You are here

Anne Marie Waters

  • Summary: 

    Ex-Muslim interrupts Anne Marie Waters

  • Summary: 

    To give you some background, I also came out of the Labour movement, I too was a trade union activist, an activist for the NHS, a feminist, and a gay rights campaigner. The only difference is that I stood up for women of all colours, and treated them as my allies, regardless of the threat they faced to their freedoms – even if this threat came from their religion.

    For Britain is routinely smeared as ‘far-right’ (including by yourself) by people with no knowledge of the fact that our party is made up with people from all races, ethnicities, and backgrounds.

    Would it surprise you to know that one of our founding members, and the party’s deputy chair, is a Pakistani-heritage woman who joined us because of the way she and thousands of British women are treated under the sharia system in our country? Do you care?

  • Summary: 

    Frustrated at what she perceived as failures in both Labour and UKIP (having been a former candidate of both parties in the past), Waters went on to create For Britain, a party that is built on preserving British culture and national pride. Waters has come under fire from her detractors regarding her stance towards Islam and the rise of Sharia in the UK.

    I have always been interested in the world around me, but I became politically active when I started working for the NHS some years ago. I am very supportive of the NHS and its aims; that all people should have access to healthcare regardless of income. I became involved in Unison and worked as an employee representative in the health service. I was also studying law part-time.

    Doing a law degree opened my eyes to many of the problems of injustice that were occurring in our society, I also became friends with a devout Muslim woman – it was this that began my journey in to Islam. I learned of the restrictions placed upon my friend’s life by her family, simply because she was a woman. I learned that these restrictions were placed upon women throughout many minority communities, but particularly among Muslim communities; women even faced threats of death for “misbehaving”. I learned this was commonplace in the same Britain that had produced the Suffragettes (my heroines), and that sharia law – a deeply anti-woman system of codes and religious laws – was informally practised in the UK, having a profound effect on the lives of thousands of people.

    I then read the Koran to greater understand the religion and I realised that all of the terrible things associated with Islamic societies around the world, were coming directly from Islamic scripture. I began to tell this truth and this made me realise the importance of truth – telling it can be an extremely dangerous thing to do. People often don’t want to hear the truth as it can be too difficult to face, and rather than do so, people will smear and silence the truth-teller. I’ve experienced this from day one and I continue to experience it today.

  • Summary: 

    "Exactly what choice does an 11-year-old girl have when her designated school uniform is a magician's black cloth that conceals her from the world and never brings her back?"

    This was the question posed by Allison Pearson in her article '' in the Telegraph last year. She was referring to an East Midlands school in which, from the age of 11, young girls are obliged to cover themselves entirely – including their face – with the Islamic niqab.

  • Summary: 

    Prior to the Olympics however, you may recall that Saudi Arabia got itself into bother by attempting to send an all-male team. The International Olympic Committee (which governs such things) said they weren't having that, and demanded that Saudi Arabia send some women. So it did. Sarah Attar — an American of Saudi descent — came for track-and-field, and 16 year old Wojdan Shaherkan was sent to represent the country in Judo. And all was well with the world again. Except, the women representing Saudi Arabia would do so covered from head to toe and Wojdan Shaherkan was close to being sent home in a row over whether or not she could wear the hijab while competing. Having initially said no, the Olympic bosses gave in and allowed her to cover her head. And all was well with the world again. Everywhere from the Guardian to the Daily Mail this was lauded as a huge success – a giant step forward for women. Progress had been made, they said. But had it? Or had we just normalised and accepted the separation and covering of women, and can we now expect more of the same in the future? Will Egypt's women, or Algeria's women, or Turkey's women now be required to cover from head to foot and if so, will we accept that as duly as we have done on this occasion? My question is – how much further to the edge will we allow women to be pushed?

    ...

