Should Boris be booted?

Original Quill wrote:All surgeons should remove their masks...
SCUBA divers should not wear masks...
Firefighters must be forced to remove their masks...
HAZMAT suits should not have masks...
All oxygen masks should be removed from airliners...
NASA spacesuits should not have helmets...
Bio lab workers must remove their headgear...

Let's see, have we adequately protected ourselves from all bank robber doubles?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:All surgeons should remove their masks...
SCUBA divers should not wear masks...
Firefighters must be forced to remove their masks...
HAZMAT suits should not have masks...
All oxygen masks should be removed from airliners...
NASA spacesuits should not have helmets...
Bio lab workers must remove their headgear...

Let's see, have we adequately protected ourselves from all bank robber doubles?

Yes, because all those people wear their masks or headgear when they go to the bank obviously.

Original Quill wrote:All surgeons should remove their masks...
SCUBA divers should not wear masks...
Firefighters must be forced to remove their masks...
HAZMAT suits should not have masks...
All oxygen masks should be removed from airliners...
NASA spacesuits should not have helmets...
Bio lab workers must remove their headgear...

Let's see, have we adequately protected ourselves from all bank robber doubles?

Original Quill wrote:All surgeons should remove their masks...
SCUBA divers should not wear masks...
Firefighters must be forced to remove their masks...
HAZMAT suits should not have masks...
All oxygen masks should be removed from airliners...
NASA spacesuits should not have helmets...
Bio lab workers must remove their headgear...

Let's see, have we adequately protected ourselves from all bank robber doubles?

HT wrote:What an idiotic set of comparisons.

Original Quill wrote:All surgeons should remove their masks...
SCUBA divers should not wear masks...
Firefighters must be forced to remove their masks...
HAZMAT suits should not have masks...
All oxygen masks should be removed from airliners...
NASA spacesuits should not have helmets...
Bio lab workers must remove their headgear...

Let's see, have we adequately protected ourselves from all bank robber doubles?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:All surgeons should remove their masks...
SCUBA divers should not wear masks...
Firefighters must be forced to remove their masks...
HAZMAT suits should not have masks...
All oxygen masks should be removed from airliners...
NASA spacesuits should not have helmets...
Bio lab workers must remove their headgear...

Let's see, have we adequately protected ourselves from all bank robber doubles?

What an idiotic set of comparisons.  

I look at it like this.   There are women being forced to veil up in countries that give them no choices.  They must cover up from head to toe in public like a dirty secret, like something to be ashamed of, like a pariah.  They are beaten and reviled if they fail to conform.   The body veil has the same misogynistic ethos as cloistering women when they have their periods as though that too is something filthy, repulsive and shameful.   Basically, the burqa is a device of subjugation and control created by men who fear the sexuality of their women and other men who can't control their sexual impulses.  

Those who defend the right of women to wear the burqa under the banner of religious freedom gloss over the fact that this “freedom” is often dictated by social pressure.  When a person is indoctrinated, they often embrace what oppresses them as a psychological means to cope.  

This country offers freedom for women to be the equal of men.   Every time a woman dons that body veil she's betraying those women who have no choices.   She'll probably tell you that this is her choice.   And she may well believe it too.   But it's not.  It never has been and never will be.   It's as medieval as the chastity belt.  

Having said all this, if a woman chooses to wear the burqa in this country that's part and parcel of our laws that she's free to do so.  But the rest of Europe are not so tolerant.  One has to ask why?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:All surgeons should remove their masks...
SCUBA divers should not wear masks...
Firefighters must be forced to remove their masks...
HAZMAT suits should not have masks...
All oxygen masks should be removed from airliners...
NASA spacesuits should not have helmets...
Bio lab workers must remove their headgear...

Let's see, have we adequately protected ourselves from all bank robber doubles?

Do any of the above cover their faces in Banks?

At security at the airport?

Teaching children?

So out of all your examples, which would be allowed to cover their face when making a withdrawl or deposit in a bank?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Do any of the above cover their faces in Banks?

At security at the airport?

Teaching children?

So out of all your examples, which would be allowed to cover their face when making a withdrawl or deposit in a bank?

Such a phony pretext for hatred.  With a gun in his face, the bank teller isn't worried about fashions.  He wouldn'd recognize them in any case...they all look alike.  

Didge wrote:You also still never answered my question

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:You also still never answered my question

Your questions are silly.  You don't present anecdotal evidence to a general concern, if that's what it is.  You can't generalize from specifics.

