Lesson 1: Don't Fly The Flag

Imagine, if you will, that you had served your country in the U.S. military for 22 years, and viewed yourself as a patriot. To this end, you have tattooed on your arm a small image of the Stars and Stripes and the words "U.S. Army'. When preparing to retire from the army, you then decide to join the police. How would you feel if you found yourself turned down for the job, because you are told your tattoo of the national flag could be seen as "racist"?

Fortunately for Americans, such a scenario could never happen in the near future. Yet for British soldier Sgt. Ivan Ivanovic, his patriotic tattoo prevented him from joining a police force in the north of England. Because Ivanovic has a two-inch Union Jack flag tattooed on his arm with the words "British Army", he was not even considered for employment by Cumbria Constabulary. He said: "I can't see why anyone would think that the flag of the country might be seen as racist."

Sergeant Ivanovic had served Queen and Country in the first Gulf War, in Kosovo and in Iraq, yet the national symbol of the country he served was deemed "racist". Ivanovic should not have been surprised. Since May 1997, Britain's Labour government has been undermining almost every aspect of British heritage in a misguided drive to foist its leftist policies of "multiculturalism" onto an unwilling public.

When in 2002 Derek Stone stood as the Conservative candidate for mayoral elections in the London borough of Lewisham, his posters bore a Union Jack. For this act, he was condemned by his opponents as "racist".

A precursor of the Union Jack first appeared on April 12, 1606, when James I (formerly James VI of Scotland) was king. This flag incorporated the Saltire or cross of St Andrew (Scotland's patron saint) and the cross of Saint George, patron saint of England. The modern design of the Union Jack - which also includes the cross of Saint Patrick, patron saint of Ireland, was drawn up in 1801 by the College of Arms, to celebrate the "Act of Union" officially unifying Scotland and England.

Wales has its own language (my Welsh father did not learn English till he was seven) yet was not regarded as a separate country when the first Union flag was created. Wales had been incorporated into the union by two acts passed in 1536 and 1542, and was not included in the design of the Union Jack.

How did a flag which symbolically represents "unification" become associated with racism? A report on racial and inter-religious disturbances in Britain, which took place in northern England in 2001, stated: "The Union Jack, the flag that 'represents' Britain is seen as a racist flag the symbol of colonialism and the BNP... Ordinary people can no longer display the flag without being labeled right wing racists."

It is true that in the 1970s the far-right (and racist) group called the National Front adopted the Union Jack as its political logotype. The British National Party (BNP) also briefly adopted the flag. The Union Jack has been a symbol of national identity for 200 years - and continues to be a visible sign of Britishness, despite the attempts by extreme nationalists to hijack it.

In 2003, one British supporter of multiculturalism tried to reintroduce a revamped version of the Union flag where black lines were added to the design, to represent the non-white citizens of Britain. This individual, Nigel Turner, said: "If I flew the union jack from a flagpole in my garden, many people would see it as a racist statement." The issue of Britain's flag being viewed as racist seems to be a notion beloved by multiculturalists and leftists.

In the 1990s, I designed publicity for an art exhibition in the London Borough of Hackney. The work was by young black artists. One item was a massive screen print of the Union Jack in red ink. It was comprised entirely of the names of black people who had contributed to British culture, from Olaudah Equiano and Mary Seacole to contemporary athletes, broadcasters, writers and actors. My layout, intended to be placed on Hackney council's magazine, featured this artwork sized down to only an inch and a half wide. When the magazine was published, there was a hole in the design. I rang the council, and was told the Union flag image had been removed, as it was seen as "racist".

The report on the northern England riots of 2001, where Muslims and white British fought running battles in Oldham, Bradford and Burnley observed that: "as others have noted in relation to the 1998 (soccer) World Cup the St George's flag was felt to represent a multi-ethnic Britain, whereas the Union Jack is associated with colonialism and white racism. The obvious irony of course is the St George's flag's older historical symbolism of the crusades, of an earlier conflict between Christian Europe and Islam. Yet British Muslims readily took it up as a symbol of a component of their identity, as a symbol of their belonging within and support for England."

The St George's flag, national flag of England since the 13th century, has not escaped controversy. For many people living in England, irrespective of race, it is seen as a national flag when England competes in a sporting contest. In June 2006 a senior officer in North Wales Police warned during the soccer World Cup that flags of St George would lead to racism and violence. He felt that Welsh citizens would be offended if they saw the St George's flag displayed on vehicles.

In Hounslow, west London, the local council had previously displayed the Palestinian flag on its civic center, but decided in February 2005 to refuse to allow the flag of St George, as it was deemed "socially divisive". A motion to hoist this flag on St George's Day (April 23) was almost unanimously defeated by council members.

When in 2006 Jackie Meldrum, Labour-supporting deputy council leader of Lambeth Council in south London, commented that the St George's flag was a symbol of "multiculturalism", she received racist hate mail. One letter read: "Cllr Meldrum you are an anti-white, racist shit. I hope every member of your family dies as slowly as Britain has been dying from your poisonous anti-white propaganda and I know millions of others would agree. Long live Britain!"

Though Lambeth Council's Labour spokespeople believe the St George's flag is a sign of multi-ethnic values, the Liberal Democrat borough council of Pendle, Lancashire, believes that the same flag is "racist". Matthew Carter works as a refuse collector for the council, and as he has dreadlocks, he uses a bandana to tie back his hair when he works. Mr. Carter, who is black and comes from Barbados, had been using a St George flag for this purpose. In June this year, Mr. Carter was banned from wearing the St George flag. He said: "I received a verbal warning. They told me the St George's Cross was not allowed to be seen on any clothing we wear because it could be considered offensive and racist."

Anne Owers is Britain's Chief Inspector of Prisons. In 2005 she wrote in a report that officers in Wakefield jail in Yorkshire had been seen wearing St George tie-pins. These items were in support of a cancer charity. Owers claimed that such symbols should not be worn, as they could be "misinterpreted" as a racist symbol.

For some fanatical Muslims, the sight of a St George's cross is a sign of the Crusades. During the 2006 World Cup, a chain of pubs banned any displays of the flag, following threats by extremists linked to the outlawed group Al-Muhajiroun. Cable company NTL and the Drivers and Vehicles Licensing Agency also banned the flag.

In June this year, Islamists connected with Al-Muhajiroun burned handmade St George's flags at Regents Park Mosque. They were protesting at the knighthood that was given to author Salman Rushdie. Other protesters carried placards stating "God Curse the Queen."

Lesson 2: Divided We Fall

With Britain's populace uncertain whether its national flags represent unity and inclusiveness or division and racism, the Labour government has nonetheless widened the fault lines dividing Britain. The most obvious sign of this came in the form of setting up parliaments for Scotland and Wales, while allowing English citizens no such regional body.

When the Labour government came to power in May 1997, it had promised devolution for Scotland and Wales in the form of creating regional parliaments. For Scottish citizens, a referendum was held on September 11, 1997. This gave approval for the formation of a Scottish Parliament, a measure which became enshrined in the Scotland Act of November 19, 1998. This Act allowed for the parliament to have 129 elected members.

Welsh opinion was evenly divided over having a separate parliament. A referendum held in September 1997 found 50.3 percent in favor, and 49.7 percent against. The Government of Wales Act of 1988 ruled that a National Assembly for Wales (NAW) should be created, with 60 elected members. The NAW has less powers than the Scottish parliament.

The Scottish parliament began operations in May 13, 1999 in a temporary location in Edinburgh, while construction began on a purpose-built edifice at Holyrood. In October 2004 the new Scottish parliament building finally opened. This had taken five years to complete, at a cost of $900 million - ten times the original estimate. Scotland has introduced laws that require the state to fund the care of the elderly. In the rest of Britain, the elderly must first spend all their assets above $41,000 before they receive free nursing care. The Scottish elderly care scheme is now in chaos.

Though designed to give people greater say over local issues, devolution has not reversed the decline of national feelings of pride. The Union - once the bedrock of British identity which allowed people from any part of Britain to feel some sense of collective belonging - has lost support in England, Scotland and Wales. People in all regions feel less proud to be British than they did in the 1980s.

Gordon Brown had been the Chancellor since Labour came to power in 1997 and cannot evade responsibility for the damage that Labour has done to Britain's national identity. Shortly after he assumed power in June of this year, Brown ordered that all public buildings in Britain should hoist the Union flag for 365 days a year. In Scotland, whose parliament is governed by the Scottish National Party, the Scottish culture minister affirmed in July that the St Andrew's flag, or Saltire, will have precedence over the Union flag.

Under Labour, more and more power has also been devolved to Europe. With increased treaties and directives agreed by an ever-expanding European Union, Britain's citizens have lost many of their traditional rights. In 2003, shopkeepers were banned from displaying measures of produce in pounds and ounces, and were obliged by law to display only metric measures.

