Sunday, 13 August 2017

A word from Anne Marie Waters's would-be stylist

The BBC is making a fuss about Anne Marie Waters being selected as a potential UKIP leader. To be fair, so are several other channels. 
In case you haven’t heard of her, she’s the Islamophobic Irish lesbian who once said Islam is evil. How very dare she say such an audacious thing. 
Anne Marie joins Tommy Robinson as one of the MSM’s pantomime hate-figures and just as Robinson is forever tied to the discredited EDL, AMW will always be inextricably linked to the one particular ‘stranded soundbite’ of a millstone. 


There is of course much more than that to AMW’s opposition to Islam, and the way she is currently being presented by the media says more about them than about her.  I’ve never voted UKIP by the way, principally (amongst other reasons) because it’s so amateurish. But then, which party isn’t at the moment. 

There are ten other (may I say obscure) candidates of whom no-one has ever heard. The exception is Peter Whittle who’s supposed to be the strong favourite to win, but if I may opine on the matter, I don’t think he has the presence to lead a party. He’s a nice man, but no.

For that reason alone Anne Marie Waters might stand a chance of making UKIP great again. With a bit of work, UKIP could be the anti-Islam Party as well as the party that exists to keep a watchful eye on Brexit.

Mike Hookem strongly disagrees with Anne Marie Waters

MEP Mike Hookem - (yes, the very same Hookem who lived up to his name by flooring former UKIP leadership contender Stephen Woolfe and hospitalising him; whereupon he (Woolfe) withdrew, not only from the leadership contest but from UKIP itself)  - Hookem has resigned in a self-sacrificial gesture of protest. (Although, won't all enraged UK MEPs  be out of a job soon?)

The BBC tells us “Former leader Nigel Farage has warned that UKIP will be "finished" if it becomes an anti-Islam party.” To me, UKIP looks just as “finished” if it doesn’t.

The media is making such a big deal out of this, partly because it’s the silly season and, apart from imminent nuclear armageddon, there’s not much going on. AMW’s eligibility to stand hardly seems uniquely controversial, given that Paul Nuttall stood on a platform of a ‘burka ban’, a policy that seems like more of a provocation than a grown-up, properly thought-through political strategy. I’d strongly advise AMW to drop that one; it’s too confrontational, too soon.  

Googling from the starting point that Anne Marie was a one-time prospective Labour candidate - and a lot of Waters have crossed that bridge since then - I came across Socialist Unity website circa 2013. Andy Newman’s article “Anne Marie Waters - the worst possible potential Labour PPC” indicates that he wasn’t too keen on the idea.  Do have a butchers.
Looking at the hard left’s impassioned defence of all things Islamic with one’s retrospective specs on, one can’t help wondering if those sycophantic, philo-Islamic sentiments are wearing at all thin with those particular authors.  Having witnessed terrorism, mass Muslim immigration, ISIS, Syria, grooming gangs and all the rest of it, I’d hope their attitude towards the matter is somewhat more thoughtful now.  At any rate, as trends go, I imagine an older and wiser general public is presently slightly more inclined to sympathise with AMW than with the Socialist Unity circa 2013. 

Here’s a theory. When many people voted ‘Leave’, Islam was very much at the back of their minds. It was forcibly driven back there for fear of being branded racist. “Suppress those bad thoughts!”
The acceptable, non-racist  justification for opposing free movement and mass immigration was “Numbers”.  “No room! We’re full! Eastern European immigrants, Polish plumbers, Bulgarian fruit pickers. They’re taking our  jobs/ housing /schools /hospitals.” But underlying all this rationalising was the (verboten ) fear of creeping Islamification.

In truth, the driving force behind the victory for “Leave’ was the awareness that continued membership of the EU meant mass Muslim migration was ‘coming your way’. Fear of non-Muslim EU immigration was the pretext. Displacement on a grand scale.

How about that, then? Feel free to disagree, as Craig is apt to say.

