“Protester wears burqa to deny concealing identity”, reports the BBC:
A protester has appeared in court wearing a burqa to deny a charge of wearing the Islamic religious garment to conceal his identity during a Hampshire protest.
Timothy Miller, 76, of Sherwood Avenue in Hedge End, Southampton, was arrested in relation to the anti-migrant and anti-racism demonstrations in Portsmouth city centre on 12 September.
During the hearing at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, he lifted the veil while holding a black handbag as he confirmed his identity.
The handbag was a nice touch.
When asked how he pleaded, Miller replied: “As I am in every police camera, I am not guilty”.
A pleasing paradox. Agree or disagree with his politics, Mr Miller has given a masterclass in the application of Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals, numbers four, five and six:
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
Dominic Green of the Washington Examiner supplies more detail,
A female police officer confronted Miller about his clothing. “It’s because I’m converting to Islam and I’m gender-fluid,” Miller explained, waving a beefy and boldly exposed hand with feminine grace. “I’m not here to make trouble.”
This is wonderful.
Now that the Right is the beleaguered minority, Alinsky becomes OUR new ops manual. And I bet we can play it out better than the Left can.
A definite “Have you stopped beating your wife?” moment for the authorities.
They either defend their “anyone can be anything they want” stance by self declaring themselves to be what they claim to be or deny that anyone can be anything they want by self declaring themselves to be what they claim to be.
Maybe the authorities need to acquire a dictionary and look up the word dilemma (horns of).
Me? I’m laughing my head off.
Try being “gender-fluid” in Gaza.
I enjoyed a by-play of one protest riot, possibly in Portland; it’s likely been used elsewhere. A female Antifa being arrested, was being dragged away by male police officers and furiously demanded a female officer to pat her down; a passing officer said “How do you know they don’t identify as female?” It reputedly took the wind out of her sails…
Y. Knott,
Indeed. We have biological males who identify as lesbians and some have beards. Now, I identify as male (well I am male) and I shave everyday. If I was to “bend the gend” I probably still could bother myself to shave. I mean FFS try. I do and I’m not even pretending to be something I’m not. I’m just a beardless man. A bearded man claiming to be a woman is just taking the piss.
And here I thought that a ‘burqa’ was a female berk!
The Gentleman is indeed mocking the regime (and the word “regime” is correct) and their absurd contradictions and double standards – for example their reverence for Islam and homosexuality (and even “transexualism”) at-the-same-time – ignoring the hadith (reliable grade hadith) “kill the one who does it, and kill the one to whom it is done”.
However, bobby b – the left do not allow Saul Alinsky’s methods to be used against them. The late Mr Alinsky was using the principles of the right, such as the rule of law and the idea that not everything is political, against them – when people like the late Saul Alinksy come to power they happily have the throats of all opponents slit, they do not allow mockery to be used against THEM.
People such as the first Mayor Daley of Chicago and even Pope Paul VI (under the influence of the philosopher Jacques Maritain) had utterly the wrong idea about Mr Allinsky and people like Mr Allinsky – they assumed that Mr Alinsky and co wanted to use government to make the lives of people better, but just wanted to use government far more than they, Mayor Daley and co, did. A difference of methods – but not of aims.
Sadly they were utterly wrong about Mr Alinsky and co – Mr Alinsky and co were NOT interested in making the lives of the public better, they were interested in destroying the present society – it is true they thought (or at least claimed to think) that a better society would emerge out of the ashes of the old one – but human suffering (those ashes being human ashes) did not really worry them.
In the Roman Catholic Church there has been a move from people like Pope Paul VI – who (like Popes from Leo XIII onwards) may have believed in a more active state – but sincerly believed that this would make the lives of ordinary people better, to people like Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago (he of the “seamless garment” theology – which declares that someone can not be a Catholic without believing in all the new doctrines, even if these doctrines are about economics, de facto open borders, and other policies, and that such new doctrines are just as important as traditional doctrines, such as opposition to abortion, indeed that, for “pastoral reasons” traditional doctrines should be downplayed so that “Progressive” politicians can be supported) and his friend and Progressive ally Cardinal McCarrick (the sexual abuser and KGB agent of influence – whose last great achievement was the betrayal of the underground Church in the People’s Republic of China – whom the Vatican, under his influence, sold out to the Chinese Communist Party and its official “Patriotic Catholic Church”) – who had rather different objectives.
Pope Leo XIV has cited Cardinal Bernardin and his intellectual follower Cardinal Cupich (also of Chicago – like Robert Provost, Leo XIV, himself, and Cardinal Cupich is a very intelligent and learned man – who understands that external persecution is often counter productive against Christianity, and that internal work, infiltration and influence, is often much more effective) as the major influences upon his thought – there is no need for me to comment further as, by saying this, Leo XIV has kindly shown what he is.
British institutions, including churches in Britain, are seldom controlled by people of such high intellectual capacity – institutions here are normally controlled by people who do the work of the Marxists (modern Marxists – Marxism has developed, not stayed static, since the death of Dr Marx in 1883) without even knowing that is what they are doing.
No I would not have supported the old Mayor Daley (or his political and theological mentors) – but he (and they) sincerly wanted to make the lives of ordinary people better – Mayor Daley sincerly believed that the corruption (and occassional brutality) of his administration were justified – justified because (he believed) he was using government to make the lives of ordinary people better. In this the old Mayor Daley was not really different to Senator Hubert Humphrey and many other sincere, well meaning, if rather misguided, human beings.
So, for example, the old Mayor Daley, and people like him (going back to Leo XIII in 1891) would be horrified (not pretend to be horrified – really be horrified) by the present state of Chicago – the most indebted place in the United States (once one includes all levels of local and State government).
Someone like Saul Alinsky would not be horrified at all – as this is what they wanted, policies leading, eventually, to collapse. And it is also what the rest of the Legion of Devils wanted.
It was not just that he wanted to use government a bit more – his aim (objective) was totally different. Ditto Cloward and Piven and all the rest – including Mr Obama (yes him to – his background and real opinions are not difficult to find out).
The aim (the objective) being the destruction of society – regardless of whatever level of human suffering this caused. Although, yes, they do claim a better society will emerge out of the ashes (human ashes) of the existing society.
As for the United Kingdom – I do not see any way it can be saved. But my sight is clouded, I am worn out (and embittered) – other people may see ways to save the United Kingdom that I do not see.
As for the Protestant side.
“Collective Salvation” (a doctrine openly endorsed by Barack Obama and others) is the “Social Gospel” taken to its most extreme position.
“Heaven” is reinterpreted to mean a perfect society here on Earth – and “God” is a metaphor for “the poor”. The “exploited and oppressed” according to Marxist doctrine.
One does not hear the words “fun” and “burqa” in the same sentence too often.
A recent reminder of the nature of Islam…..
A married Muslim couple went to Mecca (a religious obligation for Muslims to do – at least once in their lives) and the husband kissed the wife on the forehead.
Both the husband and the wife have had their heads cut off. This is being denounced as “Medieval” but it is NOT – if a husband had kissed his wife on the forehead in a Christian church during the Middle Ages there would have been no cutting off of heads.
The action is not “Medieval” – it is Islamic.
@Paul Marks
A married Muslim couple went to Mecca (a religious obligation for Muslims to do – at least once in their lives) and the husband kissed the wife on the forehead.
This story is an urban legend. What actually happened is that two migrant workers, Nazrul Islam Abdul Basir and Sweety Akhtar, one married and one not, committed a sexually immoral act (presumably boinking, or maybe boinking in an unapproved way) in a mosque and were executed after extensive trial and appeal. Now that doesn’t speak well of Saudi Arabia either, but it is certainly possible that an unmarried couple getting down and dirty in a major Christian cathedral in a notorious way in Medieval Europe could have suffered a brutal fate too.
As a general rule I think I’d rather be beheaded than burned at the stake. Though I’d probably prefer both to being buried up to my neck and stoned to death. Of course if I were a young girl in the Old Testament holy lands I’d be nervous as hell that I didn’t fracture my hymen accidentally. After all, the Jewish law prescribed stoning to death on her father’s doorstep if a newly wedded bride did not produce enough blood on the sheet to prove her chastity on her first night of married bliss.
Hard to believe for our modern minds, but Deuteronomy 22:13 is right there in black and white.