David Amess: Victim of the lack of true integration

 

David Amess

The life of yet another Member of Parliament comes to an abrupt end. Britain as a country is under attack because Britain has dared to be open and welcoming to people who do not share Britain’s values because they were brought up in a very different environment and very different culture. We can talk about integration until we become red in the face, but the reality is that some might live in Britain for many years, some might be born in Britain and grow up in Britain enjoying what Britain has to offer and still reject Britain and see Britain as a foreign land. Many might not even speak the language of the country even where they were born in the United Kingdom.

David Amess, a family man who was Member of Parliament for several decades and earnt the respect and admiration of his peers and of those he represented, lost his life because of the gap that exists between the aspirations regarding integration and the realities of the lack of integration. It is about understanding that integration is not possible while there are ghetto realities. The attacker did not act alone. This was a premeditated attack. Ali Harbi Ali grew up in Croydon, Southeast London. Ghetto realities are exactly the opposite of integration.

Diversity when diversity does not include a common British identity is not acceptable. We must respect peoples’ diverse cultures, but we must all share values that unite us regardless of backgrounds and this should be a fundamental point starting with education so that children – regardless of backgrounds – grow up together and learn together as one. 

Talking about respecting differences, allowing ghetto realities with people living in Britain that often not even use English as their main language, without fostering a true national British identity, is one of the main reasons why David Amess was murdered while he was doing his job, the job he was elected to do. 

What do you value more? Do you value peace?

March 2020 - The start of the Covid-19 crisis when countries across the world became aware that something very wrong was happening. That was followed by the realisation that much had to be done to keep things under control and before things could be brought back under relative control hundreds of thousands perished and many more were left with life-time consequences. Many millions more have suffered the consequences of the measures put in place to deal with the pandemic and collosal financial losses were registered forcing authorities to implement measures to provide support  

Green Party: Protecting the environment or just another left wing movement?

 

The British newspaper The Guardian gave away the reality of the Green Party. This is not about the environment or saving the planet. This is about yet another grouping that has the intent to erode the foundations of our way of life. 

If the idea is to protect the environemnt - I am sure that people right, centre and left of politics are concerned about the planet - there is no need to mix ideological stances with measures to protect the planet. 

If we look closely at China - for example - the whole issue of the Sea of China is about mineral resources including oil. It is the presumed existence of vast deposits of fossil fuels that led to a more assertive Chinese position in the Sea of China. Therefore, whatever is said in public speeches, it is reality that counts and reality tells us that oil is the bone of contention between China and India and coal mines continue to be created to reach an energy resources that is readily available. Whoever has access to readily available sources of energy has the competitive advantage. What was the idea behind Japan's expansion in Asia in the early Twentieth Century? The aim was to get energy to support Japan's industrial development.

Whatever is said about the environment, the essence is that countries need energy. When it comes to nuclear energy - there is the choice between fusion and fission, between a risky option and a safer option, but in the end we need to have access to radioactive raw materials to be able to use them as fuel in nuclear reactions and later we need to have safe ways to dispose of spent radioactive materials. 

We could cover the entire planet with windturbines and solar panels and still we would not have enough realiable energy to meet growing needs.

The environmental discourse is about what would be ideal and about what is feasible, and even what we see as better options - windturbines and solar panels - need to be produced and such production is also detrimental for the environment. 

They tell us that electric cars are better for the environment How could the production of tens of millions of electric cars with batteries made using lithium be so beneficial for the environment is a mystery. Lithium would have to mined and processed using - most probably - fossil fuels.

We are being presented with false choices and slogans. More than 7.5 billion souls that inhabit the planet at any given time will need massive amounts of energy, energy that cannot be produced with gimmicks and slogans.