Passing as "British"

The New Labour thought police policy machine rolls onwards, the latest step being the new proposals for people wishing to apply for UK citizenship or settlement (i.e. "indefinite leave to remain").

Even now the citizenship test appears to require knowledge that certainly wasn't taught when I was younger, and isn't all that easy to figure out from having lived here all my life ("Even when it was the bears, I knew it was the imigunts"). Admittedly, I would probably fail the test if it wasn't multiple choice, because the type of question posed in the "are you ready?" guide had a tendency to bring out very sarcastic and politically-motivated answers based on my own beliefs (read: "prejudices") about the UK government and the way it (doesn't quite) work. For example, one of the early questions was "Where have migrants to the UK come from in the past, and what sort of work did they do?" My answer: "How far back do you want to go? Almost everyone in the UK is descended from immgrant populations!" And so on. Questions about the civil service just made me guffaw with laughter having seen programmes like "Yes Minister" and "The Thick of It".

Suffice to say, I would struggle to pass such a test were I required to do so, and on those grounds alone might not be able to "pass" as "British".

But this:

New migrants who demonstrate an "active disregard for UK values", possibly including protesting at homecoming parades of troops from Afghanistan, could find their applications for a British passport blocked under new citizenship proposals published today.

But migrants who contribute to the "democratic life of the country" by canvassing for political parties could find the application process speeded up so that it takes one year instead of three.

I could never pass. Hell, by these standards I was already disqualified from UK citzenship by the time I was 10 years old! They'd probably have kicked me out of the country for good for my part in the 2001 Oxford Circus Mayday protest.

Woolas said: "As a point of principle ... if you don't break the law and you are a citizen, that's fine. But if someone is applying to be a citizen to our country we do think that you should not only obey the law but show you are committed to our country."

I firmly believe that if you would not demand it of a person with citizenship by birth and parentage, then it is hypocritical and discriminatory to demand it of someone who is applying for citizenship later in life. Of course, there was a time when citizenship would, effectively, be revoked from native-born British citizens, by virtue of the punishment of transportation. I am sure that there are some of the Daily Mail/Telegraph/Daily Express leaning who would love to be able to deport all manner of "undesirables" ("yobbos", "scroungers", etc) as showing "active disregard for UK values". Thankfully, Britain no longer has an empire that allows for such behaviour by the ruling classes!

Of course, I also would have distinct issue with letting people who promote that sort of idea be the ones who define what is or is not a part of "UK values". That definition has changed a lot over the years: in the 19th Century, it was fashionable for Members of Parliament to declare that they were proud of Britain not being a democracy, certainly whenever issues of universal (male) suffrage were raised by protesters. Indeed, it was held to be against "UK values" to allow anyone other than the wealthy landed ruling class to have the vote at all! Then it was against UK values to let women have the vote. Prior to 1967 it was against "UK values" to be in a same-sex relationship; now, it's possible to be legally recognised as a couple. (Then again, homosexuality does still appear to be a bar to the highest elected offices in the main political parties, and thereby a bar to the office of PM). Officially, racism is against UK values, and yet (as the "Shilpa Shetty incident" showed) racism is still a value held in common by many British people (who, by voting for Shilpa Shetty, probably convinved themselves that they weren't racist like the "Housemates" were, and yet probably act in similar ways in their everyday lives). "UK values" is such an ill-defined term, precisely because our society is made up of many layers and backgrounds - from the many different waves of immigration over the past 1000 years or so, to the vast differences in wealth and economic circumstances.

After all, 2M people marched to protest against war in Iraq - ut seems fair to say that protesting against the current debacle in Afghanistan is simply holding true to that "UK value".