Burka ban? What burka ban?

The media have been falling over themselves to condemn UKIP's proposed burka ban. There's just one problem: it's not a burka ban.

The party revealed its integration policy a few days ago which called for a ban on covering your face in public, mandatory checks for FGM on at-risk girls, an end to Sharia courts, abolishing postal voting on demand and making the "honour" in honour killings and the race or religion of grooming gangs (if different to the victims) an aggravating factor.

The policy that has caused most controversy is the proposed ban on covering your face in public. Clearly the burka is one of the face coverings that would be affected by such a ban but so too would masks, scarves and bandannas that are a common sight at violent protests. The reason for the proposed ban is partly to promote integration and partly for security reasons. Only this week a burka-wearing terrorist suspect was shot by police during a raid. Face coverings are banned in Austria, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and in some parts of Denmark, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania and Spain. UKIP's policy would require everyone to ensure that their faces can be seen in public.

Female Genital Mutilation has been illegal in the UK since 1987 yet there has been just one attempted prosecution and that failed because the doctor in question hadn't actually performed the FGM. In France girls who are at risk of FGM are checked by doctors to ensure they haven't been mutilated. The zero tolerance approach in France has seen more than 100 people go to prison for mutilating girls and a small number of prosecutions have also been secured in the Netherlands, Italy and Denmark. UKIP's policy would not only introduce medical checks for at risk girls but it would place a legal obligation on all adults report FGM if they are aware of it and introduce a presumption of prosecution of parents, putting an end to the unacceptable blind eye the police turn to it.

Sharia courts and tribunals have no place in our legal system. They are discriminatory toward women and undermine the principle of us all being equal before the law. Despite many attempts by politicians and academics to portray Sharia courts as benign organisations advising the faithful on religious matters, they have remained stubbornly problematic and a government report is due to be published this year on the misuse of Sharia courts and their incompatibility with English law.

Postal voting on demand has caused a fraud epidemic that seriously undermines the democratic process and it nearly always involves Muslim communities and is usually for the benefit of the Labour Party. There have been numerous prosecutions for postal vote fraud, including the infamous Lutfur Rahman seeing his mayoralty of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets annulled by a special election court and his party banned. People involved in elections all over the country will have their own stories of blatant postal vote fraud yet the system remains open to abuse. UKIP's policy is to return to the previous system of only issuing postal votes to those who need them because they are unable to attend a polling station.

Between 2010 and 2014 there were 11,000 "honour crimes" reported to the police in the UK and an estimated 12-15 "honour killings" every year. Yet when prosecutions are pursued the fact that it has been done in the name of religion has no bearing on the punishment. Sexual grooming of young girls is an increasing problem and again, one that most commonly involves Muslim communities but disproportionately targets young white girls as their victims. UKIP's policy would require the courts to treat the racial and/or religious aspect of these crimes as an aggravating factor and increase the punishments accordingly.

Back in 2011 an army recruitment video was broadcast on TV showing an irate man facing up to a soldier. He calms down when the soldier removes his sunglasses because "army officers worldwide have learnt that eye contact is crucial in gaining trust".

Allowing the facial covering policy to be wrongly portrayed as a ban on the burka was clumsy and unhelpful. People should be free to wear what they choose but it is sometimes necessary to curtail such liberties when the risk of domestic and international terrorism is so high. Whether there should even be such a thing as an "integration policy" rather than rolling these rather sensible policies into more conventional policy areas like communities and local government or justice and home affairs is debatable. It certainly doesn't need to be a flagship policy in a snap general election when there is next to no time to correct the mistruths and deliberate misrepresentations before polling day. But despite all that, they are (on the whole) sensible policies designed to make the country safer and to promote community cohesion.

Poll of GPs finds majority support for UKIP policy

A survey of 500 doctors has backed UKIP's policy of putting 1,000 GPs into A&E departments in hospitals to free up A&E staff to deal with real emergencies.

The Royal College of Emergency Medicine and the Press Association commissioned the poll which found that 61% of GPs nd secondary care doctors would like to see GPs in A&E departments.

