🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 SHOCKING!!! Peter Hitchens LIVE made OUTRAGEOUS and HARSH remarks towards a Muslim woman wearing a burqa during a live televised debate: “Do you want to turn our country into a backward, third-world hell?”

In a fiery and explosive debate, Peter Hitchens, the renowned British journalist and commentator, absolutely obliterated a Muslim woman advocating for the right to wear the burqa in the UK. The televised confrontation quickly escalated, with Hitchens tearing into her arguments and exposing what he sees as the dangerous consequences of Islamic practices being allowed to flourish unchecked in Britain. The exchange, which aired live, left viewers on the edge of their seats as Hitchens held nothing back, pointing out the stark reality of Islam’s impact on Western society.

The debate began with a straightforward question about the burqa, a symbol of modesty within certain Muslim cultures. The woman, appearing in full veil, defended the practice, stating that wearing the burqa was her personal choice and a religious obligation as per the Quran. She claimed that covering her face was a part of her faith, something she chose to do for modesty, in line with Islamic teachings. However, what followed was a sharp rebuttal from Hitchens that left her visibly rattled and ultimately speechless.

“Is there a danger that men in this audience might be attracted to every female face in the studio, or do you think that might stir some passions?” Hitchens provocatively asked, challenging the underlying logic of the burqa in a modern, liberal society.

The woman stumbled in response, stating that she wasn’t sure, but acknowledged that it could indeed stir “some sort of passions” — an answer that seemed to open a floodgate of questions regarding the motivations behind the practice of wearing the burqa in the first place. Hitchens pressed on, asking her if she felt that other women in the studio should also be wearing the burqa, pointing out the stark contrast between her choice and the more liberal, open attire of the other women in the room.

“That’s a good point,” she hesitated, “but I wouldn’t question that. If this is how I understand it, then I would do it.” The lack of conviction in her response was clear, and Hitchens was quick to seize upon this moment of weakness.

“Well, that’s it, isn’t it? It’s about making a society that’s not just safer for you, but for everyone around you. You think it would be safer if they all dressed as you do? If everyone followed your example?” Hitchens asked, making a sharp point about societal integration and the impact of religious practices on public life.

The Muslim woman, seemingly caught off guard, attempted to sidestep the question by emphasizing the “freedom of choice” in the matter. Yet, Hitchens wasn’t done yet. He brought the conversation to a head by challenging the fundamental premise of Islamic beliefs about integration into British society.

“This is not about freedom of choice,” Hitchens shot back. “It’s about a cultural war being waged, whether you see it or not. You come here, to a Western, liberal society, with your backward traditions, and you want us to not only accept it but to change our society to accommodate it. Why would you come to this country, to a country founded on freedom and tolerance, if you’re not willing to drop the practices that make you an outsider?”

As the debate intensified, Hitchens brought up the key issue of cultural assimilation. He questioned why Muslims, when given the opportunity to live freely in Britain, would continue to cling to practices that starkly contradict the values of British society. “Why even come to our country if you’re not going to make a sincere effort to integrate?” he pressed. “What is your intention if it’s not to remain separate and to turn this country into the very backward state from which you came?”

He then made a sweeping condemnation of Islam’s presence in Britain, suggesting that a refusal to adapt to British culture could lead to the creation of an isolated, segregated society that would damage the country’s very fabric. His words cut through the veil of political correctness, bluntly stating that there are too many people coming to the UK with no interest in integrating, simply taking advantage of the benefits system.

The woman, unable to refute Hitchens’ claim, quickly pivoted to a defense of Islam as a peaceful religion. But Hitchens was having none of it. “It’s not about peace,” he retorted. “It’s about a religion that seeks to expand itself and impose its will on others. Let’s be clear — Islam is a proselytizing religion. If it became the majority religion in Britain, it would dictate society and take away the freedoms we now enjoy.”

Hitchens didn’t stop there. He pointed out the hypocrisy of claiming the burqa as a personal choice while simultaneously promoting a culture that restricts women in more profound ways. His argument struck at the heart of the issue: it wasn’t just the burqa that was problematic, but the entire mindset that Islam represents, particularly when it comes to women’s rights.

“Look at countries like Lebanon,” he argued, “when Islam becomes the dominant force, tolerance vanishes. Non-Muslims are persecuted, and the society becomes nothing like the one that accepted them.” The chilling parallel Hitchens drew to Lebanon was stark and unsettling. He suggested that a similar fate could await Britain if the influx of Islamic practices was allowed to continue unchecked.

As the debate drew to a close, Hitchens had the final word. “I’m all in favor of freedom,” he said, “but freedom has limits. If the freedom of one group of people leads to the destruction of another group’s freedom, then that’s where I draw the line.”

The Muslim woman, completely out of arguments, fell silent. She had no counter to Hitchens’ logic, no response to the uncomfortable truths he was laying bare. The debate had been a one-sided affair, with Hitchens exposing the deep contradictions within the Islamic worldview when it comes to integration into Western society.

For many viewers, the outcome of this exchange was a moment of clarity. It wasn’t just a debate about the burqa; it was a debate about the future of Britain and the very values that the nation was built upon. Hitchens had successfully shown that political correctness and the blind acceptance of cultural practices that contradicted Western values could lead to the erosion of everything that made Britain great.

In the end, the debate wasn’t just a victory for Hitchens — it was a wake-up call for a nation that had been too willing to compromise on its values in the name of tolerance. His words left a lasting impact, challenging the audience to think about the true cost of unfettered immigration and the dangers of abandoning the principles of freedom and integration in favor of political expediency.

As the show ended, it was clear that Peter Hitchens had not only shut down a Muslim woman defending the burqa, but also struck a blow for the future of British society. His message was loud and clear: integration is not just about coexistence — it’s about adapting to the values that made Britain the great nation it is today.