Category Archives: #Hatecrimes

British citizenship test tightened to include English test


Theresa+May+MP,+Home+Secretary+and+Minister+for+Women+and+Equalities+reads+a+statement+on+security+measures+for+the+London+Olympic+Games+in+the+House+of+CommonsMy thoughts on British citizenship test tightened to include English test for immigrants or rather economic migrants:

“Yesterday (Wed 17th April, 2013) saw a sad day for equalities’ communities, although you wouldn’t know it from the newspapers and media etc today. Yesterday (Tuesday 16th April, 2013) in Parliament, the Conservative (coalition) government voted (by 310 v 244) to get rid of the general Equality Duty (to promote and address inequality) that applies to all statutory sector organisations and all those organisations commissioned by them.

What it means for you and your families who work

you’ve lost quite a few Equality rights in the UK now, and this affects everyone. Here’s what it means for you in a nutshell:

(1) people’s ability to achieve their potential is limited by prejudice or discrimination.
(2) there is no respect for and protection of each individual’s human rights.
(3) there is no respect for the dignity and worth of each individual.
(4) each individual does not have an equal opportunity to participate in society.
(5) there is no mutual respect between groups based on understanding and valuing of diversity and on shared respect for equality and human rights.

This important news story, got lost got ignored by the UK Press and Media. The only way to tell people about this change, is either to blog or produce a press release about it, and make sure the media knows about these changes.

The House of Lords repealed this. The Coalition Government… didn’t. They know what they were changing.”

For some time I have spoken about equality, multiculturalism, diversity and immigration in the UK. I even mentioned that I’m a proud son of an immigrant as my father and mother have contributed to this country which allowed myself and my siblings to be educated in this country.

When I look around our great nation and able to see multiculturalism and diversity I can’t help to reflect if our parents were not able to hold a decent conversation in English and would they able to get by without our help. The answer will be mixed as I begin visited various communities I note with concern that there are still some communities are not willing to accept change to able to speak English and they still depend on family ties to help them to fill out forms and translate for them.

Which is still worrying in one sense the other is both successful governments in the UK have tried to address without success. Until the current government start to address the social policies or issue they are no further in moving forward this is because they are not addressing the root causes yet they continue to throw the problems back on immigration and they have to speak English to enter this country thinking it will be a vote winner.

photo(1)David Cameron has the cheek to state that multiculturalism is failing and then continues to mention on radicalisation and the causes of terrorism.

At a security conference in Munich, he argued the UK needed a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to all kinds of extremism.

He also signalled a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism.

The speech angered some Muslim groups, while others queried its timing amid an English Defence League rally in the UK.

As Mr Cameron outlined his vision, he suggested there would be greater scrutiny of some Muslim groups which get public money but do little to tackle extremism.

Ministers should refuse to share platforms or engage with such groups, which should be denied access to public funds and barred from spreading their message in universities and prisons, he argued.

“Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism,” the prime minister said.

“Let’s properly judge these organisations: Do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?

“These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations,” he added.

00220889 - 425x238The Labour MP for Luton South, Gavin Shuker, asked if it was wise for Mr Cameron to make the speech on the same day the English Defence League staged a major protest in his constituency.

_63247790_jex_1525741_de26-1SKThere was further criticism from Labour’s Sadiq Khan whose comments made in a Daily Mirror article sparked a row. The shadow justice secretary was reported as saying Mr Cameron was “writing propaganda material for the EDL”.

Conservative Party chairman Baroness Warsi hit back, saying that “to smear the prime minister as a right wing extremist is outrageous and irresponsible”. She called on Labour leader Ed Miliband to disown the remarks.

It’s time the right hand knew what the far-right hand is doing”

Meanwhile, the Muslim Council of Britain‘s assistant secretary general, Dr Faisal Hanjra, described Mr Cameron’s speech as “disappointing”.

He told Radio 4′s Today programme: “We were hoping that with a new government, with a new coalition that there’d be a change in emphasis in terms of counter-terrorism and dealing with the problem at hand.

“In terms of the approach to tackling terrorism though it doesn’t seem to be particularly new.

“Again it just seems the Muslim community is very much in the spotlight, being treated as part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution.”

In the speech, Mr Cameron drew a clear distinction between Islam the religion and what he described as “Islamist extremism” – a political ideology he said attracted people who feel “rootless” within their own countries.

“We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing,” he said.

The government is currently reviewing its policy to prevent violent extremism, known as Prevent, which is a key part of its wider counter-terrorism strategy.

InayatBunglawala from Muslims4Uk says Mr Cameron is “firing at the wrong target”

A genuinely liberal country “believes in certain values and actively promotes them”, Mr Cameron said.

“Freedom of speech which includes Freedom of worship, The rule of law, and Equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality.

“It says to its citizens: This is what defines us as a society. To belong here is to believe these things.”

He said under the “doctrine of state multiculturalism”, different cultures have been encouraged to live separate lives.

“We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.”

Building a stronger sense of national and local identity holds “the key to achieving true cohesion” by allowing people to say “I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, but I am a Londoner… too”, he said.

Security minister Baroness Neville-Jones said when Mr Cameron expressed his opposition to extremism; he meant all forms, not just Islamist extremism.

“There’s a widespread feeling in the country that we’re less united behind values than we need to be,” she informed the media.

“There are things the government can do to give a lead and encourage participation in society, including all minorities.”

But the Islamic Society of Britain’s Ajmal Masroor said the prime minister did not appreciate the nature of the problem.

“I think he’s confusing a couple of issues: national identity and multiculturalism along with extremism are not connected. Extremism comes about as a result of several other factors,” he told BBC Radio 5 live.

Former home secretary David Blunkett said while it was right the government promoted national identity, it had undermined its own policy by threatening to withdraw citizenship lessons from schools.

He accused Education Secretary Michael Gove of threatening to remove the subject from the national curriculum of secondary schools in England at a time “we’ve never needed it more”.

“It’s time the right hand knew what the far-right hand is doing,” he said.

“In fact, it’s time that the government were able to articulate one policy without immediately undermining it with another.”

I would like to challenge him to hold a public debate to address this issue in local communities across the country and stop using spin to address his ideology

I have to say that the government are living in the land of never, never. Instead of addressing the issues in their own backyard they are quite happy not finding the solutions of the 1000s of immigrates who enter this country with fake identities. Once they reach here they use different names to work or claim benefits. Some will argue you need to have a national insurance card to gain employment.

I beg to differ on the grounds that people who enter the UK by other means will find ways of obtaining a national insurance card, work permits by paying underground prices. Nor am I suggesting that every immigrants who came to this country came used the same route as most that came here during the 1940s to 1970s have contributed to society and provided employment to simulate the economy by the invitation of the government.

The Home Secretary and UK Boarders need to clamp down on the loopholes and engage more in the wider communities to grasp the nettle and stop pandering to fascism and racism of the far right parties. Sure it is a vote winner but at a very expensive cost. For years we give a good talk but still can’t do the walk.

I can understand why this has come up coupled with the problems of lack of social housing, and employment needs which is the main concern from the all sections of society instead this government are more concern about pleasing their rich donors to the Conservatives. The same argument is being used by the government to undermine Labour by saying that the Trade Unions are the pay masters of Labour Party.

I don’t have a problem per say for people who want to enter the UK to gain employment but the test must be done fairly across the board for people applying for British citizenship are to be set a compulsory English exam.

From October 2013, all those wishing to settle in the UK will have to pass an English language course as well as the existing test on life in the UK.

And that has now been extended to cover applicants for citizenship.

English-speakers applying for citizenship have currently only to take the life-in-the-UK test, which is in English.

If they are not English speakers or skilled migrants, they must pass a course in English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) which contains citizenship materials.

Immigration Minister Mark Harper said the changes would “ensure that migrants are ready and able to integrate into British society”.

In a letter to Keith Vaz MP, Home Secretary Theresa May said: “It would clearly be wrong for people to be able to become British citizens with a lower level of English than that expected from permanent residents.”

In some ways the images I have is when I see the Home Secretary in her bid to outdo the Iron Lady by pushing the right wing agenda in the hope of a leadership challenge to David Cameron should he not succeed in winning the next General Elections in 2015.

 

.

 

Syria Civil Disobedience Alive or Dead?


anti-syrian-protest-543x2752

My thoughts on Syria Civil Disobedience:

For some time we have either read or saw a numinous news coverage of Syria and the more we watch the sadder it becomes when we see children suffering with schools closing down whilst the conflict continues. The children are the nation of tomorrow to help build a nation. It’s a shame to see children taking up arms to help overthrow the Syrian Government instead the children should be at school having a decent education.

If the coalition is that concern about its budget why in hell does this government continue to supply arms to the rebels the question many are asking ourselves why are we supplying killing machines comes to mind if this coalition is really concern about cutting the budget.

I see some history lessons coming into place for those who studied Russian and Cultural Revolutions will recall its citizens rebelled against the upper class and gained control of the situation most of them both working and middle classes  joined forces to help bring about a victory to change a government.

Some would argue that both revolutions were different in today’s modern world I would concur slightly but remind people that Governments should be afraid of its people as they are the ones with the power to overturn governments to bring a future. Just remember when students march against its governments it is always followed by the mass movement.
bashar460x276

The idea that the Syrian Government can turn its army and artillery on its own people indicates that Human Rights Abuse is increasing. Yet they have the cheek to say they are being attacked by terrorist against the government and they have to act now to eliminate them before it gets out of hand.
Let look at the history of Syria:

The oldest remains found in Syria date from the Palaeolithic era (c.800,000 BCE). On August 23, 1993 a joint Japan-Syria excavation team discovered fossilized Paleolithic human remains at the Dederiyeh Cave some 400 km north of Damascus. The bones found in this massive cave were those of a Neanderthal child, estimated to have been about two years old, who lived in the Middle Palaeolithic era (ca. 200,000 to 40,000 years ago). Although many Neanderthal bones had been discovered already, this was practically the first time that an almost complete child’s skeleton had been found in its original burial state.[1]

Archaeologists have demonstrated that civilization in Syria was one of the most ancient on earth. Syria is part of the Fertile Crescent, and since approximately 10,000 BCE it was one of centers of Neolithic culture (PPNA) where agriculture and cattle breeding appeared for the first time in the world. The Neolithic period (PPNB) is represented by rectangular houses of the Mureybet culture. In the early Neolithic period, people used vessels made of stone, gyps and burnt lime. Finds of obsidian tools from Anatolia are evidence of early trade relations. The cities of Hamoukar and Emar flourished during the late Neolithic and Bronze Age

The ruins of Ebla, near Idlib in northern Syria, were discovered and excavated in 1975. Ebla appears to have been an East Semitic speaking city-state founded around 3000 BCE. At its zenith, from about 2500 to 2400 BCE, it may have controlled an empire reaching north to Anatolia, east to Mesopotamia and south to the Red Sea. Ebla traded with the Mesopotamian states of Sumer Akkad and Assyria, as well as with peoples to the northwest.[2] Gifts from Pharaohs, found during excavations, confirm Ebla’s contact with Egypt. Scholars believe the language of Ebla was closely related to the fellow East Semitic Akkadian language of Mesopotamia[3] and to be among the oldest known written languages.[2]

Ebla was probably conquered by Sargon of Akkad around 2330 BCE. The city re-emerged, as the part of the nation of the Northwest Semitic speaking Amorites, a few centuries later, and flourished through the early second millennium BC until conquered by the Indo-European Hittites.[4]

From the third millennium BCE, Syria was occupied successively by SumeriansEgyptiansHittitesAssyrians and Babylonians.[2] The region was fought over by the rival empires of the HittitesEgyptiansAssyrians and Mitanni between the 15th and 13th centuries BCE, with the Middle Assyrian Empire eventually left controlling Syria.

When the Middle Assyrian Empire began to deteriorate in the late 11th century BC, Canaanites and Phoenicians, came to the fore and occupied the coast, and Arameans supplanted the Amorites in the interior, as part of the general disruptions and exchanges associated with the Bronze Age Collapse and the Sea Peoples.