Maybe we’re not yet ready for an openly anti-Islam UKIP, but maybe one day we’ll have to be. 
  
Big smile

If I were advising AMW ( I don’t know why she hasn’t asked me yet) I’d say if you are serious about your leadership bid, you need to consider your image. If other politicians have to do so, then so should you. Rather than present yourself as an “I don’t care what I look like” lesbian, you might take a leaf out of the Ruth Davidson book. Get a decent haircut, a hint of lipstick and a tailored jacket. You can be smart and still be butch. Work on that troubled look. Big smile. 
Don’t think of Jeremy Corbyn as a sartorial role model. Even he has been known to dress to impress.
There. That’s my advice. Sexist and old fashioned, that’s me. 

7 comments:

  1. Ellie Fant-Indaroom13 August 2017 at 15:58

    UKIP's reason for being was to exit the EU. Job done...almost. I agree with you Sue that its current prospects are not good, if they follow their existing path which seems to be a rolling mish-mash party coalition of libertarians, Little Englanders, 50s nostalgics, Poppy Day patriots, genteel racists, and welfare dependency advocates.

    The UK is desperately in need of some coherence and Waters is the nearest thing we have to presenting a coherent programme aimed at restraining and reversing the advance of Sharia, bringing damaging mass immigration to an end, spreading prosperity and reasserting our democratic values. Call it left of centre populism if you like. It's what I would vote for.

    Set against that her sartorial and grooming sins seem mild in comparison. I am sure that with the leadership will come some dosh to make her a little more digestible for our frivolous TV culture. However, on the other side, it will be difficult for all the BBC Fake News comedy progs to take pot shots at her on account of her appearance, given their dedication to PC norms.

    If Waters can win the leadership the BBC will have to give her some publicity. When they throw the "Islam is evil" quote at her and she calmly responds with a list of Koranic quotes and Hadith references, how are they going to deal with that?

    Waters' election would definitely lead to significant resignations from UKIP but I think that will allow her the opportunity to turn it into a left of centre populist party, junking all the libertarian, grammar school expansion and other eccentric nonsense. Anti-Sharia, anti-mass immigration, pro-British culture, pro-democracy, pro-manufacturing more than finance, pro-green energy, against welfare dependency but for the welfare state, pro-high quality education for all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Frankly, UKIP was never more than a protest party, but perhaps that’s not the salient point here. If there had been a zero tolerance towards such practices as FGM and obedience to Sharia masquerading as offence, plus an acceptance on behalf of the Muslin community of what it means to live in a free society, there might not be a need for any political candidate to declare themselves as anti-Muslim. Burka bans are just a silly irrelevance. But none of this is the fault of Muslims living in Britain. It is entirely the fault of previous and present governments and for want of a better description, the liberal elite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ellie Fant-Indaroom13 August 2017 at 18:24

      I don't think you can call party winning a national set of elections outright (for the European Parliament) and getting 13% in a general election simply a "protest party". In an alternative universe where UKIP did not face the combined wrath, misrepresentation and derision of the political-media elite and its workforce, I think it would have easily broken the 25% mark. Where has Waters declared herself as anti-Muslim? That is typical black propaganda being put out about her. I agree it is the "liberal elite" who have allowed this situation to develop rather than have very strict migration and naturalisation rules but we are where we are and the issue is now are you prepared to see more of the same because now, only a resolute defence of our democratic rights is going to succeed. Personally I think this can only be done by someone like Waters working from a left of centre position.



      Delete
  3. We will have to agree to disagree about the continuing relevance of UKIP. I think I’m roughly with Sue on this one. I can’t in all honesty say that up to this point I have paid much attention to Anne Marie Waters, my comment was made in a general sense. As much as I abhor the statements and actions of certain sections of the Muslim community I am not at all comfortable with politicians anywhere on the political spectrum taking an anti-Muslim position - or anti any other particular group. There are many wrong approaches and this is just one of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ellie Fant-Indaroom14 August 2017 at 21:19

      OK, we disagree. But I have to ask how you define "an anti-Muslim" position. We know how followers of Islam define it: anyone who makes public criticisms of Sharia, Islamice practice and history or the life and actions of Mohammed. It seems to me you are defining possibly defining it that way as well. I have never heard Anne Marie Waters make any specific criticisms of Muslims as people. So I can only think it is her public criticisms of the ideology that concern you.

