CP
Goodness gracious, here we go again, another round in the culture war cage match, this time starring a woman in Parliament brave enough to actually say what most Britons think, and a party chairman who, how shall we put this?, seems more interested in managing optics than representing people.
Let’s begin with this: No, Reform UK’s newest MP, Sarah Pochin is not “dumb.” She’s not reckless. She’s not a loose cannon. She’s not, as some desperately want her to be, a bigot.
She’s an elected Member of Parliament doing exactly what an MP is supposed to do: giving voice to the concerns of her constituents and invoking Parliamentary privilege to raise uncomfortable but necessary questions that a growing number of Britons want addressed.
What’s dumb, truly dumb, is calling an elected MP dumb when you, Zia Yusuf, were elected by absolutely no one.
This isn’t a swipe at your character. It’s a statement of fact. You are the appointed chairman of a populist party, in a populist age, seemingly talking down to a woman elected by the people, the very people you claim to represent.
Nothing to do with me. Had no idea about the question nor that it wasn’t policy. Busy with other stuff.
I do think it’s dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something the party itself wouldn’t do. https://t.co/AUjwT8GqqD
— Zia Yusuf (@ZiaYusufUK) June 5, 2025
Sarah Pochin, in her maiden parliamentary question, tackled a real issue: the burka, a garment imported not from any Western liberal tradition but from a doctrinal worldview in which women must shroud themselves to stop men from sinning. That’s not cultural diversity, it’s gender apartheid wrapped in cloth.
She put the question to Starmer, who promptly shape-shifted into a puddle of non-answers. And in doing so, Pochin made one of the most important political distinctions of our time: the line between those brave enough to challenge retrograde cultural practices, and those who fear even asking.
On Twitter, Katie Hopkins, ever the pyromaniac in a fireworks factory, accused Zia of meddling with party direction and pushing against the burka ban. Zia, in turn, said he was “busy with other stuff” and dismissed the question as something the party itself wouldn’t do. Fair enough if that really is the party line, but throwing your own MP under the bus while defending your own ignorance? That’s a curious interpretation of leadership. It’s becoming a bit of a habit though isn’t it Zia?
Let’s be clear: British political discourse is at its best when it is fearless. It is the job of Parliament to debate the moral architecture of our society, not to rubber-stamp imported ideologies under the label of multiculturalism. And if you can’t talk about something as ideologically loaded as the burka in the House of Commons, where can you talk about it?
Sarah’s constituents are not just behind her, they are ahead of the political class. Survey after survey shows broad public support for banning full-face coverings in public. Why? Because ordinary Brits understand the blindingly obvious: You can’t have a society built on openness, accountability, and shared cultural norms if your public life is hidden behind a veil. Many want to also actually stick up for the women. Quite right too.
Burkas are not British. Neither in form, nor function, nor philosophy. This isn’t about persecuting people; it’s about defending women and defending Western liberal norms from being eroded under the guise of cultural sensitivity. No woman should be told she must erase her identity to be moral. That is antithetical to the dignity we afford women in the UK.
Sarah Pochin saw this. She called it out. And she deserves not derision from her own party’s chairman, but support, gratitude, and respect.
Because in a time when cowardice is called tact and silence is called strategy, a little bravery goes a long way.
And that, Mr. Yusuf, is what leadership looks like.
By Claire Bullivant.
This article (In Defence of Sarah Pochin: She’s Elected, Zia. You’re Not. So Don’t Call Her Dumb.) was created and published by Conservative Post and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Claire Bullivant
See Related Article Below
Women should not be veiling their faces in Western society
Even the ECHR agrees that burqas are not compatible with Western culture and can be banned
Churchill once said, “Nothing can save England, if she will not save herself. If we lose faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our will to live, then, indeed, our story is told.”
Let those words settle – less as a relic of the past than as a stern admonition for the present. As we reopen a debate many in Westminster have long preferred to bury, we must ask: has Britain still the will to save herself? Or will we, through cowardice and confusion, allow our national story to end not with a bang, but a whimper?
The question of banning the burqa and niqab is not a trivial sideshow in the culture wars. It is a litmus test of national self-belief. It goes to the heart of whether Britain has a solution to the complex problems caused by rapid population increase and demographic change.
Starmer, predictably, has neither the inclination nor the courage to approach this subject. But a new government with spine, conviction, and a willingness to take the slings and arrows of metropolitan outrage might yet do so. And it must – for the issue before us is no longer about fabric and facial coverings. Are we, or are we not, a society confident in our values?
And if the answer is yes – if we are to stem the disintegration of national cohesion and restore a shared civic space – then we must start by outlawing one of the most visible symbols of separation: the full-face veil.
Libertarian objections, while intellectually consistent, fall short of lived reality. It is true that in a free society, individuals ought generally to wear what they wish. But there are limits to freedom, and always have been – limits defined by the need to preserve what the French, with admirable clarity, call le vivre ensemble: the capacity to live together.
France and Belgium, far from authoritarian states, understood this when they enacted bans in 2010. In 2014, the European Court of Human Rights – an institution I criticise more often than not – nevertheless ruled correctly in S.A.S. v France. The court unanimously acknowledged that the ban infringed individual freedoms of religion and private life, but held that the interference was justified in order to protect a broader societal good: the integrity of social life in an open, liberal democracy.
Interestingly, the court rejected the public safety rationale, instead identifying the core issue as one of cultural compatibility. In a Western, pluralist society, being able to see and be seen, to look one another in the face without impediment, is not merely a nicety. It is a necessity. It underpins trust, empathy, and the social contract itself.
The burqa and niqab are not akin to turbans, yarmulkes, headscarves or motorcycle helmets. They are garments of erasure – of identity, of individualism, and of the mutual recognition that life in community demands. No law compelling British Sikhs to remove their turbans, or Orthodox Jewish women to discard sheitels, has ever been proposed – because those traditions do not negate the possibility of social interaction. Full facial coverings do and any ban could reasonably make exceptions for sporting, health or professional reasons or for riding a motorbike (as in France).
There is also a deeper hypocrisy. When I have travelled in Middle Eastern or Catholic countries, I have covered my shoulders, legs, and hair when asked. I have done so not under duress, but in a spirit of respect. I have entered women-only spaces and abstained from alcohol when custom required it. Is it so outlandish to expect that those who come to Britain might return the courtesy? Other nations are unapologetic in defending their ways of life. Why are we so ready to abandon ours at the first hint of discomfort?
The Telegraph: continue reading
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply