Mayor Sadiq Khan and Sharia Law

Our English correspondent Paul Weston discusses the attempts by the new culture-enriching mayor of London to impose sharia law on his fellow Britons.

Liberty GB has taken a lot of flak in the past over our proposed policy of banning Muslims from political public office in Britain. The new Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has just shown us precisely why we feel this way after he announced his intention to ban adverts showing certain aspects of the female body on all public transport services in London.

Emir Khan made the following statement: “As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. It is high time it came to an end.”

We have yet to find out whether this will be a complete ban on the portrayal of all women in all stages of dress or undress. Emir Khan claims his primary interest is to help stop women feeling ashamed of their bodies, so I suppose a ban would mean Candice Swanepoel might be off the menu, but not perhaps the slightly more Rubens-esque Yasmin Alibhai-Brown wearing nothing but a saucy hat and burkini writhing around a sun-kissed beach extolling the wonders of Sharm el-Sheikh in a come-hither manner — which would rather finish what ISIS started in terms of destroying the Egyptian tourist industry — but I digress…

The BBC breathlessly reports: “As part of his mayoral election manifesto Sadiq Khan pledged to ban adverts promoting unhealthy or unrealistic body images” — which, if true, should be in Emir Khan’s election manifesto, but unfortunately for the BBC it is sadly missing. I know we cannot expect the BBC to behave in a wholly impartial manner, but making claims which are easily proved false seems a tad unprofessional — even for the myopic little liberal children who now skip and skedaddle along the BBC’s corridors of power.

If the BBC thought about this a little more they would find Emir Khan doesn’t actually care one iota about the “body shaming” of fat infidel women. If the Tarquins, the Annabellas and other such assorted Islingtonian sophists put their paper thinking caps on, screwed up their little eyes really really tight and like, really, really concentrated they might just discover the truth, which is that a Muslim man having been elected to a position of political power is now quite logically and naturally exercising Islamic political control (Sharia law) over territory.

In the old days it was impossible to do this without first having militarily defeated an enemy. In 21st-century Britain, however, things are very different. In order to exercise political control over territory, you simply need a brainwashed and culturally defeated electorate to return you to power, whereupon you can then inflict Sharia Law upon them whilst pretending it is not actually Sharia, but instead some sort of right-on, PC equality issue.

The tragedy here is that this is exactly what Emir Khan has done and the vast majority of people WILL think it’s about women’s equality, particularly those from the intellectually challenged liberal/left. Here for example is Women’s Equality Party leader Sophie Walker, praising the new London mayor: “Sadiq Khan appears to be taking steps towards keeping to his promise to be a feminist Mayor for London.”

And despite exhibiting such a stupendous lack of intelligent or analytical thought, there will be many more half-witted women like Sophie Walker, all suicidally cheerleading for a man who in terms of women’s rights would relegate them to the 7th century in the blink of an eye if he could. Good old Emir Khan will be rolling around the floor of his new mayoral offices holding his sides when he reads Sophie Walker’s praise. He will be flabbergasted how easy it is to fool the liberal kuffar.

As time goes by there will be more and more British cities run by Islamic mayors. Muslim demographics and their choice of urban rather than rural dwelling absolutely guarantee such a scenario. In 2025 native English city dwellers (if they still exist) will all be living under aspects of Sharia law. If posters of women in beach wear can be banned today, then city pubs and bars will be banned tomorrow. And as for the day after tomorrow……

Why is this not obvious to everyone?

Paul Weston is a British-based writer who focuses on the damage done to Western Civilisation by the hard left’s ongoing cultural revolution, which seeks to destroy the Christian, capitalist and racial base of the West. He is now one of the leaders of PEGIDA UK, and is also the leader of Liberty GB. His website may be found here, and his political Facebook page here. For links to his previous essays, see the Paul Weston Archives.

33 thoughts on “Mayor Sadiq Khan and Sharia Law

  1. Thee start of a very slippery slope – what is next?
    For example if there is a play, or a film, or a musical that mr. Khan believes will offend Muslim sensibilities will he attempt, no doubt successfully,to ban as well?
    What if he decides to make Soho and the West End “family friendly”, in the interests of his daughters of course, and bans night clubs and bars in the area?
    I do not believe that this is a far fetched scenario.
    Surely his decision to ban these adverts can and should be challenged in court? It’s not as if the advertisers lack the funds and it is in their interest to nip this in the bud!
    Please, spare us though the indigenous feminazis jumping on the bandwagon and applauding his brave and moral decision!

