BREXIT PARTY ELECTION CANDIDACY | ISLAM & THE BRITISH WAY OF LIFE


Islam-01

Earlier this month I was informed that I’d been selected as The Brexit Party Prospective Parliamentary Candidate (PPC) for a constituency in Scotland. No prizes for guessing which constituency. On the day that my candidacy was to be announced I received an email from a journalist. He told me that he had seen this blog and referred some of my posts to Mr Anas Sarwar who is a Member of the Scottish Parliament. Mr Sarwar declared that I was ‘an abhorrent racist’. The story about me was published. My nascent political career was terminated. I had dared to tackle the issue of the impact of Islam on the British way of life.

You’re Fired!

On Thursday 15 August I was unceremoniously evicted from the process of standing as an election candidate for The Brexit Party in Scotland. On the day my candidacy was to be made public, between them a journalist and a Labour Party politician ended my very short political career. The journalist referred certain views of mine to Mr Anas Sarwar MSP who categorised me as ‘an abhorrent racist’. The story about me was published and that terminated my active involvement in politics. Amen.

Why? Because I had had the temerity to discuss the impact of Islam on the British way of life. In the aftermath of the Manchester Arena bombing (22 May 2017) I had included some intemperate language about Islam on this blog. Perhaps it was a mistake and unwise of me to have included intemperate language, but I had done so nonetheless – we all make mistakes. To use intemperate language or to offend is not illegal, of course. You may have done so yourself in the past in private; I did so in public. However, in my case, as a consequence, I paid the price in the febrile atmosphere that now pervades political discourse in our society. We have freedom of speech, but only up to a point. Nowadays, to speak intemperately or to offend publicly is singularly unacceptable and anyone doing so runs the risk of being crushed out of any and all national debate. I offended a Muslim politician and was crucified on the altar of questioning Islam.

To be clear, using intemperate or offensive language is neither good speaking, nor good writing. I did so and paid the price in this era of antiracism faux outrage. However, it’s one thing to use such unhelpful language and another thing to be criminalised (allegedly) as a result.

Islam and the British Way of Life

Here on my blog, I had made the point that Islam was a politico-religious cult inimical to the British way of life. Indeed, a recent ‘Hope not Hate’ survey discovered that a mere 30% of people think that Islam is compatible with the British way of life. Moreover, 35% of British people think that Islam represents a direct threat to our way of life.

The think-tank, Civitas, discovered that there are some 80 or more Sharia Courts/Councils operating in the UK. These Sharia Councils represent a pseudo-political/pseudo-judicial sub-society within our society. In a documentary, ‘Undercover Mosque’, the BBC recorded imams making outrageous statements to their congregations about the brutal punishments that should be meted out to apostates and others who fail to comply with the Quran and Sharia law.

I had the audacity to question the extent to which Islam should be tolerated in British society. As a Libertarian, I have no difficulty with people worshipping their gods. However, Islam goes well beyond worship and charitable works; Islam sets out the terms and conditions under which people must live their lives. Those terms and conditions bear little or no relation to the Judeo-Christian way of life that has evolved in this country over the past three or four centuries.

I made these points above and more in my blog. A journalist brought my views to the attention of a Labour Muslim politician, Mr Anas Sarwar MSP. Mr Sarwar accused me of being ‘an abhorrent racist’. My active involvement in politics was immediately terminated.

Offensive Language

As with beauty, offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. Furthermore, in the English language there’s a technique known as exaggerating for effect. In one of my earlier posts I referred, inter alia, to ‘bulldozing mosques to the ground’. This was one of the turns of phrase – taken out of context by the journalist, of course – that led Mr Sarwar to accuse me of being ‘an abhorrent racist’.

I was exaggerating for effect; I caused offence; not the most effective form of writing, I agree. I served for 20 years in Her Majesty’s armed forces where, like many of my colleagues, I developed a penchant for black humour. However, to my knowledge there are no British laws against using black humour nor exaggerating for effect nor causing offence (albeit our hate laws are closing in rapidly on freedom of speech, as I have discovered to my cost). Moreover, it would be illegal under British law to bulldoze a mosque to the ground without a court’s express permission. This may have been lost on Mr Sarwar.

