“Britons” Murdered in Pakistan Raises Issue of “Who is British”
The recent shocking murders of three people described as “British” by the controlled media while they were attending an arranged marriage ceremony in Pakistan has once again highlighted the issue of indigenous versus civic national identities -- and proven the British National Party’s position correct.
According to media reports, a “British husband, wife and daughter were gunned down in Pakistan after a disastrous arranged marriage ended in murder” on 21 May.According to the reports, father-of-six Mohammad Yousaf, 51, his wife Pervaze Yousaf, 49, and their 22-year-old daughter Tania lived in Nelson, Lancashire, and had gone to Pakistan to attend the arranged wedding of son Asad, 24.
Apparently they were shot dead just days after the wedding while paying respects at a family graveyard. The shooting was sparked by the breakdown of the arranged marriage of another of Mr Yousaf’s sons, Kamar, who wed his cousin.
Mr and Mrs Yousaf come from the Pakistan town of Jaurahm, where marriage between first and second cousins and arranged weddings are common.
According to Eileen Ansar, a Clover Hill ward in Nelson who is married to Mr Yousaf’s cousin Mohammed, about 70 members of the extended family flew out to Pakistan following news of the deaths.
The media has glibly described the Yousafs as “British” -- but are they really? Does possession of a UK passport make a person British?
The BNP has long argued that there are two sorts of British national identities -- a civic identity, which translates into a piece of paper such as a passport, and then true indigenous status.
The World Bank’s operational directive 4.20 of 1991 defines an indigenous people as those who “can be identified in particular geographical areas by the presence in varying degrees of the following characteristics: a) close attachment to ancestral territories and to the natural resources in these areas; b) self-identification and identification by others as members of a distinct cultural group; c) an indigenous language, often different from the national language; d) presence of customary social and political institutions; and e) primarily subsistence-oriented production.”
This definition is supported by the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples of the United Nations and the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 169, all of which assert the right of indigenous peoples to maintain their own identity in their own territories.
The Scots, Irish, English and Welsh have now been proven, through DNA, history and settlement, to have been in the British Isles since at least the end of the last Ice Age, some 12,000 years ago.
The “nation of immigrants” lie has been thoroughly refuted by the analysis of British DNA conducted over the past few years.
This research has shown that up to 80 percent of the original inhabitants of Britain have ancestors going back thousands and thousands of years, and that the “Anglo-Saxon” genetic contribution is less than five percent of the total DNA of Britain, a figure which is approximately similar for other groups such as the Danes.
Even the most “recent” large-scale migrants into ancient Britain, the relatively few in number Danes, have been in Britain longer than the Maori people of New Zealand, by way of comparison.
The BNP, alone amongst all parties in Britain, has argued that the Scots, Irish, Welsh and English are, by all definitions, the indigenous population of these lands.
This indigenous status confers on the British family of nations the right to protection from colonisation, usurpation of their territorial integrity and the right to remain the majority population of these lands.
Thus, the BNP argues, there is a difference between those who are civically British and those who are the indigenous population.
This difference in ethnic origin is completely valid, in exactly the same way that an Australian aborigine who might hold citizenship of Japan would never be classed as an ethnic Japanese person.
The assertion by the controlled media that the tragic Yousaf family are “British” is therefore little more than deliberate deception.
The Yousaf family are ethnic Pakistanis who possessed British passports. They were civically British, but not indigenous to these islands.
Indeed, the Yousafs were representative of a wave of colonisation, which, left unchecked, will see the indigenous population of Britain overwhelmed.
The BNP stands alone in opposing this coming demographic tragedy and has a reasonable, viable and realistic plan to solve this crisis.
