I don’t agree with everything Peter Hitchens says in this video interview, but I do agree with his viewpoint on the issue of the liberal elite. Although he refers exclusively to the situation in the UK, I believe this applies to most European countries. He discusses the liberal elite and “one of their crucial ideas that the borders of the world should go, that national loyaltites were reactionary and outdated”, and he goes on to describe their dominance of the state institutions:
The great triumph of the 1960s was the long march of the institutions, the generation that I belong to, the university generation who were instinctively left wing on all issues, particularly the social, cultural and moral one. And they are now in all the quangos, all departments, thy are the lawyers, judges, they are the chief constables, the police officers, they’re absolutely crammed into the media and they’ve had their way in most things. They’ve legislated, they’re unacknowledged legislators, to change this country (the UK) into something completely different to what it was in 1960.
He also adds that “any society suffers from multiculturalism because multiculturalism is no culture; it means there is nothing to be loyal to, nothing to belong to”.
And an example of this:
A Daily Telegraph article (10.11.2017) with the headline:
A “prolific and violent offender” has won £78,500 damages from the Home Office for being unlawfully detained. Somali Abdulrahman Mohammed, 39, came to the UK in February 1996 when he was 17 and has spent much of the last two decades in and out of custody, largely for serious criminal offences. He has also been detained pending deportation as a foreign criminal, and claimed damages for false imprisonment relating to three periods of detention totalilng 445 days.
Assessing damages in London after the Home Office conceded liability, Deputy High Court Judge Edward Pepperall said that as a 13-year-old, Mohammed suffered “unimaginable barbarity” in Mogadishu at the outbreak of the civil war. He was tortured by armed men and had since suffered moderately severe post-traumatic stress disorder. On arriving in the UK, he soon found himself mixing in bad company and became a “habitual and violent criminal”, most notably being sentenced to two different four-year terms for robbery.
After the decision was taken to deport him in 2008, Mohammed applied to the European Court of Human Rights, citing the deteriorating situation in Somalia, and it directed that he should not be removed from the UK until further notice.
Mohammed said the ensuing periods of detention made him feel trapped, humiliated and hopeless.
On Friday, the judge said some might well question why a foreign citizen who had so thoroughly abused the hospitality of this country by the commission of serious criminal offences was entitled to any compensation. “First, there are few principles more important in a civilised society than that no one should be deprived of their liberty without lawful authority. I can well understand why the Home Secretary might wish to deport him. She has not, however, been able to do so, largely because of the very real risk that deportation to Somalia would pose. He added that Mohammed was “not the most wicked of men, but his presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. Nevertheless, in a civilised society, he is entitled to justice. Specifically, he is entitled not to be falsely imprisoned and, given the Home Office’s admission that he has been unlawfully detained, he is now entitled to the compensation that I have awarded.”
The judge said that the breaches of procedure included not releasing Mohammed given the clear independent evidence of torture and the fact that the prospect of deportation within a reasonable period was remote.