« What blogs should I be reading? | Main | Ann Widdecombe calls on passengers to vote with their purses against British Airways »


Re face-veiling; I don't like it on the street but I'm unsure whether it should be banned. I do think it's vital to ban face-veiling in public educational institutions (both students & staff) and in public-sector jobs where staff deal with members of the public. Schools and Universities should not be put in the position of making individual bans where they can then be attacked by the Islamists. This would also allow a line to be drawn making clear that normal hijab including head-covering is acceptable, and would prevent the need for the French route of banning practically all religious clothing in schools.

In view of comments made on a previous thread about a 30 sq mile and rapidly enlarging Muslim "ghetto" occupying the centre of Bradford, it seems to me that David Davis (and Damian Green) need to think a lot harder about this.

"The fundamental issue" is not "whether, in Britain, we are developing a divided society. Whether we are creating a series of closed societies within our open society". That has already happened, and those "closed societies" are in effect colonies which are being allowed to expand through further immigration.

The question is whether any of our politicians have got the guts to do what needs to be done, or whether they will wait until the indigenous English have to fight to regain control of their country - in the same way as our ancestors had a long and bloody struggle to reclaim the Danelaw.

This is fundamentally crucial for Conservatives.We are now engaged in nothing less dramatic than a battle for the british way of life.I applaud David Davis.

Our traditions ,Law and the very essence of our nationhood are under direct attack.We can not allow any group whether religious or whatever to live outside mainstream society.We must have equality and rule of law for all.We can not allow the developement of views which contradict and refuse to live by this fundamental principle.

Conservatives must emphasise respect for all people, races and religion under one law. We should aim to create an open and fully meritocratic society that offers oppourtunity to all groups.People must be encouraged to become British intrinsically supporting our time honoured notions of tolerance, respect and civility under the rule of law.

I remember when Damian Green announced his immigration roadshow I tried to raise the issue of integration of immigrants into British society... I was branded a racist. This is a such a delicate subject, but its one which we are going to have to tackle soon. We are now saying there is such a thing as society, but if we don't tackle the issue of integration then we'll soon be asking which society we are members of.

And we must change immigration law to prevent the systematic importation of spouses from "the home country", because according to this, written by the man who was Bradford's Principal Race Relations Officer 1984 - 1990:


"About 1,000 Bradfordian Muslims marry each year. If most of those marriages were internal to this country, it would lead to 500 new households which would be likely to average 4 children per household. (This is based on experience from other immigrant groups where family size usually halves that of the first generation by the second generation.) With 60% of marriages involving a spouse from overseas, the number of households goes up to 800 and, with many of the spouses being first generation, family size is likely to be significantly larger. So whereas 500 internal marriages might be expected to produce 2,000 offspring, the 800 marriages are likely to produce 4,000 offspring. This leads to very rapid population growth."


"Many of the children arrive at school with little or no English. Many of those who come from overseas have little education and do not possess skills which are transferable to a Western economy."


"The Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities now expect to recreate the environment of their country of origin. They have settled in village patterns which reflect their origins and they constantly reinforce this by bringing in new members from the country of origin."

What David Davis should have been doing is attacking people like Straw who attempt to interfere in the way people observe there religion.
We have already seen British Airways telling one of there employees to take off the cross and I am sure this sort of thing will grow if we continue to allow the view to grow that the wearing of any religious symbol or dress is wrong.
We Conservative if we stand for nothing else stand for personal freedom so we should be standing up for muslim women who wear the veil not joinging the anti-muslim bandwagon and attack them.

I think one of the biggest problems the British have is that many, like Jack Stone, are unable to distinguish between legitimate expressions of religiosity and political statements intended to inspire fear in others. (The BA ban on the woman's small gold cross was particularly disgusting because they allow other religious expression such as hijab, Sikh turban, Jewish skullcap etc - all of which I agree should be allowed.)
Distinguishing between what's legitimate and what's a deliberate attack on societal values can be difficult. When I worked near Stepney Green, many of the elderly Muslim men there, first generation immigrants, wore traditional Pushtun dress. This was clearly just their normal mode of attire, not done to intimidate anyone. OTOH now I see British-born Muslim youths wearing what looks like parodies of the same clothing, often mixed with other youths in gangsta type outfits. They are wearing that Pushtun tribal-type clothing very much as a political statement. The same goes for the burka - some new immigrants wear it because they're used to it, others, young second & third generation British-born Muslim women and converts, wear it as a statement of opposition to British values.

Rubbish, Jack. I have to show my face to the 4,285,000 CCTV cameras we now have in Britain. I don't particularly like it, but it seems to be the will of the majority that to prevent crime (including terrorism) and increase the chances of detecting perpetrators we should all be under this level of constant surveillance in public places. I would need to hear a very compelling reason why anybody should be exempt from that surveillance. Especially individuals who belong to a particular minority, some of whose members now pose the greatest threat of terrorism, and who are trying to claim exemption on religious grounds which many Muslims say lack any authority in either Islamic scripture or tradition.

