Unite the Kingdom - LWS/WRN

[Tooting33]

I am just wondering why Tommy Robinson is so appealing to a number of sex-realist women. Kellie Jay Keen spoke at the event. My local LWS group are fully supportive, as are the leaders of my local WRN groups.
Is anyone else finding it is harder to network with gender critical/sex realist women without them also being Reform/Restore/Tommy Robinson supporters?

Measures to encourage assimilation, speaking English, respect for our democracy and laws and becoming a productive member of our society.

Those measures are already in place and have been for a long time. I agree with you that speaking English is the big one for recent arrivals. As for respecting our democracy and being productive members of society, see my previous post about Muslims in business, medicine, politics, law etc.

Muslims are productive members of society.

What laws and policies regarding Muslims do you want to see?

I should have added robust action against Mosques promoting misogyny and extremism.l

What laws and policies regarding Muslims do you want to see?

You're being deliberately obtuse. Laws and policies apply to everyone. We don't need special laws/ exceptions for Muslims that's the point.
They need to run their schools according to Ofsted standards for example and not discriminate against girls.
There should be no parallel legal systems.

@Imnobody4.🎯
No parallel legal systems!👏👏👏

I was asking @CornishDaughteroftheDawn what specific laws and policies sĥe would like to see, regarding Muslims, given she brought it up.

Pathetic response.
https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2025/07/is-islam-compatible-with-british-values

I would agree with you here. No special laws or exemptions for Muslims, but a blanket policy for all immigrants, of all nationalities and faiths. Curriculums should reach the same standards for both boys and girls, and as you say, there should be no legal systems concurrent to the host country.

These kind of situations can crop up frequently in Christian faiths too, unfortunately. Some of the worst I’ve encountered - that put me off any type of faith forever - were Baptist churches, some experiences with the Catholic Church and a large cult called Exclusive Brethren.

Are they, all of them, most of the jobs you listed are self-employed jobs, are they all declaring their whole income, are they paying all the tax they should be, why would Muslims be so special.
If diversity is our strength then why are we in such a mess. If we need immigrants for the economy, why aren't we the richest nation, considering the millions of immigrants we have, why isn't our economy booming, why aren't we the envy of the world.
So many questions.

Also some concerning reports from Jewish schools. There is often tension between faith and a pluralist society, I suppose.

Which is the crux of it. Britain is on the whole a very welcoming and tolerant society in comparison with many others.

This has benefits but also risks.

I can't find another country that allows foreign nationals to become members of government, for example. Unless anyone knows of any examples?

Didn't Anas Sarwar's dad have to renounce his UK citizenship so he could become Governor of the Punjab?

Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Minority Rule, or the concept of the "intolerant minority". That a small, intransigent group can impose its preferences on a flexible majority.
A simple explanation.
https://x.com/i/status/2046306842633277753

We are seeing this with Halal meat. Legally this method of slaughter is allowed for religious purposes only. However it is now appearing in supermarkets without clear labelling and being served to all children at some schools. A Sikh shop owner put up a sign saying proudly not halal meat which resulted in a mob harassing him and his shop.
I'm sorry but the majority needs to up it's intransigence, enforce the law and say No.

Im not sure. Seems this woman was told she couldn't run because of her student visa. But Mannivannan was told differently.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c794xg4p1npo

Well I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know where it is the law that needs to change or the policies around enforcing that law.

For example, we already have laws around preaching extremism, noise pollution and coercive control but they don’t seem to be enforced in a remotely effective way.

We have laws on child safeguarding but even though they contributed to the tragic death of a little girl by hampering normal safeguarding, there seems to be no desire to ban hijabs from schools.

We have laws on hate crimes but despite the vast numbers of rapes by Pakistani Muslims on girls specifically because they were white, I am not aware of the prosecutions utilising the hate crime aggravator (or even managing to prosecute the vast majority of the rapes).

We have laws on people smuggling but as the BBC has recently uncovered, Muslims in the U.K. are sponsoring relatives to be smuggled into the country by the gangs who have registered company address in the U.K. this has been going on for some time and despite having a stated aim to ‘stop the gangs (or boats , I can’t remember)’, the BBC bloke has established more information on that then the British authorities have managed in years.

We have laws on electoral fraud that were reportedly breached many times in recent elections but the authorities (many of whom have very close ties with the alleged perpetrators) refuse to acknowledge it. What’s the point of having an independent international election monitor if you are going to ignore its reports? (And ironically disenfranchise some Muslims.)

Unfortunately we don’t appear to have laws on things like preventing convicted terrorists running for election. Or laws to stop government attempting to buy votes by bringing in blasphemy ‘laws’. Or to stop them attempting to fundamentally change our society without consent using mass immigration.

I’m sure there are many other areas that need either law or policy change to protect our society from change being imposed by people who absolutely do not share our cultural values.

Thoughts?

This article says it was 'likely' he renounced his citizenship

https://www.dawn.com/news/1034220

Are they, all of them, most of the jobs you listed are self-employed jobs, are they all declaring their whole income, are they paying all the tax they should be, why would Muslims be so special.

I can't imagine for a minute that most jobs in business, medicine, politics or law are self-employed. My assumption is that "Muslims are productive members of society" means that they are no more or less productive than any other category of people - and that this was the point being made here.

If diversity is our strength then why are we in such a mess.

