Saturday, January 16, 2010

There’s nothing British about banning the burqa

The UK Independence Party have called for a ban on burqas and niqabs – the Darth-Vader-like cloaks which some Muslims believe are ordained by Allah to cover women from head to toe because no part of their body may ever be seen by male eyes, other than those of their husbands, sons or dog.

UKIP declare that a mask which conceals most of the face is an affront British values.

It is difficult to know what UKIP are playing at with this announcement, for it is the most colossal distraction from their core raison d’être, which is to secure withdrawal from the ratchet claws of the European Union. One would think that advocating any other policy which may be a cause of division in their fragile ranks of coalition might be a sure path to self-destruction: UKIP have no divisive health policy, no divisive education policy and no divisive defence, transport, welfare or taxation policies: they simply wish for legislation on such matters to be made by a parliament made up of the directly-elected representatives of a sovereign people.

That is democracy. That is freedom.

And yet Lord Pearson evokes the call to freedom in his desire to ban burqas.

It has echoes of Geert Wilders’ notion of liberty, which begins with the banning of books.

Or of one book in particular.

There is no doubt that ‘everything Muslim’ is hot press across the length and breadth of European Christendom, but Islamism and Islamophobia have got nothing on Islamomania.

And Islamomania is what is driving the sorts of illiberal knee-jerk demands of Geert Wilders and Lord Pearson.

If this is an attempt to broaden UKIP’s appeal and address the concerns of disaffected white working-class voters (as The Times avers), UKIP will need to explain why they are pursuing a more ‘racist’ (actually religio-culturalist) policy than the BNP, for not even they have called for a total ban on burqas.

The BNP have said that such garments should be banned from schools. But no right-minded educator of any religion or none believes that the teaching and learning transaction would not be significantly impeded in a classroom populated by indistinguishable black cloaks.

Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman for the Muslim Council for Britain, told The Times: “UKIP is supposed to be proud of Britain’s traditions and values, which include freedom of speech, association and religion. The overwhelming majority of women who wear the burka do so out of a sense of religious duty. It is their interpretation of their religion. UKIP have no right to overrule that. It is nobody else’s business.”

And Cranmer agrees.

It is not a burqa which is incompatible with Britain’s values of freedom and democracy, but the banning thereof. Unlike French laïcité, the United Kingdom has no tradition of the imposition of a hard Enlightenment-secularism. We have instead three centuries of progressive freedom of religion, and it was hard-won.

The proper operation of democracy begins with the people, and the collective is constituted of individuals, and these individuals must be free think, free to speak, free to associate and free to wear what they wish to wear within the limits of public decency.

If one wishes to ban the garments of those who wish to cover their faces for religious reasons, one will also need to ban the ghost costume worm by thousands of children at Hallowe’en.

In a free society, one must be at liberty to choose not to conform.

The liberty to conform only to the dress code and outward expression of religion as determined and defined by UKIP is no freedom at all: it is intolerance, oppression and tyranny; it is everything that UKIP professes to abhor about the EU.


Blogger Scott said...

I'm a UKIP supporter, and I disagree with banning the burqa. The thought that the government has the right to tell anyone what to wear is abhorrent.

But then I live in leafy Sussex. If I lived in Burnley, Bradford or Blackburn I might feel differently.

16 January 2010 at 16:39  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

UKIP are getting more and more with it as things go on, Brilliant!

You got to this one before me. Cheers!

16 January 2010 at 16:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How many burqa wearers anywhere, including the UK, have any freedom of choice at all about wearing this garment? I suppose very few. It is a blatant piece of oppression which has no place in a free society.

16 January 2010 at 16:42  
OpenID Michael said...

'If this is an attempt to broaden UKIP’s appeal and address the concerns of disaffected white working-class voters, UKIP will need to explain why they are pursuing a more ‘racist’ (actually religio-culturalist) policy than the BNP, for not even they have called for a total ban on burkas.'

It really irks me the way that anything considered a little beyond the pale, or a little crude, or a little racist must always be deemed a ploy to try and gain the 'white working class'. The Times were also at it today, implying that such policies must of course be for the WWC, because who else could it possibly be for?

Not only is this view wholly conceited, not to mention a little hypocritical, it's also instructive of a wider prejudice; the way society has found a convenient group of people whom it is quite happy to patronise or demonise, whichever has the most political capital at the time.

I blogged on this today -

16 January 2010 at 16:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course we have a tradtition of banning things. Every government has banned something or others. They just can't help themselves. What a ridiculous statement.

If only we could religious schools, as well. There is nothing worse than dividing children up according to their parents outdated supersitions.

16 January 2010 at 16:47  
Blogger OldSouth said...

As always, right on point, and very well said. In the unlikely event that the burka were banned, how would one propose actually enforcing that measure? The wearing of the burka could become then a symbol of political resistance, complete with show trials, 'burka police', etc. Rather like Saudi Arabia--that seems attractive!

I have long held that the recent rise in the public fortunes of Islam within the regions of Christendom have much to do with the abandonment of Christianity within those nations. The retreat from faith left a vacuum, one which could not be filled by 'reason' or materialism. The human soul is not constructed that way. The door was left wide open for Islam, and the Eastern religions, and any number of strange hybrids of faith; a veritable 'gumbo' of belief has replaced the Christian faith of Christendom.

