When things go wrong, that’s when leadership is both tested and defined. Only weeks after innocent people were murdered in Westminster, we have again in Britain have had our way of life assaulted by Islamic killers. The aim of Islamic killers is clear, regardless of how it is sanitised by our politicians; Islam won’t tolerate freedom and we are attacked for being free.
It is written in every other page of the Koran, the persecution and punishment of the unbeliever. Some say these verses apply only to defence, but rarely do they describe (or even know) what it is that Islam defends itself from. It defends itself from disobedience to its rule. To clarify, our freedom is deemed an attack on Islam, and killing us for our defiance is deemed an act of defence.
The increasing terror attacks in the West, as well as the criminal acts such as child marriage or FGM, are the inevitable result of globalisation. When you shift huge populations to live in countries where their values and way of life will clash with the natives, enormous problems will result. When they have, it is globalisation that has been defended, because most of our politicians are dutifully on board.
The Islamic terror attacks are being presented to us as a battle of Good vs Evil. We will not however name who is good and who is evil, or why. We will not call it what it really is, a battle between freedom and a totalitarian supremacist religion. Instead, we have created a fantasy world where we simply pretend that divisions are created not by the existence of different and incompatible ideologies, but by those who point the incompatibility or difference. We are all “one people” is the idea, and the murder and mayhem is brought about by a few bad eggs motivated by nothing in particular.
What is taking place right now is that an expansionist, political, totalitarian and supremacist faith, commanded to world domination, has met with the global destruction of borders. The result of this is obvious, large Muslim populations now live across the Western world, and with them has come Islam – a religion that won’t tolerate free expression, religious or philosophical freedom, and certainly not female freedom. As such, in the West it is now normal for people to whisper, keep their views to themselves, say nothing, or speak only positively about the Islamic master. Thousands upon thousands of girls have been raped by Muslims. Book-burnings in the street have been carried out by Muslims. Marches against free speech and demands for blasphemy punishments are now part of life in this age-old home of freedom.
Fear of Islam so dominates politics that our leaders are terrified to put a foot wrong. Their fear is almost visible. The lines they deliver are all the same – meaningless and evasive. No politician will name the driving force behind these killers, instead they indulge in the pantomime our complicit media dutifully places on the airwaves. All of it is devoted to one thing – sanitising Islam and keeping the borders open.
The standard public discourse is that the Manchester slaughter was an attack by bad people on good people, and not an attack by Muslims on non-Muslims. This is of course in tune with the open border ‘we are all alike’ utopian fantasy that our leaders are desperate to sell.
One example that stands out is the Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull who called it an “attack on young people everywhere”. It was not an attack on young people everywhere, it was an attack on free British youngsters enjoying the music and festivity of our beautiful Western culture. Donald Trump called the killer a “loser”. A loser? No, he’s not a loser President Trump, he is a jihadi, he is performing jihad. Is there nobody who will tell it like it is? Nobody who won’t indulge in this disguise of jihad?
When things go wrong, true leadership shows, and the British people have seen little of it. Instead they are being fed the same platitudes that keep the borders open and the people blind to the terrible realities that accompany the Islamic religion. A leader will face the truth, be honest with those they lead, and offer them the courage it takes to truly confront the challenges of this era-defining issue.
If I were the leader of UKIP, that is what I would offer. The people need an alternative to the platitudes. Those who are going to fight the influence of Islam to preserve our freedoms, will only do so by reviving a healthy dose of British patriotism and nationalism. We need to be pro-Britain in order to oppose that which threatens Britain. A leader must clarify what kind of Britain we seek to build, and affirm that we will defend that Britain against all threats. Above all, a leader should tell the truth. The British people deserve nothing less. People must be told the truth – especially on such fundamental issues – because only when armed with reality can they tell their leader which direction they want to go in. When voters mark their ballot, they deserve to do so on the basis of facts, and not what is convenient for the politician.
We will build borders, we will deport those who seek to harm us, we will deport rapists and jihadis and we’ll do it quickly. We’ll get rid of the Human Rights Act, and the ECHR, and pay no heed to a UN that puts the savagery of Saudi Arabia on a human rights board (who can take guidance from such a hypocritical body with zero principles?)
Speaking of Saudi Arabia, if the Saudis disapprove of our views on Islam, that’s unfortunate, but the British won’t be told what we can and cannot say in our country. The Saudis will just have to exercise some tolerance, won’t they?
