SOVEREIGNTY

   Why it Matters

Under normal circumstances sovereignty is thought to lie with the people's representatives, elected to serve in Parliament and for most purposes, this goes unchallenged. However, there are occasions, such as in a national referendum when Parliament chooses to acknowledge the ultimate authority of the true holders of sovereignty and passes an important decision to the British people. 

Such an occasion occurred on 23rd June 2016, when Parliament asked the British electorate to decide whether or not to remain in, or leave the European Union. It's now a matter of historical fact that a majority of those eligible to vote, voted to leave. All political parties promised to accept the result & to implement the referendum result in Parliament as instructed by the electorate. 

The reason all of the above matters is because, since the referendum and despite the promises to deliver Brexit, the members of the Government charged with this responsibility have proven unequal to the task. They have prevaricated, obfuscated and argued about the meaning and legitimacy of the referendum result and have demonstrated a level of treacherous incompetence rarely witnessed in any arena of public life. 

They have had two and a half years to deliver a clean break from the European Union and have failed so spectacularly that they have exposed their own deplorable incompetence and revealed their lack of willingness to implement the wishes of the people, whom they had charged with deciding this very important and divisive issue.

Theresa May's proposed Brexit agreement is a work of such monumental ineptitude, timidity and deceit that it's resulted in significant resignations from her own Cabinet and has alienated so many in her own party and beyond that it's very unlikely to be approved by Parliament. In such circumstances it would be right and proper for all MP's of good conscience to accept the result and allow the UK to leave the tentacles of the European Union without a deal, thus delivering on their promises to respect the result of the referendum and ensuring that we regain full and unfettered control of our laws, borders, finances, agriculture, fisheries, tariffs, and all other matters vouchsafed to a sovereign nation.

Instead, what we are witnessing is various increasingly desperate and duplicitous plans to prevent Parliament from accepting a no deal Brexit and this takes us to the heart of the issue of sovereignty and the question of where, and with whom, it ultimately resides. 

For, if Parliament attempts to thwart Brexit by refusing to allow a no deal scenario to pass, then it will clearly have placed itself in direct opposition to the expressed will of the people and will have usurped sovereignty from its true holders and made an enemy of its own citizens. 

Under such circumstances it must expect at best rigorous legal challenges as to its own legitimacy and questions as to whether such a denial of the people's expressed will is unconstitutional and therefore illegal; and at worst it could result in protest and civil unrest. An outcome which would be very regrettable, but in view of such a blatant disregard of the people's wishes, it would be understandable.

Why we should Ban the Burka

The recent controversy surrounding the Islamic practice of Muslim women wearing the Burka or the Niqab has produced a variety of conflicting opinions. These have ranged from those advocating a complete ban in all public places, to those who believe their views are more libertarian and who see the issue as a matter of personal freedom. 

Both of these opposing views have their committed adherents, who passionately advocate their points of view, believing that their arguments are those which best reflect the values of a tolerant, pluralistic society.

My own take on this matter, is that the covering of the face in public places should, except in very specific and defined circumstances, be made illegal. I argue this, not simply for reasons of security, although that is clearly a grave concern where individuals, by their choice of dress, identify themselves as adherents of a religion infamous for its well documented violence against non-believers: but also, because if we wish to live in a tolerant and harmonious society, then we should not allow members of a specific sub section of that society to conceal their identity.

Personally, I would refuse to interact in anyway with someone who had chosen to hide their face and this would make it impossible for me to have any kind of social intercourse with them. The clear implication of this, would be to exclude a whole set of citizens from our collective social space and would mark them out as non-existent. Under such circumstances it would be impossible to create a situation where I could treat all members of our country's shared social space equally and would undermine the possibility of creating a society of mutual trust, tolerance, respect and understanding.

In refusing to recognise, or acknowledge a masked person, I would be doing no more than granting their apparent desire for complete anonymity, although such a response on my part would effectively be to deny the existence of  anyone choosing to wear a burka, or niqab. Such a situation would not be desirable, since it would foster suspicion and mutual alienation, making social cohesion impossible and would inevitably create an atmosphere of mistrust and hostility. 

Another important consideration, is that the wearing of the face veil makes a statement, and no matter what the wearer believes that statement to be, for many in the non-Muslim community the statement is this: "I am a believer in the teachings of Islamic scripture and a committed follower of the prophet Mohammad."  Given the knowledge which we in the West now regretfully have of the teachings of Islam and the example of its revered prophet, we are at least justified in being suspicious of anyone making such a clear statement of their beliefs and loyalties.

Inevitably, suspicion breeds antagonism which can so easily lead to ridicule, hatred and contempt and although not necessarily justified, such feelings are understandable in the face of a garment which makes such a provocative and divisive statement of the wearer's rejection of our country's values and traditions.

As a final reason for a ban there is the coercive and misogynistic attitude of Muslim men in insisting, or advocating, that women should be hidden from public view. They may try to justify this practice on the grounds of female piety and modesty, but it's discriminatory in the extreme and denies women full and equal human rights and robs them of their dignity, denying them the unfettered participation in the wider society to which they are entitled and which they so richly deserve.