"Suspect in terror hunt used veil to evade arrest"


Sun reporter Anila Baig: "I could have been anyone", "Leeds/Bradford ... Anila was waved through airport security wearing niqab":


Ali Miraj's quote of Kenan Malik's “the right to be treated the same despite one’s cultural and ethnic differences, to the right to be treated differently because of them” surely defines a conservative position. We can allow groups to live outside of mainstream society - we do with Plymouth Brethren, with Hassidic Jews, with Gypsies amongst others - but our law and institutions should be blind to these differences as long as this is fair and equitable.

That does mean that it is also accepted that people must accept the result of their choices. There needs to be some flexibility but just as a devout Catholic does not consider a career in Marie Stopes Clinics, an Hassidic Jew accepts that his/her religion limits career choices and participation in much social activity so a devout muslim woman who sees the hijab as key to her practice of faith must accept constraints in career options.

Martin talks of respect, tolerance and civilty but that does mean we respect and tolerate people who do not partake in mainstream society as long as they are living within the bounds of our laws, those laws being as far as possible equitable. Just as freedom of speech means the right to be offensive, so toleration mean groups must be allowed to differ.

That toleration in law does not mean, in most cases, supporting different applications of law according to ethnic origins or religion. I say in most cases because British Law has recognised it is wrong to force actions on a person because of conscentious objections. Common Law's strength has been its recognition that all actions are legal except those specifically proscribed and that while you can ban things it's pretty difficult to force people to act against their consciences.

What wins in the end , through tolerance, is the atractions of assimilation to the immigrant population and acceptance of the assimilated by the host population. This happens through schools, sport, music or careers and especially through sex attraction and marriage. The children and grandchildren of the refugees of the early/mid 20th century are now British (ask Dominic Lawson, Michael Howard or Michael Portillo).

This was in part because the law treated them without discrimination and did not make special provisions to protect their cultures - those were left to them as individuals through private or voluntary arrangements. Our anti-discrimination laws are becoming more proscriptive and trying to force into law separateness rather than a level and equitable playing field. It is not the job of a government to protect a group or minority's culture from change but to ensure all its citizens are treated equally.

Ted, "especially through sex attraction and marriage" is absolutely correct, which is why anybody who wishes to settle in this country should be closely questioned on how they would feel if their child fell in love with somebody of a different race, nationality, tribe, caste or religion. Some Muslims would prefer to see their child dead, rather than see him or her married to the "wrong" kind of person. Of course there are still white English people who are rather inclined to feel the same way - the big difference is that in some cases the Muslims actually do it.

The other day i watched a woman wearing a niqab and full chadoor step out of a Toyota or Honda and i realised she had been the driver.

The article in The Daily Mail had a "feminist" wearing this same garb and traipsing round London - she stated that her peripheral vision to left and right was obscured.

On most cars, to the left and right are the car door mirrors which alert the driver to other cars on the road...........is it quite sane for someone to wear blinkers when driving a car ?

Re what Davis actually wrote, I think in political terms the headline is exactly right - "David Davis plays catch up on multiculturalism debate" - clearly Labour have been leading on this and will likely continue to do so. Davis' achievement is not that he said anything very new or profound, but simply that he has at least articulated a Conservative position which does not embarrass or damage the party in the way Letwin's dismissal of the issue apparently did (I didn't see him on QT so I may be unfair). I suppose that Cameron's agenda of appealing to latte-drinking Guardian-readers may require that the Conservative position on Multiculturalism be somewhere to the left of Trevor Phillips, but the big danger is if it's seen to put the Conservatives effectively in bed with the radical Islamists themselves, in the way that New Labour until recently often was. That the Conservatives recently drew praise from MPAC-UK should be seen as a warning sign, not an achievement. Leave the support for the Islamists to Respect and to Ken Livingstone.


their= belonging to them

David Davis has written an excellent article.

I have lived in Malaysia one of the more tolerant of Islamic countries. There the Muslim women wear the hijab or headscarf which leaves their faces uncovered. This I have no objection to. They do not veil themselves

However the veiled face/burka wearer is a completely different matter. Who or what could be hidden under those robes? Didn't John Simpson escape from Afghanistan wearing a burka?

I never thought the day would come when I would find myself in agreement with Jack Straw.

Denis, re your post at 10:58 sadly you are right about intolerance to mixed marriages. It happens in Jewish families as well. In fact amongst the extremely orthodox a family will "sit shiva" for the child who has "married out" (that means that efectively they behave as though that child has died). I believe it happened to Edwina Currie when she married her first husband.
The problem, yet again, comes back to fundamentalism of whatever kind and wherever it comes from. Liberal Judaism (the branch I belong to) has no problem at all with mixed marriages - the Howard family being a prime example!!