I believe that unless tackled with tough measures, attacks in Britain will continue and escalate. Our politicians are wholly committed to the global project, across political parties. To take this on, to truly face this issue and to tell the truth, it will mean taking on the entire established internationalist order. It will mean defying and standing up to mainstream politics, mainstream media, unelected international bodies, and truly defending the people. This requires leadership, it requires guts, it requires the very opposite of ‘more of the same’. This issue needs radical thought, radical politics – it needs exactly the kind of party that UKIP ought to be.
Anne Marie Waters
Freedom of Information Request sent to West Midlands Police, February 28th 2016
Having read some of the tweets posted by West Midlands Police (@WMPolice) recently, I would be grateful if you could respond to the following questions as required under the Freedom of Information Act.
In a tweet posted by WMP on February 26th, the following is stated:
“Since 2015 its been mandatory for midwives in England and Wales to report ‘known’ FGM cases to police (for under 18s)”
Please answer the following:
1) How many reports of FGM has WMP received from midwives since 2015?
2) What exactly is the procedure if and when such reports are made? Please explain this in detail. How do WMP follow up on these? Who is responsible for communicating this information to midwives in the West Midlands? Could you please supply a copy of what information midwives receive in this regard and from whom?
3) Regarding the procedure referred to in question 2, who decides (has decided) upon this procedure? Is this Government or WMP policy?
4) How many prosecutions for the crime of FGM have such reports resulted in?
5) If there have been no prosecutions as a result of these reports, can you explain in detail what the difficulties are in securing charges and/or convictions?
Please send replies to this email address.
Thank you and best wishes,
Anne Marie Waters
(Replies will be posted here in due course)
A lot has been written about the absurd “Women’s March” that took place in Washington recently. Feminists from across the world bravely came together to protest against a man who has done nothing at all to women’s rights. They did so in “solidarity” with a religion that openly practices female slavery and gets away with it. The organiser of the “Women’s March” is a Saudi apologist who praises the very sharia law that ensures women in countries like Saudi Arabia are kept as property. Even so, Islamist Linda Sarsour led a group of gullible, privileged, clueless feminists though the US capital. Every bearded jihadi on the planet must have been laughing at that one, while the woman who suffers his oppression was told that Western feminists not only don’t care about her, but are actually marching in his favour.
The stupid women’s march aside, something else that caught my eye in the weeks since it took place has confirmed to me that modern feminism has nothing whatsoever to do with women’s rights. In fact, it threatens them. Feminism is now the enemy of women.
Feminists have decided not only to support the world’s most misogynistic religion, they also offer unwavering support to male-female transsexuals, once again at the expense of actual women (no, not “cis” women).
Firstly, my attention was drawn to an article by someone called Marie Solis.#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" target="_blank"> Solis objects rather strenuously to the “pussy hats” worn by those protesting against the Presidency of Donald Trump. She objects to this because recognising the vagina as part of the female, excludes transsexuals. Transsexuals don’t have a vagina is the ‘thinking’, so vaginas are incorrect. According to some of today’s feminists, vaginas are offensive. This is what she wrote: “While clever, pussy hats set the tone for a march that would focus acutely on genitalia at the expense of the transgender community. Signs like “Pussy power,” “Viva la Vulva” and “Pussy grabs back” all sent a clear and oppressive message to trans women, especially: having a vagina is essential to womanhood”. These people have clearly lost all connection with objective reality.
A second article I read was an objection to this insanity, and alerted me to even greater insanity. Charles Rae#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" target="_blank"> wrote a piece entitled ‘Women are being told their bodies are hate speech’ and in it referred to tweets she’d found referencing the Women’s March. One such tweet asked “do y’all silly cis white women not get how problematic your vagina signs are???”. So the bodies of actual women now represent something problematic – is this feminism?
Even worse, ‘lesbians don’t have penises’ or ‘women don’t have penises’ was deemed “transphobic”, and a reference to FGM (female genital mutilation) was labelled “cissexist”. My favourite one though is this: Planned Parenthood#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" target="_blank"> presents itself as a feminist organisation “founded on the revolutionary idea that women should have the information and care they need to live strong, healthy lives and fulfill their dreams — no ceilings, no limits”. Nice words, but I was stunned by a tweet the group sent regarding the so-called tampon tax. In it, Planned Parenthood referred to women as “menstruators”. Menstruators! Just imagine the feminist meltdown if Donald Trump referred to women as “menstruators”. Furthermore, what happened to all those years of work real feminists did to inform the world that a woman is a human being and not a walking uterus? But to accommodate transsexuals, the feminists have decided that all of that was meaningless, and we can in fact be referred to as “menstruators” after all.