In 1998, Labour introduced a Human Rights Act, which made all of Britain's laws subservient to the European Convention of Human Rights, originally written up in 1950. Russia also signed this convention, but has never allowed the convention to interfere with human rights violations. Britain's 1998 law has prevented the deportation of terrorists and those already convicted in their home countries from being deported. On May 1, 2006, a European Union law, the 2004 Free Movement Directive, came into force. This ruling similarly prevents deportation of foreign-born criminals.

Labour's biggest blow to cultural cohesion has been to allow uncontrolled immigration. Since Labour came to power in 1997, 1.7 million new jobs were created. According to a recent report, 81 percent of those new jobs went to foreign-born workers.

Since 2001 Labour has stuck to a mantra that immigration is good for the economy, based on one report made at that time. Last month, a new report cast doubt on the accuracy of that statement. At the end of September 2007, Britain's left-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) published the findings of an economic profile on British immigrants. The report maintained that overall, immigration was good for the economy. However, it also found that among immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey and Somalia, more of these people were unemployed than in work.

The IPPR report notes that Polish immigrants were well-represented in the workforce. However, the amount of legal immigrants from Eastern Europe over the past three years has escalated dramatically, arriving at twenty times the annual rate that was expected by government. Since 2004, there have been 700,000 Eastern European immigrants. This massive influx has led to housing and public services becoming severely stretched. Other EU countries imposed strict limitations on the numbers of migrants from Eastern Europe. Britain was the only EU country which did not impose limits.

A government report from July this year on Eastern European migration was not intended to be published publicly. It was leaked, and revealed that the government was alarmed at the sale of migration, and the strain it was placing on services and social cohesion. The report's author, Joan Ryan of the Home Office, also noted that Britain's policy of not paying such migrants welfare benefits if unemployed could be illegal under European Union law.

In July and again in September of this year, prime minister Gordon Brown pledged to create "British jobs" for "British workers". In October, a parliamentary study claimed that Brown's pledge to create jobs for British citizens could be illegal under European Union law as it discriminated against migrant workers from the EU. Under the EU treaties approved by Labour, these migrants who come predominantly from Eastern Europe must "enjoy equal treatment".

Many migrants bring their children, and as a result, it was revealed in September last year that one in eight schoolchildren speak English as a second language. Few schools can compare with the Isambard Brunel School in Portsmouth on Britain's south coast. Here, teachers struggle to educate pupils who come "from 41 countries who, between them, speak 58 different languages, but often little or no English."

Any American politician who wishes to destroy his or her nation's identity is unlikely to copy most of Labour's policies, primarily because the United States does not belong to a disparate coalition of 26 nations such as the European Union. The egalitarian/communistic nature of the EU allows each of its member states to have a say in policy. Its two latest arrivals are Bulgaria and Romania, both economic basket cases struggling to implement real democracy. Turkey is attempting to join as it lurches further towards Islamofascism.

However, the United States has exercised scant control over its southern border, and consequently has a burgeoning population of illegal migrants. In Britain, the government estimates that there are 570,000 illegal immigrants in the country, though the true figure is more likely at least 800,000.

In Britain, there have been rallies by leftists and bleeding-heart liberals to give amnesty and eventual citizenship to Britain's illegal immigrants. In 2006, the leftist think-tank IPPR recommended an amnesty for illegal migrants.

Such amnesties have already been allowed in Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Cyprus, all EU member states. Currently, the Liberal Democrat party, which has little chance of winning an election, supports an amnesty.

Last year, George W Bush was criticized for supporting a virtual amnesty plan for illegal migrants. One American politician who supports the granting of citizenship to illegal immigrants is Hillary Clinton. With her plans to introduce a health system not unlike Britain's cash-devouring National Health Service, Hillary is almost a token European.

Lesson 3: Trash Your Traditions

America is protected by a written constitution. Britain has no such document, though the latest European Union Treaty which Gordon Brown has thitherto supported is regarded as a "European constitution". With no written constitution, it was easy for Tony Blair to remove some of the hereditary peers who sat in Parliament's Upper House, replacing them with individuals of his own choosing.

The only fixed constitutional item in Britain is the figurehead of the monarch. Currently, Queen Elizabeth II has fulfilled her "constitutional" role admirably since 1953, attending official and ceremonial functions without showing political favor. The British monarch is also the head of the Anglican church, carrying the title "Defender of the Faith". Her successor as monarch and "Defender of the Faith" will be Prince Charles, who famously imagined himself as a tampon belonging to his then-floozy, Camilla Parker Bowles.

