Outrage! Outrage!

This will cause frothing at the mouth in certain quarters:

Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

The advancing dhimmitude of Europe no doubt. I can\’t actually manage to brace myself enough to see what Brussels Journal, Little Green Footballs and Our Mel have to say about it.

Just another one of these things that would be solved by having a citizens\’ basic income. As it would be paid regardless of marital status we simply wouldn\’t have to worry about such things, would we?

One question for anyone who actually understands Sharia law though. I\’ve got the impression (and it is only an impression, that\’s why I\’m wondering whether anyone actually knows) that while a man may indeed have multiple wives, he\’s only supposed to do so if he can actually afford to do so. So why would someone be claiming benfits?

12 thoughts on “Outrage! Outrage!”

  1. Tim – you’re normally so sensible. Polygamy destabilizes society – the excess males turn to violence – always. King Fahd of Saudi Arabia died in 2005; whilst he only had 4 wives at any one time, throughout his lifetime he had 28 wives. As children are born roughly 50/50 male/female, what do you think those 27 males who couldn’t marry did? Hint! Starts with J and ends with H! Look up the work of Kanazawa and other evolutionary biologists if you want a better understanding of this.

  2. Agreed on CBI, tee-hee to the last bit.

    Anyway, the rule is only that husband treats all his wives equally, which seems a sensible rule, actually.

    And seeing as all these Arabs who claim welfare over here are just getting revenge for all the terrible Crusades that we have waged (cont. p94) I am sure that they feel absolutely not the slightest jot of guilt or shame in doing so.

  3. Citizens’ basic income would make the situation worst. Every bloke would many a dozen wives abroad and sign them up for CBI.

  4. Agreed, Mark and Tim. There’s a sensible solution if only people had ears to listen.

    I seem to remember something about men only marrying as to what he can afford to do, etc., I’ll have to check it out. Frankly, I’ve no problem with polygyny. If one looks across human cultures, it appears that our mating system naturally tilts that way. Low levels of it make sense when one considers the earlier mortality of males. Not for me though, and I doubt I’d be able to look a friend in the eye if they went for it.

    However, I’ve major concerns for how it could be applied for the exploitation of women and the Telegraph article hints at this when it suggests the benefits could be paid directly into the man’s bank account. This and postal voting provide a pretty powerful way of robbing some women of economic and political power and Sharia law can often do a good job of constraining their social power also. All in all, because the CBI treats people as individuals, it frees them to be individuals rather than risks them being mere chattel.

  5. “Polygamy destabilizes society – the excess males turn to violence – always.”

    Come to think of it, that might help to explain much of the history of the middle east:

    1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites:

    2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.

    3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

  6. Never mind second wives, why allow first wives, or husbands, or anyone for that matter, to settle here if they are going to be an additional burden on the welfare system? Successful asylum seekers excepted.

  7. Sorry, should have mentioned the other exception: those who have served this country, particularly in war, e.g. Gurkhas or the Iraqi intepreters.

  8. Isn’t bigamy a crime in the UK?

    So anyone claiming these benefits is actually gaining the illegal proceeds of a felony?

    And we know what happens to them, don’t we?

    Or is it somehow different if your particular sky-pilot says so?

    Since when did that over-ride the law of the land?

  9. So every man from the muslim community can go back to the sub-continent and marry again whenever he likes, and bring his new bride into the UK. And every one of these “marriages” produces at least 5 children on average. And all the costs are picked up by the taxpayer.

    What’s not offensive about that?

    The relationship between those who collect benefits, and those who pay to provide them, is already under severe strain. But this is much worse, because it deepens the gulf between racial and religious groups. There will be a backlash because of all this, and it won’t be a pretty sight.

  10. There is an intangible but precious asset which is being stolen, in this case the common rule of law within the nation state. It underpins all of our security and liberty. None of us can be married against our will. None of us can be killed by our own families. Little girls may not be subjected to sexual intercourse. Stuff like that.
    We have never allowed such principles to be eroded to please the scientologists, or the mormons. We have never enshrined extra statutory holidays for the catholics. And we shouldn’t be pandering to this minority just because they make noisy demands backed by threats of mob violence.

  11. “And we shouldn’t be pandering to this minority just because they make noisy demands backed by threats of mob violence.”

    I don’t think there’s much of a minority asking for this. I never came across any campaigning for it (and I am convinced that we’d have heard in the Telegraph or the Mail of any such campaign very quickly indeed).

    It seems to me that it’s yet another example of white middle class politically correct people taking the initiative to act on behalf of another group of people (almost the very definition of a political class, incidentally). The same kind of people who take offence at the story of the Three Little Pigs, an offence on behalf of people who are utterly bemused by the whole situation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *