Share |

Tuesday 26 June 2012

Sayeeda Warsi plays the Race Card

Why was Sayeeda Warsi created a life peer at the age of 36 in 2007? What has she done to merit the title of ‘Baroness’? A failed Conservative candidate, who specialised in immigration law who is said to have opportunistically selected the Conservative Party because it seemed to offer her the best chance of career progression, and who has spent time working for Pakistan’s ‘Ministry of Law’. How does that experience and background translate into the right to hold such an honour, or to take on the role of Chairman of our governing political party? The number of better-qualified candidates is legion, so why was she selected? What does she have to offer, that others could not? In what manner does she purport to defend and advance our national interests? How can she speak, with any authority, on behalf of the nation, or of the English?

I ask these questions today, as Warsi once again takes up the baton to fight on behalf of maintaining the right of chain-migration from outside of the EU, using the spurious pretext of familial reunion, which of course is only invoked when those in question wish to be reunited in our country rather than in their familial country of origin (remember the case of Rashida Chapti?). Warsi has knowingly chosen to play the race card, claiming that Theresa May’s proposed immigration reforms ‘could be considered racist’ because of the stated intent of preventing ‘UK citizens earning under £40,000 to bring in a foreign wife or husband,’ although this has subsequently been reduced to £18,600 with a £2,200 allowance for each child. Warsi claims that this will effectively be a ‘whites only’ policy.

Now, might this outburst from Warsi have something to do with the fact that she is currently under scrutiny for ‘possible breaches of the ministerial code’ and thus may be considering a forced return to her old field of legal practice, immigration law? What would she do if she couldn’t return to the profitable business of expediting Pakistani chain migration? Quite clearly, Warsi is not fit to hold a position of political influence in this country because she actively undermines the first principle of democracy – the right of a people to political self-determination – by seeking to change the human fabric of the body politic itself, thereby denying our right to national self-determination. It should be up to us, and to us alone, to determine who may live here and who may be granted the rights of citizenship. We should not be in a position, where decisions upon the allocation of such a status are within the gift of an individual possessed of a cleft identity, who in ethnic and religious terms clearly identifies more with her ancestral familial homeland and culture, than with the native people of her country of residence. Her stance and actions pave the way for national dissolution through mass immigration, as advocated recently by European-nation despising Peter Sutherland

How many conservatives with a small ‘c’ genuinely support what the Conservative Party has become? Do they really think that it seeks to represent them today, being as it is pro-EU, pro-mass immigration and pro-multiculturalism? Isn’t it time that they started looking around for other political options to support? 


  1. Danny Lockwood's book 'The Islamic Republic of Dewsbury' ISBN 978-0-9570964-0-0 has a lot of gems about Warsi (she is originally from Dewsbury). If you want a copy contact me.

    Ivan Winters
    Democratic Nationalists

    1. Thanks Ivan. I may well take you up on the offer. I'll be in touch.

  2. I have long held the view that Warsi and the Tory Party have a cynically symbiotic relationship; she uses her position to do a PR job for islam and the Tories use her to gain multi-cultural kudos and tap into the muslim vote which, for as long as the indigenous Britsh population remains politically apathetic, is crucial to win many urban seats.

    Whilst I am with you regarding our right to self determination being threatened by mass immigration, the argument only stands up if one accepts that immigration changes the 'body fabric of the body politic' as you rightly state. The counter argument is that it does not because we are 'all human'. And whilst immigrants are indeed as human as us British, they are not , nor can they ever be, as British as us. Until that is accepted en masse there can be no cogent or effective defence of Britain.

    Regrettably, the British public have presently, and for some decades, handed the right to determine who lives here and who should be given rights of citizenship to a political class which not only does not serve them but does not even recognise the existence of indigenous Britons.

    Salford Nationalist

    1. You've hit it on the head SN. That is precisely the reason for Warsi's presence within the senior ranks of the Conservative Party. However, I would not wish her to join the new party.

      The recognition of indigenous rights is a crucial issue, but whether or not this is a central concern for the indigenous population, given the nature of the mass media, the education system and mainstream politics, is a different matter. It has the potential to be such a concern, but concentrating upon it at present does not seem to be a massive vote-winner. Working towards achieving such recognition can however be incorporated into a broader policy platform articulated by a credible anti-globalist party.

  3. The Upper House should either be elected or disbanded - the whole thing needs major reform. All parties agreed on this, including a much-needed reduction in peer numbers and an end to hereditary appointments. You only have to get a cat out of a tree these days to be made a peer - Warsi has gone from token Jigaboo to pursuing her own agenda on behalf of the Muslim community!

    1. It does need serious reform, and a democratically elected revising chamber would be preferable to what we currently possess. Existing arrangements are fundamentally anti-democratic and wide open to abuse by whichever party happens to be in government.


Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.