UK News

UKIP and the burka.

Jenny Riddell

17/01/10

So, the far right have been at it again. Nigel Farage, former leader of UKIP, is expected to make a formal announcement today (watch out for it, it should be posted here) warning of the threat of Islam on the fabric of British society (Yawn. Getting tired of this debate, it’s well trodden). The burka, together with the ‘threat’ of the Sharia are both apparently inconsistent with ‘traditional Britishness’, and more specifically the burka needs to be banned, urgently.

In an interview with the Times, Farage spoke of the need to “ban the burka — or anything which conceals a woman’s face” in both public and private spaces. Interestingly, even the BNP haven’t come as far as to publically propose a total ban (though that is not to suppose that they don’t privately wish to, but credit to the BNP, they know what sells in the Sun and Mirror, proposing instead that they be banned in schools).

It’s worrying how the notion of ‘Britishness’ is increasingly looked upon as anything that is consistent with the white middle class, rather than the ideals of plurality and freedoms. But that’s for another debate.

What’s more important to me is what do UKIP and Farage think they will actually achieve if they do become the little Hitlers that they dream of being? Banning the burka won’t ‘liberate’ these women. The more extreme (and I use this word cautiously) attitudes towards women in Islam won’t change from this top down approach.

What will emerge however is a new level of concealment. Forcing women to stay indoors would inevitably become the means to an end. For some women, having no burka will mean no access to public education, necessary health care and any form of social interaction; these women would become virtual prisoners in their own home.

Is endorsing this outcome consistent with the (increasingly mythical) notion of Britishness? I think not. My advice to UKIP? Stick to the EU dogma.

Double Standards?

Siobhán Gabriella Gibney (18/11/09)

Former British MEP Tom Wise was recently sentenced to two years in jail for mishandling his expenses. A member of UKIP (until he was thrown out, that is), Wise pleaded guilty to a year of false claims that allowed him to spend excess money on cars and wine, among other pleasantries. Of course, I applaud the Southwark Crown Court for applying the law to his case and prosecuting such behaviour. But I’m a little confused – wasn’t it just a few months ago that Westminster was drowning in the chaos of one of the worst political scandals of our time? And wasn’t that scandal all about MPs abusing their expenses privileges? How many of them have been taken to court? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe not a single MP has been prosecuted for mishandling his or her expenses. A few have resigned, several are being asked to pay back extremely outrageous claims, but not a single one has seen the inside of a courtroom, and most likely never will. Why the double standard? MPs can abuse their expenses privileges but MEPs cannot? Or maybe there is safety in numbers? Let us all learn a lesson from this: if you commit an individual crime simultaneously with a few hundred people, you’ll get off with a warning. You might be asked to return what you’ve stolen, and those poor suckers who come after you will have an auditor breathing down their necks the whole time they’re in office.

Reports on Wise’s sentence say that he was paying a researcher £500 per month, but claiming for £3000. So in a month he pocketed £2500. That’s the same amount Lembit Opik claimed for a plasma TV. It’s less than Douglas Hogg claimed for the cleaning of his moat (yes, Mr. Hogg has a moat). It’s less than a third of what Sir Michael Scott claimed for garden maintenance. And less than a fourth of Sir Alan Haselhurst’s gardening bills. The jury warned that if Wise had not been caught, he could have continued with this scam for five years, acquiring up to £180 000. Why, that’s the same amount some MPs claimed in one year.

Or maybe Wise was prosecuted and sentenced because he just couldn’t come up with good enough excuses. He should have taken notes from Westminster’s best. The prime example is of course Anthony Steen, whose home expenses over four years reached almost £90 000, including a private sewage system, and guarding the shrubs from rabbits. Comparing his house to the Queen’s residence in Scotland, he claimed ‘jealousy’ was the reason for any outcry against him. Indeed. Employing a different tactic, Nadine Dorries apparently tried to gain pity from the masses, saying that ‘the atmosphere in Westminster is unbearable…everyone fears a suicide’. Poor things, faced with the prospect of having to take responsibility for their actions. Why oh why did Wise not play the suicide card in front of the jury?

The point is not that Wise should have been spared prosecution. Most certainly not. The point is that British courts should not apply a double standard – one treatment for elected politicians serving in the European Parliament, and on one for those in the national parliament.

Miliband’s approval: another reason not to appoint Blair as European Council President

Siobhán Gabriella Gibney (28/10/09)

Having recently assured the public that he has no ambitions to be new High Representative for CFSP (huge sighs of relief across the continent), David Miliband has just made a strong pitch for Tony Blair to be European Council President. Shocking – one Labour politician supporting another’s sly bid for the new top EU job. It’s no secret that Miliband was an advisor to Blair before running for MP himself, and was given his first cabinet posting by former PM Blair as well. Perhaps he felt it was his time to return the favour?

Praising Blair, Miliband said the EU needs someone who could ‘stop the traffic in world capitals.’ Blair’s potential appointment certainly stops traffic, but not for the right reasons. The EU needs a President who will be respected in capitals worldwide. While Tony Blair may be a household name, it is more for the harm he caused, than the help he gave. The fact that he can ‘stop traffic’ hardly speaks to his favour. Blair is notorious for responding to Bush’s war cry by joining the Iraqi invasion, leading his unwilling country to war, in search of the mythical weapons of mass destruction. His actions sparked protests worldwide – the traffic stopped, but not in his honour.

Miliband has said he it would be good for Britain and for Europe if Tony Blair was chosen. It certainly wouldn’t be good for Europe, and the benefits for Britain are not so clear either. The EU needs a strong, respected leader. It does not need a self-promoting Bush-loving ex-PM from the most euro-skeptic state, a state that participates in neither Schengen nor the common currency, two of the most significant symbols of European integration. Whether the UK would benefit from Blair’s revival is also not self-evident. As has already been mentioned, he’s not exactly a revered figure after the Iraq debacle. Moreover, with the next government likely to be Conservative, Britain would gain nothing from having ‘one of their own’ in the top EU job, considering that Cameron and Blair are not what we’d call friends. Shadow Europe minister Mark Francois has already highlighted this, suggesting that the British are against the Lisbon Treaty, so ‘to impose Tony Blair as European President…would only underline the Treaty’s complete lack of democratic legitimacy’. While I’m thrilled and relieved that the question of Lisbon Treaty ratification will not be posed in referendum to the mis-informed British masses, I agree that no one, especially the Brits, should be imposed to another few years under former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Nick Griffin, MEP: Holocaust and Climate Change denier

Siobhán Gabriella Gibney (24/10/09)

Among all the ignorant, offensive, and at times simply confusing things BNP leader Nick Griffin said on Question Time (22/10), was a dismissive comment, in which he declined to state his opinion because it was not allowed under ‘European law’.  He was referring to a question posed by host David Dimbleby about his beliefs about the Holocaust. In 1998, he stated that he was ‘aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the Earth was flat’, concluding that the history of the Holocaust as we know it is thanks to propaganda and a profitable lie.

Asked to confirm this statement, he claimed he couldn’t give his opinion because European law prevented him from doing so. Justice Minister Jack Straw was quick to point out that there is no such law (while some states such as Austria prosecute Holocaust deniers, there is no EU law that forces people to believe in what the vast majority of us consider to be historical fact). To the amusement of some in the audience, he was also quick to remind Mr. Griffin that he is indeed the Justice Minister and thus would not have him tried for expressing his opinion. These quips didn’t do much good, as Griffin skirted around the query, as he did with most quotes he was asked to verify throughout the evening.

Noteworthy, however, is that this was the only reference, indirect as it was, to the EU for the entire length of the show, despite the fact that Griffin is in fact a Member of the European Parliament. If one is to believe the BBC, it was solely because of his election to the EP this year that he was invited to appear on Question Time. Apparently, once a political party in Britain reaches a certain electoral threshold, BBC feels democratically obliged to let them on the air. There are those of us who recognize that protection of minorities is also fundamental to any good democracy, so giving air time to a man desperate to spread his racist ideology should trump this feeling of obligation, but that’s another matter. Whether we like it or not, Nick Griffin did indeed win a seat in the European Parliament where he now sits as an unattached member (not part of an international party alliance).

But what mark has he made on Europe? His hour-long appearance on one television show has certainly stirred a lot of fuss in the UK. He sits on three committees, most peculiar of which is the Delegation for relations with Belarus (perhaps to convince the Belarussians to stay in their own country?). He’s only given two speeches so far, but fair enough – he was only elected this past June. His speeches are typical BNP: so outrageous, you’re not sure whether to laugh that these thoughts could actually enter someone’s head, or to cry because there are actually people who think this way, and by god, we’ve elected them to represent us.

The most recent speech he gave was on climate change. Stop for a minute before you continue reading, and guess, what does Nick Griffin think about climate change? If you’ve thought of a most absurd and exaggerated state of denial, you’re dead on. Griffin disregards the ‘hysterical obsession with man-made global warming’ as ‘an unproven theory based on manipulative statistics’, that is widely regarded as an ‘elite scam’. He insists ‘before the political class and green industrial complex dare to impose a single new tax, poisoned light bulb or useless wind farm on the ordinary taxpayer, they need to try and convince the public…that returning to the warmer climate of the medieval times would be a bad thing.’ It’s almost laughable. And I suspect some of his European colleagues would have been laughing if they weren’t so appalled by such nonsense. Useless wind farm? God forbid they impose another form of environmentally-friendly renewable energy on us. And well, maybe he does have a point, who wouldn’t enjoy warmer weather? Aside from the people who live in cities that will be wiped out when the ice caps melt, that is.

Consider the strong ideological divide between Griffin, and say, Swedish MEPs. A test project has just begun in Stockholm, in which food is labelled with its carbon footprint, to encourage citizens to adopt a more sustainable diet. Griffin meanwhile, is suggesting we might enjoy a spot of warmer weather, and enough with these wind farms already! And it’s not just the Swedes he’s off par with. The European Union has long fancied itself a leader in environmental policy, and in preparation for December’s Copenhagen Climate Change Conference has been pushing external states to commit to high carbon reduction targets. The Parliament stands firmly behind the EU’s environmental advocacy.          Suffice to say, the mighty BNP leader is sorely outnumbered in the European Parliament. His extremist views appear even more exaggerated amongst his continental colleagues, a group in which Euro-skeptic Brits are by nature out-of-place. While in his own country, his appearance on a popular primetime television programme sparked massive outrage and debate, and rightly so, rest assured that on the European stage, Griffin is, for now at least, a small and insignificant player.

11 Comments

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI