The crazy world of Claire Khaw

Posted: June 12, 2010 in Evil must be fought
Tags: , ,
Claire Khaw

Clare Khaw, fixing things

I don’t really know who Claire Khaw is, or why she feels it necessary to systematically upset so many people. As far as I can tell, she is merely a private citizen with internet access and too much time on her hands. So much time, in fact, that there is now a Facebook group entitled “Who the fuck is Claire Khaw?”.

Facebook is where I first stumbled across her fractured brand of ideological lunacy, as she ranted about immigration levels in the comments section of a Today Programme post in the run-up to the general election. Perhaps unusually for someone apparently of Chinese descent, she then claimed to be the election agent for the BNP candidate in Bethal Green and Bow. Her reponse to inquiries as to why she supported a party that would presumably want to forcibly expatriate her was,

“They’ve actually been perfectly civil to me so I can’t honestly complain… The BNP have a dislike and distrust of many perhaps most foreigners but not all. A healthy and natural attitude, I would have thought”.

She susbsequently cropped up under other Today Programme status updates, baffling other Radio 4 listeners with her apparently contradictory philosophy of “libertarian secular Koranism”: advocating the Koran as a template for a just and fair society without necessarily subscribing to a belief in a supernatural deity – apparently with a hefty dollop of Ayn Rand on top.

Clicking through to her Facebook profile revals that she has in excess of 1,100 “friends”, of whom a disproportionate amount either:

a. are politicians

[including: Zac Goldsmith (Con, Richmond Park), Sir Alan Haslehurst (Con, Saffron Walden), Angela Eagle (Lab, Wallasey), Austin Mitchell (Lab, Great Grimsby), Boris Johnson (Con, Mayor of London), Ed Vaizey (Con, Wantage), Eric Pickles (Con, Brentwood and Ongar), Jean-Marie Le Pen (France, the French), John Prescott, Ken Livingstone, Lynne Featherstone (Lib Dem, Horney and Wood Gren), Margarets Beckett and Hodge (Lab, Derby South, Barking), Michael Fabricant (Con, Lichfield), Ming Campbell (Lib Dem, North East Fife), Nigel Evans (Con, Ribble Valley), Peter Lilley (Con, Hitchen and Harpenden), Peter Mandelson, Shahid Malik, Simon Hughes (Lib Dem, Bermondsey and Old Southwark), Tony McNulty, and Adrian Edmonson (Vivian, The Young Ones)]


b. use the St George Flag as their profile picture.

And, of course, Andrew Neil, but that’s only to be expected.

Now, of course, being a “friend” on Facebook does not imply any kind of endorsement. Many of these people are clearly on Ms Khaw’s list so that she can keep an eye on what they’re up to; Shami Chakrabarti, for instance, cannot have much in common with Ms Khaw, personally or ideologically.

Still, it might be worth David Cameron’s shiny new intake bearing in mind that, no matter the value of Facebook as a promotional tool, it hardly looks good to to call Claire Khaw a “friend” in any context.

There’s a cross-party flavour to this ‘Khaw Committee’, and that is reflected in her belief that our country needs only one party. Luckily for us, she’s already created it at

which heralds itself as “Athenian democracy in the 21st century”, so any potential 21st century Socrati out there had better watch it.

What does Khaw’s single-nation party stand for? Again, we’re fortunate that she’s come up with policies so we don’t have to go through a pesky democratic process, even an Athenian one, to find out. In addition to abolishing foreign aid, national insurance, social services, student loans (“No sports studies, sociology, academic philosophy and crap like that”), the NHS and child and disability benefits, she wants to spend the money saved on policies like:

1. Reintroduce public executions.

Wow. OK, hit ’em with the big ones at the outset.

2. Reintroduce public floggings.

See? Already this seems positively tame.

3. Reintroduce fault in divorce.

… What?

6. Make bastardy a disgrace.

8. Establish local and national marriage bureaux to encourage marriage.

9. Establish a system of Marital Relationship Management.

Perhaps there’s something Claire feels the need to share with us.

10. Establish a single party state.

Obviously this is a piffling triviality next to, say, the serious issue of someone’s husband running off with the secretary he’s knocked up.

