Party leader/leading berk, Paul Nuttall
In its local election manifesto, UKIP says it is bringing “a breath of fresh air” to British politics. While most of us would insist that it’s not fresh air we smell, but rather the sweaty funk of proto-fascism, UKIP is nonetheless coming into this election campaign to remind us that it’s a serious party full of serious people with serious policies, rather than the party crammed full of paedophiles, white supremacists, and animal abusers that it was two years ago.
Who knows, maybe a leopard can change its spots. Let’s see what flavour of “fresh air” party leader Paul Nuttall wants to waft across Britain, shall we?
Well, that’s certainly one way to spearhead your campaign. While the rest of the political parties bother the airwaves with such trivial matters as the future of the NHS and the issue of low wages, UKIP is courageously breaking the mould by targeting people for the clothes they wear.
In an interview with Sky News, Nuttall suggested that garments like the burqa are a security risk in places like banks, since the perpetrator cannot be properly identified. There is exactly one recorded incident of a person robbing a British bank while wearing a burqa. Clearly a national emergency.
Deputy party leader Peter Whittle also claims that full-face veils are a “deliberate barrier to integration”, but UKIP isn’t very clear about what constitutes integration in the first place. I hate football, couldn’t care less about fish and chips, and haven’t watched the X Factor for years. Have I failed to integrate too? Can we trust people who wear tweed to properly judge what is and isn’t acceptable dress?
In all seriousness, burqa bans are both ineffective and dangerous. Reports from France, which banned full-face veils seven years ago, suggest that the ban hasn’t stopped women from wearing the burqa in public, and many pay the fine but continue to dress the way they want as an act of defiance. The ban has also produced a rise in Islamophobic hate crimes in cities like Paris, where women are assaulted on the streets for wearing Islamic clothes. The ban has not “integrated” anybody, but rather put them at risk of violence.
So, it’s clear that UKIP is just wasting everybody’s time with its proposal for a burqa ban. But it does take the grave issue of female genital mutilation seriously, at least. The party now offers us an integration agenda to peruse on the issue, so let’s see what well-measured, sensible and Muslim-led policy UKIP has to stop the spread of FGM:
In case you’re staring at your screen in bewilderment, I’ll spell it out for you: UKIP wants to force “at risk” schoolgirls to undergo an invasive medical exam on an annual basis to make sure they haven’t been subjected to FGM. Girls who travel abroad would also be subjected to an additional exam of their genitals when they return to school too, and if a girl is found to have been mutilated, UKIP would automatically prosecute the parents.
No parent in their right mind would willingly subject their children to such abuse. Were I a Muslim parent, I would seriously consider taking my children out of the state school system if such a policy were passed. That leaves either homeschooling or faith schools, the latter of which would be extensively monitored by a UKIP government too. The party essentially wants to keep Muslim girls under the watchful eye of the state at all times.
It is no surprise that a party which repeatedly nominated paedophiles and sex offenders during the last general election doesn’t think it’s wrong to forcibly inspect young girls’ genitals.
The final noteworthy tale in this saga of “holy crap are they serious?” is a policy targeting child groomers. The policy does not actually do anything to prevent child grooming, but rather offers an inconceivably racist change to sentencing. According to UKIP Education Spokesman David Kurten:
“In cases where the victims of grooming gangs are of a different racial or religious group than the offenders, the CPS should cite this as an aggravating feature of the offence when prosecuting, opening the way to a longer sentence”
UKIP genuinely wants to create a two-tier criminal justice system which factors in a person’s religion and skin colour when charging them with a crime. But harsher sentences for groomers who happen to be different from their victims means lighter sentences for groomers who happen to be the same as their victims.
Why does UKIP want to let off white groomers? Why are they not deserving of harsher sentences too? Child grooming should be a crime, full stop, and there is no possible way being the same colour as your victim makes the crime less severe or worthy of a lighter sentence.
Thankfully, this insistence on persecuting British Muslims is offending just about everybody, including top members of UKIP itself: MEP James Carver recently resigned in protest against the “integration agenda”, describing it as “vile” and “misguided”. “No one has the right to dictate what people should wear”, he added.
The party’s finances continue to be in absolute ruin (ironically, thanks to Brexit), and many of those who voted UKIP in 2015 have deserted the party and returned to the Tories. The party is bleeding badly, and if it thinks inspecting children’s genitals will rescue it and restore it to national glory, it is even more stupid than I initially thought.