It gets even worse.
Rae also points us to a “safe sex guide” issued by a group known as the Human Rights Campaign. In this one, we learn about the “front hole” of a woman. This, they say, is the “word to talk about internal genitals, sometimes referred to as a vagina”. In other words, actual women have now been designated “front holes”. Meanwhile, transsexuals are granted the word vagina for themselves. Vagina is now the “word to talk about the genitals of trans women who have had bottom surgery”.
Barack Obama, the President who cared so much about women that he wanted Americans to experience the cultural enrichment of mass immigration from the most woman-hating societies on earth, set about opening up girls’ bathrooms to anyone who said they were female.#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" target="_blank"> I personally know American women who objected to this, but the feminists don’t care. The opinions of women have nothing to do with feminism. That’s so last century.
Here in Britain, the British Medical Association (i.e. not some looney left fringe group) issued guidance#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" target="_blank"> requesting that pregnant women no longer be referred to as “expectant mothers” but “pregnant people”. The word “mother” may be offensive to transsexuals you see. Whether an actual expectant mother is offended by being referred to as a “pregnant person” is of no significance whatsoever. Who cares if actual women are offended? Certainly not feminists. The guidance booklet also states “there are some intersex men and trans men who may get pregnant”.
I have been back and forward on this issue. I’m a lesbian and I have known a few transsexuals in my time, and I’ve liked them. In fact, my guess is that it isn’t transsexuals themselves making these demands, but ridiculous ‘feminists’ on their behalf.
I have sympathy for people who genuinely believe they live in the wrong body, but my sympathy starts to wane when I am labelled a “menstruator” with a “front hole”. My sympathy also wanes when actual women’s concerns about sharing private spaces with men are dismissed, and women’s views ignored. I have almost no sympathy left however when I and everyone else is asked to alter objective realities in the public space to accommodate someone else’s desire to change their sex.
The importance of objective truth, and clear definition of language, is beyond measure. Without clear, defined, and objective language, society is chaos. The law is built on objective language for example, without it, there is no law enforcement possible. Without objectivity, there is no solid ground to stand on, there is no truth and no lie, everything is what we want it to be. It is entirely destructive (likely why it is so popular on the Left).
Some things change and so eventually some definitions change. Some things however do not change, we merely pretend they do, and we alter objective reality to accommodate this pretence. Here is some objective reality – men do not become pregnant, women do. Objective reality number two – men do not have vaginas, women do. That the British Medical Association talks about “pregnant men” is frankly frightening, and indicative of how far from reality and truth we have drifted.
The just treatment of women is far more important than ‘feminism’. A society where men hold a violent hand of authority over women is a dark one, where children grow up witnessing the constant humiliation of their mothers. This is not healthy, and it is not the direction we should be heading in. (It is not a coincidence either that the most unjust, brutal, dysfunctional, and often poverty-stricken countries in the world – where child-rape and mutilation are the norm – are the ones in which women have no say).
Feminists today have decided to defer to misogynists at a time when women’s rights need immediate defence. If it isn’t Muslim immigration threatening us, we have Western misogynists who take every opportunity to blame all of the world’s problems on us (how original), and to top it off, we have a ‘feminism’ movement that has decided that bringing Islamic rape culture to the West is more important than protecting women from it. They’ve decided too to insult our bodies, demean our genitals, and hand over female private spaces to any man who wants access. As a lifelong feminist, my disgust for this behaviour, and this betrayal of women, has made even me despise the very word.
This is occurring because when real feminists in the West achieved their goal of equal rights, they went away and got on with enjoying them. What was left behind was a vacuum that would be filled by inept whining children with no idea of the importance of what they were dealing with. All schooled in Social Justice Warriorism 101 – ‘if it ain’t white, it must be alright’ – they rode on the coattails of feminists while simultaneously destroying their legacy.
I take no pleasure in writing any of this, but it has to be said. Third-wave feminism is a poison that has elevated all other considerations over and above those of actual women. They are the new misogynists, and an enemy to me and any woman (or man) who wants to live in a free, safe, and just society.
