False Equality

In 1982 the Japanese Government took the decision to enable foreign men to live and work in Japan through marriage. The law came into effect on 1 January 1985.
The European Commission of Human Rights determined on 11 May 1982 that the cases of three women (two foreign, one Commonwealth), whose husbands were not allowed to live in the UK, to be Admissible. The European Court of Human Rights decided in favour of the three women in May 1985.
It's clear that the Council of Europe's activities concerning this issue mirrored those of Japan.
This gives the impression of equality. It negates my complaint of 10 June 1977 that I (and other Englishmen) often cannot live in other countries through marriage.
But this "equality" is false.
This is because people in international marriages (outside the EU) are in a privileged position compared with those who aren't, because they have the choice of two countries in which to live.
The Council of Europe should oppose privilege, rather than support it.
The Council of Europe was certainly not established to enable migration to member states by people from non-member states.
Putting the UK and Japan on an apparently equal footing has the effect of enabling Afghans to live in the UK and Zimbabweans to live in Japan. Naturally these men want children both in order to increase their hold on their new country and to increase their community's presence (and power).
Whoever wants this cannot like the Japanese. Not only is the famous Japanese homogenuity being destroyed but the chronic imbalance of the sexes of young people is being deliberately exacerbated.
The reason I am in the UK is because of this issue. My Japanese wife lost her "right" to permanent residence in the UK in 1999 after we had been living 8 years in Japan. She had no home in Japan. So if I had dropped dead there she would have had nowhere to live.
Real equality, should it exist, lies not in enabling Englishmen, Scotsmen, etc. to live elsewhere through marriage, but in preventing foreign men from occupying the UK, and Japan. This does not, of course, mean that foreign married men would not be able to live in the UK; just that they would have to have a time-limited visa and some other reason for being here.

Abuse of Power

When I complained to the European Commission of Human Rights in 1977 about foreign and Commonwealth men being allowed to live and work in the UK through marriage even though I (and other Englishmen) often cannot live and work in their countries through marriage... I enclosed correspondence I had had with the National Council for Civil Liberties (now called Liberty). Since I knew I would be a lone voice, I had appealed to the NCCL anticipating its support in opposing this chronic inequality.Instead, I found myself in dispute with the NCCL's General Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, who (successfully) fought a campaign against Conservative Party policy on this issue.
In 1982 Patricia Hewitt wrote a book The Abuse of Power. She says (pages 173/4) "... thousands of women, mainly of Asian origin, have been deprived of their right to be joined her by their fiances or husbands."
The word "right" presupposes something good. There was (and is) nothing to prevent those women from living in their fiances/husband's country. "Right" subverts argument as to what is good and should therefore be the law.
Once here, foreign fiances and husbands have the "right" to compete with Englishmen, Scotsmen, etc. on "equal" terms for work and promotion. (The achievement of our forefathers to spread the English language means that our native tongue is not the protection it is in other countries.)
Patricia Hewitt was, until recently, Secretary of State for Health, and Minister for Women.
Activists/politicians as well as fiancees/wives, lawyers and others who claim success for defeating the Conservatives' 1979 General Election policy on this issue are guilty of subverting democratic power.

Marriage & Migration: A Challenge to the Concept of Human Rights

Marriage & Migration: A Challenge to the Concept of Human Rights

Systemic Imbalance

BBC Radio 4's Today programme today told of legal pressure on the British Government to allow 3 detainees from Guantanamo to be allowed to live in the UK, even though they have Jordanian, Libyan and Algerian nationality.
The Today programme of 5 December had a report from a detention centre in the Ukraine. It contains nearly 500 people, all men, who had been caught trying to enter Slovakia illegally. All had applied for asylum and been refused. All would be released after 6 months' detention. They would then try again to enter the European Union illegally. A Somali said his intention was to live in London.
There are numerous Non-Governmental Organisations as well as Government organisations to assist such people when they come to the UK.
But there are no organisations to prevent them from living here. Nor do Englishmen have access to the law. All there is is the Government, and it is itself divided.
There is a systemic imbalance.
The 1979 Conservative Government was elected to end the concession whereby foreign men can live in the UK through marriage. I had complained to the European Commission of Human Rights on 10 June 1977 about foreign men being able to occupy the UK in this way. But I was informed only people subject to a decision by a government body could appeal to them.
Mrs Thatcher did not keep her election promise, and Britain is rightly seen as being weak and divided.
In 1967 I had a bitter dispute with my Conservative MP about immigration into the UK.
It is not kind to enable one's country to be occupied. On the contrary, it causes confusion as well as much unhappiness. This is because immigration officers are given an impossible task.
In 1965 I had hoped to marry my Japanese pen friend. But though she came to Heathrow I never met her. She was sent back for not having a return ticket.
In 1978 I had a Japanese girl friend who was returned to Ostend from Dover (at 20 past midnight! on 26 September) on the grounds that she was not a genuine visitor. That was false: she worked for an embassy in Tokyo and had a fortnight's leave.
In 1979 we met in Paris. On 12 August we arrived in St. Helier and were turned back at immigration control.
Thanks to the Dublin Convention, to which the UK signed up in 1992, genuinely ungenuine visitors are not returned to France. ("... under the Dublin Convention the French government can disclaim responsibility for them unless the UK can find tangible proof of the applicants having passed through France." One would think that being on a ferry from Calais or using the Channel Tunnel would be proof enough!...)
The rule of law, much vaunted as one of the 3 pillars of the EU (together with democracy and human rights) is both flouted (e.g., amnesties in Spain, Italy and the UK [in 1975]) and undermined (cf, people who return to their own countries when their visa expires and those who overstay).
Husbands are men and those two Today programme reports concerned men. The leader in Parliament who supports the Guantanamo detainees is Sarah Teather MP. Perhaps she would not be so enthusiastic in her support if foreign and Commonwealth men did not have the loophole of marriage left vacant by Mrs. Thatcher. Miss Teather supported her case by saying that the Jordanian has 5 children in the UK.
I don't want children because of these issues.
Last night at my sailing club we held a minute's silence because one of our members, a 21-year-old Englishman, had just been killed in Afghanistan.
"England, that was wont to conquer others,
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself."
England is sinking. When the Thames Barrier can no longer protect London maybe the Conservative Government - of what is left of the UK - will see the light.
Ditto human rights people....