Should Boris be booted?

First topic message reminder :

Boris Johnson is being asked to at least apologise, at worst resign or be sacked over the piece he wrote in Mondays Daily Telegraph.
He likened Burka wearing women to resembling bank robbers and letter boxes.

Should May get rid of bungling Boris, or will this just enhance his popularity with his following?



https://news.sky.com/story/tory-peer-remove-whip-from-boris-over-burka-remarks-11464276

Didge wrote:Here is the original article for people to read

Ah Denmark, what a country. If any society breathes the spirit of liberty, this is it.

It was only a few weeks ago that I was in Copenhagen for some international conference, and as ever I rose early and went for a run. As I passed through some yuppie zone of warehouse conversions and posh restaurants I saw to my amazement that the Danes had also got up early for exercise – and they were diving stark naked into the bracing waters of the harbour. And I thought to myself – that’s the Danes for you; that’s the spirit of Viking individualism. I mean, we have a climate warmer than Denmark; but even so, would you expect to see Brits disrobing and plunging into the waters of Canary Wharf, or even Greenwich? We are pretty easy-going, but not that easy-going.

Denmark is the only country in Europe, as far as I know, that still devotes a large proportion of its capital city to an anarchist commune, called Christiania, where I remember spending a happy afternoon 25 years ago inhaling the sweet air of freedom. It is the Danes who still hold out against all sorts of EU tyrannies, large and small.

They still chew their lethal carcinogenic tobacco; they still eat their red-dyed frankfurters; they still use the krone rather than the euro; they still refuse to let foreigners buy holiday homes in Jutland; and of course it was the heroic population of Denmark that on that magnificent day in June 1992 stuck two fingers up to the elites of Europe and voted down the Maastricht treaty – and though that revolt was eventually crushed by the European establishment (as indeed, note, they will try to crush all such revolts), that great nej to Maastricht expressed something about the Danish spirit: a genial and happy cussedness and independence.

It is a spirit you see everywhere on the streets of Copenhagen in the veneration for that supreme embodiment of vehicular autonomy, the bicycle. The Danes don’t cycle with their heads down, grimly, in Lycra, swearing at people who get in their way. They wander and weave helmetless down the beautiful boulevards on clapped-out granny bikes, with a culture of cycling in which everyone is treated with courtesy and respect. Yes, if you wanted to visit a country that seemed on the face of it to embody the principles of JS Mill - that you should be able to do what you want provided you do no harm to others – I would advise you to head for wonderful, wonderful Copenhagen.

So I was a bit surprised to see that on August 1 the Danes joined several other European countries – France, Germany, Austria, Belgium – in imposing a ban on the niqab and the burka – those items of Muslim head-gear that obscure the female face. Already a fine of 1000 kroner – about £120 – has been imposed on a 28-year-old woman seen wearing a niqab in a shopping centre in the north eastern town of Horsholm. A scuffle broke out as someone tried to rip it off her head. There have been demonstrations, on both sides of the argument. What has happened, you may ask, to the Danish spirit of live and let live?If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you. If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree – and I would add that I can find no scriptural authority for the practice in the Koran. I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes; and I thoroughly dislike any attempt by any – invariably male – government to encourage such demonstrations of “modesty”, notably the extraordinary exhortations of President Ramzan Kadyrov of Chechnya, who has told the men of his country to splat their women with paintballs if they fail to cover their heads.

If a constituent came to my MP’s surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled – like Jack Straw – to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly. If a female student turned up at school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber then ditto: those in authority should be allowed to converse openly with those that they are being asked to instruct. As for individual businesses or branches of government – they should of course be able to enforce a dress code that enables their employees to interact with customers; and that means human beings must be able to see each other’s faces and read their expressions. It’s how we work.

All that seems to me to be sensible. But such restrictions are not quite the same as telling a free-born adult woman what she may or may not wear, in a public place, when she is simply minding her own business.

I am against a total ban because it is inevitably construed – rightly or wrongly – as being intended to make some point about Islam. If you go for a total ban, you play into the hands of those who want to politicise and dramatise the so-called clash of civilisations; and you fan the flames of grievance. You risk turning people into martyrs, and you risk a general crackdown on any public symbols of religious affiliation, and you may simply make the problem worse. Like a parent confronted by a rebellious teenager determined to wear a spike through her tongue, or a bolt through her nose, you run the risk that by your heavy-handed attempt to ban what you see as a bizarre and unattractive adornment you simply stiffen resistance.

The burka and the niqab were certainly not always part of Islam. In Britain today there is only a tiny, tiny minority of women who wear these odd bits of headgear. One day, I am sure, they will go.

The Danes swim starkers in the heart of Copenhagen. If The Killing is to be believed, their female detectives wear Faroe sweaters on duty, as is their sovereign right. If Danish women really want to cover their faces, then it seems a bit extreme – all the caveats above understood – to stop them under all circumstances. I don’t propose we follow suit. A total ban is not the answer.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/05/denmark-has-got-wrong-yes-burka-oppressive-ridiculous-still/

Bit different to how people are portraying Boris here and I even think he is a muppet, but its clear, people like to mislead, what he was saying throughout. On the Burka being oppressive

Like I said people are taking this completely out of context.