Despite his marital infidelity and bizarre ruminations, Charles declared in 1994 that he wanted to abandon the title of "Defender of the Faith". This sobriquet has been held by every British monarch since Henry VIII in 1521. Prince Charles wanted to replace it with the title "Defender of Faiths", to make Muslims and other non-Anglicans feel "included". He has since claimed that he wishes to be called "Defender of Faith". Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, contends that the title of "Defender of the Faith" is not negotiable, nor is it subject to Charles' personal whims.

Two months after 9/11, Charles condemned what he perceived as anti-Muslim attitudes in America. He claimed: "I find the language and rhetoric coming from America too confrontational." At the time, Charles was accompanied by Iqbal Sacranie, who notoriously said after Salman Rushdie's death-fatwa that "death is, perhaps, too good for him." Sacranie has also called Osama bin Laden an "Islamic scholar".

Charles may wish for more understanding between faiths, but he has patronized some insidious organizations, such as the Saudi-funded King Fahd Academy in west London. This institution uses Saudi textbooks which call Christians "swine" and Jews "apes and pigs". Interfaith understanding is not assisted by pandering to religious bigotry. In March 2006, he attended Imam Muhammad bin Saud University in Saudi Arabia, where he delivered a speech praising Islam. The same university has educated Salafists who preach hate, including Abdullah el-Faisal. Faisal served time in a British jail after calling for the murder of Jews and Hindus.

Since the 1980s, Britain's Labour-controlled local councils have promoted policies of multiculturalism. So-called "representatives" of minority ethnic groups were given cash hand-outs to set up their own groups, with little critical analysis of these groups' roles. In the mid-1990s, Muslims who had previously been fellow-travelers on the racial rights bandwagon began to demand that their religion be granted "special status".

In universities, Muslim extremists from Hizb ut-Tahrir and Al-Muhajiroun campaigned to win the "hearts and minds" of students. Often, these groups used violence to force Muslim women students to wear the hijab or Muslim headscarf. In 1995, members of Hizb ut-Tahrir killed an African student at an east London college. At that time, no action was taken against the group as a whole and its then-leader, Omar Bakri Mohammed, continued to preach hate and intolerance.

When Labour came to power in 1997, policies which had thrived in so-called "looney left" councils became embedded in the government's ethos. Instead of governing the economy and enforcing existing laws, Labour set out to engage in changing society artificially by social engineering. In this climate, local councils grew bolder in their efforts to be politically correct. In 1998, Birmingham City Council decided that the term "Christmas" was potentially offensive to non-Christians. As a result, it renamed its celebrations and seasonal illuminations "Winterval".

In 2001, Luton Council decided to call its seasonal celebrations "Luminos", which bizarrely featured fictional apprentice wizard Harry Potter. In 2005, Lambeth Council expunged the word "Christmas" from all literature describing its Christmas illuminations. Instead, the terms "winter lights" and "celebrity lights" were employed.

Such skewed thinking has infected schools. Last Christmas, the head teacher of Walter Street Primary School in Brierfield, Lancashire decided to remove any mention of the Virgin Mary from the school's Christmas cards. She said: "We mention the birth of Jesus, but we cut reference to the Virgin Mary to just Mary because Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, not the son of God."

Twenty percent of the pupils at Oakwood school in Rotherham are Muslim, but for its 2006 Christmas meal, the school decided that all the chicken to be served should be halal. Halal meat must be slaughtered ritually by having the animal's throat cut and the blood drained. Naturally some parents and teachers rebelled. Eventually, the school relented, and decided to offer a choice of halal and normal chicken.

In fairness, it should be noted that many of these bizarre decisions to downgrade the Christian aspects of Christmas are mostly the work of non-Muslims. Walter Street Primary School, 90 percent of whose pupils are Muslim, was condemned by Muslim spokespeople for banning the word "virgin" from its Christmas cards. Last year, Muslims complained that the town of Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire had replaced the words "Christmas Greetings" in its Christmas light displays. Instead, the council had chosen the "neutral" slogan "Season's Greetings".