Muggeridge, in his brilliant little book 'The End of Christendom', predicted this over thirty years ago. I treat myself to a re-reading of his words every couple of years, just as a reminder.

It will be as Christians quietly reassert Christianity in the culture that the present quandry will ease. Not by marches, electoral crusades, bans of clothing, etc., but by the quiet work of worship, teaching, family life and service to others. The void is still there, the Christ-shaped hole, gaping in western culture.

16 January 2010 at 16:52  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Quite right, Cranny. If people want to wear burqas they should be free to do so. If they want to cast them off, they should be equally free.

What would be the difference between banning people from wearing a particular garment and compelling people to wear one? In one case it may be burqas, and in another Mao suits.

And congratulations on continuing (unlike the Times) to avoid the linguistic idiocy of calling these things the burqa.

Take care, UKIP, or I shall have nobody left to vote for.

They'll be wanting to ban Batman and the Lone Ranger next.

16 January 2010 at 16:59  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

A free society should allow freedom of religion, the practice of which may involve a dress code. There are several coverings employed by Muslim women but to many westerners the niqab appears oppressive and the burka threatening. Burkaphobia is rampant. To quote one lady sufferer on another blog recently “I find them offensive and frightening” and well she might since women have the most to lose from Islamification, the bitterest of all the fruits of multiculturalism.

The niquab/burka could be used as camouflage by suicide bombers. An alaming security loophole in my view. The niquab/burka represents the subjugation of women. It is a symbol of male domination and the proof of gender apartheid. Foreign inspired Muslim clerics have been actively promoting female inferiority and discrimination. Muslims in the West have been subject to virulent indoctrination that has no Koranic foundation. It is propagated by factions, including the hardline Wahhabi-Ikwani-Salafi-Deobandi sects. These misogynist groups are on the ascendancy peddling the draconian dress code of full body covering and face concealment for women as a religious requirement. The mullahs fail to say that nowhere in the Koran is there any mention of the word niqab or burka and other than calling for public modesty of both sexes, Islam’s sacred scripture does not prescribe any specific sartorial code.

Some Muslim women may choose extreme coverings out of religious or cultural choice but there is also a militant Muslim sisterhood on the loose in the UK who doubtless find concealment to their advantage.

The Luton Islamists who insulted British soldiers based their defence on “freedom of speech” but immediately after their conviction and outside the court had the effrontery to launch into another inflammatory rant and unfurl a banner saying “Freedom can go to hell”. (They are as inconsistent as they are bonkers.) More importantly the banner also headlined with the slogan “Islam will dominate the world”. Like it or not we are at war with fascistic sects of Islam and in a struggle to retain our freedom.

The composition of the electorate in the UK has radically changed. Democracy has evolved into a wolf, a crocodile, and a sheep deciding who to have for dinner, and even the wolf is now anxiously looking over his shoulder. The call for a ban on the niqab/burka may be intolerant but it resonates well with those appalled by the spread and militancy of Islam and the implications of Sharia law.

16 January 2010 at 17:04  
Anonymous not a machine said...

All very stabbing with the cloak and hiding behind the dagger ,if you ask me your grace .

(borrowed from Ken Clark on this weeks question time)

16 January 2010 at 17:10  
Blogger Bigland said...

Wilders' comment about banning the Koran was one of consistency; he argued that, since the Koran incited violence, and since Dutch law forbids the distribution of books that incite violence (such as Mein Kampf), under Dutch law the Koran should be banned.

16 January 2010 at 17:20  
Anonymous perplexima said...

If a muslim woman can wear a burqua
and niqab through a customs check at an airport and in a bank then it is my right to also wear the costume (featured photo in this post)which is similar to the burqua
and niqab through a customs check at an airport and in a bank without
consequence or detainment.If I can't..then they can't either!

16 January 2010 at 17:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A motor bicylist is often made to remove his helmet before entering a petrol station, lest he be up to no good. He is clearly less than equal in this regard to a burqa-clad Muslim woman. Isn't there a law against going masked in public? Could one of Your Grace's learned communicants advise?

16 January 2010 at 18:05  
Anonymous graham wood said...

YG a good comment. Why UKIP should propose such a mad illiberal policy at this stage in the electoral calendar is baffling.
I am amazed that they should so lightly cast aside the priority of their raison d'etre, namely to get us out of the EU.
This must be a distraction which they could well do without.
It is not as if they do not have ample campaigning issues to raise concerning the EU hegemony over us.
Why not, for example challenge all three main EU parties to support a full cost benefit analysis of our EU membership - and ask them why all EU regulation should cost every man woman and child in the UK £2000 pa ?

16 January 2010 at 18:21  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

It is one thing to insist that a woman reveals her face at certain times - in the classroom, or in a bank - but another to ban the garment altogether. And how would the law be enforced? The scandal caused by dragging offenders off the street would outweigh the offence itself.

16 January 2010 at 18:24  
Blogger John R said...

Unless I'm free to go about my daily business routinely wearing a terrorist-style balaclava with only two holes for my eyes and be unhindered by the police then how can any other UK citizen be allowed to hide their face?

If it turns out that in the name of equality I can behave like this (unlikely I know as equality only applies to minorities in the UK) then what's the point of CCTV, ID cards, passports, driving licenses etc etc?

