Getting a bit political...
So, there's a whole new anti-terrorist bill type thing about to try and move through Parliament. Lots of people who are much better political commentators than me have already started shredding the 3-month detention without being charged, and the "glorifying terrorism" bit, so I'm going to leave those alone, and concentrate on this one:
Those applying for British citizenship must be "of good character"
I have two major objections to this particular bit of legislation, although one of them isn't very serious. I'll start with the serious one:
How are we defining "of good character"?
I mean, how can you define it? Lack of criminal convictions? Doesn't really prove much. Even if they have criminal convictions, that doesn't mean they are not of "good character": a man may be convicted of theft because he steals to feed his family in a country with a big divide between the rich and the poor (such as say, Zimbabwe). A man could also be convicted for standing up against his government in a corrupt, totalitarian state.
What other criteria do we have? A history of inflammatory speech-making? Some other random criteria that the government will come up with to deny citizenship to those it might be convenient to deport later?
Also, how are we going to find out about this person in sufficient detail to judge their character? Information given by the government of the applicant's country of origin about their conduct? Because that will always be reliable. No country could possibly lie about a political dissident so that they could ensure he doesn't get foreign citizenship (and therefore become immune to deportation).
Thirdly, recent terror attacks on British soil have been performed by "clean-skins": those who have had no known connection with any type of terrorist organisation, and who therefore would have been "of good character".
Anyway, argument 2
So does this mean we get to kick out everyone who is "of bad character"?
Let's face it: if they examined the British public on the same criteria (whatever they may be) as they will be examining those applying for citizenship, instead of just giving it because we were born here, half of Britain would be looking for somewhere else to live.
Admitting new citizens of bad character is hardly going to change anything, is it? We've already got plenty who were born here.
"So, you have a history of excessive violence and a disrespect of authority? Don't suppose you're any good at football?"
"So, you seem to have done nothing productive in your country of origin, but instead fed off the state? That's fine: if you could just wear this Burberry cap and this chunky, gold-plated jewellery so that you can be easily identified."
"Frequently violent over minor differences of opinion? Have your citizenship and a Millwall shirt."
"Stupid; intolerant; alcohol problem; violent when drunk, especially to those who are different to you? We can move you to a little town called Rushden: here, you'll need this knife. You'll either get on fine with them, or hopefully take a few of them out."
Ok, rant over. Feel free to pick big holes in it.
Weekend stuff: I am being cruelly deprived of boobook this weekend. Moo
Saturday will feature me actually doing some exercise: I seem to have foolishly volunteered to do a lot of swimming for charity, which means I shall have to go and re-learn how to swim, since I haven't set foot in a swimming pool for about 7 years. I shall probably be begging for sponsorship money on here at a later date, once I have the forms and stuff.
Sunday will be spent in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, where we shall be playing Twilight 2000 :).
And I'll leave you with a couple of links:
For those who don't read elanya, and so haven't seen this: The Lord of the Rings, by S. Morgenstern
And for computer geeks: It gets everywhere
Those applying for British citizenship must be "of good character"
I have two major objections to this particular bit of legislation, although one of them isn't very serious. I'll start with the serious one:
How are we defining "of good character"?
I mean, how can you define it? Lack of criminal convictions? Doesn't really prove much. Even if they have criminal convictions, that doesn't mean they are not of "good character": a man may be convicted of theft because he steals to feed his family in a country with a big divide between the rich and the poor (such as say, Zimbabwe). A man could also be convicted for standing up against his government in a corrupt, totalitarian state.
What other criteria do we have? A history of inflammatory speech-making? Some other random criteria that the government will come up with to deny citizenship to those it might be convenient to deport later?
Also, how are we going to find out about this person in sufficient detail to judge their character? Information given by the government of the applicant's country of origin about their conduct? Because that will always be reliable. No country could possibly lie about a political dissident so that they could ensure he doesn't get foreign citizenship (and therefore become immune to deportation).
Thirdly, recent terror attacks on British soil have been performed by "clean-skins": those who have had no known connection with any type of terrorist organisation, and who therefore would have been "of good character".
Anyway, argument 2
So does this mean we get to kick out everyone who is "of bad character"?
Let's face it: if they examined the British public on the same criteria (whatever they may be) as they will be examining those applying for citizenship, instead of just giving it because we were born here, half of Britain would be looking for somewhere else to live.
Admitting new citizens of bad character is hardly going to change anything, is it? We've already got plenty who were born here.
"So, you have a history of excessive violence and a disrespect of authority? Don't suppose you're any good at football?"
"So, you seem to have done nothing productive in your country of origin, but instead fed off the state? That's fine: if you could just wear this Burberry cap and this chunky, gold-plated jewellery so that you can be easily identified."
"Frequently violent over minor differences of opinion? Have your citizenship and a Millwall shirt."
"Stupid; intolerant; alcohol problem; violent when drunk, especially to those who are different to you? We can move you to a little town called Rushden: here, you'll need this knife. You'll either get on fine with them, or hopefully take a few of them out."
Ok, rant over. Feel free to pick big holes in it.
Weekend stuff: I am being cruelly deprived of boobook this weekend. Moo
Saturday will feature me actually doing some exercise: I seem to have foolishly volunteered to do a lot of swimming for charity, which means I shall have to go and re-learn how to swim, since I haven't set foot in a swimming pool for about 7 years. I shall probably be begging for sponsorship money on here at a later date, once I have the forms and stuff.
Sunday will be spent in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, where we shall be playing Twilight 2000 :).
And I'll leave you with a couple of links:
For those who don't read elanya, and so haven't seen this: The Lord of the Rings, by S. Morgenstern
And for computer geeks: It gets everywhere