I bet the majority of Britain appluads him as I do, to rightly condemn this oppressive political symbol

Vintage wrote:Most nuns these days wear an adapted habit, just ordinary clothes skirt blouse and sometimes a tunic and a headdress that could be a titular veil, I have never seen  nuns with their faces completely covered.
Some orders used to have quite elaborate headdresses which extended past the face, these were usually contemplative orders who used this kind of thing to enable  them to concentrate on their prayers (their job was to pray for all mankind) and not to be disturbed by anything in their peripheral vision, they rarely left their convent, so few ever saw them to make comment on.
Its one thing to allow people to keep their culture and customs, although many people are coming around to this being a negative thing for everyone in terms of intergration but I think its incumbent on people arriving here to understand that they are arriving in a country with different customs and culture and that does not make their way of life right and ours wrong because of the difference and that just as some dislike western dress and customs not everyone likes their ways, the face covering can be seen as rude or even insulting to many people.  It's called give and take.

Interesting Vintage.
I can understand if some people feel a bit intimidated by not being able to see who is behind a full face covering, but why would anyone feel insulted?

A senior British Imam today backed Boris Johnson in the burqa row and said the oppressive face coverings should be banned.

Imam Taj Hargey, from the Oxford Islamic Congregation said the Tory MP has nothing to apologise for and 'did not go far enough' in his remarks.

He branded the burqa a 'hideous tribal ninja-like garment' and said its has 'no Koranic legitimacy'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6044481/Senior-British-Imam-backs-Boris-Johnson-burqa-row.html

Because you need to see the whole face to "read" a person. If you get my meaning .

Vintage wrote:I think its incumbent on people arriving here to understand that they are arriving in a country with different customs and culture and that does not make their way of life right and ours wrong because of the difference and that just as some dislike western dress and customs not everyone likes their ways, the face covering can be seen as rude or even insulting to many people.  It's called give and take.

I agree...as far as you go.  The standard should be freedom...more specifically, live and let live.  We don't need these phony excuses, pretextually disguising our dictates about another's dress.

Live and let live; we should stop making up bullshite excuses to interfere with another culture's lives.  We might want to think about how WE could benefit from THEIR customs and fashions.  Freedom...let it flow and stop inventing ways on how to run other peoples' lives.

nicko wrote:Because you need to see the whole face to "read"  a person.  If you get my meaning .

Exactly, as facial expressions are a very big part of any conversation people have. Body language makes up a big part of communication.

nicko wrote:Because you need to see the whole face to "read"  a person.  If you get my meaning .

I can sit here and make up phony excuses for prejudice, too. But, it's a waste of time.

The Impact of Facial Expression in Communication

What you actually say when you communicate begins long before you open your mouth, and continues after you’ve finished speaking. The human face is extremely expressive – able to communicate countless emotions without saying a word. And unlike some forms of nonverbal communication, the emotions shared through facial expressions are universal. (See Part 1 for the seven specific emotions).

Watch someone reading the paper or looking at their phone, you might easily make assumptions about their feelings toward the subject on the other end. Do they agree, disagree or feel excitement or despair? Our face – both voluntarily and involuntarily – conveys emotion and some of it is hard to hide. This involuntary messaging often becomes the obstacle to our intended message and can even at times be in conflict with our spoken word. Speakeasy Instructors pinpoint two aspects of facial expressions to consider for greater control over our communication: micro expressions and your natural range of displayed emotions.

https://www.speakeasyinc.com/the-impact-of-facial-expression-in-communication/

Didge wrote:The Impact of Facial Expression in Communication

THE IMPACT OF PEEING WHEN YOU NEED TO IN COMMUNICATION

What you actually say is strongly influenced by how much you need to pee.  Never enter a meeting without urinating beforehand.  You need to be free of biological urges before you give candid opinions about important issues.

Watch someone who needs to pee in a meeting.  It confuses the whole issue.  He or she is trying to explain some issue or other, but instead is crossing his/her legs and concentrating on not losing it.  Never listen to someone who has to pee, without giving him or her complete leave to free his or her bladder.

See, it's easy to invent shit.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:The Impact of Facial Expression in Communication

THE IMPACT OF PEEING WHEN YOU NEED TO IN COMMUNICATION

What you actually say is strongly influenced by how much you need to pee.  Never enter a meeting without urinating beforehand.  You need to be free of biological urgencies before you give candid opinions about important issues.

Watch someone who needs to pee in a meeting.  It confuses the whole issue.  He or she is trying to explain some issue or other, but instead is crossing his/her legs and concentrating on not losing it.  Never listen to someone who has to pee, without giving him or her complete to free his or her bladder.

I sugges they raise their hands then or simple get up and say they are going to the toilet

Anyway, back to the point

Facial expressions are as very much part of daily communication.

Covering the face is basically hiding these expressions. Hence why it can be very off puting talking to someone who wears a Burka

eddie wrote:

And yet neglects the very fact the Burka has oppressed and enslaved women

So whilst it may have done no harm to this woman. She forgets poorly that Muslim women are still being oppressed to this very day by them

eddie wrote:

+10

Wise, and quite timely post.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

+10

Wise, and quite timely post.  

Nothing wise about it, being the suit is not a political symbol

Its buisness dress

The burka is a political symbol, one that demeans and enslaves women.

Hence her blog, was not even the same ball park and shows again the idiocy and lenghs. Some people will go to in defending the burka, that actually oppresses many women.

Didge wrote:The burka is a political symbol, one that demeans and enslaves women.

Only to you. And no one asked you.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:The burka is a political symbol, one that demeans and enslaves women.

Only to you.  And no one asked you.

Really?

Only me you say?

Associate Professor Elham Manea, a Swiss-Yemeni citizen and the author of Women and Sharia Law, argues it is naïve — even racist — to regard the wearing of a burka as a sincere act of faith.

"The burka is not Islamic," she told the Religion and Ethics Report.

"It's a tradition that comes from the heart of Saudi Arabia, a region called Nejd."

Dr Manea says the veiled garment was not worn by women outside of Nejd until Saudi Arabia's Wahabi regime came to power in the late 1970s.

"The re-Islamisation of Saudi Arabia according to the Wahabi Salafi fundamentalist principles led to the mainstreaming of the burka," she said.

"With Gulf money you had a promotion of this ideology and a reading of Islam that turned the burka into an 'Islamic' tradition."

The Koran calls for both men and women to "cover and be modest", but this reference is open to interpretation.

In Australia, few Muslim women wear burkas, though many wear other kinds of hijab or head coverings.

Dr Manea, a member of the University of Zurich's political science institute and a former advisor to the Swiss government, believes conversations around the validity and religiosity of the burka are essential.

"To tell me that by talking about the burka we are hurting the feelings of the Muslims is not only inaccurate, with all due respect, it's almost racist," she said.

Though she was careful not to align her views with those of Senator Hanson, Dr Manea did agree with one of the politician's points: the burka is not a religious requirement.

"[The burka] is a sign of segregation, separation, rejection of the values we see all around us — values of acceptance and tolerance and otherness," she said.

"[It reflects] a culture that treats woman as a sexualised object that has to be covered.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-28/burkas-are-political-symbols-not-islamic-says-Muslim-scholar/8843916

Islamic veiling is a form of sexist patriarchal oppression, and supporters of
equality have a responsibility to say so, argues Terri Murray

It’s time for feminists (male or female) to bring some clarity to the debate about the burqa. The discussion at the moment is dominated by two arguments that defend the burqa from criticism, both coming mainly from female Muslim academics who work and publish from comfortable posts in prominent universities in the United States or Europe, who do not live under the constraints of Sharia law.

The first of these arguments treats the rise of voluntary veiling in the West as a rejection of colonial influence. On this view, visible or externalised changes in Muslim women’s dress codes are interpreted as concessions to the coloniser or as attempts to assimilate to “superior” Western influences. Accordingly the veil functions primarily as a symbol of resistance to the colonising narrative of the quintessential “otherness” and inferiority of Islam. To dispute this argument is to reinforce a form of colonial domination.

The second argument is that the veil is a form of resistance to the West’s sexualisation and objectification of women. The assertion is that Western societies, no less than Islamic ones, pressure women into adopting forms of dress (and undress) that are intended to gratify the “male gaze” and turn women into sex objects. From this perspective, it is a bit rich for Western women (who “voluntarily” wear high heels, short skirts and make-up) to criticise Muslim women for choosing to wear coverings that liberate them from this sexist gaze. To dispute this argument is to suggest, implicitly or not, that Western freedom trumps Muslim puritanism.

In response to the first argument, it should be obvious that to oppose aspects of Islam that have institutionalised a gender hierarchy (or even apartheid) and silenced voices of equity for women is not to (mis)represent Islam per se as “inferior”. Western liberals and feminists have had their own battle with Christian sexism, and it is far from over. To think that criticising Islamic sexism is the same as saying that Islam is inferior implies that any critique of Islamic sexism excludes similar critiques of Christian or Jewish sexism, and is tantamount to a blanket rejection of Islam. It also implies that such a critique cannot be shared by Muslims themselves, or always represents a refusal to acknowledge Islam’s complexity. All but the most obtuse Westerners recognise that there are divergent beliefs within Islam about the practice of veiling and that many Muslims have argued for its abolition. Moreover, many Western critics of Islamic sexism think that Western patriarchal religious traditions (or even secular ones) are equally if not more oppressive and irrational than Islamic ones. Critiquing one does not imply condoning the other.