16 January 2010 at 18:30  
Anonymous Zach Johnstone said...

Your Grace,

A brilliant piece. There seems to be a deep, ideological deficiency within UKIP if this proposal is to be seen as representative of their new direction under Pearson.

One thing I would ask you, though, is if you denounce the notion of banning burqas outright but see the virtue of doing so within educational establishments (a position I largely agree with), where do we draw the line? Surely, then, there is a case for a ban amongst health care professionals, or even politicians?

It's just something I'm interested to know, because it seems that there is no definite, logical end to such limitations on expression.

16 January 2010 at 18:49  
Blogger Robert said...

In my small town if you wear a hat or if you wear a hood say from a coat or duffle coat your asked to remove it, the idea is to allow CCTV to see your face, but Muslim women are allowed on the grounds they are religious and hence would not steal.

If thats not against some law I do not know what is.

The idea that people not wearing these clothes are not religious enough takes some beliving

16 January 2010 at 19:06  
Blogger Benjamin Gray said...

How does one go about advancing the rights of women by criminalising those women who wear burqas? Could someone please explain this glaring gap in the logic?

Meanwhile, if we're so worried about the supposed security risk burqas present, I trust UKIP will be following this policy announcement with its plans to ban long or heavy coats.

16 January 2010 at 19:16  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Archbishop Cranmer said...
Mr DDim 'n HOFFI,

Your question is becoming tedious, so His Grace will address it.

David Cameron may or may not 'turn all of this around', and if he does attempt to it may be a turning on a par with that of the Titanic. In a democracy it is incumbent upon Christians to vote for the lesser evil. And the lesser evil is still evil. But it is lesser. There will be no New Jerusalem: there will be no perfection or the attainment of utopia. But Conservatism, even the Cameronian genre, is a world away from the oppression of Socialism. And so His Grace longs for the day that Mr Cameron enters No10.

16 January 2010 at 19:47  
Blogger Gnostic said...

This is a mistake. I don't believe burkas should be used as an electoral platform. Lord Pearson should stick to UKIP's core appeal; taking the UK out of the EU, kicking AGW into the long grass, addressing the major problem we have with uncontrolled immigration. Tackle these problems and the economy will see the wasted billions flowing back into itself rather than elsewhere.

Can ANY politician be trusted to get something right?


16 January 2010 at 20:03  
Anonymous len said...

In these times of international terrorism I think it strange that a group of people should be allowed to conceal their identities.
I believe at least one male muslim has evaded detection posing as a woman.

16 January 2010 at 20:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mien camp is banned there, Greet Wilders said the koran should be treated the same. My opinon no books should be banned but if your going to ban Mien kampf you may aswell ban the koran aswell, both are vile.

As for banning the burka they shouldn't. What they should do is make it against the law to go around with your face covered.
There have been several robberies using the burka, also several terrorists using it aswell to escape.


16 January 2010 at 20:46  
Blogger Zach Johnstone said...


Define concealing identity. What of growing a beard? Wearing a scarf over one's face to shield from the cold? What you mean is that this is the perfect time to infringe upon the rights of a religion, capitalising upon the hysteria of the media and many in the public to do so.

16 January 2010 at 21:01  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Your Grace, a proposed ban on of burkas merely brings the UK into policy alignment with other members of the EU such as the French. Ironic that UKIP should seek such homogenity.

It does seem that there is nothing in the Koran to demand the wearing of burkas, or niqabs for that matter. It is therefore possible to argue that banning burkas is not a form of religious discrimination. Accordingly the onus is on those Islamo-fascists who demand that their women dress in black tents to explain why.

They never have and they never will.

Remember too Your Grace that these people do not practice free speech, nor do they believe in freedom of religion. Apostates are killed, but not necessarily burnt at the stake, Your Grace. And yet they demand all the benefits of British or Western democracy.

For how long should your communicants tolerate this hypocrisy by a discreet group of settlers who openly seek our demise?

16 January 2010 at 21:13  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

OH! Your Grace has had one too many glasses of Shiraz in very liberal company no doubt and it has turned him rather yellow.

All this liberal thinking allowing the burkha is tantamount to saying yes to Islam and all that it entails. Your Grace will soon be condoning sharia law next!

We have to have a bottom line somewhere to preserve the core religion of the country Christianity. I would do as the French and fine those who wear it. A fixed penalty fine of £1000 for a first offence and £2000 for each subsequent offence thereafter, I wouldn’t criminalise it yet. Or tax them call it Burkha Tax ?

They already have freedom of speech and spout their hatred of us and our religion. They have freedom of religion as they have swamped the country with mosques, so the line has to be drawn we are a civilised society and it is very uncivilised to have the face covered like a bank robber in society unless one is attending a fancy dress party. One cannot compare wearing the burkha with the one evening some children dress up as a ghost for trick or treat fun.

So I’m with UKIP on this one too. All these concessions just serve to bolster and support those that hate us. If they were anything they would adopt our western dress style.

16 January 2010 at 21:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your grace I always read and enjoy the blog and comments. But today I feel I have to say something. The idea that because it is out of religious duty, the state should not intervene is nonsense.