From the 10th Century BCE the Neo-Assyrian Empire arose, and Syria was ruled by Assyria for the next three centuries, until the late 7th century BCE. After this empire finally collapsed, Mesopotamian dominance continued for a time with the short lived Neo-Babylonian Empire, which ruled the region for 70 or so years.

Eventually, in 539 BCE, the Persians took Syria as part of their empire. This dominion ended with the conquests of the Macedonian Greek king, Alexander the Great in 333-332 BCE. Syria was then incorporated into the Seleucid Empire. The capital of this Empire (founded in 312 BC) was situated at Antioch, then a part of historical Syria, but just inside the Turkish border today. The Roman general Pompey the Great captured Antioch in 64 BCE, turning Syria into a Romanprovince.[2]

The city of Antioch was the third largest city in the Roman Empire, after Rome and Alexandria. With an estimated population of 500,000 at its peak, Antioch was one of the major centers of trade and industry in the ancient world. The largely Aramaic speaking population of Syria during the heyday of the empire was probably not exceeded again until the 19th century. Syria’s large and prosperous population made it one of the most important Roman provinces, particularly during the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE.[5]

Syria is significant in the history of ChristianityPaul the Apostle was converted on the Road to Damascus and emerged as a significant figure in the Christian Church at Antioch, from where he set off on many of his missionary journeys. (Acts 9:1–43 )

The Roman emperor Elagabalus (218-222) was half-Aramean, and his family held hereditary rights to the high priesthood of the sun god El-Gabal at Emesa, (modern Homs) in Syria. He was succeeded by his cousin Alexander Severus (222 to 235) who was also from Syria. Another Roman emperor who was Syrian was Philip the Arab (Marcus Julius Philippus), emperor from 244 to 249.[5]

Palmyra, a wealthy and powerful indigenous Aramean state arose in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, and for a short time it was the center of the Palmyrene Empire, which briefly rivalled Rome.

With the decline of the empire in the west, Syria became part of the East Roman, or Byzantine, Empire in 39

In 634-640, Syria was conquered by the Muslim Arabs in the form of the Rashidun army led by Khalid ibn al-Walid, resulting in the region becoming part of the Islamic empire. In the mid-7th century, the Umayyad dynasty, then rulers of the empire, placed the capital of the empire in Damascus. Syria was divided into four districts: Damascus, Homs,Palestine and Jordan. The Islamic empire expanded rapidly and at its height stretched from Spain to India and parts of Central Asia; thus Syria prospered economically, being the centre of the empire. Early Umayyad rulers such asAbd al-Malik and Al-Walid I constructed several splendid palaces and mosques throughout Syria, particularly in Damascus, Aleppo and Homs.

There was complete toleration of Christians (mostly ethnic Arameans and in the north east, Assyrians) in this era and several held governmental posts. In the mid-8th century, the Caliphate collapsed amid dynastic struggles, regional revolts and religious disputes. The Umayyad dynasty was overthrown by the Abbasid dynasty in 750, who moved the capital of empire to BaghdadArabic — made official under Umayyad rule — became the dominant language, replacing Greek and Aramaic in the Abbasid era. For periods, Syria was ruled from Egypt, under the Tulunids (887-905), and then, after a period of anarchy, the Ikhshidids (941-969). Northern Syria came under the Hamdanids of Aleppo.[6]

The court of Ali Saif al-Daula, ‘Sword of the State,’ (944-967) was a centre of culture, thanks to its nurturing of Arabic literature. He resisted Byzantine expansion by skillful defensive tactics and counter-raids into Anatolia. After his death, the Byzantines captured Antioch and Aleppo (969). Syria was then in turmoil as a battleground between the Hamdanids, Byzantines and Damascus-based Fatimids. The Byzantines had conquered all of Syria by 996, but the chaos continued for much of the 11th century as the Byzantines, Fatimids and Buyids of Baghdad engaged in a struggle for supremacy. Syria was then conquered by the Seljuk Turks (1084-1086). After a century of Seljuk rule, Syria was conquered (1175-1185) by Saladin, founder of theAyyubid dynasty of Egypt.

During the 12th-13th centuries, parts of Syria were held by Crusader states: the County of Edessa (1098-1149) and the Principality of Antioch (1098-1268). The area was also threatened by Shi’a extremists known as Assassins (Hassassin) and in 1260 the Mongols briefly swept through Syria. The withdrawal of the main Mongol army prompted the Mamluks of Egypt to invade and conquer Syria. In addition to the sultanate’s capital in Cairo, the Mamluk leader, Baibars, made Damascus a provincial capital, with the cities linked by a mail service that traveled by both horses and carrier pigeons. The Mamluks eliminated the last of the Crusader footholds in Syria and repulsed several Mongol invasions.

In 1400, Timur Lenk, or Tamerlane, invaded Syria, defeated the Mamluk army at Aleppo and captured Damascus. Many of the city’s inhabitants were massacred, except for the artisans, who were deported to Samarkand.[7][8] At this time the Christian population of Syria suffered persecution.

By the end of the 15th century, the discovery of a sea route from Europe to the Far East ended the need for an overland trade route through Syria. In 1516, the Ottoman Empire conquered Syria.

Ottoman Sultan Selim I conquered Syria in 1516 after defeating the Mamlukes at the Battle of Marj Dabiqnear Aleppo. Syria was part of the Ottoman Empire from 1516 to 1918. Ottoman rule was not burdensome to the Syrians because the Turks, as Muslims, respected Arabic as the language of the Koran, and accepted the mantle of defenders of the faith. Damascus became made the major entrepot for Mecca, and as such it acquired a holy character to Muslims, because of the barakah (spiritual force or blessing) of the countless pilgrims who passed through on the hadj, the pilgrimage to Mecca.[9]

The Ottoman Turks reorganized Syria into one large province or eyalet. The eyalet was subdivided into several districts or sanjaks. In 1549, Syria was reorganized into two eyalets; the Eyalet of Damascus tand the new Eyalet of Aleppo. In 1579, the Eyalet of Tripoli which included Latakia, Hama and Homs was established. In 1586, the Eyalet of Raqqa was established in eastern Syria. Ottoman administration was such that it fostered a peaceful coexistence amongst the different sections of Syrian society for over four hundred years. Each religious minority — Shia Muslim, Greek Orthodox, Maronite, Armenian, and Jewish — constituted a millet. The religious heads of each community administered all personal status law and performed certain civil functions as well.[9]

As part of the Tanzimat reforms, an Ottoman law passed in 1864 provided for a standard provincial administration throughout the empire with the Eyalets becoming smaller Vilayets governed by a Wali, or governor, still appointed by the Sultan but with new provincial assemblies participating in administration. The territory of Greater Syria in the final period of Ottoman rule included modern Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Palestinian Authority, Gaza Strip and parts of Turkey and Iraq.

During World War I, French diplomat François Georges-Picot and British diplomat Mark Sykes) secretly agreed on the post war division of the Ottoman Empire into respective zones of influence in the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. In October 1918, Arab and British troops advanced into Syria and captured Damascus and Aleppo. In line with the Sykes-Picot agreement, Syria became a League of Nations mandate under French control in 1920.[10]

In 1920, a short-lived independent Kingdom of Syria was established under who later became the King of Iraq. In March 1920 Syrian National Congress proclaimed Emir Faisal I of the Hashemite family, as king of Syria “in its natural boundaries” from the Taurus mountains in Turkey to the Sinai desert in Egypt. However, his rule in Syria ended after only a few months, following the clash between his Syrian Arab forces and French forces at the Battle of Maysalun. French troops took control of Syria and forced Faisal to flee. Later that year the San Remo conference split up Faisal’s kingdom by placing Syria-Lebanon under a French mandate, and Palestine under British control. Syria was divided into three autonomous regions by the French, with separate areas for the Alawis on the coast and the Druze in the south.[11]

Nationalist agitation against French rule led to Sultan al-Atrash leading a revolt that broke out in the Druze Mountain in 1925 and spread across the whole of Syria and parts of Lebanon. The revolt saw fierce battles between rebel and French forces in Damascus, Homs and Hama before it was suppressed in 1926.

The French sentenced Sultan al-Atrash to death, but he had escaped with the rebels to Transjordan and was eventually pardoned. He returned to Syria in 1937 and was met with a huge public reception. Elections were held in 1928 for a constituent assembly, which drafted a constitution for Syria. However, the French High Commissioner rejected the proposals, sparking nationalist protests.

Syria and France negotiated a treaty of independence in September 1936. France agreed to Syrian independence in principle although maintained French military and economic dominance. Hashim al-Atassi, who had been Prime Minister under King Faisal’s brief reign, was the first president to be elected under a new constitution, effectively the first incarnation of the modern republic of Syria. However, the treaty never came into force because the French Legislature refused to ratify it. With the fall of France in 1940 during World War II, Syria came under the control of Vichy France until the British and Free French occupied the country in the Syria-Lebanon campaign in July 1941. Syria proclaimed its independence again in 1941, but it was not until 1 January 1944 that it was recognised as an independent republic. There were protests in 1945 over the slow pace of French withdrawal. Continuing pressure from Syrian nationalist groups forced the French to evacuate the last of their troops in April 1946, leaving the country in the hands of a republican government that had been formed during the mandate.[12]

Syria became independent on April 15, 1946. Syrian politics from independence through the late 1960s were marked by upheaval. Between 1946 and 1956, Syria had 20 different cabinets and drafted four separate constitutions.

In 1948, Syria was involved in the Arab-Israeli War, aligning with the other local Arab states who were opposed to the establishment of the state of Israel.[13] The Syrian army entered northern Palestine but, after bitter fighting, was gradually driven back to the Golan Heights by the Israelis. An armistice was agreed in July 1949. A “supposed” demilitarized zone under UN supervision was established; the status of these territories proved a stumbling-block for all future Syrian-Israeli negotiations. It was during this period that many Syrian Jews, who faced growing discrimination, left Syria as part of Jewish exodus from Arab countries.

The outcome of the war was one of factors behind the March 1949 Syrian coup d’état by Col. Husni al-Za’im, in what has been described as the first military overthrow of the Arab World[13] since the Second World War. This was soon followed by another coup by Col. Sami al-Hinnawi.[13] Army officer Adib Shishakliseized power in the third military coup of 1949. A Jebel Druze uprising was suppressed after extensive fighting (1953–54). Growing discontent eventually led to another coup, in which Shishakli was overthrown in February 1954. The Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party, founded in 1947, played a part in the overthrow of Shishakli. Veteran nationalist Shukri al-Quwatli was president from 1955 until 1958, but by then his post was largely ceremonial.

Power was increasingly concentrated in the military and security establishment, which had proved itself to be the only force capable of seizing and, perhaps, keeping power.[13] Parliamentary institutions remained weak, dominated by competing parties representing the landowning elites and various Sunni urban notables, whilst the economy was mismanaged and little was done to better the role of Syria’s peasant majority. In November 1956, as a direct result of the Suez Crisis,[14] Syria signed a pact with the Soviet Union, providing a foothold for Communist influence within the government in exchange for planes, tanks, and other military equipment being sent to Syria.[13] This increase in Syrian military strength worried Turkey, as it seemed feasible that Syria might attempt to retakeİskenderun, a matter of dispute between Syria and Turkey. On the other hand, Syria and the Soviet Union accused Turkey of massing its troops on the Syrian border. Only heated debates in the United Nations (of which Syria was an original member) lessened the threat of war.[15]

In this context, the influence of NasserismPan-Arab and anti-imperial ideologies created fertile ground for the idea of closer ties with Eygpt.[13][16] The appeal of Egyptian President Gamal Abdal Nasser‘s leadership in the wake of the Suez Crisis created support in Syria for union with Egypt.[13] On 1 February 1958, Syrian President al-Quwatli and Nasser announced the merging of the two states, creating the United Arab Republic.[12] The union was not a success, however.[13] Discontent with Egyptian dominance of the UAR, led elements opposed to the union under Abd al-Karim al-Nahlawi, to seize power on 28 September 1961. Two days later, Syria re-established itself as the Syrian Arab Republic. Frequent coups, military revolts, civil disorders and bloody riots characterized the 1960s. The 8 March 1963 coup, resulted in installation of the National Council of the Revolutionary Command (NCRC), a group of military and civilian officials who assumed control of all executive and legislative authority. The takeover was engineered by members of the Ba’ath Party led by Michel Aflaq and Salah al-Din al-Bitar. The new cabinet was dominated by Ba’ath members; the moderate al-Bitar became premier.[12][13] He was overthrown early in 1966 by left-wing military dissidents of the party led by General Salah Jadid.