The desire to engage with Islam in critical argument and debate is not a form of disrespect but of esteem. Westerners who refuse to do so patronise Muslims and hypocritically oppose sexist practices and beliefs only where it is “politically correct” or expedient to do so. Not only are they fair-weather feminists, they also treat Islam with a special sensitivity that they do not grant to other religions, not because they really respect Islamic sexism, but because they are reluctant to be labelled “Islamophobic” or “racist” (since any criticism of Islamic sexism is likely to be misrepresented as such). Concern for, rather than indifference to, the plight of women living under Sharia law in sexist theocracies is anything but racism. In expressing human solidarity with these women, Westerners are not assuming their culture’s superiority over Islamic culture, but feminism’s superiority over sexism – a view that is exclusive to no particular culture and is certainly not absent from Islamic culture and religion. Western indifference to the fate of women from other cultural or religious backgrounds is far more racist than demonstrating interest in their struggle for human rights. Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity. There are plenty of non-white people, men and women, who disagree with Islamic misogyny and homophobia.

The second argument, concerning sexist objection in Western cultures, rests on two problematic assumptions. First, that Western feminist critics of the burqa do not oppose the sexualisation of the female body within their own culture and so have no right to talk about it in other cultures. This is flatly contradicted by the fact that Western feminists maintain a trenchant critique of sexual objectification “at home”. This defensive argument also rests on the assumption that you cannot be a “good” feminist if you regard the (shame-free) sexualisation of the female body as potentially empowering for women as autonomous sexual subjects.

This argument trades on the tu quoque ad hominem fallacy, or, in plain English, the “and that goes double for you” fallacy. The issue is not whether Western women are guilty of a similar form of capitulation to that of Muslim women, but whether the pressure on females to acquiesce to “feminine” dress codes (in either culture) amounts to sexist oppression. And even if Western women are not fully liberated, this has no bearing on their ability to oppose forms of sexism in other cultures as well as in their own. But the assertion that women who are sexualised (or not ashamed of their own sexual desires) are “oppressed” needs to be addressed and discussed too. If female sexual agency is somehow shameful while male sexual agency isn’t, then this needs to be argued for with good reasons. Male and female feminists should welcome a discussion of these double standards.

In Islamic cultures the predominant theological reasoning for veiling seems to be that the female body is such a powerful sexual object that nothing short of covering it can prevent men from molesting it. According to Islamic Hadith (or poor interpretations of it) the female body is so powerfully sexual that it is literally irresistible to the opposite sex. I refer those who argue that this is a misinterpretation of Islam to this statement by Australia’s influential senior Islamic cleric, Sheik Taj Aldin as-Hilali:

“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside. . . without cover, and the cats come to eat it. . . whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.”

Some Westernised Muslim academics deny the primary theological significance of the burqa and instead claim that it is imbued with powerful symbolism by Western colonialism. Westerners, they argue, see the burqa as a symbol of the irrevocable “otherness” of Muslims. Accordingly the “hysterical” reactions to veiling are just a Western contrivance (a pretext for racist attitudes towards Muslims following 9/11). Yet the discourse vacillates between this claim and the contradictory claim that the veil has no special significance other than what the wearer intends it to mean, and so is no more than a form of personal expression – a symbol of Muslim women’s freedom to “be themselves”.

Sharia law is still enforced in approximately 35 nations, where some form of veiling is compulsory. An estimated 83 Sharia courts operate in England today. Many Muslim families living in Western Europe use legal forms of coercion to make girls and women conform to veiling. The murder of Shafilea Ahmed, by her own parents, is a case study in how Europeans respond to these situations of family violence with an embarrassed silence, rather than the kind of outrage that would be seen as appropriate were its victims not exclusively female. The Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (Ikwro) found last year that 39 out of 52 police forces across the UK had recorded at least 2,823 “honour” attacks over 2010. Some forces showed a jump of nearly 50 per cent in such cases from 2009. This is the backdrop against which Muslims in Europe claim that wearing the burqa is a “choice”.

The claim that covering yourself up in public is an empowering choice insults the intelligence and dignity of women everywhere, just as the theological claim that the burqa is a necessary defence against predatory male sexuality insults Muslim men insofar as it treats them as fundamentally incapable of responsibility for their sexual behaviour.

The reason Western feminists (male or female) object to seeing women in burqas is not that we can’t tolerate diversity, but that the burqa is a symbol of patriarchal Islam’s intolerance of dissent and desire to contain and repress female sexuality.

https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4199/why-feminists-should-oppose-the-burqa

Why is it insulting? Because its not a custom in the west, and its fairly obvious people don't like it, it may have been a custom for some to veil your face at a funeral, even fairly recently but it was few and far between and only for that occassion. Its as though people want to deliberately flout the customs of the host nations, just as if someone walked through a Muslim city wearing a bikini, you just don't do it, if you have any respect. The prophet instructed that if it caused problems Islamic dress could be exchanged for the local dress provided it was still modest, there were also instructions that if Halal food was not available it was not a sin to eat the local diet, it was also accepted in these instructions that Muslims could 'enjoy the good food of the Jews and Christians'.(still with the possible exception of pork).
If the burkha and face covering isn't a control mechanism for women's sexuality and freedom why are women past childbearing age and who are then considered sexually unattractive old women allowed to leave their faces uncovered in conservative families in Saudi Arabia?.

Syl wrote:

Vintage wrote:Most nuns these days wear an adapted habit, just ordinary clothes skirt blouse and sometimes a tunic and a headdress that could be a titular veil, I have never seen  nuns with their faces completely covered.
Some orders used to have quite elaborate headdresses which extended past the face, these were usually contemplative orders who used this kind of thing to enable  them to concentrate on their prayers (their job was to pray for all mankind) and not to be disturbed by anything in their peripheral vision, they rarely left their convent, so few ever saw them to make comment on.
Its one thing to allow people to keep their culture and customs, although many people are coming around to this being a negative thing for everyone in terms of intergration but I think its incumbent on people arriving here to understand that they are arriving in a country with different customs and culture and that does not make their way of life right and ours wrong because of the difference and that just as some dislike western dress and customs not everyone likes their ways, the face covering can be seen as rude or even insulting to many people.  It's called give and take.

Interesting Vintage.
I can understand if some people feel a bit intimidated by not being able to see who is behind a full face covering, but why would anyone feel insulted?

I feel insulted by it...


As if they are basically saying that they are more important/special than me, and I am not worthy of seeing their face... or that they think of me as being some kind of animal who is likely to sexually attack them if I had a glimpse of their face... or that they are just being unnecessarily secretive/separatist etc and putting up a deliberate barrier towards us all...!

Syl wrote:" I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes....

If a female student turned up at school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber....."


He can waffle as much as he likes about him not agreeing with the countries who have banned the burka, he still fits in the two remarks about how the women LOOK which have upset many people.

He should have commented on the garment, not made fun of the women who wear it.

But you don't see 'how the women look' at all...!


Cos they are covered from head to toe in a black fabric garment (mobile tent) with a little slit for them to peep out of...!


You ONLY SEE THE GARMENT... and although you know there is a person underneath it all... it is then only 'presumably' a woman!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

Interesting Vintage.
I can understand if some people feel a bit intimidated by not being able to see who is behind a full face covering, but why would anyone feel insulted?

I feel insulted by it...


As if they are basically saying that they are more important/special than me, and I am not worthy of seeing their face... or that they think of me as being some kind of animal who is likely to sexually attack them if I had a glimpse of their face... or that they are just being unnecessarily secretive/separatist etc and putting up a deliberate barrier towards us all...!

That's the way you feel and that's your prerogative.
I doubt that's the intention of women who wear it though.
Maybe underneath the garment is a woman who just wants to preserve her modesty and feels safe behind her burka.

Preserve her modesty from...????????


Safe from...???????



What exactly is it that they think me and other people are... that we should be prevented from seeing their face...?

Tommy Monk wrote:Preserve her modesty from...????????


Safe from...???????



What exactly is it that they think me and other people are... that we should be prevented from seeing their face...?

Obviously I dont have their mindset because I dont have their history, but I have heard Muslim women say they do feel safer within themselves being covered.

If thats the case, they are harming no one, the ones I see in this area just go about their business quietly. They  are not looking for confrontation ....why cant they just live their lives without hassle or condemnation?

So nothing to do with religion...

Just deliberately anti social choice...

Tommy Monk wrote:So nothing to do with religion...

Some do it for religious reasons ....and I think it's pretty  anti social to try to slur a person merely because they dont like the way they dress....which is what Boris Johnson has done.

The forum has suddenly changed.

Why have some Muslim countries banned it-----anyone ?

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:So nothing to do with religion...

Some do it for religious reasons ....and I think it's pretty  anti social to try to slur a person merely because they dont like the way they dress....which is what Boris Johnson has done.

I think they should be banned. There's no place for burkas in Europe.  There's no religious reason why they wear them. In Syria they pulled them off and burned them after ISIS was defeated.

What about the white hoodies that cover the faces of KKK members?

Oh, for Christ's bloody sake (Oops! Offensive blasphemy against Christianity!) I don't think I have ever seen such sheer, unmitigated cant as that which is now surrounding Boris's remark about women in burkas.

What he wrote was, in my opinion, insensitive and offensive...and (sorry, Rowan Atkinson) not particularly funny, if only because as a "joke" is is such an old one.

But  in so many ways he is right. Were I an MP sitting in my constituency surgery and discussing with an elector a matter of great importance - let's  say, for example, the existence of a paedophile ring - I would not feel at all comfortable if I could see nothing but a pair or eyes staring out at me from behind a narrow slit in a length of cloth. Facial expressions are so important when gauging whether someone is honest and open or lying through their teeth...that's why burkas are, or at least should be, banned in places like courtrooms.