How about the the Hindu practice of suttee (live wife joins dead husband on his funeral pyre). The wife died on the fire out of a similar religious duty.

Thank god when the British Empire abolished this barbaric practice, there were no liberal do gooders to argue it was the wife's right to choose.

With the burqua there is a lot of pressure on these women to conform. It is impossible to know if they are wearing it out of religious conviction or because their husband beats them till they agree, it is not like it would be possible to see any bruises.

16 January 2010 at 21:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>And Cranmer agrees.

Then Cranmer is an idiot.

16 January 2010 at 22:18  
Anonymous Mark Blades said...

Cranmer, you may be right to criticize UKIP's stance, but I wish you'd be as quick to criticize Cameron's pro- homosexual marriage statements, as one example. His pro AGW 'green' policy could do with some deconstruction as well.
Also, it's all very well preaching these noble sentiments about freedom of speech, but you, yourself, don't fully support these ideals. I remember, before Christmas, criticizing your piece about the Christmas cards of the politicians and you immediately wrote back telling me, if I didn't like the piece I should go elsewhere. Your tone was most intolerant and you demonstrate a remarkably thin skin for a political blogger.
So, can you imagine what it must be like, then, to be a parent of a serving soldier in Afghanistan and to have to listen to some Muslim exercising his 'democratic right to freedom of speech' by calling for British soldiers to be beheaded?
UKIP might be wrong about banning burquas, but at least it is taking up the challenge of Islam in some way.

16 January 2010 at 23:13  
Anonymous Phuquit said...

Your Grace.

The following words, within your text are of the utmost significance:

"Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman for the Muslim Council for Britain, told The Times: “UKIP is supposed to be proud of Britain’s traditions and values, which include freedom of speech, association and religion. The overwhelming majority of women who wear the burka do so out of a sense of religious duty. It is their INTERPRETATION of their religion." My caps.

These unfortunates by their actions, now enter the realms of apostasy. They should be aware that the Q'uran is not for interpretation, dissemination or alteration.

There is nought in the Q'uran that says that a bag must be worn over the head. It merely states that ladies should dress modestly and cover their hair.

The Burkha is simply a man-made cultural imposition to ensure their domination of their womenfolk.

16 January 2010 at 23:30  
Blogger Young Mr. Brown said...

"Take care, UKIP, or I shall have nobody left to vote for."

Well said, Anabaptist!

And most depressing, since until recently, UKIP was touting itself as a rather libertarian party, and making a lot of noises about freedom.

Now they seem to be on the verge of adopting one of the least libertarian policies to be advocated by a major British political party since, . . . well, since Nick Clegg advocated that faith schools should be forced to teach that homosexuality is normal and harmless.

It seems to me that LPUK is the only the island of political sanity in a mad country.

16 January 2010 at 23:35  
Anonymous dave s said...

Western Society has always conducted it's affairs face to face. If those who choose to come here wish to cover their faces then let them do so. It will only ensure their isolation from society. Quite literally they become invisible. We , in a real sense, will no longer see them.
It will reinforce the ghettoisation of the country.
If this is what the Muslim community wants- fine.
There are many non Muslims who would much rather have the Muslim community isolated and clearly differentiated rather than try to build a cohesive society.

16 January 2010 at 23:51  
Anonymous joe said...

Your Grace

Two comments:

(i) Mr Wilders I believe was making the point that if Mien Kampf was banned under Dutch law because of it's hate content the koran fell within the same law and logically should be banned as well - consistent treatment.

(ii) Your grace has in the past recognised that islam is more than a religion it is a political- ideological construct akin to communisim ofr facism. Since in this country the wearing of political uniforms is banned then likewise the wearing of the uniform of islam be it the burqa or the male equivalent ("hate beard" and NW frontier garb)should be regarded as political uniform and subject to the same sanction.

17 January 2010 at 00:19  
Anonymous len said...

Zach Johnstone.
Try walking through customs with a scarf over your face.
Or try growing a beard and do the same,
Incidentaly if you cannot recognize someone because they have grown a beard your perception cannot be very good, its never fooled me!

17 January 2010 at 01:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If is OK for a burka because it is their custome why is not right for them to conform to our customs?

It is the culture of the British (and most other western nations) to decide on the credibility of a speaker by watchin the facial expression. Minute changes of expression can help us choose to believe or disbelieve a person.

Which is why we say we don't trust someone because they won't look us in the eye!

If you don't, won't or choose not to then I will not trust you. Actually I wouldn't anyway - I was in Aden during troubled times with the military and I know from experience how many men attempted to evade the police and the MPs by adopting the female covering.

By all meand do not ban it, but adopt the policy we did, If you wear it and you choose not to uncover your face and head then there are places you will not be allowed to enter - banks, trains, buses, airports, public places etc .. all in the interest of security you understand which pre-empts any claim of religios right.

Have to remain anon as i am still engaged in similiar work.

17 January 2010 at 03:53  
Anonymous non mouse said...

As long as the people who wear these things are able to use them as terrorist props, then I agree that the potential 'disguise' - weapon - should be forbidden.
If the wearers are reasonable, peaceable, and care about the stability of the realm, then they will be prepared to prove their goodwill.

In fact I personally have nothing against their fancy dress: I quite envy their convention for wearing it. I would have adopted it long ago, except that my own kind would call me mad to do so!!

