Readers who follow British political affairs know that up until now there has been no political party of any significance that opposes Islamization, with the exception of the British National Party (BNP). British Islam-critics who resist the destruction of their country through immigration, but are put off by the BNP — due to its long-time “whites only” policy, or for some other reason — find that there is no other party that they can turn to. They can vote Tory, and hope that (ha!) the “Conservatives” somehow regain their patriotic compass. Or they can vote BNP. Those are the only choices.
The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) is a Euro-skeptic party. Its defining issue is the European Union, and the fact that membership in the EU is dangerous and destructive to the traditional identity of the British nation. Up until now UKIP has declined to tackle the issue of immigration, or to touch the third rail of British politics: Islam. But all that seems to be changing.
Abhijit P.G. Pandya is the UKIP Parliamentary Candidate for Leicester South in the by-election which is to be held this Thursday, May 5. He is a Christian of Indian extraction, and has broken with the normal practice of UKIP by making Islamization one of the major issues of his campaign.
The British political establishment has not failed to notice Mr. Pandya’s effrontery. His local newspaper, The Leicester Mercury, published a deliberate distortion of a post on the candidate’s blog. The newspaper article told its readers that “In the article, Abhijit Pandya called Islam ‘morally flawed and degenerate’.” However, the entire sentence in Mr. Pandya’s post read:
“A system that treats women as slaves without chains is morally flawed and degenerate in its treatment of women.”
One can only assume that this was a deliberate misrepresentation, and the inflammatory account has actually endangered the lives of UKIP canvassers.
How do I justify this assertion? Last week, just after the article was published, eight members of UKIP went out canvassing for the party in Leicester. One of our British correspondents, whom I’ll call Nigel, was among the eight who went from door to door.
Here is Nigel’s account of what happened that evening:
At the third door I knocked on, two culturally-enriched brothers came out and said they were going to kill us; there were knives and everything.
The guy went straight for me. Completely ignoring the Asian chap stood next to me, who was canvassing with me. I got chased down the street by these guys, who were shouting that they were going to cut me up into little pieces, that I shouldn’t be in their area, and they’d shove my head through the door if I put a leaflet through it.
However, the larger issue — more important than my own personal safety — is that they are trying to shut us down. The media in particular. Because they know if we do well in this by-election, the result will be that the Islamic issue will finally be out into the open in the UK.
So the MSM — the BBC and the local press — are just trying to shut down information and our access to the media. They did a classic stitch-up on us: they published their piece in the Saturday edition, knowing that Sunday and Monday are Bank Holidays.
Now the local newspaper has come out, telling people not to vote UKIP because Abhijit has dared to make the election about Islam. They have also libelled him in the process.
One good outcome, which is very much what we want, is that it the issue has been taken up in India.
But the British media are strangling us into silence, particularly on the national level. Abhijit hasn’t been invited to hustings, or radio phone-ins that the other candidates have, etc. etc. You know the drill.
Now for the details of the imbroglio over Abhijit Pandya. First, here are excerpts from his original blog post, which was published on April 22:
Will Britain face a growing Muslim population on benefits?
William Hague wishes for Turkey to enter the EU. Turkey will add to the theft of benefits, or the theft of the British tax-payer, that is going to go the way of 8 countries that joined the EU in 2004 (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia) on 1 May 2011. From that day nationals from these states will be entitled to the same rights as those of established E.U. member states with access income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit by signing on as a jobseeker at Jobcentre Plus and meeting the requirements imposed on British Citizen jobseekers. It is very likely that when Turkey joins, whose nationals on average earn less than £8,000, more hard earned money of British nationals will go to line Turkish national’s pockets. Many of these will have done nothing to contribute to the British economy or that of the EU.
Note that under the current benefit system, that the Conservative Party has tacitly endorsed, for those who have never worked without any capital there’s no time limit on receiving income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance. This so long as you continue to meet all the easily satisfiable requirements (e.g. actively seeking work, a partner who works less than 24 hours a week).
Further, even if foreigners were able to make money coming over here, they would still be entitled to benefit under EU rules. For most of those with some capital (over 16K) and who have paid NICs you get contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance for as long as 6 months. This can be gained for just a years contribution to the British economy, despite others ploughing away for generations.
The moral of all of the above is that that at present it really does pay never to work at all.
However there is a greater social problem that will be caused by those that may come over here for housing benefits if Turkey were to join the EU. Campaigning in Leicester recently, I have been shocked to discover the quanta of those from Islamic backgrounds on one form of a benefit to another. Islamic culture inherently rejects the Western way of life, more specifically the Protestant work ethic that has successfully built the economies of the West. It is also fundamentally socially intolerant, closing itself off to the rest of society and local communities and forming ghettos that are economically dysfunctional and ethically espouse, perhaps without realising it, intolerance that undermines both social and human capital.
