No longer one law for all

Verity

"This is the way a society fractures -- and then goes under." If the British tolerate it, as they have tolerated every other assault on their nation by the socialists, who are merely using islam and the muslims as weapons against the indigenes and well-settled immigrants, they will deserve it.

Not only should this be spiked by the population at large, but the paying of "benefits" to second and third "wives" from the pockets of British taxpayers who strongly object - as long as "the marriage" was legal in the country where it was contracted, needs to be flushed down the pan and those "wives" deported. The Muslim Council needs to be closed down with extreme prejudice.

Large swathes of Pakistanis and all Somalis should be offered financial inducements to leave, in return for a swab of their DNA and a retinal photograph.

This chaos was a deliberate programme to destabilise our ancient, familial country. If you don't fight back, you have betrayed your ancestors (and this includes immigrants like the Jews and the Indians who came and integrated and lent their talents and skills to the country and who are one of us.

By the way, this has shocked America, which should give another little frisson to Jack Straw, Harriet Harpic, and all the slithy toves slithering around Westminster hissing in self-congratulation.

Ian G

Would you mind asking your husband whether running an alternative legal system constitutes an offence under UK law? Is it not tantamount to setting up an alternative government? Is it sedition, treason, rebellion...?

field

Good post.

This is a very important issue even if we are at the thin end of the wedge. The wedge is unbendable Islam which will not rest until it has triumphed globally.

Of course I have to add that I do not think Orthodox Jewish law is compatible with our values in the UK either. We should not have any of these religions trying to act as judge and jury in our country.

Dr Kris of Venus Bay Aust

Sharia courts? have you people gone insane?
What about one rule of law for all. If this is the state of British justice i weep for you and have nothing but absolute disdain for the cretins who support such a move.
Truly your legal system has reached its nadir

George Steiner

No madam. It went under.

Steven (Canada)

Another example of how England has become the whore of the Islamic world and how their cowardly leaders of learnt nothing.

Jon_Boy

Surely this is all a matter of intent.

Unless people are denying reality the true intent and ambition of the Islamic community is to roll out Islamic laws throughout their own communities and eventually would like those laws to supercede current UK law.

Their ultimate ambition would be to do this throughout the country and replace the current UK state with an Islamic state.

This is not fantasy as anyone who takes the time to actually speak to most religiopus Muslims, will soon realise that this is a genuine wish of theirs.

Even a cursory study of Islamic Koranic law will also see that these aims are a requirement of the religion itself and not just the dreams and wishes of a few extremist personalities within the religion.

Therefore it is important and only common sense to carefully watch all political attempts to roll out and reinforce Sharia law within the UK legal system, as the ultimate intent of its supporteres is quite clear and unambiguous, except for those who find it more convenient to deny facts and bury their heads in the sand.

Unfortunately we have entered a state of affairs where many left wing political ideologues have been well drilled from above on high into knee jerk positions of blind support for Islamists and Arab Natinalists.

This is due to a lethal misperception that these groups are in fact their political allies. They have also fatally miscalculated that their true enemies at home and abroad are social conservatives and religious Christians within their own societies.

Nicholas

That wording:-

"MAT is unable to deal with criminal offences as we do not have jurisdiction to try such matters in the UK"

interestingly reveals just how disengaged these people are from this nation. It makes them sound like expatriates rather than British subjects.

David McAdam

Indeed.
The TUC and social agencies consistantly raise concerns about a divided society based on the usual narrow contrast between rich and poor. They ignore a myriad other factors including cultural conflicts as symbolised by the introduction of Sharia that reveal not how divided but how fragmented and socially rudderless the UK has become. In this meandering state, it's hardly surprising that our laws can be made pliable and cleverly interpreted to suit a particular culture's custom. This is only the thin end of the wedge. Once the inch becomes a mile, the contrast between rich and poor won't be measured in pounds but by a splintered legal yardstick devoid of consensus and fairness.

JJS

field, there you go again..... You simply do not understand the function or jurisiction of the Beth Din and, no matter how many times people try to explain, you remain stuck. Your premise is wrong and your post thus faulty.

Gary O

Just as a young German today asks his parents or grandparents why didn't they do anything to stop the Nazis, a young boy or a girl will rue the day, in not too distant a future, his or her parents did not stop islamisation of Britain in its track.