  2. Just wait until this muslim starts closing all the gay pubs and clubs in London, because that will be high on his to do list.

  3. I have always wondered why women’s mags always have the sexiest and skimpiest clad women on their pages; is it because the men demand it so?

    It is also curious that many skimpily clad adverts are for women’s products, did Khan ask any real women about this before issuing the edict, or do real women not count?

    I think the women of London had better start looking at headscarves and bin bags…..

  4. The easily offended must spend hours searching out and looking at these offensive ads. Most of us on the Tube are too busy looking anxiously ahead, wondering if we’ll be late for work or miss the train home. It’ll be interesting to see how quickly much-needed revenue will fall. Fares would have to rise to cover the shortfall, counter to Khan’s manifesto ‘promise’ to lower them.
    What next? A busker ban because they cause a begging nuisance (music= haram)? Bacon and ham sandwiches wiped off the menu and all other contents halal?
    What a fun world awaits for those who voted him in.

  5. It’s true, there are a lot of half-witted women around. I’ve got one of them right here in my office, currently not speaking to me because I criticised the ongoing invasion of so-called refugees. This type of person won’t wake up until they get personally enriched.

    • Some of them will not come to their senses even then.

      In Sweden there was a female raped in a train, who afterwards felt sorry for her rapist, because he was going to get in trouble with the police.
      The same happened to a swedish male – raped by an asylum seeker from Africa.
      And he also felt sorry for his rapist afterwards.

  6. Ms. Walker happily is in agreement with most Mohammedan scholars. Sharia is the most Feminist of all legal systems; the burka, male family member escorts, testimony in court being worth 1/2 of man’s are all for the betterment of woman-kind. Her
    constituents no doubt will appreciate the need to be beaten, lightly of course.

    • I forgot to add: With the coming of the death penalty for adultery – – and breaches of “honor” intercourse will virtually cease to occur outside of marriage, more so than ever was possible under Christian Hegemony. This will obviously benefit the tax payer tremendously in that (insert Big Brother colloquial title here) Care demand for contraception should plummet to near nil.
      Out of curiosity I wonder what the BHS expense for birth control is per 1000 females as opposed to Big Brother Care in Iran or Pakistan?

      • No laws against sexual activity ever work. They didn’t work in Puritan New England – people became adept at sneaking around…that one is too hard-wired to change.It sure hasn’t changed the sex slavery or the ‘dancing boys’ phenomenon.

        However, in order to keep up appearances, some random poor soul without any political connections is singled out for punishment.

        • Yes, but the point is unmarried females will only be able to procure contraceptives on the black market, on pain of death, and abortions will become strictly family affairs, with “choice” out the window. Getting “caught” in Dar al-Islam is an order of magnitude more problematic than Salem, MA.
          As to Law working I think that deterrence is a function of the severity of punishment divided by the realistic posibility of evasion of discovery, the larger the quotient the more deterrence. Sharia is much like Socialism in its love of denunciation. I think I’m safe in saying categorically that illicit sex (for women) is negligible in the Feminist Paradise of Riyadh compared to London.

          • Your dysphoric prognostications are premature, imho. Yes, large parts of the urban culture are a behavioral sink…and the rural culture is being eaten at the edges by drug abuse…but there is a whole beating heart that these socialist/Islamic predations haven’t managed to kill off.

            Are you perhaps falling prey to the MSM’s constant “all-is-lost-Henny-Penny” dirge? You might try getting rid of the poison,,starting with your TV.

            If I felt as despairing as you sound, I wouldn’t bother getting up in the morning, never mind pulling myself together to comment on some website.

          • You would be surprised, there is a big problem because most households have male Indian servants and drivers, part of their job is to escort the women (legal if approved by the husband/father) they also appear to perform more intimate services when required.

            This sort of thing was discussed at the all male office, there is no love in a Saudi marriage…..

  7. The election of a Muslim mayor also illustrates the power of group or rather, racial politics. A group voting as a bloc has tremendous influence on democratic politics, which is often a finely balanced tension between different sets of interests.

    Muslims vote and act in concert when it comes to politics. Jews do also, although it seems to be more a cultural identity than as a result of any overt discipline.

    The reality of racial politics calls into question the assumptions of a democratic, constitutional government. In fact, Hamilton, a founding father of the US Constitution, specifically noted that the Constitution was constructed for a people with a common heritage.

