Sisqi76

Many people think Poland was created in 1918, like Estonia, Latvia & Czechoslovakia In fact Poland is, like England, over 1000 yrs old In the 16thC the Polish-Lithuanian union was the largest country in Europe No European country's borders have changed more dramatically or tragically than Poland's Having saved central Europe from Islamic conquest at the Battle of Vienna in 1683 (where my ancestor was commander-in-chief of Polish forces, incidentally), Poland was rewarded by disappearing completely from the map just a century later. The very qualities that made England a liberal democracy (weak monarchy, strong aristocracy and Parliament) resulted in Poland being gobbled up by Prussia, Russia, and Austria in 1795 The difference? England was the big power on a secure island. Poland was a country with no geographic defences. Had Poland been an island, it may well have followed in England's wake. The result of Poland's unparalleled shifting borders is that the country which was once arguably Europe's most diverse, is now Europe's most homogenous. At its peak in the 17th century, ethnic Poles accounted for only about 40% to 50% of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Now, according to Poland's last national census, roughly 97.6% to 98.6% of registered residents are ethnic Poles This video shows why the Poles today are so patriotic - and so determined to preserve their culture, heritage and identity. The Poles know what it is to lose one's nation. After disappearing from the map altogether in the 18th century, under the 20th century communist jackboot their history and heroes were denigrated and rewritten, their achievements denied, their statues pulled down, their national symbols erased. No surprise, therefore, that it has taken such a hard line against woke and immigration. Poland once looked to Britain for inspiration. Can Britain now learn from Poland?

Rubbish. Your bill is called the "English ETHNIC Identity Bill" You criticised the flying of the English flag. Now you seek to deny the English their unique ethnicity, their ultimate & most intrinsic identity Denying a group their ethnic heritage contributes to "cultural genocide" or "ethnocide" according to the 1944 definition Polling shows that ALMOST ALL ethnic minorities in England still understand that "English" is a fundamentally ethnic identity to which they do not belong It is only certain parts of the White British community - and activists like yourself - who seek to engage in ethnic erasure Such a large percentage of White British people disagree with you, that it is dangerous to go down this needless path Acts like yours are the reason for the growth of ethno-nationalism, not to mention political extremism. Their rise is a direct reaction to needless provocation from leftist elites If one is born and raised in England, a person may be culturally English -- but that is wholly distinct and separate from being ethnically English. The two should not be conflated. The two identities - ethnically English and culturally English - have happily co-existed for generations - with the historically tiny culturally English understanding their status and preferring to identity as civically and legally "British" rather than English. This was done partly out of respect for the ethnic English, who accounted for 92% of the population of England as recently as 1991. But it was also because they naturally identified with their own ethnic group. This is the only correct view. By way of illustration: An Englishman born and raised in Japan, who was brought up in Japanese culture and who speaks Japanese with a flawless Japanese accent is clearly culturally Japanese -- but he remains ethnically English. That is an immutable characteristic. In contrast with England, however, an immigrant to Japan can also be legally Japanese. Japan is a sovereign country of which he is a passport-holding citizen. So this Englishman is culturally and legally Japanese but he is clearly not ethnically Japanese. I'd wager that 99%+ of Japanese people would agree with this - they'd say it was blindingly obvious There is such an Englishman in Japan, actually. His name is Joshua Thomson, and he is a sensation for precisely this reason. He identifies as culturally Japanese but acknowledges he is not ethnically Japanese But Englishness is an even more exceptional case. Unlike Japan, England is not a sovereign nation. It has no citizenship or passports. There is no nationality law. One may be culturally English - as, say, the footballer Ian Wright is. But Ian Wright can no more be ethnically English than he (or anyone) can be legally English. So that begs the question: what is the point of doing this? What is behind this dangerous, provocative and completely unnecessary desire to erase / undermine English ethnicity, by far the most historically significant and consequential identity for creating the England we know and love? Ethnic minorities are not calling for it. Poling shows that a mere 10% identify as English. The rest identify either as British or of the ethnicity of their ancestral homeland. If anyone still believes the myth that the Liberal Democrats are a "centrist" party of "moderates" - falling somewhere between the Tories and Labour - this reprehensible policy by one of their MPs must surely blast it to smithereens. Economically they may be more centrist than Labour - but culturally they are every bit as reckless and dangerous.