      Delete
  4. Lets stick to the general and put Anne Marie Waters aside. I am trying to do justice to your question, but there isn’t an easy answer. As far as I know no mainstream British politician has publicly described their position as anti-Muslim, but based on my limited experience of social media there are many people in this country who clearly do.

    It’s not easy to pin down this elusive thing called the British way of life - actually it’s impossible. But I think most of us would agree that there are a certain set of values based around Judeo/Christian traditions and the Enlightenment that have evolved into a certain idea of who we are. The point I assume you are alluding to, is can Islam the religion, as opposed to individual Muslims be compatible with that idea? In a strict Sharia sense the answer is probably no. But then I could easily make the same argument about the far left or right who I believe to be equally incompatible with my idea of a modern liberal democracy. What shall we do about them? There is a large Muslim community in this country who have lived here peacefully and productively for many years. I know the argument, not without substance, that ultimately all Muslims are umbilically joined to Sharia, but they are here to stay. They are not going to go away. And there’s the rub. No easy answers.

    These are difficult multi-faceted questions. What we need, and this is where institutions like the BBC have been found so woefully wanting, is open debate with honesty on all sides, even if it does drag some pretty unpleasant people to the surface.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ellie Fant-Indaroom15 August 2017 at 20:04

      It's not easy to pin down what is the British way of life - societies, like individuals are extremely complex - but if we compare and contrast, we can see it is vastly, starkly different from life in say Saudi Arabia.

      In adddition to Judeo/Christian & the Enlightenment, I would add Greco-Roman, and pagan, north European roots as being very important. A purely Judeo-Christian culture would never have produced a Shakespeare in my opinion - the classical and pagan input was vital.

      The point is that no totalitarian system is compatible with our culture rooted in man-made law, monogamist family values, rational enquiry, free speech and free debate, with a strong individualist/hedonistic element - whether it's National Socialism or Islam or Communism.

      But there have always been minorities within our culture who have favoured totalitarianism (pro-inquisition Catholics, Hobbes, would be absolute monarchs, Mosley etc). That does not mean they have been given full licence. Catholics were subjected to legal penalties in the days when they sought to overthrow our system of government. Mosley was locked up. More recently Communists have been excluded from all sorts of walks of life included top level BBC management,
      security services, senior armed forces appointments and so on. Nowadays, far right racists will often lose their jobs if identified and are not allowed to teach or engage in many other paid activities.

      But people who wish to see Sharia triumph are not subjected to such penalties. Quite the reverse - our society has been engaged in an unseemly rush to get Sharia-promoters appointed to position of influence, including the Cabinet.

      So that would be my first response: Sharia has been declared incompatible with human rights by the European Court of Human Rights and yet there is nothing in UK law preventing an advocate of Sharia being appointed, say, as a High Court judge or a Police Chief Superintendent.

      But the other issue is numbers...

      We have been able to cope with the extreme left and right because the numbers have been relatively low. The Communist Party in the UK peaked at 60,000 in 1945. The Far Right have been miniscule.

      But people who support Sharia? Well there are probably already something like 800,000 people who seriously wish to see Sharia eventually supplant our way of life and another 1.5 million who have been brought up to believe it is the only moral system for humanity.

      Yes, these are difficult multi-faceted questions but AMW is facing up to them. Open and honest debate is not allowed in the MSM or in our universities. So, though it is a vital element in putting things right it isn't an option. The only option is electing a party to office that will bring in laws and policies that protect us. Abolishing Sharia courts is one example.


      Delete