European Court of Human Rights makes right decision for wrong reason

By July 1, 2014February 18th, 2021No Comments



1 Jul 2014

The European Court of Human Rights on Tuesday upheld France’s controversial burqa ban, rejecting arguments that a 2010 law outlawing full-face veils breaches religious freedom.

In a case brought by a 24-year-old inhabitant of France with the support of a ‘British’ legal team, the court ruled that France was justified in introducing the ban in the interests of social cohesion.

It would have been strange had the Court reached any other decision, in view of the fact that wearing the burka in public is also banned in the great majority of Muslim countries. Of course, there may be some non-Muslims who believe they have a better understanding of the requirements of Islam than the Muslim scholars of these countries.

Be that as it may, the rationale for banning the burka here in Britain, as it has already been banned in France, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium, is not the promotion of ‘social cohesion’ but primarily the safeguarding of our people, ie, those of British race, from terrorist attacks and other forms of crime which the burka facilitates by its concealment of the wearer’s identity as well as any weapons and explosive devices they may be carrying.

It is for this reason that Patria will ban the burka and demands that the government do so now. Since Patria will renounce the European Convention on Human Rights, the opinion of a bench of foreign judges carries not the slightest weight with us. Even when they make the right decision, which seems to happen rarely, they do so for the wrong reason.

If the government and opposition were genuinely concerned about ‘social cohesion’ then they would put a stop to the immigration of hordes of destitute foreigners with cultures incompatible with our own and little or no tradition of parliamentary democracy and respect for the rule of law. Indeed, they would develop and promote the currently inadequate scheme of financially assisted voluntary repatriation for legal immigrants and put far more resources into the effort to deport illegal immigrants.

Government and the political Establishment can have either social cohesion or ‘diversity’. But they cannot have both at the same time. Each precludes the other.

The incipient racial and religious conflict in our country, within living memory so peaceful, law-abiding and civilized, is the direct result of successive governments’ criminally insane policy of allowing and encouraging over two generations the permanent settlement of immigrants of African and Asian ancestry; and of granting them not only citizenship but de facto first class citizenship, while our own people were concomitantly reduced to second class citizens in the land our forefathers made an advanced industrial society and a Welfare State.

If government were genuinely concerned to promote social cohesion then they would end their policy of discriminating against people of British race, particularly the English and in favour of ethnic aliens, in access to employment, education and training, social housing and healthcare.

If this government really wanted social cohesion they would abandon their twin policies of sabre-rattling overseas and appeasement of Muslim aggression in Britain. If government desired social cohesion they would ensure that the BBC and other publicly funded media stopped referring to murderous home-grown jihadists as ‘young militants’ and ‘fighters’ and gave them more accurate names such as unlawful combatants, mercenaries, Muslim terrorists, traitors and ‘the enemy within’.

In view of the incitement published by some of these Muslim fanatics, calling on their co-religionists to murder our people here in our own country, it is essential that the burka be banned without delay and that other pro-active and pre-emptive security measures be implemented including, but not limited to, the arrest, detention and deportation of all known or suspected jihadist mercenaries, as well as those hate preachers responsible for their indoctrination into the jihadist ideology.

If the government were serious about social cohesion they would also allow a free vote in the House of Commons, not a referendum in which the result is predetermined by how much money each side is able to spend, before the end of this parliament, on whether to leave the European Union.

But free vote or not and referendum or not, no UK parliament can bind a future UK parliament. And Qualified Majority Voting or no QMV, when our UK parliament votes to leave the EU then leave it we shall. Just as we entered it in 1973 – without a prior referendum.

Once free of the EU albatross around our neck, we shall be able to control our borders properly, essential for defeating terrorism and organized crime in general and to trade with the rest of the world, including the rump of the EU, as we please.

This is what Patria demands, in the name of the British people.

If you agree with the tenor of this article then please consider joining Patria, the Home of Patriots. Twelve months’ membership is a mere ten pounds, which works out at less than a pound a month. You can join online via PayPal from this web site or write to the Treasurer, Patria, 64A Cedar Drive, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 3EJ.

We may be relatively few in number at present, like our English forebears at Agincourt. But we are not a narrow, sectarian party. Our aim is not to aggrandize a few at the expense of the many. We do not aim to get our leader to the European ‘parliament’ so he can make speeches in foreign countries and live in the lap of luxury for the rest of his days. We are and wish to remain an egalitarian and democratic party of patriots, rather than a cult of leader-worship, a family business, or a travelling circus.

We know that it is here in Britain that the fight to save our country must be fought and won. Expense account tourism is self-indulgent escapism and a damaging diversion we can well do without.

Furthermore, we positively welcome new blood. We do not look with the cold, green eye of suspicion and jealousy on fresh talent. We intend to nurture the next generation of leaders. We are not so arrogant as to believe that we have all the answers and can learn nothing from others. We aim to be a broad church, a party of all the talents, worthy of the electorate’s respect and fit not simply to give a good account of ourselves in the big league of politics and under the media spotlight but to trounce the competition.

Our aim is simple: to govern Britain. But not from any unworthy or selfish motive: not from the love of power, or riches, or fame, empty as they are. But only because it is only by doing so that we can secure the future freedom, security and well-being of our people as a whole.

It is precisely because our motivation is selfless that we shall succeeed in our enterprise.