UKIP's health spokesman, Suzanne Evans, said:

The government needs to put this idea in train now. At the very least it should be prioritised for as soon as we leave the EU, when vital funding for the NHS is released as we are freed from our membership fees.

Don't make our heroes beg for more

I spent most of today following Jill Seymour and Nigel Farage around the West Midlands to campaign against HS2, support UKIP in Cannock and then watch the unveiling of UKIP's defence policy at Himley Hall near Dudley.

We started the day in Marston in Staffordshire, a village that will literally be ripped apart by HS2. I saw first hand the impact that HS2 is going to have on our green and pleasant land. The farm that we met at is going to be cut in half by the railway line. The farm buildings are going to be knocked down and the farm house will be no more than 100 yards from the track. The lovely big house over the road is going to be demolished.

UKIP's new anti-HS2 ad lorry supporting the +STOP HS2 n alliance

I can't remember which candidate this car belongs to but it's certainly a statement!

The turnout in Cannock was fantastic. Loads of encouragement from local residents and when Nigel Farage arrived he was mobbed by supporters. He made a sharp exit when a couple of known Hate not Hope agitators were spotted and who can blame him after the physical attacks he's received at the hands of HnH thugs?

After Cannock it was on to Himley Hall for UKIP's defence policy announcement with Paul Nuttall, Bill Etheridge, Nigel Farage and Mike Hookem. Most of the guests were former armed services personnel and Mike Hookem received a standing ovation.

You can find details of UKIP's new defence policy on the UKIP website or just read the salient points from our Twitter feed for today.

Tories steal UKIP "Britdisc" policy

The Tories have recycled yet another UKIP policy as their own - this time the Britdisc policy that would see foreign-registered lorries charged a licence fee to drive on our roads.

The idea behind the Britdisc was to combat road and fuel tax avoidance by large hauliers, to keep dangerous foreign-registered lorries off the road and to remove some of the unfair advantage foreign hauliers have over UK-based operators.

It seems the Tories have finally cottoned on to the obvious unfairness in the system and decided to adopt UKIP's solution to grab a positive headline.  The EU will rule it illegal of course but the Tories will have hopped onto another headline-grabbing bandwagon by then.

EU policy cheat sheet: UKIP -v- Lib/Lab/Con

With Saint Clegg's rise in the polls, many people might have forgotten just how wedded the three 'mainstream' parties are to the EU.

Be in no doubt - a vote for the LibDems is a vote for further EU integration, and then some.

. Labour Conservatives Lib Dems UKIP . EU Referendum? On the Euro On further transfers of power to the EU On UK membership of EU and the euro On UK membership . Joining the euro? Mixed messages Never Yes No . Crime and policing? Status quo No new EU powers, opt out More integration No integration . European public prosecutor? Against Against Mixed messages Against . Immigration and asylum Partly in favour of more EU integration Against more integration and asylum burden-sharing More integration, n favour of asylum burden sharing 5-year immigration freeze . EU Defence Possibly more cooperation Against - no EU defence procurement EU defence procurement No EU involvement in defence . EU Foreign policy Keep EU diplomatic service separate from national issues Keep EU diplomatic service separate from national issues Keep EU diplomatic service separate from national issues Return to UK diplomatic service . Reform of the EU budget Vague CAP reform promise, maintain UK rebate Vague CAP reform promise, maintain UK rebate Vague reform promise, missed messages on CAP and UK rebate Reform (if we’re still in the EU) . EU financial supervisors In favour with reservations Against if transferring powers In favour with reservations Against . EU employment policy Status quo Opting out of parts “most damaging” to economy Status quo Opting out (if we’re still in the EU) . Common Fisheries Policy Fundamental reform Fundamental reform No mention in manifesto Withdraw . Environmental policy Support EU action, and current targets Support EU action, and current targets Support EU action, and current targets UK action

Source of Lib/Lab/Con info: Open Europe (PDF)

Cross-posted

Restoring Britishness: UKIP Policy - Part 2

Having read the full policy document, it is clear that it even more ill thought out, inconsistent and out of touch with reality than the summary suggested.