However, what won’t have been lost on Mr Sarwar is that under the Hadith (the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed) it’s permissible to throw homosexuals, bound and gagged, off the roofs of tall buildings. I would also refer Mr Sarwar to the imam Abu Usamah who, calling on the Hadith, is on record in the ‘Undercover Mosque’ documentary as saying that homosexuals should be killed by throwing them off a cliff stating, ‘throw the homosexual off the mountain’. Personally, I find these views somewhat offensive. Bear in mind, however, that they form part of the Sharia politico-religious law sub-society tolerated within British society.

Whilst we’re on the subject of offensive language, the gag voted as the best joke of this year’s Edinburgh Fringe Festival by the ‘Dave’ TV channel’s viewers was, ‘I keep randomly shouting out “broccoli” and “cauliflower” – I think I might have florets’. Cue faux outrage from the Twitterati and the charity ‘Tourettes Action’ who said the joke brought shame on Dave, and demanded an apology from the offending comedian, Olaf Falafal. Allah give me strength.

Sharia Law and the European Convention on Human Rights

The Council of Europe’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights considers that the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam ‘fails to reconcile Islam with universal human rights’. The Committee goes on to recognise the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) ruling that ‘the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime are incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society’. Bear in mind that in our own democratic society here in the UK there are thought to be some 80 Sharia Councils operating. Indeed, the Council of Europe’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights is concerned about the pseudo-judicial activities of Sharia Councils in the UK. Members of the Muslim community are expected, often under considerable social pressure, to accept Councils’ religious jurisdiction which, for example, clearly discriminates against women in divorce and inheritance cases.

The ECHR also makes observations about Sharia law’s incompatibility with human rights in the areas of not only divorce and inheritance proceedings, but also in the areas of:

The right to life.

The prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.

The right to a fair trial.

The right to respect for private and family life.

Freedom of religion.

The protection of property.

The prohibiting of the death penalty.

In conclusion, the Council of Europe passed Resolution 2253 which states:

The Assembly considers that the various Islamic declarations on human rights, adopted since the 1980s, while being more religious than legal, fail to reconcile Islam with universal human rights, especially insofar as Sharia is their unique source of reference’.

Phobia and Racism

There are two things which concern me about what’s happened here:

A phobia is an irrational fear of something. Therefore, Islamophobia is an irrational fear of Islam. However, my concerns about Islam are not irrational. According to the ‘Hope not Hate’ survey to which I referred earlier, it seems that some 70% of people think that Islam is incompatible with the British way of life. The same survey showed that 35% of British people think that Islam represents a direct threat to our way of life. So, it’s perfectly rational to be concerned, even to fear the impact of Islam on the British way of life. However, to assert these facts is, of course, heresy.

Islam is not a ‘race’. Muslims are not a ‘race’. However, Mr Sarwar is at the centre of a group of politicians who have chosen to redefine Islamophobia not as an irrational fear of Islam but as a trait ‘rooted in racism and a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness’. So, it’s extremely convenient for politicians like Mr Sarwar to be able to conflate Islamophobia and racism … because then it’s much easier to remove people like me from the political discussion. I can be criminalised and, therefore, ‘justifiably’ excluded from the debate about the role of Islam in the British way of life. Mr Sarwar has succeeded in his objective of having the voice of somebody like me silenced; silenced at least in the arena of elected politicians.

Given the observations of the Council of Europe that I explained earlier, one wonders how exactly in the UK we’re supposed to be able to discuss fully and frankly the relationship between Islam and democracy and human rights without automatically being labelled as Islamophobes or racists by men like Mr Sarwar? No political party – not even The Brexit Party, it seems – is willing to put into its manifesto a discussion about the impact of Islam on the British way of life.

On Race and Racism

Here’s a thought: England has an impact on the Scottish way of life. Somewhere in Scotland these gentlemen below took to the streets to air their view, God bless them …

England Out_02

Here’s another thought: Islam has an impact on the British way of life. However, if those same gentlemen seen above had tried standing on a street corner with a sign saying, ‘ISLAM GET OUT OF SCOTLAND’, whilst flicking up a ‘V’, they’d be having their collars felt before you could say the Prophet Mohammed (no cartoon inserted for fear of a fatwa on my life).

Now, I wonder when the Scottish Labour politician, Mr Anas Sarwar MSP will be accusing the gentlemen in the picture above of being ‘abhorrent racists’? Perhaps I could help Mr Sarwar with another useful definition:

Anglophobia is not an irrational fear of England but is a trait ‘rooted in racism and a type of racism that targets expressions of Englishness or perceived Englishness’.