Jews have thrived in Britain since the time of Oliver Cromwell, but no British institutions have ever attempted to worry about whether images of pigs would offend Jewish sensibilities. In recent years, British individuals and institutions have made utter fools of themselves to appease what they consider to be Muslim sensibilities. In October 2005, two major banks in Britain decided to ban all images of pigs from their branches. The Natwest and Halifax banks announced that no images of piggy banks should appear in any of their promotional material. I lived in an Orthodox Jewish area of London in the 1980s to 1990s, and used the local Natwest branch. I never noticed any Jews appearing offended by posters of piggy banks.

At Ramadan in 2005, Dudley Council in the Midlands ordered its staff not to display any images of pigs in its offices. A Muslim councillor had objected to the sight of pig-related items on workers' desks, including a tissue box emblazoned with a picture of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet. The edict was later reversed.

Schools have been affected by pig prohibitions. In 2003 Barbara Harris, headmistress at the Park Road Junior Infant and Nursery School in Batley, West Yorkshire, banned all books containing pig stories from classrooms. As the majority of her pupils were Muslim, she decided on the ban in case any were offended.

In March this year, Honley Church of England Junior School in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire was preparing to partake in a June music festival with other schools. The festival organizers decided that their performance, entitled "The Three Little Pigs" should be altered to "The Three Little Puppies" in case Muslims were offended. The performance was a section from Roald Dahl's verse play, Little Red Riding Hood. The decision to rename the performance was subsequently overturned.

The issue of potentially offending Muslims means that non-Muslims are made to "opt in" to Islamic appeasement plans. In Brixton prison in south London, no prisoner need worry about answering calls of nature and offending Allah. In April 2006, all of the toilets in two newly-constructed lavatory blocks at the prison were designed so that they did become aligned with Mecca.

In Nottingham, even in death one's body can be buried in an Islamic direction, appropriately aligned towards Mecca. High Wood Cemetery opened in July last year. Only 15 percent of the graves to be dug there will be occupied by Muslims, but it was Nottingham City Council's desire that all bodies be buried in the same direction. It was felt more convenient to align all tombs to Mecca. Only if a relative makes a specific request will the coffin be aligned East/West in traditional Christian manner.

Britain's National Health Service (NHS) was founded in 1948 by a Labour government, a product of post-war socialist idealism. Now the NHS relentlessly swallows taxpayers' funds and has become a haven of political correctness. In September 2006 a Lancashire branch of the NHS introduced a hospital gown for Muslim women, designed to mimic the burka. The NHS should be concerned about health, and not pandering to Islamism, especially when burkas have been linked with a resurgence of rickets in babies. This is being caused by pregnant Muslims who wrap themselves up and starve themselves and their unborn babies of vital Vitamin D, created by sunlight. The most recent reported outbreak of rickets has affected 56 individuals from Lancashire.

In August 2007, a department of the NHS in Lothian, Scotland, announced an edict. Hospital staff were told not to eat food at their desks during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, in case they offended Muslims who were meant to be fasting.

The latest example of NHS multiculturalism is happening in Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust. Here, nurses have to move the beds of Muslim patients five times a day at prayer times, so that the beds are facing Mecca. Initially, the move was made for all Muslim patients, to create "a more comfortable stay in hospital." A few days later, after receiving criticism, the ruling was amended so only the beds of terminal patients would be moved to face Mecca.

I could continue, with tales of young non-Muslim schoolchildren being made to copy out the Shahada, the oath made by those who convert to Islam, as a handwriting exercise or a teacher sacked for stating the truth that most suicide bombers are Muslim. I could mention how Britain's Channel 4 TV decided in 2006 to have its Christmas message delivered by a burka-clad Muslim woman. When the woman pulled out of the engagement, another shrouded Muslim woman was brought in to replace her. This individual belonged to an extremist sect.

In April 2007 the Judicial Studies Board ruled on a legal case that had been stopped when the judge could not hear the voice of a lawyer, as her mouth was covered with a niqab or face-veil. The ruling allowed for face-veils and burkas to be worn in British courts. In August a woman lawyer mentioned the April ruling, and argued that judges should never wear a face-veil. She stated: "The United Kingdom is not a sharia state." Her comment was branded as "astonishingly offensive". Fatim Kurji wrote "this is what I call 'the BNP argument'."

This is Britain today, throwing away all of its traditions and heritage, constantly moving the goal-posts to conform to the alien and alienating values of "multiculturalism". A multiracial society is a positive and achievable goal. A multicultural society is not a single society but a mess of competing societies, a haggler's market where the loudest complainer gains the most.

And did I bother to mention that only 3 percent of Britain's population are Muslims?