Bigamy – The Last Great Taboo
There has been clear legislation in the United Kingdom for more than four hundred years, that persons living in this country, under British legislature may only be legally married to one wife at a time.
Now, go on, you can delve back in history as far as you wish, and you will find that the idea of one man and one woman [sic] entering into a permanent relationship is well established in most civilised countries.
Even before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, Diocletian and Maximilian had, in AD 282, passed strict anti-polygamy laws, which mandated monogamy as the only form of legal marital relationship, as had, indeed, traditionally been the case in classical Greece. In AD 393, the Byzantine Emperor Theodosius I issued an imperial edict to extend the ban on polygamy to Jewish communities, whose tradition had included polygamy.
By the year AD 1000, the Jewish faith had already grasped the situation in Central European society, and it was Rabbi Gershom ben Judah who decreed that irrespective of what had been practised among Jewish communities elsewhere, bigamy would not be acceptable while ever Jews were living in a ‘christian’ environment.
The feminist historian, Sara McDougall, states that our first insistence on monogamy in Western Europe arose as a consequence of 16th Century Islamic incursion into Europe. It also became relevant with the colonisation of the Americas, Africa and Asia, in countries where polygamy was already an established social practice.
From what I can see, our decision to allow ‘declared’ Muslims into this country has been disastrous in general terms, not to dwell on the financial benefits which are afforded to all such arrivals.
We have now reached a situation in 2018, where an invited Muslim immigrant to the UK is allowed to bring with him, or later send for, up to four of his extra ‘wives’. Also, those many ‘uninvited’ arrivals, who manage to stay under the radar, are all generally allowed to stay, even when they offend against, and are dealt with in accordance with other UK legislation.
Should you think I am generalising, I quote Home Office Ref: 1178819 M, which refers to a Kurdish male, who, in 2003, allegedly stowed himself away on a vehicle from Istanbul to Leeds via Germany, and who, as soon as he landed, produced the most heart-rending account of having to flee for his very life from Iraq, his wife having been shot dead on the street in Mosul, with three bullets to the head. Therefore, a price being on his head for some misdemeanour which we, here, would, in the vernacular, class as ‘grassing’, off he ran to the land of milk and honey.
A bogus Death Certificate (in Arabic, who could read it, or bother to get it verified?) was produced, everyone felt very sorry for his misfortune, his daughter left in the care of others of his family in Mosul. Without going into extensive detail, life became difficult for our man when letters later came to light, written to him whilst in detention in Walton Prison, Liverpool, from his wife, and dated after the date on which he had claimed she had been ‘killed’. The next step for him was to swear undying allegiance to the white daughter of a neighbour of ours, produce an ‘anchor’ kid, after which it was deemed safe for him to ‘marry’ the unfortunate girl, even though she was aware of the existing wife back in Iraq. In my country, this is bigamy, punishable by up to seven years in prison
The results of five years’ constant checking, together with all relevant evidence, were submitted to the Home Office, all to be met with a single telephone call from a lady who certainly wasn’t indigenous British, to say, NFA – ‘No Further Action’. Meanwhile, our man is away to Sweden, doubtless to repeat the procedure in the cause of Allah.
All this leaves us with the question, in these circumstances, (and there will be thousands more throughout the land), why is it acceptable for just this particular brand of political ideology (for a religion it definitely is NOT) to flout this aspect of the British law?
Maybe there is some sort of top-level international agreement which provides that, once these characters have their feet under our table, yes, we may put them before the Courts, should they drive a vehicle too fast, cause injury or death, or steal from a shop, but, in matters of breaching bigamy law (as indeed, in matters of lying under oath to obtain that precious British citizenship) nothing must ever be done to bring them to book, or even to ruffle their feathers.
Those of us with a modicum of common sense have long known that this is a bad situation, which must be changed. We also know that neither of the two main Parties in Westminster has the least intention of challenging the practice. When an Australian ‘points-based system’ of immigration control was mooted, it was met with a deafening silence. It is going to be left for another party, not only to raise this issue but to actually enforce the existing legislation.
Personally, I believe there is such a Party, with sufficient ‘cohones’ to grasp this nettle, to bring order out of chaos. What is it the Rastafarians say? –
Those who are in earnest are not afraid of consequences’.
Here we have an issue which is not about political point-scoring; rather it is about the survival of both our sovereignty and our judiciary in a society which has long been degraded from the inside – Trojan-Horse fashion. The Arabic word for it is ‘hegira’ – the taking of a country by stealth. This is also along the lines of what the Founding Father of the European Union, Jean Monnet, wrote to his friend on 30th April 1952:
‘Europe’s nations should be guided towards the ‘super-state’ (so, it was already at least a concept by 1952) without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an ‘economic’ purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly, lead to ‘federation’.
All of which tells us, it is high time separate ‘anti-Brussels’ elements united in COALITION, to rid our land at the earliest opportunity of the corrosive anti-democratic atmosphere which has, for over seventy years, been eroding our sovereignty, our democracy, our judiciary and our very national identity.