Murray's Madness-The Henry Jackson Joke
In the latest scare-mongering piece from the Henry Jackson Society’s, Douglas Murray regards polygamous marriage in the UK. The article is one epic disaster piece linking one issue to another: he talks about racial equality, women’s rights, illegal immigration and religion. It’s a typical article from a member of the 'Centre for Social Cohesion' and the Henry Jackson Society; it consists of a load of unsubstantiated claims presented as fact and as always blames Muslims and somehow, the issue of immigration as always is flagged up.
Let’s dissect his latest nonsense masterpiece.
“So how is it that when it comes to polygamous marriage our welfare system has ended up deciding there can be one law for you and another for somebody else? Indeed one wife for you, but four for the man next door? The story exposed in yesterday’s Daily Express is about more even than polygamous marriage. It is about our complete inability to stand up for our values.”
Who does Murray refer to when he is talking about “our values”? It is clear that there are many groups that aren’t Mormons or Muslims who have scriptures that refer to polygamy among their prophets, saints and deities and so the paragraph above is not particularly clear.
“The idea that nobody should take more than one spouse is part of our legal tradition and Christian heritage. There are deeply practical reasons for it.”
Again, he uses Christianity as a mask from the fact that historically, various Christian groups have been supportive of polygamous practices and some are to this day and age. Whether polygamy is allowed or not, Muslims practicing it, don't suddenly not become British, so heritage shouldn't come in to it.
“Certain interpretations of the Islamic faith permit men to have up to four wives. Though forbidden in a number of Muslim-majority countries, in other parts the practice of taking multiple wives is widespread.
Of course it is only men who are permitted multiple wives.”
Here we go. Douglas now officially starts scare- mongering, to make you feel as if there are a load of Muslim men who go around marrying multiple women and that they’re all sexist pigs.
“Women are not allowed more than one husband. This enhances female servitude and the lowly status of women in many Islamic societies.”
Where on earth did he pull that from? I mean really? What about the “lowly status of women” in many non-Islamic societies? To pretend that Muslim men exclusively practice polygamy and to not mention other societies where women are degraded is just pure ignorance and presents a very cartoon version of reality. I bet Murray wouldn’t dare talk about Rabbi Ovadia Yosef who has come out in favour of polygamy in Israel.
The article goes on to say that the welfare system recognises polygamous marriages of immigrants and now, there is an attempt to crackdown the legal loophole.
“Whereas previously a man with four wives came to Britain and claimed benefits for all his spouses, now he will only be able to claim them for himself and one spouse. But the other wives will be able to claim single person benefits. Which in fact entitles them to almost twice the money they would have been able to get under the previous system. So what do we do?
The first thing is obvious.
Nobody who is married to multiple women should again be able to come to live in the UK. The law should be clear and consistent. If some Muslim majority countries are able to stand against polygamy then why can’t we?”
The thing which is obvious to me is that there are plenty of non-Muslims who are in polygamous relationships such as Jacob Zuma of South Africa and King Mswati III of Swaziland. Murray doesn’t even comment about these and jumps straight from Mormonism to Islam. Why doesn’t he talk about restricting immigration from South Africa, Swaziland and other nations where polygamy is permitted?
“The tougher question is what to do about the women who are already here? This is not easy. There are thought to be around 1,000 legally recognised polygamous marriages in Britain.
Though this may seem small, recognition of this through the welfare system currently costs up to £10million a year. It should not need a period of cuts and austerity to make us realise that this is madness.”
To put things into perspective, the horrendous banking regime and tax dodging corporations are not costing us a few million but BILLIONS, which make the £10million look like spilled milk. The UK right now has bigger fish to fry and rather than focusing on the issues that matter, Murray and his right wing neoconservative rat pack are making sure the average person forgets what should be at the forefront of their minds.
“If the men and women are here legally and do not want to leave then they must be encouraged to work. But here again is a problem. Many women who have got into these situations will not have done so through their own volition. Polygamy is a practice which positively encourages ill-treatment.
Many women in polygamous arrangements will have been forced into this by their own, or husband’s, family. Many will be entirely unready for life in a modern democratic country in which people are for the time being at least still generally expected to pay their way.
SO AS well as making sure this never happens again we must get these people off benefits. It is intolerable that during a period when many people are struggling to support their own families or wondering whether they can even afford to have a family, we should collectively be subsidising a tradition which is alien to our most fundamental values.”
Where is he getting this information from? Where is his proof or evidence to suggest that all women that are part of polygamous relationships do so because they are forced into it? Also, how can he substantiate his claim that all immigrants in a polygamous relationship are spongers that do not do a day’s hard work? Furthermore, how dare he suggest that there are people who cannot handle being part of a “modern democratic country”. This rhetoric is alienating and it is demeaning, to say the least.
“If a man who is now in Britain has multiple wives, wants to stay here and wants to keep them, then he must support them.
The British people should call time on the grotesque period of paying for other people’s ways of life in this country.
People who come here should respect our customs and our laws. If they choose not to do so then they should quite literally have to pay for it.”
Again, where is his proof/evidence to suggest that men in polygamous relationships do not support their wives financially? What’s to say he does or does not support them?
His latest article is nothing more than a bunch of scare-mongering statements with absolutely no facts on the ground to back up what he is saying. He completely fails to mention the damage to the system that some single parents have, both social and economic, where an individual can have many children with different partners and yet, there is no mention of this in his piece. Furthermore, why does he not say anything about mistresses? Across Europe, many men can have mistresses who are women that are guaranteed absolutely no rights whatsoever and are literally, sex objects. A man can have a wife and a mistress and there is absolutely nothing to stop him from doing so: surely this is demeaning and giving women a lowly status? If he is a true champion of women’s rights, why does he not say anything about the fact that the government is cutting subsidies to charities supporting victims of domestic violence who are often women? What about the £8.5billion which was the overall cost to society because of sexual offences in 2003-04?
Murray and his camp are vile for pretending to champion women’s rights and countering extremism when in actuality, they are nothing but cheerleaders for Zionist Islamophobia who divert people from the issues that really matter. Iengage’s article highlights further points that Murray doesn’t seem to accept that Muslims can be British and emphasizes using reports and statistics that the greater issue of single parent families.