There, that should assist Mr Sarwar’s crusade against racism and hopefully allow him and his journalist friend to track down and vilify the Anglophobic gentlemen in the photograph above.

For 20 years as an officer in Her Majesty’s armed forces, I put my life on the line for Mr Anas Sarwar MSP to be free to call me ‘an abhorrent racist‘. Good luck to the fellow, but I don’t think this is something he’ll quite understand.

Shut Out of Active Politics

I’m disappointed to have been shut out of active politics in my country. I’m contemplating what I shall do next. I’m minded to throw in the towel and give way to politicians like Anas Sarwar who clearly wield enormous power. On the other hand, I’m also energised by the words of Winston Churchill who once said at a time of national crisis, ‘never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense’. Churchill also said (offensively), ‘Keep buggering on’.

What Next?

I’m giving this recent turn of events some serious thought. I may decide to opt out of political engagement and discourse altogether and do like most folk: mind my own business and despair at the state of British politics. Or I might keep buggering on. We shall see. What I do know is that Mr Anas Sarwar MSP and his growing army of fellow social justice warriors are at the heart of a Cultural Marxist push in British politics which is deeply worrying.

—————————————

POSTSCRIPT

Racism as a Crime

It’s disconcerting being labelled ‘an abhorrent racist’. By the way, friends who know me personally laugh out loud – heartily – at Mr Sarwar’s childish accusation. Racism can be a crime under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and/or the Criminal Justice Act 2003. So, by accusing me of being ‘an abhorrent racist’, Mr Sarwar is implying that I’m a criminal. Racism is a crime if the perpetrator: uses verbal or physical abuse; or behaves as a bully; or uses threatening behaviour; or indulges in online abuse; or damages property; or any combination of that lot.

In this particular case, Mr Sarwar was accusing me of online abuse. Abuse means using cruel or violent behaviour. Nothing on my blog constitutes cruel behaviour, albeit I’ve acknowledged that some of my more colourful turns of phrase may have offended some people some of the time; sorry about that. However, I doubt whether any court would, on the grounds of the words I’ve used on this blog, convict me of racism. Notwithstanding, Mr Sarwar felt fit to accuse me in public of a criminal offence – and he’ll get away with it, of course.

1984

Thanks to the journalist concerned and Mr Anas Sarwar MSP, I’m unlikely ever now to be able to play an active and direct role in politics; they’ve achieved their mission of shutting out another Libertarian. As it happens, the incident was a flash in the pan, but it had the desired effect for Mr Sarwar. We move inexorably towards 1984: government overreach, totalitarianism and the repressive regimentation of all people and behaviours within society. The use of black humour or intemperate or offensive language shall not be permitted. The purveyors of such language shall, by manufactured definitions, be categorised as ‘abhorrent racists’ or such like, and thereby be silenced. Antiracism is becoming a religion in itself. We live in depressing times. George Orwell will be chuckling in his grave.

—————————————

Thank you for reading my post above. Please comment below if you wish, one way or another. I don’t censor or edit any comments unless they’re gratuitously offensive, of which there are virtually none.

To stimulate debate, please share this post on social media using one or more of the buttons below. Tell people you share my views; or tell people I’m talking cobblers; I don’t mind either way. I just want us all to use peaceful means to effect change. Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

Feel free to join the 360-odd other followers of my blog by clicking on the ‘Follow Blog via Email’ box over to the right of the page. I didn’t plan it this way, but Moraymint Chatter now gets tens of thousands of hits during the course of a year, so if you comment your views will be widely read.

See you down the pub …

23 comments

  1. I find it puzzling that you are surprised by TBP’s folding at the first whiff of “Islamophobia”. I would have thought that Nigel Farage had made his stance on criticism of Islam crystal clear in his reactions to Anne Marie Waters’ unsuccessful bid to lead UKIP and Gerard Batten’s successful one.

    I find it even more puzzling to see you dismiss For Britain as belonging to the “extreme fringes of politics”. The views of For Britain are entirely in line with your own as expressed in the above blog post. If For Britain is extreme then so are you (but neither of you are!).

    UKIP were once “extreme” until they weren’t. I predict a similar trajectory for For Britain over the next ten years of increasing, not decreasing, Islamisation and establishment suppression of discussion of it.

