WHO WAS THERE?

In the Glasgow Herald of 5th September 2003, Robina Qureshi, director of "Positive Action in Housing" which sponsored the event, said, "We already know there are at least 500 people coming." (p.6)

In the event, there were 180 people there, and that includes the 14 on the platform. A little short of the "500" she "knew" were coming! There were around 20 or so ethnic minority people, all of whom were connected in some way with the organisers, or the people on the platform, or were representatives of other ethnic minority interest groups.

This confirms our opinion that most ethnic minority people are no more interested in abolishing Britain's immigration and asylum laws than the white majority.

THE PROCEEDINGS
The meeting was chaired by Neil Mackay, a journalist for the Sunday Herald. He nailed his colours firmly to the mast at the outset by revealing that he had visited Dungavel several weeks ago with Robina Qureshi, "to try to highlight what is happening there."

He even called for "a round of applause" for Rosie Kane MSP because she had -- in a blatant publicity stunt the day before the meeting -- allowed an asylum-seeker and her child, who were being held at Dungavel, to stay in her home in Govanhill while their case is being processed.

The woman, Mercy Ikolo, who was also on the platform with her child, originally applied for asylum in the Republic of Ireland, but then withdrew the application and applied for citizenship on the basis of her child's birth there. She claims she had no intention of claiming asylum in the UK and was only in Scotland to visit friends. She was detained by immigration authorities as she boarded a ferry at Stranraer to go back to the Republic. Apparently the Irish authorities do not want Ms Ikolo to return to the Republic, and so she has now applied for asylum in the UK.

We heard from each of the people on the platform in turn for one and a half hours.

First up was Robina Qureshi who told us that Dungavel was "a prison". The "prison" theme was a constant throughout the night. Several of the people on the platform used this description and told us to keep referring to it as a prison. Qureshi told us there were 22 children in Dungavel at the moment.

She said that locking them up in this manner meant that this country was "as bad as the countries they fled." This is the sort of hyperbolic and hysterical language of a person who has never undergone the experience of having a conversation with someone who might disagree with her.

She also specifically wanted "to thank Neil [Neil Mackay, Sunday Herald journalist] for the work he has done to expose the case [of Mercy Ikolo]."

Next up was Michael Connarty, Labour MP, who had been brought into the campaign, we were told, by SCIAF (Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund). He suggested that an alternative to detention could involve some sort of voluntary sector and Church group network. But why should such important law enforcement responsibility be shifted onto the voluntary sector? Enforcing immigration and asylum law is government responsibility.

Sandra White SNP MSP condemned Dungavel as "like a concentration camp" -- which is an incredibly stupid thing to say.

She, like others on the platform, attacked the Labour Executive for their "silence" on this issue. The implication being that the Executive should speak out against Dungavel.

Well, the "silence" of the Scottish Executive also offends those of us who want to see our political representatives standing up for the proper enforcement of our border controls, and who want to hear our representatives giving voice to the majority of Scots who are tired of listening to the opinions of the open-borders brigade going unchallenged.

Donald Gorrie Lib Dem MSP was glad "to see so many people in the audience from various organisations and political parties." He got that bit right! Virtually everyone in the audience was there as a result of association with the organisations and parties represented on the platform and in the hall. Of the rest of the (allegedly) "outraged Scottish people" there was little sign.

An author called Louise Welsh then spoke about how "Britain can't survive without immigrants. Our society can't survive without immigrants." Yes, that is what she said.

David Orr, Chief Executive of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, told us he was "ashamed" -- and he seemed to be quite certain of that fact -- which is kind of sad, in a way, for him.

Jim Henry of "Friends of Refugees Ayrshire" stated that, "You can take the person out of Dungavel, but you can't take Dungavel out of the person."

Gordon Jeyes from the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland spoke for too long.

Mercy Ikolo spoke about why she didn't like being at Dungavel. Watching her, I felt sorry for her that she was being used by the organisers as a pawn in a political agenda of which she has no understanding.

Neil Mackay introduced Aamer Anwar by saying that, "I know Aamer quite well". Anwar stated that "I don't think Sandra White is being emotive when she describes Dungavel as a concentration camp," and that detaining people "follows the logic of fascism".

He stated that he was "calling for the shutdown of Dungavel, not just the family unit." In other words he is against detention, per se. This is indeed what the STUC demonstration on the 6th September called for as well.

He claimed that "What Dungavel is about is torture". Again, this sort of hyperbolic language is evidence of a man who is not interested in having a rational debate with anyone who disagrees with him. He called for a national march on the Scottish Parliament.

Neil Mackay then introduced actor Peter Mullan as "a guy I've had a few pints with in the past". Indeed, Mr Mackay seemed to be on very pally terms with all the key players on the platform.

Mullan then went into a story about how he had personally benefited from engagement with refugees when he was at school. This story seemed to be some kind of call for a sense of international brotherhood with everyone. Well, fine, let's all be friendly with everyone.

But that position is just a cop-out, a retreat, a burying of one's head in the sand, from addressing the serious political issue -- which is: Tens of thousands of people are coming into Britain every year. An accurate estimate is 240,000 net a year. For example, see the Migration Watch estimates here.

