The latest wheeze from the Tory Lord Pearson who has been sent into UKIP in order to turn it into a US poodle fixated with Thatcherite economics and free market globalism, is the 'Ban the Burkha' wheeze.
The idea that banning the Burkha will deal with Islamic extremism in the UK is farsical.
Its like banning shell suits and hoping the problems associated with chavs will disappear.
This is a typical cowards solution to the issue of Islamic extremism, for in effect all they are doing is saying 'if we can no longer see in our streets the true extent of Muslim demographics, Islamisation amongst the Muslim community and the growth of the support for radical Islam by banning the Burkha then we can all pretend the problem has dissapeared'.
This is similar to the Osama Bin Laden Paradox.
If Osama Bin Laden had adopted the incrementalist, low key, Taqqiya methodology as espoused by those such as the MPAC UK, the Quilliam Foundation and other Taqqiya specialists then the West would nearly be conquered now from within - by white liberals who scream Islamaphobia at anyone who dares criticise a muslim or Islam, by the race relations terrorists, by the ethnic grievances lobby, by the tax payer funded human rights lawyers and the rest of the inner army of traitorous termites that eat away at our society from within.
Instead he sent the planes to smash into the Twin Towers, awoke the whole world to the threat of Islamism both in and outside our nations and began a crusade to confront and destroy the spread of radical Islam.
The Burkha is a visible symbol of the growth of radical Islam in our society.
The more women we see in Burkhas pushing prams filled with children in our streets, the more we become aware of the spread of Islamism in our society.
If the Burkha was banned then the Islamist menace would no longer be visible anymore, and whilst this may appeal to the liberals, and reactionaries such as UKIP, it would be ultimately be self defeating.
The law as it stands as proposed by UKIP would be struck down as racist by the same human rights lawyers that work for the Islamists, simply as any policy that targets one religious or ethnic group is illegal under the Human Rights Act.
I would propose the following law that would be legal ;
" In all public places and public buildings, including buildings such as airports, train stations and buses where the public assemble, then any persons wearing any form of facial covering may be subject to arrest if they are wearing a facial covering that totally obscures the face and who refuses to remove that facial covering whilst asked by the police, officials of that building, persons with authority to demand the removal of a facial covering or security staff whilst in those areas or using those facilities. Those who also enter any areas designated as security risk areas which prohibit all facial coverings at any time may also be subject to arrest both by the police and designated security staff working in those areas for breaching the security rules on facial coverings ".
This would be legal under the present Human Rights Act and laws and would also allow us to ensure the red scum in groups like AFA that attack the BNP during the RWB demonstrations and who also wear masks to avoid being identified by the police would also be covered by the law.
That way we deal with the security threat from the Islamists who hide behind the Burkhas, such as the 21/7 bomber who dressed up in a burkha to flee Britain disguised as a woman, and also bank robbers, AFA terrorists and hoodie muggers.
The proposal by UKIP is at present ridiculous, counter productive and illegal.
Sunday, 17 January 2010
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
completely agree Lee, like the swiss banning of minarets it does nothing to address the real issue which is one of immigration and demographics.
As you argue it advances the cause of the islamists as it will make their takeover of the west less visible.
I agree, it is a cowardly, pointless proposal from UKIP.
Do you seriously believe that Osama destroyed the twin towers Lee? Have you not seen Zeitgeist or Loose Change? I always assumed that because you are aware of Bilderberg and NWO that you would know a bit more about 9/11.
Great blog though Lee, my first port of call out of the Nationalist blogs every day.
Yes I am a 911 Truther but I believe that ;
1) Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset
2) Al Qaeda were run by the CIA via Osama
3) That Osama ordered the muslims involved in 911 to undertake the attacks
4) That the Muslims killed in the attacks did ram the twin towers
5) That they never knew Osama was run by the CIA and they thought they were working for Al Qaeda and not the CIA and thats why they undertook the attacks
6) That Cheney and the US Shadow Government in the Military Industrial Block knew the attacks were going to happen, and just like Pearl Harbour, they allowed them happen.
I do not believe that there were remote control planes, controlled demolitions etc etc as there was no need for that seeing as the CIA ran Osama and hence the muslims in Al Qaeda have always been working for the CIA via Osama.
I agree Al CIAda is a false flag operation, and maybe planes flew into the Towers, but who put the Thermite in all three buildings that were brought down at Freefall speed.
Also 9 of the Original 19 aledged terrorists have been found alive and well, I agree there is much evidence some of these guys were being given US clearance, a couple lived on a US Base.
See Fabled Enemies.
I agree though that the public could probably not comprehend all the twists and subtexts, best to keep it simple and Just say the Muslims did it, if they want to dig further then let them, Looks to me like Yes, there were Muslim Patsies involved but in order to ensure the Operation was a success I think it had to be handled by Western security assets.
We may never know all the details, but I'm certain muslims played only a minor role.
There are plenty of FBI investigations that were shut down around the aledged terrorists.
Could be that these were False leads for after the event.
The Video Fabled enemies is a Good starting point.
Post a Comment