![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Citizenship and protest
Aug. 3rd, 2009 10:29 amThis morning began with me yelling at the radio and feeling violent urges toward a government minister. The reason was Phil Woolas* discussing plans to introduce a points system to obtaining British citizenship. He talked about how people would gain points by having needed skills and qualifications, by speaking English and by doing slightly nebulous Good Things. I've got less of a problem with this, although I'm concerned that it may be administered in a way which discriminates against people with disabilities. Will knowing BSL count for as many points as being able to speak English? Will people with intellectual disabilities have a lower standard to reach than people without intellectual disabilities? I wouldn't be surprised if these sorts of issues were just overlooked by the Home Office. There was a case recently where a man was refused a visa for his fiancée because, although he worked full time and had enough money to support her, he received non-means tested benefits because he was blind, and this made him ineligible as a guarantor for her. So the Home Office has previous form of completely failing to take into account how their stupid rules will impact upon certain minorities.
The issue which got me yelling though, was his explanation of what one could lose points for (and remember points mean passports). They say that immigrants could loss points for 'bad behaviour'. You can listen to the interview here.
Anyway, here are some choice quotes:
"Well clearly freedom of speech is guaranteed by law for citizens"
"we thinks it's right to say if we're asking the new citizen, as incidentally other countries around the world do, have an oath of allegiance to that country it's right to try to define in some objective terms what that means and clearly acceptance of the democratic rule of law and the principle behind that we think is important and we think it's fair to ask that. You're absolutely right to say that the definition is going to be what's debated but the principle which we're putting forward this morning we think will carry support and we think it's right but..."
Interviewer: "Are you effectively saying to people who want to have a British passport "You can have one and once you've got one you can demonstrate as much as you like, but until then don't?"
Woolas "In essence yes. In essence we are saying that the test which applies to the citizen should be broader than the test which applies to the person who wants to be a citizen. I think that is a fair point of view to say that if you want to come to our country and settle er that you should show that adherence and incidentally I think part of the mistake in this debate in/and the public comment is the assumption that the migrant doesn't accept that point of view. The vast majority in my experience do want to show that they are willing to integrate and support our way of life."
The thing I find most disturbing is that this interview clearly indicates that lawful peaceful protest is seen by the government as not part of our 'way of life' and as 'bad behaviour' which will just about be tolerated from citizens, due to those pesky human rights laws, but will be punished in all who the government discretion over the fate of. A similar pattern can be seen in school citizenship education, in which the emphasis is placed upon being compliant rather than active engagement political issues and debate. Peaceful lawful protest is set in opposition to "the democratic rule of law" whereas in my view, peaceful lawful protest is an integral part of the democratic process and part of the purpose of the rule of law is to protect it and allow it to flourish. I am a better, not a worse, citizen for the protests I have participated in. There is a LJ icon I've seen some Americans have which says something like "Because I love my country I challenge my government". The democratic process needs activities other than just voting in elections to function. The parliament in Westminster elected every 4-5 years and only a hand full of parties stand a hope of being elected. Manifestos are only a few pages long and don't even begin to cover everything, and even if they did, circumstances change and policies need to change with them. This is where campaigning comes into play. We didn't get the Gender Recognition Act didn't get passed because people just voted in the election. Voting in a government who would be open to the idea was a start, but the Act wouldn't have been passed if Press for Change had not spent years organising themselves and campaigning, including protesting, for the change in the law. Most government policies are never in election manifestos and for this reason the democratic process requires continual engagement in policy making from the public.
Anyway, here's a fun example of protest changing government policy, involving Phil Woolas.
*When I mentioned his name to a sleepy Alec he replied "Is that that racist government minister?" and "He's like the Daily Mail in a badly fitting suit".
The issue which got me yelling though, was his explanation of what one could lose points for (and remember points mean passports). They say that immigrants could loss points for 'bad behaviour'. You can listen to the interview here.
Anyway, here are some choice quotes:
"Well clearly freedom of speech is guaranteed by law for citizens"
"we thinks it's right to say if we're asking the new citizen, as incidentally other countries around the world do, have an oath of allegiance to that country it's right to try to define in some objective terms what that means and clearly acceptance of the democratic rule of law and the principle behind that we think is important and we think it's fair to ask that. You're absolutely right to say that the definition is going to be what's debated but the principle which we're putting forward this morning we think will carry support and we think it's right but..."
Interviewer: "Are you effectively saying to people who want to have a British passport "You can have one and once you've got one you can demonstrate as much as you like, but until then don't?"
Woolas "In essence yes. In essence we are saying that the test which applies to the citizen should be broader than the test which applies to the person who wants to be a citizen. I think that is a fair point of view to say that if you want to come to our country and settle er that you should show that adherence and incidentally I think part of the mistake in this debate in/and the public comment is the assumption that the migrant doesn't accept that point of view. The vast majority in my experience do want to show that they are willing to integrate and support our way of life."
The thing I find most disturbing is that this interview clearly indicates that lawful peaceful protest is seen by the government as not part of our 'way of life' and as 'bad behaviour' which will just about be tolerated from citizens, due to those pesky human rights laws, but will be punished in all who the government discretion over the fate of. A similar pattern can be seen in school citizenship education, in which the emphasis is placed upon being compliant rather than active engagement political issues and debate. Peaceful lawful protest is set in opposition to "the democratic rule of law" whereas in my view, peaceful lawful protest is an integral part of the democratic process and part of the purpose of the rule of law is to protect it and allow it to flourish. I am a better, not a worse, citizen for the protests I have participated in. There is a LJ icon I've seen some Americans have which says something like "Because I love my country I challenge my government". The democratic process needs activities other than just voting in elections to function. The parliament in Westminster elected every 4-5 years and only a hand full of parties stand a hope of being elected. Manifestos are only a few pages long and don't even begin to cover everything, and even if they did, circumstances change and policies need to change with them. This is where campaigning comes into play. We didn't get the Gender Recognition Act didn't get passed because people just voted in the election. Voting in a government who would be open to the idea was a start, but the Act wouldn't have been passed if Press for Change had not spent years organising themselves and campaigning, including protesting, for the change in the law. Most government policies are never in election manifestos and for this reason the democratic process requires continual engagement in policy making from the public.
Anyway, here's a fun example of protest changing government policy, involving Phil Woolas.
*When I mentioned his name to a sleepy Alec he replied "Is that that racist government minister?" and "He's like the Daily Mail in a badly fitting suit".