Are we agreed that we need to control these numbers? If we are agreed that we need to control the numbers, then how many immigrants should we admit, who should be admitted, and how do we best enforce the rules? These are the responsible questions which need to be addressed by responsible politicians.

Mullan and his friends cannot adequately address the immigration issue because they have made it a taboo topic among themselves. Consequently, when faced with these questions, people like the Scottish Socialist Party and their supporters -- their most prominent being Mullan himself -- either retreat into abstractions about "international brother and sisterhood", and talk about the need for "compassion", or they actually try to argue for the entirely unsustainable position of no border controls whatsoever.

For example the leader of the SSP, Tommy Sheridan, has written:

Tommy Sheridan was the final speaker at the meeting and he stated that, "I think the qualification for anybody who wants to come and live in our country, is that they want to come and live in our country."

Consider the absurdity of his statement: Imagine you had a house and you declared that the only test for anyone to come and live in your house is "to want" to come and live in your house! How long would it take before your house was overcrowded, or even pillaged and destroyed?

Similarly, if the only requirement for people to come to live in Scotland is "to want" to come and live in Scotland, how long before Scotland was destroyed as a nation?

Such a statement is essentially a call for the abolition of borders. The abolition of borders effectively means the abolition of Scotland as a nation in any distinct sense. Yet this is the man who talks about wanting "an independent socialist Scotland". What is "independent" about a Scotland that cannot control who is coming into the country?

The meeting was then opened up to comments from the floor for half an hour. Most of the people who spoke, including all the ethnic minority people who spoke, were connected in some way with the organisers and platform members.

CONCLUSIONS

This is a very incestuous group. It is dominated by a small number of Trotskyite lawyers and political and union activists. There are also a small number of ethnic minority interest groups, plus a variety of religious groups which seem only to be tolerated by the organisers because they help to provide an image of mainstream normality and provide bums on seats. They rely on friendly journalists to stir things up and support them in the media.

The hyperbolic language of "concentration camps" and "torture" suggests they are not interested in debating anybody who disagrees with them.

The aim is to abolish detention in order to make immigration and asylum law unenforceable and unworkable, as part of a long-term strategy to abolish immigration and asylum law altogether. Not all the participants in the campaign, however, and especially not the religious elements, are aware of this central agenda -- which is a Trotskyite aim, as we have explained here.

They are likely to keep campaigning to "abolish detention", although in the absence of any convincing reasons, their only "argument" is essentially an appeal for "compassion".

HOW THESE CAMPAIGNERS USE THE WORD "COMPASSION"
These campaigners are always selective with their "compassion", and they wield the word deliberately as a political weapon.

Laws, however, cannot be made entirely on the basis of what is "compassionate". Even if we were all agreed on what "compassion" entailed and required, it would still remain a fact that laws have to be made primarily on the basis of practicality. Is it workable? Does it get the job done? What is practical is not always what is necessarily compassionate, by someone else's standards.

Indeed, imagine if we made all laws on the basis of what was "compassionate"? We would have no rules and nobody would get sent to prison. In reality, this wouldn't mean a kinder, gentler, more "compassionate" society. It would mean mob rule.

Secondly, what may seem "compassionate" for one person can be damaging to another.

Look at it this way: I may rent a house from a landlord. The landlord imposes someone to stay with me because he has decided to be "compassionate" to that person. But that is not necessarily being compassionate to me. He could be ruining my life! Likewise if the house is mine, it is not being compassionate to me if some government official indulges his or her own "compassionate" compulsion to introduce a disruptive development next door!

In the case of Dungavel: If the parent(s) have to be detained then it is practical -- and it is also very compassionate -- to keep the family together, rather than split them up. The alternative of abolishing detention as an instrument of immigration law enforcement, is simply not a practical option -- except for the Trotskyites, prominent in the anti-Dungavel campaign, who really just want to make immigration law unenforceable and unworkable en route to abolishing immigration law entirely.

So, while abolishing detention may seem compassionate for some people, the consequence of making immigration law unenforceable and unworkable is certainly not compassionate for the rest of us.

DUNGAVEL DEMO, 6th September 2003

The next day, the STUC-organised demo was held outside Dungavel. Ten double-decker buses had been provided to bus in the demonstrators from George Square, Glasgow.

We witnessed the 10 buses leaving George Square. Each of these double-deckers has a capacity to seat around 80 people. However, there were only around 60 on each of the first six buses, the 7th 8th and 9th had around 40 and the 10th only had 15 people in it. Therefore, we estimate around 500 people maximum left from Glasgow. Most of these were SSP supporters.

Many of the people who got on the buses were asylum seekers who had been asked to come along by the "Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees" and the "Glasgow Refugees Action Group". These vulnerable asylum seekers are simply being used by the organisers for political ends, and probably don't question whether or not attending such a demonstration is really in their own best interests. They just trust the organisers who tell them it is.

Interestingly, a group of 20 black teenagers, who have taken lately to hanging about George Square on a Saturday, were asked by one of the organisers if they wanted to join the demo, and so they too got on the buses, probably because they had nothing better to do.

The official police estimation for the number of demonstrators -- confirmed to us personally by Strathclyde Police the next day -- was 1000.

A picture on the BBC website shows the crowd... which doesn't appear to be even as many as a thousand. Ridiculously, Neil Mackay in the Sunday Herald the next day claimed that the number was "at least 2000".