Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The end of an era. Sir Paul Dacre is said to have edited his l

135

Comments

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    Right - a bit of a mish mash of a post, let me try to unpick it.

    You don't want a burka ban but are open to "alternatives to stamp it out" because of the harm it does.

    What harm does a woman walking along the road, face all but fully covered, do to you? Not to "society", but to you?

    As for equality before the law, I don't necessarily disagree. I have no idea what the Barclays Bank policy on face coverings is but perhaps it discriminates by saying that for religious reasons, burkas are fine.

    Perhaps they took a leaf out of these guys' book and understood that there is a religious sensitivity out there.

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/11/article-2246410-16760C46000005DC-118_634x426.jpg

    Look, you don't like the burqa. It makes you think that the woman is insulting you, personally, Philip Thompson (if that's your name). Totally understandable. But that is the society we have chosen to live in where people can make such choices without needing to worry about whether they insult sn*wfl*k*s.

    Not damage to me. To her. By her oppressors. I oppose abuse and oppression but you can't even see it.

    I couldn't give a flying f##k about religious sensitivity. This is the 21st century not the 11th. Medieval practices and sensibilities belong in the past.
    Plenty of women choose to wear it.
  • kingbongokingbongo Posts: 393

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.

    --snip--

    .

    No, Johnson has expressed a liberal opinion explaining in essence that he does not think that a tiny minority of Muslim women should be banned from covering themselves from head to toe, while at the same time making his personal distaste at their choices very clear. In the meantime, it was apparently OK for Stephen Fry and Paul Merton on HIGNFY or Polly Toynbee to rightly ridicule such choices.
    https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/

    --snip--
    Johnson insulted a section of society. He happened to use (surely a coincidence) the language of the far right in likening those who wear the niqab* to letterboxes. That is rude, bullying and, as the MCB bloke pointed out this morning, inflammatory. Because you know, if a senior politician can insult women who are minding their own business on the streets of London, then racist thugs can insult them and all is cushty, right?

    *niqab/burka I'm sure the BNP don't give a toss about the difference.
    The far right like Stephen Fry?
    I'm certainly not going to google it but knock yourself out to see which end of the political spectrum the trope of "letterbox" sits most happily.
    Yes anyone with decency who thinks oppressing women is unacceptable. Like Stephen Fry but unlike you sadly it seems.
    Would banning the burqa reduce oppression? Might it not lead to women who currently wear it not being able to leave the house as often?
    That's the only reason I see to oppose the bans in Denmark, France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
    I work in Nørrebro - the part of Copenhagen you don't see in travel pieces about the wonders of Denmark - walking to work I would regularly see two to three women in niquabs and occasionally the full face net thing - since the ban, not one - either those women have switched to a scarf, no head covering at all or they are not allowed to leave home - suspect the latter is more common than we would like to think.

    There is now a proposal that instead of fines people would lose access to the social security they get if not working, on the grounds that they are purposefully excluding themselves from the job market. I suspect it will end up with both.
  • No not to mock the women, to mock the object of their oppression.

    Johnson did not mock the oppressor, he mocked the oppressed. He laughed at the way they look - or, as you would have it, are forced to look.

    Yes mocking oppression is a good thing. That's not the way they look we don't know what they look like as we can't see them.

    Standing by to oppression is not a good thing. Equating oppression to being a mere fashion choice is far worse.

    Let’s all laugh at slaves!!!

    Absolutely let's laugh at slavery. Slavery is not acceptable and a slavery ban is reasonable. The burka is quite comparable to slavery I agree.

    Illiberal people like TOPPING calling the burka and niqab a fashion choice are like those saying slavery is good for the slaves.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Right - a bit of a mish mash of a post, let me try to unpick it.

    You don't want a burka ban but are open to "alternatives to stamp it out" because of the harm it does.

    What harm does a woman walking along the road, face all but fully covered, do to you? Not to "society", but to you?

    As for equality before the law, I don't necessarily disagree. I have no idea what the Barclays Bank policy on face coverings is but perhaps it discriminates by saying that for religious reasons, burkas are fine.

    Perhaps they took a leaf out of these guys' book and understood that there is a religious sensitivity out there.

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/11/article-2246410-16760C46000005DC-118_634x426.jpg

    Look, you don't like the burqa. It makes you think that the woman is insulting you, personally, Philip Thompson (if that's your name). Totally understandable. But that is the society we have chosen to live in where people can make such choices without needing to worry about whether they insult sn*wfl*k*s.

    Not damage to me. To her. By her oppressors. I oppose abuse and oppression but you can't even see it.

    I couldn't give a flying f##k about religious sensitivity. This is the 21st century not the 11th. Medieval practices and sensibilities belong in the past.
    Plenty of women choose to wear it.
    You know its their choice how?

    Plenty of women stay in abusive relationships too. Doesn't stop it being abuse.
  • No not to mock the women, to mock the object of their oppression.

    Johnson did not mock the oppressor, he mocked the oppressed. He laughed at the way they look - or, as you would have it, are forced to look.

    Yes mocking oppression is a good thing. That's not the way they look we don't know what they look like as we can't see them.

    Standing by to oppression is not a good thing. Equating oppression to being a mere fashion choice is far worse.

    Let’s all laugh at slaves!!!

    Absolutely let's laugh at slavery. Slavery is not acceptable and a slavery ban is reasonable. The burka is quite comparable to slavery I agree.

    Illiberal people like TOPPING calling the burka and niqab a fashion choice are like those saying slavery is good for the slaves.

    Ha, ha slave, look at you in your rags and chains, don’t you look stupid!!??

  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    stodge - I suspect that is largely true. Unfortunately Boris didn't really appear to open that debate up. If you are going to offend people make sure you do it properly or it will be counter-productive.

    Political correctness gets a bad name. But there is clearly a way to address these issues in a better fashion. The concern I have is that like with Trump in America a lot of voters will simply opt for the person who is saying 'something' as opposed to those saying 'nothing' even if that person does it in a cack-handed way.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959

    Johnson is playing a blinder. He wants to be Prime Minister. He knows:

    1. That regardless of how it turns out Brexit will be damned as a betrayal
    2. That the next leader will have to lead the country through a political mess
    3. That he is pro-leave enough to carry the ERG and just about sane/populist enough to carry the relative moderates
    4. That dog whistle racism works rather well amongst many Tory voters.
    5. That Tory MPs (the mk1 electorate) listen to Tory members (the mk2 electorate) who listen to Tory voters

    He pitched his initial comments just on the right side of outrage - watch as people line up beside him to defend the right to abuse women/muslims. And the tea tray was brilliant - "I'm not commenting. But I'll humbly bring you all a brew in a charming mishmash of mugs to make me look human"

    4. That "dog whistle racism" probably reflects the views of far more current Labour voters than you would care to admit. And far more of them are likely to consider voting for Boris as a result than you would care to admit.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704

    No not to mock the women, to mock the object of their oppression.

    Johnson did not mock the oppressor, he mocked the oppressed. He laughed at the way they look - or, as you would have it, are forced to look.

    Yes mocking oppression is a good thing. That's not the way they look we don't know what they look like as we can't see them.

    Standing by to oppression is not a good thing. Equating oppression to being a mere fashion choice is far worse.

    Let’s all laugh at slaves!!!

    Absolutely let's laugh at slavery. Slavery is not acceptable and a slavery ban is reasonable. The burka is quite comparable to slavery I agree.

    Illiberal people like TOPPING calling the burka and niqab a fashion choice are like those saying slavery is good for the slaves.

    Ha, ha slave, look at you in your rags and chains, don’t you look stupid!!??

    A slave doesn't have the power to change their position. The muslim community and the women (indirectly) do.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Johnson is playing a blinder. He wants to be Prime Minister. He knows:

    1. That regardless of how it turns out Brexit will be damned as a betrayal
    2. That the next leader will have to lead the country through a political mess
    3. That he is pro-leave enough to carry the ERG and just about sane/populist enough to carry the relative moderates
    4. That dog whistle racism works rather well amongst many Tory voters.
    5. That Tory MPs (the mk1 electorate) listen to Tory members (the mk2 electorate) who listen to Tory voters

    He pitched his initial comments just on the right side of outrage - watch as people line up beside him to defend the right to abuse women/muslims. And the tea tray was brilliant - "I'm not commenting. But I'll humbly bring you all a brew in a charming mishmash of mugs to make me look human"

    4. That "dog whistle racism" probably reflects the views of far more current Labour voters than you would care to admit. And far more of them are likely to consider voting for Boris as a result than you would care to admit.
    'Marquee Mark' being a well known expert on Labour voters.

    LOL.


  • 4. That "dog whistle racism" probably reflects the views of far more current Labour voters than you would care to admit. And far more of them are likely to consider voting for Boris as a result than you would care to admit.

    Indeed. All the more reason why the Tories need to give him the gig.

  • If Johnson had mocked the men who force women to wear the burqa and the niqab it would have been brave and bold. But Johnson is scared of them. So he chose to mock the women instead. He laughed at them. That’s what he is.


  • 4. That "dog whistle racism" probably reflects the views of far more current Labour voters than you would care to admit. And far more of them are likely to consider voting for Boris as a result than you would care to admit.

    Indeed. All the more reason why the Tories need to give him the gig.

    Yep, there are many more votes in Islamophobia than in anti-Semitism.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    Anazina said:

    Johnson is playing a blinder. He wants to be Prime Minister. He knows:

    1. That regardless of how it turns out Brexit will be damned as a betrayal
    2. That the next leader will have to lead the country through a political mess
    3. That he is pro-leave enough to carry the ERG and just about sane/populist enough to carry the relative moderates
    4. That dog whistle racism works rather well amongst many Tory voters.
    5. That Tory MPs (the mk1 electorate) listen to Tory members (the mk2 electorate) who listen to Tory voters

    He pitched his initial comments just on the right side of outrage - watch as people line up beside him to defend the right to abuse women/muslims. And the tea tray was brilliant - "I'm not commenting. But I'll humbly bring you all a brew in a charming mishmash of mugs to make me look human"

    4. That "dog whistle racism" probably reflects the views of far more current Labour voters than you would care to admit. And far more of them are likely to consider voting for Boris as a result than you would care to admit.
    'Marquee Mark' being a well known expert on Labour voters.

    LOL.
    I've got decades of canvassing expertise me.

    You?
  • If Johnson had mocked the men who force women to wear the burqa and the niqab it would have been brave and bold. But Johnson is scared of them. So he chose to mock the women instead. He laughed at them. That’s what he is.

    He's appalling. But thats irrelevant - appalling is electable...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited August 2018
    Anazina said:

    It helps by denormalising the garment. It's not acceptable to oppress women. Its not insulting women to call out when they are abused.

    When and where did the phrase "call out" become acceptable English? I see and hear it everywhere these days. It's just another of those horrible neologisms that passes into the language and demeans it.
    I'm not sure when but considering it's in the dictionary that time has been and gone. It is standard British English now so there is nothing horrible about it.

    http://www.macmillandictionary.com/amp/dictionary/british/call-out_1
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    Tedious as I find the Anglo obsession with a fictional Swiss/Scotch secret agent, perhaps a momentary distraction from Burqas can be enjoyed laughing at Richard 'dick' Spencer.

    https://twitter.com/JaneyGodley/status/1028855662435033088
  • If Johnson had mocked the men who force women to wear the burqa and the niqab it would have been brave and bold. But Johnson is scared of them. So he chose to mock the women instead. He laughed at them. That’s what he is.

    He's appalling. But thats irrelevant - appalling is electable...

    Yep, I agree. And given that the only way to prevent white supremacist huggers like Johnson shaping the future is to have an electable Labour party, it’s vital to defeat the far-left.

  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Anazina said:

    Johnson is playing a blinder. He wants to be Prime Minister. He knows:

    1. That regardless of how it turns out Brexit will be damned as a betrayal
    2. That the next leader will have to lead the country through a political mess
    3. That he is pro-leave enough to carry the ERG and just about sane/populist enough to carry the relative moderates
    4. That dog whistle racism works rather well amongst many Tory voters.
    5. That Tory MPs (the mk1 electorate) listen to Tory members (the mk2 electorate) who listen to Tory voters

    He pitched his initial comments just on the right side of outrage - watch as people line up beside him to defend the right to abuse women/muslims. And the tea tray was brilliant - "I'm not commenting. But I'll humbly bring you all a brew in a charming mishmash of mugs to make me look human"

    4. That "dog whistle racism" probably reflects the views of far more current Labour voters than you would care to admit. And far more of them are likely to consider voting for Boris as a result than you would care to admit.
    'Marquee Mark' being a well known expert on Labour voters.

    LOL.
    I've got decades of canvassing expertise me.

    You?
    I come from a family of Labour voters, and from a community of them.

    What I find more abhorrent in your posts on this topic is your implied legitimising of dog-whistling. Some people on this forum are so pathetically partisan it blinds them to any moral judgement. This appears to be what has happened here.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Lymphoma does seem to have substantially increased in incidence over recent decades.

    https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/93/7/494/2906510
    My father died just a few weeks ago of a form of non-Hodgkins lymphoma; he was a keen gardener and an enthusiastic user of Roundup. My family was quite surprised that he died of a disease apparently unrelated to his heavy drinking and smoking.
    My condolences on your loss.

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:


    Johnson insulted a section of society. He happened to use (surely a coincidence) the language of the far right in likening those who wear the niqab* to letterboxes. That is rude, bullying and, as the MCB bloke pointed out this morning, inflammatory. Because you know, if a senior politician can insult women who are minding their own business on the streets of London, then racist thugs can insult them and all is cushty, right?

    *niqab/burka I'm sure the BNP don't give a toss about the difference.
    The far right like Stephen Fry?
    I'm certainly not going to google it but knock yourself out to see which end of the political spectrum the trope of "letterbox" sits most happily.
    Yes anyone with decency who thinks oppressing women is unacceptable. Like Stephen Fry but unlike you sadly it seems.
    Would banning the burqa reduce oppression? Might it not lead to women who currently wear it not being able to leave the house as often?
    That's the only reason I see to oppose the bans in Denmark, France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
    If women are forced to stay indoors is that not a form of coercive control? We have laws against that in this country. We should be enforcing them not enabling such coercive control to continue, surely.
  • Johnson is playing a blinder. He wants to be Prime Minister. He knows:

    1. That regardless of how it turns out Brexit will be damned as a betrayal
    2. That the next leader will have to lead the country through a political mess
    3. That he is pro-leave enough to carry the ERG and just about sane/populist enough to carry the relative moderates
    4. That dog whistle racism works rather well amongst many Tory voters.
    5. That Tory MPs (the mk1 electorate) listen to Tory members (the mk2 electorate) who listen to Tory voters

    He pitched his initial comments just on the right side of outrage - watch as people line up beside him to defend the right to abuse women/muslims. And the tea tray was brilliant - "I'm not commenting. But I'll humbly bring you all a brew in a charming mishmash of mugs to make me look human"

    4. That "dog whistle racism" probably reflects the views of far more current Labour voters than you would care to admit. And far more of them are likely to consider voting for Boris as a result than you would care to admit.
    As an andecote. Boris's comments have achieved cut through to people that very rarely discuss politics
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    What's interesting about the Burqa Boris farrago is the same people who put French flags in their Facebook profiles and went about hashtagging jesuischarlie are now calling Boris a bigot.