Under Jadid’s rule, Syria aligned itself with the Soviet bloc and pursued hardline policies towards Israel[17] and “reactionary” Arab states especially Saudi Arabia, calling for the mobilization of a “people’s war” against Zionism rather than inter-Arab military alliances. Domestically, Jadid attempted a socialist transformation of Syrian society at forced pace, creating unrest and economical difficulties. Opponents of the regime were harshly suppressed, while the Ba’ath Party replaced parliament as law-making body and other parties were banned. Public support for his regime, such as it was, declined sharply following Syria’s defeat in the 1967 Six Day War,[18] when Israel destroyed much of Syria’s air force and captured the Golan Heights.[19][20]

Conflicts also arose over different interpretations of the legal status of the Demilitarized Zone. Israel maintained that it had sovereign rights over the zone, allowing the civilian use of farmland. Syria and the UN maintained that no party had sovereign rights over the zone.[21] Israel was accused by Syria of cultivating lands in the Demilitarized Zone, using armored tractors backed by Israel forces. Syria claimed that the situation was the result of an Israeli aim to increase tension so as to justify large-scale aggression, and to expand its occupation of the Demilitarized Zone by liquidating the rights of Arab cultivators.[22] The Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan said in a 1976 interview that Israel provoked more than 80% of the clashes with Syria.[23][24]

Conflict developed between right-wing army officers and the more moderate civilian wing of the Ba’ath Party. The 1970 retreat of Syrian forces sent to aid the PLO during the “Black September” hostilities with Jordan reflected this political disagreement within the ruling Ba’ath leadership.[25] On 13 November 1970, Minister of Defense Hafez al-Assad seized power in a bloodless military overthrow (“The Corrective Movement“).[26]

Syria became independent on April 15, 1946. Syrian politics from independence through the late 1960s were marked by upheaval. Between 1946 and 1956, Syria had 20 different cabinets and drafted four separate constitutions.

In 1948, Syria was involved in the Arab-Israeli War, aligning with the other local Arab states who were opposed to the establishment of the state of Israel.[13] The Syrian army entered northern Palestine but, after bitter fighting, was gradually driven back to the Golan Heights by the Israelis. An armistice was agreed in July 1949. A “supposed” demilitarized zone under UN supervision was established; the status of these territories proved a stumbling-block for all future Syrian-Israeli negotiations. It was during this period that many Syrian Jews, who faced growing discrimination, left Syria as part of Jewish exodus from Arab countries.

The outcome of the war was one of factors behind the March 1949 Syrian coup d’état by Col. Husni al-Za’im, in what has been described as the first military overthrow of the Arab World[13] since the Second World War. This was soon followed by another coup by Col. Sami al-Hinnawi.[13] Army officer Adib Shishakliseized power in the third military coup of 1949. A Jebel Druze uprising was suppressed after extensive fighting (1953–54). Growing discontent eventually led to another coup, in which Shishakli was overthrown in February 1954. The Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party, founded in 1947, played a part in the overthrow of Shishakli. Veteran nationalist Shukri al-Quwatli was president from 1955 until 1958, but by then his post was largely ceremonial.

Power was increasingly concentrated in the military and security establishment, which had proved itself to be the only force capable of seizing and, perhaps, keeping power.[13] Parliamentary institutions remained weak, dominated by competing parties representing the landowning elites and various Sunni urban notables, whilst the economy was mismanaged and little was done to better the role of Syria’s peasant majority. In November 1956, as a direct result of the Suez Crisis,[14] Syria signed a pact with the Soviet Union, providing a foothold for Communist influence within the government in exchange for planes, tanks, and other military equipment being sent to Syria.[13] This increase in Syrian military strength worried Turkey, as it seemed feasible that Syria might attempt to retakeİskenderun, a matter of dispute between Syria and Turkey. On the other hand, Syria and the Soviet Union accused Turkey of massing its troops on the Syrian border. Only heated debates in the United Nations (of which Syria was an original member) lessened the threat of war.[15]

In this context, the influence of NasserismPan-Arab and anti-imperial ideologies created fertile ground for the idea of closer ties with Eygpt.[13][16] The appeal of Egyptian President Gamal Abdal Nasser‘s leadership in the wake of the Suez Crisis created support in Syria for union with Egypt.[13] On 1 February 1958, Syrian President al-Quwatli and Nasser announced the merging of the two states, creating the United Arab Republic.[12] The union was not a success, however.[13] Discontent with Egyptian dominance of the UAR, led elements opposed to the union under Abd al-Karim al-Nahlawi, to seize power on 28 September 1961. Two days later, Syria re-established itself as the Syrian Arab Republic. Frequent coups, military revolts, civil disorders and bloody riots characterized the 1960s. The 8 March 1963 coup, resulted in installation of the National Council of the Revolutionary Command (NCRC), a group of military and civilian officials who assumed control of all executive and legislative authority. The takeover was engineered by members of the Ba’ath Party led by Michel Aflaq and Salah al-Din al-Bitar. The new cabinet was dominated by Ba’ath members; the moderate al-Bitar became premier.[12][13] He was overthrown early in 1966 by left-wing military dissidents of the party led by General Salah Jadid.

Under Jadid’s rule, Syria aligned itself with the Soviet bloc and pursued hardline policies towards Israel[17] and “reactionary” Arab states especially Saudi Arabia, calling for the mobilization of a “people’s war” against Zionism rather than inter-Arab military alliances. Domestically, Jadid attempted a socialist transformation of Syrian society at forced pace, creating unrest and economical difficulties. Opponents of the regime were harshly suppressed, while the Ba’ath Party replaced parliament as law-making body and other parties were banned. Public support for his regime, such as it was, declined sharply following Syria’s defeat in the 1967 Six Day War,[18] when Israel destroyed much of Syria’s air force and captured the Golan Heights.[19][20]

Conflicts also arose over different interpretations of the legal status of the Demilitarized Zone. Israel maintained that it had sovereign rights over the zone, allowing the civilian use of farmland. Syria and the UN maintained that no party had sovereign rights over the zone.[21] Israel was accused by Syria of cultivating lands in the Demilitarized Zone, using armored tractors backed by Israel forces. Syria claimed that the situation was the result of an Israeli aim to increase tension so as to justify large-scale aggression, and to expand its occupation of the Demilitarized Zone by liquidating the rights of Arab cultivators.[22] The Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan said in a 1976 interview that Israel provoked more than 80% of the clashes with Syria.[23][24]

Conflict developed between right-wing army officers and the more moderate civilian wing of the Ba’ath Party. The 1970 retreat of Syrian forces sent to aid the PLO during the “Black September” hostilities with Jordan reflected this political disagreement within the ruling Ba’ath leadership.[25] On 13 November 1970, Minister of Defense Hafez al-Assad seized power in a bloodless military overthrow (“The Corrective Movement“).[26]

 Upon assuming power, Hafez al-Assad moved quickly to create an organizational infrastructure for his government and to consolidate control. The Provisional Regional Command of Assad’s Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party nominated a 173-member legislature, the People’s Council, in which the Ba’ath Party took 87 seats. The remaining seats were divided among “popular organizations” and other minor parties. In March 1971, the party held its regional congress and elected a new 21-member Regional Command headed by Assad.

In the same month, a national referendum was held to confirm Assad as President for a 7-year term. In March 1972, to broaden the base of his government, Assad formed the National Progressive Front, a coalition of parties led by the Ba’ath Party, and elections were held to establish local councils in each of Syria’s 14 governorates. In March 1973, a new Syrian constitution went into effect followed shortly thereafter by parliamentary elections for the People’s Council, the first such elections since 1962.[12] The 1973 Constitution defined Syria as a secular socialist state with Islam recognised as the majority religion.

On 6 October 1973, Syria and Egypt initiated the Yom Kippur War by launching a surprise attack on Israel. After intense fighting, the Syrians were repulsed in the Golan Heights. The Israelis pushed deeper into Syrian territory, beyond the 1967 boundary. As a result, Israel continues to occupy the Golan Heights as part of the Israeli-occupied territories.[27] In 1975, Assad said he would be prepared to make peace with Israel in return for an Israeli withdrawal from “all occupied Arab land”.

In 1976, the Syrian army intervened in the Lebanese civil war to ensure that the status quo was maintained, and the Maronite Christians remained in power. This was the beginning of what turned out to be a thirty-year Syrian military occupation. Many crimes in Lebanon, including the accused assassinations of Rafik HaririKamal Jumblat and Bachir Gemayel were attributed to the Syrian forces and intelligence services although were not proven to this day.[28] In 1981 Israel declared its annexation of the Golan Heights. The following year, Israel invaded Lebanon and attacked the Syrian army, forcing it to withdraw from several areas. When Lebanon and Israel announced the end of hostilities in 1983, Syrian forces remained in Lebanon. Through extensive use of proxy militias, Syria was attempted to stop Israel from taking over southern Lebanon. Assad sent troops into Lebanon for a second time in 1987 to enforce a ceasefire in Beirut.

The Syrian-sponsored Taif Agreement finally brought the Lebanese civil war to an end in 1990. However, the Syrian Army’s presence in Lebanon continued until 2005, exerting a strong influence over Lebanese politics. The assassination of the popular former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, was blamed on Syria, and pressure was put on Syria to withdraw their forces from Lebanon. On 26 April 2005 the bulk of the Syrian forces withdrew from Lebanon[29] although some of its intelligence operatives remained, drawing further international rebuke.[30]

Hafez al-Assad greets Richard Nixon on his arrival at Damascus airport in 1974

About one million Syrian workers went to Lebanon after the war to find jobs in the reconstruction of the country.[31] In 1994 the Lebanese government controversially granted citizenship to over 200,000 Syrian residents in the country.[32] (For more on these issues, see Demographics of Lebanon)

The government was not without its critics, though open dissent was repressed. A serious challenge arose in the late 1970s, however, from fundamentalist Sunni Muslims, who rejected the secular values of the Ba’ath program and objected to rule by the Shia Alawis. After the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Muslim groups instigated uprisings and riots in Aleppo, Homs and Hama and attempted to assassinate Assad in 1980. In response, Assad began to stress Syria’s adherence to Islam. At the start of Iran-Iraq war, in September 1980, Syria supported Iran, in keeping with the traditional rivalry between Ba’athist leaderships in Iraq and Syria. The arch-conservative Muslim Brotherhood, centered in the city of Hama, was finally crushed in February 1982 when parts of the city were hit by artillery fire and leaving between 10,000 and 25,000 people, mostly civilians, dead or wounded (seeHama massacre).[33] The government’s actions at Hama have been described as possibly being “the single deadliest act by any Arab government against its own people in the modern Middle East”.[34] Since then, public manifestations of anti-government activity have been limited.[12]

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Syria joined the US-led coalition against Iraq. This led to improved relations with the US and other Arab states. Syria participated in the multilateral Southwest Asia Peace Conference in Madrid in October 1991, and during the 1990s engaged in direct negotiations with Israel. These negotiations failed over the Golan Heights issue and there have been no further direct Syrian-Israeli talks since President Hafez al-Assad‘s meeting with then President Bill Clinton in Geneva in March 2000.[35]

In 1994, Assad’s son Bassel al-Assad, who was likely to succeed his father, was killed in a car accident. Assad’s brother, Rifaat al-Assad, was “relieved of his post” as vice-president in 1998. Thus, when Assad died in 2000, his second son, Bashar al-Assad was chosen as his successor.

