The Council of Europe

I complained to the European Commission of Human Rights on 10 June 1977 that "The United Kingdom Government allowed, and still allows, foreign and Commonwealth men the right to permanent residence in the United Kingdom through marriage to a woman who has British nationality (even though British men often cannot reside in foreign and Commonwealth countries as of right if they marry local women). Naturally, this is an incentive to foreign and Commonwealth men to marry British women - and so deprive British men."

In support of my complaint I wrote "... the 1971 Census revealed that in Great Britain there were 1,660,690 unmarried men in their 20s as compared with 973,425 unmarried women in their 20s...."

The European Commission of Human Rights stated in its 11 May 1982 Decision (E56.486), which determined the applications of three women whose husbands were not allowed to live in the UK to be admissible, that the traditional privileged position of women where international marriage is concerned was recognised by the international community. This is because inasmuch as an individual is subject to immigration controls (c.f. Commonwealth citizens entering the UK prior to 1 July 1962; present-day EU citizens within the EU) a woman who participates in an international marriage can live in her husband's country as well as her own. By facilitating foreign men to live abroad through marriage the Council of Europe has (more than?) doubled that perceived privilege. Couples in an international marriage have the advantage over mono-national couples because they have the flexibility of a choice of countries in which to live.

This encourages more miscegenation and migration to member states.

The last thing the Council of Europe should do is enable citizens of non-member states to settle in member states. (Because it was set up to prevent events that took place during the Second World War from happening again.) The second last thing it should do is privilege some people over others.

Human Rights

The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said at Labour's annual party conference at Bournemouth yesterday that newcomers to Britain who engage in criminal activities would be deported. Today's political commentators say it is impossible to deport them because of the Human Rights Act.

1) Mr. Brown's use of the words "newcomers to Britain" instead of "foreigners" should have immediately aroused suspicions of intent to deceive. If it's their second or third visit (but he doesn't use the word "visit") does that make it all right?

2) Mr. Brown's careful choice of words were doubtless intended to gain votes from people who would otherwise vote Conservative.

3) Mr. Brown was part of the Government that introduced the Human Rights Act.

4) The Human Rights Act was intended to speed up the process of application to the Council of Europe, not to alter the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights,

5) There is nothing in the Convention that specifically prevents deportation. (Or allows entry, for that matter.)

6) The application of human rights has resulted in a systemic imbalance because people who have not infringed the law have no recourse to them.

7) When David Blunkett was Home Secretary he said it should be the politicians not lawyers who make the law. As Home Secretary he, more than anyone else, was in a position to bring this about.

8) Native Britons find themselves increasingly strangers in their own country. This is largely self-inflicted by people who promote their own selfish interests (e.g., lawyers who make a lot of money; women who want to be able to live in two countries through marriage). The European Convention on Human Rights was designed to prevent - not exacerbate - this unhappy situation.

Is there any point in being English?

Twenty years ago, when I lived in London, I had the following article published in the Kingston Guardian (20 August 1987) under the heading Is there any point in being English?:

" I set out for Asia in 1959, but everywhere I went I was not allowed to work.

"After living like a tramp - not eating, always saving my money for fares - I finally returned to the UK in 1962 when, under Labour pressure, the Commonwealth Immigration Act was deliberately delayed to enable people who wanted to come and live in the UK to do so.

"If I had been able to live and work in Asia through marriage, my whole life would have been different.

"Also, one reason I got married in 1966 was because foreign and Commonwealth men use this as a means of occupying the UK. I am now divorced.

"It was not until 1969 that the UK closed this loophole. But in 1974 Roy Jenkins, under feminist pressure, reopened it.

"1975 was International Women's Year. So I asked of the UN that some future year be designated International Men's Year.

"I was informed that such a request could only come from a government. My request of the British Government was met with the response that there is no popular demand for one.

"In 1977 I knew that people who were not allowed to live and work in the UK were appealing to the European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and sometimes winning.

"So I complained to the ECHR that foreign and Commonwealth men can live and work in the UK through marriage even though I cannot live and work in their countries through marriage.

"The ECHR's response was that it could only investigate a complaint by someone who was a victim of a decision by a public body.

"So I put my complaint to the Equal Opportunities Commission, which was then campaigning against Conservative Party policy to end this 'concession'. The EOC's response was that my complaint was outside its ambit.

"I then complained to the ECHR about the EOC failing to support my complaint. I was informed I should challenge the EOC in the UK courts.

"To this end I sought legal aid but, though I qualified on financial grounds, I was not given a legal aid certificate.

"In May 1982 the ECHR determined that complaints by three women whose husbands were not allowed to live and work in the UK were admissible.

"So while British men were dying on and around the Falklands, foreign lawyers were determining that foreign people have rights to occupy British sovereign territory.

"Not only is that the last thing the ECHR should do, but it acted against its own rules.

"Article 26 of the Convention had not been complied with: not all domestic remedies had been exhausted, because it was not until 7 July 1983 that the House of Lords determined that the Sex Discrimination Act, 1975, does not apply to immigration control.

"This was in the case of Regina vs Entry Clearance Officer, Bombay, Ex parte Amin.

"If Mrs A, B and C are happily married then they have no real grievance. They can live with their husbands in their own countries.

"But in addition to not being happily married, or wanting children, or living elsewhere, I have the grievance that native British men have no rights to prevent immigration.

"And they might as well not have the Parliamentary vote. When Mrs Thatcher was elected in 1979 she emphasised that she would honour all her promises.

"Imagine my surprise when it was announced on 29 October 1979 that she had given up on this issue.

"When the Minister, Timothy Raison, was asked by Douglas Stewart on Radio Four why foreign men would still be allowed to live in the UK through marriage while we cannot do that, he said it was because of the fuss.

"It is a similar situation to the First World War. While British men are in conflict with other men, some British women with male supporters are in conflict with British men.

"The EOC has its origin in the Queen's 1967 Christmas message. The very last thing the Queen should do is support one section of the community against the other."

There was one response. It was in the 3 September 1987 edition of the Kingston Guardian:

"I read the article about an Englishman's rights by Jeremy Passmore in the Guardian, called 'Is there any point in being English?'

"I and my husband both think it should be syndicated so that the politicians will know how lots of people in this country feel.

"It is such a good article."

I am very grateful to her and her husband.