Ken

The Muslim brigade are entryists in the classic mould and the miserable marxists in power kowtow abjectly to buy their votes. Step one for the next administration is to roll back every Marxist-Labour law enacted since 1997 and start afresh with a clean slate. Then, as core mission, reassert national identity and Western values as the social good and remove those who dissent.

john grimbits

all is forgiven Hitler

Roy

Another meaty titbit added to the stew of stupidity that is the British elites idea of an enlightened broth to form their multicultural Eldorado, and bring it to a disingenuous simmer.

Norm, UK

My personal experience of this would be an employment tribunal where the chairman was a practising solicitor who knew the law. I seem to think that the judgement was not binding in itself upon the parties but would normaly be upheld in the county court if the losing party refused to comply. Will the sharia panel be the same?

Robbit

Quite right Ken. The problem is that our parlour-pink socialist establishment knows in its heart that it is completely defunct and bankrupt and has lost all the arguments. They have know this not just since 1997, not even just since the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the USSR - only well after which did they find it within themselves to eventually ditch Clause 4 (mere coincidence anyone?). They have known it since Hayek's "Roads to Serfdom" and Oakeshott's "Rationalism in Politics" in c 1950. The whole left agenda is now completely hollow and worm-eaten and they know it. And so with their own utter emptiness combined with their own instinct for the politics of resentment and their inate socialist totalitarian tendencies they are oh so easily dragged under the sway of and consumed by any other totaltarianism that comes along - be it the creeping beureaucratic version of the EU or the Islamo-facist version. We need to roll back more than 11 years of crypto-Marxist Labour law and phoney cultural pipe-dream policies - we have to consign the whole bang shoot to the dust-bin of history. The real question is are the Cameroons and the Tories up to the task? And even if they are is there any hope for any of us if the Yanks finally go ape and get suckered by the socilaist drivel that has benighted Europe for 100 years - and vote in Obama?

Sofia

One of the ways that ordinary people can fight back against the spread of the Sharia – and I know plenty of people who are doing this – is to pull their finances out of banks and institutions that have started dealing in Sharia-compliant products.

‘Sharia-compliant’ has been the first wave of bank products in the UK and as that has taken a grip, so the calls for ‘sharia-based’ products have followed. What a surprise.

Boycotting British banks that have started to dabble in such products much not hurt them in ordinary times, but not in a credit crunch.

I am absolutely thrilled to read that my former bank is having a rough time of it (as plenty of others are) and I hope that by withdrawing all of my money and closed all my accounts because of their decision to deal in Sharia products I’ve helped to contribute just a little bit to their problems.

The way to check out whether your bank is dealing in Sharia products is to visit their website and give it a thorough look-over. They don’t advertise in the mainstream press (I wonder why), but they will put this stuff on their websites.

The more conservatively run building societies have now all absorbed all of my finances and can keep it so long as they remain Sharia free.

They can go chasing the sharia pound if they so wish, but they sure as heck won’t be doing it off the back of my cash.

Frank Pulley

Melanie, the links (on your most recent post about Davis) 'continue reading' and 'comments' both lead to a blank page. And pleeeaasse! Will you put pressure on the techies to position the comments section of your blog her to after the last comment, rather than before the first? Verity and I (and several others) have constantly raised this to no avail.

Bob Latchford

"Large swathes of Pakistanis and all Somalis should be offered financial inducements to leave, in return for a swab of their DNA and a retinal photograph."

Wow...just wow

mark peters

The source of the current problem is the idiotic decision to allow sharia courts in the first place. Now Britain has to put the horse back in the barn, as it were. Good luck with that now that you've two million Muslims holding allegiance to the Ummah over allegiance to the Queen.

Britain, land of my forefathers, I never knew ye.

steve

That's right Robbit. Hopefully the Americans won't be stupid enough to vote in Obama and his socialist policies because the economy there is going so well under Bush's conservative leadership.

Susan Hill

You have the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Prince of Wales, in their own bumbling, well-meaning ways,playing into the hands of the militants and thereby lulling many ordinary citizens into a false, not to say blind, sense of security - 'if they think it is all fine, then surely it must be fine.'

expatriate

Is monogamy the law of the land in Britain? It is galling enough to pay taxes to support welfare payments to swathes of non-productive individuals, but to be coerced into paying taxes to support welfare payments to multiple wives of individuals is outrageous and unfair beyond belief. Cameron, will you have the guts to do anything about these matters?

Andy Gill

Islamocreep!