    Support for the Charlie Hebdo victims was quite literally support for a magazine which took the piss out of the Prophet Mohammed.

    That's worse than what Boris did. So why is it okay to support them and not Boris?

    I guess it's because Boris is a Tory and a Brexiteer.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,911

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.

    Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.

    Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.

    No, Johnson has expressed a liberal opinion explaining in essence that he does not think that a tiny minority of Muslim women should be banned from covering themselves from head to toe, while at the same time making his personal distaste at their choices very clear. In the meantime, it was apparently OK for Stephen Fry and Paul Merton on HIGNFY or Polly Toynbee to rightly ridicule such choices.
    https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/

    As for the Muslim Council of Britain, if you are going to hang on their every word are you also then prepared to endorse their support for Sharia courts and the resultant oppression of womens rights in the UK?
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sharia-law-uk-courts-muslim-women-rights-few-compared-islamic-countries-religious-rulings-quran-a8064796.html
    Johnson insulted a section of society. He happened to use (surely a coincidence) the language of the far right in likening those who wear the niqab* to letterboxes. That is rude, bullying and, as the MCB bloke pointed out this morning, inflammatory. Because you know, if a senior politician can insult women who are minding their own business on the streets of London, then racist thugs can insult them and all is cushty, right?

    *niqab/burka I'm sure the BNP don't give a toss about the difference.
    The far right like Stephen Fry?
    I'm certainly not going to google it but knock yourself out to see which end of the political spectrum the trope of "letterbox" sits most happily.
    Yes anyone with decency who thinks oppressing women is unacceptable. Like Stephen Fry but unlike you sadly it seems.
    and your outrage about the Burqa is motivated by concern for oppressed muslim women? Pull the other one mate.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Anazina said:

    It helps by denormalising the garment. It's not acceptable to oppress women. Its not insulting women to call out when they are abused.

    When and where did the phrase "call out" become acceptable English? I see and hear it everywhere these days. It's just another of those horrible neologisms that passes into the language and demeans it.
    I'm not sure when but considering it's in the dictionary that time has been and gone. It is standard British English now so there is nothing horrible about it.

    http://www.macmillandictionary.com/amp/dictionary/british/call-out_1
    Not in Chambers and definition in Collins is not the usage many have adopted.

    OED has no free search so can't check there.

    It's a horrible little phrase.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Fenster said:

    What's interesting about the Burqa Boris farrago is the same people who put French flags in their Facebook profiles and went about hashtagging jesuischarlie are now calling Boris a bigot.

    Support for the Charlie Hebdo victims was quite literally support for a magazine which took the piss out of the Prophet Mohammed.

    That's worse than what Boris did. So why is it okay to support them and not Boris?

    I guess it's because Boris is a Tory and a Brexiteer.

    They were taking the piss out of a religion. There is a difference between that and picking on people you think are oppressed but refusing to deal with what is oppressing them.

    Charlie Hebdo picked a tough target. They showed courage. Boris picked a soft target and showed that he is a bully. Willing to wound but afraid to strike.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Our racists are defending the oppressed. Your racists are beyond the pale. -- headbangers in both parties.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited August 2018

    stodge - I suspect that is largely true. Unfortunately Boris didn't really appear to open that debate up. If you are going to offend people make sure you do it properly or it will be counter-productive.

    Political correctness gets a bad name. But there is clearly a way to address these issues in a better fashion. The concern I have is that like with Trump in America a lot of voters will simply opt for the person who is saying 'something' as opposed to those saying 'nothing' even if that person does it in a cack-handed way.

    The problem is what is politically correct?

    Is it politically correct to place medieval beliefs above modern progressive sensibilities? Is it politically correct to subjugate women and treat them as second class citizens? Is it politically correct to discriminate based on religious sensibilities? If so back the burka.

    Is it politically correct to treat people equally? Is it politically correct to say women are the equals of men? If so the burka is inappropriate.

    When did religious sensibilities trump equality in being politically correct? When did subjugating women become correct 21st century behaviour?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Tedious as I find the Anglo obsession with a fictional Swiss/Scotch secret agent, perhaps a momentary distraction from Burqas can be enjoyed laughing at Richard 'dick' Spencer.

    https://twitter.com/JaneyGodley/status/1028855662435033088

    Quantum of Solace was absolute tripe so lets hope Idris takes Bond back to winning ways.
  • Its not overt racism. Put people on the spot and they would tell you "I'm not a racist". And on their measure they aren't. They just don't like Burkas. Or swarthy types. Or people who don't look/speak/think like them. Fans of another club. Northerners/Southerners. "Gypsies" (or people they think are Gypsies). Other people's kids. Other people's dogs. Speeding cars they aren't driving.