Hafez al-Assad died on 10 June 2000, after 30 years in power. Immediately following al-Assad’s death, the Syrian Parliament amended the constitution, reducing the mandatory minimum age of the President from 40 to 34. This allowed Bashar Assad to become eligible for nomination by the ruling Ba’ath party. On 10 July 2000, Bashar al-Assad was elected President by referendum in which he ran unopposed, garnering 97.29% of the vote, according to Syrian Government statistics.[12]

The period after Bashar al-Assad’s election in the summer of 2000 saw new hopes of reform and was dubbed the Damascus Spring. The period was characterized by the emergence of numerous political forums or salons where groups of like-minded people met in private houses to debate political and social issues. The phenomenon of salons spread rapidly in Damascus and to a lesser extent in other cities. Political activists, such as Riad Seif,Haitham al-MalehKamal al-LabwaniRiyad al-Turk, and Aref Dalila were important in mobilizing the movement.[36] The most famous of the forums were the Riad Seif Forum and the Jamal al-Atassi Forum. Pro-democracy activists mobilized around a number of political demands, expressed in the “Manifesto of the 99″. Assad ordered the release of some 600 political prisoners in November 2000. The outlawed Muslim Brotherhood resumed its political activity. In May 2001 Pope John Paul II paid an historic visit to Syria.

However, by the autumn of 2001, the authorities had suppressed the pro-reform movement, crushing hopes of a break with the authoritarian past of Hafez al-Assad. Arrests of leading intellectuals continued, punctuated by occasional amnesties, over the following decade. Although the Damascus Spring had lasted for a short period, its effects still echo during the political, cultural and intellectual debates in Syria today.[37]

Tensions with the USA grew worse after 2002, when the US claimed Damascus was acquiring weapons of mass destruction and included Syria in a list of states that they said made-up an “axis of evil“. The USA was critical of Syria because of its strong relationships with Hamas, the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine and Hezbollah, which the USA, Israel and EU regard as terrorist groups. In 2003 the US threatened sanctions if Damascus failed to make what Washington called the “right decisions”. Syria denied US allegations that it was developing chemical weapons and helping fugitive Iraqis. An Israeli air strike against a Palestinian militant camp near Damascus in October 2003 was described by Syria as “military aggression”.[38] President Assad visited Turkey in January 2004, the first Syrian leader to do so. The trip marked the end of decades of frosty relations, although ties were to sour again after 2011. In May 2004, the USA imposed economic sanctions on Syria over what it called its support for terrorism and failure to stop militants entering Iraq.[39] Tensions with the US escalated in early 2005 after the killing of the former Lebanese PM Hariri in Beirut. Washington cited Syrian influence in Lebanon behind the assassination. Damascus was urged to withdraw its forces from Lebanon, which it did by April.[40]

Following 2004 Al-Qamishli riots, the Syrian Kurds protested in Brussels, in Geneva, in Germany, at the US and UK embassies, and in Turkey. The protesters pledged against violence in north-east Syria starting Friday, 12 March 2004, and reportedly extending over the weekend resulting in several deaths, according to reports. The Kurds allege the Syrian government encouraged and armed the attackers. Signs of rioting were seen in the towns of Qameshli and Hassakeh.[41]

Renewed opposition activity occurred in October 2005 when activist Michel Kilo and other opposition figures launched the Damascus Declaration, which criticized the Syrian government as “authoritarian, totalitarian and cliquish” and called for democratic reform.[42] Leading dissidents Kamal al-Labwani and Michel Kilo were sentenced to a long jail terms in 2007, only weeks after human rights lawyer Anwar al-Bunni was jailed. Although Bashar al-Assad said he would reform, the reforms have been limited to some market reforms.[33][43][44]

Over the years the authorities have tightened Internet censorship with laws such as forcing Internet cafes to record all the comments users post on chat forums.[45] While the authorities have relaxed rules so that radio channels can now play Western pop music, websites such as WikipediaYouTubeFacebook and Amazon have been blocked,[46] but were recently unblocked throughout the nation.[47][48]

Syria’s international relations improved for a period. Diplomatic relations with Iraq were restored in 2006, after nearly a quarter century. In March 2007, dialogue between Syria and the European Union was relaunched. The following month saw US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi meet President Assad in Damascus, although President Bush objected.[49][50][51][52]Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice then met with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem in Egypt, in the first contact at this level for two years.[53][54][55]

An Israeli air strike against a site in northern Syria in September 2007 was a setback to improving relations. The Israelis claimed the site was a nuclear facility under construction with North Korean help.[56] 2008 March – When Syria hosted an Arab League summit in 2008, many Western states sent low-level delegations in protest at Syria’s stance on Lebanon. However, the diplomatic thaw was resumed when President Assad met French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris in July 2008. The visit signaled the end of Syria’s diplomatic isolation by the West that followed the assassination of Hariri in 2005. While in Paris, President Assad also met the recently-elected Lebanese president, Michel Suleiman. The two men laid the foundations for establishing full diplomatic relations between their countries. Later in the year, Damascus hosted a four-way summit between Syria, France, Turkey and Qatar, in a bid to boost efforts towards Middle East peace.

In April 2008, President Assad told a Qatari newspaper that Syria and Israel had been discussing a peace treaty for a year, with Turkey acting as a mediator. This was confirmed in May 2008 by a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The status of the Golan Heights, a major obstacle to a peace treaty, was being discussed.[57]

In 2008, an explosion killed 17 on the outskirts of Damascus, the most deadly attack in Syria in several years. The government blamed Islamist militants.[58][59][60]

2009 saw a number of high level meetings between Syrian and US government diplomats and officials. US special envoy George J. Mitchell visited for talks with President Assad on Middle East peace.[61][62][63][64] Trading launched on Syria’s stock exchange in a gesture towards liberalising the state-controlled economy.[65][66][67] The Syrian writer and pro-democracy campaigner Michel Kilo was released from prison after serving a three-year sentence.[68][69] In 2010, the USA posted its first ambassador to Syria after a five-year break.[70][71][72]

The thaw in diplomatic relations came to an abrupt end. In May 2010, the USA renewed sanctions against Syria, saying that it supported terrorist groups, seeks weapons of mass destruction and has provided Lebanon’s Hezbollah with Scud missiles in violation of UN resolutions.[73][74][75] In 2011 the UN’s IAEA nuclear watchdog reported Syria to the UN Security Council over its alleged covert nuclear programme.[76][77]

The Syrian Uprising (later known as the Syrian civil war) is an ongoing internal conflict between the Syrian army and the rebel Free Syrian Army. Encouraged by the Arab Spring, there were pro-reform protests in Damascus and the southern city of Deraa in March 2011. Protestors demanded political freedom and the release of political prisoners. This was immediately followed by a government crackdown whereby the Syrian Army was deployed to quell unrest.[82][83]

Security forces shot and killed a number of people in Deraa, triggering days of violent unrest that steadily spread nationwide over the following months. There were unconfirmed reports that soldiers who refused to open fire on civilians were summarily executed.[84] The Syrian government denied reports of executions and defections, and blamed militant armed groups for causing trouble.[85] President Assad announced some conciliatory measures: dozens of political prisoners were released, he dismissed the government, and in April he lifted the 48-year-old state of emergency. The government accused protesters of being stirred up by Israeli agents, and in May, army tanks entered Deraa, Banyas, Homs and the suburbs of Damascus in an effort to crush anti-regime protests. In June, the government claimed that in 120 members of the security forces had been killed by “armed gangs” in the northwestern town of Jisr al-Shughour. Troops besieged the town, whose inhabitants mostly fled to Turkey. At the same time, President Assad pledged to start a “national dialogue” on reform. He sacked the governor of the northern province of Hama and sent in more troops to restore order.

In July 2011, some of the anti-Assad groups met in Istanbul with a view to bringing the various internal and external opposition groups together. They agreed to form the Syrian National Council. Rebel fighters were joined by army defectors on the Turkish-Syrian border and declared the formation of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). They began forming fighting units to escalate the insurgency from September 2011. From the outset, the FSA was a disparate collection of loosely organized and largely independent units.

In December 2011, Syria agreed to an Arab League initiative allowing Arab observers into the country. Thousand of people gathered in Homs to greet them, but the League suspended the mission in January 2012, citing worsening violence. Twin suicide bomb attacks outside security buildings in Damascus killed 44 people in December 2011. This was the first in a series of bombings and suicide attacks in the Syrian capital that continued throughout 2012. The opposition accuses the government itself of staging the attacks. The government accuses the Western media of turning a blind eye to the rebels’ use of al-Qaeda-style terrorist attacks.

As the Syrian army recaptured the Homs district of Baba Amr in March 2012, the UN Security Council endorsed a non-binding peace plan drafted by UN envoy Kofi Annan. However, the violence continued unabated. A number of Western nations expelled senior Syrian diplomats in protest. In May, the UN Security Council strongly condemned both the Syrian government’s use of heavy weaponry and the massacre by rebels of over a hundred civilians in Houla, near Homs.

The UN reported that, in the first six months alone, 9,100–11,000 people had been killed during the insurgency, of which 2,470–3,500 were actual combatants and rest were civilians.[86][87][88] The Syrian government estimated that more than 3,000 civilians, 2,000–2,500 members of the security forces and over 800 rebels had been killed.[89] UN observers estimated that the death toll in the first six months included over 400 children.[90][91][92][93][94] Additionally, some media reported that over 600 political prisoners and detainees, some of them children, have died in custody.[95] A prominent case was that of Hamza Al-Khateeb. Syria’s government has disputed Western and UN casualty estimates, characterizing their claims as being based on false reports originating from rebel groups.[96]

According to the UN, about 1.2 million Syrians had been internally displaced within the country[97] and over 355,000 Syrian refugees had fled to the neighboring countries of Jordan,[98] Iraq,[99]Lebanon and Turkey during the first year of fighting.[97][100]

Both sides have been accused of human rights abuses. The United Nations Human Rights Council has found numerous incidents of torture, summary executions and attacks on cultural property. The Syrian government has been accused of committing the majority of war crimes, although independent verification has proven extremely difficult.[101] The conflict has the hallmarks of asectarian civil war; the leading government figures are Shia Alawites, whilst the rebels are mainly Sunni Muslims. Although neither side in the conflict has described sectarianism as playing a major role,[102] the UN Human Rights Council has warned that “entire communities are at risk of being forced out of the country or of being killed.”[103] The conflict has increasingly forced minorities to align themselves with one side or another, with Christians, Druze and Armenians largely siding with the government while Turkmen are mostly anti-government. Palestinians have split, while Kurds have fought against both rebels and government forces. Some Christian communities have formed militias to protect their neighborhoods from rebel fighters. International religious freedom groups have been drawing attention to the plight of Syria’s Christian minority at the hands of the rebel jihadist elements. Churches have been destroyed, killings and kidnapping reported, and Christians driven out of their homes. Almost the entire Christian population of Homs – 50,000-60,000 people – have fled the city.[104]

The Arab League, the Organization of Islamic CooperationGCC states, the USA and the European Union have condemned the use of violence by the Syrian government and applied sanctions against Syria. China and Russia have sought to avoid foreign intervention and called for a negotiated settlement. They have avoided condemning the Syrian government and disagree with sanctions. China has sought to engage with the Syrian opposition.[105] The Arab League and Organization of Islamic Cooperation have both suspended Syria’s membership.[106][107]

In June 2012 a number of high-ranking military and political personnel, such as Manaf Tlas[108] and Nawaf al-Fares, fled the country. Nawaf al-Fares stated in a video that this was in response to crimes against humanity by the Assad regime.[109] In August 2012, the country’s Deputy Prime Minister Qadri Jamil said President Assad’s resignation could not be a condition for starting peace negotiations.[110]

Syria-Turkish tension increased in October 2012, when Syrian mortar fire hit a Turkish border town and killed five civilians. Turkey returned fire and intercepted a Syrian plane allegedly carrying arms from Russia. Both countries banned each other’s planes from their air space. In the south, the Israeli military fired on Syrian units after alleging shelling from Syrian positions across the Golan Heights.

