http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukip-candidate-geoffrey-clarke-calls-1495957
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/2517/outrage-as-gravesend-ukip-candidate-geoffrey-clark-calls-for-forced-abortion-of-disab#.UNClwOc_Pew.twitter
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4704117/Ukip-candidate-takes-controversial-stance-on-abortion.html
http://geoffreyclark.webs.com/manifesto
Geoffrey Clarke got into trouble over this for his perceived callousness towards the disabled. I would not have put it quite like that however. My modest proposal was to give the parents of the unwanted unviable disabled infant and their proxy the midwife the option of committing infanticide without getting into trouble with the law. However, what is in fact more shocking was what he said about the Koran and Muslims.
I am not so much shocked by this reference to Muslim "scumbags" (for we already know how deeply Islamophobic both UKIP and the BNP are) but by his scriptural ignorance of the Bible - a religion that he claims to wish to defend.
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/14-34.htm
You will find many more offensive references to women there than you ever will in the Koran.
Below is another questionable sentence:
However, for this ungrammatical non sequitur of this sentence, and for proposing that the Koran be updated, he should be expelled for the crime of inciting religious hatred under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006
I think any group of people with a holy book would feel threatened if someone whom they knew hated their religion, their holy book and them and who called them "scumbags" were threatening to rewrite or "update" their holy book.
It can be safely inferred that someone who calls Muslims "scumbags" has every intention of stirring up religious hatred.
A successful prosecution is certainly possible, in my opinion. It is pretty much an open and shut case.
HELP ME ANNOY THE FEMALE-DOMINATED PC BBC
Would you like to nominate Claire Khaw for the iPM New Year Honour for being the most entertainingly philosophical, political and theological Woman of the Year? Go on, go on, go on!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0089nbb/features/new-year-honour
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/2517/outrage-as-gravesend-ukip-candidate-geoffrey-clark-calls-for-forced-abortion-of-disab#.UNClwOc_Pew.twitter
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4704117/Ukip-candidate-takes-controversial-stance-on-abortion.html
http://geoffreyclark.webs.com/manifesto
HEALTH CARE AND THE NHS
... Other items for review: ceasing all free IVF treatment on the NHS; cutting unecessary waste e.g the destruction of drugs in care homes when residents move on to the next care home or the next world; the pregnancy abortion time limit; compulsory abortion when the foetus is detected as having Downs, Spina Bifida or similar syndrome which, if it is born, could render the child a burden on the state as well as on the family. CLARIFICATION TO AVOID CONFUSION AND MISREPRESENTATION: I do not, and UKIP does not, endorse any of these ideas: they are suggestions of matters for the review body to properly consider in light of the stated desire of all political parties to reduce the national debt.
Geoffrey Clarke got into trouble over this for his perceived callousness towards the disabled. I would not have put it quite like that however. My modest proposal was to give the parents of the unwanted unviable disabled infant and their proxy the midwife the option of committing infanticide without getting into trouble with the law. However, what is in fact more shocking was what he said about the Koran and Muslims.
THE KORAN NEEDS TO BE UPDATED
Here are some passages from the Koran [Penguin Classics version]:-
WOMEN: 4:24
You are forbidden to take in marriage married women, except captives whom you own as slaves.
WOMEN: 4:25
If any one of you cannot afford to marry a free believing woman, let him marry a slave-girl who is a believer.
WOMEN: 4:34
Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior over the others and because they spend their wealth to maintain them.
What sensible person believes that stupidity today? Anyone who does believe it today must be a scumbag and must be told so. Stop being squeamish about telling scumbags that they are scumbags, just because they happen to be Muslim scumbags.
The Koran is 1300 years old and is in desperate need of updating so men cease to abuse it. You will doubtless agree that the Koran needs to address women as well as men, and a lot of updating is needed. How can such a book be respected – quite aside from being followed? UKIP has a solution. The leaders of the main faiths should get together in 2013 and agree to update all their holy books by 2020 then re-issue them as appropriate for the world in which we live today, not for the world of hundreds of years ago. Then, women were subservient and it was "sort of OK" to have slaves. Today it is unconscionable behaviour.
I am not so much shocked by this reference to Muslim "scumbags" (for we already know how deeply Islamophobic both UKIP and the BNP are) but by his scriptural ignorance of the Bible - a religion that he claims to wish to defend.
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/14-34.htm
You will find many more offensive references to women there than you ever will in the Koran.
Below is another questionable sentence:
"Defend the freedom of religion, other than wearing the burkha."
However, for this ungrammatical non sequitur of this sentence, and for proposing that the Koran be updated, he should be expelled for the crime of inciting religious hatred under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.
Section 29B:
(1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
The House of Lords passed amendments to the Bill on 25 October 2005 which have the effect of limiting the legislation to "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred". This removed the abusive and insulting concept, and required the intention - and not just the possibility - of stirring up religious hatred
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006
I think any group of people with a holy book would feel threatened if someone whom they knew hated their religion, their holy book and them and who called them "scumbags" were threatening to rewrite or "update" their holy book.
It can be safely inferred that someone who calls Muslims "scumbags" has every intention of stirring up religious hatred.
A successful prosecution is certainly possible, in my opinion. It is pretty much an open and shut case.
HELP ME ANNOY THE FEMALE-DOMINATED PC BBC
Would you like to nominate Claire Khaw for the iPM New Year Honour for being the most entertainingly philosophical, political and theological Woman of the Year? Go on, go on, go on!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0089nbb/features/new-year-honour
