This is a good example of how governments introduce initiatives seemingly intended to tackle problems caused by immigration, but which, in practice, undermine immigration resistance movements.
Every public office-holder should swear an oath of allegiance to British values, the communities secretary, Sajid Javid, has said. The loyalty pledge would be expected to cover elected officials, civil servants, and council workers.
Javid’s proposal comes in response to a report on social cohesion by Dame Louise Casey, which said some sections of society did not accept British values such as tolerance. He said he was “drawn” to Dame Louise’s recommendation to bring in an oath of allegiance because it was impossible for people to play a “positive role” in public life unless they accepted basic values such as democracy and equality.
... The oath could include phrases such as “tolerating the views of others even if you disagree with them”, as well as “believing in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from abuse ... a belief in equality, democracy, and the democratic process” and “respect for the law, even if you think the law is an ass”Source
Freedom from abuse and freedom of speech? Somewhat of a contradiction there, I fear.
The Muslim Sajid Javid presents his proposals as a response to the Casey Report that describes alien Muslim colonies sprouting across Britain, utterly disconnected from anything recognisably British. But the oath will include a pledge to the value of "Equality". What does that mean? It's a Rorschach blot on to which the elite can project whatever they want. You're against Muslim immigration? Oh, you've violated your pledge to Equality.
And what happens when the oath is broken? Are elections to be invalidated? It sounds fantastical, but anti-democratic activism is clearly observable among the equality cult. Never forget Phil Woolas, whose election as MP was, unbelievably, overturned by a court because he had allegedly resorted to "Islamophobia" in his campaigning (link).
The need to impose rules on what electoral candidates are allowed to say is also something that the Jews have been scheming for. Their most faithful servant, John Mann MP, held an "Inquiry into Electoral Conduct" (link) in 2013, calling for exactly that, and the "Inquiry into Antsemitism", which he also led, asked for the same thing (link) .
What the Establishment wants to see is a system even if an anti-immigration candidate manages to win an electoral contest, their election can be invalidated afterwards on the basis that they infringed some "Equality" regulation.
This is yet a further illustration of the "Bureaucracy versus Democracy" dynamic that is apparent throughout our civilisation. The attempt to overturn Trump's election in America through the electoral college system is another example. Fundamentally, the people who rule us do not believe in democracy; they see the people they nominally represent as a feral mob whose instincts must be corralled and contained through elaborate systems of rules. And Javid's proposed "Equality Oath" would be just another of those.