Verity

To all who continually claim - despite all the evidence to the contrary - that the government is too stupid to know what it is doing, this government has actually been very efficient in accomplishing the destruction of our civil society - the acceptance of bigamous "wives" and the payment, out of the earnings of normal people, of "benefits" for them - and, I'm sure, treatment on the NHS - for them; the introduction of sharia courts; the attempts to outlaw piggy banks in bank advertising; the flying of the kite in Birmingham of replacing Christmas with "Winterval"; some taxpayer funded schools in Britain now referring to "end of term holiday" rather than Christmas or Easter Holidays (why? Was there a demand?), so it doesn't "offend" anyone (like who? Jews? Hindus? Sikhs? Buddhists? Hmmm ... let me put on my thinking cap here ...) etc, etc, etc, etc - you've all got your own encyclpaedia of examples - did not occur because this government is inept, but because it is malign and coldly efficient.

Let us stop referring to them as a joke. They are not. They are hideously achieving.

The intention is to destroy Britain and all we stand for - progress and enlightenment - and it has made astounding progress in just 11 years. Alas, the British were so secure in their centuries of almost unlimited freedom, including total freedom of speech (now completely destroyed), they were not alert to the toxins flowing through the innocently worded pronouncements of the socialists.

Sarah Palin may yet be our saviour, too, in that her example may give someone the bottle to take an axe to the socialists and lay about them without mercy.

Although ... perhaps not. The British are so passive and brainwashed that they now seem to be actually on the side of the aggressors.

David Cameron, although I think not as insanely malignant as Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Margaret Hodge, Harriet Harpic etc, will do nothing to right the balance - certainly, he will not deport large swathes of unproductive "immigrants" dependent on the slave labour of the British taxpayer. Similarly, Dave will not put an end to free treatment for their incestuous children, who account for 31% of the genetic defective babies born at taxpayer expense on the NHS, should be to their account. (Three per cent of the population and 31% of the birth defects.) No pay, no treatment. This is an assault on the British taxpayer and is intended to be so.

It is intended to generate a sense of hopeless and despair, and it has.

Verity

I didn't want to dilute the message in my last post with a PS, but I'd like to support Frank Pulley and others who have pointed out, tirelessly, the lunacy of having the Comments box at the top of the page.

Obviously, your techies are illiterates, but the people who actually run the site are advanced practitioners of the English language and should know better.

If one wishes to respond to, say, three correspondents, and the thread already has almost a hundred posts, the strain of scrolling up and down through a hundred posts perhaps six or seven times - to get the spelling of nommes des guerres correct, to quote someone correctly, to quote figures correctly ... is too daunting.

I have never encountered such lunacy on a blog. Now, once I see that a thread has had drawn a long string of comments,I don't respond to more than one of them because it is too much work.

Frank! I've just had a brainstorm! Here is my latest argument, and it should work because it always does in Britain: "Wahhhhhh! I'm a Muslim and it's against my religion to respond to posts by scrolling to the top of the page because I might inadvertenly scroll through the name of the Prophet (tee hee)or maybe someone wrote the name of the Prophet without adding PBUH and that would offensive."

That should work.

David Lindsay

We are geeting as bad as Israel - http://davidaslindsay.blogspot.com/2008/02/sharia-state-of-israel.html

Yes, that's my blog. But it reprints in full an article from The Jewish Chronicle, for some reason no longer on the website.

Bob Latchford

Not a fan of the Muslims are you Verity?

phil

Field I cannot let JJS bear the brunt of answering your revisit of the Beth Din question -you are obviously educated so why cannot you except that everyone has told you that you are wrong and stop bringing up this point that will so easily be misunderstood -You surely must know by now that orthodox Jewish law never takes precedence over the law of this land and is there to help people who will accept their help to resolve problems that occur in respect of their faith -it is not binding and you know that -I also do not believe you are doing this to cause trouble ,but you are being incredibly stubborn ,that will certainly cause trouble for many innocent people so I implore you to stop it once and for all .

Verity

Why do you say that, Bob Latchford? I think you will note, on reflection, that I am not a fan of the socialists importing and using Muslims as a weapon against the rightful owners of the country. I wouldn't condemn an entire religion. One of my favourite countries in the world is Jordan.

Phillip Reece

Not a fan of the British are you Bob?

Adam B.

Not a fan of the truth, are you Bob?

Adam B.

Bob, why not live in Saudi Arabia - see how sensitive they'll be to your cultural desires.

Bert

Yes this is all very well, but Melanie Phillips is not putting hesrself up for election, so no matter how many times she writes about what is happening, what's the answer?
Lib/Lab/Con are all gagged by political correctness.

Chris

Verity:

My "ancient, familial country"?

More like a Feminist Gulag.

"If you don't fight back, you have betrayed your ancestors"?

I don't see why I should fight to defend NuLab's Feminist Gulag.

It seems to me that feminists and Islamic activists deserve each other.

Verity

Chris - the femonazis are the socialist/Marxist 70's student agitators. Hillary Clinton and Gloria Steinhem and all that gang are the templates. In Britain, they're mostly in the cabinet. No wonder Gordon looks so nervous all the time.

Right wing women are just normal women.

john doe

Verity said:"I wouldn't condemn an entire religion."

I would.

dga5000

"BROTHERS GET DOUBLE THE INHERITANCE IN UK SHARIA COURT"

The following is an extract from an artcle that appeared in the Muslim Weekly regarding the sharia court under discussion.

"Cases already heard in Nuneaton include an inheritance dispute between three sisters and their two brothers, a divorce and a neighbour dispute."

"In the inheritance case, the men were given double their sisters’ inheritance."

http://www.themuslimweekly.com/newsdetails/fullstoryview.aspx?NewsID=BAA9F82DA62E054E46ECD97A&MENUID=HOMENEWS&DESCRIPTION=Front%20Page%20News

You will need to login to view the article.

Philip Lowry

England is dead.

I rule it a suicide...

Ronnie

'Right wing women are just normal women.' Yip they are just as arrogantly and jaw-droppingly selective in their use of the facts as everyone else.

I would like someone, preferably Frank (as he writes sensibly), what they think the final purpose of the great Socialist, Marxist, Namby-Pamby Liberal, Pinko, Islamo-Fascist, Islamo-Marxist, Calipatist, European, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Russian, Obamaist, Gramscian, Conservative-Nimby, Femo-Fascist, Femo-Marxist, Islamo-Martian, Martian-Marxist, Marzipano-Fascist is?

To what end will they have tirelessly and in disciplined combination worked to destroy our country?

What is their ultimate pupose?

Kim Plumtree

To Verity 4:21 p. m.: I think you're right, but (like Ronnie to someone preferably Frank) I can't understand what their motivation is. Can you? I have heard the argument that feminist groups, the "abuse industry" etc. ratchet up the stakes to get more money for themselves, but I don't quite see how New Labour ministers personally profit from wrecking freedom of speech and the rest. I can understand the "guilt" that white male middle-class baby-boomers have been made to feel, but would they really destroy an entire country? I'm not trying to be contrary or sarky - I genuinely want to know - and I think these may be partial explanations, but I can't see how the usual cynicism/realism explains such an extraordinary state of affairs. The only other explanation that appears to make sense is that the "ruling élite" have voluntarily surrendered power, but, as we all know, that never happens because ruling élites are white male fascist waythitht hegemonic zzzzzzzzzzzzzz so that doen't explain it either.

HL

Italy seems to be the only country in Europe prepared to make a stand.

They are trying to pass a bill to severely curbing the building of new mosques.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73560

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056625/Berlusconis-allies-demand-ban-building-new-mosques-fearing-advent-Eurabia.html

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1056625/Berlusconis-allies-demand-ban-building-new-mosques-fearing-advent-Eurabia.html

Verity

Kim Plumtree - I am sincerely puzzled that you introduced "guilt" into your question.

The left is all about unbridled power over everyone else. They don't feel guilty about a thing.

Kim Plumtree

To Verity: I think guilt is an important component of how the left operates. (Making others feel guilty rather than feeling guilty itself.) For example (at the particular time and place that I was at university), men were sold the idea of "equality" plus accrued decades of past "abuse of power", so "equality" seemed only fair. After all, women only wanted a level playing field, didn't they? And well-meaning undergraduates would never think that anyone would stoop so low as to abuse power, so ideas like "All men are rapists" were taken seriously rather than laughed out of existence on factual or logical grounds.

That's just one example. I'm sure Googling "Gramsci" or "Frankfurt School" may provide others.

So, yes, I do think some people on the left feel guilty for being in the dominant sex/race/gender/class/whatever.

One theme of the right is that the left knows deep down that its arguments don't hold water, so resorts to attack rather than a debate which would risk exposing its lack of intellectual foundation. In a similar way, maybe the left in the UK feels deep-down guilt for slavery, being the fourth richest country in the world and so on, and as a consequence feels that it must endlessly apologise, or even (sub-consciously?) contrive to destroy the country from within. That's what I meant about the "guilt" explanation.