After heavy fighting, a fire destroyed much of the historic market of Aleppo in October. A UN-brokered ceasefire during the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha soon broke down as fighting and bomb attacks continued in several cities. By this time, the Syrian Arab Red Crescent estimated that 2.5 million people had been displaced within Syria, double the previous estimate. According to the anti-Assad Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, almost 44,000 people have died since the insurgency against began. According to a UN report, the humanitarian situation has been “aggravated by widespread destruction and razing of residential areas.” “Towns and villages across Latakia, Idlib, Hama and Dara’a governorates have been effectively emptied of their populations,” the report said. “Entire neighborhoods in southern and eastern Damascus, Deir al-Zour and Aleppo have been razed. The downtown of Homs city has been devastated.”[103]

In November 2012, the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, commonly named the ‘Syrian National Coalition’ was formed at a meeting hosted by Qatar. Islamist militias in Aleppo, including the Al-Nusra and Al-Tawhid groups, refused to join the Coalition, denouncing it as a “conspiracy”. There is also concern over Muslim Brotherhood or Islamist domination of the anti-Assad coalition.[104] Despite this, in December 2012, the USA, the Gulf states, Turkey and many EU members moved quickly to recognise the coalition as the “sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people” rather than the former main rebel group, the Syrian National Council. The USA and Gulf states wanted a reshaped opposition coalition to include more Syrians who were fighting on the ground – as opposed to those who had been in exile for decades – and one that was more broadly representative of all Syria’s regions. At the same times, the U.S. has added al-Nusra – one of the most successful rebel military groups – to its terrorist list, citing ties to al-Qaeda.

On 20 December 2012, a UN Independent Commission of Inquiry said that Syria’s newest insurgent groups increasingly operate independently of the rebel command and some are affiliated with al-Qaeda. Many of the insurgents are foreign fighters; “Sunnis hailing from countries in the Middle East and North Africa,” and are linked to extremist groups.[103]

Granted there are a few apples but they are fewer in numbers compare to the many who are calling for democratic elections, education, housing and employment and the list goes on.

With the continuing conflict in the Middle East still gathering momentum I can’t see how can this coalition continue to give arms to the rebels can not be sustainable in giving aid. Then there is the Nationalist view from the hard liners that wants to continue with this dogma that the British, French owes them something. Hello er no way the Middle East got their independence after 1946 and whoever takes over the country will need to rebuild the country.

The hard reality is if a government or dictator cannot provide for the country then it needs to be called into question why and how this happen. They al can start with by stop paying a fee to officials to turn a blind eye to events and its about time the citizens start to hold government to account for their actions as they are there to protect their citizens.

The next question is the amount of Syrian dissidents in both in UK and France is unbelievable yet they are the ones that are feeding our governments sometimes false intelligence because of isms that goes back centuries and they are not held to account to date.

Granted most of them claimed political asylum and refugee status in order to enter the UK and France soil. Well it’s about time that they return to their country to support their fellow country men and women in their struggle to overthrow the Government and form a democratic or legitimate government and help stimulate their economy which will bring about law and order.

Given the current circumstances all the Syrian dissidents are not speaking to each other and the hurtful part of it is that they all have different agendas when they pass on intelligence to Western Governments just to keep their remain to stay status. So in a nutshell it’s hard to get proper intelligence to help Syria in moving forward.

It’s no wonder why that Syria is in the mess it is in today and the coalition wants to supply arms to the rebels and the United States of America deciding to get as much support from the backdoor of the United Nations Resolution when the time comes to get rid of  Bashar al-Assad at very short notice should they need the assistance of the Arab League countries. The other side of the coin is  a real danger of replacing the Syrian Government coupled by tribalism which is understandable by the UK and French Governments as they have learnt from the lessons of the past. My bet we have not heard the end of this as the media are now more concerned about Korea as events hotting up.

 

David Cameron Speech on Migrant Benefit Cuts (Force Benefit Sanction)


 

photoMy thoughts on Migrant Benefit Cuts (Force Benefit Sanction)

Yesterday 25 March I was at home listening to Prime Minister David Cameron Speech on the above subject and my thoughts started to wonder if his speech is on the borderline of xenophobic, racism, or fascism so I put it to the readers what say you folks?
LFF-Tory-Tombstone-2Lets not forget that immigration cannot be controlled as such this is because of many historic reasons for this and the next question is should the three main political parties be pandering to the likes of UKIP Party based on their ideology or should we be looking at the root causes of why we have an immigration problem?
evt110307100500194Granted the UK boarders have been opened since agreeing to the Schengen Agreement this has been the sticking point for all the political parties. I don’t advocate to do away with it but to address it in a positive way.

Secondly I will continue to advocate that UK was built on immigration and our foreparents who came to this country started on jobs that most English men and women refused to do which helped to simulate this country which has led to the success of multiculturalism and diversity here today.

Granted there are a few bad apples that abuse our welfare system but they are far and few.  Most who came to the UK does invest in employment and create jobs. Thank god for that and let’s have a positive discussion about the benefit system. This coalition should look at ways on how to close the loopholes when they appear as many will continue to argue for.

Labour Party should stop continue to apologising for their pass misgiving on immigration and move forward as we have had many spin towards immigration.  Instead the party should be challenging or hold the coalition to account over the budget.
Budget 2013 - George OsborneWhich leads me to the next issue on the budget day the very reason why the coalition is on the attack on migrant benefits whether be it housing, council tax, using our NHS or other benefits. Lets not forget about this and I put this to my readers is it about time this coalition stop pandering to the likes of the far Right agenda to the outlet of the media which is promote scaremongering.

DavidcameronA speech by David Cameron on immigration has run into trouble after Downing Street clashed with the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, on the cost of treating European patients on the NHS and No 10 struggled to back up the prime minister’s claims with hard statistics.

As the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) accused Cameron of increasing intolerance, the prime minister said it was right to tackle immigration that was “badly out of control” under the last government.

However, the speech was in danger of unravelling after Hunt directly contradicted Downing Street over the costs of treating patients from the European Economic Area (EEA) on the NHS. The EEA includes all 27 members of the EU plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

The prime minister’s spokesman said the NHS should recoup a further £10m to £20m towards the costs of treating EEA nationals on the NHS under reciprocal agreements. “We are looking at how you can better recoup costs from EEA countries,” the spokesman said. “It is a question of the NHS getting better at being able to take and follow-up the information it needs in order to recoup those costs.”

Amid criticisms that £10m to £20m was relatively small figure on which to make such a major policy announcement – the NHS budget is more than £100bn a year – the health secretary disputed the No 10 claim. Appearing on Radio 4′s The World at One as the prime minister was still speaking, Hunt said: “It is a huge issue. I don’t think those numbers are at all accurate.

“The reason is because hospitals, if they treat someone who is not entitled to NHS care – if they declare that person is a foreigner who is not entitled to that care then they have the responsibility to collect the money from that person. Whereas if they declare that person as a UK national then the money is paid for by the NHS. So we have created a strong incentive for hospitals in the system not to pick out the people who aren’t entitled to free NHS care. That is one of the things we need to change.”

Asked how much he thought the NHS was losing, Hunt said: “I don’t want to speculate on what that number might be. But the number we have heard is actually not £20m, it is £200m. I think it is significantly more than that.”

Downing Street also struggled as it emerged that:

• Of the two million net migrants to the UK from the eight eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004, just 13,000 people have claimed jobseeker’s allowance (JSA). This figure was not disputed by No 10.

• A claim by No 10 that there has been a 40% increase in the number of social lettings taken up by migrants between 2007-08 and 2011-12 appeared to gloss over the fact that this was only an increase from 6.5% to 9% in the proportion of such lettings.

The prime minister said it was important to act on immigration as he set out plans to restrict access to benefits for immigrants from the EEA and beyond. He announced, as expected, that JSA would only be available to those genuinely seeking a job for a maximum of six months.

He also announced that EEA immigrants would have to show a decent command of English. Cameron said: “We’re going to make that assessment a real and robust one, and yes, it’s going to include whether your ability to speak English is a barrier to work. And to migrants who are in work but then lose their jobs the same rules will apply. Six months, and then if you can’t show you have a genuine chance of getting a job, benefits will be cut off.

“This means that EEA migrants who don’t have a genuine chance of getting work after six months will lose their right to access certain benefits. So yes, they can still come and stay here if they want to, but the British taxpayer will not go on endlessly paying for them any more.”

The prime minister was scathing about Labour’s record. “Under the previous government immigration was far too high and badly out of control. Net migration needs to come down radically from hundreds of thousands a year to just tens of thousands.

“And as we bring net migration down so we must also make sure that Britain continues to benefit from it. That means ensuring that those who do come here are the brightest and the best, the people we really need with the skills and entrepreneurial talent to create the British jobs and growth that will help us to win in the global race.”

Habib Rahman, chief executive of the JCWI, said: “This rhetoric may curtail rights to benefits on a minor scale, but relatively few migrants compared with ‘indigenous’ people actually claim benefit anyway. The real effect of this speech will be to further increase the intolerance and the hostile reception that immigrants are facing from some sections of society.

“There’s nothing new about people from these countries coming to live and work in the UK. This media hysteria denies the fact that immigration helps our economy and is a great boon to tackling the coming demographic imbalanced posed by our ageing population.”

The government will need to react quickly if a benefit cut for social housing tenants leads to rises in rent arrears and homelessness, MPs say.

Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chair Margaret Hodge said it could have a “severe impact” on low-income families.

It is alleged that estimates supplied to the BBC by some of the largest housing associations suggest many tenants are not currently planning to move home to avoid the cut.

The government said better use had to be made of social housing stock.

From 1 April, changes to housing benefit (HB) affecting working-age social housing tenants deemed to have spare bedrooms will mean a 14% cut for those with one extra room and of 25% for those with two or more.

The controversial measure – which will see affected tenants lose an average of £14 a week – has been dubbed the “bedroom tax” by Labour, though the government has been at pains to argue it is not a tax but a curb on “spare room subsidies”.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) expects 660,000 social housing tenants to be affected by the cut across Britain.

Ms Hodge said: “The DWP says it can’t accurately predict the effects of its housing benefit changes either on individuals or on the housing supply.

“Instead it will rely on a ‘wait and see’ approach and monitor changes in homelessness, rent levels and arrears so that, where there is a need, it can intervene and respond.”

The committee said this placed “greater responsibility on the Department to react quickly when the changes are made”.

Ms Hodge warned: “Even small reductions in housing benefit can have a severe impact on the finances of the poorest people.”

“The department must decide in advance exactly what actions it will take in response to increases in homelessness or rents.”

Stay or go?

The government says the change brings housing benefit for social housing tenants in line with its provision in the private sector, where size criteria already apply.

Intended to reduce a £21bn annual housing benefit bill, the measure is also supposed to encourage greater mobility in the social rented sector.

Of 50 housing associations across the UK contacted by the BBC, as well as a number of local authorities and ALMOs (arm’s length management organisations) providing housing on behalf of councils, 21 social housing providers supplied estimates on the number of tenants saying they were planning to stay in their home or downsize.

Among them was Riverside Homes, with 51,493 properties and an estimated 6,602 households affected by the cut.

It estimated that 5,018 – 76% of affected tenants – were currently planning to stay in their home.

Another respondent, Glasgow Housing Association – with 41,400 homes – estimated that of 6,100 affected tenants, some 4,800 – 79% – were currently planning to stay in their home.

Community Housing Cymru Group (CHC), representing 70 housing associations in Wales, estimated that of 40,000 affected claimants, more than 36,000 – 91% – would stay in their homes.

Wales is expected to see a higher proportion of working-age HB claimants hit by the cut – 46% – than any other region of the UK.

‘National shortage’

A number of housing associations said that moving large numbers of people considered to be under-occupying social homes was unachievable simply because there were not enough smaller homes available.

CHC said that 88% of housing associations in Wales would have a mismatch of properties if they tried to downsize all under-occupying tenants facing a benefit cut.

“Not because tenants are needlessly under-occupying larger homes, but because there is a national shortage of affordable homes, especially one and two-bed properties,” said CHC spokeswoman Bethan Samuel.

Angela Forshaw, director of housing at Liverpool Mutual Homes (LMH), said half of its stock of more than 15,000 properties comprised three-bedroom homes.

“We have just 2,800 with two bedrooms, so downsizing everyone affected – and most don’t want to move – is impossible,” she said.

With the vast majority of affected tenants expected to try to find the extra rental money themselves, housing associations raised concerns including:

  • Increased financial difficulty for tenants
  • Tenants running up rent arrears
  • Increased costs to housing associations of rent collection and evictions
  • A rise in doorstep lending
  • Damage to communities from increased turnover in social housing and less affordable, larger homes remaining empty

They also warned that people who responded to the benefit cut by leaving social housing could end up claiming more housing benefit in the costlier private sector.

However, for single mother Kellie Parsons the changes provide some hope for larger accommodation.

She lives in a one-bedroom flat with her three-year-old son, Dylan, in Dukinfield, Greater Manchester.

She shares the bedroom with her son, and has been trying to move to a bigger flat for three years – since becoming pregnant.

“The living room is just cluttered with stuff, it’s too small, and there’s no garden, there’s only a veranda which is too dangerous for him so we barely use it.

“There’s just no area for him to play, not even outside because there are just too many cars.”

She said she hopes that the changes will be an incentive for people to downsize from bigger properties, allowing her to exchange via home swap schemes.

“I’ve been trying to upgrade for three years. I’ve been doing it pretty much every single day.

“I think these change of benefits would actually help because people [will] downgrade, so it would help me to move quicker. I’m hopeful, positive about it.”

The DWP points out that with one third of working-age social housing tenants receiving housing benefit for homes larger than they need, that amounts to one million extra bedrooms currently being subsidised.

It hopes its measure will enable better use of available social housing stock, and improve work incentives for affected tenants.

“We expect people to respond in different ways to the changes to the Spare Room Subsidy – some will move and some will make up the difference in their rent by moving into work, or increasing their hours,” a DWP spokesperson said.

“But when in England alone there are nearly two million households on the social housing waiting list and over a quarter of a million tenants are living in overcrowded homes, this measure is needed to make better use of our housing stock.”

Are you a social housing tenant? Are you planning to move home to avoid the cut? Send us your comments using the form below.

Lastly to finished I enclosed a letter from the DWP which the coalition is applying the pressure to DWP staff to hand out to jobseekers if they refuse to attend the work programme sees below for details:

To help you back to work you have an interview then it goes on to say:

If you are due to sign on this day, you only have to come at the time above.

What will happen at the interview?

We will look at your Jobserker’s Agreement to see if it is still helpful. We will talk with you about jobs, training and other ways of helping you back to work. We will also tell you about help you may get when you find work.

To get Jobserkers Allowance and credits of National Insurance you must be looking for a job. At the interview you must tell us what have you done to find a job, it is easier if you write this down. Being any letters you have about jobs you have applied for and anything else to prove that you have been looking for a job. If you cannot show that you are looking for a job a decision maker may have to decide if your Jobseekers Allowance and National Insurance credits should be stopped.

We will refund your travel costs(the cost of travel by the cheapest way) if your interview is:

Not on the day you sign on; or
Not at the place you sign at and you have to pay more to get there.

Please telephone us immediately on 08456043729(textphone 08456088551)

Please notify us BEFORE the interview appointment whenever possible.

To get Jobseekers Allowance you must come to interviews when asked to do so unless you have a good reason for not coming. Please tell us as soon as you can before the interview the reason why you can’t come. Your benefit could be suspended unless we agree to postpone your interview. If you do not attend the interview we will have ask a decision maker to decide if you have a good reason for not coming. You must tell us within five working days of the interview if you want your reason to be considered by the decision maker. If they decide that you do not have a good reason your Jobseekers Allowance and National Insurance Credits may be stopped.

Tory Party in Disarray Over European Convention on Human Rights


New ImageQuote of the day:

“To people who don’t or refuse to use their votes in all elections remember the Bedroom Tax, and European Convention on Human Rights. It’s no good to moan about it, do something about”.

New Image1My thoughts on Human rights convention:

I look back to the histrionic Labour victory 1997-2010 during its rein we witnessed many legislations introduced some from the European Parliament which benefit workers and different parts of the community. Let’s look at some of the policies like:

1. Longest period of sustained low inflation since the 60s.

2. Low mortgage rates.

3. Introduced the National Minimum Wage and raised it to £5.52.

4. Over 14,000 more police in England and Wales.

5. Cut overall crime by 32 per cent.

6. Record levels of literacy and numeracy in schools.

7. Young people achieving some of the best ever results at 14, 16, and 18.

8. Funding for every pupil in England has doubled.

9. Employment is at its highest level ever.

10. Written off up to 100 per cent of debt owed by poorest countries.

11. 85,000 more nurses.

12. 32,000 more doctors.

13. Brought back matrons to hospital wards.

14. Devolved power to the Scottish Parliament.

15. Devolved power to the Welsh Assembly.

16. Dads now get paternity leave of 2 weeks for the first time.

17. NHS Direct offering free convenient patient advice.

18. Gift aid was worth £828 million to charities last year.

19. Restored city-wide government to London.

20. Record number of students in higher education.

21. Child benefit up 26 per cent since 1997.

22. Delivered 2,200 Sure Start Children’s Centres.

23. Introduced the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

24. £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners & up to £300 for over-80s.

25. On course to exceed our Kyoto target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

26. Restored devolved government to Northern Ireland.

27. Over 36,000 more teachers in England and 274,000 more support staff and teaching assistants.

28. All full time workers now have a right to 24 days paid holiday.

29. A million pensioners lifted out of poverty.

30. 600,000 children lifted out of relative poverty.

31. Introduced child tax credit giving more money to parents.

32. Scrapped Section 28 and introduced Civil Partnerships.

33. Brought over 1 million social homes up to standard.

34. Inpatient waiting lists down by over half a million since 1997.

35. Banned fox hunting.

36. Cleanest rivers, beaches, drinking water and air since before the industrial revolution.

37. Free TV licences for over-75s.

38. Banned fur farming and the testing of cosmetics on animals.

39. Free breast cancer screening for all women aged between 50-70.

40. Free off peak local bus travel for over-60s.

41. New Deal – helped over 1.8 million people into work.

42. Over 3 million child trust funds have been started.

43. Free eye test for over 60s.

44. More than doubled the number of apprenticeships.

45. Free entry to national museums and galleries.

46. Overseas aid budget more than doubled.

47. Heart disease deaths down by 150,000 and cancer deaths down by 50,000.

48. Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75 per cent.

49. Free nursery places for every three and four-year-olds.

50. Free fruit for most four to six-year-olds at school.

download12The UK human rights act came into force thanks to a Labour Government. I don’t have anytime for Theresa May who is pandering to ultra right wing parties and groups and rightwing of the Conservatives for the withdrawal of Convention of Human Rights Act.

Granted at times there are laws that are in place that does protect the rights of prisoners and alleged terrorist but it is up to the government to appeal the High Court decision and argue why they feel that a person(s) is a national security risk. In general the act is there to serve everybody no matter what race, creed, disabilities and sexuality

See article below:

The Conservatives would consider leaving the European Convention on Human Rights if they won the 2015 election, the home secretary has said.

Theresa May told an event organised by the ConservativeHome site the party would also scrap the Human Rights Act.

She said it restricted the UK’s ability “to act in the national interest”.

A private poll by ex-party treasurer Lord Ashcroft, meanwhile, suggested the party would lose 93 marginal seats to Labour if the election was held now.

The BBC understands Mrs May was putting forward ideas for the next Conservative manifesto, and such a move was not current government policy.

The home secretary said she thought David Cameron would lead the party into the next election, and BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins said there was no sign the speech heralded a leadership challenge.

It will be widely considered as an attempt by Mrs May to position herself for any future contest, our correspondent added.

Mrs May told the gathering she was sceptical whether the convention limited human rights abuses in other countries and suggested it restricted Britain’s ability to act in its own interests.

“When Strasbourg constantly moves the goalposts and prevents the deportation of dangerous men like Abu Qatada, we have to ask ourselves, to what end are we signatories to the convention?” she said.

“Are we really limiting human rights abuses in other countries? I’m sceptical.”

She said that “by 2015, we’ll need a plan for dealing with the European Court of Human Rights”.

“And yes, I want to be clear that all options – including leaving the convention altogether – should be on the table.”

She also called for greater use of the private sector in delivering public services and more state involvement in industrial planning.

The shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper accused Mrs May of a “blatant political pitch” to right-wing Tories, disillusioned with the prime minister’s leadership.

“It is clear that she is more concerned about appealing to… Tory back benchers and setting out an alternative to David Cameron and George Osborne than she is about a coherent policy for Government.

“She says in her opening paragraph, ‘Today’s event is all about a choice of leadership,’ – and its clear that today is another attempt to set out her stall”.

Meanwhile Lord Ashcroft, who owns Conservative Home, published the findings of his poll during a speech earlier at the conference in London.

More than 19,000 people were questioned in 213 British constituencies in January and February 2013. The poll suggested Labour would gain 109 seats in total, returning a total of 367 MPs to parliament, a majority of 84.

It said there would be an average swing of 8% to Labour in the Conservative’s most vulnerable seats.

The Liberal Democrats also stand to lose seats according to Lord Ashcroft’s research. The party would lose 17 constituencies to their coalition colleagues and 13 to Labour.

Poll ‘snapshot’

The former Tory Party treasurer, who has donated millions of pounds to the Conservatives, used the speech to dismiss earlier newspaper claims he has withdrawn support for the party.

The peer said he will fund polling research rather than continue to provide large financial donations.

He added: “I don’t want to see a Labour majority of 4, let alone 84. But I hope this puts the challenge into some sort of perspective.

“We have a long way to go to hold onto the seats we gained last time, let alone pick up many more.

“Things are slightly less grim than the headline polls suggest, and we have everything to play for,” Lord Ashcroft insisted.

But Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps told activists the poll was simply “a snapshot” of what may happen.

He revealed he was knocking on doors on Saturday morning, saying: “I wasn’t out asking people for their votes, I was asking what we could do for them.”

He added: “That’s the most important lesson we can learn. We need to get out there and get to know people.

“We can spend the next two years working out strategies and trying to sub-divide votes – it will get us nowhere.”

The Conservative Home conference was organised to consider the strategies needed to help the party win broader support in 2015

Benefits For Migrants ‘Crisis


New Image

 

Thoughts on Benefit For Migrant Crisis:

Why is it that successive government panders to either racism fascism, or xenophobia in regards to their European counterparts surely they should have known that being part of European Union something has to give.

This really concerns me when Labour and coalition starts to pandering to the right-wing agenda to the likes of British National Party(BNP) United Kingdom Independence Party(UKIP) and English Defence League(EDL) as they are the one who will benefit from the attention from the media.

Granted Labour may have made some mistakes on immigration at lease they have man up to the fact that it did not work. I think it’s about time that they(Labour) stop continuing to giving apologies and move on to counter attack the coalition with their reform of benefit for mitigation benefit crisis.

For Ian Duncan Smith(IDS) to move to the right of the Conservatives(Nasty Party) can only lead me to believe if you are rich welcome to the UK if you poor see door there go through the door comes to mind. Ask yourself this question on the coalition front bench how many BAME ministers do you see let alone anybody from the developed countries as they are treated like third class citizens?

New Image1

 

 

It’s alleged all the three political parties have learnt their lessons from Eastleigh By-elections frankly I cannot concur with their statements. I feel that the big three political parties are playing games with the voters just to gain votes for all the elections coming soon.

Immigration has been very good for our economy lets take a look at for the moment both China and India has invested in UK which helps unemployed back into work yet recently the visit to India coalition declared that our boarders are opened to them on the other hand there was no mention of the same welcome to China. Labour did a lot more for China than the coalition I wonder why any guesses.

Granted there a few bad apples that exploits our welfare system they are far few than the many. This happens when some crooks feel that they are above the law they always get caught in the end.

Whilst doing our Labourdoorstep If one ask the ordinary job block what are his or her concerns the reply would be community, jobs, better housing, education, environment petrol, gas, electricity, economy, street lighting, cleaning and lastly immigration.

Not every immigrants who enters our country depends on benefit system and the ones does are few.

Yvette Copper was right to highlight Student visa loopholes are allowing tens of thousands of people to enter the UK without any checks.

I judge them by the quality of their work, not the place they were born.

See article below:

The Work and Pensions Secretary said it was too easy for migrants to pass the current residency test, which then entitled them to claim benefits.

He told MPs he was trying to tighten up the system “dramatically” but was being thwarted by the European Union.

The senior Tory was replying to an urgent question from Labour MP Frank Field, as the Government works on how to stem immigration from Romania and Bulgaria

“There is somewhat of a crisis over this. For the last two years, I have been fighting a rearguard action over what was left to me by the last government,” he said.

“I inherited a habitual residency test which simply isn’t fit for purpose. We are trying to tighten that up dramatically and I am being infracted at the moment by the European Union for doing that.”

The habitual residency test does not demand that EU migrants show they plan to stay here for any set period of time.

They can also claim child benefits from the UK even if their offspring still live in their native country and pocket tax credits by claiming self-employed status.

GPs were taking on migrants even if they had only been in the UK for 24 hours, Mr Duncan Smith told MPs.

He declared that Germany and other countries had “woken up at last” to the issue and stressed that he had made Britain’s position clear to the European Commission.

Mr Duncan Smith wants greater restrictions on universal credits.

Local councils will also have to publish data on how much social housing was being offered to non-British citizens.

The Government is battling to head off concerns over the influx of migrants from Romania and Bulgaria when temporary restrictions are lifted in December.

Mr Field claimed 25,000 people are already arriving every month.

Shadow minister Stephen Timms admitted the prospect of future migration meant the problem had to be addressed but criticised the Government for “floating some vague ideas”.

Tory John Redwood suggested new laws should prevent migrants receiving benefits unless they show a “suitable contribution” or spend 10 years in full-time education here.

Mr Duncan Smith said: “This is very much the direction of travel we are trying to take.”

Tory James Duddridge said: “The infraction process is surely just a fine. No-one has ever paid any of these fines.

“Please, please, please just say no, tell the Commission to sod off and don’t pay the fine.”

Mr Duncan Smith said: “I’ll skip the language and stay with the sentiment.”

 

Lords Voted by 256 to 153 outlaw discrimination against people on the basis of their caste


91e33811fbSong of the day by Bob Marley and the Wailers :

Every man gotta right to decide his own destiny
And in this judgment there is no partiality
So arm in arms, with arms
We will fight this little struggle
‘Cause that’s the only way
We can overcome our little trouble

Brother you’re right, you’re right
You’re right, you’re right, you’re so right
We gonna fight, we’ll have to fight
We gonna fight, fight for our rights

Natty dread it in a Zimbabwe
Set it up ina Zimbabwe
Mash it up in a Zimbabwe
Africans a liberate
Zimbabwe
No more internal power struggle
We come together, to over come the little trouble
Soon we will find out
Who is the real revolutionary
‘Cause I don’t want my people
To be contrary

Brothers you’re right, you’re right
You’re right, you’re right, you’re so right

We’ll have to fight, we gonna fight
We’ll have to fight, fighting for our rights

Mash it up ina Zimbabwe
Natty trash it ina Zimbabwe
Africans to liberate
I and I a liberate Zimbabwe

Brother you’re right, you’re right
You’re right, you’re right, you’re so right

We gonna fight, we’ll have to fight
We gonna fight, fighting for our rights

To divide and rule
Could only tear us apart
In everyman chest there beats a heart
So soon we’ll find out
Who is the real revolutionaries
And I don’t want my people
To be tricked by mercenaries

Brother you’re right, you’re right
You’re right, you’re right, you’re so right
We gonna fight, we’ll have to fight
We gonna fight, fighting for our rights

Natty trash it ina Zimbabwe
Mash it up ina Zimbabwe
Set it up ina Zimbabwe
Africans a liberate
Zimbabwe
Africans a liberate Zimbabwe

Natty dub it ina Zimbabwe
Set it up ina Zimbabwe
Africans a liberate Zimbabwe

Every man got a right
To decide his own destiny

My Thoughts on Caste Discrimination:

It was a Labour government who introduce the 2010 Equalities Act and it was a proud moment for many but not for the few. Why am I not surprised of this coalition fails to accept that Caste discrimination is an offence.

To put it into content there are many forms of discrimination be it race, creed, religious believes, disabilities, sex, same-sex or cultural  be they be a man or woman there should not be any different from us all.  Today Britain has a vast multi culture society with a many diversity that this Coalition Government has continue to recognise but not just them but also Labour lets take a further look into this and lets examine  the third largest community the Chinese community in the UK.  The  2011  Census  says  there  over  700,000  Chinese  and  East Asians  of   which  over  393,000  are  Chinese  in  England &  Wales.

So  why  are  the  Chinese  invisible  in  arts,  theatre,  national
institutions,  charities, think  tanks  and politic?

So  why  don’t  we  see  the  Chinese  or  East  Asian  actor s  in  the
National  Theatre?

So  why  did  the  RSC  use  white  actors  made  up  to  play  Chinese  in
their  recent  play, The Orphan of   Zhao –  utterly  shameful.

So  why  is it  that  they get tax  payers  f unding?

They  should  ref lect  the  makeup  of   society  or  I   say  be  stripped  of
tax  payers  funding.

The  Chinese  are  invisible  again  when  it  comes  to  appointments  t o
Public  Bodies.

Why has the Government not taken  action to ensure mor e than  the
119  Public  Appointments  out of   1,740  went to ethnic minorities?

I s  it  right  that  onl y  six  in  every  one  hundred  appointments  –  many of  them  made  by  Ministers  -  i s  f rom  a  Black  and  Minority  Ethnic background?

So  invisible  are  the  Chinese  in  t he  governance  of   Brittan  that   no
offical  statistic  of   the  number  of  Chinese  member s  of   Publicc
Bodies  is  published.

Another shocking statistic I  want to share with  you is the  number of
Chinese  awarded national  honours. So  invisible  are  the  Chinese  that  only  1  Chinese  out  of   1,223 people  received  an award  in  this year’s honours list.

Surely  even  using  George  Osborne’s  legendary  creative
mathematics  this doesn’t  look  a  representative  number?

So  where  are  the  Chinese  Dames,  Sirs  –  there  are  many  who  are
worthy  of   these  honours  but  society  has  failed  to  formally
recognise.

Now that I got that out of my chest I would like this coalition to address those concerns that I have raised what is the bet that I will not receive a reply from them. When Labour got into power there was an early day motion from five Labour MPs calling for Caste discrimination to be addressed but it did not have enough signatures for it to be debated ony 27 MPs from a cross-section see content of the motion:

CASTE DISCRIMINATION AND DALIT PEOPLES

Primary sponsor Corbyn, Jeremy  and  Sponsors

Bottomley, Peter

Drew, David

Gidley, Sandra

Simpson, Alan

Vis, Rudi

That this House welcomes the three-year study on caste discrimination agreed by the UN Human Rights Commission in April; notes the concerns expressed in recent International Development Committee and Department for International Development (DFID) Reports and the continuing threats and violence against Dalits resisting caste discrimination; urges the Foreign Office and DFID actively to support the UN study, including financially if necessary, and to work vigorously in the EU and beyond to end discrimination by work and descent; and further urges the Department of Trade and Industry to encourage all UK companies operating in India to adopt the Ambedkar Employment Principles aimed at overcoming such discrimination in India and elsewhere.

When I listen to this the above song about discrimination if reminds me that I have to tackle it day in and day out:

See article below:

Discrimination on the grounds of caste should be outlawed in the UK, peers said as they defeated the government in a vote in the House of Lords.

Peers backed an Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill amendment to add caste to race discrimination laws.

The government opposed the move, saying it had set up an education programme to tackle caste discrimination.

But peers said this was not enough, and the law needed to be changed. The government was defeated by 256 to 153.

downloadThe defeat was the second of the day for the government, with peers also challenging the government over the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in promoting a more equal society.

Ministers want to remove a general duty on the commission underlining the need to protect human rights and promote equal opportunity for all in society, but peers blocked the move.

‘Racial prejudice’

indexAs the debate took place, more than 400 members of the Dalit community – so-called untouchables – protested outside Parliament.

The Bishop of Oxford Lord Harries of Pentregarth – who introduced the amendment – said the British Dalit community had reached 480,000 and evidence showed they suffered discrimination in education, employment and the provision of public goods and service.

At the moment, the bishop said, there was no means of legal redress for those suffering discrimination.

“We know in the case of race that nothing has been more effective in reducing racial prejudice than the law. It has had a most powerful educative effect,” he said.

“Nothing could be more significant and effective in reducing discrimination on the grounds of caste than to have a clear-cut law that discrimination in the public law would not be tolerated.”

Former Conservative cabinet minister Lord Deben, who spoke passionately in favour of the amendment, said: “You can change the name from untouchable to Dalit, but you cannot change the fact that some people are treated in an appalling way simply because of the person they were born.

“I have absolutely no doubt that it would be utterly wrong for us to say to the world that we had the opportunity to protect people from this disgraceful discrimination and we decided not to do it because we had to have another investigation.”

He said the history of the fight against discrimination was marked by people who did not want to change, arguing the issue should be looked at further.

‘Programme of education’

“It was only when we changed the law and made it wrong not only morally but legally that we actually had the change in attitude and gained the protection that we needed,” he said.

Crossbench peer Lord Alton said: “There are some values that we hold firmly in this country and we must stand firmly on those principles and not suggest to others that somehow or other to import those kind of conditions into the United Kingdom would ever be acceptable.

“However important things like trade relations are to British industry and developing cordial good relations with India and China, nonetheless the stand we take for upholding human rights and human dignity – the belief that no one is untouchable and that every person is of equal value – is the reason I am very happy to support this amendment.”

Former Conservative Lord Chancellor Lord Mackay of Clashfern gave his “full support” to the amendment which he said dealt with an issue “which ought not to disfigure our national life”.

For the government, Baroness Stowell said there was “some evidence of caste prejudice and discrimination taking place in the United Kingdom”.

“We all want to see an end to caste-based prejudice and discrimination,” she said. “We are not closing the door to legislation.

“From the limited evidence of class prejudice already available we believe that there is much to be gained through a programme of education and that is something we will get on with immediately.”

She said the Equality and Human Rights Commission was also going to look into the issue and report later this year.

Rebels voting in favour of the amendment included 22 Liberal Democrat peers and 9 Conservatives.

Former party leaders Conservative Lord Howard and Lib Dem Lord Steel rebelled, as did Baroness Williams and former Lord Chancellor Lord Mackay.

 

Coalition on full scale attack on foreigners seeking benefits


Newsletter 07.08Quote Of the Day:

No Retreat No Surrender

Thoughts on Benefits For Foreigner Review

Why is it that every successful governments in the UK continues to ride on a high by using two words “Soft Touch” this is because it stirs up everybody  and such it plays to the hands of both racists and fascists to which I make no apologies for saying this.

Until governments all over the world address the crisis it will be on going with no solutions at the end of the tunnel. In regards to benefits For Foreigners not all them who comes to the UK claim benefits, some create employment while others who claim benefits are from either refugee status or facing persecution from dictators or military from their country of origin. Then there economic migration which if I’m reading right then any governments that come to power will have an escalation of problems as they will look back to the root causes of it as endemic worldwide which dates back to the time of explorers, governments, kings and queens claiming lands in the name of country. Like it or lump it those are the facts.

Granted some will argue it’s a chip on their shoulders Great Britain is just as guilty for raiding and looting other people lands then leave the natives to fend for themselves under British rules whilst they were there drained their natural resources.

There maybe a the few who continue to moan about not able to get a council housing because all those foreigners are getting various benefits and they are the ones that are not getting it. I don’t have a problem with foreigners who want to access our benefit system provided that they meet the criteria and don’t abuse.
indexThen there is the workfare issue that needs to address as coalition lost their case in court by saying it is ridiculous to call being made to work unpaid or force labour and has the cheek to oppose the suggestion that people who lost their benefits should have it reinstated.
carers-allowance-297Why has the coalition gone done this road to punish our Carers for looking after our disabled. Most Carers does a wonderful job not just for personal care for people with disabilities they are the bed rock of our society. Most would say they deserve the recognition for the work they do and that they are the unsung heroes.#

As I said in previous communications that we should not continue to pander to the Far Right Agendas of the British National Party(BNP) and English Defence League (EDL) let us all continue to celebrate our diversity and multiculturalism that we all enjoy in our society today.