There are many reasons why we're "in such a mess", including an overreach of DEI. Divisiveness and tribalism can also cause a mess. But equally, there are lots of things that aren't in a mess. One thing I would call out though as an example of a mess, that has been mentioned by PPs above, is Sharia courts. Personally, I think allowing them is a massive DEI overreach. Although their decisions aren't legally binding, I can't imagine too many women come out with a fair deal in marriage/divorce disputes or choose to exercise their legal rights to override them (owing to community pressure to conform to the decisions).

If we need immigrants for the economy, why aren't we the richest nation, considering the millions of immigrants we have, why isn't our economy booming, why aren't we the envy of the world.

I would assume we need immigrants for the economy as much as any other nation does. Every country has to grapple with how much freedom of movement to give foreign citizens to live and work within it. And obviously not every Muslim is an immigrant. According to ONS figures (which I trust more than BBC Verify TBH), immigration in the UK is on a downward trend:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70989jrdweo

Also according to the ONS, only 6.5% of the UK population is Muslim: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021

We are told that climate change is going to create many more refugees. Partly due to natural disasters and partly wars over resources.

Are we going to welcome all of them?

We have government ministers who seem to think we should. Greens suggested anyone arriving in the UK should have full citizen rights from day one.

And Zack Polanski wanted to have a chat with Putin, iirc. And get rid of all nuclear weapons. It's a vision of world politics that is almost admirable in its unbridled naivety and stupidity.

A twin suggestion that there are no bad guys, and that the UK must sacrifice its own wellbeing to make amends for historic events. I suppose this is what queering politics looks like.

Reform have recently started to kick up noise about Commonwealth voting. I can see that getting cut through because most normie white Brits don't know that Commonwealth voting exists.

I don't even have a problem with Commonwealth voting, if we're talking about long-term permanent residents. I have no idea if Shabana Mahmood's parents are naturalised citizens or dual nationals or Pakistani citizens, but they've been in Birmingham for decades and it would be absurd if the Home Secretary's family members couldn't vote for her.

But there's that, and then there's extending the vote to some random bloke who arrived from Cameroon last month on a student visa. And under legislation Labour is putting through Parliament, Commonwealth citizens would be automatically enrolled rather than having to make the effort to get on the electoral register.

But having a candidate elected to Holyrood who doesn't even have permanent residency, that's just taking the piss and will wake up a bunch of people who didn't believe it could happen.

A good question...

I just did a Google search and apparently there is a mixture. E.g. some countries like Spain and Germany allow EU citizens to sit on municipal councils. Also it said that New Zealand allows any permanent resident registered on the electoral roll to vote and run for local authority/council elections, though holding national parliamentary roles requires citizenship.

This was an interesting story in my news feed this morning on the subject:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c794xg4p1npo

The story is annoying to read because of the pronouns used for the (male) non-binary non-UK citizen. But setting that aside, taken at face value it looks like there is confusion within a national party in Scotland about what the law is there. (Or perhaps just sexism and/or a DEI overreach to include a special male candidate but the lady didn't quite have enough oppression points when the box ticking exercise was completed).

Ah. Just seen you've posted the same story.

I agree, Sionnadh. I think if someone has permanent residency then its fine for them to be part of the government etc. And vote.

But anyone visiting?!

I was not aware of this.

https://spectator.com/article/the-commonwealth-voting-scandal/

'Under the government’s plans, instead of having to register to vote, all eligible voters will be automatically added to the electoral roll, which will mean significant changes to constituency boundaries. It will also add my by calculation around 860,000 foreign nationals to the electoral roll – a change which might make a significant difference in 2029, when the election is certain to be dominated by debates over migration.

This is happening because the UK has a uniquely lax set of rules for voters.

According to the Electoral Commission, any citizen of any Commonwealth country has the right to vote in our local and general elections so long as they are in the UK and have: ‘Any type of permission to enter or stay…whether indefinite, time limited or conditional’. Elsewhere on their website the Commission describe a ‘qualifying Commonwealth citizen’ as ‘someone [from the Commonwealth] who has leave to enter or remain in the UK, or who doesn’t require that leave’.'

Commonwealth combined population is roughly 2.7–2.8 billion people.

Uk population just under 70 million.

That is terrible about commonwealth voting, I want aware of that, it means people with no stake in the country (eg on holiday?) can vote. I've readseveral times that Labour intend to gerrymander the next election as they are so unpopular - 16 year olds voting, allowing fraudulent voting etc, this may be part of that. I have thought they may bring in PR just before the election too (could they do that without a vote?).

The Tipping Point: A minority needs only to reach a small threshold—often cited by Taleb as roughly 3% to 4% of the population—to dictate the norm for the whole.

I agree with this, the critical mass has been reached. The same can be said for the genderwangers, they captured 4% of the state apparatus now it's all gone over to the stupid side.

Taleb argues that this rule is how "virtue" and moral norms are often established—not through consensus, but through the stubbornness of a few. He warns that this can be dangerous if the minority is malevolent, stating that an intolerant minority can "destroy democracy" and that society may need to be "more intolerant with some intolerant minorities" to survive.

I also like the sound of this, there is a way to beat it, the stubbornness of a few can also be those who stand and say enough is enough, whether it be Terf's or Unite The Kingdom marches.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/news-and-views/understanding-representation-people-bill