Should Boris be booted?

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

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.

nicko wrote:What a load of bollocks Quill,   you try to hide your ignorance with long words and" Lawyer Speak" it wont wash any more, you'v been rumbled  !!

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

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?

Muslim women also hate the full veil.   They ripped them off and burned the damned things when IS finally got defeated in their areas.    

Like I said, it's their choice.  Nobody is saying they can't wear them, not even Boris.  

As for God.  Nature gave us faces.   For a reason.  It's how we interact.   Taking that away from someone isn't emancipation.

One has to ask too why a woman would feel safer hidden beneath a full body veil?   The whole foundation of that is an affront to human rights.  

What makes me laugh is that certain Muslim countries would not afford the same freedom to non-Muslim women's 'rights' to not wear the veil in that country.   We'd have to adhere to their laws and societal shibboleths or face the consequences.   So all the pearl clutching over this is more than a little hypocritical.

Women have had a long hard fight to gain equality with men.   It's still ongoing.  

Merriam-Webster wrote:Definition of ethnocentric
: characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior
— ethnocentricity play  \ˌeth-nō-sen-ˈtri-sə-tē\ noun

Tommy Monk wrote:Am I free to say what I think somebody looks like... regarding how they are dressed... or not...?


Do I have a right to my personal opinion... and the freedom to express my view... or not...?


If people can wear what they want... without caring what the opinions of others are... then others can have opinions they want without caring too... can't they...?

magica wrote:What Boris said was true. We wouldn't walk around with balaclava on. How the hell they drive with slits beats me. How can you see clearly.

There's no place in Europe for these oppressive burkas.  If they want to wear them why didn't they stay in a Muslim country.

Syl wrote:You may not like them personally....Im not struck on fat white women wearing high cut tops and low slung jeans sporting a great expanse of white wrinkly belly, but if thats their choice let them get on with it.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Muslim women also hate the full veil.   They ripped them off and burned the damned things when IS finally got defeated in their areas.    

Like I said, it's their choice.  Nobody is saying they can't wear them, not even Boris.  

As for God.  Nature gave us faces.   For a reason.  It's how we interact.   Taking that away from someone isn't emancipation.

One has to ask too why a woman would feel safer hidden beneath a full body veil?   The whole foundation of that is an affront to human rights.  

What makes me laugh is that certain Muslim countries would not afford the same freedom to non-Muslim women's 'rights' to not wear the veil in that country.   We'd have to adhere to their laws and societal shibboleths or face the consequences.   So all the pearl clutching over this is more than a little hypocritical.

Women have had a long hard fight to gain equality with men.   It's still ongoing.  

So says the western white person.  And while we're at it, let's force feed them McDonald's hamburgers, Diet Coke and Twinkies.

God!  You Brits lag sooo far behind in your awareness of cultural anthropology.  What do they teach at your universities...how to build with blocks?  Did you honestly say: "Nature gave us faces.   For a reason."  Nature has intentions?  So, you are anthropomorphising nature?   Say 'Hi' to her (or is it him?) for me next time you speak.

Apparently, I wasn't clear in my previous post:

Merriam-Webster wrote:Definition of ethnocentric
: characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior
— ethnocentricity play  \ˌeth-nō-sen-ˈtri-sə-tē\ noun

Each culture has it's own values, beliefs and symbols.  No one culture is better than another.  One symbol of the Muslim culture is the burka.  But HT, you are of the opinion that your culture's symbols are superior.

So, let's put them in bikinis or force them to wear silly hats with bananas and grapes, as they are in the west now, and they should abide by western standards.  What makes you so superior?  Why are the silly hats worn in your country better than a burka?  The world as grown smaller--which you acknowledge and accept by being on a computer talking to someone in real time 6,000 miles away--so you've got to accept that you are going to bump into another culture now and then.

Your lilly-white culture ain't so great, anyway.  Inventors of thermonuclear weapons, FGS.

Tommy Monk wrote:He was commenting on the garments...

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:He was commenting on the garments...

He was commenting on the women who wear the garments.....

Didge wrote:I appluad Boris here for saying what needs to be said in regards to a symbol of oppression.

He was commenting on the women who wear it.

For once PC, had two fingers solidly stuck up to it and for once someone said the right thing.

You can call it not being PC, others would say he was treating the women with disdain.

I think women should be able to wear what they want, but I have every right to ridicule and be critical of Beliefs, that demean and subjucate women. The Burka is part of a barbaric belief system.

You can say what you want about the garment....leave the women alone.

Wahabbism

The burka is not religious, but political and is forced upon many women. Its a symbol of Wahhabism, that teaches hate against homosexuals, Jews, apostates, Non-Muslims etc etc.

Trying to dictate to people  what NOT to wear is as bad as trying to dictate what TO wear.

Thus anyone defending the Burka, is defending Wahhabism and Islamism

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

He was commenting on the women who wear the garments.....

So you think women look like a letter box without the Burka in his claim or the Burka itself when worn?

Clearly he is commenting on the oppressive Burka

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:I appluad Boris here for saying what needs to be said in regards to a symbol of oppression.

He was commenting on the women who wear it.

For once PC, had two fingers solidly stuck up to it and for once someone said the right thing.

You can call it not being PC, others would say he was treating the women with disdain.

I think women should be able to wear what they want, but I have every right to ridicule and be critical of Beliefs, that demean and subjucate women. The Burka is part of a barbaric belief system.

You can say what you want about the garment....leave the women alone.

Wahabbism

The burka is not religious, but political and is forced upon many women. Its a symbol of Wahhabism, that teaches hate against homosexuals, Jews, apostates, Non-Muslims etc etc.

Trying to dictate to people  what NOT to wear is as bad as trying to dictate what TO wear.

Thus anyone defending the Burka, is defending Wahhabism and Islamism

I defend a womans right to choose.
What next will be up for ridicule, Sikhs turbans, Indian sari's? The list could be endless....lets mock the people who dont dress like you do.

Tommy Monk wrote:Only as an extension of the fact that it is some moslem women who wear the garments...


It is often said that garments nuns wear makes them look like penguins... but never seen any 'outrage' about that...


But this is about the completely unnatural & unnecessary covering of the face...!


Not clothing in general.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you think women look like a letter box without the Burka in his claim or the Burka itself when worn?

Clearly he is commenting on the oppressive Burka

Clearly he either put his foot in his gob as per usual....or he has played a blinder by saying something lots of people (like him) agree with.

I dont like the burka, I think its ugly and restrictive, but I wouldn't ridicule the women who wear it saying they look like bank robbers and pillow boxes.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So says the western white person.  And while we're at it, let's force feed them McDonald's hamburgers, Diet Coke and Twinkies.

God!  You Brits lag sooo far behind in your awareness of cultural anthropology.  What do they teach at your universities...how to build with blocks?  Did you honestly say: "Nature gave us faces.   For a reason."  Nature has intentions?  So, you are anthropomorphising nature?   Say 'Hi' to her (or is it him?) for me next time you speak.

Apparently, I wasn't clear in my previous post:



Each culture has it's own values, beliefs and symbols.  No one culture is better than another.  One symbol of the Muslim culture is the burka.  But HT, you are of the opinion that your culture's symbols are superior.

So, let's put them in bikinis or force them to wear silly hats with bananas and grapes, as they are in the west now, and they should abide by western standards.  What makes you so superior?  Why are the silly hats worn in your country better than a burka?  The world as grown smaller--which you acknowledge and accept by being on a computer talking to someone in real time 6,000 miles away--so you've got to accept that you are going to bump into another culture now and then.

Your lilly-white culture ain't so great, anyway.  Inventors of thermonuclear weapons, FGS.

Oh, don't be silly.  You're not in the courtroom now trying to befuddle people with your logorrhoea

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Oh, don't be silly.  You're not in the courtroom now trying to befuddle people with your logorrhoea

No, I'm here reading your ridiculous, white supremacist contentions.  

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Only as an extension of the fact that it is some moslem women who wear the garments...


It is often said that garments nuns wear makes them look like penguins... but never seen any 'outrage' about that...


