Slavery and Sluttery: The Weird World of Claire Khaw

I think society needs Claire Khaw. She exposes all the hidden premises which form our sexist culture
Content TeamBy Content Team  •  May 3, 2015 at 10:47am  •  Feminism, Politics, Sex

A word from the editor

It’s been two years since we published this interview with Claire Khaw, and it gets read every single day. We want to be clear that Claire embodies the complete antithesis of Verbal Remedy’s aims and ethos. Her views are deeply rooted in the sexist, misogynistic culture keeping people, particularly women, in dangerous situations across the globe. Her Islamophobia is hugely troubling, not least because we live in a time where Muslims are already the target of so much abuse.

However, one of the reasons why our post is cited time and time again is because it is one of the only interviews that leaves no question unasked. It exposes Claire’s views for exactly what they are: damaging, derailing and disgusting. Exposition, and not amplification, is the reason why this post is here, and we would encourage our readers to treat what is said below with the outrage it deserves, and continue to stamp out hatred in all areas of life.

In solidarity,

Bridget | Founder, Verbal Remedy


Claire Khaw is an antifeminist who aims to establish a one-party Koran-based theocracy in the UK to eradicate the “matriarchy”. A political blogger, Ukip supporter and ex-BNP member, her goals include bringing back slavery, whipping ‘Slut Single Mums’ 100 times per ‘illegitimate’ child, and reintroducing public executions. Reportedly, Khaw counts many politicians including Mayor of London Boris Johnson as Facebook friends. Though she describes herself as a “political entertainer” and “comedienne”, her views are only too real and, when aired on radio, resulted in her expulsion from the BNP (she explains this below). If you haven’t heard of her, you can read a summary of Khaw’s views here; Claire Khaw’s main blog here; and this is Vice’s take. Khaw was recently interviewed by Channel 5 for their documentary Farage Fans and Ukip Lovers, then she was inexplicably cut at the last moment. Anyway, I caught up with her to try to understand what drives her to offend and outrage so many. (All links and videos are hers).


Being both a person of colour and an immigrant, why were you a BNP member, especially when you acknowledge that the BNP are Islamophobic?

CK: I was invited to join by the then West London Organiser and I thought it would be rude to refuse. He invited me because Eurosceptics tend to go to the same Eurosceptic talks and meetings and that was how we got to know each other. I also wanted to see what would happen. It was all part of my ethnographic research on the British peoples and their political parties. In my time I have been a member of UKIP, the Conservative and the Labour Party to observe their very different cultures. I certainly don’t expect any party I join to be perfect and to agree with me on everything. The best we can hope for is that they are the best fit compared to all the other parties. The BNP is not the only party of Islamophobes, in case you didn’t know.


You wish to bring back slavery. How would that work?

CK: Bankrupts and criminals unable to financially compensate for the damage to property or injury to person or death they caused could be enslaved. Ownership of the slave would reside in the state and the state would hire out the labour of these slaves to hirers through the Department of Work Pensions and Manumissions. Slavery could be an alternative form of welfare since the hirers would be expected to accommodate and feed the slaves.  Slave Visitors would be like Social Workers visiting slaves to see if they are working properly and to see that the hirers are not damaging government property. Illegal immigrants could also be enslaved, which is easier and cheaper than rounding them up and sending them back where they came from. Council accommodation could perhaps become slave quarters.


If we live in a matriarchy, how do you explain the fact that women are still underepresented in politics, are scrutinised for their weight, sexual behaviour and dress, and earn less than men?

CK: If you want to make a woman completely happy, give her everything she wants and something to complain about. The story of the Fisherman and His Wife illustrates the boundless greed and ambition some women are capable of and what should happen to such women. As far as I am concerned there are too many women in politics and none of them are any good and only lower the standards of debate and politics while voting for gay marriage, ever lower ages of consent and sex education and worse of all war as the Blair Babes did. What Margaret Thatcher did a man should have done but there were no longer any men left in the Conservative Party when she won the leadership election in 1978. It became taboo in 1974 to criticise sluts, as Keith Joseph – generally considered to be a Prime Minister in waiting – discovered to his cost.