    Nothing much to do with party politics - both parties are happy hoovering up the votes of petty bigots. The anti-semitism scandal has lots of Labour voters reading the latest in the Daily Mail nodding and thinking "Corbyn's right about those Jews". Just as the Burka scandal has lots of Tory voters reading the latest in the Daily Mail nodding and thinking "Boris is right about those muslims".

    Its depressing, but its reality. And for every prejudice there is a populist politician thinking how they can win them over by stoking their fears. Which is how the Daily Fascist manages to sell newspapers to everyone.
  • OllyT said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.

    Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.

    Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.

    No, Johnson has expressed a liberal opinion explaining in essence that he does not think that a tiny minority of Muslim women should be banned from covering themselves from head to toe, while at the same time making his personal distaste at their choices very clear. In the meantime, it was apparently OK for Stephen Fry and Paul Merton on HIGNFY or Polly Toynbee to rightly ridicule such choices.
    https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/

    As for the Muslim Council of Britain, if you are going to hang on their every word are you also then prepared to endorse their support for Sharia courts and the resultant oppression of womens rights in the UK?
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sharia-law-uk-courts-muslim-women-rights-few-compared-islamic-countries-religious-rulings-quran-a8064796.html
    Johnson insulted a section of society. He happened to use (surely a coincidence) the language of the far right in likening those who wear the niqab* to letterboxes. That is rude, bullying and, as the MCB bloke pointed out this morning, inflammatory. Because you know, if a senior politician can insult women who are minding their own business on the streets of London, then racist thugs can insult them and all is cushty, right?

    *niqab/burka I'm sure the BNP don't give a toss about the difference.
    The far right like Stephen Fry?
    I'm certainly not going to google it but knock yourself out to see which end of the political spectrum the trope of "letterbox" sits most happily.
    Yes anyone with decency who thinks oppressing women is unacceptable. Like Stephen Fry but unlike you sadly it seems.
    and your outrage about the Burqa is motivated by concern for oppressed muslim women? Pull the other one mate.
    Yes it is. Why wouldn't it be? I oppose all religious based oppression equally along with all other oppression.

    I couldn't care less about Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab. The hijab is not dehumanising.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    This could significantly reduce some of the Johnny-come-latelies in the ERG block vote,who lack the necessary purity of thought .These are simply blowhards on the Tory right who run at the slightest sound of gun-fire, a move which will favour Javid.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Anazina said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.

    Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.

    Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.

    No, Johnson has expressed a liberal opinion explaining in essence that he does not think that a tiny minority of Muslim women should be banned from covering themselves from head to toe, while at the same time making his personal distaste at their choices very clear. In the meantime, it was apparently OK for Stephen Fry and Paul Merton on HIGNFY or Polly Toynbee to rightly ridicule such choices.
    https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/

    As for the Muslim Council of Britain, if you are going to hang on their every word are you also then prepared to endorse their support for Sharia courts and the resultant oppression of womens rights in the UK?
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sharia-law-uk-courts-muslim-women-rights-few-compared-islamic-countries-religious-rulings-quran-a8064796.html
    Johnson insulted a section of society. He happened to use (surely a coincidence) the language of the far right in likening those who wear the niqab* to letterboxes. That is rude, bullying and, as the MCB bloke pointed out this morning, inflammatory. Because you know, if a senior politician can insult women who are minding their own business on the streets of London, then racist thugs can insult them and all is cushty, right?

    *niqab/burka I'm sure the BNP don't give a toss about the difference.
    The far right like Stephen Fry?

    How does insulting women wearing this clothing help? When the powerful mock the oppressed it only increases their oppression. Boris Johnson is not a comedian, he is an MP and privy councillor. He thought it appropriate to laugh at people you believe are victims. You should be furious with him.

    It helps by denormalising the garment. It's not acceptable to oppress women. Its not insulting women to call out when they are abused.
    When and where did the phrase "call out" become acceptable English? I see and hear it everywhere these days....
    Back in the days when duelling was a thing, I believe.

    So not very neo...
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    "Men/society should stop telling women what to wear!" Say both sides of debate.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Fenster said:

    What's interesting about the Burqa Boris farrago is the same people who put French flags in their Facebook profiles and went about hashtagging jesuischarlie are now calling Boris a bigot.

    Support for the Charlie Hebdo victims was quite literally support for a magazine which took the piss out of the Prophet Mohammed.

    That's worse than what Boris did. So why is it okay to support them and not Boris?

    I guess it's because Boris is a Tory and a Brexiteer.

    Or because the Hebdo people were murdered? There's a difference between disagreeing with how public figures phrase their views and defending their right to express them without fear. Boris and Hedo have a right to satirise pretty much any way they like. Saying that doesn't mean we have to agree.
  • Cyclefree said:

    If women are forced to stay indoors is that not a form of coercive control? We have laws against that in this country. We should be enforcing them not enabling such coercive control to continue, surely.

    Absolutely. It will be a lot harder to spot practically though would be my worry.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    edited August 2018
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/trojan-horse-teacher-called-gays-animals-kfbbzmv3k

    I wonder if the MCB person interviewed on Radio 4 this morning who talked about the possible consequences of Boris’s words for burqa-wearing women and the need to discipline him would be equally keen to focus on the consequences for gay people, gay pupils at his school, of the words he used and of the importance of disciplining him.

    Or are the MCB as full of hypocrisy and double standards as so many of those * commenting on this?

    * PB’ers excepted, of course - :)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    Pulpstar said:

    Tedious as I find the Anglo obsession with a fictional Swiss/Scotch secret agent, perhaps a momentary distraction from Burqas can be enjoyed laughing at Richard 'dick' Spencer.

    https://twitter.com/JaneyGodley/status/1028855662435033088

    Quantum of Solace was absolute tripe so lets hope Idris takes Bond back to winning ways.
    To do that they need decent script writers, not new actors. They are not addressing the real issue why it is getting stale. Dr Who is the same.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited August 2018
    Cyclefree said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/trojan-horse-teacher-called-gays-animals-kfbbzmv3k

    I wonder if the MCB person interviewed on Radio 4 this morning who talked about the possible consequences of Boris’s words for burqa-wearing women and the need to discipline him would be equally keen to focus on the consequences for gay people, gay pupils at his school, of the words he used and of the importance of disciplining him.

    Or are the MCB as full of hypocrisy and double standards as so many of those * commenting on this?

    * PB’ers excepted, of course - :)

    The MCB should be treated with as much respect as is given to the Westboro Baptist Church.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?

    The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tedious as I find the Anglo obsession with a fictional Swiss/Scotch secret agent, perhaps a momentary distraction from Burqas can be enjoyed laughing at Richard 'dick' Spencer.

    https://twitter.com/JaneyGodley/status/1028855662435033088

    Quantum of Solace was absolute tripe so lets hope Idris takes Bond back to winning ways.
    To do that they need decent script writers, not new actors. They are not addressing the real issue why it is getting stale. Dr Who is the same.
    Quantum of Solace is a dire example (and film) as it was filmed during and after the last screenwriters strike. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_of_Solace#Filming states

    "According to a December 2011 interview with Craig, "We had the bare bones of a script and then there was a writers' strike and there was nothing we could do. We couldn't employ a writer to finish it. I say to myself, 'Never again', but who knows? There was me trying to rewrite scenes—and a writer I am not."[4] He said that he and Forster "were the ones allowed to do it. The rules were that you couldn't employ anyone as a writer, but the actor and director could work on scenes together. We were stuffed. We got away with it, but only just. It was never meant to be as much of a sequel as it was, but it ended up being a sequel, starting where the last one finished."[4]

    During filming, after the strike ended, Forster read a spec script by Joshua Zetumer, which he liked, and hired him to reshape scenes for the later parts of the shoot, which the director was still unsatisfied with.[44] Forster had the actors rehearse their scenes, as he liked to film scenes continually.[22] Zetumer rewrote dialogue depending on the actors' ideas each day.[22]"

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    I have just received what I regard as a truly appallingly racist email from someone in a social group to which I belong. It urges the establishment of all sorts of apparently (hopefully?) offensive shops and clubs adjacent to a mosque with the alleged aim of promoting tolerance among Moslems, and ends "And if you are not laughing or smiling at this point, it is midnight at the oasis and time to put your camel to bed.”

    Apparently he sent this to most, if not all, of the rest of the group.

    I’ve told him not to email me any more rubbish like this, but wonder what will happen on Friday when the group next meets.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    If women are forced to stay indoors is that not a form of coercive control? We have laws against that in this country. We should be enforcing them not enabling such coercive control to continue, surely.

    Absolutely. It will be a lot harder to spot practically though would be my worry.
    A lot of abuse against women in the home is hard to spot. Schools can help if there are children: does the mother come to school etc? And GPs etc. But hard if the women live in a Muslim community where the schools and other authorities reinforce the coercive culture rather than provide alternatives to it. One reason why we should be wary of allowing separate quasi-ghetto-like communities to develop.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If women are forced to stay indoors is that not a form of coercive control? We have laws against that in this country. We should be enforcing them not enabling such coercive control to continue, surely.

    Absolutely. It will be a lot harder to spot practically though would be my worry.
    A lot of abuse against women in the home is hard to spot. Schools can help if there are children: does the mother come to school etc? And GPs etc. But hard if the women live in a Muslim community where the schools and other authorities reinforce the coercive culture rather than provide alternatives to it. One reason why we should be wary of allowing separate quasi-ghetto-like communities to develop.
    The problem of FGM is an example.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    edited August 2018
    I still think this argument regarding Boris would not be happening if it were another politician. Populist politicians (the same applies to Corbyn) both drive and repel votes, but they also drive irrational objections. People don’t read what they say, and they assume motivations and implications that may or may not be there.

    This is just another facet of confirmation bias. Over the last few years people live in their own little environments, we’ve always had a Westminster Bubble but the right with the Daily Mail etc, and left with twitter and Guardian have political bubbles too
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?

    The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.

    I actually see quite a lot near me, surprisingly. In the last 4 days I’ve seen 4. None in Cumbria. But we came back to London when this story broke so perhaps we were more aware. A few years ago I was helping a friend look for a flat in Willesden Green and I was astonished to see two shops selling burqas in one of the main shopping streets.
  • I have just received what I regard as a truly appallingly racist email from someone in a social group to which I belong. It urges the establishment of all sorts of apparently (hopefully?) offensive shops and clubs adjacent to a mosque with the alleged aim of promoting tolerance among Moslems, and ends "And if you are not laughing or smiling at this point, it is midnight at the oasis and time to put your camel to bed.”

    Apparently he sent this to most, if not all, of the rest of the group.

    I’ve told him not to email me any more rubbish like this, but wonder what will happen on Friday when the group next meets.

    How will he be able to judge in advance what you think is rubbish?
  • Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?

    The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.

    rare birds?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    TOPPING said:

    What was your position on punk rock and those degenerates undermining our society by sticking safety pins through their noses? A ban, right?

    That would be wonderful. Whilst we're about it, tattoos as well, although I could settle for a compromise where they are banned only for women.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    I have just received what I regard as a truly appallingly racist email from someone in a social group to which I belong. It urges the establishment of all sorts of apparently (hopefully?) offensive shops and clubs adjacent to a mosque with the alleged aim of promoting tolerance among Moslems, and ends "And if you are not laughing or smiling at this point, it is midnight at the oasis and time to put your camel to bed.”

    Apparently he sent this to most, if not all, of the rest of the group.

    I’ve told him not to email me any more rubbish like this, but wonder what will happen on Friday when the group next meets.

    See if your local mosque holds public open days, & suggest the entire group visit. ;)
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311

    I have just received what I regard as a truly appallingly racist email from someone in a social group to which I belong. It urges the establishment of all sorts of apparently (hopefully?) offensive shops and clubs adjacent to a mosque with the alleged aim of promoting tolerance among Moslems, and ends "And if you are not laughing or smiling at this point, it is midnight at the oasis and time to put your camel to bed.”

    Apparently he sent this to most, if not all, of the rest of the group.

    I’ve told him not to email me any more rubbish like this, but wonder what will happen on Friday when the group next meets.

    I am friends with a guy from a social group and he sends a number of off colour memes and jokes etc to a large number of his friends. It surprised me at first but he works in the construction industry, and some of the comments I have heard on and around building sites over the years have been sexist / racist etc.

    There are large parts of society where minorities are hardly ever seen, but are misunderstood and feared. People are generally very conservative when it comes to where they live.
  • Fenster said:

    What's interesting about the Burqa Boris farrago is the same people who put French flags in their Facebook profiles and went about hashtagging jesuischarlie are now calling Boris a bigot.

    Support for the Charlie Hebdo victims was quite literally support for a magazine which took the piss out of the Prophet Mohammed.

    That's worse than what Boris did. So why is it okay to support them and not Boris?

    I guess it's because Boris is a Tory and a Brexiteer.

    Or because the Hebdo people were murdered? There's a difference between disagreeing with how public figures phrase their views and defending their right to express them without fear. Boris and Hedo have a right to satirise pretty much any way they like. Saying that doesn't mean we have to agree.
    Boris defended the right of people to wear what they want but also used free speech to satirise what they wear.

    So Boris was liberal about what people wear and liberal about satire. What's not to like?
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If women are forced to stay indoors is that not a form of coercive control? We have laws against that in this country. We should be enforcing them not enabling such coercive control to continue, surely.

    Absolutely. It will be a lot harder to spot practically though would be my worry.
    A lot of abuse against women in the home is hard to spot. Schools can help if there are children: does the mother come to school etc? And GPs etc. But hard if the women live in a Muslim community where the schools and other authorities reinforce the coercive culture rather than provide alternatives to it. One reason why we should be wary of allowing separate quasi-ghetto-like communities to develop.
    On the latter part this was on BBC2 last night https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bg2k06/lost-boys-whats-going-wrong-for-asian-men

    It was remarkable how insular and opportunity restricted Pakistani men in Bradford and surrounding areas are compared to Leicester (or even Middlesbrough)..
  • Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?

    The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.

    rare birds?
    Is calling burqa wearing women birds: insulting, racist or irrelevant?

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    TOPPING said:

    What was your position on punk rock and those degenerates undermining our society by sticking safety pins through their noses? A ban, right?

    That would be wonderful. Whilst we're about it, tattoos as well, although I could settle for a compromise where they are banned only for women.
    Agreed.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311

    Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?

    The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.

    I’ve seen a couple recently in Bristol. I’ve no problem with them - they remind of nuns for some reason. You only really see them in big cities in the suburb where the Mosque is located - funnily enough I saw them not far from where Sajid Javid comes from.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    Fenster said:

    What's interesting about the Burqa Boris farrago is the same people who put French flags in their Facebook profiles and went about hashtagging jesuischarlie are now calling Boris a bigot.