I have, indeed, a strong aversion to our obsession with appearance, and all the judgement, harrassment, and expenditure that results from it. After years of putting up with personal remarks, I eventually decided always to wear long skirts, and keep everything else as sacklike as possible. At which point, bless my soul if they didn't start muttering that I was hiding some disease on the legs they'd always appraised!! I'm not - and I wish most of them had never even seen my face (and it's normal enough- the usual skin and bone stuff!)

17 January 2010 at 10:09  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

17 January 2010 at 10:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is difficult to know what UKIP are playing at with this announcement.

Not it isn’t. UKIP is an establishment party set up to siphon votes away from the British National Party. There's a general election on the way and we wouldn't want to see a BNP MP in the House of Commons would we now.

17 January 2010 at 11:43  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

No it isn’t. UKIP is an establishment party set up to siphon votes away from the British National Party. There's a general election on the way and we wouldn't want to see a BNP MP in the House of Commons would we now.

Dear anon, you miss the point very badly indeed.

The BNP are unfortunately also an establishment subverted Party. The whole point of The UKIP, and The BNP is to dilute right thinking people in general into the political wilderness.

All right thinking people should join The Conservative Party, and work from within to change it back to what it once partially was. Which was the mouthpiece of the ordinary people working against establishment invented, run, and lead CORPORATE SOCIALISM. ( The last possible thing they should do is join a corporate socialist party, namely The BNP.)

This will not happen, and shows no sign of happening, which is why the establishment have now felt confident enough to have given us Eton educated David Cameron to finally finish off this country. Along with all that our establishment conned us into believing it stood for.

We are divided, so that our very own establishment can carry on ruling over us. This is indeed all that democracy was every really about. With the added advantage of making us all feel some how personally responsible for the profoundly evil, or just plane incredibly stupid things this country has historically got up to. It is now, and has mainly always been an establishment run con job, since democracy was first invented. If the above had indeed not been the case, we would not ever have been allowed any say whatsoever in our own affairs in the first place.

It is ONLY constitutional government, backed up by periodic elections, that can possibly hope to protect the interests of the common people, of this or any other part of the world. Which is why the USA in particular is in more imminent danger then anywhere else right now, of being permanently bankrupted, and wholly divided out of useful existence.

Many have said, and have evidence to back it up that NG is an MI trained agent, very much from the same school as Tony Blair and David Cameron. I can not possibly know whether this is true or not, but it would not surprise me in the slightest if it were.

17 January 2010 at 12:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In my opinion the wearing of the burqua by articulate, well-educated, yet fanatical young Muslim women is a deliberate act designed to show their utter rejection of what they perceive as decandent Western society (a demonstration of apartheid, if you will).

There have been several high profile cases where such women have sought to use the equality and diversity legislation so short-sightedly brought in by their useful idiots in NuLabour to claim special treatment, taking full advantage of the moral paralysis of British Public Institutions induced by their terror of any accusation of "institutional racism".

As such I view the wearing of such clothing as a very in-my-face challenge - a deliberate act of provocation.

Alfred of Wessex

17 January 2010 at 12:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's next? The liberty and freedom to stone people to death?

17 January 2010 at 12:43  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Anonymous said...

>>And Cranmer agrees.

Then Cranmer is an idiot.

My word, Anon, that's a powerful argument!

17 January 2010 at 15:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can we all walk around then with masks on covering our identity, ill remember that next time i go to the bank. im voting ukip,

17 January 2010 at 17:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wearing the burka in public should become as socially unacceptable as wearing Klu Klux Klan robes.

18 January 2010 at 12:13  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Your Grace, I am most disappointed. Geert Wilders does NOT advocate banning books. He has said quite clearly and unambiguously what his position is: namely, that if Mein Kampf is on a banned list then so should the Koran for the same reasons.

18 January 2010 at 13:27  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Got to agree with Cranmer some of the way on this one.

It is certainly their right should they choose to wear a burqa, but it should also be the right of establishments like banks to refuse them entry, it should be the right of airlines to refuse them travel should they not choose to observe the same rules all other members of society have to.

It is all very well and good having religious freedoms, but when these freedoms grant you freedom from having to observe common sense rules which are applied to the rest of society then a problem begins to show itself.

So yes, let people wear what they choose, just make them aware of the rights of other people to refuse them patronage and make them aware that they cannot sue on the grounds of religious discrimination.

18 January 2010 at 13:31  
Blogger Wyrdtimes said...

UKIP doing themselves no favours here.

The Burqa should be banned in certain situations: in banks, at airports, when teaching, when driving etc. Any time facial recognition is required or people need a full field of vision to operate safely.

Apart from that what people wear should have nothing to do with the government whatsoever.

Sharia (and Jewish) courts however are a different thing entirely. They should be found and shut down ASAP.

In England there should be one law - English law.

18 January 2010 at 14:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In public buildings and zones, such as schools, post offices, shops, banks, airports, railway stations,hospitals, it should be mandatory to keep your full face uncovered. So not only burkas but also motor cycle helmet/visors should be banned. In private zones it should be the prerogative of the owner or operator of the zone.
We have built up a civil society which is predicated upon us being identifiable in the public domain. And a justice system which is heavily predicated upon eye witness evidence to gain convictions for crimes.
Therefore we should all be identifiable when we enter such places.