How does supporting people’s right to do sex work (your idea of legalising brothel keeping, which is currently an offence) tie in with your disapproval of premarital sex?

CK: Brothel-keeping is tolerated in the Koran as you will see from The Battlefield of Love: Verse in Koran implicitly accepts the existence of brothels. I am prepared to close one eye and put the telescope to my blind eye if no pregnancy results but it would be necessary to punish SSMs because it is obvious that they have had extramarital sex if illegitimate offspring are produced.


You’re a proud antifeminist. Women have historically been oppressed, so why is addressing gender inequality a bad thing?

CK: Everyone is “oppressed” if they don’t want to do what they want to do and hate their life, but have you noticed that there have been men who voluntarily castrate themselves and undergo radical surgery to become women? What’s that all about then? You don’t get as many women doing that sort of thing to themselves, probably because it is harder to be and become a man, perhaps. Women have the option of being housewives, but a man confessing that he has always wanted to be a house-husband is unlikely to be treated with respect by his fellow men or taken seriously by women considering marriage. This thing you call “gender inequality” is really specialisation and division of labour making the running of society more efficient. Although a professor could in theory do his own gardening rather than engage a gardener, a gardener would not be able to do the professor’s job and the professor could easily use his time more productively doing what he is good at than doing his own gardening. Since a civilisation needs both men and women to produce new members of society to keep it going, the rearing of children under optimum conditions is crucial to maintaining the strength of your civilisation through the quality of its members. The quality of the next generation will depend on how well the female chooses the father of her children and how well the father provides for her and their offspring. A singly-parented child has only half the cultural, intellectual and economic capital of a child with two married parents living with each other. What I am describing is of course marriage between a man and a woman, and it is marriage which is the pivot upon which true gender balance rests. Everything about feminism undermines this institution and the Abrahamic faiths which promote patriarchal moral values are about maintaining this institution. Marriage is really about seeing to it that people of this generation make the necessary sacrifices for the benefit of the next generation to keep their civilisation going, rather then dissipating the achievements and acquisitions of previous generations in wine, women and song. All declining and primitive civilisations are matriarchies, and matriarchies are societies which dispense with observing the most important rule of marriage – no extramarital sex. They also dissipate and destroy the achievements of previous generations of men.


How did you feel about being expelled from the BNP for saying that parents should be allowed to murder their disabled children?

CK: You will see that on the Victoria Derbyshire Show I said nothing about giving parents of disabled offspring the option of committing infanticide. The transcript can be read here. While I do not deny that I said that parents should be given the option of disposing of their unwanted disabled and unviable babies this was said subsequent to my expulsion nearly a year later.

I do not think what I said on the Victoria Derbyshire Show was so heinous that it deserved expulsion nor did I say I was a BNP member which would have been against the rules of the BNP constitution of claiming to represent the party without permission. They were clearly my own views and if the BNP had any presence of mind it would say that my views as a private individual do not in any way represent their policies which say nothing about the disabled babies. It saddened me that the BNP did not feel able to defend my right to free speech or worse, did not even understand what the principle of free speech was. However, it is well-known that Nick Griffin never defends any member who gets himself into trouble and always acts swiftly to kill the story by inviting the member to resign or expelling him. If they had discussed it with me I would have told them how to milk this story for publicity but it seems that the BNP of all the parties has the highest concentration of unmarried mothers with illegitimate and disabled offspring and feared to offend them.

You will see that The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, The Church of England and Christian Medical Fellowship are also implicitly supporting my position. So it was all just a storm in a teacup demonstrating the inability of any politician in the country at all to understand much less defend the principle of free speech. If I had said anything morally or intellectually indefensible I would of course deserve to be condemned but that certainly was not the case if my position is now being mirrored by the three august institutions I have mentioned.


Which of your ideas do you think Ukip is likely to implement if they get into power?

CK: Repeal the Equality Act 2010, abolish no fault divorce, establish a constitutional right not to be taxed more than a flat rate income tax of 20%.


How has your Muslim upbringing influenced your views about crime and the family?

CK: I am not Muslim nor are my parents. I do not have a single Muslim in my extended family. However, I have always believed in the condign punishment of criminals and making the punishment fit the crime.