The increase of Islam in the UK is going to be a problem for the welfare state. For example, unemployment among Moroccan and Turkish communities in the Netherlands is higher than the national average: (2006 study by The Netherlands’ Social and Cultural Planning Office). In the UK, the important Institute from Public Policy Research study showed that immigrants from many Muslim countries (especially Somalia, Turkey, Bangladesh and Iran) are far less likely to be employed and claim benefits than those from non-muslim nations such as Zimbabwe, Poland and India. The UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission’s own figures show: “Half of Muslim men and three quarters of Muslim women are unemployed in the UK”. Muslim husbands in the UK with more than one wife to get extra benefits as ministers recognise polygamy (original source Taxpayers’ Alliance). Further a recent study of the 70,000 strong Somali immigrant community in the London Borough of Camden showed unemployment of over 75%. Actual unemployment in war torn failed state Somalia itself, is 47%. A removal of multi-culturalism, and assimilation of these people needs to done to save them from the abyss of exclusion and welfare. Above all, one should not shy away of contemplating deportation for new arrivals who do not work, or threatening it to further assimilation and an effort to find work.
A theological system that fundamentally encourages discrimination between those who believe it and those who don’t, treating the latter as second-class citizens, is backward. A system that treats women as slaves without chains is morally flawed and degenerate in its treatment of women. Cultural practices in many parts of the world which include child marriages and the death penalty for practising homosexuality are reminders that man is capable of going back to the dark ages very quickly.
Read the rest at Abhijit Pandya’s blog, including his support for Geert Wilders.
This was the local paper’s first response, published on April 27:
Outrage as prospective Leicester MP condemns Islam on his blog
The UKIP candidate for the Leicester South by-election has caused outrage by condemning Islam on his blog.
In the article, Abhijit Pandya called Islam “morally flawed and degenerate” and said he backed a controversial Dutch politician, who called Islam a retarded ideology.
Mr Pandya also wrote that Britain should not shy away from forced repatriation of foreign citizens who did not work.
The city’s Federation of Muslim Organisations (FMO) said it was surprised at Mr Pandya’s “hostile” comments, which it said were “cheap pot shots”.
Suleman Nagdi, of the FMO, hit back. He said: “I am surprised at the UKIP candidate taking such a hostile approach in his web blog by blaming the Muslim community for virtually every problem in society.
“I am even more surprised because the candidate has not attended any hustings meetings and has instead hid behind his measly words. Candidates who cherish our long-standing history of democracy, tolerance and respect for human rights would not make such immature and distorted comments.
“There are a number serious charges in the web blog against Muslims which the FMO would be very keen on having a public debate about…”
The same day Islamophobia Today republished an article that originally appeared in The Deccan Herald:
Abhijit Pandya: UKIP Candidate Supports Wilders
Lovely lookin’ fella’ isn’t he? Maybe if he dyes his hair using peroxide he can try to be the British version of Geert Wilders?
If he wasn’t so Brown he’d fit right in with the BNP. I wonder how the EDL folks who want “British to be about British” feel about this lad? Anybody will do who can save us from the dreaded “Muslamic ray guns.”
UKIP by-election candidate backs Geert Wilders, says Islam is ‘morally flawed and degenerate’
Abhijit Pandya, an Indian-origin candidate for the Leicester South byelection, has sparked fury by making critical remarks about Islam in his blog less than a week before the May 5 elections.
Pandya, 31, is the candidate for the UK Independence Party, which is opposed to Britain’s membership of the European Union.
On his blog, Pandya called Islam “morally flawed and degenerate” and said he backed Geert Wilders, a controversial Dutch politician who allegedly called Islam a retarded ideology.
And the following day the local paper had more:
UKIP shows itself as silly and nasty
It is not our normal practice, as a politically neutral newspaper, to criticise an individual party during an election campaign, but we will make an exception with UKIP. In the course of two days, readers will have learned of the disturbing views of UKIP’s parliamentary candidate for Leicester South regarding Muslims, and the admission of the party’s leader that it is running a “paper candidate” in the election for mayor of Leicester.
Leicester South hopeful Abhijit Pandya has said the anti-Islamic diatribe published on his blog was an attempt to highlight issues regarding integration and employment “which we should not shy away from discussing.”
Really? To us it seemed like a wildly inflammatory rant which boiled down to a crass and nasty characterisation of Muslims as lazy, intolerant spongers who are a threat to the British way of life. It was not part of a reasoned debate about multiculturalism, but a series of sweeping, unsubstantiated generalisations which demonise the Muslim community.
The matter of UKIP’s “paper candidate” for the mayoral election is obviously a lot less serious. However, we do think that parties should do voters the courtesy of engaging in the electoral process properly rather than just seeking to get their name on the ballot paper. It seems particularly daft to run a candidate in an election, which has a predominately local focus rather than national one, if you have nothing whatsoever to say about local issues.
Voters will make up their own minds on May 5. However, it is difficult to see how anybody can take seriously a party which has managed the distinction of showing itself to be both unpleasant and silly in the course of a single week.
A couple of questions for our British readers:
Do you take Abhijit P.G. Pandya seriously?
After reading all this, do you consider UKIP to be “unpleasant” or “silly”?
If you’re a constituent in Leicester South, you might want to take a closer look at UKIP. It seems there may be some life in the party yet.