    My own opinion is that it’s unrealistic to expect a population to remain completely static. Of course, you have to have some new people coming in. But, we gain scientific knowledge for a reason. Just as technology has dramatically improved, or at least changed, our lifestyle and life choices, so technology and knowledge must be applied to our futures as nations and cultures. As in technology, to leave it to the sole responsibility of government will assure an inefficient and counter-productive effort. Government is crucial, however, in determining the context of the society.

    The most glaring flaw in Libertarian philosophy, to beat a long-dead and deservedly-dead horse, is that Libertarian philosophy assumes people act completely out of economic interests, and completely ignores group or racial identity and group politics.

    • Libertarian “philosophy” is not restricted to economic interests. It is concerned with subjective interest (desires) . . . and those can be as irrational and self-harming as any individual prefers. The problem lies in galvanizing a number of individuals to act in concert against ideological collectives bent on using violence in steering the desires (interests) of out-group individuals for he benefit of the individuals controlling the in-group collective.

      • DeriKuk,

        I don’t mean to come down on you personally, but your posting typifies the fantasy world of the Libertarians. I was a libertarian for years, so I’m very familiar with the philosophy.

        My big jolt out of libertarianism came with David Freeman’s description of Norse society, which embodied the libertarian ideal: private justice and private defense, centered around families or tribes.

        Unfortunately for the traditional Norse, their ideal society collapsed after only about a hundred years. The families got into a tussle with each other, one of them invited a foreign king for help. The king kindly agreed, and forgot to leave. That was the end of the Norse individualism.

        Funny enough, that was exactly the rationale for the Federalism of the Constitution as opposed to the confederation of independent states under the Articles of Confederation. One of the dangers of a confederation of independent states is the likely hood of quarrels between them, and the possibility of war and alliances with outside powers against each other.

        A country to exist has got to have a collective identity and culture, even at the expense of a libertarian-oriented freedom of action. And, the collective (read group, culture, tribe, or race) doesn’t even need to resort to violence. They can exert constant political pressures that can overrun individual interests. Muslims are simply an extreme version. They seem to prefer to employ violence even when their timetable for nonviolent conquest is on track or ahead of schedule.

        • My kind of libertarianism is of the “thin” variety:

          Beyond the principles of individualism, property and non-aggression, we “thins” have no normative prescriptions . . . and are, thus, free to engage the real world as circumstances dictate. Though risky, temporary collective action in the face of crises or threats is allowed, with the understanding that it is not to become the default; or, to use your example: The kings should leave when his job is done. I’m sure you can see where the risk exists.

          The real problem with libertarianism lies in our numbers. We are too few. The principles require thought and understanding . . . and the majority of humans cannot be bothered. Freedom requires more effort than the alternative – flocking into the slaughterhouse with the sheeple.

          • DeriKuk,

            We’re going to leave most people behind on this discussion, but at least we’re not killing trees.

            You define yourself as a thin libertarian, meaning you adhere strictly to the Non-aggression Principle (NAP). NAP means that force is never initiated.

            Let me pose a few situations. You own an open ranch. Someone sneaks onto your territory, and constructs a chain-link fence, enclosing some of your land. They are sitting behind a fence, not initiating any violence on you. Do you or your agents (including the sheriff) have the right to forcibly tear down the fence and eject them from your land? You might say yes, because property rights exist. But, this is a case of an initiation of force.

            Similarly, you have a bunch of Muslims move into the neighborhood, supported by outside funds. They do not interact with the rest of the community, stockpile arms, and are obviously training for group armed action. Do you have a right to take preemptive action against them, although they have not (yet) initiated any violence?

            You are sitting on your land, and someone builds a huge chemical plant next to you. They manage to contain their fumes and waste (for now) but maintain large vats of explosive chemicals under unsafe conditions. Nothing has spilled over on your property, but you are perfectly aware that once an explosion occurs, you won’t get a second chance because you’ll be dead. Do you have a right to require them to comply with principles of safety, and initiate force against them if they refuse?

            As I see it, Libertarians have just pulled ideas like the NAP out of their hats. There is a massive literature on classical liberalism, free market philosophy, and the conditions for a stable, relatively free state. Libertarianism, for some reason, claims to preempt all the discussions on principles of social liberty, advancement, and survival with some simple, out-of-the-hat concept like the NAP.

            In point of fact, our security lies in strong borders and a unifying cultural identity. The concept of national boundaries and the exclusion of whole classes of people, like Muslims or sub-Saharan, low-IQ, traditionally violent peoples is totally out of the purview of libertarianism. So, with Libertarianism adding nothing to our quality of life or security, why bother at all?

