It is 50 years since Britain’s first Race Relations Act was passed, banning racial discrimination in public places, but it has become a common and effective ploy to denigrate with impunity, someone’s character by labelling them as a “racist”, hasn’t it?

Yes, while in this Country people cannot get away with making damaging tenuous accusations against others of criminality without dire consequences, so why when it comes to tagging targets with racism assertions, is it open house, eh? Just try a tweet to say a non-convicted person is a burglar, or a rapist, or a murderer, etc, and your feet won’t touch the ground on your way to a cell will they, eh?

Now, such casual charges of racialism are intentionally personally injurious to those under attack and are used to create a hostile environment for them, and is one that cannot be escaped from because a person cannot show they aren’t racist – it is a known logical fact that it is impossible to prove a negative assertion, isn’t it?

Yep, the burden of proof must always be on the person making an assertion, yet in the case of racism, they try shifting the burden of proof onto the person who denies it –the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise is an unacceptable fallacy

There should be no doubt in people’s minds that indeed there are pockets of racists remaining in Britain, but that has to be put in the context that when gauging the level of racism here compared to other countries, metrics show that the UK is actually one of the least racist countries in the world – things have come a long way since the old days of the post WW1 seaport race riots of 1919, in which white crowds attacked Black and Minority workers, their families and communities. [It is however a well reiterated “myth” that in the 1960’s it was standard to see signs for digs saying ‘No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish’ (simply invented by Irish activists in the 1980s!)]

[In 1968 Mahesh Upadhyaya from south Yemen became the first person in the UK to bring a racial discrimination case to court using the then recently introduced Race Relations Act 1968]

The greatest use in history of this tactic of denigration of others as being racists, surely has to apply to the BREXIT situation, as the Remainers after losing the EU Referendum in 2016, immediately explained the situation, without an iota of proof, as one where Leavers were clearly just vile racists who were Empire fantasists who hated or were antagonistic towards immigrants – at a stroke 17,410,742 people, over half the voters no less, were deemed to be prejudiced, and discriminatory against someone of a different race, eh?

And so it has gone on with those allegations for the past three years, despite the very fact that evidence shows that prejudice against immigrants in this Country is amongst the lowest in Europe.

People in the UK cannot these days make any reasonable bleeding comment or voice any responsible opinion on anything involving race, religion, or other counties without the destructive slagging brigade denouncing them as racists, can they?

For example we currently have, as part of the Conservative leadership campaign, the usual crowd of Remainers, political activists, terrorist apologists and the like, MPs, and even supposedly renowned TV presenters & interviewers giving credence to totally unfounded claims that Tory Boris Johnson is an Islamophobic racist because he has made some pointed but valid remarks about women wearing the niqab and the burka, the Muslim body and head-gear that obscure the female face.

Well, those who attempt to denounce Johnson with their wild xenophobia claims are so shit ignorant about it, that they have idea of the circumstances, context, or even tone of his comments, do they? No, because if they did they wouldn’t malign him at all – they don’t appreciate that what Johnson in reality DID was write a thousand word newspaper article last year, DEFENDING the right of Muslim women to actually wear such clothing, and in it he clearly denounced Denmark, with a reputation as a easy-going country, but nevertheless one that like some other European countries, had strangely just introduced a legal ban against the burka.

[A fine of 1000 kroner (about £120) had been imposed on a 28-year-old woman seen wearing a niqab in a shopping centre in the north eastern town of Horsholm (a scuffle had broken-out as someone tried to rip it off her head)]

Yes, indeed he wrote that if a constituent came to his MP’s surgery with her face obscured, he should feel fully entitled to ask her to remove it so that he could talk to her properly, or if a female student turned up at school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber then that also applied, as those in authority should be allowed to converse openly with those that they are being asked to instruct, but equally he determined that while in certain circumstances such as those, human beings must be able to see each other’s faces and read their expressions, it is a different matter ‘telling a free-born adult woman what she may or may not wear, in a public place, when she is simply minding her own business”.

So when most ordinary people here would simply agree with all of that, why do the human rights and Muslim organisations’ idiots cause an uproar and get away with a claim that such analytic comments are “offensive”, or that the article was “anti-Muslim” and would “whip up hatred of women who wear the niqab and burka”, do you think?

Does any of that Johnson comment sound in any way like a man who is in fear of, has hatred for, or is prejudiced against, the Islamic religion or Muslims generally, would you say? [Indeed his great-grandfather was a Muslim]

[Counties currently with a ‘full’ burka and niqab ban: France [2004], Belgium [2011], Chad [2015], Cameroon five provinces [2015], Diffa Niger [2015], Brazzaville Congo [2015], Tessin Switzerland [2016], Denmark [2018]

Included in Johnson’s comments were:

“Denmark has got it wrong. Yes, the burka is oppressive and ridiculous – but that’s still no reason to ban it”

“I am against a total ban because it is inevitably construed – rightly or wrongly – as being intended to make some point about Islam”

“If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you. If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree”

“it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes.”

In fact, most ordinary British people who know the specifics, actually agree with ‘straight speaking’ Johnson’s opinions on this topic, not least when the reality is that very few (immeasurable) Muslim women in the UK actually wear the full face veil attire, yet the man is repeatedly required to express regret for ‘causing offence’ when not only was none intended but none should have been caused – that so-called offence has all be manufactured by extremists and troublemakers, hasn’t it?

[The current British scenario clearly demonstrates that the time has come to balance the scales of justice, so that our effective laws that make racial and religious discrimination illegal in the UK, are buttressed by making it an offence to make unwarranted or unproved public allegations against others of being discriminatory]