Syl wrote:Whether you think the burka should be banned or not (I dont and neither does Boris) whether you think the full face burka is a horrible item of clothing, and most none Muslim people seem to think it is, his remarks were wrong.

He criticised the women who wear it, not the actual item of clothing, and I doubt he did that by accident.

Vintage wrote:I can only agree with you Didge.
Some wear it to show how religiously faithful they are, seems rather arrogant to me its more 'look at me I'm so close to god'.
Surely the depth of your faith is well known to your  god and should only be seen by others by your actions towards them.
If someone wishes to dedicate their lives to god do it properly and take yourself to a religious order or become a hermit of some kind so you can devout yourself entirely to religious duties and not shove it in other peoples faces.  

eddie wrote:Interesting that again, certain people think he was racist or wrong yet......


http://www.newsfixboard.com/t24883-new-york-times-stands-by-editorial-board-hire-despite-racist-tweets


I dunno. Goalposts really are moveable in a game of forum football.

Muslim women who wear burkas should be defended in the same way as Christians who wear a crucifix, a senior Conservative has said amid a growing Tory row over Boris Johnson’s comments on face veils.

Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, said debate over wearing burkas and crosses “is the same argument but in a different faith” and so they should both have the same “parameters”.

Jeremy Wright, the Culture Secretary, said it was wrong to label face coverings “oppressive”, but the Conservatives were accused of losing touch with voters as a poll showed 60 per cent of Britons think burkas should be banned in public places.

A former deputy mayor of London who is of Pakistani descent said the Tory leadership was siding with “a minority fringe of Islamists” who label any criticism of Islamic practice as Islamophobia, while another prominent Muslim said the burka “deserves to be ridiculed”.

There were also accusations that the burka row is being used as a proxy for Remain-supporting MPs to attack Mr Johnson in an attempt to kill off his leadership ambitions, after arch Europhile Dominic Grieve said he would quit the Party if Mr Johnson ever became leader.

As the Muslim Tory peer Lord Sheikh called for “severe action” against Mr Johnson, Lord Pickles, the Remain-supporting former communities secretary, said the former foreign secretary had been given more “slack” than other Conservatives would be.

There were accusations that Mr Johnson’s critics were being hypocritical after it emerged that some of them had made critical comments about the wearing of burkas in the past.

Mr Johnson had said burkas were “oppressive” and made women look like “bank robbers” or “letter boxes” in his column for The Telegraph on Monday, in which he opposed a ban on wearing them.

The Prime Minister told him to apologise but he made it clear on Tuesday he did not feel any need to do so. He made no further comment on the matter on Wednesday.

Arguments over whether Mr Johnson’s choice of language was wrong gave way to a wider debate over whether Britain should follow France, Denmark and Belgium in banning burkas in public.

Some Muslims argue that the Koran requires women to dress modestly and cover their heads and bodies, but opponents of the burka say there is no specific requirement in Islamic texts for women to wear them, and accuse Muslim men of forcing women to cover themselves from head to toe.

Ms Davidson, who is widely seen as a future Tory leader, described Mr Johnson’s comments as “gratuitously offensive”. She said: “If you use the analogy of Christianity, would you ever write in the Telegraph that you should have a debate about banning Christians from wearing crucifixes?

"It's the same argument but it's in a different faith so why are the parameters different for one faith and not the other?”

She added: “I think it's also not been shown through history that when men make sweeping statements about what women should or shouldn't wear that it goes well for them.

Mr Wright was asked by the BBC about Mr Johnson saying face veils were oppressive, and replied: “That’s the sort of language I think we should try to avoid using.”

Lord Sheikh said the Tory Party should remove the whip from Mr Johnson, adding: “Why not? He’s not a super-human being, he’s a member of the Party.”

A poll by Sky News, however, suggests the Conservative leadership is out of touch with voters. It found that 60 per cent of people do not believe his comments were racist, with the same proportion supporting a ban on the burka, even though Mr Johnson is opposed to one.

Maajid Nawaz, the reformist Muslim and head of the left of centre Quilliam think tank, which focuses on counter-extremism, said the burka deserves to be "ridiculed".

He said: "This is the uniform of medieval patriarchal tyranny. It victim-blames women for their beauty. Where this is enforced it symbolises violent misogyny. I’m not advocating banning this monstrosity but I refuse to defend it. It deserves to be ridiculed, not the women inside it.

"Women defending this have Stockholm syndrome. It is not racist to challenge religion (which is an idea, not a race). It is our civic duty. It is not offensive to remind everyone that this isn’t normal. It is offensive to advocate for this to become normalised."