Here is some further comment to go with the earlier comment on the summary:

the British people enjoyed the protections afforded by Magna Carta

No, the English people enjoyed the protections afforded by Magna Carta, a proclamation dating from 1215, some 492 years before the British state existed and a proclamation that has never formed part of Scottish law.

Britishness is also defined by a civic nationalism, which is inclusive, as opposed to religious or racial nationalism, which is exclusive. Civic nationalism is defined by loyalty and identification with the symbols of nationhood, such as the national flag.

Of course it's a civic nationalism, it is a 300 year old political construct that has no racial, ethnic, historical or natural basis.  We spent a couple of thousand years knocking seven shades out of each other and even in the 300 years the union has existed we English have still been universally loathed by the celts.  And the national flag - what an own goal by whoever wrote this policy!  Take a drive around your neighbourhood and count the British flags and your own national flag.  Other than public buildings and company premises you'll be hard pressed to find the butchers apron flying anywhere.  I know of one house - just one - in the whole of Telford (population 160k) that flies a British flag but the English flag is everywhere.  The British flag is a symbol of British imperialistic officialdom to most people, nothing more.

Civic nationalism's real beauty is it is open to all, whatever their ethnic, religious or linguistic background or skin colour, as the only thing the person has to do is self identify as British and demonstrate loyalty and consistency in their beliefs

I am a civic English nationalist and believe exactly the same thing about an English identity and most people in English identify themselves as English.

As UKIP’s Deputy Leader David Campbell Bannerman notes

What is it that leads Brit/Scot politicians to blather on about Britishness in defiance of logic and public opinion, especially the opinion of their fellow countrymen and women who reject Britishness more than any other people on these islands?  I knew he'd have something to do with this.

The Scottish and Welsh nationalists have also fallen for the siren's call from Brussels that a "Europe of the Regions" will be to their advantage, particularly if they can dissolve the UK, despite the fact they would be mere regions of an EU state and not proud nations within a British union

All the more reason to establish an English parliament for all of England, to permanently frustrate the regionalists.  But you see, even in the final sentence, the author acknowledges that we are distinct nations and not one country.

Meanwhile with devolution, the work of Scottish Westminster MPs has diminished and their status undermined

But this is what the Scottish people wanted, it's what they voted for and it's what they continue to support.

By contrast, the United Kingdom has a proud history of tolerance and respect for national identities, legal systems and cultures stretching back through the centuries, and we feel that Welsh, Scottish, English and Northern Irish people can resolve their grievances in a calm, intelligent fashion as part of restoring confidence in the Union.

The British establishment has spent the last 300 years trying to abolish the English identity and nearly succeeded in doing so.  As for tolerance of the Irish - tolerance and respect for national identities?  Don't make me laugh!  England has been a unified nation since 927AD, 780 years longer than the British union.  Where's the respect for the thousand years of history and English identity in this policy?

British Gas

That great symbol of Britishness, who operate under the name Scottish Gas north of the border because of the toxic British brand.

To recognise the importance of the Magna Carta to the British Constitution

There. Is. No. British. Constitution.  Jesus Christ, this really isn't a difficult concept is it?  There is no British constitution, Magna Carta is part of English law and doesn't apply to Scotland.  Same with Habeas Corpus, the Act of Succession, the Bill of Rights - all English constitutional laws that do not apply to the whole of the UK.

All UK Citizens would undergo a ‘Citizenship Ceremony’ to affirm their commitment to British civic values, sign a "Declaration of Citizenship" and undergo an English test.

Does this include those of us that live here already?  I would never attend one of these charades.

cricket is a sport in which Britain celebrates its close ties with Commonwealth friends

My god, it gets worse.  What is British about cricket?  Is there even a Scottish cricket team?

Football, a game invented in the UK, has gone on to become one of the world's most popular sports. It could be said that the British invented both of the world's universal languages (English and football).

Football, a game invented in England.  And the English language was invented by the English, hence why it is called English and not British.

UKIP would support the creation of a British football team composed of players from the Welsh, English, Scottish and Northern Irish teams, which would compete in special games such as the 2012 Olympic football competition and in exhibition games (e.g. Charity Shield), whilst backing Home Nation teams for other tournaments

Ok, find an organisation that isn't backed by the British government that supports a British football team.  There is universal opposition in the supporters clubs of every home nation to a British football team and only the fifth columnists in the English FA (which won't even put the word English in their name) support a British team with the FA's of the other home nations opposed to it.

UKIP will make high quality teaching of British history in schools mandatory

It already is.

UKIP believes all UK citizens must learn a common history and draw from a unified heritage

So history lessons will stop at 300 years ago?

Part of the improved teaching will be a fair and factual analysis of the history of the British Empire, which celebrates its achievements in terms of democracy

And presumably this will include teaching children that the British Empire is the English Empire renamed given that the Scottish Empire consisted of a short-lived colony in Panama that bankrupted the Scottish Crown and led to the Act of Union with England which started a 300 year addiction to English subsidies (bought and sold with English gold).  It won't will it?

UK citizens can be proud Scotsmen, Welshmen and Ulstermen as well as proud Britons

But not Englishmen?

Schools around the UK should also be encouraged to familiarise themselves with the anthems of Home Nations.

England hasn't been allowed a national anthem.  Will one be handed down by the British state or will the British national anthem be substituted as it is now?

Restoring Britishness: UKIP Policy

I am an English nationalist and I will make no apologies for that.  As far as I'm concerned, loyalty my country (England) comes before any loyalty I might have to UKIP and so I am equally unapologetic for what follows: a comprehensive fisking of UKIP's new policy entitled "Restoring Britishness".

Before you go any further, read this overview of the policy which is what I'm commenting on.

In England, an increasingly resentful English nationalism is also brewing, often fuelled by perceptions that other parts of the UK are receiving preferential treatment and services and/or that Celtic nation MPs are forming voting blocs at Westminster.

How does b**locks sound?  Scottish, Irish and Welsh nationalism aren't described as resentful despite the fact they're fundamentally built on a hatred of the English.  Other parts of the UK are receiving preferential treatment and services and celtic MPs do form voting blocs at Westminster.  We wouldn't have foundation hospitals or university top-up fees if it wasn't for the Scottish MPs voting as a bloc to impose them on England even though they didn't apply to Scotland.

The 'English Question' is arguably the most serious threat to Britishness.

It's the most serious threat to the union but not Britishness.  The most serious threat to Britishness is atrophy - it was an artificial construct that served a purpose for a while and is no longer relevant.

UKIP would replace members of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies with national Westminster MPs.

There goes the Scottish and Welsh vote ...

An English Executive would be created from British departments that are de facto only engaged in English affairs, headed by an English First Minister. UK national government would be restored at the highest level within this overall framework.

So basically a return to how it was before devolution with grand committees and home offices, the only difference being that England would get one?  Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has never had a problem with their British MPs not representing their national interests, it's the English that have always had the problem with British MPs elected in England putting Britain first to the detriment of England.  So England will be disadvantaged again.  And what will happen when there is a conflict of interests in their grand committee?  Will they put British or English interests first?  Exactly the same fundamental stumbling blocks as the Tories' policies.

UKIP would abolish the Barnett formula, which has disproportionately provided some parts of the UK with preferential services to others.

"Some parts of the UK" being Scotland, Wales and NI - the very reason dismissed as a "perception" in the denigration of English nationalists.  But I agree with getting rid of the Barnett Formula, it is an abomination and an insult.

In England, UKIP would replace the May Day bank holiday, and make St George's Day a public holiday in its place.

So Scotland, Wales and NI will still have more public holidays?  England has the least public holidays in Europe.  But a good move promoting St Georges Day although surprising when the policy writer seems to have such an aversion to English nationalism.

I have two problems with this "Restoring Britishness" policy.

Firstly, I'm not British, I'm English and most people in England consider themselves English too.  You can argue with the facts if you want but before you put your red white and blue tinted glasses on and start hammering on your keyboard, check out the research on this first and you will find that more people consider themselves English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish first and British second.

