The hidden hand of the left

darknessss wrote:Nigel Farage challenged the Labour Party to explain its segregated meeting earlier this weekend. The BBC's Andrew Neil put the questions to Labour MP Luciana Berger. You won't believe her response...

[url=

(function(d, s, id) {  var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];  if (d.getElementById(id)) return;  js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;  js.src = "https://connect.facebook.net/en_GB/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3";  fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Nigel Farage challenged the Labour Party to explain its segregated meeting earlier this weekend. The BBC's Andrew Neil put the questions to Labour MP Luciana Berger. You won't believe her response... SHARE it...

Posted by Nigel Farage on Monday, 4 May 2015

]

(function(d, s, id) {  var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];  if (d.getElementById(id)) return;  js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;  js.src = "https://connect.facebook.net/en_GB/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3";  fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Nigel Farage challenged the Labour Party to explain its segregated meeting earlier this weekend. The BBC's Andrew Neil put the questions to Labour MP Luciana Berger. You won't believe her response... SHARE it...

Posted by Nigel Farage on Monday, 4 May 2015

[/url]

darknessss wrote:Tee hee korban...i made a right pigs ear of that didnt I ...ah well.....

darknessss wrote:It was also a labour meeting (hint a political...not religious meeting)

she cant excuse it and certainly fails to explain it....

2 things come to mind here

first , how funny it is when the other parties get a dose of their opwn treatment
and
second...labours hidden hand


WHY is  a POLITICAL meeting, even IF it involves or is for Muslims, allowed in secualr britain to be segregated, by of all parties the ONE supposedly all in favour of "equality

clearly equality is a "negotiable variable" to the left...

just like the rest of the law

vis rotherham etc....

veya_victaous wrote:it is odd, here i think they wouldn't have done it but they don't do Muslim specific Political events either, in some areas they would expect a large Muslim turn out, but it wouldn't be a segregated.

Her response was pretty good actually.

darknessss wrote:
pander pander

one law for "them" and another for us

I guess you advocate the intrduction of sharia law parallel to statute and common law

I assume you would allow public stoning if the "Muslim populace wanted it that way"

all in the name of equality of course

the law is the law

and applies to everyone and everywhere in the given jurisdiction equally

no exceptions no ifs and buts

Tommy Monk wrote:A moderate leftie is like a moderate Muslim... both appearing as quite pleasant, easy going, relaxed and of promises of 'better times' if you follow their 'way'...


Then when you look at the reality of where 'their ways' lead to...



Both are fundamentally totalitarian and authoritarian regimes leading to misery, pain, suffering, hunger, deprivation, brutality. torture, death, destruction...



...you can start to understand why they are natural bed fellows now... and have a close connection in the past...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

No, we're not going to make public stoning and seating women and men apart from one another into the same thing. I see nothing wrong with the sort of voluntary Sharia that Western countries sometimes allow Muslims to use if all parties agree to use it.

Gender segregation happens in some Christian churches and, for that matter, the UK still has boys-only and girls-only boarding schools, right?

I see no reason for controversy over this. Their beliefs led to a seating chart, big deal!

veya_victaous wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

No, we're not going to make public stoning and seating women and men apart from one another into the same thing. I see nothing wrong with the sort of voluntary Sharia that Western countries sometimes allow Muslims to use if all parties agree to use it.

Gender segregation happens in some Christian churches and, for that matter, the UK still has boys-only and girls-only boarding schools, right?

I see no reason for controversy over this. Their beliefs led to a seating chart, big deal!

the problem is what if non Muslim (or Muslim) women walked in and wanted to site in the middle?
Do those men have a right to deny her?

My answer is no, they need to get with the program that we are all equal and don't segregate. their personal beliefs have No baring on public policy. Seats at public meeting are on a first come first served basis  

risingsun wrote:Segregation is against the law?  Really?  Funny it is practiced in all synagogues.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

the problem is what if non Muslim (or Muslim) women walked in and wanted to site in the middle?
Do those men have a right to deny her?

My answer is no, they need to get with the program that we are all equal and don't segregate. their personal beliefs have No baring on public policy. Seats at public meeting are on a first come first served basis  

Well, and that goes back to how we really have no context on this meeting in the first place. Was it specifically for Muslims? It seemed to be. Did anybody try to sit in anybody else's section and be refused? We don't know. Did any of the women complain that they were being treated as inferior because they couldn't sit with men? Did any of the men complain they were being treated as inferior because they couldn't sit with women?

darknessss wrote:

risingsun wrote:Segregation is against the law?  Really?  Funny it is practiced in all synagogues.

yes yes sassy we know you dislike the jews...