See article below:

The government is reviewing access to housing, healthcare and the benefits system for foreign nationals to ensure that the UK is not a “soft touch”, Prime Minister David Cameron has said.

At his weekly Commons question session, he said he had chaired a committee looking into current policy: “It isn’t right if our systems are being abused.”

The rights of British citizens should not be enjoyed by “anyone who just chooses to come here”, he told MPs.

Tory Mark Spencer had raised the issue.

“The welfare state and the NHS are there to support our constituents when they fall on difficult times,” Mr Spencer said.

“Will the prime minister assure the House that he will not allow them to be abused by illegal immigrants and nationals who are coming here as benefit tourists?”

‘Undue pressures’

Mr Cameron said this was “a very important point” and said he had chaired a committee meeting on Tuesday to look into the subject.

“Britain has always been an open and welcome economy, but it isn’t right if our systems are being abused,” he told MPs.

The review of “every single one of our systems: housing, health, benefits”, was being led by immigration minister Mark Harper, he said, and would “make sure that we are not a soft touch for those who want to come here”.

“It is absolutely vital that we get this right,” he told MPs.

“There are many parts of our current arrangements that simply don’t pass a simple common-sense test, in terms of access to housing, access to the health service, access to justice and other things which should be the right of all British citizens, but they’re not the right of anyone who just chooses to come here.”

The prime minister’s spokesman later warned that the committee’s work was “likely to take some time” and any proposals would have to “operate within the constraints of the law”.

But the government was keen to “ensure there were not undue pressures on the smooth running of the labour market in the UK”, he said.

Mr Cameron’s decision to chair the meeting yesterday, in place of his immigration minister, “pointed to the importance he attaches to this area of work”, the spokesman added.

The prime minister has previously said the government would be reviewing current policy when asked about the lifting on restrictions from January 2014 on Bulgarians and Romanians working the UK.

 

Gallery

Anti Cuts Rally In Liverpool

This gallery contains 3 photos.


  A quote from a general secretary  from my former trade union who was standing for union elections to all his members. ”When this government gets its policies wrong I will criticise them. When they get it right I will praise … Continue reading

Gallery

Proposed Control Immigration

This gallery contains 2 photos.


  I find myself defending the much talked about immigration again. So here I go again in regards to the main political parties if it was not for immigration from Europe and SE Asia, Asia, Africa, Middle East, Caribbean, Jews … Continue reading

Ed Miliband on the right track to protect tenants renting from private sectors


 

MilibandMy thoughts on Young Miliband plans to protect tenants from private landlords:

Grahame Morris MP recently highlighted:

“This is the year when Ed Miliband, the Labour Party and the wider labour movement must translate a consistently respectable opinion-poll lead into a solid, unassailable lead – the sort of lead that will drive this Con-Dem coalition into the sea at the general election”.

 

25728-1-Grahame-Morris-MP1On face value Miliband and the Labour Party have everything going for them.

The public are now realising the fact that George Osborne’s voodoo austerity economics has choked off any economic recovery and we now stand on the brink of a triple-dip recession.

They have watched as David Cameron and Nick Clegg have blundered and U-turned on everything from forestry privatisation to same-sex marriage, and they are increasingly disturbed by the coalition’s attacks on the poor, the old, the unemployed, or simply those who have children.

We need to oppose and expose the plans to cap housing benefit at £500, an arbitrary figure that takes no account of where people live. It is high time also that Labour’s front bench recognised that the vicious circle of private landlords increasing rents merely for the taxpayer to pick up the tab needs to be halted.

We need to institute a new policy of rent controls and rent-adjusted areas in expensive cities – just as Mayor Michael Bloomberg, no great left-winger, does in New York City.

Miliband has rightly moved away from some of the top-down authoritarian ways of new Labour.

By the last election we had lost around five million voters who perceived that there was little difference between the main parties. Many also felt Labour had betrayed them over the Iraq war.

Common too was the feeling that the party had strayed too far from its roots and was opening the door to a substantial increase in outsourcing and privatisation.

Those chickens are now coming home to roost, as first Andrew Lansley and now Rupert Murdoch’s little helper Jeremy Hunt attempt to hand over as much of our NHS to private companies such as Virgin Healthcare and Carillion as is possible.

Some £7 billion of our money has now been handed over to these corporate parasites, whose first priority will always be to their shareholders and not their patients.

Young Miliband is correct to highlight this issue in regards to the private housing sector as their recent has increased and their tenants have very little protection unlike if you rent from the council housing where there is some protection.

Let’s not forget the chairman of a private equity firm told councils to scrap building affordable homes in favour of an expansion of the private-rented sector on 22 August 2012.

In a government-commissioned report 3i chairman Adrian Montague said councils should use their powers to waive the requirements to build homes for those on lower incomes to increase the number of properties built to let.

His report said that while the desirability of affordable housing should not be ruled out it should be weighed against the benefits already built into market rent developments.

The review also recommends setting up a task force to encourage build-to-let investment and the release of unused publicly owned land for development.

Housing Minister Grant Shapps (right) said the report offered a “blueprint” to expand the sector.

“In the past it’s often been seen as the Cinderella of the housing market, but when over three million people rely on this sector for their home, this is clearly no longer the case,” he said.

But critics warned the move would boost the number of properties for private rent at the expense of creating “much needed” affordable homes sought by those struggling to get a foothold on the property ladder.

National Housing Federation head David Orr said: “While we agree that there needs to be more private-market rented housing, this should not be at the expense of affordable homes.

Homeless charity Shelter said the report offered “nothing for the millions of people already in the sector, paying sky-high rents and living under constant threat of eviction or further rent rises.”

Local Government Association environment and housing board chairman Mike Jones agreed that “any strategy to boost the number of new rental homes should not come at the expense of new affordable housing”.

I stringly concur with Labour’s shadow housing minister Jack Dromey who said “Huge cuts to government investment in housing, a lack of liquidity in the finance markets, the failure of banks to lend to homebuyers and stagnating demand are the real hurdles to viability – not the cost of providing much-needed affordable housing.”

Working families are struggling to afford rocketing rent as ruthless landlords cash in on the economic crisis, housing charity Shelter said today.

It warned that average private rents are beyond the means of “ordinary” families in 55 per cent of local authorities.

Homes were found in these areas which cost more than 35 per cent of the median local take-home pay – the level considered by Shelter to be unaffordable.

Shelter chief executive Campbell Robb said: “We have become depressingly familiar with first-time buyers being priced out of the housing market but the impact of unaffordable rents is more dramatic.”

Private rents in 8 per cent of local authorities in England were “extremely unaffordable” – with average rents costing 50 per cent or more of full-time take-home pay.

Just 12 per cent of areas were deemed affordable, with rents sitting below 30 per cent of wages.

Researchers found that it is more affordable to rent in Manchester, Liverpool or Birmingham than in north Devon, north Dorset or Herefordshire.

But cheaper areas such as Blackpool are still classed as “unaffordable” due to the relatively low level of the median income.

London was the most expensive, with the average monthly rent for a two-bedroom home in the capital standing at £1,360 – almost two and a half times the £568 average in the rest of England.

The highest private rent for a two-bedroom home was in Kensington and Chelsea, at £2,714 a month, while the lowest was in Burnley, Lancashire, at £394.

Mr Campbell Robb went on to state  “With no cheaper alternative, ordinary people are forced to cut their spending on essentials like food and heating, or uproot and move away from jobs, schools and families.”

Council housing campaigners said the report showed the need for greater investment in affordable and publicly owned homes.

Defend Council Housing chairwoman Eileen Short said: “Twenty years of underinvestment has meant we now have 2 million less council and housing association properties in Britain.

“Only now the politicians are waking up to what people on the ground are all too aware of – the desperate need for decent really affordable

To top it all off anyone who opposes “bringing competition into schools, health and welfare services” is a “guerilla” who needs to be dealt with by Vietnam-style counterinsurgency methods.

That’s the view of Sean Worth, PM David Cameron‘s special adviser on health until last June, expressed in a recent Telegraph article.

“Hardliners who lost recent battles over social reforms” are now “regrouping for a new wave of local-level disruption,” he warns.

Worth means that teachers, nurses, doctors and parents want to fight Tory privatisation plans.

When he says they “lost” I think he means the Tories succeeded in getting their “reform” Bills through Parliament.

But he’s now clearly worried that these Westminster victories are threatened by national resistance.

“While Michael Gove impressively chalks up the wins in Westminster debates, localised strikes and threats of walkouts by unions are being organised,” he says.

Socialist, “hard left” and trade union activists are “mobilising to infiltrate” to defeat health and education privatisation – though they seem to be “infiltrating” the schools and hospitals in which they work.

Worth concedes that privatisers of all parties should “acknowledge their total failure to connect with ordinary working people” and get them to like privatisation.

This connection is going to have to be made through military counterinsurgency methods.

He advocates “guerilla warfare,” arguing that “the most effective answer to dealing with that was developed by a free-thinking British army officer, Robert Thompson, in the ’60s. Unlike the rest of the top brass of his time, Thompson understood that ultimately the battle for the hearts and minds of ordinary people was far more important than endlessly chasing after the guerillas themselves.”

In fact, Thompson’s “hearts and minds” strategies were vicious systems of control.

Thompson first fought the Malayan insurgency in the 1950s. He then became a US army adviser in the Vietnam war – he ended up as a “pacification” adviser to Richard Nixon.

In Malaya he tried to win “hearts and minds” by forcing people out of their homes into strictly policed “barbed-wire villages.”

In Vietnam he favoured forced resettlement in similar “strategic hamlets.”

His goal was to break the link between guerillas and the population by putting the population into authoritarian settlements run by militias, where food and other necessities were controlled by the authorities. These could be given or withheld in order to win hearts.

Both his Malayan and Vietnamese counterinsurgency strategies were marked by repression, and in fact outright massacres.

This is the approach Worth thinks should be applied to those resisting privatisation. You might think he’s just a crank, but he is influential.

He runs the Better Public Services programme at Cameron’s favourite think tank Policy Exchange.

He’s also a lobbyist for a firm called MHP Communications, which represents privatisation companies like the Priory and Working Links.

His call for a counterinsurgency in our schools shows that the Tories, frustrated by their weakness, are going, well, a bit funny in the head.

I’m not sure how clients of MHP feel about their lobbyist suggesting the government approach teachers and nurses in the way Nixon approached the Viet Cong.

See article below:

Plans to protect tenants renting from private landlords are to be outlined in a speech by Labour leader Ed Miliband.

Speaking to the Fabian Society, Mr Miliband will propose a national register of landlords and more powers for councils to tackle rogue ones.

He will also say a confusing system of fees charged by landlords must be made easily understandable.

The speech is intended to flesh out the idea of a one-nation party, which was unveiled at Labour’s conference.

A “national register” of landlords – which already exists in Scotland – was proposed under the last Labour government.

Notice period

The plans were abandoned by the coalition, which said it did not want to impose “burdensome red tape and bureaucracy”.

But Mr Miliband will tell the annual conference of the Fabian Society, a left-wing think-tank: “We cannot have two nations divided between those who own their own homes and those who rent.

“Most people who rent have responsible landlords and rental agencies. But there are too many rogue landlords and agencies either providing accommodation which is unfit or ripping off their tenants.

“And too many families face the doubt of a two-month notice period before being evicted.

“Imagine being a parent with kids settled in a local school and your family settled in your home for two, three, four years, facing that sort of uncertainty.”

He will say the private rented sector is now bigger than the social rented sector for the first time in almost 50 years.

In total, 3.6 million households – including one million which have children – privately rent.

“Often in accommodation deemed below standard,” he will say.

BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins says that inside Labour they are hoping that this speech will help them move on from their time in office.

Mr Miliband will say that “One Nation Labour” has “learnt the lessons” of the financial crisis.

“It begins from the truth that New Labour did not do enough to bring about structural change in our economy to make it work for the many, not just the few.

“It did not do enough to change the rules of the game that were holding our economy back.”

He will also say that New Labour was too timid in enforcing rights and responsibilities and too sanguine about the consequences of free markets.

“Learning from our history, One Nation Labour is clear that we need to do more to create a society where everyone genuinely plays their part.”