Secondly, who is actually asking for it to be restored?  Aside from a handful of British nationalists (mainly politicians) basically nobody.  The vast majority of people in all four home nations are quite happy with the national identity they have had for centuries.  Britishness is a made-up political identity that has never taken root outside of England and now it's been relegated to the history books in England.  It's only immigrant populations in England, who get Britishness rammed down their throats (in England) from the day they arrive in the country, that have a British identity.

Rather than expending time and energy on trying to keep alive a made-up political identity that has never really been anything other than a pseudonym for English that's been in terminal decline for decades, we should be embracing and supporting the true identities of these isles that the majority of people have chosen for themselves.  If you have to form a committee and hold workshops to try and define Britishness and actually publish a policy on what steps should be taken by the state to indoctrinate children with a different identity to the one that they were brought up with, it's quite obviously a pointless and ultimately doomed exercise.

Let's stick to what we're good at - libertarianism, capitalism and euroscepticism - and stop wasting time on Canute-like proclamations.

More comment in this post.

Why UKIP's devolution policy is wrong

In 1997, Tony B.liar presented Donald Dewer, the first Scottish First Minister, with a ceremonial copy of the Scotland Act on the front of which he had scrawled:

To Donald,

It was a struggle, it may always be hard : but it was worth it. Scotland and England together on equal terms!

Tony Blair

The Scotland Act marked a fundamental change in the way the UK was governed and widened the democratic deficit that had always existed between England and Scotland, with the latter already having a disproportionately high number of MPs and its own dedicated Minister and Office within the British government.

The Scotland Act gave Scotland a devolved Scottish Parliament and Executive with control of domestic affairs in Scotland, a Scottish First Minister and a raft of MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament) to represent the Scottish people in their new parliament.

Shortly afterwards, a referendum was held in Wales (50% turnout, 51% in favour) and a Welsh Assembly was created with much more limited powers than the Scottish Parliament but an impressive amount of control of domestic affairs nonetheless. A year or two later, the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont was reconstituted, giving the Northern Irish people self-government again.

Far from putting England on an equal footing with Scotland, or the rest of the UK, this put England at a distinct disadvantage. Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs have continued to attend the British parliament in Westminster and vote on any bill put before the House, whether it something that is devolved in their own constituencies or not. University top-up fees and foundation hospitals are just two examples of controversial legislation that only apply to England that would not have passed without the votes of Scottish MPs. The Scottish health and education services are under the control of the Scottish Parliament north of the border yet Scottish MPs lined up to vote for the introduction of foundation hospitals and top-up fees in England, overturning the vote of the majority of English MPs who had voted against them.

So what is UKIP's policy on devolution? In a nutshell, it is to abolish the devolved Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments and replace them with grand committees of MPs based on the country they were elected in. Scottish MPs would sit in Holyrood for a couple of days a week, Welsh MPs in Cardiff Bay, Northern Irish MPs in Stormont and English MPs in Westminster. For the other couple of days, they would all descend on Westminster to deal with British issues.

When the Hansard Society published their Audit of Public Engagement report, the issue that respondents were most dissatisfied with was Scottish MPs voting on English issues. Not the European Empire (4th), not House of Lords reform (3rd) and not funding of political parties (2nd). Would UKIP's policy address that dissatisfaction? Yes, to a certain extent but would it work?

The UKIP policy is a variation on the English Votes on English Legislation (EVoEL) policy the Tories announced a few years ago. On the day the Tories announced their new EVoEL policy, an MP from a Scottish constituency said that under EVoEL he would still be able to claim an interest in any English matter because any money spent in England would affect the amount of money in Scotland's block grant.

This wouldn't happen if an English executive was created with clearly defined areas of responsibility. I don't know if this was the intention of the committee that came up with the policy but it is the only way that it can work without MPs representing the celtic nations undermining the whole setup as mentioned in the paragraph above. But if you create an English executive then why not create an English Parliament?

Under the current system, Scottish people elect MPs to represent them in the British parliament and MSPs to represent them in the Scottish Parliament. In Wales they elect MPs to represent them in the British parliament and AMs to represent them in the Welsh Assembly. In Northern Ireland they elect MPs to represent them in the British parliament and MLAs to represent them in the Northern Irish Assembly. In England we elect British MPs to represent us in the British parliament but nobody to represent us in an English assembly.

Under UKIPs proposed system, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and English people would elect MPs to represent them in the British parliament and their national assemblies at the same time. It's a bizarre concept because it requires MPs to put Britain first for a couple of days a week and then put their own nations first for another couple of days a week. There is a clear conflict of interests and divided loyalties in asking MPs to put Britain before their own nation for half of the week and then put their own nation before Britain for the other half.

It's worth repeating a quote from the bible that I used a couple of weeks ago:

No one can serve two masters, because either he will hate one and love the other, or be loyal to one and despise the other.

Matthew 6:24

You cannot reasonably expect an MP to effectively and fairly separate their loyalties based on what day of the week it is. You also can't expect MPs elected in England to suddenly rediscover their loyalty to England when they've spent over a decade defending a system of apartheid against their own constituents.

But the biggest problem with UKIP's devolution policy is not that it won't work, it is that it is out of step with public opinion. Had the members ot the committee that came up with UKIP's devolution policy done their research and looked at what the many independent opinion polls say, they wouldn't have come up with this policy. There is a large majority in favour of the creation of an English parliament, just as there is a large majority in favour of the Scottish Parliament.

So what are the arguments against an English Parliament (or any of the other devolved assemblies) within UKIP? Well, so far I've heard the following:

1. It will lead to the break-up of the union
2. Too many politicians
3. It's playing into the hands of the European Empire
   

Let's take the first argument - it will lead to the break-up of the union. Firstly, the union will be dissolved in my lifetime. I'm not advocating the break-up of the union, I'm just telling it how it is. All over the world - but particularly in Europe - the nold unions are breaking up and historic nations are re-emerging. The union between England and Scotland was never a strong one - Scotland retained all its own customs, traditions, legal system, etc. and has never really been integrated into the union in the same way England and Wales have. Now they have their own parliament, the union is virtually unravelled from Scottish life. The Scots would declare independence before they lost their parliament and while the Welsh are a bit less enthusiastic about their assembly than the Scots are about their parliament, that would change dramatically if it was under threat. The only chance the union has of surviving is to put all four home nations on an equal footing and as devolution cannot realistically be rolled back, that means by converting the Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies into parliament and creating an English Parliament.

The second argument - too many politicians - is a common one and the easiest to dismiss. We currently have over 650 British MPs. If you took away 80% of their job by devolving it to an English Parliament, why would you still need over 650 British MPs? It needn't mean more politicians, just different politicians. With a devolved parliament in all four home nations and a small federal British government, there would be no need for any more than one British MP per county with the balance (or less) being English parliamentary constituencies, allowing for 2 or 3 Members of an English Parliament to represent each county.

The third argument - that it is playing into the hands of the European Empire - is such bunkum that it's barely worth talking about but if I don't dispell the myth it will perpetuate. Our imperial overlords on the continent split the UK up decades ago. They didn't split it into four, but into twelve euroregions - Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and nine euroregions of England. Uniting all nine euroregions under one devolved English Parliament would not be playing into the hands of the European Empire, it would be a two-fingered salute to the anglophobes and federalists that see a future where England only exists in history books.

UKIP's devolution policy loses us support from a large number of voters who want an English Parliament, 99% of which are arch-eurosceptics. Those people generally vote for the Tories because of their vague promises (aren't they always vague?) to sort out the West Lothian Question or, if they feel that strongly about it, they vote for the English Democrats. If UKIP came out in favour of an English Parliament, we would not only reinforce our credentials as a democratic, libertarian party but we would attract the vast majority of English Democrat voters and an even bigger chunk of Tory voters. If we can't convince enough people to vote UKIP in the general election on our policy of leaving the European Empire, let's convince them to vote for us by supporting an English Parliament.

For Info: I am a national council member of the Campaign for an English Parliament