I suppose then that if my local labour mp had a meeting it would be ok to keep  gays out in the lobby if the Muslims objected?

I happen to find religious segregation wrong no matter where practiced
I happen to find having "laws for them and laws for us" abhorrent

and yes Ben

at teh bottom line segregation IS the same as stoning

its one law for us and one for them....

IF they wish to live here....they accept, fully and unconditionally OUR laws......why is that so difficult for a lefty

darknessss wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

the problem is what if non Muslim (or Muslim) women walked in and wanted to site in the middle?
Do those men have a right to deny her?

My answer is no, they need to get with the program that we are all equal and don't segregate. their personal beliefs have No baring on public policy. Seats at public meeting are on a first come first served basis  

Well, and that goes back to how we really have no context on this meeting in the first place. Was it specifically for Muslims? It seemed to be. Did anybody try to sit in anybody else's section and be refused? We don't know. Did any of the women complain that they were being treated as inferior because they couldn't sit with men? Did any of the men complain they were being treated as inferior because they couldn't sit with women?

and that folks, is a great demonstration of the left justifying the unjustifiable

darknessss wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Well, and that goes back to how we really have no context on this meeting in the first place. Was it specifically for Muslims?
If it WAS a political meeting "specifically for Muslims" that that in and of itself is suspect.....

It seemed to be. Did anybody try to sit in anybody else's section and be refused? We don't know. Did any of the women complain that they were being treated as inferior because they couldn't sit with men? Did any of the men complain they were being treated as inferior because they couldn't sit with women?
and the rest as they say ...is purely "make weight commentary"

and that folks, is a great demonstration of the left justifying the unjustifiable

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:

and that folks, is a great demonstration of the left justifying the unjustifiable

"Unjustifiable"?! It's a seating chart. You have men's-only clubs in Britain, I assume you're OK with that?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:

and that folks, is a great demonstration of the left justifying the unjustifiable

"Unjustifiable"?! It's a seating chart. You have men's-only clubs in Britain, I assume you're OK with that?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:

yes yes sassy we know you dislike the jews...

I suppose then that if my local labour mp had a meeting it would be ok to keep  gays out in the lobby if the Muslims objected?

I happen to find religious segregation wrong no matter where practiced
I happen to find having "laws for them and laws for us" abhorrent

and yes Ben

at teh bottom line segregation IS the same as stoning

its one law for us and one for them....

IF they wish to live here....they accept, fully and unconditionally OUR laws......why is that so difficult for a lefty

Or what, you feel like your power is threatened? Because of how people want to sit at a meeting?

Ben_Reilly wrote:There are still a few Pall Mall men's only clubs, and just a few years ago there were more.

I don't understand why you have such a problem with this. On one side, you're saying it's unequal, but wouldn't it also be unequal to dictate to them how they could seat themselves?

No harm has been done here whatsoever.

Nemesis wrote:Maybe he is sick and tired of the utter hypocrisy by some of the left, just like I am.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:Maybe he is sick and tired of the utter hypocrisy by some of the left, just like I am.

How is it hypocritical to have a large group of people, all of the same religion, come into a building and say, "We'd prefer to sit with men on one side, women on the other" and you say "fine, sit however you want" ?

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:There are still a few Pall Mall men's only clubs, and just a few years ago there were more.

I don't understand why you have such a problem with this. On one side, you're saying it's unequal, but wouldn't it also be unequal to dictate to them how they could seat themselves?

No harm has been done here whatsoever.

The men only clubs are outdated and wrong which means you also think they are wrong, so why are you not condemning this segregation done so to appease some backward people who certainly look down on women.
Is it respectful to segregate women, or insulting them?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:There are still a few Pall Mall men's only clubs, and just a few years ago there were more.

I don't understand why you have such a problem with this. On one side, you're saying it's unequal, but wouldn't it also be unequal to dictate to them how they could seat themselves?

No harm has been done here whatsoever.

The men only clubs are outdated and wrong which means you also think they are wrong, so why are you not condemning this segregation done so to appease some backward people who certainly look down on women.
Is it respectful to segregate women, or insulting them?

I don't know that I necessarily think men's-only clubs are automatically wrong. We have women-only gyms in the U.S., I have no problem with it.

I think the men at this assembly were just as segregated as the women were, by the way Again -- show me where harm has been done. Show me how those women suffered having to sit with other women and hear a candidate talk to them.

risingsun wrote:Segregation is against the law?  Really?  Funny it is practiced in all synagogues.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


The men only clubs are outdated and wrong which means you also think they are wrong, so why are you not condemning this segregation done so to appease some backward people who certainly look down on women.
Is it respectful to segregate women, or insulting them?