    As part of a defence to the backlash against multiculturalism that allows young women and girls in the UK to live a life of misery, Barbara Ellen asked the following question in the Guardian: "" Do you see what she did there? Not only did she declare that race is something to be tolerated (why? There's nothing to tolerate in a person's skin colour), she used race and culture interchangeably. Therefore, if you criticise a culture, you are criticising a skin colour, and hence you are a racist – which is not only a morally contemptible position, but also one which can ruin a career, a reputation, or even involve you in criminal charges. And they wonder why people are reluctant to criticise cultural practices.

    We need to get this clear – race is not culture. Race is a skin colour or national or ethnic grouping and it gives no indication whatsoever of who a person is or what they stand for. Culture, on the other hand, is a series of actions which are routinely carried out within any defined community and are usually based on tradition or religion or both. If we define culture as a set of actions, and some of those actions amount to the forced enslavement and rape of young girls, then that can and should be condemned – culture or not. Cultural practices have always been condemned, fought against, and changed. It has happened all across history; it is called progress.

  • Beyond Terror: Islam's Slow Erosion of Western Democracy

    Image: 
    Beyond Terror - Anne Marie Waters
    Summary: 

    Western democratic societies are built on an open exchange of ideas.  In recent decades, however, all criticism of one particular topic has been so consistently labeled as ‘racism’ or ‘hate’ effectively sabotaging any dialogue on this topic and making it nearly impossible for the truth to emerge. Anne Marie Waters, a British politician, did the unthinkable. She spoke out, publicly, on the topic of Islam, and having started in the liberal Labour Party (UK) is now mischaracterized as belonging to the extreme right.

    Beyond Terror addresses Orwellian nature of this problem, laying out the facts about Islam's concerted and shocking efforts to undermine the fabric of Western Civilization, and how this broad movement, affecting every Western nation, is being aided and abetted by liberal political parties. This book seeks not to attack an enemy, rather to inform the populations of nations already under attack, to enable a wider discussion about immigration from the non-Western world, the teachings of the religion of Islam, and the collusion of far-left groups with Islamists and jihadists.

    Anne Marie's message is connecting with millions of people.  A majority of Europeans expressed, in a 2016 survey, a desire to ban immigration from Muslim societies altogether. And yet leaders and the media in most of these nations ignore those expressing legitimate concerns about Islam as ‘racists’ or ‘bigots’.  This book reveals the opposite, that what many oppose is the spread of Islamic subversion of the rights and freedoms of women, in particular, and the societal norm of freedom of expression previously considered sacred in Western nations. Her mission is to engage in public discourse on the future of society to ensure that the rights and freedoms that we, in the West, currently enjoy will be passed on to our children. 

  • Summary: 

     

    LINKS:

    Three Labour Lewisham East Candidates Promoted Extremist Imams

  • Summary: 

    Sharia compliant mainstream media. Covering up of islamic atrocities, whilst smearing anyone who cirtices islam. Biased reporting and outright lies.

  • Summary: 

    This smearing nonsense has to stop.  I don’t like Islam and I have every right to feel that way.  As a woman who believes in free speech, it is entirely justified.  In order to preserve the rights and safety of women, and our right to speak our minds, I believe we must end immigration from Muslim countries.  Its not a conclusion I want to reach, but common sense tells me it’s unfortunately necessary.

    I want to halt immigration from theocratic or tyrannical societies because I believe in freedom.  Freedom and totalitarianism, especially religious totalitarianism which gives itself the authority of the creator of the universe, cannot live side by side.  You must pick one.  I pick freedom, and I will fight to preserve it from all that threatens it.

    This isn’t fascism.  This is commitment to liberty and democracy.  I will hold fast to this commitment and I will not cower down.  I will fight for our age-old liberties, and if I become leader, UKIP will be a party that fights for our age-old liberties.

  • Summary: 

     »  » British Law and Sharia Law

    British Law and Sharia Law

    The law of the land and alien legal systems: can they co-exist? A Matter of Allegiance.]

