Burka Ban Bites

So UKIP are furious that they got called racist and two of their members were therefore not selected as the permanent foster parents for ethnic minority children. UKIP have been bundled together with the BNP quite unfairly for ages, not least by Baroness Warsi whom many would suppose to be well informed on the issues facing ethnic minorities, so for one moment I was ready to leap to their defence. Then I remembered the Burka Ban, the one objectively observable fact about UKIP that does suggest a whiff of racism is that they wanted to discourage Burkhas.

As Julie Borowski reminds us in her latest video, the public want to vote for social liberals. She’s talking about Americans but I believe it to be true here also. Social liberty is in fashion just as economic liberty is moving beyond the pale, and the answer for confused right of centre political parties is to discard personal taste as a matter of politics and move to a consisently libertarian position politically. If you really feel abortion or whatever is a major issue, join a campaigning church group. Surrender your outmoded social views and fight the neccessary political battle for economic liberty. In a way UKIP are paying the price for ideological inconsistency, not necessarily in actuality, but in terms of confused PR messages and branding. In the main, that works for me. Silly ideas should be punished, its the one thing we can choose to change.

The problem is that the original policy was technically well formed. If I recall correctly, becuase it merely clarified the right of property owners to ban burkas on their land –  a right they should properly possess. The war must be faught for property rights of that kind, that put racist idiots in charge of their own fate and put difficult subtleties such as security issues under local, rather than centralised control. You just can’t seem racist while doing it, and the public are so poorly educated about such principles that some blue water is required between UKIP and the BNP before they should have tackled that one.

The smear has worked, but UKIP can fight on by clearly articulating the ideas they have adopted in their constitution.

UPDATE
So I said above that discrimination based on ideology is something I’m okay with. I am okay with that, but as Graham Stuart MP (via ConservativeHome) points out the council has abused it’s power in this case. I don’t blame the workers involved for being ignorant about what membership of UKIP really implies but political institutions should not indulge in discrimination, that is an attack on political freedom. Another reason that democratic institutions should not be involved in such a broad range of activities.

The BBC eventually covered the story, but most impressive is Michael Gove who also did well to show that this is not good for the children.

8 Comments

  1. Those workers are, we are so often told, professionals, required to be aware of the actual views and mores of members of the population and to not act on their own ill-informed, convenient bigotry.

    But your point is very well put – the “burka ban” was a real challenge. Of course, many actively spun the distortion at every opportunity. I feel there were 1001 other policies to put in place before that one.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Oh yes, structurally, the system relies in a fundamental way on staff of above average capabilities, and often doesn’t get them. That is a fundamental reason not to have so many things done by government. Do you think, that the government is the best institution to be doing this job? The voluntary sector has already been involved and some people have suggested that having markets in children might not be as bad as it sounds, and in the case where a rational and careful mother wishes to give her child for adoption that seems plausible. I’m not sure about this case though, I heard it was an emergency situation that put the kids with the UKIP members originally. Very different.

      Like

      Reply

  2. I watched the Rand Paul video – I do not see how it fits with the post and with the comments.

    Anyway…. “people want to vote for socially liberal candidates” – well Guardian readers do, but there are not many of them, and they are not going to vote libertarian this side of Hell freezing over.

    The United States?

    No one (not even the most hardcore Roman Catholic) actually wants to BAN contraception – the debate is over whether it should be “free” or not. That is not how the media present the debate – but that is the truth.

    “Gay Marriage”? Again no one is in favour of banning private ceremonies or one man calling another man his wife. The debate is over whether individuals and private organisations should be FORCED to “recognise” such unions.

    Again not how the media present the debate – but what the debate actually is about.

    Why do you think the trial lawyers (and other such) put so much money into the pro Gay Marriage cause?

    It is for all the nice fat “anti discrimination” money.

    And how about other “socially liberal” causes? Such as “equal pay for the same work” – which turns out to be equal pay for TOTALLY DIFFERENT jobs?

    Are libertarians into that?

    No?

    Well kiss the “social liberal” vote goodbye – because equal pay (for men and women who are NOT doing the same jobs) is a sacred cause for them – all part of the equality agenda. Just like the “anti disctimination” stuff.

    If someone reads (and likes) such things as the New York Times or Washington Post (or the British Economist magazine and Financial Times newspaper) they are NOT friends.

    If someone can watch the latest television “comedy” shows (or news and current affairs shows on the “socially liberal” stations) without wanting to put their fist into the screen – they are NOT friends.

    People who like the media (and academia) as they are, are not going to be friends.

    Do not like that? Well get used to it – because it is the truth.

    On the actual video……

    The lady is right.

    In terms of voting and belief one can not put a piece of tissue paper between Ron Paul and Rand Paul – but there is a huge difference.

    Rand Paul wants to WIN.

    And if any libertarians are not tired of losing yet, they really need a bayonet shoved up the backside.

    “Violent, and non aggression principle violating, language!”.

    If anyone is really upset by such use of language I advice you to quietly put yourselves to sleep (down at the local vet) now.

    Because there are lot worse things than my nasty language comming down the road.

    Things are going to get worse (much worse) before they get better.

    If they do get better.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Paul. The point of mentioning the Julie video is twofold. A) she came up in discussion at the pro liberty social so I had been looking for an excuse to add a link B) I genuinely think her analysis applies although yes, economic liberty of even the diluted sort is a much harder sell here. More on that later but in a word “starbucks”. All the more reason for UKIP to focus on it and not on appealing to the older generation.

      By the way, I asked Harry Aldridge what the status of the burka ban policy is, he says it was ditched when Nigel came back as leader, but course we all remember it.

      Also he confirmed my recollection of the original policy.

      Like

      Reply

  3. My apologies – I did not deal with the Burka ban stuff.

    In France it is actually considered “socially liberal” to be in favour of a ban.

    Anyway I am (like yourself) a pro private property man.

    If someone wants to ban a motorbike helmet (that obscures the face) on their property that is up to them – ditto a burka.

    But a government ban?

    That is crazy.

    Like

    Reply

  4. I do not agree with the ban on the niqab, but this in itself cannot suggest racism, because Muslims are no more a race than are communists or conservatives.

    In France, for instance, prohibiting this face cloth in public spaces is an argument firmly in the domain of feminists and secularists.

    Nothing about UKIP’s badly thought out policy on this suggests “a whiff of racism”. It is to my understanding that this policy has been revoked under Nigel Farage’s second tenure as Leader.

    Like

    Reply

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