18 January 2010 at 15:00  
Blogger peachperry said...

1st PAGE.

Christian Wedlock.

Can a woman have more than two husbands?

No, a woman cannot have more than two living husbands. A man has no choice, as he must be in wedlock with one wife. But a woman has three choices. Firstly, no wedlock with a husband. Secondly, wedlock with one husband. Or thirdly, wedlock with two husbands. That’s it, there are no further choices for a woman, and there is no choice at all for a man.

1 Corinthians 7:2 King James 1611.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Yr. 1783. 10th George Prince of Wales Own Hussars. (King George III).
Yr. 1898. 19th Alexandra Princess of Wales Own Hussars. (Queen Victoria).

Therefore two women can own a regiment of cavalry, and two men can own a regiment of cavalry.

1 Corinthians 6:16 King James 1611.
What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Therefore in the New Testament a man and woman lying together are one flesh, as follows:

A husband and wife who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A man and courtesan/prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A man and common courtesan or common prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

An adulterer and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

An adulterer and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A fornicator and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A fornicator and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

Clearly the New Testament lays down that a man must be in wedlock with his own wife, and a woman must be in wedlock with her own husband. Furthermore the New Testament specifically limits the number of wives that a man can have to only one, but sets no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have. But there must be some limit for a woman, or one woman could be in wedlock with thousands of men. Rationally, if one woman can satisfy the bodily lust of one man every day, and forty men can satisfy the bodily lust of one woman every day, then is one wife for every man and forty husbands for every woman what the New Testament requires? No, because the New Testament is a document of truth, not a document of reason.

18 January 2010 at 16:00  
Blogger peachperry said...

2nd PAGE.

Luke 1:28 King James 1611.
Luke 1:31 King James 1611.
Luke 1:28-35 King James 1611.
In the New Testament, the angel Gabriel came in unto Mary, a virgin woman, and Mary conceived and delivered her firstborn son, Jesus, the son being God the Son, the father being God the Father. And when Mary’s womb delivered her firstborn son Jesus unto the world, then Mary was like all women delivered of a firstborn son unto the world, as a woman’s firstborn son can never belong to the mother but must belong to the Lord God.

Luke 2:23 King James 1611.
Exodus 13:2&12 King James 1611.
And so like all women delivered of a firstborn son, Mary was no longer a virgin woman, but like all said women, Mary was a holy woman.

Matthew 13:53-56 King James 1611.
Mark 6:1-4 King James 1611.
And husband Joseph Jacob came in unto Mary and husband Joseph Heli came in unto Mary, and Mary conceived and delivered Jesus’ brothers, James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and also Jesus’ sisters.

Matthew 1:6&16 King James 1611.
Luke 3:23&31 King James 1611.
Joseph Jacob was the descendent of King David’s son Solomon, and Joseph Heli was the descendent of King David’s son Nathan.

Genesis 38:16-18 King James 1611.
“Came in unto her” means congress or carnal copulation. In the Old Testament, Judah came in unto Tamar, his daughter-in-law, and Tamar conceived and delivered twin sons. Tamar had lain in wait for Judah on the side of a far away road, and Judah had been unable to recognize Tamar because she was wearing a veil, and only common harlots wore veils. Upon first seeing this strange woman wearing a veil, Judah bargained a payment of his personal signet ring, his personal wrist bangles, and his personal walking staff, for coming in unto her. Tamar had been in wedlock with Judah’s first son, who God had killed for being wicked. Tamar had then been in wedlock with Judah’s second son, who God had then killed when he saw the second son deliberately spill his seed on the ground during carnal copulation with Tamar. Judah then pledged Tamar that she could marry his third son when he became old enough for wedlock. But when his third son became old enough to marry, Judah broke his pledge and forbade his third son to marry Tamar. When Tamar was seen in her third month to be heavy with child, Judah was told that Tamar was with child through harlotry. Judah then summoned Tamar to him in order to be burnt to death for harlotry. Tamar came and Judah demanded that Tamar tell him by which man she was with child. Tamar then produced the signet ring, the wrist bangles, and the walking staff, and said the man who gave me these is the man by whom I am with child. Then Judah confessed to all that he had broken his pledge and sinned by going back on his word that Tamar could have wedlock with his third son when his third son became of age, and then denying such wedlock to her. Six months later Tamar safely gave birth to the twin sons conceived with Judah.

18 January 2010 at 16:00  
Blogger peachperry said...

3rd PAGE.

Genesis 1:27-28 King James 1611.
Genesis 2:7&18-19 King James 1611.
Genesis 3:20 King James 1611.
The first man and first woman in this world were Adam and Eve. Adam means “man” in the hebrew tongue, and Eve means “life” in the hebrew tongue. Therefore a man is man, but a woman is life.

Romans 7:4-6 King James 1611.
Old Testament law dead and gives as an example that a woman can have more than one husband.

1 Timothy 3:2 King James 1611.
A bishop can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

1 Timothy 3:12 King James 1611.
A deacon can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

Titus 1:6 King James 1611.
An elder can have only one wife.

1 Timothy 5:4&9 King James 1611.
Elders are not to provide for widows under three score years of age without children, who have only had one husband.