    By the way, if anyone is interested in the mechanics of conflating race with religion, as shown in the APPG definition of Islamophobia as “a type of racism”, the issue is examined here:

    https://ecawblog.wordpress.com/2019/04/29/parliamentarians-duped-over-islamophobia-part-3/

    Like

    1. moraymint · · Reply

      Many thanks ECAW, and I’ve read your interesting link …

      Like

  2. derekbernard · · Reply

    Dear Moraymint

    A very depressing note. I really had mild flickerings of hope that Nigel Farage would have given the Brexit Party a little bit of a backbone.

    Best wishes

    Derek Bernard

    Like

  3. Donna · · Reply

    I’m truly sorry to read this Mr Moraymint. It really does increasingly seem that we are free to criticise any religion – as long as it’s Christianity – and with one in particular “off limits.” I can’t see that situation changing any time soon.

    I can only assume that the Brexit Party is expecting the mainstream parties and their pals in the Media to thoroughly investigate the social media backgrounds of every candidate and carry out a high profile smear campaign against anyone found to have even slightly transgressed their “standards” when it comes to racism, sexism and any other ism they can think of. And the stakes are not too high and Nigel can’t afford to take that risk.

    I’m afraid this is no longer a country where genuine free speech applies. We only ever had the right of “free speech within the law” and with so-called Hate Crimes effectively operating on the presumption of guilt, law has now been created which effectively prevents free speech altogether.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Michael Wood · · Reply

    Moraymint.

    Perhaps you should join ‘For Britain’ or UKIP under Richard Braine.
    You should also ask Baron Bodissey of GatesofVienna.net to publish your article.
    I can imagine that the Gatestone Institute might like a copy as well

    Liked by 1 person

  5. MM, this must have come a punch in the solar plexus. Actually, given the behind-the-scenes machinations between the hack and Anas Sarwar, it’s more below the belt.

    You’ve been the target of what I suspect will be many such machinations against TBP, especially from the left. As it happens, this comment from Dave_G on Raedwald’s blog today (25 August) is prescient:

    “The next step will be to start a media onslaught against TBP by ‘discovering’ some racist/fascist/sexual/financial scandals by an ever-increasing number of BP candidates and even to bring out the ‘big one’ against Farage himself…. “

    What most concerns me is the fact that TBP dropped you like a hot potato. That leaves you feeling winded and clearly unsure whether the struggle is worth it; it leaves me, and I suspect many others, with no decent party to vote for. I decline to vote for a party which apparently has no due process to check the veracity or merit of the claims made against candidates, and backs down at the first hint of trouble.

    My curmudgeonly instinct is to say ‘bugger on’, especially given how many such attacks are likely to come against TBP candidates. What’s TBP going to do – drop everyone who has mud flung at him or her? There’ll be no candidates left.

    So I’d like to suggest that you go back to TBP pdq with a request for a review and the opportunity to present your case for reinstatement. If you were good enough for selection in the first place, and all your readers here know that, then what’s changed?

    Either I’m not terribly bright and missed it, or you’ve avoided mentioning exactly what it is you are accused of saying/writing which the hack (unnamed) picked up on. If you’d prefer to avoid putting stuff here on your blog, you have my email address and I’d be glad to have a look at the “offensive material” in confidence and let you have my thoughts.

    As Mark said earlier, Per ardua …
    (My father was in the RAF, so this is almost personal to me.)

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Fair play Moraymint.
    Politicians and the gutter press will twist and turn anything said to their advantage to destroy any real threat against them.
    You must brake a couple of eggs to make an omelette.
    The military dark humour is what at times keeps the troops going when under attack or faced with overwhelming odds.
    Per Ardua

    Like

  7. Paul Gregory · · Reply

    Dear Moraymint,

    Consternated to receive this news.

    Farage is very keen to obtain respectability and achieved a real coup when the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sajid Javid, conceded that he is not an extremist. Farage is engaged in Realpolitik.

    There is also the tendency now by mischief makers to seek out anything untoward in an individual’s past as long as it is someone they wish to discredit. I am therefore relieved to hear that Anas Sarwar and the journalist, whose name I have not found quickly in your message, have never put a foot wrong. There has been critical material on this trend on the excellent Australian website Quillette.

    Character assassination is, I suppose, better than the mortal sort, invented I believe as the name says by a cannabis-smoking Muslim cult many centuries ago.