I don't know that I necessarily think men's-only clubs are automatically wrong. We have women-only gyms in the U.S., I have no problem with it.

I think the men at this assembly were just as segregated as the women were, by the way Again -- show me where harm has been done. Show me how those women suffered having to sit with other women and hear a candidate talk to them.

Nemesis wrote:

risingsun wrote:Segregation is against the law?  Really?  Funny it is practiced in all synagogues.

And done so in Mosques, all of which is wrong, again religion being again the problem
You do not excuse one but complaining about another, when you should be condemning both.
The problem of religion rearing its ugly head again

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

How is it hypocritical to have a large group of people, all of the same religion, come into a building and say, "We'd prefer to sit with men on one side, women on the other" and you say "fine, sit however you want" ?

Because its the 21st century, not the 7th century.
This is Britain where people should not have to segregated on religious grounds
Are you saying people should to pander to a backward belief that discriminates against women?

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


The men only clubs are outdated and wrong which means you also think they are wrong, so why are you not condemning this segregation done so to appease some backward people who certainly look down on women.
Is it respectful to segregate women, or insulting them?

I don't know that I necessarily think men's-only clubs are automatically wrong. We have women-only gyms in the U.S., I have no problem with it.

I think the men at this assembly were just as segregated as the women were, by the way Again -- show me where harm has been done. Show me how those women suffered having to sit with other women and hear a candidate talk to them.

So basically you approve of outdated discriminating practices which call for women to be segregated due to a religious belief, wow says it all about what kind of person you are Ben.
What doert of message is that portraying to have people segregated because of their sex where they come to meed together?
I have no problem with women only gyms, but that is done for a valid reason, not to segregate when both sexes come together at an event. which you seem to fail to grasp

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


And done so in Mosques, all of which is wrong, again religion being again the problem
You do not excuse one but complaining about another, when you should be condemning both.
The problem of religion rearing its ugly head again

But religious beliefs are opinions, and we have the right to our own opinions.

I swear, people tell me the left is totalitarian and then you come up with thought-police bullshit like this ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:



So basically you approve of outdated discriminating practices which call for women to be segregated due to a religious belief, wow says it all about what kind of person you are Ben.
What doert of message is that portraying to have people segregated because of their sex where they come to meed together?
I have no problem with women only gyms, but that is done for a valid reason, not to segregate when both sexes come together at an event. which you seem to fail to grasp

They were sitting on opposite sides of the same room, for Christ's sake. They were all there in the building together.

How do you know the women there weren't just as much in favor of gender-segregated seating as the men were?

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'm not saying I agree with them, or that I'd set up the room that way. But until someone can show me that's not how they all wanted to sit, I really don't see why everyone's pissing themselves over it.

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


And done so in Mosques, all of which is wrong, again religion being again the problem
You do not excuse one but complaining about another, when you should be condemning both.
The problem of religion rearing its ugly head again

But religious beliefs are opinions, and we have the right to our own opinions.

I swear, people tell me the left is totalitarian and then you come up with thought-police bullshit like this ...

So you are saying that people have a right to an opinion that places and degrades women based on myths?

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'm not saying I agree with them, or that I'd set up the room that way. But until someone can show me that's not how they all wanted to sit, I really don't see why everyone's pissing themselves over it.

How about they respect that this is Britain where we do not separate sexes due to myths
If this is how the adults believe and behave what sort if chance do their children grow up with where they are basically taught they are inferior to men to the point they cannot sit next to them?
This goes for all faiths, not just Muslims

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


How about they respect that this is Britain where we do not separate sexes due to myths
If this is how the adults believe and behave what sort if chance do their children grow up with where they are basically taught they are inferior to men to the point they cannot sit next to them?
This goes for all faiths, not just Muslims

You most certainly do separate sexes in Britain, in certain circumstances. You still have all-boys and all-girls schools. I've pointed out already that you have men's-only clubs.

And where do you get the idea that this segregation was done on a belief in female inferiority in the first place?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


So you are saying that people have a right to an opinion that places and degrades women based on myths?

That is exactly what I'm saying. You have the right to any opinion you form. I'm not saying you can force others to live by your opinion, but yes, you do have the right to believe in nasty ideas.

Also, your premise seems to be that the women have been degrading by being seated opposite the men. I don't see how that's actually degrading, for one. You might have actually degraded them a lot worse if you forced them to do something they didn't believe in.