    Posted on March 19, 2017 by  in  // 33 Comments

    It’s important to talk about the law and to clarify what we mean. If we say “the law” we tend to mean the law of the land. So if I’m in Britain and I say “the law”, I mean British Law, the law that governs Britain.

    Upon questioning about the presence of sharia law in the UK, the government response has essentially been that there is no sharia law in the UK. What this means is that because sharia law does not have the weight of state behind it, i.e. the state does not enforce sharia law, there is no sharia law. But there is.

    Sharia is not ‘the law’, but it is a set of laws. Sharia law exists in an objective form, as a set of laws, and is adhered to across the world – often imposed by islamic nation states. Just like membership of an association obliges us to obey the laws of that association, sharia law, for many, is to be obeyed in order to be a devout Muslim. Vast numbers of Muslims take that requirement very seriously.

    It’s unfair to claim that sharia law is always a choice, for many it isn’t. Apostasy is widely condemned in even the most ‘moderate’ Muslim communities, and people take great risks if they question Islam. But even if sharia was a choice, even if an individual does choose sharia law, should they be able to in the UK? Should that choice be available? The answer has to be no. Sharia, or other sets of laws, should not be available for use if they run contrary to the law of the land.

    The Law governs our practical daily life in areas such as driving or taxes, but it is also a reflection of our morals as a nation and a people. It is a reflection of what we believe to be moral and right. One of its primary functions is to protect. Who is protected and from what, is derived from our common morals and values.

    The Law prohibits violent physical assault as a criminal offence so we can protect ourselves from violent physical assault, but also to reflect our moral position that we believe violent physical assault is wrong. The Law prohibits sexual engagement with minors so we can protect minors from sexual exploitation and abuse, but also to reflect our common moral position that sex with minors is wrong.  

    The Law of the land is built on several foundational and fixed principles that don’t change as new laws are introduced.  Fundamental principles in criminal law for example don’t change: the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of proof is on the state etc.

    Family law, the area of law most pertinent when discussing sharia law in the UK, is of the most fundamental importance. Family law also demonstrates who we are as people, what kind of society we seek to be. Like criminal law, there are fundamental principles in family law. Like criminal law, family law principles are consistent, there aren’t exceptions made when new laws are introduced. For example, the equal rights of the parties to a family law dispute don’t change. A husband and a wife have the same status in law, their word carries the same weight. This is fundamental. Also fundamental is the status of children in disputes, the fundamental principle being that the best interests of the child is paramount in any decision involving that child.

    Family law determines the status of women (in the family) and of children. In the UK, the woman is equal to the man, and the child’s protection is paramount. We cannot veer from these principles – it is against the spirit of British Law that reflects who we are.

    Given this, can we allow a system of laws to be practiced, if they are not consistent with the spirit of our law or the principles on which it is built? No, we cannot.

    Sharia law is inconsistent with the spirit of our British Law and its principles. In deciding on a case involving a Lebanese mother who would lose her children under sharia if deported to her home country, the House of Lords called it “wholly incompatible” with human rights legislation.

    Many politicians will argue that sharia is not being practiced in Britain, but it is. It has pseudo court rooms, judges, parties, and a decision. The decision might not be binding according to British Law, but it is binding according to sharia law, and that is what gives it its power.

    In sharia family law, a wife is worth less than her husband. She cannot divorce of her volition, even if she is subject to violence and abuse. Her testimony in a family law dispute is worth only half of her husband’s. This is intended to make it as difficult as possible for women to ‘win’ in any family law dispute. The reason for this is simply because the Koran deems women to be worth less than men.

    Furthermore, in sharia family law, the best interests of the child are not paramount – again in defiance of the standards, principles, and spirit of British Law. The best interests of the child do not come first in sharia because Islam deems that children are the property of their fathers, who has sole power over their lives. Mothers have no input and no rights.

    In the practice of sharia law here in Britain, decisions as to child custody are being made. This inevitably means that children will be placed with their fathers irrespective of circumstances, including if he is violent. Because mothers have no rights, they can’t stop this.

    Sharia law practice takes on different guises in Britain, including under powers of the Arbitration Act. The Arbitration Act allows parties to a dispute to agree to appoint a ‘judge’ and agree to be bound by the decision.

    Arbitration per se is not a problem. In principle, it is a legitimate way for free people to conduct their affairs. But the law itself, i.e. the Arbitration Act itself, places restrictions on this practice that ensure arbitration adheres to the principles of British Law. For example, the Arbitration Act requires that arbitration be fair, impartial, and in the public interest.

    Sharia law is not fair, not impartial, and given its terrible treatment of women and children, it is hardly in the public interest.

    For the most part however, sharia councils operate as charities.  The problem here is that charity laws tend to view religion as a force for good. It does so without examining the detail of what the religion teaches. Across the board, in public life, religions are deemed to be essentially the same, and are deemed to encourage moral behaviour.

    If we are going to oppose sharia law, and we should, we must stop designating unquestioning privilege to religion. We must look at what the religion teaches and the impact these teachings can have on its followers. 

    We must also stop pretending that there is nothing specific to sharia that should worry us. There is. It is a system predicated on female subservience, on violent punishment, on oppression, on arbitrary whims of clerics, and on complete disregard for the rights of children.

    Sharia is not compatible with Britain; it’s not compatible with our social values, our legal principles, or who we are as a nation. Its practice should therefore not be permitted. The fundamental principles of British Law should instead be upheld as supreme.  

  • Summary: 

    Making Islamophobia a hate crime is a slippery slope into censorship! Yesterday's Queen's Speech could have been written on the back of a beer mat, but Theresa May did find space for new legislation against Islamophobia. I spoke to Anne Marie Waters, director of Sharia Watch UK and UKIP leadership hopeful to find out why she thinks Islamophobia laws are a dangerous move.

  • Summary: 

    Anne Marie Waters makes a great speech at UK Against Hate Protest in Manchester.

  • Summary: 

    Theresa May talked tougher than usual yesterday, but nothing will really change, we know this.  We know it because Theresa May, or any other major political figure in Britain, will not tackle this in the way that it needs to be tackled.  They are far too concerned about “alienating” Muslims or upsetting Saudi theocrats. What we need is a leader who prioritises neither of those, but who stands for the British people, no ifs or buts.

    Here is how we do it:

    • Internment
    • Prioritise spending on policing and defence
    • Scrap the Human Rights Act
    • Raid known Jihad mosques
    • Stand up to Saudi Arabia
    • End (or severely restrict) immigration from Muslim countries
    • Write a British constitution
    • Acknowledge the root of the problem
  • Summary: 

    When things go wrong, that’s when leadership is both tested and defined.  Only weeks after innocent people were murdered in Westminster, we have again in Britain have had our way of life assaulted by Islamic killers.  The aim of Islamic killers is clear, regardless of how it is sanitised by our politicians; Islam won’t tolerate freedom and we are attacked for being free.

    It is written in every other page of the Koran, the persecution and punishment of the unbeliever.  Some say these verses apply only to defence, but rarely do they describe (or even know) what it is that Islam defends itself from.  It defends itself from disobedience to its rule.  To clarify, our freedom is deemed an attack on Islam, and killing us for our defiance is deemed an act of defence.

  • Summary: 

    Anne Marie Waters talks about the need for an open, nuanced debate about the merits of Islam and her campaign, For Britain.

  • Summary: 

    Anne-Marie Waters gives her argument against Islam being a peaceful religion. 
    SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► 
    FOLLOW Anne-Marie Waters on twitter @ 

  • Summary: 

    Finally, Paul Nuttall has had the courage to stand by his convictions and say that UKIP will ban the full face veil and Sharia law courts in the UK! Now he needs to stick to his guns and I believe he has a policy that the majority of British people support! I spoke to Anne Marie Waters, director of Sharia Watch UK, to find out if she thinks Sharia law will ever be banned in the UK.

    The Islamic full face veil is oppressive to women and has no place in a civilised country, just ask women like Maryam Namazie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali! I was joined by Dr Taj Hargey, imam and director of the Muslim Education Centre in Oxford, who told me why making women dress like ninjas! Taj also said that if any parents are complicit in the FGM of their child, they must face prison!

    The Jon Gaunt Show is brought to you in association with Financial Resolver. If you think you've been missold your pension, check them out at  or call Mark and the team on 0116 283 5032

    FREE speech wants your view so get involved 020 38 29 1234, , @ @. Listen LIVE from 4pm every afternoon and download the talk2meradio app to hear all our shows.

  • Summary: 

    A new group has been launched at the House of Lords to campaign for greater recognition of the threat posed by Islamic Sharia law. Sharia Watch UK says it wants to highlight the impact of Islamism in Britain and campaign against the prevalence of Sharia tribunals, particularly where it relates to women's rights. VoR's Tim Ecott spoke to Anne Marie Waters, spokesperson for Sharia Watch, and to Aina Khan, a solicitor in London who specialises in applying Sharia law within the English legal system.

  • Summary: 

    Caolan Robertson of TheRebel.media talks to Anne Marie Waters, founder of Sharia Watch UK, about the terror attacks in England and Sweden. MORE: 

  • Summary: 

    I am most grateful to Anne Marie for granting me permission to record and publish this talk she gave in Leeds on the 29 March 2017 on the subject of the increase of Sharia law in the United Kingdom.
    My own strongly held view on this, which Anne Marie greatly expands upon is that while liberals claim that criticism of Islam 'divides us', in actual fact, the existence of Sharia courts in our country demonstrates that we are already divided by our laws.

  • Summary: 

    My political priorities, post-Brexit, have become very simple. The party that’s most willing and able to stand up to Islam will get my vote.”

    That was a tweet from @meganne121 last week and she is not alone. There is enormous and growing public concern about Islam, and our politicians seem to have no idea. 

    Last year, a  said that 56% of Britons believe Islam is incompatible with the British way of life. They’re right, it is. Note that the public’s concern is with Islam, not fundamentalist or extremist or radical or any kind of ‘ism’, but Islam. The public gets it, the politicians don’t. , 47% of Brits said they wanted immigration from Muslim countries banned. This goes even further than Donald Trump. The people get it, the politicians don’t. 

    If UKIP wants to stand out and offer a real alternative, it can offer what nobody else will – law and order.

  • Summary: 

    It’s important to talk about the law and to clarify what we mean. If we say “the law” we tend to mean the law of the land. So if I’m in Britain and I say “the law”, I mean British Law, the law that governs Britain.

    Upon questioning about the presence of sharia law in the UK, the government response has essentially been that there is no sharia law in the UK. What this means is that because sharia law does not have the weight of state behind it, i.e. the state does not enforce sharia law, there is no sharia law. But there is.

    Sharia is not ‘the law’, but it is a set of laws. Sharia law exists in an objective form, as a set of laws, and is adhered to across the world – often imposed by islamic nation states. Just like membership of an association obliges us to obey the laws of that association, sharia law, for many, is to be obeyed in order to be a devout Muslim. Vast numbers of Muslims take that requirement very seriously.

    It’s unfair to claim that sharia law is always a choice, for many it isn’t. Apostasy is widely condemned in even the most ‘moderate’ Muslim communities, and people take great risks if they question Islam. But even if sharia was a choice, even if an individual does choose sharia law, should they be able to in the UK? Should that choice be available? The answer has to be no. Sharia, or other sets of laws, should not be available for use if they run contrary to the law of the land.

  • Summary: 

    Sharia law can vary on application, but common ground is found in the use of severe criminal punishments and the abhorrent treatment of the female half of humanity.  These things are mutual to such otherwise diverse nations as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan.