Sally, I'm sorry to hear that this happens in this country. I read that in Poland before the war any Jew who dared to marry "out" was expelled from the Jewish community and treated as though he or she no longer existed. I don't remember that it went beyond that, to actually killing them, which does happen from time to time with Muslims in this country. Personally I believe that inter-marriage and the consequent shared investment in grandchildren is indispensable if two different peoples are to become truly bound together into one people.

disillusioned activist @ 11.18 - I have also lived in Malaysia, but probably before you, as it was in the early days of Mahathir's 'reign'. At that time there WAS a movement towards a sort of fundamentalism - probably encouraged by Saudi Arabia, which was giving funds for building (of mosques I believe. This movement caused a fair amount of unrest in some districts - they were called riots in fact! And some girls started walking around black from head to toe. At first Mahathir seemed quite in favour of this movement, but when he saw what it could lead to, he appeared to take a more pragmatic attitude, and gradually theb 'religious fervour' was quietened down.

It's pointless trying to promote integration while (a) permitting unlimited immigration and (b) pursuing affirmative action policies that reward the most aggreived and vocal members of ethnic groups.

Re Dennis 10:58 - IMO it's none of the State's business whether a family disapproves of a son or daughter's marriage partner. What matters, when it becomes the State's business, is when that family carries out an honour killing, or threatens to do so.

I am impressed with measure and thoughtful tone of today's comments.

I think however that many of you have overlooked the fact that this whole "debate" on Muslim/white divide is being stoked up deliberately by Labour as part of their election strategy - as ably outlined by Blair in his interview with Andrew Marr last month...


Blair explains that, as Labour are incapable of dealing with any real crisis, they plan to:
1. Stoke up fears about something or other (immigration, crime, Islamism, housing, whatever) and then
2. Come up with a pre-prepared "plan" to sort it all out.

In practice is works like this:

1. Start yapping on about veils (to wind up Muslims and re-ignite suspicions among wider population about whether the Muslims want to integrate at all). Turn a blind eye to radical Islamism, e.g. the very offensive placards help aloft outside Westminster Cathedral saying that "Rome should burn". None of this does anything for good race relations.

2. Suggest a whole raft of measures to deal with the "problem", in this case, the authoritarian measures (that never work) such as ID cards; end to banking secrecy; 90 day detention; and supposedly helpful measures (that never work either) such as school selection by race/religion; positive discrimination and quotes; cutting funding for non-compliant Muslim organisations(?); quangoes and agencies set up to help foster integration, and so on.

The only way for the Tories to avoid being outflanked on this is to stick to the script. Violent crime and threats will not be tolerated. End to free and easy importation of foreign spouses and proper crackdown on "honour killings". The use of phonetap evidence is far more effective that 90 day detention. ID cards are a waste of money and totally ineffective. Schools should be independent and be able to select own pupils. This will inevitably speed up ghettoisation in schools, but such is life.

Labour's 2-stage approach is so cunning, that the minute you actually respond to it, you are falling exactly into their trap, and you end up looking either too soft or racist. Or in the case of Trevor Phillips, probably both.

Sean at 12:32, that's certainly true - if you want to promote integration you need to both limit immigration and to avoid "affirmative action", ie racial/ethnic discrimination in favour of certain favoured groups.

Jack Stone said

"We Conservative if we stand for nothing else stand for personal freedom so we should be standing up for muslim women who wear the veil not joinging the anti-muslim bandwagon and attack them."

Sorry, but that is rubbish. We Conservatives, if we stand for nothing else should stand for Conserving the nation and national identity. If you just want unlimited personal freedom in an atomistic society of individuals then join the Libertarian Party.

We should have a ban on all religious symbols in schools as they have in France, at least.

A ban of all religious dress in public would be better.

That makes the government's stance so hypocritical, Simon. They abolished the "primary purpose" rule, so enabling huge numbers of spouses who can't speak English to enter the country. They have encouraged the biggest wave of immigration in our country's history. And they brought in the Race Relations Act 2000, which obliges public authorities to apply affirmative action.

And now, because they're starting to lose a shed-load of votes to the BNP, they're trying to distance themselves from their own record.

Unfortunately, most of our party leaders appear to think that, if anything, Labour haven't been left wing enough on these issues.

Mark Wadsworth above has it exactly right, this is the labour 'backs to the wall' election strategy. Build up a problem in order to scare people then propose ideas which, while they will satisfy those short term fears, will cause further problems down the line.

The BA issue put this into focus for me, I was angry at BA for this and came to the conclusion that, doing so, I could not expect someone to not wear a veil just because it annoys me. You can either want all religious wear banned or none. I'd hate the first so have to go with the second.

SimonNewman @ 12:38 -

"IMO it's none of the State's business whether a family disapproves of a son or daughter's marriage partner. What matters, when it becomes the State's business, is when that family carries out an honour killing, or threatens to do so."

IMO it is definitely the State's business what kind of people it allows to come and live in its territory and acquire citizenship. Why should we accept immigrants who will have no wish to integrate into our society, who will have no allegiance to our society, who will despise other members of our society to the extent that they would rather kill their children than allow them to marry into that society, and who are really looking for an opportunity to colonise our country and make it theirs?