#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" target="_blank"> https://mic.com/articles/166273/how-the-women-s-march-s-genital-based-feminism-isolated-the-transgender-community#.ttbVSB5ZH
#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" target="_blank"> http://thefifthcolumnnews.com/2017/01/womens-march-hate-speech/
#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" target="_blank"> https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are
#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" target="_blank"> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/22/texas-judge-block-obama-transgender-bathroom-order/
#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" target="_blank"> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/29/dont-call-pregnant-women-expectant-mothers-might-offend-transgender/
In August, two young friends from Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, were walking through the town when a group of men pulled up alongside them and ordered them to “get in the car”. I recently spoke to one of the girls, 15 year old Ellie Reynolds, who despite having reported the incident to police, had had no contact from them when I met her on December 5th. She also told me she is almost certain that the same has happened to other girls in the town since then.
It wasn’t only one car either. Phone-calls were made and more arrived. Ellie took photographs of some of these cars, but the police, when I interviewed her, had still not looked at them. Part of the description of the men provided by Ellie: “like Turks”.
The details of the story are these.
On the 8th of August, Ellie and a 13 year old friend were walking through Barrow-in-Furness, close to their home. A silver car pulled up alongside them and the men inside shouted at them to get in. When they refused, one of them said Ellie’s name and told her he “had her details anyway”. She had never seen these men before and had no idea who they were, nor had her friend. Understandably very shaken by this, she suggested to me that its possible that girls are being sought out on social media sites. She and her friends are avid Facebookers so yes, it’s possible.
Both girls’ families reported the incident to police on the day it happened. I did not speak to the 13 year old girl, but Ellie had still not heard from them in December, despite chasing several times. Police told the Reynolds family that they had called to the house to find nobody home, but no note was left and there was no attempt to contact them either before or after this supposed visit.
Theresa McMeekin is a friend of the family and said that she too had phoned the police saying she had copies of the photos and asking if they wanted to see them. She said they told her that as she wasn’t directly connected to the case, she could not report it. On hearing this, the Reynolds’ contacted police again and were told they would be visited – they weren’t.
McMeekin posted details about it on her Facebook page, only to find out later that the post hadn’t been made public. Ellie also wrote about it on Facebook to warn her friends. She soon found herself attacked for “racism”. She told me “it was like I was the one in the wrong for reporting it”.
Theresa McMeekin has a young daughter soon starting secondary school, and police were kind enough to advise her that she should warn her daughter of “stranger danger generally” without mentioning any ethnicity. They are on the ball on some matters then.
When a local journalist contacted Barrow police to follow up on Ellie’s complaint, he was told “The victim did not wish to pursue the complaint further”. Ellie Reynolds said this is completely untrue. She was still waiting for them to contact her.
The Police and Crime Commissioner for the area is Conservative Peter McCall. He was sent an email on September 23rd with a detailed description of both the incident involving the girls, and the lack of police response. Theresa McMeekin stated in the email that she represented worried parents in the area, but she didn’t hear back until she chased him on Twitter on October 31st. At that point, he replied “Once we have the police response, they come to me so that I see them with the facts/issues so that I can give you a more informed answer. I have just checked and we are expecting the response from the constabulary imminently. I do appreciate that this does seem slow but you will understand that they get many questions from the public all of which take police time to answer and some are very complex. I am keen to have honest and open dialogue with the public and very much welcome your engagement. As soon as I have the response to your particular concerns we will write and if that doesn’t answer your questions I’d be very pleased to chat.”
I wrote to Chief Constable Jeremy Graham on December 9th and asked him about the above. (You can read the reply on the link provided). I have learned since that the Reynolds family has finally had that contact from police that they’d been promised for so long.
What do we learn from all of this? Firstly, that there is a very real probability that the grooming gang crimes are expanding in to new areas and towns in the north of England. Secondly, as with Rotherham and elsewhere, there is simply no adequate police action. Nothing has changed since the Jay Report.
To top it off, basic bread-and-butter policing, such as providing descriptions, is subject to concerns that the description might be of someone from a minority group. It is incredibly dangerous for a society if facts about crimes are kept quiet for fear of being thought ‘controversial’ or ‘unhelpful’.
The only answer to this is common sense and impartial policing, but just as importantly, a real and robust way for members of the public to hold police to account. This horror has gone on for too long.