    Your party home now (but likely before) would be UKIP, but you are in the wrong location for that to make sense.

    A year or so ago I sent you a personal email to which you failed to respond. Too lazy now to track it down in the archive, not least because I have poor eyesight.

    It would have drawn attention to my concept of Fuzzy Democracy explained in detail at the website http://www.fuzzydemocracy.eu with different formulations for different readerships and reflections on the nature of democracy.

    Your – our – problem is political parties. Calling them conspiracies against the people, and against democracy, is probably overdoing it, but meanwhile not far off the mark.

    Everyone swears about First-Past-The-Post and calls for Proportional Representation and Referenda. I suspect you in Scotland know that these are no panacea.

    Fuzzy Democracy is the alternative, 21^st century, for genuinely representative democracy. In Fuzzy D. 99% of votes count and there is no tactical voting. It does not require parties although it does have a subordinate role for them. In Fuzzy D. there is great precision of choice in the polling booth, unlike at present, where you must vote for a bundle (a package) of policies. Under FPTP, by the way, the proportion of votes that count is mostly well below 50%, and many of these will be votes for the least bad option. Under Fuzzy D. you vote always for the best option in your eyes.

    Under Fuzzy D. Moraymint would stand for election, having obtained a few hundreds signatures and made a small deposit much as now. To get elected Moraymint would need a high number of votes, which he would conceivably fall short of but might also well exceed. At an electoral college after the poll Moraymint would find like-minded candidates who had fallen far short and who could transfer to him their contingent of votes, thus helping him over the threshold. Or, if Moraymint obtained many more votes than he needed, he could transfer these to a like-minded candidate of his choice. I cannot imagine that this would be Anas Sarwar of the Socialist National Party, SNP (I have got that right haven’t I? I do not live in Scotland.)

    regards

    Paul Gregory

    Liked by 1 person

    1. moraymint · · Reply

      Paul, first, apologies for not having picked up on your direct email of some time ago. I receive scores of emails and I try to respond to as many as I can. Clearly, I missed yours and so please forgive me for so doing

      I shall take a look at Fuzzy Democracy with interest.

      On me potentially turning to UKIP, please see my reply below to Michael Foster.

      All the best, sir …

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Speaking the truth in a time of universal deceipt were you, you’re nicked!

    If you wish to continue in politics I have no doubt the For Britain Party will be happy to have you on board:

    https://www.forbritain.uk/

    Like

  9. reallyoldbill · · Reply

    I am very sorry about this turn of events, MM, and consider that it is British political freedom and discourse which will be the loser. Please don’t adopt what is your immediate and understandable instinct and abandon the field to the likes of Mr Sarwar and his journalist friend; Churchill had it right. This situation does, however, highlight some very worrying concerns:

    Firstly the proliferation of social media into every corner of our lives can be a force for good, allowing the effective and widespread dissemination of information that the authorities in the past have succeeded in, and those today would still prefer to have the ability for, keeping secret. That is very healthy in a free society provided that the reader is capable of and willing to filter out the obvious nonsense and conspiracy theories. It does, however, expose individuals to the retrospective examination of ill-judged comments made in their past, and even more worryingly the taking out of context of justifiable and well-considered comments and subjecting them to the hysteria of the baying and politically biased mob. It appears again and again that the authorities would prefer to bow down before this unhealthy and unjust lynch-mob justice than confront it. The ability, indeed the right, to cause verbal offence, short of calling for physical violence or law-breaking, is an inherent part of a free society and should be defended by all right-thinking people. To accept anything else is to take the first step on the road to an Orwellian future where only the “right” or officially sanctioned opinions are permissible let alone tolerated.

    The use of the words “racist” and “racism” have become routinely deployed to close down legitimate discussion. Once again sensible and freedom loving people must push back and expose this tactic for exactly what it is. There have often been attempts by some to confuse, for example, justified criticism of some Israeli governments and their actions with anti-semitism. It may, of course, be true that some anti-semites use criticism of Israeli political actions as a vehicle to spread their hate,and it is right that they be exposed, but that mustn’t be allowed to exempt a sovereign national government from justifiable international scrutiny. Israel should be no more immune from criticism where justified than North Korea as long as it is despite being a Jewish state and not because of it. That is the distinction that too many deliberately refuse to accept.