I agree with Mark Wadsworth that the only way that the Conservatives can avoid being outflanked is by sticking to the script (I am not sure whose script it is, but it is the one that he mentions), that violent crime and threats will not be tolerated, and the end to free and easy importation of foreign spouses, and a proper crackdown on 'honour killings'.

Now if our party take this firm attitude, on past form this government will just annexe all the policies (there seem to be very tentative moves towards this direction already). Is this such a bad thing? These policies are desperately needed after all, and as most people seem to believe that there is about 3 years before the next election, by which time (old habits dying hard) the government will have made enough cock-ups to provide plenty more amunition for the shadow ministers to utilise.

The burqa/niqab is an extreme symbol of female suppression. If a woman or her family wish to submit themselves to this appalling custom, there are places in the world where they will find comfort. Such regimes do not customarily offer a similar toleration to other faiths that Islamists in the UK expect.

What will happen when Islamic fundamentalists demand female circumcision on the NHS?

sjm that is a very good question!!! No doubt this lily-livered politically correct apology for a Government will kowtow to them....

The criticism of Islam is not about immigration or race, Islam is a religion not a race. There are aspects of that religion that are at odds with the beliefs of the majority of people in this country, particularly Islam's atittude to women. How many women would accept arranged marriages if they were not subjected to family pressure? How many women would dress they way they do if they were not subjected to family pressure. We don't know, because many would be afraid to express their true feelings!

Islam is a religion not a race

It is a politico-religious system encompassing ALL aspects of living with prescriptions on whom to have as friends, how to behave, and how to behave towards non-Muslims

And thats the problem tomtom, this is (howls of protest) a secular country now. The vast bulk of the population do not like a political religious mix. We are uneasy about it, we begin to wonder what the agenda is.


Turkish-speaking politicians in Germany are calling for women to remove all head-covering

„Wir Muslime müssen uns ohne Wenn und Aber zu Deutschland, unserer Heimat, bekennen. Dieses Bekenntnis muss mehr sein als ein Ja zum Grundgesetz.“

We Muslims must identify without reservation with our home in Germany. This affiliation must be more than simplying conforming with the Constitution.

SPD-Politikerin Lale Akgün sehen moderne islamische Theologen das Tragen des Kopftuchs nicht als Vorschrift.

SPD politician Lale Akgün states that modern Islamic theologians do not see the head-covering as mandatory

a secular country now.

Clearly not or there would be no problem accepting Islam as The religion in a secular country...............

In fact Prince Charles' flirtations with Islam (he has never visited Israel) suggest he should have reflected on Charles I, and Charles II...............I wonder why he was given the name of Stuart kings ?

Strictly speaking, this is not a secular country David, since we have an Established Church, of which the Monarch is the Supreme Head.

As long as that system remains in place, whatever your or my personal beliefs or disbeliefs, we must all respect it.

"The children and grandchildren of the refugees of the early/mid 20th century are now British (ask Dominic Lawson, Michael Howard or Michael Portillo)"

These and David Davis, all major players in getting Labour elected for a third term!

Cardinal 12.53, Patsy 14.07, thank you!

The script I quoted is the general consensus of Con Home thinking (some of the things on my list are straight from 100 Policies). I hope that I am not doing too many people disservice here?

Whether these are offical Conservative policies is another matter, you tell me!

sjm 14.35

First they'd have to repeal this!


Surely all this nice intelectual consideration misses the fundemental point that Straw's outburst was political as a way of ingratiating himself with his white constituants who were getting restless.

"IMO it is definitely the State's business what kind of people it allows to come and live in its territory and acquire citizenship"

Sure, I agree 100% with that, but I don't think it should be a bar to citizenship that you wouldn't wish your daughter to marry someone outside your community. I'm not bothered if a black or Jewish woman doesn't want her daughter to marry a white or gentile man - at any rate it shouldn't be the State's business. If she threatens her daughter, then it becomes the State's business.

Sean at 12:51:
"That makes the government's stance so hypocritical, Simon. They abolished the "primary purpose" rule, so enabling huge numbers of spouses who can't speak English to enter the country. They have encouraged the biggest wave of immigration in our country's history. And they brought in the Race Relations Act 2000, which obliges public authorities to apply affirmative action."

Yeah, what they've done is an absolute scandal, and equally so that the Conservatives never held them to account. Working in the public sector I had to pass a Diversity Test and apply instructions NOT to treat people equally, because "treating people the same is a form of discrimination". They deliberately abandoned the vital liberal principle of equal treatment, in pursuit of a cultural Marxist attack on society, back in the '90s when that still seemed cost-free (a good example is the MacPherson Report's condemnation of colour-blind policing). It makes me angry.

About time we heard something from David Davis on this. Why on earth has it took so long?

It appears that most politicians' critical faculties disappear, Simon, as soon as someone produces a policy and says its about "ending discrimination."

Sean Fear 16.35, sorry to "bang on" about this, but that is exactly Nulab's next election strategy!

1) Hype up Muslim/white divisions and then 2) Ham it up as the party that wants to end "discrimination".