But this is about the completely unnatural & unnecessary covering of the face...!


Not clothing in general.

Nuns in general are respected in society. There is already an element of society that distrust Muslims....making derogatory remarks about the women who dress a certain way  is hardly the way to bring peace of mind to them is it?

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

I defend a womans right to choose.
What next will be up for ridicule, Sikhs turbans, Indian sari's? The list could be endless....lets mock the people who dont dress like you do.

1) He was commenting on the oppreessive garment

2) Well Wahhabism does treat already women with disdain, being the fact this garment is enforced upon women. With a view they cannot be seen together with a male, who is not a family member. They cannot sit together with men and even pray with them together in public. So to claim its treating women poorly to be critical of such an oppressive symbol of control and the demeasning of women. Is as fucked as an PC leftist can get

3) Nobody is attacking the women, but the belief, the sympbol and the fact it is used to oppress and control women

4) Lies, as again i am not trying to tell anyone what to wear, but rightly show what this outfit represents. Just as anyone would if someone was wearing a Nazi Uniform or the KKK outfit. They all represent hate and oppression

Hence I am not dictating anything, you invented that in your head. I am condemning the belief system and this garment is a symbol of this oppressive belief system, called Wahhabism

5) Then why are these women not standing up for those forced to wear?

Surely, if as you claim, they have a choice. Why are they not makingh a stand and choosing not wear, until women are not forced to wear?

That then would be a real choice, but they wont and do you know why?

Because those who wear this and follow Salafism, believe also that all Muslim women should be wearing this oppressive outfit.

They believe that Homosexuality should be punishable by death

They believe women should be stoned to death for adultery

That is the belief system you want to defend here through the symbol of this oppressive political garment

Again for the clearly very simple minded.

I have stated many times, its up to women what they want to wear.

I am being critical of what is being worn, because its a political symbol that oppresses women and that many women are being forced to wear.

You would rather have the small minute amount that claim to choose to want to wear, to have more rights here, over those forced to wear.

Now I do not think it should be banned and that reason is the best way to combat this hateful symbol, but think about what you are defending.

By saying you defend the right of this Salafist to wear and not banning. You are ensuring countless Muslim women will be condemned and be forced to wear..

Hence you place them second to those who claim to choose to wear. As if you banned this. Then no more women would be oppressed being forced to wear and it would then only inconvenience those who claim to want to

So what is better here for you in either case?

Go figure

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

Nuns in general are respected in society. There is already an element of society that distrust Muslims....making derogatory remarks about the women who dress a certain way  is hardly the way to bring peace of mind to them is it?

You are ignoring his point that Nuns have been ridiculed based on their attire

nicko wrote:Several Muslim Countries have banned the Burka,
Morocco, one of the most Muslim of Countries have banned it.    If Women want to wear it,let them fuck off to a Country that allows it.  [It frightens the Horses by the way]

Lord Foul wrote:It is OUR cultural more that faces should be visible.

lets face it western women are banned from wearing what THEY want when visiting Muslim countries , so......

or is the traffic only one way??

I for one would not under ANY circumstance interact with anyone wearing the full burka or even the one with the eye slits (whtever its called...) no probs with the ones that show the full face.

and No quill you cretin a beard does NOT hide facial expression to the extent of rendering the face unreadable, except in some (rare) extreme circumstances.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


1) He was commenting on the oppreessive garment

2) Well Wahhabism does treat already women with disdain, being the fact this garment is enforced upon women. With a view they cannot be seen together with a male, who is not a family member. They cannot sit together with men and even pray with them together in public. So to claim its treating women poorly to be critical of such an oppressive symbol of control and the demeasning of women. Is as fucked as an PC leftist can get

3) Nobody is attacking the women, but the belief, the sympbol and the fact it is used to oppress and control women

4) Lies, as again i am not trying to tell anyone what to wear, but rightly show what this outfit represents. Just as anyone would if someone was wearing a Nazi Uniform or the KKK outfit. They all represent hate and oppression

Hence I am not dictating anything, you invented that in your head. I am condemning the belief system and this garment is a symbol of this oppressive belief system, called Wahhabism

5) Then why are these women not standing up for those forced to wear?