The Myth of Islamophobia

When I first encountered the word 'Islamophobia' I was very confused and not at all certain what it was meant to signify and what I was meant to infer when I heard or saw it. However, it soon became apparent from its use and by examining its origin (invented by The Muslim Brotherhood) and by understanding the viewpoints of the people who used it, that it is intended as a derogatory term to categorise anyone, who makes any criticism of Islam, Muslims, or Islamic ideas, beliefs and actions as Islamophobic, and by implication, racist and reprehensible. This, despite the irrefutable evidence that Islam is not, and never has been, a race.

This raised the question for me: can Islamophobia be real? Well, let's analyse this conundrum.

A phobia is defined in The Oxford English Dictionary as an 'irrational fear.' Now, since Islam has proven itself to be a violent and very dangerous ideology, which has slaughtered thousands who disagree with its actions and beliefs, and has inspired deadly attacks upon, often wholly innocent people whom it perceives as its enemies, fearing it, cannot conceivably be described as irrational. Therefore, fear of Islam is not irrational and so, ipso-facto, cannot be a phobia. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that Islamophobia is not real.

In fact, the only possible incidence of genuine Islamophobia which might occur, would be if a self-professed and committed Muslim were to fear Islam without good reason. Such a fear could perhaps be thought irrational if it had no evidence based cause.  This must mean, that the only true incidence of Islamophobia (if it exists at all) could only properly be ascribed to a Muslim who possess no reason to fear his own declared faith, yet for some irrational reason, does so. 

Given the above, one can only conclude that the word 'Islamophobia' is an invention designed to intimidate and silence those who raise quite legitimate concerns about the truth, value and dangers of Islamic doctrines, beliefs and actions. In other words, labeling someone, or some statement as Islamophobic, is designed to silence debate and frighten those brave enough to confront the so called religion of peace with a few hard facts about its history and current barbarism.

The Gender Pay Gap and Other Inequalities

The British government in its infinite stupidity has bowed to pressure from the loonies of left-wing new-wave feminism and forced large organisations and businesses to spend precious time and valuable resources producing largely meaningless statistics regarding their gender pay disparities. This fruitless waste of time has proven what all truly perceptive people already knew, that by and large, overall and generally speaking, men in these large organisations tend to earn more than women.  Well, there's a surprise! The sad truth is that, the cost of this ridiculous exercise could have been saved by the government simply by asking an averagely intelligent member of the public for their view on the issue.

However, now that this futile exercise has been undertaken, the government has the excuse it needs to put in place strategies to tackle what it claims is unfair gender remuneration in the work place. It will undoubtedly come up with plans to increase the number of women in top positions, thus increasing their relative levels of pay. Unfortunately, these plans are likely to include such strategies as all women short lists  at job interviews, persuading the nation's schoolgirls to study accountancy and promoting people to senior management positions on the basis of gender instead of talent and ability. Such strategies are not only likely to be spectacularly unsuccessful, but also massively expensive. Having myself given the issue some cursory thought I've come up with a much cheaper, and I believe a much more easily implemented solution.

As gender is now viewed by many in the LGBT community and beyond as a social construct, why not simply provide some small financial incentive to a certain percentage of men in top positions to transition from male to female? This would at once be a cheaper option and would also solve the so called gender pay gap at a stroke. There would of course, be some small cost in providing gender neutral toilets and an alternative wardrobe for the agreeable candidates, but this would amount to no more than the price of make-up, wigs, dresses, hosiery, over-sized stiletto-heeled shoes and padded bras. Those who desired to fully transgender and wished to have their genitals removed, could perhaps be given the added incentive of having their surgery provided free under the National Health Service. As long as the number of men willing to transition was appropriate we could achieve perfect pay parity between the genders, thus providing a cheap and simple solution to what would otherwise  be a very complex issue.

Of course, the real problem of unfair remuneration in the work place goes far beyond the issue of gender. If it's judged unfair in general to pay men more than women, then what about all the other criteria which may affect pay inequality? For example, are tall attractive people generally paid more than short ugly people? Are right-handed people paid more than left-handed people? Are hard working diligent people paid more than feckless lazy people? Are blue-eyed people paid more than brown-eyed people? Are intelligent people paid more than unintelligent people? Are able-bodied people paid more than disabled people? Inevitably, there's no easy fix for many of these disparities. It would prove much more costly to make short people tall, unless one was prepared to use the rack and even if more humanely, one could enlist the co-operation of reluctant surgeons, it would still prove immensely expensive and troublesome to achieve. The list of potential reasons for inequality are almost infinite. I think we need the answers to some of these other issues which may affect relative pay. After all, in a society where all inequality is perceived as discrimination we need to ensure that no identifiable sub-group is unfairly treated.

Witnessing our politicians and politically correct media muppets considering all the other possible reasons for pay differentials would provide great fun for all of us interested observers, who would immensely enjoy seeing what depths of insanity might be plumbed by the efforts to achieve the fairness so desired by the advocates of human rights and social justice.

Ultimately however, the only way to absolutely ensure that there is no perceivable pay gap for whatever reason, would be to pay everyone in work exactly the same, regardless of age, education, talent, ability, effort, experience, or indeed, gender. The resulting society would of course, make North Korea look like paradise on earth by comparison, but would I'm sure be welcomed by the nihilistic masochists of left-wing idealism.