Email to Chief Constable Jeremy Graham, Barrow in Furness police, December 9th 2016
Dear Mr Graham,
I am a freelance writer, researcher and campaigner and I am currently looking in to reports of the sexual harassment of girls by so-called “Asian” gangs across the United Kingdom. It was in this capacity that I have recently spoken to Ellie Reynolds (15), a resident of Barrow in Furness. I met Ms Reynolds, along with her mother, on the 5th of December 2016 at their home in Barrow in Furness.
Ms Reynolds informed me that on the evening of August 8th 2016, she and a 13 year old friend were walking on Hindpool Road, Barrow in Furness, when they were approached by a car containing a group of men. The men repeatedly told the two girls to “get in the car”. Both girls refused to do so, but Ms Reynolds was alarmed when they then told her “we’ve got your details anyway” and that they appeared to know her name. She is unsure how this could be, as she had never seen the men before.
As the girls walked on, the first car was joined by others – taking the total to four – and some of these men began taking photos of the girls. The parents of both girls later phoned the police to report the incident. Ellie had taken two photographs of some of the cars and offered to show these to the police. Ms Reynolds described the men as looking “like Turks”. She also informed me that she knows of other young girls who have had similar experiences in the town since this incident took place.
As of December 5th 2016, no contact has been made by the police to Ellie Reynolds or her parents. There was one apparent contact when police claim to have called to her house, but the Reynolds family dispute this. As of December 5th 2016, no police officer has seen the relevant photographs or, according to the Reynolds family, taken any interest in doing so.
Furthermore, Theresa McMeekin, a friend of the Reynolds family, informs me that a task force had been established to deal with harassment from men in cars in the town. Ms McMeekin phoned the task forced to inform them that she had photographs of the cars involved in the incident involving Ms Reynolds (the Reynolds family had sent the photos to Ms McMeekin) but police allegedly told Ms McMeekin that she could not report this as she herself was not directly involved in the incident. The Reynolds family once again phoned police at that point, but to date, have not yet received a visit from police.
Ms McMeekin informs me that local a journalist, when he attempted to investigate the matter further, told her that police had explained to him that Ms Reynolds no longer wished to pursue the matter; when in fact Ms Reynolds had been waiting for contact from police.
I intend to publish this story on or around Monday 12th December and would appreciate your response to the following questions:
1) Is the task force mentioned above still in existence and is information from the public sought? If so, why was Ms McMeekin’s information refused?
2) Why have police not yet seen the photos taken by Ms Reynolds and why have the Reynolds family not yet been spoken to directly by police?
3) Why was a local journalist told that Ms Reynolds no longer intended to pursue the matter by police, when this was not the case?
4) Do police in Barrow in Furness intend to pursue this matter?
I would appreciate your reply to these questions as soon as possible.
Anne Marie Waters
REPLY FROM BARROW IN FURNESS POLICE:
1) Is the task force mentioned above still in existence and is information from the public sought? If so, why was Ms McMeekin’s information refused? The local paper referred to a “Task Force” it was actually a group of officers from different departments coming together to look at the issue. We can’t comment on our discussions with individuals related to the incidents.
2) Why have police not yet seen the photos taken by Ms Reynolds and why have the Reynolds family not yet been spoken to directly by police? The incident has been dealt with by the local police in Barrow and if anyone involved has further information they are invited to contact the local CID and speak to DI Helen Ellis or one of her team. If it is an incident that has just occurred please call 101 or in an emergency call 999.
3) Why was a local journalist told that Ms Reynolds no longer intended to pursue the matter by police, when this was not the case? As above we are not at liberty to discuss individuals suffice to say we have a full record of dealing with the incidents.
4) Do police in Barrow in Furness intend to pursue this matter? All incidents have been investigated and should further incidents occur or information come to light it will of course be further investigated. Each incident is scrutinised and investigative opportunities explored.
There is no suggestion in the last few months that any reports made to the local police are linked and parents and members of the community should be vigilante for any behaviour out of the ordinary or anyone seen to be approaching children. It would be totally wrong to think that this behaviour is confined to any particular groups of people as the reports to the police feature a cross section of descriptions of people of different ages and appearances some on foot some in vehicles.
If you are worried or see anything out of the ordinary please contact Cumbria Police on 101 or in an emergency call 999.
Please sign the petition to demand that the BBC provide full and honest coverage of sharia law in the UK.
PO Box 1922
Darlington, DL3 0UR
Two inquiries in to the use of sharia law in the UK are currently on-going; one such inquiry was ordered by Prime Minister Theresa May when she was Home Secretary, the other a Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry. Given this, the BBC has had cause to cover the issue of sharia law in recent weeks.
BBC coverage of this topic has been both unbalanced and incomplete, with vital information excluded.
Please address the following points.
On the Sunday Morning Live programme of November 6th 2016 (BBC1), sharia councils in the United Kingdom were discussed. At no point during the programme were the following facts mentioned:
Sharia councils in the UK are overwhelmingly run and overseen by men with a history of expressing jihadist and deeply misogynistic notions. For example, Suhaib Hasan – a senior figure at the Islamic Sharia Council – is on record as calling for “The chopping the hands of the thieves, the flogging of the adulterers, the flogging of the drunkards, then jihad against the non-Muslim”. Furthermore, Haitham al-Haddad, another senior ‘judge’ at the same organization, has stated clearly: “A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife”. He also advocates “lashing” and “stoning” as punishment for adultery.#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" target="_blank"> Why, on full discussion of sharia law in the UK, are these highly relevant facts not included?
Programmes did not mention the fact that a woman has no unilateral right to divorce under sharia law (even in cases of domestic violence) and are obliged either to seek the permission of a husband or a group of clerics, a woman’s testimony is worth less than a man’s, and fathers have exclusive rights over children.
Campaigners who seek the abolition of these councils were not present in any debate. All voices on the Sunday Morning Live programme for example were in favour of continually allowing sharia councils to operate.
Also on Sunday Morning Live, a guest announced that sharia law is “absolutely” compatible with UK laws, and this was left unchallenged. Given the ruling of the ECHR below, this is evidently untrue. Sharia law is not compatible with UK laws or norms, but at no point is the public informed of this by the BBC.
The Victoria Derbyshire programme, broadcast on November 1st, did not mention the above facts either. Furthermore, only voices of Muslim or ethnic minority women were included. During the programme, Shaista Gohir, the chair of Muslim Women’s Network UK, implied that some of those who object to sharia from a secular or Islam-critical perspective, were doing so “using women’s rights as a guise”.#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" target="_blank"> Gohir therefore implied that such critics are merely pretending to be concerned about women’s rights. This was not challenged, and no speaker who approaches this from a secular or Islam-critical perspective was present to refute it, or to offer their side of the argument. Muslims alone should not decide whether or not Britain can or should incorporate sharia law in to our legal system.
Of even greater significance however is the complete exclusion, from all coverage, of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" target="_blank"> in 2003. This ruling declared that sharia family law, the area of law being practiced in the UK, is “wholly incompatible” with human rights, due to its treatment of women. The ECHR’s annual review of 2003 included the following paragraph [emphasis added]:
The Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that “sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it”. According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.
Given the potential implications, both legally and ethically, of the above ruling, we contend that no coverage of the issue can be complete without its inclusion. Why did the BBC fail to inform the viewer of this ruling, despite it being brought to your attention by Sharia Watch prior to the debates?
As a publicly-funded broadcaster, the BBC has a duty to fully inform the public of the facts surrounding any issue. Moreover, it has a duty to include the voices of all communities and perspectives in the UK. This includes the duty to include those who approach the issue from a secular or Islam-critical perspective. Given that sharia law is derived from Islamic scripture, it is right and proper that Islam-critical voices be included. All people in Britain have the right to express a view on the inclusion of archaic and misogynistic pseudo courts in the British legal system.
We demand that the BBC explain why it has excluded vital information from the sharia debate and why its presenters left many dubious assertions unchallenged.
Does the BBC agree that all people, regardless of religion (or none) or ethnic background, have a right to participate in discussions surrounding sharia law, and will the BBC inform viewers of the vital ECHR ruling referred to above in all future discussions?
As licence-fee payers, we insist that the BBC give coverage to all voices critical of sharia law, and in particular, that it informs viewers of all relevant information surrounding the issue.
We look forward to your reply and your assurances that future coverage of this issue will include all perspectives and facts, so that the viewer is fully informed.
Anne Marie Waters
Sharia Watch UK
#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" target="_blank"> http://www.shariawatch.org.uk/content/special-report-sharia-law
#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" target="_blank"> http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2003_ENG.pdf