 A Conservative councillor has been suspended from the party, the apparently Islamophobic Tory party, pending an investigation for saying something completely reasonable and right and that represents the view of the majority of British people. Imagine that, representing the majority, he won't make that mistake again. What he said was that the broker was a security threat and he was called racist for it. Now, I know that racism is a completely vague and undefinable word these days, but criticising a garment demonstrating religious extremism is not racist. Let's get that clear from the start. But he was representing a majority view, the majority of British people for some years now have wanted to ban the broker. And back in the days when I was in the National Secular Society, I wanted to ban the broker. I've never changed my mind about that and I never will. So here are the reasons that we must ban the broker and that for Britain our policy, our unbending, unwavering policy, is to ban this thing. And here's why. One, it is a security threat. Of course it is. And someone will, some loudmouth will jump up with, oh, but you're telling people what to wear. That's not British. No, I'll tell you what's not British. The broker is not British, but it's not about telling people what to wear. It's about concealing identity in public. And if people are allowed, a certain class of people exclusively allowed to conceal their identity in public, it presents a security threat because concealing identity presents a security threat. That's precisely why we are not allowed to wear a balaclava into a bank. It's a security threat. Two, it is a symbol of religious extremism and extreme misogyny. The idea behind it is to limit a woman, and I mean seriously limit a woman. How can she possibly engage fully in public life if her face is covered? How can we possibly practically manage this? It's also, and this is even worse, it's also the idea that if a woman is seen, the whole thing is sinful. I'm sorry, but that's insanity. That's religious extremism to the verge of insanity. And as for the choice aspect, because this is going to be loudmouth number two, their point number two is going to be, but it's a choice. Well, fine, but I don't have a choice to wear a balaclava into a bank. So why should I have a choice to wear a piece of black cloth, which achieves the same as a balaclava? Why should I be able to wear that into a bank? Why can't I choose to wear a balaclava into a bank? Because it's a security threat, that's why. And if you do, if you are a woman who chooses to wear this thing because you believe that if men see your face, you will have committed a sin, then frankly you need psychiatric help, not encouragement in this crazy self-hating belief. Choice or not, this thing has to be wiped out. And there's another point to make here. Why do we only ever express concern for women who choose to wear it and not for the millions who are forced to wear it? What about them? Why is it always about the woman who wants to wear it and never about the woman who doesn't want to wear it? My concern is for the woman who doesn't want to wear it and we know that even in this country, women are forced to wear this dehumanizing shroud of enslavement because that is what it is. Point number three, one law for all. This is crucial. Once again, I'll use the same analogy. If I can't wear a balaclava into a bank, why should a Muslim be able to wear a balka? We are treated differently. This is crazy. And I've seen this. I've seen this. I've had that experience at Gatwick Airport, the one where I have to take off my shoes and my belt and I watch a woman with her face covered walk through security. We cannot have a society. This is supremacy. It's Islamic supremacy. It's a mark of Islamic supremacy and it's a mark of Islamic separation from the kuffar. We will not accept the rules of the kuffar and neither will we walk around like these slutty, immodest kuffar women. This is a symbol of rejection of our society. And on that point number four, what about all the unity and cohesion we keep hearing about? How can we have a cohesive society? How can we live together? If one group of people covers them off so completely that we can't even see their face, how can we communicate? I personally refuse to communicate with people wearing these things because it's a rejection of me and my society. And I'm not going to accommodate that. I'm not going to adapt myself to accommodate that. And this is why it's this reason that the European Court of Human Rights upheld France's ban on the Borca because they accepted the argument of the French government that it's a barrier to cohesion in French society. The European Court of Human Rights it occasionally gets things right, on this occasion it did, agreed with that that the Borca or the Nicarb is a barrier to social cohesion. And on that point as well, several European countries and even some Muslim countries have banned it and the sky didn't fall in so it won't in Britain either. But here's the most important reason of all. The majority want it. The majority of British people want this thing banned. They're uncomfortable with it. They know what it symbolizes and they don't like it. Now in my book Beyond Terror I wrote that our democracy is in such a shambles that even though the majority of British people want to ban the Borca, not a single major political party will put it as a manifesto promise. Quite the opposite in fact. What they do is go out of their way to say we will never ban it. We couldn't possibly ban the Borca, defying and insulting and ignoring once again the British majority. Well for Britain will not ignore the British majority. We will do what the British majority wants us to do and we will ban the Borca now. We would ban it now. The sooner we ban this thing the sooner it comes out of circulation and the freer future generations of Muslim girls will be. Ban the Borca. Ban it now.