Personal freedom is not the primary concern for a conservative when that freedom clearly conflicts with the interests of society as a whole.The state should be small but it's major function is to protect both the wellbeing and the key security of the citizen.

Where a public action such as wearing a veil diminishes the effectiveness of a teacher or prevents the police from doing their job then Conservatives do not protect such freedoms to act.

We must stand for treating all citizens equally without favour under the rule of law.The British way of life has grown up over centuries it has many influences in an historical context.It is my view that despite the assault on our way of life from political correctness and diversity training that the british people are intrinsically fair minded.We risk alienating this feeling if we give too much special consideration to any minority group whatsoever.

Here is what Farage said on this matter this morning on Sunday AM - talking complete rubbish of course:

HUW EDWARDS: .. a row about the veil in this country and now a row about a worker with BA wearing a cross. What is your perspective on this as a party?

NIGEL FARAGE: Well both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party over the last thirty years have encouraged mass immigration and promoted multi-culturalism. Now it seems that David Davis and others are saying "Oh" you know "We shouldn't be doing this". They're the people that have put us into this mess in the first place and our position is clear, that if people are going to come and live in this country they've got to be British, they've got to be loyal to Britain. We could learn an awful lot from Australia in terms of how we deal with these things.

Sean Fear writes:-

[That makes the government's stance so hypocritical, Simon. They abolished the "primary purpose" rule, so enabling huge numbers of spouses who can't speak English to enter the country. They have encouraged the biggest wave of immigration in our country's history. And they brought in the Race Relations Act 2000, which obliges public authorities to apply affirmative action.]

The point about the abolition of the 'primary purpose' rule seems to have escaped the Conservative Party since 1997. It was almost the first thing that Labour brought about and has been the single biggest disaster for the country in the last ten years.

It provides for immigration by the back door and has cost this country dearly. Within some Muslim ghettos 75% of marriages involve the importation of a foreign, illiterate, non-English speaking spouse, usually from somewhere like Kashmir into areas of already very high deprivation. Such areas will inevitably become even more segregated, more deprived and more alienated and lead to further radicalisation.

It's time that someone looked at the root causes of these black holes of poverty which soak up every last drop regeneration investment without making any significant difference and questioned whether poverty was actually being imported.

The 'primary purpose' rule must be restored as quickly as possible.

I cant believe how naive Jack Stone is on this issue. A conservative would support Jack Straw here. The Conservatives have always stood against any form of tyranny. Radical Islam is a form of Islam which forces itself upon Muslims through the form of religious fanaticism, which tells Muslims that they must wear full veils, when in fact its a personal choice as to whether they wear it or not.

Jack Straws point was that he felt that in the private setting of the MPs surgery, that the veil could, and should be removed to aid communication. He was making a perfectly justified point which the liberal media snatched as they always do and make out that Jack Straw is a racism Islamophobe who wants everbody apart from the KKK blown off the face of the earth...

Jack Stone, you are well off the mark here.

The comments by David Davis might stop a few old fashioned conservatives straying to the UKIP party.

David Davis seems to be licensed to say a few Conservative things, William. Whether he actually has any impact on Conservative policy is open to question.

James Maskell: "I cant believe how naive Jack Stone is on this issue."
To be fair to Jack Stone there is the counter argument that Moslem women who have freely chosen to wear the veil for whatever reason in the presence of Jack Straw may feel intimidated by his request.
We should not assume that just because a moslem women wears the veil she has been forced to.
On the point that wearing the veil is symbolic of extremist islam, So what, she is entitled to her opinion, however daft and poorly thought through. Islamic countries are prescriptive of what women can and cannot wear I have no wish for Britain to go down to their level, so overall if a woman wishes to wear the veil in my opinion that is up to her, I do however take the point about peripheral vision whilst driving, where others safety or rights are endangered this clearly is a reason not to wear the veil religious belief or not.

Where is the input from Christian church leaders on this topic?

I'm not sure "playing catch-up" is apt. I am revulsed by Labours latest spin! Lets be clear about this - they talked up multiculturalism for many years and did nothing about uncontrolled immigration (creating the potential environment for problems) and now when they want to spin themselves as more to the right they seize populist messages questioning muslim communities. This is sick spin, plain and simple but worse still it is doubly irrepsonsible as they contributed to the problem and now are stirring up the embers of the fire,


Surely it is time to get ahead of the curve and think whether or not we should be thinking of a 3rd or 4th or 5th (depending on how you account for the Balkans) expulsion of the Moors?
Multicultural states do not work whether the Ottoman Empire,the Austrian empire or the Soviet Union. After Woodrow Wilson initiated the policy of national selfdetermination in 1919 there was a massive interchange of Christian and Muslim populations inthe Balkans and Asia Minor which in turn followed massive emigration by Muslims from the newly independent Balkan states in the nineteenth century.We are talking millions of people. Result the end of hundreds of years of violence between the communities.
The same followed in India following British withdrawal.
Yet the western countries within two generations of having got rid of this problem have carelessly allowed the same problem to arise again.
Oh yes it will be different this time we will be told, we will all be one happy family -unity in diversity-fill in any cliche you like.

If I recall correctly, Gladstone told the Turks to clear out of Europe in his Midlothian campaign, the expulsion of the Moors from Thrace and Bulgaria was negotiated at the Treaty of Lausanne by a Conservative government and of course Labour arranged the movement of population in India Bangladesh and Pakistan.
Why dont we really think laterally and exchange the Muslims in Britain for the Christians being persecuted and threatened with and subject to violence in Pakistan and Iraq.

Speaking of the Balkans, we are very likely to see West Yorkshire turn into our own Kosovo within twenty years, as the Muslim populations of Bradford, Leeds, Kirklees and Calderdale continue to outgrow the indigenous population by a wide margin.

So Guys and Gals.
Let's get this straight.
Davis, like all politicians of every party, either had no foresight as to what Tory and Labour immigration policies would lead to, or he was just plain stupid? This is politically expedient hindsight that is par for the course from the pygmies in Parliament. They opened the door and created the problem in the first case and now suffer collective amnesia when attempting to put the genie back in the bottle.

"About time we heard something from David Davis on this. Why on earth has it took so long?"

I'm not usually cynical but his article seems to have appeared after Jack Straw's rating went up by 15%. I wonder if Davis would have written the same thing if the public had denounced Straw?

SimonNewman @ 18:32 - "I don't think it should be a bar to citizenship that you wouldn't wish your daughter to marry someone outside your community." I don't think it should be an absolute bar, either, but if we were operating some kind of points system then a chunk of the total points available should reflect whether the applicant seemed willing and able to integrate into the mainstream of British society, rather than just being yet another top-up for one of the ghettoes.

"A ban of all religious dress in public would be better."

Stop priests and vicars wearing their dogcollars? Force nuns to kick the habit?

I thought we prided ourselves on being a country of tolerance.

There needs to be a debate about where the boundaries of our tolerance lie, and concerted effort made to remind everyone that wants to live in this country that tolerance is a two-way street. However, legislating dress-codes is going to far.

For example, as we are an established Christian country, it is ridiculous that anyone should be persecuted for any reasonable declaration or celebration of Christianity. Anyone who finds that offensive should be reminded that we are a Christian country. How can we expect immigrants to assimilate into our culture when so many pillars of that culture seem ashamed of it and not interested in defending it?

Sensible laws about things like driving whilst wearing clothing that restricts peripheral vision are a different matter.

Denis at 8:02:

"I don't think it should be an absolute bar, either, but if we were operating some kind of points system then a chunk of the total points available..."

Well sure, but no sane points system should be allowing unskilled immigrants in anyway, so the immigrants allowed in would not be living in sink ghettos. A points system should ensure that immigrants have the skills and resources (financial & otherwise) to be a net contributor to the host society.

There wouldn't be a problem over the veil if all members of islam behaved, as everyone else does.

That certain members openely call for an islamic state, with the imposition of sharia law and are prepared to use violence to acheive it, is the root cause of the problem.

But even then we should be sure that the female members are not being forced to wear the veil etc, as we as a society do not allow such discrimination.

I support Jack Stone on this although I think we stand for more than just personal freedom; however, it seems that personal freedom is a very low priority for many of those posting here.

I feel that this whole thing has been a cynical ploy to pander to the fears of the unknown, and in some cases sadly barely suppressed racism, of those who are uncomfortable with a diverse society. The left has found a way of pandering to this which they can deny is anti-Islamic, with the argument that the veil is anti-feminist and promoting a secularist agenda. The logical conclusion is no public manifestation of differing religious and cultural backgrounds.

It's got little to do with true integration, which is a matter of hearts and minds not the host community attacking practices of a minority. If the veil is an "extremist" gesture, then we should be attaching the cause. Attacking a symptom will just increase the perceived problem.

Although the whole situation is very sad, one can but be amused by the sight of people such as Tessa Jowell who, the moment their spouting for diversity comes up against people who don't share their own fundamental beliefs, such as feminism, are prepared to throw diversity out of the window. In contrast, Conservatives ought to have a deeper tolerance of other views and traditions - knowing that most social views are products of time and place, not absolutes.

The proper Conservative response would be to say that the veil is irrelevant but to concentate on such things as teaching English and encouraging more Muslim women to work outside the home. If they are told that the veil is disapproved of, they are all the less likely to try to enter the workforce, which is the best place to get to know people outside your immediate family/cultural circle. Then, either the veil will die a natural death in the UK (if it is just a symbol of trying to be different) or we will all become so used to it that noone will feel threatened by it.

Finally, if the veil undermines State surveillance by universal CCTV - all lovers of liberty should be pleased. Genuinely high security venues can always take unveiled photos of all who enter in the presence of female security staff.

1. We face a massive ongoing threat from unscrupulous Islamic terrorists.

2. There has already been at least one instance when a suspected Islamic terrorist used (or more correctly abused) an Islamic veil to conceal his identity:


"Suspect in terror hunt used veil to evade arrest"

3. Yet we staunchly defend the right of anybody to walk around in an Islamic veil.


Denis Cooper: so is it illegal to go around in a joke face mask? I don't think so.

Were either Jack Straw's point that started all of this, or the issue of the teacher whom the Dept of the Communities junior minister has called upon to be sacked, anything to do with security? No.

This security issue has been dragged in as an afterthought by people concerned to defend their irrational fear of the unknown.

This security issue has been dragged in as an afterthought by people concerned to defend their irrational fear of the unknown.

So what is the point of CCTV ?

their irrational fear of the unknown.

Strikes me that Fear of the Unknown is perfectly rational.................irrationality describes what you wrote which was simply absurd


On the contrary the security issue has been more or less constantly in the background for years, at least since John Simpson moved around Kabul in a burka. The question of ID cards and passports for people who insist on keeping their faces covered has been raised repeatedly. Hoodies have been banned from some shopping precincts for similar reasons. Some of the terrorists in the 2002 Moscow theatre outrage were veiled, and according to this:


maybe 30% of Islamic suicide bombers are now women, and in one incident in Baghdad this April one bomber was a woman and the other two bombers were men dressed as women. I believe the Israelis are having the same problem.

Now we have the spread of burkas and veils in this country at a time when it is just that religious group which is producing terrorists, and at least one suspect has evaded capture by wearing a veil.

It's a year since Imperial College introduced a ban on the wearing of garments to obscure the face - not just burkas and veils, but also hoods and scarves.

Three years ago there was a report of a German being fined for wearing a Santa Claus outfit on a protest, contrary to German law, and now we see Islamic protestors in London wrapping scarves round their faces or wearing hoods to prevent identification by the police. In New York they could probably have been arrested for that, and maybe we should have passed a similar law when the PIRA started parading in balaclavas.


No, it isn't yet illegal to go around in a joke face mask, but maybe it should be with some exemptions. Children, for example, provided they are accompanied by an unmasked responsible adult. At least that might stop them throwing eggs at our front door come Halloween as they did one year.

"Finally, if the veil undermines State surveillance by universal CCTV - all lovers of liberty should be pleased. Genuinely high security venues can always take unveiled photos of all who enter in the presence of female security staff."

I agree with what Londoner says but I cannot see the point in having photos of unveiled women if they are going to be veiled! You might as well throw the photos away for any use they would be!

I feel personally uneasy when I see veiled women mainly becasue it seems to take away their rights and divide our nation in terms of basic behaviour. However I don't know how you stop people wearing what is at the end of the day just an item of clothing, in a free society. People also talk about hoodies but many of my age will remember young people wearing Parkas (you know with the snorkel hoods) and of course there are fishermens smocks going further back still (they were the original hoodies). I am not making light of the terrorist problem either but just pointing out that it is almost impossible to ban veils and hoodies. In both cases it also seems a smoke screen to avoid facing upto the real issue which is the growth of sub-cultures antagnostic to the common values of Britain,



Interesting that Cameron has to wheel out one of the few remaining "real people" in the English Tories to deal with the issue of Race.

Seems Davy boy is too tied up with impressing those multicultural Metrosexuals to give a hoot about English people let alone we despicable haggis-eaters.

He should come up here and find out what Scots Tories think about multiculturalism.

We are such naive little infidels.

Multiculturalism will never work with radical muslims because they don't want to fit into the Western world. They want to BE the Western world. Read this article to get the words from the horse's mouth.


Hannah writes:-

"Multiculturalism will never work with radical muslims because they don't want to fit into the Western world."

The signs have been there for ages but everyone has been walking round the ever larger Muslim elephant in the room.

An ex-Muslim, Dr Patrick Sookhdeo provides an excellent insight into the the Muslim agenda

Islamization of Europe

Islam and World Dominion

There was an excellent article in the Telegraph about Dr Sookhdeo which was mysteriously taken off line for some reason but can still be read here

The day is coming when British Muslims form a state within a state

There is something missing from David Davis' article: any acknowledgement that mainstream politicians of all colours are responsible for the racially and ethnically fractured society we have today.

Fifty years ago we did not have a "race relations problem" because Britain was a wonderfully homogenous society. The mess we have today is a direct consequence of mass post-war immigration.

Alongside this most fundamental of treasons - the permitting of the effective colonisation of parts of our country by those who either cannot or will not assimilate - the political elite have suppressed the resistance of the native population to this colonisation by the use of the law, the institutionalisation of multiculturalism in public organisations and a general refusal to address the concerns of the majority of native Britons.

When did David Davis ever speak out against what was happening when it was dangerous to do so?

Politicians are only speaking out now because they are afraid of racial war.


their= belonging to them

Jack Stone= red troll

How much longer is this dyslexic leftist to be allowed to irritate the decent Tories on this site?

Don't the Conservatives have a Mrs Warsi in Dewsbury, whose family runs an Immigration Lawyers Practice ?

So how come noone mentioned that Mrs Azmi of Black Shroud at Headfield C oF E School is the daughter of the Head/Owner of

Institute of Islamic Education, Dewsbury

LEA: Kirklees
Telephone Number: 01924 485712
Fax Number: 01924 455762
Address: South Street
Savile Town
West Yorkshire
Post Code: WF12 9NG


The Institute of Islamic Education (Jaamia Talimul Islam) is a well-established darul uloom (Islamic seminary) situated close to the centre of Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. The purpose-built Institute is in the grounds of, and closely connected to the Markazi mosque. It provides full-time education for boys between the ages of 12 and 16 years in Islamic studies. These are taught in the mornings and known as the `madrasah', and some National Curriculum subjects are taught in the afternoon, called the `school'. The aim of the Institute is to train Imams and, or ustaads (Islamic studies teachers) and scholars in order to benefit the communities to which they return. Most students stay on after the age of 16 years to complete the alim (Islamic Studies) course and the hifz course (memorisation of the Qur'an), graduating after seven to nine years. Some graduates return to teach at the Institute, while others work in the community as Imams. Many students also work in the wider public service. Well known and respected amongst many Muslims, the Institute was founded in 1982 `...to provide a healthy Islamic environment where the study of Qur'aan and hadeeth (sayings of the Prophet Mohammad) can be taught alongside secular studies...'. Furthermore qualities of `...piety, compassion and responsibility...' are strongly promoted in pupils.

Curriculum provision is good in the madrasah and unsatisfactory overall in the afternoon school. The Institute largely achieves its aim to provide a curriculum which includes both `the study of Qur'an and hadeeth' (the beliefs and practice of Islam as exemplified in the life of the Prophet Muhammad) and `classical Islamic texts', together with `secular subjects'. Pupils' education is organised into two parts. A range of Islamic studies, the madrasah curriculum taught in the mornings from Monday to Saturday, includes logic, history, theology, Islamic law and ethics. Qur'an recitation, memorisation and commentary, Arabic grammar and vocabulary and hadeeth (traditions of the Prophet Mohammad) memorisation and commentary are also studied. In the afternoons, from Monday to Friday, the school curriculum consists of English, mathematics, science, information communication technology (ICT), physical education (PE) and citizenship. Pupils are taught Urdu as this is the principal language of instruction in the madrasah curriculum. Pupils can take General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examinations in all of these subjects except citizenship, which is only taught in Key Stage 3. However, not all pupils are entered for all GCSE subjects offered by the Institute.

Anger over terror plot allegation
MUSLIMS have reacted angrily to national newspaper reports linking Dewsbury to the latest alleged terror plot.
An article in the Sunday Telegraph said several of those arrested in connection with an apparent plot to blow up planes en route from Britain to America had studied an Islamic movement called Tablighi Jamaat – the British headquarters of which are in Savile Town.

The group is run from the 3,000-capacity Markazi Mosque, in South Street, which is also the organisation’s European base.

But Shabbir Daji, a secretary and trustee of the Tablighi Jamaat movement and spokesman for the mosque, said the organisation had no links with Islamic extremism. He said: “We are an organisation that offers information to Muslims on how to reform themselves.

“We are not a political organisation and we do not let any brothers speak about politics in the mosque. We do not create those sorts of people. We condemn them totally. If we think anyone has an agenda outside our own, we immediately throw them out. We have nothing to hide. We feel very bad and very angry we are being linked to what is going on. People are putting out information that is untrue.”

The article also mentioned how July 7 suicide bomber Mohammed Siddique Khan, who lived in Thornhill Lees for the six months prior to the attack since moving from Leeds, is thought to have worshipped at the mosque.

Khan was said to have been the ringleader of the London attacks and killed six people when he detonated a bomb on the underground near Edgware Road.

Dewsbury South councillor Imtiaz Ameen (Con) said he found it frustrating Dewsbury, Savile Town and mosques such as the Markazi Mosque were repeatedly linked with terrorism.

He said: “It’s an easy target because it is the centre of this movement. But as far as it propagates any violence it is absurd. It shows a lack of understanding of what actually goes on there.

“I’ve lived in Savile Town all my life and most of my friends go there, many of them professional people.

“If somebody says these chaps used to go to a mosque, well they went to Asda, Sainsbury’s and the hospital too. Does that mean supermarkets and hospitals are breeding grounds for terrorists? It’s a false analogy. It shows a lack of understanding of the issue.

“Every Muslim goes to a mosque but just because it’s a Muslim who ends up doing something crazy, and he’s been to a particular mosque it becomes a breeding ground for terrorism.

“These things don’t happen in a mosque, these people are recruited often in colleges, universities and on the internet, it’s not done openly in a mosque and in other areas.

“We had mosques 30 years ago.
29 August 2006

TomTom writes:-

"Don't the Conservatives have a Mrs Warsi in Dewsbury, whose family runs an Immigration Lawyers Practice ?"

Doesn't Mrs Warsi like to spin one line to her Muslim constituents and another to her white constituents?

Sayeeda Warsi's misleading claims

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker