>>2562482>>2562498The idea that the problem is Islam per-se seems misguided. None of the independent alliance wreckers represent particularly hardline Islamic politics. When asked to justify why they support anti-transgender policy, they don't reach for the Quran, they instead speak of women's
equality act protected rights to single sex spaces, the supreme court ruling, and, in two damning words, "british law".
In other words, the language of bog-standard British social conservatism of the sort practiced by
all of the major English political parties.
You may say that this is just camouflage and that what they're saying in private is much more religiously motivated, but I can't comment on that. I can only comment on what they say in public, and if they're really lying then it's sufficiently damning that they are
bad liars. They could've gotten away with staying quiet, they could have said "well, I'm a fairly strictly observant Muslim so what do you think I believe?" and left it at that, but they didn't: they volunteered their opinions and their style is as damning as their substance. "I hate them because Sharia says you're supposed to" would, at least, be a novel argument not advanced by any other party.