I realise there is a difference between, as you say, not feeling guilty about a thing, and being made to feel guilty by other people, and I'd be delighted if your instinct is correct that guilt is not a factor.

Which gets us back to the original question: why on earth are the people in power destroying what they should be preserving? If they have unbridled power, they're using it to wreck the place but they don't seem to be making money out of it (or not enough to explain the scale and ideological obsessiveness of the destruction), and if they do deal in unbridled power, what on earth are they doing surrendering it to those who would destroy our country? What benefit, personal or financial, do these people get by behaving in such a peculiar way?

HL

This is an interesting question:

“why on earth are the people in power destroying what they should be preserving?”

One of the reasons for this is that it does pay. Look at quangos like the Commission for Racial Equality, the people at the top of that organization are very handsomely paid. For them to stay in business, they must keep on justify their existence. That means they will always find something to gripe about. Pay someone to look for grievance and they'll look for it, even if it's not real.

There are hundreds of organizations like this, whose preservation relies upon having a gripe, having a victimhood mentality. Otherwise they’d be extinct. These turkeys won’t vote for Christmas.

A lot of it is the law of unintended consequences. People bandy about words like “tolerant” and so on. But tolerant of what? Tolerant of intolerance it often seems.

As Freud set out in one of his famous works, it is incredibly easy to control the minds of masses of people and that’s what has happened in Britain.

No other country has been so “tolerant” because no other country would be so stupid.

So what’s different here? I would argue that a lot of it is down to organizations such as the BBC. We are all forced to pay for it and it controls not just much of our news agenda and – crucially – our cultural agenda. Thus it is that we get episodes of Robin Hood in which passages from The Koran are read out.

The point is not just putting up resistance to what is pumped out of the BBC but the fact that it fosters a group think culture.

Whatever you are, journalist, scriptwriter, comedian, if you gainsay the BBC agenda you would be highly unlikely to get much work from one of the most influential broadcasting corporations in the world.

They’ve got fingers in every pie: web, radio, magazines, TV. When they don’t like what they see they just avert their gaze: sweep it under the carpet.

There is more to it than this. A lot of it just comes from misplaced idealism: we can do things better than our elder generation.

Sadly the Pandora’s Box opened by the 1968 generation doesn’t seem to have any hope at the bottom of it, just a roadmap to a Marxian-sponsored Caliphate.

Ronnie

I think HL and Kim Plumtree make some very good points. I am particularly taken by HL's reference to what the BBC has done with Robin Hood. What was that?

Presumably the idea is that, in the interests of a more 'liberal' story line, at the time of the crusades it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that muslims came to Britian. However, why are they introduced to the legend of Robin Hood, fighting on the side of the merry men in Sherwood forest?

Now there is political correctness if ever I saw it and a very obvious attempt to alter our cultural assumptions. Is there a more English legend than Robin Hood? Its just as bad as not being allowed to have black sheep in the nursery rhyme any more.

I also remember that the same thing happened in the Kevin Costner film 'Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves' where Robin brought a friend back from the Holy Land. That was Hollywood of course, not the BBC.

logdon

"Large swathes of Pakistanis and all Somalis should be offered financial inducements to leave, in return for a swab of their DNA and a retinal photograph."

An interesting idea and would they take it up? However recent a development may force the issue. That of the US incursions into Pakistani territory and the retaliatory threats by Pakistan's Defence Minister. If Pakistan does in fact shoot a US helicopter down where does that leave the precarious alliance? And the billions of US taxpayer dollars pumped into the place? Furthermore, joining the dots, if Pakistanis, as reported, are the main front of Taliban operations that means that our soldiers are being attacked and killed by people from that nation, backed by their Government. Is this not a prelude to war? And if it is what to do with the conservative estimate of 2 million ( some Muslim commentators agitating for a take over of Britain including Omar Bakri suggest it is over 5 million). We've seen how the hair trigger reacts to cartoons not even published here, what will they do if any form of hostility commences? So much for untrammeled immigration and the folly of multiculturalism.

Verity

logdon - Would they take it up? They would if they were persuaded it was a good idea.

With respect, your closing sentence bears no relationship to reality: " So much for untrammeled immigration and the folly of multiculturalism."

How many times does it have to be said? It was the deliberate destruction of the familiar society of Britain. Immigrants from the Stone Age are a weapon - a blunt instrument with which to beat the indigenes. People were cowed because they didn't want to look "prejudiced".