You have very strong views about what you refer to as ‘Slut Single Mums’ or SSMs. How does one define or identify a SSM, given that pregnancy happens by chance, and the most ‘slutty’ women may have no children or may have children but also have partners? And some women may be ‘sluts’ but then get married.

CK: It is very easy to identify an SSM who is the mother of illegitimate offspring. Without illegitimate offspring you cannot be an SSM however much you scream and cry and stamp your foot and demand to be called one. The difference between a slut and an SSM is the difference between a suspected criminal and a convicted criminal. You may be aware that the Koran in 24:2 prescribes that those convicted of extramarital sex be lashed 100 times and this is what I propose to do to SSMs since their guilt cannot be denied and the fact that they have illegitimate offspring must mean that they must have fornicated. The evil the prohibition against fornication was designed to discourage was of course civilisation-destroying bastardy and single parenthood.


If a mother is in a polyamorous marriage to several men, is she a good married woman or a SSM?

CK: The Koran, which I make a point of following, allows polygamy but forbids polyandry.


Some might say that the British government, while deporting many other hopefuls, including children born in the UK, allowed you to stay here, and you repaid them by bringing extremism into the country. How do you think your ideas of public executions, public flogging of unmarried mothers and a one-party state will benefit the UK?

CK: I am now a British citizen. Are you suggesting that I have no right to participate in the politics of this country simple because I was not born here? I think you should know that one does not have to actually reside in this country to criticise it. A tourist can criticise this country and so may a person who has never visited this country. While I do not deny that my ideas are radical, I would deny that they are extremist, if by extremist you mean clearly over and above what is necessary to solve the problem.

The problem I see is that of bastardy, criminality, immorality and sluttery engulfing all that is still good and productive about this country, though I know that not everyone has the perspicacity as me to see this danger.  I suspect that those who do are too afraid to speak up because of what happened to Keith Joseph. All my proposals are designed to bring about the return of the patriarchy and to defenestrate the matriarchy. Men at least ought to be grateful to me for seeing the problem and proposing a solution which they are too neurotically afraid and wilfully blind to discuss.


Have your views affected your career/employability or social life in any other ways?

CK: I was once told by Hugh Muir that I would be working for the BBC now if it were not for my views, but it is not my purpose to have a nice life while remaining silent about what I believe to be the truth when it so obviously needs to be pointed out. Recently, I was filmed for 6 hours by Channel 5 in a hatchet job about UKIP. I suppose I should be flattered they didn’t think me mad and weird enough for inclusion even after obtaining my permission to include my infamous gun and flag photos. I have lost a few friends and Facebook friends over the years, but in real life I don’t go out of my way to be rude to people and many single mothers I know and am friendly with have no idea about my proposal to lash SSMs 100 times per illegitimate offspring.


Some people might say that your statement that only women can be sluts is sexist as it imposes the patriarchal sexual double standard. Men can do what they like; women can’t. How would you defend it? Is a double standard logical?

CK: Sluts can only be women the way only women can be sisters, mothers, wives, aunts and nieces. If you look upon sex as a commodity sold by women and bought by men then the roles each are to play becomes clear. A slut is always considered stupid because she has sold sex too cheaply and suffers for it through the disgrace of being considered an easy lay, getting knocked up and giving birth to bastards which she parents badly. Being a consumer of sex, you would expect a man to want the price of sex to be low as possible and for a woman to want the price of sex to be as high as possible. Marriage is of course the most expensive form of sex for men.


Claire Khaw’s views (except legalising brothel-keeping, as that would make sex work safer) are certainly offensive, but there’s something I love about them: their honesty. Many right wing politicians in the US believe in the model of sex which Claire has described- that sex is something women ‘have’ that men ‘get’, and so by having sex, women lose out or devalue themselves by ‘giving it away’ while men gain from sleeping around. The simple truth is that the double standard and the idea of ‘sluts’ is entirely dependent on belief in this model. Models which describe sex as something people do rather than something they have or get would either produce an idea of a slut which applies to all genders, or the concept of the slut would not exist. And a model which describes sex as something men have which women get would result in a male-only concept of sluts. But most people who adopt this model never admit that they believe in it, much less that it influences their lawmaking.

I can’t help but respect Claire for her honesty, and for her willingness to productively engage with me, someone whose views are the exact opposite of hers (we’d had previous contact before doing this interview). In this age of digital rudeness and bullying, that’s commendable- though, that said, I’m sure many must have been hurt and shocked by her views, just not by her debating style.

I think society needs Claire Khaw. She exposes all the hidden premises which form our sexist culture. These premises should not remain hidden or be censored. They need to be brought out into the open, where they will shrivel and die.

This was a guest post by The Slutocrat. Visit her at

About the Author

We are the team that review, edit and publish all the fantastic posts you see before you.

Got an idea for an article? Why not email us at

Related Posts

Watching Oprah Winfrey giving her Golden Globes award speech with my daughters aged 18 and 13, I...

On the 7th of January 2018, the Golden Globes took place in the United States. In attendance were...

It’s only taken a day for 2018 to throw a curveball to disabled people in the UK, throwing students...

  1. Hmm.
    Some of her ideas are ok.
    No fault divorce does need reform, if not total repeal. At least when children are involved.
    Legalized prostitution is good for the prostitutes and probably society as a whole as criminalization has been an utter failure every time its been tried.

    But the one p arty theocracy stuff is dangerous and unworkable, in my opinion.
    I will state that I don’t know the context, but I can’t imagine ever supporting parents rights to kill disabled kids – certainly not when they are already born. I might make an exception for those destined for a short life or pain or with no brain and intellect- mercy killings. But even then, a doctor would have to sign off on it.

    But as you say – she does not shirk from her ideas and ideals due to a misguided fear or need to be ‘respectable’. I can appreciate that.

    • I see that you are American. Once upon a time in America, there was only the GOP. That means once upon a time America was a one party state that believed in God and had no problem in obeying the laws of God contained in the Bible. Perhaps that was what made America great. But America in the 21st century no longer believes in God and actively does the opposite of what Biblical principles dictate.

  2. I have today just read Bridget’s introduction telling the reader what to think as well as accusing me of Islamophobia which took me aback and which I deny. I hope she knows I propose a one party theocracy governed under the rules of Secular Koranism.

    I also deny that I hate women. Having views offensive to feminists may be “sexist”, but just because feminists hate me does not mean I hate women.

    • Bridget

      I never said you hated women. I said your views keep women in dangerous situations, which I stand by.

      • What “dangerous situations” are you thinking of?

        • Bridget

          Domestic violence, sexual or emotional abuse, discrimination at work or in their personal lives because of having children or being unmarried, sexism caused indirectly or directly by people thinking that a woman’s womb or virginity makes them lesser human beings.

          Frankly, this article was published two years ago. You’ve been commenting on this thread every one or two hours for the last 48 and it’s boring. I’m closing comments now.

  3. This is just common sense and the truth, but many people don’t like hearing it and can turn ugly. Feminists and liberals in particular find truth and logic alien and alarming. I’d be interested to see how anyone can argue against any of these obvious truth pointed out above.

    • Content Team
      Content Team / April 3, 2017 at 4:56 pm

      I don’t think it can be called ‘common sense and truth’ to discriminate wildly and without evidence across an entire gender, race or religion. There are hundreds and hundreds of arguments against all of the above.

      • If you are hiring a nanny for your children, you might insist on having a female to do the job rather than a male nanny, for example. Or do you disagree?

        • Bridget

          No I wouldn’t insist on that. And what does that have to do with anything?

          • Do you have children at all?

            If you have no children that you might consider hiring a nanny for then you would probably be quite happy to hire any hypothetical male nanny for your hypothetical offspring.

            If you actually had a real life child that you cared deeply for and loved, you might have second thoughts about hiring a real life male nanny to look after it.

          • Bridget

            Like I said, what does this have to do with anything?

          • I have just explained. If you have no children or have no intention of having offspring, then you will are more likely to contemplate putting your hypothetical children into more alarming situations than you would any real children you have.

          • Bridget

            I still fail to grasp what on earth this has to do with the original article.

  4. Which first sentence was this and why?

  5. Frankly , you won my heart with the first sentence …….

Comments are closed.