13. Citizens’ militias will be established so that they can be called up to keep order. If the CHAVs, NEETs, and single mum sluts, slags and slappers and their feral offspring get restive, the locals who know who they are and where they live will sort them out.

Over at, user Mikeuk points out that Clare is “of ethnic Chinese Malaysian origin so her political viewpoints may seem unfamiliar”. So unfamiliar to other users of the democracyforum that she’s since been banned. Just saying.

15. Reintroduce slavery

In the interests of balance, she does have some good ideas.

16. Reintroduce orphanages

17. Establish Homes for Fallen Women and their Illegitimate Children

18. Legalise brothel-keeping.

Well, that’s the world put to rights. We might as well all go home.

Indeed, so popular is she that there is another Facebook group, entitled “Claire khaw’s amazing”. Sadly, it seems to have attracted a number of malcontents who ask questions such as, “This is a spoof, right?”, but Clare doesn’t let that stop her contributing her thoughts to such discussions as “Exactly Why is Claire Amazing in your opinion?”

She also notably contributes her thoughts on the subject of disabled babies to Mumsnet’s Facebook page, pointing out that,

“parents should have the power of life and death over their children… I would not bring up a disabled child. I would tell the midwife that I wouldn’t mind if she accidentally dropped it on its head to save me from doing it myself.”

That prompted outrage, so Clare found herself backpedalling like crazy:

“All right, I shouldn’t have said I would ask the midwife to ‘accidentally on purpose drop it on its head’. That was a bit frivolous, I should have said “dispose of it on my behalf so I don’t have to do it myself.”

That’s all right, then.

Unless you’re one of the many Mumsnet members outraged not only at her comments but at the site management’s lethargy in getting them removed, that is. They’ve since disapeared, but the widespread offence they caused has left what could well prove to be a lasting impact.

Khaw has been widely decried as “vile”, and so extreme are her comments that many have been left wondering whether she is, in fact, real, or some form of elaborate internet hoax. A letter published in the Times in 2003 suggests the former, but is more wry commentary than her current outlandish ravings. Prompted by criticism of her on Mumsnet, they include:

“The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Do we really want the world to be ruled by Mumsnet? Mumsnet perfectly demonstrates the fecklessness and vices of women and why a patriarchy would be the lesser evil.”

She’s just proposed to Sir Stuart Rose, CEO of M&S. Or rather, she’s offered him:

“a contract of cohabitation with optional sex and optional fidelity … While I am aware you may not wish for such a limited contract, I do assure you that it has great potential and offers greater protection for the assets of the wealthier partner”.

How could he resist?

Khaw describes her main occupation as being “in the gutter splashing its contents at passersby in order to draw their attention to the fact that our sewage disposal services are no longer working”.

She is instead simply an animal flinging its own faeces through the bars of its cage. She is an object lesson in the true danger of the internet, and that is not Facebook, Twitter or the democratisation of knowledge. It is that, with enough determination – and she has no shortage of that – any disturbed person can make a noise loud enough to be heard above the din. Some may say it was ever thus, but I think that their voices are louder, and carry farther, than has been possible before.

  1. Posie Parker says:

    Excellent and accurate blog entry. She is also Jeffrey Marshall’s agent.

  2. The rt hon Peasant says:

    You should become her facebook friend and see her latest spats…Jeffrey joins in and calls a woman a slut and a whore for disagreeing with him. Many of her facebook friends are ‘pretend’ profiles, like Brucie Forsythe.

  3. Invictus_88 says:

    It’s pretty bloody funny, some of the stuff she comes out with is utterly bonkers.

  4. edmund says:

    ha ha ha, entertainment. I think you take Claire Khaw too seriously, she is a harmless shock jock 🙂

  5. Deborah says:

    Oh really Edmund? Then why was she a BNP agent?

    • The rt hon Peasant says:

      She’s not a shock jock, shock jock’s have an audience. She’s a try hard, disgustingly offensive immigrant who seemingly wants to limit immigration.

      Edmund you must try harder, another immigrant who wants to limit immigration…..very very strange.