And anyway, Muslims are no more immune to insensitive and even offensive comments than is anyone else, and I'll bet my bottom dollar that the predictable playing of the race card that is happening now would never have occurred had a senior  Labour Party politician joked about an Orthodox Jewish man's payot ringlets or the fact that a married Haredi Jew wearing a shtreimel looked like a bloke with a racoon on his head...

And as for Andy's KKK members...talking to one of them must be like trying to have a conversation with the Wizard of Oz on speed.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Oh, for Christ's bloody sake (Oops! Offensive blasphemy against Christianity!) I don't think I have ever seen such sheer, unmitigated cant as that which is now surrounding Boris's remark about women in burkas.

What he wrote was, in my opinion, insensitive and offensive...and (sorry, Rowan Atkinson) not particularly funny, if only because as a "joke" is is such an old one.

But  in so many ways he is right. Were I an MP sitting in my constituency surgery and discussing with an elector a matter of great importance - let's  say, for example, the existence of a paedophile ring - I would not feel at all comfortable if I could see nothing but a pair or eyes staring out at me from behind a narrow slit in a length of cloth. Facial expressions are so important when gauging whether someone is honest and open or lying through their teeth...that's why burkas are, or at least should be, banned in places like courtrooms.

And anyway, Muslims are no more immune to insensitive and even offensive comments than is anyone else, and I'll bet my bottom dollar that the predictable playing of the race card that is happening now would never have occurred had a senior  Labour Party politician joked about an Orthodox Jewish man's payot ringlets or the fact that a married Haredi Jew wearing a shtreimel looked like a bloke with a racoon on his head...

And as for Andy's KKK members...talking to one of them must be like trying to have a conversation with the Wizard of Oz on speed.

I agree with you Fred, an MP sitting in his office having a meeting of great importance deserves to see the person he is discussing a serious matter with.....and I think that MP, (or anyone in business in that position) would have the right to ask to discuss the matter openly, not with one of them hidden.
In courtrooms, if a person is accused or giving evidence face coverings definitely should not be allowed....there was a case a few years ago about that, the judge adjourned because the woman refused to remove her burka, I'm sure he could have charged her with contempt of court....not sure what the outcome was.

However, I suspect Boris's remarks will have more of an impact on women walking in the street wearing the burka.
I can imagine his remarks giving idiots the green light to pass derogatory comments...more than they do now.

Whilst he is critical of countries who have banned the burka, saying women should be free to wear it here, he is making sure that people who dont agree with that, will look down on them even more than they do now.

Defending the women isn't playing the race card, its just having empathy for a minute section of society who should have the right to choose the way they dress in public without hostility......same as one would if a white woman chooses to wear skin tight leggings on a size 20 arse......live and let live.  

.............................................................................

edit.

I looked up what happened to the woman who refused to lift her face covering in court.
The 2013 case was adjourned....later the judge made this ruling.

"A judge yesterday ordered a Muslim defendant to take off her full-face veil to give evidence.
But, in a case that made legal history, he said the woman could retain the veil for all other parts of her trial.
Judge Peter Murphy said the court should recognise ‘freedom of religious expression’.
But he believed allowing her to retain the niqab during her evidence, as she wanted, would ‘drive a coach and horses through justice administered in England and Wales for centuries’. Judge Murphy recognised the strong feelings on both sides of the argument and urged MPs to legislate on the controversial issue, which had become the ‘elephant in the courtroom’.
He said it was crucial for the jury to see the woman’s face so they could assess her demeanour and expression"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2421893/Judge-Peter-Murphy-rules-Muslim-woman-REMOVE-face-veil-evidence.html

magica wrote:

Syl wrote:
Some do it for religious reasons ....and I think it's pretty  anti social to try to slur a person merely because they dont like the way they dress....which is what Boris Johnson has done.

I think they should be banned. There's no place for burkas in Europe.  There's no religious reason why they wear them. In Syria they pulled them off and burned them after ISIS was defeated.

Well more westernised women insist they are not forced to wear it they choose to....so if that's the case, for whatever reason they choose to wear it, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so in peace?

I wonder how many people who condemn these women actually have ever had any contact with them ....other than scowl at them as they pass in the street minding their own business.

ahhh...but heres the rub, a western woman CANT wear skin tight leggings (even on a size 10 butt) or any other sort of accepted western clothing in ANY area in or around the Muslim ghettos that have sprung up in and around our cities, without fear of abuse and worse........

once again the traffic is only one way.......

The BURKA in BRITAIN IS A NO NO,as Lord foul says, try wearing tight jeans or low cut tops in Muslim countries around the Gulf, you will be Arrested or raped by sex crazed Arabs. I don't care what anyone says, it's worn in this country to take the piss and to tell us they can do what they want and we can't do anything about it ! I repeat it is Not required by Islam, its a way of repressing Women and I can't understand why our Women keep ignoring it.

Angry Andy wrote:What about the white hoodies that cover the faces of KKK members?

They're not exactly walking around the streets are they?

+1

Syl wrote:

magica wrote:

I think they should be banned. There's no place for burkas in Europe.  There's no religious reason why they wear them. In Syria they pulled them off and burned them after ISIS was defeated.

Well more westernised women insist they are not forced to wear it they choose to....so if that's the case, for whatever reason they choose to wear it, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so in peace?

I wonder how many people who condemn these women actually have ever had any contact with them ....other than scowl at them as they pass in the street minding their own business.

Well western women might want to walk around a Muslim country in low tops and shorts, see how far they get.

This is not a Muslim country yet. They can wear scarves. They wear the veils to make a point.

magica wrote:This is not a Muslim country yet. They can wear scarves. They wear the veils to make a point.

And the native American in your avvie, is his dress offensive?  Indeed, the attitude of anti-immigrant America toward Indians, is identical to your attitude about Muslims.

And before you reply that they weren't born here, they are native Americans.  They had this land far before the English.  It's English imposed borders, created just a few years ago, that dictate that they are foreigners.

They are the same people that Trump calls rapists, criminals and drug dealers, and is kidnapping their children.  They even still speak the same native language ... native American, despite being called Hispanics.

Granted, I'm talking about America.  But it is analogous because it's the identical argument you give for Muslims.

Lord Foul wrote:ahhh...but heres the rub, a western woman CANT wear skin tight leggings (even on a size 10 butt) or any other sort of accepted western clothing in ANY area in or around the Muslim ghettos that have sprung up in and around our cities, without fear of abuse and worse........

once again the traffic is only one way.......

There are ghetto's which have been taken over by Muslims, where a white woman (or man) isn't welcome there no matter how they dress. I live very near where one of the grooming scandals was taking place a few years ago....there were many reports of clashes between Muslims and none Muslims....mainly caused by people straying into the so called Muslim ghetto.

That's a police matter....no one should be abused in this country for what they wear, be it a burka or a skimpy leggings.

magica wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well more westernised women insist they are not forced to wear it they choose to....so if that's the case, for whatever reason they choose to wear it, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so in peace?

I wonder how many people who condemn these women actually have ever had any contact with them ....other than scowl at them as they pass in the street minding their own business.

Well western women might want to walk around a Muslim country in low tops and shorts, see how far they get.

This is not a Muslim country yet.  They can wear scarves. They wear the veils to make a point.

Thankfully we are not ruled by Sharia law here Mags, so it's pointless comparing our free country with countries that practice a law that we may think is barbaric.

Lord Foul wrote:ahhh...but heres the rub, a western woman CANT wear skin tight leggings (even on a size 10 butt) or any other sort of accepted western clothing in ANY area in or around the Muslim ghettos that have sprung up in and around our cities, without fear of abuse and worse........

once again the traffic is only one way.......

The reality here is this Victor

Those who wear the Burka, follow a very neo-conservative islam.

Salafism/Wahhabism

Its this very form of islam, that has brought about Al-Qaeda, ISIS etc

The doctrines are emphatically the same

Women who wear this believe that Homosexuals should be executed

They believe aspostates should be executed.

That women, not me, should be stonned to death for adultery

They believe that men can beat them up, if they do not obey their husbands.

They believe men can have sex with them and they must obey

I could go on, but they are taught basically to be subservant to their husbands and that they cannot even sit with men and often taught to look down on non-Muslims. Even worse they are brainwashed this is what some mythical god wants

This garment is a form of political control

The Taliban enforced women to wear the burka and still do

ISIS enforced women to wear the burka and still do

Its at the very root of evil found within Islamic extremism

And why countless people celebrated being free from ISIS by burning the Burka

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/islamic-state-syrian-women-burn-burqas-burkas-in-celebration-after-being-freed-from-isis-manbij-sdf-a7173671.html

Those I hear defending the burka, seriously have not got a clue on this. All they see is the case we are a liberal country and fail to see countless women are forced to wear this oppressive garment

Even a number of Muslim countries also ban the burka, because its not Islamic

Nicko has asked this very point and people keep evading it.

What is happenning here is those supporting, are supporting the most extreme forms of islam. Not the many Muslims who stand against it

Original Quill wrote:

magica wrote:This is not a Muslim country yet. They can wear scarves. They wear the veils to make a point.

And the native American in your avvie, is his dress offensive?  Indeed, the attitude of anti-immigrant America toward Indians, is identical to your attitude about Muslims.

And before you reply that they weren't born here, they are native Americans.  They had this land far before the English.  It's English imposed borders, created just a few years ago, that dictate that they are foreigners.

They are the same people that Trump calls rapists, criminals and drug dealers, and is kidnapping their children.  They even still speak the same native language ... native American, despite being called Hispanics.

Granted, I'm talking about America.  But it is analogous because it's the identical argument you give for Muslims.

