Definitely.If he’d just written a piece questioning the Danish law, none of his “target audience” would have read it.However, throw in some deliberately aggressive wording aimed at generic ‘muslims’ and the articles written about his piece are then all over the place.End result, his new base are read up on his dog whistle and the world goes around.
I’m sure he will issue some sort of flaccid apology in his suitably buffoonish way but the deed is done and he’s building his base.
Well, at the time of writing that I had the wikipedia page open on Jonathan Edwards, as I was really thinking about those kinds of consequences (e.g. not competing on Sundays and so missing out on competitions).
Jonathan Edwards (triple jumper) - Wikipedia
It’s a rambling opinion piece used as a backdrop to court support from a specific demographic.It’s not right or wrong, it’s an opinion.
I don’t have a specific opinion on the Danish decision to implement the law or even why they did it.I don’t know if it was on security grounds, religious oppression,or simply fashion-led but I’m sure there are numerous laws around the world that he could have written about yet he chose that.Why do you think he did that?
Yeah, coming from completely different directions! I'd picked up on the punk/goth part of your post, with Sophie Lancaster's murder the standout consequence.
Her family have set up a foundation since her death, it does a lot of good work
Home
I thought goth was someone saying gosh with a lisp.
Am I close?
How would he cope with this? ...
Muslim women wear kippahs over their hijabs in solidarity with Jewish community after antisemitic attack
Because he's paid to write articles and the introduction into Danish Law is happening now. So it would be unusual for him not to write about current affairs.
It's also been an ongoing thing for at least a decade mainly from Blair onwards so a perennial issue. Rights of the individual regarding how they dress versus the rights of the state and what they can legislate on. Then there's whether it's the choice of the individual or down to peer pressure from a male dominated society. Then there's western society versus Islamic culture.
Think there's much there?
That's Germany, and he's not German and he doesn't live in Germany. 
Thanks for the response, all valid points.You've already mentioned that his article was written in such a way because his target audience agree with it.Do you feel that he's simply using it as a dog whistle tactic to further his base or he genuinely agrees with the sentiment?
Filthy mp and a disgrace for the profession frankly.Not that it's rare to find them stopping as low as picking on a small minority within a small minority.I bet he feels like a real man disrepcting a group of people who many feel (rightly or wrongly) as themselves being oppressed.
Does he feel he is empowering the women by criticising them?Is that how we support the oppressed nowadays?And heaven forbid what if a woman wants to dress like that?
I resent his apologists too saying his piece was actually saying England would never ban clothing.This is tosh he is clearly drumming up racisim/xenophobia/religious intolerance for his own ends.If he was defending English values of tolerance he could have done so in a very difference and dignified way.