    Those who seek an Islamic state (i.e. a state governed by sharia law) are known as Islamists, and the power of the Islamist is intensifying, including here in Britain.  In our country, the Islamist gains his political power via his authority in personal and family matters.  Islamists in Britain run a vast network of sharia family law tribunals which hand down rulings on all kinds of issues from domestic violence to child custody.  Many of the men who run these bodies are known Islamists and jihadis.  They believe, as do fellow Islamists across the world, in the destruction of democracy and the installation of sharia, and we are inadvertently assisting them.

    As Tony Blair said recently, there is a strange reluctance to confront the Islamist movement, no matter what form it takes.  Here in Britain, and across the west, not only do we fail to confront it, but we have cloaked it in a veil of legitimacy, sanctioned it, and given it oxygen, partly through our mistaken policy of multiculturalism.

  • Summary: 

    No other party can do this but UKIP. The others have already sold their souls. Labour won’t do it because it relies on the Muslim vote. The Tories are no better; they’ve been in Government (albeit most of the time in a coalition) for some years now, and yet nothing whatsoever has changed.

    If UKIP won’t step up and take this on, then someone truly nasty could. There are numerous (actual) racists, fascists, anti-Semites, misogynists out there just waiting to use Islam as the excuse to turn back the clock on all the progress the West has made. We must find the place between the ugliness of Islam and the ugliness of those who will rise if decent people are forced in to silence.

    These problems are not going to go away, they will only get worse unless firm and unapologetic action is taken. If UKIP won’t do this, someone will, and UKIP could simply fade away; seen as out of touch and too afraid to challenge the orthodoxy of the Left-dominated media, it could become irrelevant. For the sake of the country we love, we shouldn’t allow this to happen.

  • From: Anne Marie Waters
    Sent: 28 February 2017 04:32
    To: 
    Subject: Freedom of Information Request: Female Genital Mutilation

    Dear Sir/Madam, 

  • Summary: 

    On this episode of PhilosoChat, Anne Marie Waters discusses the growing influence of Islam in the UK, and what this is doing to the political and cultural climate of the country.

  • Executive Summary

    What are we to learn from the above? If we are wise, it will be this:

    1. There are individuals and organisations in Britain who seek much greater accommodation of, and adherence to, Islamic norms in our society

    2. Efforts to subversively introduce Islamic norms and practices to British schools have already been undertaken, and been successful

    3. The accommodation of Islamic norms etc. in British society will inevitably mean a loss of democratic free speech and an erosion of the rights and protections of women and girls

    4. The British public sector is shaped by state demands for tolerance, inclusion, multiculturalism and diversity. These are of the utmost importance in the mind of the state

    5. Many British teachers, including the profession’s largest union, have expressed anti-Western and anti-British sentiment and openly support the concept of multiculturalism

    6. Activist groups who seek the Islamisation of British schools, use the language of multiculturalism and diversity to advance their arguments and in doing so, successfully sanitise and legitimise notions that are wholly in opposition to the values of British society

    The fact of the matter is that there is an ideological aim to Islamise Britain and the British state is lending a helping hand. In its consistent prioritising of “diversity”, the Government has ignored the detail and has little understanding of what this idea means in every day life. The British Government has effectively decided that religion is good, regardless of what it teaches.

    If this problem is to be fixed, a complete political and cultural shift is required in Britain. Schools must return to teaching literacy, numeracy, the sciences, as priority, and teachers’ political leanings should have no bearing in the classroom. It is right that pupils learn about religion, but in the interests of truth, it cannot be that they learn a sanitised or moderated version that can be constructed and approved by those with their own agenda.

    Teachers should be required to teach the values of Britain to children (to which we need to add equal rights between genders as a matter of urgency), regardless of their feelings, and to teach accurate history and current affairs. If Israel-Palestine is discussed, then the charter of Hamas should be included, as well as the genocidal intent of global jihadis against the Jewish state.