Surely, if as you claim, they have a choice. Why are they not makingh a stand and choosing not wear, until women are not forced to wear?

That then would be a real choice, but they wont and do you know why?

Because those who wear this and follow Salafism, believe also that all Muslim women should be wearing this oppressive outfit.

They believe that Homosexuality should be punishable by death

They believe women should be stoned to death for adultery

That is the belief system you want to defend here through the symbol of this oppressive political garment

Again for the clearly very simple minded.

I have stated many times, its up to women what they want to wear.

I am being critical of what is being worn, because its a political symbol that oppresses women and that many women are being forced to wear.

You would rather have the small minute amount that claim to choose to want to wear, to have more rights here, over those forced to wear.

Now I do not think it should be banned and that reason is the best way to combat this hateful symbol, but think about what you are defending.

By saying you defend the right of this Salafist to wear and not banning. You are ensuring countless Muslim women will be condemned and be forced to wear..

Hence you place them second to those who claim to choose to wear. As if you banned this. Then no more women would be oppressed being forced to wear and it would then only inconvenience those who claim to want to

So what is better here for you in either case?

Go figure

I haven't told any lies, I was speaking generally, why do you always take things so personally?
Women will state freely that it is their choice to wear the burka......it isnt banned here, so why constantly ridicule the women who choose to wear it?.
Some say it gives them a feeling of security and safety, they dont want to be looked at by men in the street....if thats their choice leave them alone.

If a woman IS being forced to wear it (as you keep insisting they are) the rot is set far deeper than an item of clothing, and there is help for women in the UK if they ask for it.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


You are ignoring his point that Nuns have been ridiculed based on their attire

I certainly havent ever read of a senior politician make fun of them or their attire.
I havent read of any nuns being attacked in the street because of the clothes they are wearing....have you?

Syl wrote:I have answered all your points.
If you think I am spending the evening repeating myself whilst you spend the evening demanding answers to questions I have already answered....tough.

Last time....If a woman wants to wear a burka, thats her right in the UK.
I will happily defend that right....end of.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

I certainly havent ever read of a senior politician make fun of them or their attire.
I havent read of any nuns being attacked in the street because of the clothes they are wearing....have you?

Copout alert and again avoiding his point

Your arguments are very weak and even here Tommy has dealt you a hammer blow

Try again

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


Copout alert and again avoiding his point

Your arguments are very weak and even here Tommy has dealt you a hammer blow

Try again

Tommy is well able to answer himself if he isn't happy with an interaction...stop trying to garner support to back your own views up, you do that a lot.

Didge wrote:I appluad Boris here for saying what needs to be said in regards to a symbol of oppression.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

Tommy is well able to answer himself if he isn't happy with an interaction...stop trying to garner support to back your own views up, you do that a lot.

He is able to answer for himself, maybe you should actually try answering

Now continue to post more, you are now on ignore on this. Mainly as you are not debating but continually avoiding

Plus you need to get your head examined for continually defending a symbol of oppressive beliefs.

Good luck with that

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I appluad Boris here for saying what needs to be said in regards to a symbol of oppression.

Good.  Do you also applaud Boris' white-nationalism?  Boris doesn't give a shit about oppression...he thrives in it.  All this about the burka is a red herring.

He hates people of color.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, I'm here reading your ridiculous, white supremacist contentions.  

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

It's always been about racism.  Have you been on vacation?

Any thread about Boris is about white-nationalism.  It's what he stands for.

Lord Foul wrote:It is OUR cultural more that faces should be visible.

lets face it western women are banned from wearing what THEY want when visiting Muslim countries , so......

or is the traffic only one way??

Lord Foul wrote:I for one would not under ANY circumstance interact with anyone wearing the full burka or even the one with the eye slits (whtever its called...) no probs with the ones that show the full face.

and No quill you cretin a beard does NOT hide facial expression to the extent of rendering the face unreadable, except in some (rare) extreme circumstances.

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/

Telegraph wrote:One day, I am sure, they will go.

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.