    And so it is with Islam. It cannot be right that any religion, race, community or section of society is above examination and where appropriate criticism. To accept calls for that to be the case, whether by way of legislation (and we have since Blair enacted some very unwise and authoritarian laws around freedom of speech) or “public” pressure is again simply unacceptable if we are to call ourselves a fair and free society. Just as David Lammy MP refuses to see the world in anything but black and white, where white is always wrong and black is always right, and will claim any who disagree are “racist” without any hint of self-awareness or irony, so many Muslims refuse to see the world as anything but Islam versus the rest. That is, self-evidently, not true of all Muslims, many of whom have adopted fairly Western lifestyles while still observing the basic requirements of their faith. To suggest that all Muslims, or even Islam itself, is a problem is to misdiagnose the problem; it is radical Islam that is the problem, not just here but all around the world, and at some point will have to be confronted, at which point I suspect, and certainly hope, that we will see the silent majority of British Muslims choose to reject it in favour of peaceful co-existence. Many already do but we have a long way still to go.

    We were given clear warnings over 30 years ago when Salman Rushdie got into hot water over his novel Satanic Verses. The reaction from radical Islam was a clear pointer to the problems that would inevitably occur where a prescriptive and unbending theology rubbed up against modern liberal free society. It could and should have been addressed them, but in another foretaste of the future our political class, here and around the world, preferred to simply kick the can down the road rather than confront hard but inevitable choices. Those choices can only be made where we have an honest debate, without preconditions on what is verbally acceptable and what is not, and certainly without public figures, whether elected politicians or not, cravenly deploying the R word to prevent that discussion taking place.

    Once again, MM, I am sorry for your experience over this, but take heart from the knowledge that the overwhelming majority of this country’s citizens are on your side. The pendulum will eventually swing back and there are signs that it is already on the way back down.

    Liked by 5 people

  10. Sonia MacDonald · · Reply

    Dear MM – when you announced your candidacy, I warned you that everything you said or wrote would be scrutinised; I am deeply sorry that I was correct.

    From your description, you seem to have been – unsurprisingly – deliberately targeted and indeed slandered, but when your justifiable outrage has (somewhat) diminished, please continue with your blog and see whether this form of hysteria eventually wears itself out.

    Every sane voice counts.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. moraymint · · Reply

      Yes, Sonia, your prediction was prescient! And yes, I have a very strong suspicion that I was deliberately targeted. I take a scintilla of comfort from thinking that somebody, somewhere may have thought I represented a genuine political threat. I’m still in two minds even to keep blogging. I’m under enormous pressure from family and friends to call it a day.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. I’m British and also a libertarian. I also respect UK sovereign law and democracy. The problem that these two sentences have is that there is today a serious conflict between UK law depending on who you are. If I took a second wife that’s bigamy. If a muslim takes a second or third wife that OK. If I decide to have sex with a 12 year old that’s mandatory rape. If a muslim decides to have sex with a 12 year old their religion deems this acceptable. So I ask myself what law actually takes precedence – UK law or Sharia law? Should ANY religion take precedence over the UK sovereign law that the majority of UK citizens abide by? The laws decided upon by our democratically elected parliament? You can’t have both. The law of the land HAS to apply to every citizen regardless of their gender, race or religion. That’s the only way that our laws are seen to be non discriminatory.
    Either sharia law is incompatible with UK law or sharia law is incompatible with living in the UK under UK laws. You can’t have both! Politicians are too afraid to face this question. I don’t care what religion or God anyone chooses to worship, however in the UK I do expect every UK citizen, if they want to be treated as such to respect every UK law regardless.

    This whole subject and the reaction of the Brexit party reminds me of the Emperors Clothes. He was naked. Equally sharia law is wholly incompatible with UK law. Common sense and the views of the majority of British citizens know this as fact, but sadly common sense does not exist in today’s political environment.

    Like

    1. moraymint · · Reply

      Roger, I’m pretty certain that in the UK, Sharia law cannot and does not take precedence over British law as such. However, Sharia law is permitted to influence behaviours in Muslim communities; behaviours which are often inimical to the norms, values and beliefs prevalent in British society as a whole. It’s this sub-society within society that I think we need to be prepared to investigate and discuss openly – and not from a default starting point which assumes Islamophobia.

      It’s getting over this hurdle of not being allowed even to discuss the subject without being labelled a ‘racist’ that I feel we need to address.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. its simple then, the gloves come off, as Mr Sarwar used his vote in parliament to impose a no fly zone over Libya,he along with others effectively voted to destroy another sovereign state!

        his vote resulted in the death of thousands of Muslims, and worse the subordination of millions to the threat of the most extreme terrorism

        his vote resulted in Libya becoming a hub for Isis and its affiliates

        his vote help facilitate the Manchester bomber who killed 22 people!

        time for the gloves to come off, how many people have been killed and subjected to terrorism because of your blog?

        how many have been killed and subjected to terrorism because of Sarwars vote?

        Liked by 1 person

  12. Michael Foster · · Reply

    Join and support ‘For Britain’, they at least wont kick you out and you will have a platform; also they need all the help they can get.
    They are the only political party which has the guts to speak out.
    If its any comfort, the Brexit Party will fold completely on 1st November once we are out (hopefully!!)

    Liked by 1 person

    1. moraymint · · Reply

      Michael, I think you’ve highlighted a concern I have about this particular topic. In essence, if none of the mainstream political parties are prepared even to mention the impact, good and/or bad, of Islam on the British way of life, still less facilitate a debate on the topic, then of course there’s a real risk of people shifting their political allegiances to the extreme fringes of politics. That’s a slippery slope for any society. I would wish to continue to argue my case into the mainstream of politics rather than shift myself outwards to the edges. Others in my situation might well respond differently and that’s the danger for our society. We’ll end up reaping what we sow here if we’re not careful.

      For me the frustrating thing is this: even to say, ‘Look, we need to talk about Islam …’ results in people like me instantly being labelled as an ‘Islamophobe’ (which I’m not) which means, therefore, (according to the woke mangling of definitions of words and terms) that I’m a ‘racist’ (which I’m not). So, we can’t even get a rational debate off the ground …

      Liked by 2 people

  13. Farage is terrified of appearing anti-islamic, as it would taint the Brexit Party brand and allow it to be labelled racist by the MSM, etc.

    I’m not certain of Farage’s actual views on islam. I respect his tactical choice to steer clear of it until leaving the EU is sorted, but at some point youve got to call out the murderous desert death cult for what it is. At it’s most basic, it is incompatible with western democracy, and should not be tolerated in this country.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. JPM Mulligan · · Reply

    It seems that any accusation of racism, whether ill-substantiated by out of context remarks or completely unsubstantiated, is enough to damn the accused, with no prospect of proving one’s innocence and no presumption of innocence.

    You have my sympathy, sir, and I am thoroughly disappointed that the Brexit Party should join in with this woke charade.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Good post Mr M……

    Keep buggering on would appear to be the right course of action..

    Per Ardua….

    Liked by 5 people

  16. Samantha Wilkinson · · Reply

    I’m sad but unsurprised by this tale. I have moved to America because I foresee the islamification of the UK. They value their freedom more here, but it’s still on the same trajectory as the UK, it’ll just happen more slowly here. There’s a bunch of people though, putting all their energy into the islamification of the USA. Some of them aren’t even Muslims!

    Liked by 2 people

  17. xantilor · · Reply

    That’s appalling. Without freedom of speech there is no freedom at all. The only party to tackle the problem of Islam in this country is For Britain – perhaps you could work with them. Mark you, it shouldn’t be necessary for anyone to stay silent on such an important topic in order to not be treated like a pariah by virtually all political parties.
    I’m worried about the direction we are headed, not least because it’s a direction most people in this country don’t approve of. How did this happen in a democracy?

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. - J Robert Oppenheimer.

Chai et Rasade

The Vintage Wine Seller's Blog

Moraymint Chatter

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

Chauncey Tinker's Blog

Reversing "Western" decline with reason.

The Participator

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

The Worldview

Explaining our world in simple terms

The Brexit Door

Independent thinking for an Independent Britain

EU Referendum Blog

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

The Slog.

An incorrigible Cognitive Dissident

Surplus Energy Economics

How the economy REALLY works - Tim Morgan

Guido Fawkes

Parliamentary plots and conspiracy

BarristerBlogger

Matthew Scott's Legal Comment Argument and Discussion. Comment Awards 2015 Best Independent Blog

Our Finite World

Exploring how oil limits affect the economy

Independent Sovereign Democratic Britain

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

Sandy Paterson Mountaineering

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

Do the Math

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

The Archdruid Report

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

the.one&only-elspie

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

%d bloggers like this: