My message to Channel on being radicalised by the resignation of Keith Vaz

tammy wynette stand by your man https://t.co/FMKAUPiFfK I dedicate this song to Mrs Keith Vaz and congratulate her on her decision to do so.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 6, 2016

Well done, Keith Vaz, for carrying on business as usual. He is being almost Prime Ministerial about the whole thing. https://t.co/JI19v2hSLF

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 6, 2016

Keith Vaz is positively Prime Ministerial. I congratulate Mrs Vaz on her decision to stand by her man. https://t.co/JI19v2hSLF

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 6, 2016

Is it too late for Keith Vaz to become a contender in the Labour leadership elections? Vaz for PM!

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 6, 2016

So Keith Vaz resigned as Chairman after all. I had hoped he would give us a run for the money and keep the story going for a bit.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 6, 2016

Well, I never expected that bunch of tossers to decriminalise prostitution anyway. #KeithVaz

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 6, 2016

Who would become an MP? Who wants 2b treated like shit by a by lowlife and hypocrites called voters? People deserve the government they get.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 6, 2016

Who is that tosser on #wato saying Keith Vaz's position was "untenable" and being given an easy ride by Ed Stourton?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 6, 2016

Not only can't MPs stand up for a principle, they can't even stand up for their own human right to hire prostitutes. Why are they in charge?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 6, 2016

Plebs and wankers, that's what MPs are, who can't even stand up for their human right to hire prostitutes. Fuck them to hell. #wato

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 6, 2016

Why did MPs not bother to defend their own human right to hire prostitutes? Because they feared to alienate their female voters. #wato

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 6, 2016

Although I am not Muslim, I feel I am becoming increasingly radicalised every time I hear about the stupidity, hypocrisy and cowardice of our MPs.

Is there anyone in a position of authority I can speak to whose views would command my respect, who could persuade me that the answer to the problem of increasingly stupid, hypocritical and cowardly MPs running the government is not in fact a one-party theocracy governed under Islamic principles?

I was very upset to hear that not a single MP defended their human right to hire prostitutes. Hearing that Keith Vaz had resigned his position as Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee disappointed and saddened me profoundly.

Not only are MPs incapable of defending a principle - the principle that it is not illegal to hire prostitutes - they are also incapable of protecting their own interests of having the option of hiring prostitutes should they ever choose to do so. If those in charge of the ship of state are incompetents and imbeciles, then how can they give us good government?

If they cannot properly look after the interests of voters, let alone the long term national interest, then an Islamic State could be seen as an increasingly viable and attractive alternative.

While I have no intention of joining Islamic State at present, I would like someone in charge to reassure me that our liberal democracy is working well, so that I do not become even more radicalised the next time I hear of our MPs not defending a principle or the rule of law, or appearing not to even know what they are.

Your prompt response and assistance in this regard would be much appreciated as I do not want to become dangerously disillusioned with the current government or the current system of government and end up becoming a jihadi bride or sex slave.

What Claire Khaw wishes to avoid

https://www.counterextremism.org/about-us/contact-us/

In defending Keith Vaz, we are defending the rule of law and British values

REMINDER TO FEMINAZIS

Relevant and rational considerations

1. There is no law against hiring prostitutes.
2. Keith Vaz at no time took a position as Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee that is inconsistent with the exercise of his human right to hire prostitutes.

Irrelevant and irrational considerations

1. You hate Keith Vaz.
2. Everyone you know hates Keith Vaz.
3. You'd be furious if you found your husband had hired prostitutes. 
4. You would never dream of hiring prostitutes.
5. You don't want anyone at all to hire prostitutes. 
6. You want to punish Keith Vaz on behalf of his wife who has decided to stand by him.

We will always need politicians prepared to defend the rule of law. Keith Vaz by refusing to resign as Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Commitee is in fact using his position to defend the principle of decriminalising prostitution, which its members are already agreed upon.

What is not forbidden is allowed. It is not forbidden to hire prostitutes, even if you are an MP who is Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. If there is some unwritten rule that says MPs are forbidden from hiring prostitutes, why would MPs support this infringement of their own human right? They are the legislature after all. If they do not even support their own right to hire prostitutes when it is not illegal to do so, does this mean they are stupid or scared, or both?

Why are British voters being governed by MPs who are more stupid and scared than they are, and who won't even stand up for their own legal rights when those are not in question?

If Keith Vaz is ousted as Chairman, the more thoughtful voter - not very many admittedly - who is also for the decriminalisation of prostitution would be asking himself precisely this question.

If Home Affairs Committee Tory MPs try to oust him, it would be only because they are following the orders of Theresa May. Being an unprincipled woman, she will probably be unable to think beyond how angry she would be if discovered her husband had hired prostitutes, but that is not the point.

The point is that if everyone has the right to hire prostitutes then wives enraged by the thought of their husband doing so is completely irrelevant.

Mrs Keith Vaz has clearly decided to stand by her husband and it is not anyone's business to punish him on her behalf, not even our female Prime Minister, who is also a wife.

In defence of the human right of Keith Vaz and all MPs to hire prostitutes

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/married-mp-keith-vaz-tells-8763805

After spending most of yesterday on Twitter on the subject, no one there has yet given me a good reason why non-MPs can hire prostitutes, but not MPs.

No one has yet told me how Keith Vaz hiring prostitutes is inconsistent with his position as Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee.

When I ask them if they would prefer it if Keith Vaz had hired two female prostitutes and had sex with them one after the other while the other watched, they do not answer.

When I ask them if they are possibly what is called homophobic if they think hiring two male prostitutes is in some  way worse than hiring two female prostitutes, they again remain mysteriously silent.

If Mrs Vaz is upset at her husband hiring prostitutes, it is up to her to seek a remedy in the Family Courts, and is none of our concern.

Frankly, if I were Keith Vaz's wife I would be relieved that he was not constantly pestering me for anal sex and drug-fuelled frolics when I already have a full time job as a busy immigration lawyer and several homes to run.

There are certain men who feel a certain delicacy and inhibition about asking their wife for the kind of the sex they would really like to have. They probably have an inkling that this is not something they could constructively suggest to their wife. If she already has a full time professional job one is likely to get short shrift and suffer a lifetime of funny looks. The result of being too open with one's wife about one's deepest darkest desires is that one could lose her respect, which would be disastrous to a good marriage. I entirely sympathise with Keith Vaz for not broaching the subject to his wife and would have done the same thing too if I were a man wanting to have sex with two male prostitutes one after the other.

I think people just want to punish Keith Vaz just because he is an MP and an opportunity has presented itself for them to punish him. That's all it is really.

MPs should therefore reflect on why they are so hated and consider closing ranks by defending the human right of Keith Vaz and any other MP to hire prostitutes.

If their constituents object to MPs having a right to hire prostitutes without losing position and status, then they should be told in no uncertain terms that what they hope for - that MPs would one day pass a law allowing everyone else in the land to hire prostitutes but not themselves - ain't gonna happen.

If these hypocritical and hate-filled constituents want to change the law in order to criminalise MPs for hiring prostitutes, then let them become MPs and do it themselves. That should shut them up good and proper.

Watch Lynn Featherstone look like a criminal drug-addled hag in the dock

https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/hasc-lynne-featherstone-mp-20th-jan-2015/

"What are you aware of, Minister?"

Watch this LibDem feminista being professionally eviscerated by Keith Vaz.

"Are you not the Minister Responsible for Sexual Abuse ... Prostitution and Lap-Dancing?"

Yes, he said that.

And she answers Yes.

HILARIOUS.

I haven't seen anything so funny in ages.

Keit Vaz: RESPECT.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2918057/Child-grooming-offences-33-year-amid-warning-abuse-happening-town-city.html

Lutfur Rahman and the BNP bloc vote

http://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/an-nec-members-account/

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=6812

http://www.lutfurformayor.com/about

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2010/sep/21/lutfur-rahman-removed-as-labour-tower-hamlets-mayoral-candidate

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davehillblog/2010/sep/22/lutfur-rahman-tower-hamlets-mayoral-campaign-marred-ineptitude-nastiness



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davehillblog/2010/oct/11/tower-hamlets-independent-mayoral-candidate-lutfur-rahman-interviewed

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100056657/lutfur-rahman-eleven-are-expelled-from-the-labour-party/

Labour Making a Big Mistake Over Lutfur Rahman
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=6754

The Labour Party really hate Lutfur Rahman, don't they?  Here are a few anti-Rahman quotes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davehillblog/2010/oct/05/tower-hamlets-mayoral-election-campaign-london-citizens-labour-candidate-helal-abbas

Rushanara Ali, the newly-elected MP for Bethnal Green and Bow congratulated the membership for "not tolerating intolerance" whether from "the far right or the far left - the Respect Party. You said goodbye to George Galloway [in May]. You said, we don't want division here, we don't want this community turned against each other - black against white against Asian; men against women; father against daughter; son against mother. That's what George Galloway's legacy has been." But she added: "Unfortunately, the Respect Party is not dead yet. It's rearing its ugly head again in a new way. It's calling itself 'independent'." This got a loud cheer. "It's not the same as Ken Livingstone becoming an independent," she continued. "Don't flatter them." She urged her audience to impress upon voters that the choice of who took care of a billion pound budget was between Labour, "a mainstream political party" that wants to unite the borough's different communities, and a divisive group of people who, among other things, want to "hijack Islam for selfish motives." She warned against intimidation and provocation and paid tribute to older Labour politicians who'd fought against the far right in her youth.

But then one hates and fears the person one has wronged.  Lutfur Rahman was to have been the Labour Tower Hamlets mayoral candidate until a rival Labour mayoral candidate, Helal Abbas, complained about him, causing Lutfur to be removed as a candidate without an investigation. 

This has provoked him into standing as an Independent against the Labour Party which will doubtless result in his expulsion.  Suzanne Moore, the Guardian and Mail columnist who was also a member of the Labour Party, was expelled from the party after she stood against Diane Abbott.

So this is party democracy in Labour, which is not much better than the kind of party "democracy" we get in the BNP. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2010/oct/01/tower-hamlets-mayoral-candidate-lutfur-rahman-antisemitism-respect-party


Lutfur Rahman does have a way with words, necessary to a politician and a lawyer of course, but also courage and determination from the array of his enemies:

"It has become fashionable among the right-wing to characterise Tower Hamlets as a 3rd World entity. If by that they mean a place where the rule of law is subordinate to the whims of unaccountable officials; where such basic principles such as "innocent until proven guilty" and the integrity of the democratic process are overruled by fiat, then they are entirely correct. But it is not me, or the borough's Bangladeshi community that are responsible for this sorry state of affairs, it is the Labour Party, who have for years treated Tower Hamlets like the last outpost of the British Raj."

Jeffrey Marshall and I have met Lutfur.  It was two or three years ago at a Safer Neighbourhoods meeting.  It was a Sunday and I remember Lutfur wearing jeans, for some reason.  Jeffrey complained about the intimidating gangs of youths hanging around street corners.  Lutfur even came over and chatted to us because we, being non-Asian, stuck out all like sore thumbs.

A few months later the gangs of intimidating youth had been dispersed with the dispersal notices that Lutfur must have had something to do with.

So, Lutfur's strong on law and order and gets things done.

Another reason why BNP supporters should vote for Lutfur is to show solidarity with someone who has been badly-treated by his party.

Details of how and why can be gleaned by reading http://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/an-nec-members-account/

Some of you may have heard of the BNP's recent troubles.  The reason why the BNP have failed to enter a candidate for the Tower Hamlets mayoral elections was because it had escaped the notice of the Acting London Organiser (one Nick Griffin living in mid-Wales who relieved the previous London Organiser Chris Roberts of his post because he was suspected of being a supporter of Eddy Butler the leadership challenger that never was because he could never in a month of  Sunday secure enough nominations under the current rules) that there was a deadline to be met if one wanted to be a candidate for the mayoral elections on 21 October. 

There is just a hint that Lutfur is anti-feminist and anti-Zionist, which would be OK with the typical BNP supporter, I imagine.  (He has clearly outraged Rushanara Ali who  made unspecified allegations against him  to Harriet Harman, the Supreme Matriarch of Britain.  It could be that he suggested that Rushanara Ali - another female candidate of the Oona King mode - is but a creature of the Labour Party and can no longer be said to properly represent the Bangladeshi community.  Perhaps the Bangladeshi community prefer a middle aged lawyer in preference to a slip of a girl who has "gone native" and will probably slavishly support whatever line her party wants her to take.)

Lutfur was also against the invasion of "Afraq" which is another important BNP policy.

Also, Ken Livingstone (whose political antennae is as faultless as mine) supports Lutfur and Keith Vaz - a lawyer - is on record saying that Lutfur's sacking was against the rules of natural justice.

Lutfur won by a majority of almost 200 votes from a total of 881 casted votes and the Local and Regional parties and both expressed confidence that the election had been fair and democratic.

Lutfur Rahman - 433 votes

John Biggs - 251 votes

Helal Abbas - 157 votes

Shome mishtake, shurely?

http://www.labourbriefing.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=80:breaking-news-press-release-21st-september-2010&catid=3:newsflash

It would be an excellent story of mature co-operation if the BNP bloc vote helps to keep the Labour candidate out.  Helal Abbas has been a bankrupt under his other name of Abbas Uddin.  Helal Abbas was also a member of Hope Not Hate - an organisation specifically set up to thwart the BNP.

http://londonmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/10/lutfur-rahman-is-democrat-while-helal.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100057592/lutfur-rahman-the-racists-choice/
and

http://hurryupharry.org/2010/10/07/lutfur-rahman-and-his-racist-supporters/ suggests that there is a very nasty and concerted campaign by Andrew Gilligan, Labour and Zionists to smear Lutfur as a racist and an anti-Semite.  I think people of all races who are branded as "racists" by the liberal establishment should stick up for each other. 

The way ahead is therefore clear.  BNP supporters in Tower Hamlets should vote Lutfur Rahman on the grounds of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".  It will be very satisfying to deliver a good hard kick to Labour while proclaiming to the nation that the BNP bloc vote is something to be courted if your majority is anything less than solid.