.

Evidence for a selective and discriminatory approach is to be found in the ethnic monitoring forms used by many state institutions and other organisations. Most of the categories listed on such forms are not recognised in law as being an ethnic group. Instead, they are group labels which have been concocted and foisted on us by the Commission for Racial Equality because they serve political and ideological objectives. In law there is an English racial group but few organisations include ‘English’ on their ‘ethnic’ monitoring forms. Thus in England the ethnic-English are deemed by most public bodies not to exist - instead they are given the label White-British.

Race
A race is a sub-group of a species. Homo Sapiens are a species, and within it there are races made up of individuals who share a set of common physical characteristics such as hair type, colour of eyes and skin, stature, skull shape, etc. There are three or more races, the number depending on how sophisticated and subtle the distinction between physical characteristics becomes. The principal races are Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid.

The term ‘racial group’ as it is used in English and Scottish law does not refer solely to the biological concept of race. Instead, it means a group bound together by common characteristics including race (ancestry), culture, language and a common communal identity. A racial group is therefore much like an ethnic group and a nation.

Ethnic
Ethnic means relating to or characteristic of a group of humans who have racial, cultural, linguistic, and certain other traits in common. Ethnic is from the Greek ethnos meaning race or nation. In the past, the words race and nation where so closely linked as to be interchangeable. They have in common the notion of a common ancestry. While ‘race’ is determined by physical characteristics, ‘ethnic’ now has the added dimension of common culture.

Nation
We are faced with the fact that the word ‘nation’ is used to mean the following -
1. A state – e.g. UK, Soviet Union, Iraq, Yugoslavia. States come and go. Those that ‘go’ for good are mostly multi-ethnic / multi-cultural / multiracial.
2. The citizens of a state – e.g. the British and American nations – sometimes called the British and American peoples.
3. A group of people sharing a communal identity founded on a shared history, culture and ancestry. A nation is an extended family. The English, Kurds, Iroquois, and Palestinians are nations. This is the original meaning of nation.

Racial nation
The Race Relations Act 1976 gives certain rights, benefits, and privileges to ‘racial groups’. In law the word ‘racial’ is sometimes used in the biological physical sense (e.g. a racial flavour), and sometimes it is given a broader social group meaning. The detail will not be gone into here because it is dealt with in the next article. What it means in short is that a ‘nation’ (as used in Nation 3 opposite) is given the status of a ‘racial group’ for the purposes of the Race Relations Act. It is therefore convenient when dealing with legal matters, to give the label ‘racial-nation’ to a group of people sharing a history, culture, ancestry and communal identity; a group which has been referred to above as an ‘ethnic-nation’.
Such confusion arises because of casual and ideological attempts to change the meaning of words, or give them multiple meanings. Those who do this should be made to write about states, nations, nationality, and ethnicity, and they would see the difficulties they create.

State
A state is a geopolitical entity. It is a territory that is effectively controlled by a government. A state is also a legal entity, similar to a corporation, which is able to enter into agreements with other states – it has a legal personality.
What is wrong with the word ‘state’ that anyone should want to use another word? Unfortunately, the American practice of calling a ‘state’ a ‘nation’ has spread to England and has led to much unnecessary confusion.

A look at any text book which deals with what is called International Law will quickly show that such law is primarily about the rules that regulate the relations between states. Such law always uses the term ‘state’ and never uses ‘nation’ in a way that suggests it means a state. If UK domestic law was to follow this lead it would save us all a lot of trouble.

The members of the European Union are states. NATO and the UN also have member states despite the name given by the Americans to the latter organisation.

The UK is a state. It is debatable whether, or to what extent, it is a sovereign state because it can be argued that sovereignty – the power to make and enforce law – has been lost to the EU.

Country
England, Scotland and Wales are countries – they are not nations in any of the three meanings of the word, and neither are they states. Let’s be blunt, those who refer to England as a nation reveal their woeful ignorance. The guilty include many journalists and government ministers.

Words - Identity & Propaganda
It really does matter that we get the terms right and demonstrate that we have a proper grasp of a subject which is extremely important to us. And no, it is not adequate to claim to be following popular usage. We shouldn’t misuse terms just because others, (e.g. politicians and journalists) do so. We cannot afford to be sloppy and amateurish in something that is so important to our communal identity.

An example of institutionalised stupidity and ignorance was celebrating the beginning of the new millennium one year early. The new millennium began on 1st January 2001, a government spokesman admitted so in Parliament but said they were following popular belief! In other words it doesn’t really matter because the hoi polloi only know what they are told. If the ‘establishment’ could mislead millions about when the millennium started, it is easy for them mislead and confuse the indigenous people about terms that are important to an expression and understanding of their communal identity. By such means a nation can be defined out of existence.