It's not quite the same, is it? Although we in this country have undergone invasions by Vikings, Saxons, Romans and Normans, major Muslim enclaves are a relatively recent phenomenon and our national religion has been Christianity for some 1,500 years.

Repressive attitudes and behaviour towards women, apart from being illegal, are alien to our established Western culture and while we appear to be exhorted in some quarters to tolerate them "in the interests of social cohesion" I see no reason why we should be required to accept them without question.

And if that makes me a "racist", then so be it.

Moley, the term "racist" is meaningless anyway...its ONLY value today is an admission of failure to carry the argument, by the rabid leftys......

Syl wrote:

magica wrote:

Well western women might want to walk around a Muslim country in low tops and shorts, see how far they get.

This is not a Muslim country yet.  They can wear scarves. They wear the veils to make a point.

Thankfully we are not ruled by Sharia law here Mags, so it's pointless comparing our free country with countries that practice a law that we may think is barbaric.

Leicester? Luton (only a few miles from where I live)? There have already been demands by Muslim leaders in what are rapidly approaching the status of Muslim-controlled town and city local authorities for the incorporation of elements of Sharia Law into local bye-laws...and these would equally affect all residents.

Lord Foul wrote:Moley, the term "racist" is meaningless anyway...its ONLY value today is an admission of failure to carry the argument, by the rabid leftys......

+1

Lord Foul wrote:Moley, the term "racist" is meaningless anyway...its ONLY value today is an admission of failure to carry the argument, by the rabid leftys......

Someone has already given you one of those green things, so another one from me would be superfluous.

You are, of course, absolutely correct.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And the native American in your avvie, is his dress offensive?  Indeed, the attitude of anti-immigrant America toward Indians, is identical to your attitude about Muslims.

And before you reply that they weren't born here, they are native Americans.  They had this land far before the English.  It's English imposed borders, created just a few years ago, that dictate that they are foreigners.

They are the same people that Trump calls rapists, criminals and drug dealers, and is kidnapping their children.  They even still speak the same native language ... native American, despite being called Hispanics.

Granted, I'm talking about America.  But it is analogous because it's the identical argument you give for Muslims.

It's not quite the same, is it? Although we in this country have undergone invasions by Vikings, Saxons, Romans and Normans, major Muslim enclaves are a relatively recent phenomenon and our national religion has been Christianity for some 1,500 years.

Repressive attitudes and behaviour towards women, apart from being illegal, are alien to our established Western culture and while we appear to be exhorted in some quarters to tolerate them "in the interests of social cohesion" I see no reason why we should be required to accept them without question.

And if that makes me a "racist", then so be it.

Hi Fred. Welcome to the discussion.

I was anticipating that argument as I wrote (yes, I am most critical of myself and my ideas). Native Americans had the land first, and we Americans came along and snatched it away from them; thus it is utter hypocrisy to call them immigrants.

On the other hand, the Muslims came to your country of origin, true. But, tell me how those Pakistanis got the inclination to come to your island in the first place? What caused those people (of Pakistan) to feel that Britain was home? Don't we go back to the British Empire, and the British East India Company, and all those profits y'all took away in your dominion over them? Now they come home to Moma, and bad mother that you are, you slap them in the face.

I don't think you are racist. Or, if we whites are, it's a definition that was given to us by out ancestors. But, now that we live in that definitional schemata--that we, ourselves created--don't you think we ought to clean up before we leave? If we willingly and enthusiastically opened their home for everyone, we might at least offer our home to them.

Lord Foul wrote:Moley, the term "racist" is meaningless anyway...its ONLY value today is an admission of failure to carry the argument, by the rabid leftys......

Ah, but 'race' was a term alive and kicking when it meant profits for rich, white entrepreneurs of yesteryear.  We still live on that estate paid for on the backs of third-worlders, innit?  

Would it be rude of me to suggest that aging RW'ers are the ones who want to forget the term "racist" these days?  The chickens have come home to roost.  The younger generation is picking up steam with ideas of remediation.

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:Moley, the term "racist" is meaningless anyway...its ONLY value today is an admission of failure to carry the argument, by the rabid leftys......

Ah, but race was a term alive and kicking when it meant profits for rich, white entrepreneurs of yesteryear.  We still live on that estate paid for on the backs of third-worlders, innit?  

Would it be rude of me to suggest that aging RW'ers are the ones who want to forget the term "racist" these days?  The chickens have come home to roost.  The younger generation is picking up steam with ideas of remediation.

You call Boris a White Supremacist. Even though he is against the ban of the Burka. You do this everytime, you politicize everything with racism

Now Boris is a cock and uses public opinion to gain attention

That does not mean he is a white supremacist and all can see you claimed this yesterday

Its why I posted the meme, "shout racist"

The point Victor is trying to tell you, is that you make the term racism meaningless, when you cast anyone you disagree with as racist

You can be much better than that and used to be. You used to argue the points, not deligitimise those giving the opinion

Just saying