Their importation was a calculated assault on our country.

Noel Larsen

Absolutely disgusting. Another western country, with the deaf leading the blind.

America mourns for the loss of England. I for one, shall never return.

Kiwi

There’s an old Arab proverb that states: "Once the camel’s head is inside the tent, the whole body is certain to follow."

Robert Wood, exopat in Ottawa, Canada

Insane.

David Alcock

It has gone too far to stop without some sort of profound social catharsis.

The catechism of post modern doctrine, black good white bad, woman good man bad, Islam good christianity/judaism bad, gay good straight bad etc. has been inculcated into education, the media, policing and social administration (indeed the public sector at large) for nearly 2 decades and is at the root of all PC based problems including multiculturalism, the victim culture and social and moral relativism.

What to do? Leave the country (as I advise my childrento do), which is virtually sunk or fight back: at the ballot box to get rid of labour, it's poisonous feminists and neo marxists, in education to get rid of the educationalists of the same ilk and ensure that educational achievement not failure avoidance is the priority,in policing to ensure that crime prevention and apprehending criminals is the priority not ensuring that PCs are PC, in social policy to ensre that men and fathers have equal rights to women and mothers, ditto whites to blacks and straights to gays, stop the drive to multiculturalism and acceptance of sharia law, introduce 'berufs verbot' type legislation for islamists and members of terrorist affiliated organisations (do we ha any Hizb't Tahrir pilots), eliminate the BBC licence fee to stem the dissemination of its post modern world view, reverse the biggest gerrymander in history and cut the public sector by 25%,etc.

Second thoughts, maybe I should just leave. It's just that there are still some about like Melanie that 'keep buggering on' that give me hope

I was a comitted and life long socialist up to the age of 60.

stephen

David Alcock, you won’t be the first ex-socialist to find its acid burning your stomach out. I’ve been there, too, and so has Peter Hitchens, who admits he fell for the hokum on 68 and all that.

It’s often those who poison themselves who set up the largest warning signs to others about the dangers of socialism.

The BBC’s Robin Hood! I had to sit through that brainwashing muck with my kids. Yes, in the al-Beebzera version of Robin Hood, our hero has returned from the Crusades with a distaste for bloodshed and a working knowledge of The Koran. Wow! Although, funnily enough, he never uttered any of the passages I’ve learned off by heart from The Koran (I hope I don’t need to repeat them here).

The whole BBC Robin Hood series often set about trying to make specious comparisons between the storylines it portrayed and… the War on Terror.

I recall Episode 4 in particular had the Sheriff of Nottingham making a speech with strong War on Terror parallels – he even dropped in references to The Koran.

But then this is hardly a shock given what they were allowed to get away with in Spooks. I’m surprised Israeli Mossad agents didn’t turn up in Sherwood Forest disguised as Muslims complete with suicide missions – perhaps that’ll be in the next series.

Yesterday, I notice things just got worse.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056794/Take-responsibility-lives-abandon-victim-mentality-Asian-Labour-MP-tells-Muslims.html

Sadiq Khan has released a sleight of hand pamphlet via The Fabian Society.

It has some sensible ideas in it, but then – sneaky, sneaky – comes this:

“Other controversial proposals included increased 'support' from Government for larger families.”

Now which type of person might be predisposed to have a large family? Someone who doesn’t work and so has time to have a large family? And so who being unemployed and getting jobseekers and buckets of child tax credit and child benefit already benefits considerably from raiding hard-working taxpayers? Might a large proportion of that type of person be… Muslim?

He pretends to be writing about large families when we know, of course, that he is talking about Muslim families because the idea appears in a pamphlet whose title specifically concerns itself with Muslims, and what an Orwellian title it is too: “Fairness not Favours: How to reconnect with British Muslims”.

This man is a minister and yet no fellow ministers speak out. The only inference can be that the Labour government tacitly endorses these ideas and if it doesn’t effect them it’s only because it fears it will haemorrhage even more votes than it already will at the next election for making ordinary people become second class to Muslims.

WhoCares

Know we have divided
In three our kingdom: and 'tis our fast intent
To shake all cares and business from our age...

King Lear Act I. Scene I.

Anton

At the very least, there should have been a referendum on this. More importantly, this should never have been on the table for discussion. Why should one religion or ideology trump any other? There can be no cohesion in a pluralistic society otherwise. Strictly secular government and British law for ALL should prevail.
Democracy should never be taken for granted!