  6. Zoe says:

    I would not personally agree with most of what Claire says but I can still recognise that Claire has a real talent for bringing dignified rationality to even the MOST controversial subjects. Claire is endlessly tolerant of her detractors whom she engages with calm reasoning even when their bad behaviour perfectly illustrates Claire’s argument for eugenics. Those of you who would feel more comforted by a daily 14 hour long unrelenting gush of obsequious trivial repartee ~ should stay on Conor’s wall.

    • The rt hon Peasant says:

      She is a member of the BNP with ridiculous ideas. She comes up with dreadful policies and has no concept of consequence. Her one party for all idea is positively laughable as some people seem to get more votes than others, according to one of her fb friends. Anyway I will come back and reply to you Zoe, especially as you take her calm in the face of opposition as something credible when, in fact, it is merely without conviction. Afterall with her views on infanticide and parents rights to kill their offspring how on earth could she expose herself further?

  7. Deborah says:

    Zoe I agree with you about Conor and his intolerance to any robust rightwing comment but you are not going to get away with being challenged about what you have tried to do to Edmund and everyone else who disagrees with you!

  8. Rabbi Zvi says:

    Ha ha! got her in one. I spend a little time getting her occupied on her bees (the ones which inhabit her bonnet) on the basis that while she’s flailing around at them she can’t do anyone else any harm. I urge all interested parties to post on her wall on Facebook – put up really liberal posts, or ones which run counter to her twisted weltenschauung, they seem to keep her busiest.
    She’s kind of the Undead of the political far right – keeps on and on – so give her something to Zombie at and she’ll try to sink her fangs in – again and again.

  9. benwoodhams says:

    In the interests of FAIRNESS and BALANCE, I should perhaps point out that both Jeffrey Marshall and Claire Khaw have attempted to post comments here.

    Comments are moderated, and I declined to approve either; Jeffrey’s because he was apparently continuing a personal argument that presumably began in another forum and in which I have not the slightest interest in allowing to perpetuate here; and Claire’s because it was a link to Jeffrey’s election campaign leaflet and I’m not about to have this blog used as a conduit to BNP literature.

    To be clear, before anyone starts complaining about it: this is not a “free speech” issue. It’s a “my gaff, my rules” issue. You want to exercise your right to free speech, there are plenty of venues for you to do it in – to the bafflement of others, no doubt.

    • The rt hon Peasant says:

      Good for you, Ben…..

    • Rebecca says:

      Fair enough! Too many people abuse the free speech argument to claim they may say what they like, when and where they like. This is a bit tricky to define, but I believe in ‘free speech in public’, by which I mean that people should have the opportunity to say what they wish in a public forum, and also, eg. in public spaces, to anyone they like, but this is entirely different in private spaces, by which I include those in which the owner is kind enough to invite others in to share… they’re perfectly free to chuck anyone out for any reason. My view of free speech means that I do believe that people should be free to not allow people into their personal spaces, real or digital, for whatever nasty, petty or stupid reason they like, and this then starts conflicting with laws on discriminations… hmmm, tricky area – I’ll stop before I tie myself up in knots. If anyone is familiar with how these laws interact, I’d be very interested to discuss further 🙂

    • etype says:

      good work ben… you disparage this crazy woman on your blog and then deny her right to speak to it, and avoid having to do so ‘in person’ so to speak – and to her face (blogwise). I suppose your views are so generally respected they don’t require defending with rational argument…. innuendo, trivializations and off the cuff sneering will do nicely and apparently speak for themselves as proof . (admittedly the comic effect is well handled and some compensation). I’m not suggesting you rely mainly on the power of the mob here, but I do suggest you demonstrate you lack the courage of your convictions.
      Although I have never heard of this woman before this, after reading some of her blog I would like to see you debate this strange fruit and see if you have the grit to answer her arguments or whether it is you who would descend to irrational invective and cut and run rather than engage.

      • benwoodhams says:

        Three and a half years after I posted this blog entry, and it still appears above Khaw’s own blog in the rankings when you Google her name. That’s really got to rankle.