The Estate of Marriage. Martin Luther 1522.
Although Martin Luther confirmed that a woman could have two husbands, he nevertheless immediately restricted it to women who were in a marriage which had produced no children and who had then obtained permission from their first husband to take their second husband. Confusingly, Martin Luther did not make it clear as to how long a woman had to wait before taking her second husband.

To sum up, the New Testament upholds the example of deacons, elders, and bishops, for men to follow. That example is one wife. The New Testament also lays down that the Old Testament no longer applies to men or women, except for the 10 Commandments, and gives as an example of this that a woman is no longer bound to have only one husband. If men must follow the example of the male Christian leader, whether bishop, deacon, or elder, then surely women must follow the example of the female Christian leader. What leader is that? The primary one in the New Testament is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the Son.

Luke 1:35&41 King James 1611.
Mary had carnal copulation with three men. The Angel Gabriel, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. However, Mary was only in wedlock with two men, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. Furthermore, the Angel Gabriel was not a man of this world, and he seems not to have taken a fully visible male form when he had carnal copulation with Mary as ordered by God the Father, for it appears that at some stage God the Holy Ghost came upon or entered Mary. Either this was at the moment Mary conceived or immediately afterwards. After Mary conceived, she immediately went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was six months with child, a son, who also had been conceived when Elisabeth had been filled by God the Holy Ghost.

18 January 2010 at 16:01  
Blogger peachperry said...

4th PAGE.

Accordingly it would be fully in accordance with the New Testament for a man to have one wife, and a woman to have two husbands. That the Angel Gabriel had carnal copulation with Mary is both interesting and theologically necessary, but it is not enough of an example for a woman to attempt to take a third husband in wedlock, whilst her first and second husbands still liveth.

Matthew 19:11-12 King James 1611.
The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman. Although do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was not in wedlock with any woman.

But the New Testament gives a woman three choices.

1st Choice:
Virgin woman without wedlock.

2nd Choice:
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock without child.
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock with female child or female children.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

3rd Choice:
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

A number of denominations have a service for wedlock, but so far every one of them has inserted words that clearly say a woman may be in wedlock with only one man at a time. Even the State Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden states this, despite Martin Luther himself saying that a wife can be in wedlock with two living husbands.

But what do you expect. After all, Martin Luther stated in writing that under no circumstances was anyone to call himself a “Lutheran” and under no circumstances was any church to call itself a “Lutheran Church”. So what do all northern europeans called themselves? Lutherans! Ask them what church they belong to? The Lutheran Church!

A number of denominations do not have any service for wedlock, on the grounds that wedlock is not a church matter, as it is a state matter. But every such denomination has nevertheless inserted words in that denomination’s discussion of wedlock, that firmly says that a woman can only have one husband in wedlock at a time.

Nowhere do any of the denominations give any explanation for their defiance of the New Testament. Of course that just might be because there is neither any justifiable explanation or excusable explanation for such defiance.

18 January 2010 at 16:02  
Blogger peachperry said...

5th PAGE.

Still, just looking at using only the principle of choice as a guide, all the above denominations are pointing in the right direction, even if they are not pointing down the correct path.

That is, a man has no choice, he must make efforts to be in wedlock with one wife at some stage of his life here in this world.

And a woman still has a choice, in that she may choose not to be in wedlock with a man in this world, or she may choose to be in wedlock with one husband at some stage of her life here in this world. This means that the principle of a woman having a choice remains intact.

The defiance of both the Lord God and the New Testament by the various denominations by the removal of a woman’s option to make efforts to be in wedlock with two husbands at the same time at some stage of her life in this world, still leaves intact the principle of choice for the woman and no choice for the man.

Constitution of The Spartans (Xenophon). 388 B.C.
League of The Iroquois (Lewis Henry Morgan). 1851 A.D.
Only two non-christian groups in the world have been known to practice New Testament wedlock. The Spartans and the Mohawk.

Only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Spartans, citizens of the greatest of the greek city-states, Sparta, and history’s final saviours of Western Civilization at Thermopylae (The Hot Gates) in 480 B.C.

And only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Mohawk, citizens of the greatest of the eastern woodland North American tribes, which forever blocked France’s attempt to seize New York so as to split England’s colonies in twain.

Much criticism of both the Spartans and the Mohawk, has been leveled by outsiders who complain of the extreme freedom of the females and the extreme militarism of the males. It must be noted that there is no record of any Spartan male, Spartan female, Mohawk male, or Mohawk female, complaining of female freedom or male militarism.

Whatever your point of view on Spartan life or Mohawk life, the New Testament lays down cast-iron guidelines for wedlock. The fact that the New Testament complies with Spartan law and Mohawk law is irrelevant.

Of absolutely no relevance to this discussion, the symbol of the United States of America is the bald headed eagle, which is a species that uses both monandry and diandry for conception, and where the one male or two males reside in the exactly the same nest as the one female. The one female and either the one male or two males, stay in the nest together and raise the chick together.

Mark 10:7 King James 1611.
Ephesians 5:31 King James 1611.
Both husbands must leave their families to go and become a member of the wife’s family, or the one husband must leave his family to go and become a member of the wife’s family.


18 January 2010 at 16:02  
Blogger peachperry said...

6th PAGE.


