What lies beneath the Burqa?
The David Vance BriefingRead More
We have found a true blue British hero and his name is Timothy Miller.
Now this name might not immediately ring a bell with you but in fact he is the 76 year old man who was up on a charge on concealing his identity by… wearing a Burqa!
Timothy arrived at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court this week looking exactly like the walking contradiction Britain’s authorities want to run away from. He had the b*alls to turn up in a full burqa, black handbag in hand, orange folder under his arm. Absolutely brilliant!
He then denied the charge put to him that he had worn the garment at the 12th Sept demo to conceal his identity. He was not pleading ignorance. You see he was pleading consistency!
Do you remember how the Police had imposed a face-covering ban ahead of the Danny Tommo organised Portsmouth demo? Section 158 powers were brandished: no masks, no balaclavas, no anonymity for the “thuggish.”
Mayor Burnham backed this clampdown on righteous protest,
Miller confounded them all by turning up in Islamic dress and told officers he was studying Islam (and, in earlier footage, that he was gender-fluid). When the same logic was applied in court, he stuck to it. He lifted the veil long enough to be identified, then put it back on. He entered a not-guilty plea. I would have loved to have in that Court!
Miller told the Judge that his arrest was unlawful because no one had ordered him to remove the covering at the time, body-cam evidence would show compliance, and he was simply observing a religion that, in his view, is becoming the most advantageous one to notice in today’s Britain.
The judge then pressed him: was this genuine religious observance? Miller’s answer was pure deadpan: he has an inquisitive mind, he has lived in Morocco and visited Bahrain and Dubai, and the country is “moving towards an Islamic society,” so full understanding is useful.
He added that he felt more secure behind the veil; people were friendlier. LOL!
Miller went on to advise anyone to put it on and “live within the veil.” When pressed on whether he actually observes Islam, he asked the obvious question the authorities hate:
Why is he being interrogated about his religion when people arriving by dinghy are not?
This is the ENTIRE point.
For years now, the same institutions that tolerate full-face coverings in shopping centres, schools, and courtrooms have treated local protesters who cover their faces as some sort of public-order emergency. Religious exemptions exist on paper and in practice for those whose beliefs are treated as beyond scrutiny. Miller simply applied the same exemption to himself and watched the system squirm.
This was such a courageous move. He wasn’t hiding; he was on every camera. The offence, under the letter of the new powers, is concealing identity in a designated area. His defence is that the designation only seems to apply when the wearer is not claiming the preferred faith or identity.
Critics call this a stunt. Of course it is a stunt. But the best stunts are those that force an institution to state its actual rule rather than its advertised one. Mr Miller is crowdfunding for representation ahead of his February trial. He has no lawyer yet and is representing himself for now. A pensioner with an orange folder and a handbag is doing what professional campaigners have FAILED to do: demanding one law for all while the authorities seek the opposite.
Let’s be honest. Britain’s migration debate has been conducted under selective rules of engagement. Face coverings are menacing when worn by people objecting to dinghy arrivals; they are sensitive when worn by people whose presence is the subject of those objections.
The religion of dinghy arrivals is deemed private but suddenly a matter of judicial interest for a 76-year-old who decides to study it in public. The huge benefit of Miller’s court appearance is that it makes the two tier standards obvious for us all to see. Miller says the issue is simply that there should be one law and everyone agrees. However the judge replied that this does not answer the charge. Miller’s continued appearance in the burqa suggests that he intends to keep asking the question anyway.
If the trial proceeds, and I think it will, the court will have to decide whether studying an ideology that grants practical advantages in the current climate is sufficient religious observance, or whether only certain converts and certain protests qualify.
Timothy has already made the stronger case outside of the legal one. He has already shown that the face-covering ban is NOT neutral and has been weaponised against those concerned about ILLEGAL migration,
At 76, with no legal counsel and a folder under his arm, he has done more to clarify the actual rules than most of the people writing them.
I absolutely admire this man’s attitude and wish we had more like him.
STOP! DON’T JUST WALK ON BY!!!
I publish The David Vance Briefing most mornings: the stories, the arguments and the political fights that matter, stripped of the mainstream filter.
Subscribe free and it comes straight to you. No algorithm. No editor softening it.
Paid is different. You get the exclusive Saturday Briefing, where I take one of the week’s biggest issues and go much harder and deeper. You also pay for the thing the licence fee and the advertisers won’t: commentary that doesn’t answer to them.
Free if you want the daily hit. Paid if you want it to keep existing. That’s the deal.
