item0068E  988, 989

You know of my dislike of David Blunkett’s seedy little “Citizenship Ceremonies”.  But when they were introduced, back in February 2004, I thought that they were merely harmless little rituals, take or leave ‘em. 

But they are not.  I now realise that these new laws create, by a side-wind, a new definition of what it means to be a “British Citizen”.  Because this awful ritual turns out to be compulsory.   You are first declared to be a British citizen, and then you must be initiated.  And until you have gone through this gruesome initiation, you cannot get a UK passport.   

I have been browsing the Home Office website governing these new rituals.  This is what it says –  

“You must attend the new ceremony, if you wish to become a British citizen.  If your application for British citizenship is successful, the Home Office will write inviting you to a citizenship ceremony….  You should then contact your local authority to book the next available ceremony…  When you receive your ceremony invitation letter, you have 11 weeks to attend a ceremony.  If you cannot attend a ceremony within this time, we may withdraw your invitation.  You would then need to apply and pay the fee again…”

This is nasty, aggressive, vicious stuff – designed to frighten the recipient into dumb compliance, subservience.  I suspect the actual letters are even worse.  It all confirms my suspicion that David Blunkett, despite the cuddly and sympathetic exterior, is a deeply uncivilised man.  His obsession with the "war on terrorism", and disregard for personal freedoms, all point to the same conclusion.

Has Parliament really sanctioned all this?  Did our MPs realise that they awful ceremonies were to be compulsory, commanding a compulsory extra payment of £50 per person?  I intend to try out a few MPs, and get their reaction.  Why not try your own MP, and report back to me? 

I remain bitterly disappointed that this initiation ceremony, these jingoistic nationalist antics, should have come from a Labour Government.  Our great traditions of tolerance and fairness are being traduced by vicious and illiberal Ministers, like David Blunkett.  My objections would of course be moderated, if the ceremony were discretionary: there are clearly some newcomers who value it, and I would not go to the barricades against an optional ceremony, however misconceived I considered it to be, as a matter of principle. 

ht about them?  Drop me a line

 < Back to Home Page

"Ye have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free - but Christ is all, and in all"

For me, that encompasses the kernel of the modern human rights message, of the centrality of individual sovereignty and worth.  "Culture" is simply not an important category, whatever its characteristics - it is ephemeral, insubstantial, superficial.  These principles reflect George Fox's perception of "that of God in every man", so dear to the Quakers.  In rejecting all group labelling, all group pigeon-holing as I do, I am inexorably drawn to a religious or near-religious assertion - for I know of no other way of validating this key assertion about the world around me.