    Furthermore, children should be reminded that they are British, and all of the positive things that this entails.

    Most importantly, Government must move away from the notion that all religions are a force for good, and look instead at what is actually being taught. Government must be honest and open and when it sees problems developing, look at the facts without colouring them with multicultural dogma.

    Parents have a right to know the culture in which their children are being schooled, and we all have a right to know how the minds of future generations are being formed. At present, they are being schooled in multiculturalism, unquestioning respect for all minority groups irrespective of their practices, and something close to disdain for their own history, identity and heritage.

    British schools have numerous problems, but their utilisation as an advancement of jihadi ideology is a problem for us all.

  • EUROPE IN 2016 - A YEAR OF TERROR 

  • In August, two young friends from Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, were walking through the town when a group of men pulled up alongside them and ordered them to “get in the car”. I recently spoke to one of the girls, 15 year old Ellie Reynolds, who despite having reported the incident to police, had had no contact from them when I met her on December 5th. She also told me she is almost certain that the same has happened to other girls in the town since then.

  • Summary: 

    I am loathe to write this piece as I prefer not to respond to those who engage in smears and publish factual inaccuracies in an attempt to intimidate (and who of course think they are ‘owed’ an explanation if they read something they don’t like, because they are the self-appointed speech police), but as some of my supporters have requested I do so, I shall. The far-left defender of Islamic extremism, Hilary Aked (who also monitors “the pro-Israel lobby”), has taken it upon herself to launch a smear campaign against me. My crime? Stating the facts, and telling the truth, about a large number of Islamist Jew-hating misogynists who speak at British universities – while their critics are banned and censored. I will answer the questions she has sent to me but before I do, let me pose a few of my own for Ms Aked.

  • I recently met a woman who works with the International Christian Consulate (ICC), an organisation founded in 2015 to provide a “physical consulate” for Christians in the Middle East.1 As well as telling me about the sexual assaults (assaults, plural) she herself had endured at the hands of migrants on the streets of Athens, she pointed me to a report that the ICC has produced detailing the truly shocking treatment Christians are subjected to by Muslims in refugee

  • BBC - Tell The Truth About Sharia Law

    Image: 
    Summary: 

    Due to on-going government inquiries, the BBC has recently covered sharia councils in the UK.  During debates and discussion on the issue, BBC presenters did not mention the fact that sharia law has been declared, by the European Court of Human Rights, as "wholly incompatible" with human rights and democratic principles; due overwhelmingly to its treatment of women.  Nor has the BBC provided significant details about sharia law, such as that it allows men to use physical force against their wives, mothers have no rights over children, and a woman's word is worth less than a man's. 

    Moreover, secular or Islam-critical voices have not been included in these debates.  

    As licence-fee payers, we demand that the BBC provide complete coverage of this important matter and to fully inform the public.  We also demand that those who believe in a single democratic law for all are given every opportunity to object to sharia councils, for whatever reason, and that our voices be heard.  It is not for Muslims alone to determine whether or not the United Kingdom accommodates sharia law, or what form that should take.

    Read more at:  

  • Dear…

    Two inquiries in to the use of sharia law in the UK are currently on-going; one such inquiry was ordered by Prime Minister Theresa May when she was Home Secretary, the other a Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry. Given this, the BBC has had cause to cover the issue of sharia law in recent weeks.

    BBC coverage of this topic has been both unbalanced and incomplete, with vital information excluded. Please address the following points.

  • Summary: 

    Germany is the home of the German people. Britain is the home of the British people. Europe is our home, but our leaders now tell us that everyone, no matter who they are, can simply stroll in to our home and stay here. The reason they can do this is because they are human. It shouldn’t need saying but apparently it does; ISIS is human. Jihadis are human.  Rapists are human. Every murder, terror attack, genocide that has ever taken place, has been at the hands of humans. Humans are not saints, and nor are we “all equal”. Some will want a society held together by cruelty and oppression, others will seek freedom. That is simply how it is.

    On the second point, while I appreciate the sentiment in theory, it doesn’t work in reality. The separation of ideology from people isn’t practicable; it again presents people as innocents, and ideologies alone as harmful.  But that doesn’t make any sense. Ideas do not exist independently of people. It is people who give birth to ideas and it is people who put them in to practice. While an idea may be repulsive – such as burying a person up to their chest and throwing stones at their head until they die – the idea itself will cause no harm unless there are people willing to throw the stones. The Koran may contain verses urging the killing of non-believers, but if I put a Koran on a shelf and leave it there, it will cause no damage. It is only when people pick up the book and implement its commands that the problems begin.

  • Speech given at the Dangerous Words conference in Stockholm, October 2016

    In 2016, we might assume that the most dangerous words we could utter would be words that are critical of Islam – and it would be a fairly safe assumption. To be critical of Islam, or even un-flattering, can result in death at the hands of the state in numerous Islamic countries – including countries from which thousands, if not millions, are now arriving in Europe.

  • Summary: 

    Anne Marie Waters at Dangerous Words 250 Conference in Stockholm, Sweden. 1/10/2016

    Activist, Spokesperson
    Director of Sharia Watch UK (shariawatch.org.uk)

    www.annemariewaters.org

    Facebook: facebook.com/amwaters0
    Twitter: @AMDWaters

  • Summary: 

    Anne Marie Waters

    Activist, Spokesperson
    Director of Sharia Watch UK (shariawatch.org.uk)

    www.annemariewaters.org

    Facebook: facebook.com/amwaters0
    Twitter: @AMDWaters
     

  • Summary: 

    Anne Marie Waters joined SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss anOctober 2015 article she wrote for Breitbart News, which the UK Guardian attacked as a “racist Breitbart rape-scare piece” after Donald Trump, Jr., referred to it on Twitter Tuesday morning.

    Marlow said the article, which ran under the title “Europe’s Rape Epidemic: Western Women Will Be Sacrificed at the Altar of Mass Migration,” was “incredible” work, filled with “details, facts, figures, and a personal account of what it’s like to live in Europe right now, where there is a culture of extremely aggressive sexual behavior, typically coming from this influx of Muslim migrants.”

  • Summary: 

    www.undergroundworldnews.com
    About 20 years ago I lived in the Netherlands. Amsterdam to be precise. I don’t know if it is still the same but finding decent affordable accommodation in Amsterdam is an onerous task – especially when you are on a budget, as I was. After some difficulty, I did find a fairly decent flat, but I left it, in the middle of the night, with my rucksack and all my possessions, because my landlord did not understand, nor did he want to accept, that I wasn’t interested in a sexual relationship with him. 

  • Summary: 

    The internationalist happy-clappy establishment was all over the Olympic games as one might expect, and as one might expect, happy-clappy was abruptly interrupted, as are all attempts at global harmony, by an aggressive and intolerant religion that will only become happy-clappy when everyone adheres to its rule. The appeasement of Islam was made a priority in Rio because only to appease this bully, thereby minimising its negative contribution, can we keep The Big Lie alive. It is therefore inevitable that the Islamisation of the Olympic Games takes place, just like it does everywhere else.

     

    How do you recognise Islamisation? Two things are essential – primitive fear of a woman’s body, as well as hate and contempt for all things Jewish. The Islamisation of the Olympics of course heavily features both. The icing on the Islamising cake is not simply the acceptance of appalling behaviour, but its celebration. We must celebrate because only by celebrating can we avoid all the problems that come with disapproval. We don’t want to spend the Olympics arguing about religious sensitivity, so it’s easier to just let Islam do its thing – more peaceful even.

     

     

     

  • I’ve been writing a book for a long time now. I have been to countless publishers. Those who gave me a response told me how good it was, but… Not one will print it. We know why. But I’ll explain further.

     

  • Beyond Terror

    Image: 

Pages

Subscribe to Anne Marie Waters