1st. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall by direct, exprest, impious, or presumptuous ways, deny the true God and his Attributes; he shall be put to death.

2nd. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall maliciously and on purpose deny that any Mohawk person may have arms for his defence suitable to his condition and as allowed by law; he shall be put to death.

3rd. If any person shall commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter, committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a man’s necessary or just defence, nor by mere casualty against his will; he shall be put to death.

4th. If any person shall slay, or cause another to be slain by guile or by poisoning or any such wicked conspiracy; he shall be put to death.

5th. If any man or woman shall lye with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation; they shall be put to death, and the beast shall be burned.

6th. If any man lyeth with a man or mankind as he lyeth with a woman; they shall be put to death, unless the one party were forced or under fourteen years of age, in which case he shall not be punished.

7th. If any man forcibly stealth or carrieth away any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

8th. If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away any person’s life; he shall be put to death.

9th. If any man shall traitorously deny his Clanmother’s right and titles to her Eagle Feathers and Dominions, or shall raise arms to resist her Authority; he shall be put to death.

10th. If any man shall treacherously conspire or publiquely attempt, to invade or surprise any town or towns, fort or forts, within this Government of the Mohawk; he shall be put to death.

11th. If any child or children, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall smite his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, unless thereunto provoked and foret for the self preservation from death or mayming, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that child or those children so offending shall be put to death.

12th. If any stubborn and rebellious son or sons, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall not obey the voice of his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, and that when the said Mother or Lodgemother have chastened such son or sons will not hearken unto them, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that son or those sons so offending shall be put to death.

18 January 2010 at 16:03  
Blogger peachperry said...

7th PAGE.

13th. If any unmarryed man above twentyeight years of age and under fortytwo years of age shall maliciously and on purpose refuse wedlock for over fourteen days with any marryed woman under sixtythree years of age, said marryed woman having borne a son, or unmarryed woman under sixtythree years of age; he shall be put to death.

14th. If any person shall maliciously and on purpose deny any marryed woman wedlock with two husbands, said marryed woman having borne a son, or any unmarryed woman wedlock with one husband; he shall be put to death.

15th. If any marryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation, other than his wife; he shall be put to death.

16th. If any marryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation, other than her two husbands or one husband; she shall be put to death.

17th. If any unmarryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation; he shall be whipt thirteen strokes, unless he hath his Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case he shall not be punished.

18th. If any unmarryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation; she shall be whipt three strokes, unless she hath her Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case she shall not be punished.

19th. If any person shall geld any man or mankind to take away generative power or virility; he shall be put to death.

20th. If any person shall geld any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

18 January 2010 at 16:03  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

I'll be honest, I started your first post but you lost my interest after that so I don't really know what you are waffling on about in the next 7 posts.

19 January 2010 at 10:58  

Some people say the issue is religious freedom. Women, according to this logic, are "required" by religious belief to wear the "veil" and cover themselves up completely, because God ordered it.
Not quite.

Men, who interpret God's word - be they Jews, Christians or Muslims - always seem to rule on the harsh end when it comes to the issue of how to treat women. They insist that's what God wants.
Nowhere in the Old Testament, the New Testament or in the Qu'ran is there a directive from the Almighty that women must cover themselves up like a sack of potatoes or walk five feet behind men with their mouths and minds shuttered.

The burqa is not a hijab. A hijab is a respectful head covering that is related to religious belief and customs. Although it is most often associated with Muslim women, it is also worn by Christian Arab women and by Catholic women in Europe, too. We call it a head scarf.

But when we discuss the term "veil" we are talking about forcing women not to cover their heads, but to cover their faces, which is the ultimate way to bind one's mind. A veil is a burqa, which is the most sinister invention that man has ever imposed on women.

Any woman who is forced to "veil" is being abused. They may not want to admit it, but they are victims of oppression.
Remember, victimization involves acquiescence to subjugation. Victims often defend their victimizers because it's easier than fighting back.

23 January 2010 at 20:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What really makes me laugh is the amount of weak minded support that UKIP has in its ranks, lol. It just goes to show that the PC Government PR machine has really taken its toll over the last 10/11yrs. People are now so worried about unpopular decisions, that they would rather make a bad decision and allow this oppression to continue than grow a spine and do the right thing and defend it.

Moral Courage is about sticking to the Right decisions if they are not the most popular decisions. Or even if your enemies or the media will find it easy to straw man your argument.

UKIP have always done and said the Right thing. Even in the face of adversity (one of the things I love about them)

Sometimes the truth hurts I remember telling an uncle of mine last year, how 75% of our laws are now made in Europe by unelected beurocrats in Brussels, and how we are no longer an independent country and had already been consumed into the European Union. My uncle simply could not believe it, it was too much for him to take on board in a oner. He denied it laughed at me and said I must have it wrong, until he did some research and came to his own conclusion on it.

24 January 2010 at 11:08  
Anonymous Adrian Peirson said...

Banning the Burkah would make our colonisation less obvious, maybe UKIP's plan is simply to passify the Proles.
It will have no effect on the demographic timebomb will it.
This country and its people need a Party that offers, practical policies, not soundbites.
It doesn't have to be one party just so long as those with a real interest in Britain work together.

Simon Hughes MP

26 January 2010 at 16:46  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older