One senior Conservative warned that Mrs May’s response to Mr Johnson could prove to be an "own goal" for the party because “it sets the bar incredibly low for future investigations into the actions of MPs and councillors”.

Munira Mirza, who served as Mr Johnson’s deputy mayor for culture when he was Mayor of London, said: “There are many people in this country who are uncomfortable about the burka. When people argue we should use more sensitive language what they are really saying is let's not be critical at all, let's not offend, let's not criticise this practice because it upsets Muslims. It's a serious problem.

"What's happening is there is a minority fringe of Islamists that pipe up every time someone tries to criticise any part of Islamic practise that call this Islamophobia. What's happening is that the establishment including the leadership of the party are siding with them, are saying you cannot use this kind of language. It's unfortunate for Muslims as well.”

She added: “The reality is there is a political fight here. People who frankly couldn’t care less about the issues that Muslim women face are piling into Boris because Boris said it.

"These are views he has expressed before. Views that others have said. Ken Clarke described it as a bag. I don't remember Anna Soubry, Sayeeda Warsi and others calling for his resignation.”

Remain-supporting Ms Soubry, who said that in her 16-year career she “never saw an armed robber who looked like a woman in a burka”, has previously described wearing the burka as “a peculiar choice”.

The Labour Party, which cited Mr Johnson’s comments as evidence of Islamophobia in the Conservative Party, faced accusations of hypocrisy after it emerged that Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, had said in the past that she would not want someone wearing a burka to look after her children or her elderly mother.

Sadiq Khan, the Labour Mayor of London, has in the past described face veils as “insidious” and expressed concern that “people are starting to think it’s appropriate to treat women differently”.

Conor Burns, an ally of Mr Johnson, accused Tory colleagues of jumping on a “bandwagon” and being “desperate not to get left behind”.

Philip Lee, the former justice minister, said: “There is a question about whether our society should adopt cultural practices in which women dress a certain way to satisfy a specific male interpretation of a sacred text.”

Tory MP Nadine Dorries criticised MPs who defend the burka while wanting to ban “grid girls” from Formula 1 starting grids. She added: “You cannot expect a society that celebrates gay pride and embraces gay marriage to live harmoniously when condoning the suppression of women forced to cover up, segregate and become invisible.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/08/ruth-davidson-says-burkas-should-defended-like-christians-wearing/

Vintage wrote:I'm pretty definite about one thing wear what you want, even if you look terrible, who cares but don't cover your face in public and tell me its religious - its not. 

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, because all those people wear their masks or headgear when they go to the bank obviously.

By your reckoning, beards should be banned.  The point is, the face cover is the least of he teller's problems when he's got a gun in his face.

It's a surrogate argument for white supremacy.  Attack the clothing of people of color, and create a dog whistle issue.  When Trayvon Martin was murdered, many knuckle-draggers were quick to criticize his hoodie sweatshirt because it hid his face...um, not that anyone could recognize him--they all look alike and all.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:Whether you think the burka should be banned or not (I dont and neither does Boris) whether you think the full face burka is a horrible item of clothing, and most none Muslim people seem to think it is, his remarks were wrong.

He criticised the women who wear it, not the actual item of clothing, and I doubt he did that by accident.

I dont think it should be banned, but like everyone else in a bank, teaching children at an airport or stopped by the Police they should take it off.

Now i can certainly reason why its certainly wrong to wear and its based on a belief that either forces women to wear by the state or husbands etc. Or its taught that they will suffer if they do not.

That is hardly a choice.

Its also very poor when speaking one to one in conversation, being as facial expression play a part in conversations.

Hence why people should speak openly on why its wrong.

Was Boris wrong to say what he did?

The answer is emphatically no. As tell me why should such a backward item of clothing that controls women through poor beliefs be given any form of respect?

Its a symbol of oppression, where countless women are forced to wear or scared not to, as they believe they will suffer in a make believe hell fire

So tell me, how can anyone respect that?

It should be rightly condemned, for the liberty of all women

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:

I dont think it should be banned, but like everyone else in a bank, teaching children at an airport or stopped by the Police they should take it off.

Now i can certainly reason why its certainly wrong to wear and its based on a belief that either forces women to wear by the state or husbands etc. Or its taught that they will suffer if they do not.

That is hardly a choice.

Its also very poor when speaking one to one in conversation, being as facial expression play a part in conversations.

Hence why people should speak openly on why its wrong.

Was Boris wrong to say what he did?

