Some homophobic religious types do come out with some common sense sometimes. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey (bit of a bigot in his time), reckons we ought have a cap on the British population.
He’s a member of the Balanced Migration Group – which also comprises twenty parliamentarians, former Commons Speaker Betty Boothroyd, five Labour MPs and ten Conservative MPs – and he’s backing its campaign calling for curbs on immigration. (With all those politicians in it, one wonders how they call themselves balanced. Oh, they mean the makeup of migration, not the mentality of— I’ll shut up, shall I?)
It’s a pity, though, that the campaign doesn’t call for these curbs to be matched by government advice and encouragement on birth control, but I fear that would be a recommendation too far for religionists, especially Catholics and Muslims.
To force birth control on people would be immoral, of course, until such a time as it became a pressing necessity, then it would be immoral not to. But, with common sense, such a thing may never become a reality. Howeveer, try instilling common sense into the bloody Catholic Church when it comes to birth control!
Oh, no. Go forth and multiply, oh ye Deluded Herd of dupes, and screw the planet to buggery!
Ah, but I’m running away with myself. It comes with age, the weather and post-Christmas blues.
“Last year the Office for National Statistics said, if current trends continued, the UK population would rise by 10 million to more than 71.6 million by 2033 – the fastest rise in a century,” the BBC tells us in that link above.
But get this. Carey wants Christians to be preferred if it comes to filtering immigrants. Oh, he doesn’t quite put it like that.
“What I think I’m concerned about is not saying we must put a limit on people who are non-Christian populations,” he says. “That’s not the point. We welcome everybody and that’s always been the generous spirit of the United Kingdom.”
But, he told Radio 4’s Today programme, immigrants must “understand” the UK’s culture, including parliamentary democracy “which is built upon Christian heritage”, “our commitment to the English language” and an understanding the country’s history.
The system should not “give preference to any particular group”, he said, but added that points-based immigration could take these cultural aspects into consideration.
Which would amount to giving preference, in practice, because many immigrant groups don’t share these values.
And I’m inclined to agree with him. Not because of the Christian aspect – religion shouldn’t come into it – but because of the shared-values thing. We don’t want a homogeneous society, but there are aspects of our culture we do rather like, thank you very much, and many of us are fed up with seeing authorities kowtow to pressures from Islamic and other ideologies for changes to the traditions most of us have grown up with.
There are some – a few humanists among them – who might think that racist. It’s not, and they’re wrong. It’s culturist, perhaps, and our culture is what we should be concerned with, whatever the colour of the people who uphold it, and any immigration that is allowed should reflect that racial diversity. It’s ideology that can cause problems.
So bring on immigration controls – but let’s see some encouragement towards sensible family planning, too, while we’re at it. If fiscal measures are required as an incentive, then so be it. And, if Catholic leaders complain, let’s tell ’em go to hell.