Progressives are continually using their power to shape our perceptions by, among other things, altering the meaning of words and persuading us that some words really shouldn’t be used. The BBC promote the use of ‘nation’ in place of ‘state’ and wherever possible they use ‘Britain’ and ‘British’ in place of England’ and ‘English’ – forbidden words. It is a technique of persuasion and control, and we do their bidding if we follow their lead.

An example of BBC practice was revealed in the case of BBC v Souster (2001). Mr Souster claimed he had lost his job with BBC Scotland because he was English and his employer wanted a Scottish presenter. The BBC argued that ‘national origin’ in the Race Relations Act meant nationality in the legal sense, i.e. citizenship. Since the English and Scots had the same nationality it was not possible to discriminate between them. The court held that ‘national origin’ had a broader historical and cultural meaning and that the English are a racial group by reason of their ‘nation origin’.

Unfortunately, the BBC has not changed its ways and continues to promote ‘nation’ as meaning a state, and it continues to ignore the existence of the English as a nation in the exclusive communal sense that the court accepted it as being.

Another point to be made is that we should not be drawn into commonly using a hyphenated English identity. It may sometimes be necessary to use ‘ethnic-English’, ‘indigenous-English’ and ‘racial-English’ but normally we should be call ourselves English and demand that others do likewise. We are English and others have no right to take our identity from us – no matter who they are.

English Nationality
When John Prescott claimed that there is no such thing as English nationality he was right in the sense that there is no English state and no English citizenship / nationality. However, even John Prescott should know that there is an English nationality founded on a common history, culture, ancestry and identity. Members of the English nation – the ‘ethnic’ or ‘indigenous’ or ‘racial’ English – are of English nationality. Thus there is such a thing as English nationality but only in the sense of denoting membership of an extended family – the English nation.

CRE seems intent for political reasons on introducing the inclusive term ‘national identity’ - see question 12 on the census form (page 5). This appears to have been included due to recommendations from CRE. It prepares the ground for an inclusive English national identity which competes with and, they seem to hope, eventually replaces an exclusive English racial identity.

‘English national identity’ does not mean ‘English nationality’, which in law is an exclusive ‘racial’ identity. Those who promote the term ‘English national identity’ or equate it with ‘English nationality’ are doing the work of CRE and other progressives who seem intent on denying us English our communal identity and our legal rights.

Ethnicity - Law and Administration
The English are not recognised in law as an ethnic group but neither are any of the so-called ethnic groups listed on the 2001 census and ethnic monitoring forms. The English are, however, specifically recognised as a racial group in law because of their ‘national origin’, which means because they are a nation in the original communal sense. This recognition means that they should be named on ‘ethnic’ monitoring forms because public bodies have a statutory duty to collect statistics about racial groups so as to determine whether or not they are fulfilling their statutory duty to promote racial equality. Public bodies also have a duty to devise policies and provide funding to address inequality. How can they perform that duty if they do not collect statistics about the English?
It can be argued that the English should also be recognised in law as an ethnic group, but there is little legal benefit in seeking this because an ‘ethnic’ identity and a ‘national origin’ identity have equal rights and benefits in law – they are of equal status. Despite this recognition by the courts, the Office for National Statistics and CRE, who advise them on such matters, did not list ‘English’ as an ethnicity on census and ethnic monitoring forms. This helped create the belief among administrators, policy makers, and those who allocate funds, that there was no need to consider the needs and interests of the English racial group. Thus institutional discrimination against the English became acceptable – they aren’t on the form so they don’t exist.

Being recognised as a racial group in law is not enough. What counts in practice is being listed on ethnic monitoring forms, and that has been an administrative decision guided by recommendations from CRE. In short, CRE had the power to create ethnic status for favoured groups and deny it to others. Those so favoured have been able to enjoy all the rights, benefits and privileges granted to racial groups by law, which meant in practice consultation, favourable policies and access to funding.

The English are listed on the 2007 Test Census and it is hoped and believed that the same will hold for the full 2011 census. There was no help at all from CRE in gaining this administrative recognition; in fact CRE resisted the change. However, now the change has been made, all so-called ethnic monitoring forms should follow the ONS lead.

In a multi-racial state like the UK, where much is made of the need to create social cohesion, it is of utmost importance to recognise the existence of the English and not redefine and exclude us in a way that makes us feel justifiably resentful. How are we supposed to feel when we see other communities given recognition and resources while the existence of the English as a racial group is at best ignored and at worst denied. This is a sure way to make the English see the British state as an enemy.