          • Ronald:

            “NAP means that force is never initiated.”

            No; it means that aggression – the violation of justly acquired property – is never initiated. There is nothing wrong with using force in the restitution of property. It is preferred that force will be a last resort in such action, but force is never precluded by the NAP.

            Fence example: Yes, you have every right to restore the quality of your property by tearing down the violating fence.

            Hostiles threaten your property (which include your person) – thereby altering the quality of said property. You – preferably in concerted with others who share your concern – are quite justified in taking pre-empting an even worse violation that can be reasonably foreseen. Generally, freely associating communities will be of like mind and culture; and will gain a mass/concentration that can prevent hostile encroachment on or near their communal lands. That ideal has been under attack for over half a century now in modern Western states. Deliberate state policies like forced integration (anti-segregation), multi-culturalism and “diversity” have run rough-shod over freedom of (and from) association. It has led to the alienation of individuals from their natural communities . . . and has effectively left such communities defenceless. A state is – and has – a monopoly on force within its claimed borders. How many states will allow any of its constituents to violate that monopoly? The state makes communities defenceless when it cannot – or will not – defend them. Even worse, it picks winners and losers . . . by confiscating the property of the latter and giving it to the former, which includes its anointed priests.

            You example of endangerment by a chemical plant is a good one. It may not violate your property for the present; and it may not have hostile intent . . . but if a mishap can be foreseen, it is incumbent on the plant owners to safeguard or compensate their neighbours’ property – preferably before the chemical plant is built. Once again, a community has a far better chance than an individual in such a contest. I am no lawyer, but I suspect most of this is well covered under tort law. In the real world, however, the state’s political force will come into play; and it will, once again choose winners and losers to the advantage of its priesthood.

            I have *MY* principles, Clearly, not everyone, or even many, are aware – let alone share – my principles. This is the reality we have to deal with. Principles are guides. They are not determinants or clear predictors.

  8. The model in question is Australian Renee Sommerfield.

    If one visits her Instagram or swimwear website, it is readily apparent the Protein World ad is a fairly realistic representation of her figure.

    Without knowing her exact diet and exercise habits, we cannot know if she achieved this figure by unhealthy means.

    Thus, the new mayor’s arguments are largely without merit.

    • Gorgeous model … she is antithesis of Khan’s efforts to ban beauty. I still believe that the clash whose inevitability is becoming obvious by the day is going to turn out victorious for us Westerners.

      And as history teaches us, the likes of Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski had won. We too shall …

      • Lu-

        I wish I could share your optimism about the West’s future, but based on my reading of current trends I cannot.

    • It doesn’t matter if Renee Sommerfield used unhealthy methods. Genetically, there is a wide diversity of individuals. Some are going to look terrific with very little abuse of their body, and some are going to look plain regardless of any enhancers they may take or starvation diets they follow.

      Some people are going to have appearances that other people want to look at and some won’t. So naturally, presenting someone as a supermodel is going to leave most others out in the cold. It’s simply a function of human biodiversity.

      The equivalent situation is to keep musicians from performing, because concert-level musicians are so much more talented than the rest of us, they trigger severe feelings of inferiority: they certainly do in me.

      Part of the features of Islam is severe deprecation of the individual. Any display of talent, intelligence, or beauty around a Muslim distracts from his concentration on his slavery to allah. In Islam, acting is forbidden, music is forbidden, art is forbidden, and uncovered women are forbidden. Gee. Wonder what the future is with the Muslim mayor of London.

      • You have drawn a very good analogy between physical beauty and musical talent.

        Wow, that man has a great singing voice (infinitely better than mine) so … let’s ban him from singing so that talentless singers, such as myself, don’t feel bad about themselves. Or as Emir Khan would put it, so they don’t have an unhealthy impact on my sons’ lives.

      • Heck, in Islam working too hard compared to your peers is heavily frowned upon.

        And the Ummah wonders why it cannot hold a candle to the West or East Asia in terms of technology and innovation.

  9. I wonder if he is going to ban Burkhas and Hijabs next.

    Because you know, they may make women “feel ashamed of their bodies. It is high time it comes to an end.”
    Especially when they a forced or brainwashed to wear it.

    • Well Reader, Khan’s principal opponent, Conservative James Goldsmith, is- bearing in mind the libel laws- slimy and obnoxious, and they were the only candidates with any chance of winning. I voted for the LibDems, whose candidate’s name I can’t recall now.


Comments are closed.