  10. Jenina Bas says:

    Claw – my nickname for Claire Khaw – is IMHO out to outrage. She has a reactionary Confucian need for social order and has (for reasons I don’t understand – perhaps to do with her Malaysian origins) decided that the Koran provides the best basis for social order. Her style of argumentation is argumentative. She says she is a rationalist, but she refuses to discuss the many hidden premises in her arguments. She says she is libertarian, but proposes many strictures that are totalitarian. She gets boring about her unshakeable pet peeves – malign ‘matriarchy’, dissolulte ‘liberalism’, and single motherhood to name a few – and sounds like a robot sound-bite machine when it comes to furthering her agenda. She has a closed mind. But she occasionally surprises with an apparently reasonable position on a controversial issue.

    Having said that, she fulfils the function of encouraging debate about issues that many people find uncomfortable to discuss openly or with cold rationality. For example – although I strongly disagree with her support for the BNP – I agree that the immigration debate should have been discussed more openly in the run up to the election. I deplored the attempt to muzzle Nick Griffin because his policies needed to be exposed in order to be debunked.

    All in all, I disagree with nearly everything that Claire Khaw stands for, but I defend her right to go on saying what she says. At best, she opens up sacred cows to the glare of discussion. At worst (and this happens a lot) she reminds us of the progress the human race has made to date – and how much we have to protect!

    • Jack says:

      Confucian? Her positions are standard Malaysian conservative. Malaysia is an Islamic state where all of what she suggests already is (executions, floggings), even what isn’t official legal exists unofficially and is tolerated (slavery, brothels). btw, she looks about half-Malay half-Chinese.

  11. George says:

    Yippee for Claire – leading those sacred cows to slaughter or anyways holding them up for a
    good public flogging.

    Down with marshmellow political discussions led by marshmellow heads

  12. […] Khaw, an Ayn Randian and self-described “libertarian secularist” (source: of Voice of Reason blog blasts Damian Green: Damian Green is a cowardly piece of shit, but then he […]

  13. […] Khaw, an Ayn Randian and self-described “libertarian secularist” (source: of Voice of Reason blog blasts Damian Green: Damian Green is a cowardly piece of shit, but then he […]

  14. Mawech Pwendragon says:

    Do what I do
    Block her and then you do not have to put up with her inane rantings

  15. Andrew Withers (LPUK) says:

    And apparently Libertarians are authoritarians

  16. Brian says:

    Why doesn’t she like the number seven?

  17. Rachel Hostler says:

    Excellent she is complete nutcase can’t believe Radio 5 had her on they must be short of people that listen

  18. Claire Khaw threatened to sue me merely owing to me criticising her stance on the killing of children with disabilities. As someone who is disabled (I am blind) I find her views wholly obnoxious although, in a free society I’d defend her right to express them.

  19. […] Yesterday (5 March) I blogged regarding the views of Claire Khaw (a member of the BNP) who, on the Victoria Derbyshire Show, on BBC Radio 5 advocated that mothers with severely disabled children kill their ofspring. Since my earlier post I’ve come across the below post, on Benwoodham’s blog entitled “The Crazy World of Claire Khaw”. It is worth a read and can be found at […]

  20. Jim bow baggins says:

    This is absolutely hypocritcal to make a personal attack on this person… you need someone to do this to you, everyone is entitled to freedom of speech , and their opinions, including their freedom of religion.

    Including you . Just dont say how we should think of others. take some of your own judgmental and condemnation advice. psycho mania is your blog here.

    • benwoodhams says:

      Thank you for your thoughtful and considered comments about how hypocritical it is of me to make a personal attack on someone and then calling me a psycho maniac. You are, of course, absolutely right that everyone is entitled to freedom of speech. No-one is entitled to say what they like without it being challenged, however, and no one has a right to ignorance. I have the right to highlight and challenge ignorance, including yours.

      I can’t tell you how to think about others. All I can do is say how I think about them. Whether you agree is your own look out. My resulting assessment of your intellectual rigour is mine.

    • Posie Parker says:

      Claire Khaw is a narcissist, she’s mad, inconsequential and her reasoning is entirely flawed. She must be a victim of some sort of abuse at the hands of her parents to have such weird views of women and sex.

  21. MrEvil says:

    You Idiot, and why don’t you stop spamming derren browns blog either?!

  22. quominus says:

    Just ran into this on twitter and posted it across to an associate who is dealing with Claw at the moment. Please please *please* write more; your work is smashing! cheered me up a hell of a lot.

  23. Enes Senussi says:

    I’ve unwittingly stumbled across a Facebook group called “Colonel Gaddafi Support Group” and, behold, Lady Khaw is the group’s admin. Having read your wonderful piece, my finding comes as less of a surprise.

  24. Dave Campbell says:

    She recently set up a facebook group campaigning for the release of Emma West (the woman seen by millions on youtube abusing fellow tram passengers in Croydon with a vile stream of racism). I challenged several of the numpties that supported this crap. Khaw pinched the profile of another anti-racist, sent me a friend-request – which I foolishly accpeted. She then got into my page and started copying pics of me to use as a set up. (She did this with one ant-racist and posted his photo with a warning about him sexually assaulting a young boy on the underground). I got onto facebook and reported her – the page was taken down. She has multiple profiles on facebook – half the time I think she’s talking to herself. She’s clearly in need of therapy and is very, very dangerous.

  25. Thank you for this post! She just recently joined the Facebook page for a society in my university (specifically a society that had links last year to Hizb-ut-Tahrir, but it’s besides the point). I had to sit there wondering if she was a real person or just a troll. It’s weird… she’ll post something inflammatory but then after an entire conversation conclude with a much less radical view. I’m mostly confused about her, besides seeing her as an annoyance. But the Islamists in the group seem to love her, that’s what worries me.

  26. LadyUrbanFox says:


    I’m clearly a bit of a loser as I’ve only just discovered this strange individual. She quite naturally outraged me but had the stink of a troll about her. I was introduced to her on the completely batshit bonkers FB page ‘Are SSMs a burden on the state?’ She likes a good argument if she is allowed to limit it to soundbites, as previously noted here. She’s quite useless at developing the argument outside that remit. I’ve also had recent run-ins with her on Twitter and she once again proved her inability to debate properly. She is a nutter, and I don’t mean in the mentally ill sense. I mean the racist, fascist, nazi hate-fuelled sense. Why, you may ask, did you bother? Well, let’s just say I occasionally take on the persona of moth and allow myself to be drawn to the flame. I’ve blocked her now because she becomes immensely boring after 36 or so hours. Additionally, I wanted to know why the Tory party has accepted her membership application, following her being booted out of the BNP (presumably for being a bit too outrageous by advocating parents should murder their infants if they are defective, that is, disabled). The Tory party has yet to respond to me.

  27. Thomas says:

    Just came across her on Twitter today where she has startrted a…debate(?) with me. Apparently I’m a smug liberal and my pal is a feminazi. I love this blog 🙂

  28. John Knight says:

    This woman is certifiably looney. Never engage in twitter dialogue with this head case. She makes some of the far right look like pinkos by comparison. Glad I found your blog. Thanks for all the good work. Keep it up. Looney tunes like this need exposing for what they are and what they stand for.

  29. Dave Campbell says:

    I’d be very wary indeed in engaging with this nutjob. She has a track record of getting into people’s facebook pages, copying personal photographs then spraying fake ‘sex offender’ posters all over the web. She has absolutely no morals and has been booted out of every loony-right mobs she’s ever latched on to. Beware!!!

  30. “She has a track record of getting into people’s facebook pages, copying personal photographs then spraying fake ‘sex offender’ posters all over the web.” I have never done such a thing.

    • Pauline says:

      I had no idea about this individual or I would not have engaged with on Twitter in what I assumed was a reasonable comment I made in retaliation at her comments about the radio 4 Appiah Lecture today and how she would have made a better job of it…… She sounds dangerous and really oddly I have had someone today try to hack my account which has never happened before. The Twitter page had a picture of Hillary Clinton with horns and raves about Trump. Is it not all an evil spoof?
      Thanks for the warning.

  31. Really interesting article, thanks Ben, I honestly wondered who this person was when she started trolling me Twitter regarding my stance on the Ched Evans case. Now I know who she is, she will be avoided.

  32. […] 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 […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s