Share |

Tuesday, 13 July 2010

Veil Ban passes first Stage in French National Assembly

Today the French National Assembly took a step towards outlawing the burqa, niqab and other Islamic face coverings. A total or 335 deputies cast their votes in favour of the bill with only one voting against. However, there is a further hurdle to leap before it becomes ratified and enters into French law, for it must also be approved by the French Senate where it will be discussed in September.

This is a positive move towards making illegal one of the most overt manifestations of militant Islam in France. As we all know, many women wear such coverings owing to their fanatical commitment to Islamism, whereas those who are compelled to wear such garb by their brutish menfolk will now find that the law comes to their aid by imposing a suitable punishment upon the latter. It seems fitting to me that the French are seeking to impose the rather modest penalties of a 150 euro fine for any woman caught breaking the proposed law, whereas any Muslim husband compelling his wife to wear a burqa can look forward to a 30,000 euro fine and one-year gaol term. Personally, I’d make such crimes punishable by state sequestration and liquidation of all familial assets followed by the deportation of all members of the family concerned.

Naturally, in its radio reporting of this positive move the BBC has exhibited a somewhat muted and crestfallen mood, and I fully expect that in the BBC’s future references to the ersatz conception of British nationality that it espouses it will feature the championing of the ‘right’ to wear Islamo-fascist uniform as a defining trait of contemporary ‘Britishness’ (I’m already feeling sick just contemplating that hoity-toity patronising English hater Sarah Montague enunciating this on the Today Programme).

Getting rid of these most overt displays of Islamist allegiance is a symbolic first step, but only once the French have outlawed the proselytisation of Islam and the immigration of Muslims will the liberty of French citizens and their way of life be guaranteed. Tomorrow is Bastille Day, so we shall see how opponents of this measure respond.

Not a French Woman, but a hostile Colonist

A real French Woman (Ooh la la!)


  1. I know which picture i prefer, and its not the one of the ninja turtle. Cygnus.

  2. Yes, she is a bit of a belle. I wonder if she's free tonight?

  3. You should be so lucky. Regarding an earlier conversation we had about mainstream nationalists. Do you think Martin Amis would count? Cygnus.

  4. Ah, she'll probably be too busy preparing for a Bastille Day party. Oh well, back to the grind of griping about Islam and the decline of the West.

    Martin Amis? An interesting suggestion as a candidate for a nationalist intellectual/celebrity. He has said some things about Islam (or, more strictly Islamism) which have drawn considerable flak from the dhimmi cultural and academic establishments, so I think that we could certainly term him a 'civilisationist' (if I can use such a term). He does deserve credit for having stuck his neck out on this issue. In our current cultural context, I think that this would make him a nationalist of sorts. What are your thoughts?

    Incidentally, I would venture to say that some BNP members have what I would consider to be a somewhat un-British (or un-English) obsession with Christianity as a defining feature of our national identity. Intellectually I think that the Greco-Roman Classical heritage has played almost as large a role (look no further than Enoch’s most famous speech) in defining our national culture and psyche, and in terms of popular culture a general ingrained scepticism and distrust of dogma seems to have been present for centuries. Being a rationalist (and a nationalist) I do not subscribe to the idea that we require religious belief as some kind of social cement and defining element of our national being.

    Of course, I can enjoy reading Bede or appreciate the beauty of our Gothic cathedrals and see these as an integral part of our national fabric and story, but I cannot neuter my innate sense of scepticism and my scientific approach to viewing the Universe. I suppose you could say that my position with respect to such matters is at one with Dawkins: I can appreciate much from our Christian heritage and value the transmission of its cultural legacy to our future generations without being a ‘believer’. However, I feel as much a sense of awe and connection with the past when I visit somewhere such as Avebury as I do when I visit one of our great mediaeval cathedrals, but just as I do not see any need to profess Christianity, neither do I need to subscribe to the reconstructed beliefs of a lost pagan antiquity.


Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.