The answer is emphatically no. As tell me why should such a backward item of clothing that controls women through poor beliefs be given any form of respect?

Its a symbol of oppression, where countless women are forced to wear or scared not to, as they believe they will suffer in a make believe hell fire

So tell me, how can anyone respect that?

It should be rightly condemned, for the liberty of all women

I agree that women should remove the full face covering for security reasons, when driving, or for certain jobs, teaching for eg...thats common sense.

I believe women should have the choice to cover themselves if they choose to do so.....what business is it of anyone else?

Boris Johnson, along with everyone else has the right to say he finds the burka unattractive and unnecessary, he has no right to compare the women who wear it to letter boxes and bankrobbers.
Would you say a woman in a headscarf looks like a scrubber, or a woman in a mini slirt looks like a slag?....same difference.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:

I dont think it should be banned, but like everyone else in a bank, teaching children at an airport or stopped by the Police they should take it off.

Now i can certainly reason why its certainly wrong to wear and its based on a belief that either forces women to wear by the state or husbands etc. Or its taught that they will suffer if they do not.

That is hardly a choice.

Its also very poor when speaking one to one in conversation, being as facial expression play a part in conversations.

Hence why people should speak openly on why its wrong.

Was Boris wrong to say what he did?

The answer is emphatically no. As tell me why should such a backward item of clothing that controls women through poor beliefs be given any form of respect?

Its a symbol of oppression, where countless women are forced to wear or scared not to, as they believe they will suffer in a make believe hell fire

So tell me, how can anyone respect that?

It should be rightly condemned, for the liberty of all women

I believe women should have the choice to cover themselves if they choose to do so.....what business is it of anyone else?

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:
I agree that women should remove the full face covering for security reasons, when driving, or for certain jobs, teaching for eg...thats common sense.

I believe women should have the choice to cover themselves if they choose to do so.....what business is it of anyone else?

Boris Johnson, along with everyone else has the right to say he finds the burka unattractive and unnecessary, he has no right to compare the women who wear it to letter boxes and bankrobbers.
Would you say a woman in a headscarf looks like a scrubber, or a woman in a mini slirt looks like a slag?....same difference.

He has every right to say how oppressive looking it is. Which is what he did by comparing it to a letter box and a bank robber, which is what bank robbers do, by masking their faces.

How is that wrong?

He never called them a slag or scrubber, so utterly irrelevant

He stated how they look like, not what they could or could not be

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


He has every right to say how oppressive looking it is. Which is what he did by comparing it to a letter box and a bank robber, which is what bank robbers do, by masking their faces.

How is that wrong?

He never called them a slag or scrubber, so utterly irrelevant

He stated how they look like, not what they could or could not be

He specifically said the women who wore burkas looked like letter boxes and bank robbers....he was commenting on them not the clothes.

No difference to someone saying a woman looks like a scrubber or a slag.....he should have kept his distaste focused on  the clothes not the womenn who wear them....there is a big difference.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:


I believe women should have the choice to cover themselves if they choose to do so.....what business is it of anyone else?

It is up to women what they wear, however, its a big issue if they are being forced. Either by people or coerced through fear.

So again

If someone from the KKK, wore their outfit. Many would rightly condemn such an outfit as a symbol of opression, racism and hate. Nobody rightly here would give this the time of day and would condemn and ridicule.

We have the Burka, not even Islamic, but a tradition that has its origins in the Nejd of Saudi Arabia. Women in Saudi Arabia outside the Nejd before 1970 did not wear this. It took the rise of Wahhabism to power within Saudi, to islamify the Burka into islam. With Saudi money the Wahhabist ideology has been exported into many Muslim and Non Muslim countries.

Its a symbol of segregation between men and women. Seperation between Muslims and Non-Muslims. A complete rejection of acceptance, tolernace and others. It is a culture that treats women as no better than cattle. That they are a sexualized object that has to be covered.

Its a symbol of oppression and should be condemned by all as we do the KKK outfit.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


It is up to women what they wear, however, its a big issue if they are being forced. Either by people or coerced through fear.

So again

If someone from the KKK, wore their outfit. Many would rightly condemn such an outfit as a symbol of opression, racism and hate. Nobody rightly here would give this the time of day and would condemn and ridicule.

We have the Burka, not even Islamic, but a tradition that has its origins in the Nejd of Saudi Arabia. Women in Saudi Arabia outside the Nejd before 1970 did not wear this. It took the rise of Wahhabism to power within Saudi, to islamify the Burka into islam. With Saudi money the Wahhabist ideology has been exported into many Muslim and Non Muslim countries.

Its a symbol of segregation between men and women. Seperation between Muslims and Non-Muslims. A complete rejection of acceptance, tolernace and others. It is a culture that treats women as no better than cattle. That they are a sexualized object that has to be covered.

Its a symbol of oppression and should be condemned by all as we do the KKK outfit.

The KKK hood is a symbol of hate, the burka is not.
Many women who wear it do it from choice.....we live in a society that allows choice.
Dictating what a woman should not wear is as bad as dictating what she can wear.

eddie wrote:Leave the bloody burkha alone. It’s just a bloody piece of clothing.
Who cares?  

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:

I dont think it should be banned, but like everyone else in a bank, teaching children at an airport or stopped by the Police they should take it off.

Now i can certainly reason why its certainly wrong to wear and its based on a belief that either forces women to wear by the state or husbands etc. Or its taught that they will suffer if they do not.

That is hardly a choice.

Its also very poor when speaking one to one in conversation, being as facial expression play a part in conversations.

Hence why people should speak openly on why its wrong.

Was Boris wrong to say what he did?

The answer is emphatically no. As tell me why should such a backward item of clothing that controls women through poor beliefs be given any form of respect?

Its a symbol of oppression, where countless women are forced to wear or scared not to, as they believe they will suffer in a make believe hell fire

So tell me, how can anyone respect that?

It should be rightly condemned, for the liberty of all women

I agree that women should remove the full face covering for security reasons, when driving, or for certain jobs, teaching for eg...thats common sense.

I believe women should have the choice to cover themselves if they choose to do so.....what business is it of anyone else?

Boris Johnson, along with everyone else has the right to say he finds the burka unattractive and unnecessary, he has no right to compare the women who wear it to letter boxes and bankrobbers.
Would you say a woman in a headscarf looks like a scrubber, or a woman in a mini slirt looks like a slag?....same difference.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:
I agree that women should remove the full face covering for security reasons, when driving, or for certain jobs, teaching for eg...thats common sense.

I believe women should have the choice to cover themselves if they choose to do so.....what business is it of anyone else?

Boris Johnson, along with everyone else has the right to say he finds the burka unattractive and unnecessary, he has no right to compare the women who wear it to letter boxes and bankrobbers.
Would you say a woman in a headscarf looks like a scrubber, or a woman in a mini slirt looks like a slag?....same difference.

Firstly... it becomes the business of everyone else who has to interact with them...


Secondly... would you say a man in a dress looks like a woman...?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

By your reckoning, beards should be banned.  The point is, the face cover is the least of he teller's problems when he's got a gun in his face.

It's a surrogate argument for white supremacy.  Attack the clothing of people of color, and create a dog whistle issue.  When Trayvon Martin was murdered, many knuckle-draggers were quick to criticize his hoodie sweatshirt because it hid his face...um, not that anyone could recognize him--they all look alike and all.

Beards don't cover a whole face though. The point is that your comparisons were silly.

Trayvon Martin wasn't murdered. His hoodie didn't cover his face anyway.

Original Quill wrote:

HT wrote:What an idiotic set of comparisons.

Yet, so appropriate.  The idiocy is in the original premise put forth by Boris.  What he is saying, ultimately, is that a cultural identity should be obliterated.

As I've pointed out, it's pretextual reasoning.  Boris doesn't care any more about gender rights than you.  It's a phony cigar, to get at his hatred of people of color.  He doesn't care about burkas.  He wants to criticize the people who wear them.

As for women's rights, you are being ethnocentric.  You are leveling western, white-supremacist values on other cultures, as if they give a shit.  Probably the strongest defense of burkas comes from the Muslim women themselves, who feel safer and more secure in them.  And yes, they think the mystery of it all is quite feminine.

Why not leave 'em alone and let them have their own values.  We tolerate radical women's fashions all right.  We've survived bikinis and short-shorts.  What's with this sudden proscription of womens wear when it comes to burkas?  After all, who made you god?

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


He has every right to say how oppressive looking it is. Which is what he did by comparing it to a letter box and a bank robber, which is what bank robbers do, by masking their faces.

How is that wrong?

He never called them a slag or scrubber, so utterly irrelevant

He stated how they look like, not what they could or could not be

He specifically said the women who wore burkas looked like letter boxes and bank robbers....he was commenting on them not the clothes.

No difference to someone saying a woman looks like a scrubber or a slag.....he should have kept his distaste focused on  the clothes not the womenn who wear them....there is a big difference.