Here in France, one subject has dominated the headlines, news reports and debate programmes: that of the imminent banning of le voile intégrale, or, as we know it, the burkha. Most people would agree that the burkha has no place in a civilized and secular society and yet the emergence of this affront to Western values has been imposed on our weary eyes quite recently through mass-immigration. Certainly, the spell-checker on this computer thinks I’ve made the word up.

I was going to report that Eric Besson had refused papers to a man who made his wife wear the burkha, but another of our excellent writers John of Gwent beat me to it. Further to this, however, the man in question is not going to be deported, which makes one wonder why they are bothering. Should he have children (and I dare say there’ll be many), they’ll automatically be given papers and the right to vote in a party more favourable to the cult of the dead paedophile.

In another incident last week, two armed robbers managed to rob a bank in Essonne, France because they were clothed in burkhas and no one was able see that they were really men – nor that they were armed with guns. One terrorist in Britain, Yassin Omar, has already escaped justice by wearing a burkha. In another incident in France, a Muslim tried to get an I D card, but refused to remove her burkha, making photo identification impossible. One can see that, if one gives way, fraud is inevitable.

There is a contradictory response from the French government, caused by a conflict of ideals that are incompatible. Sarkozy wants to be seen as tough on extremism whilst embracing tolerance to other cultures on the other. He has, therefore, been doing the rounds in the Muslim war graveyards to pay homage to those few Muslims who fought for France in the two world wars – conveniently forgetting that many Muslims, including the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, backed Hitler against the allies. He has blinded himself to the fact that Islam is incompatible with any other way of life.

The Muslim members of government have been deliberately deceptive, seen in their duplicitous argumentation. While Urban Affairs Minister Fadela Amara, has supported the government’s position on banning the burkha, she also stated, during a case just over a year ago over a refusal to grant citizenship to a habitual tent-wearer: ‘I can't see how the court's decision to deny citizenship helps this woman, nor am I sure it will liberate other women.’ She is fully aware that if France keeps bringing in these women, whose many children will grow up to accept Islamic norms as social norms, Western society is finished. So she’ll keep playing the feminist while ever the role toes the Islamic line.

What again has made the matter worse is the line the media has taken. One television report showed a Jewish and a Christian woman linking arms with a burkha-clad Muslim in protest. You note I haven’t used the word woman for the Muslim, as I like to keep my statements factual, and I have no certainty that the thing underneath that black tent was either female, or in fact human. For all I know, it could have been an orang-utan. Or an armed robber.

It will, of course, be the same at the general election: how many walking tents will be required to prove they are who they say they are for fear of ‘offending’ them? And they are so easily offended, the Muslims, aren’t they? And again the media will take the same pro-Islamic stance – right up until Britain becomes an Islamic state. Then they’ll flee in their droves to America and, in their arrogance and refusal to admit their whole ethos is wrong, will begin the process anew.