    Support for the Charlie Hebdo victims was quite literally support for a magazine which took the piss out of the Prophet Mohammed.

    That's worse than what Boris did. So why is it okay to support them and not Boris?

    I guess it's because Boris is a Tory and a Brexiteer.

    Or because the Hebdo people were murdered? There's a difference between disagreeing with how public figures phrase their views and defending their right to express them without fear. Boris and Hedo have a right to satirise pretty much any way they like. Saying that doesn't mean we have to agree.
    Boris defended the right of people to wear what they want but also used free speech to satirise what they wear.

    So Boris was liberal about what people wear and liberal about satire. What's not to like?
    As people have said upthread, Boris was aiming at the wrong target - oppressed women, rather than people who oppress women.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?

    The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.

    I’ve seen a couple recently in Bristol. I’ve no problem with them - they remind of nuns for some reason. You only really see them in big cities in the suburb where the Mosque is located - funnily enough I saw them not far from where Sajid Javid comes from.
    You see loads of veiled women in Luton.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    I have just received what I regard as a truly appallingly racist email from someone in a social group to which I belong. It urges the establishment of all sorts of apparently (hopefully?) offensive shops and clubs adjacent to a mosque with the alleged aim of promoting tolerance among Moslems, and ends "And if you are not laughing or smiling at this point, it is midnight at the oasis and time to put your camel to bed.”

    Apparently he sent this to most, if not all, of the rest of the group.

    I’ve told him not to email me any more rubbish like this, but wonder what will happen on Friday when the group next meets.

    See if your local mosque holds public open days, & suggest the entire group visit. ;)
    Good idea. I’m know of a Moslem chap who spends his life training to promote good inter-community relations.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?

    The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.

    rare birds?
    Is calling burqa wearing women birds: insulting, racist or irrelevant?

    I did think of comparing this row with the equally ridiculous row about banning animals in circuses (there are 19 such animals in the country - six reindeer, four zebra, three camels, three racoons, a fox, a macaw and a zebu, fact lovers - and none of them are obviously badly treated). But even I saw the dangers of that comparison.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    I have just received what I regard as a truly appallingly racist email from someone in a social group to which I belong. It urges the establishment of all sorts of apparently (hopefully?) offensive shops and clubs adjacent to a mosque with the alleged aim of promoting tolerance among Moslems, and ends "And if you are not laughing or smiling at this point, it is midnight at the oasis and time to put your camel to bed.”

    Apparently he sent this to most, if not all, of the rest of the group.

    I’ve told him not to email me any more rubbish like this, but wonder what will happen on Friday when the group next meets.

    I am friends with a guy from a social group and he sends a number of off colour memes and jokes etc to a large number of his friends. It surprised me at first but he works in the construction industry, and some of the comments I have heard on and around building sites over the years have been sexist / racist etc.

    There are large parts of society where minorities are hardly ever seen, but are misunderstood and feared. People are generally very conservative when it comes to where they live.
    When he worked.... we’re all retired..... it was in and around Soho!
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If women are forced to stay indoors is that not a form of coercive control? We have laws against that in this country. We should be enforcing them not enabling such coercive control to continue, surely.

    Absolutely. It will be a lot harder to spot practically though would be my worry.
    A lot of abuse against women in the home is hard to spot. Schools can help if there are children: does the mother come to school etc? And GPs etc. But hard if the women live in a Muslim community where the schools and other authorities reinforce the coercive culture rather than provide alternatives to it. One reason why we should be wary of allowing separate quasi-ghetto-like communities to develop.
    On the latter part this was on BBC2 last night https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bg2k06/lost-boys-whats-going-wrong-for-asian-men

    It was remarkable how insular and opportunity restricted Pakistani men in Bradford and surrounding areas are compared to Leicester (or even Middlesbrough)..
    I used to live in Bradford and what surprised me was the lack of ambition. The schooling system in Bradford was highly segregated as well (by choice). Most schools were either 90% plus white or 90% plus minorites. I think this stemmed a lot from the geography of the town - a lot of valleys.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    TOPPING said:

    What was your position on punk rock and those degenerates undermining our society by sticking safety pins through their noses? A ban, right?

    That would be wonderful. Whilst we're about it, tattoos as well, although I could settle for a compromise where they are banned only for women.
    No, no. Why should we have to look at men with tattoos? Ghastly. Perhaps we could compromise and make men with tattoos, men with long, dirty fingernails, men who don’t take care of their feet wear burqas.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?

    The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.

    rare birds?
    Is calling burqa wearing women birds: insulting, racist or irrelevant?

    I did think of comparing this row with the equally ridiculous row about banning animals in circuses (there are 19 such animals in the country - six reindeer, four zebra, three camels, three racoons, a fox, a macaw and a zebu, fact lovers - and none of them are obviously badly treated). But even I saw the dangers of that comparison.
    British people are absurdly sentimental about animals.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    Cyclefree said:

    TOPPING said:

    What was your position on punk rock and those degenerates undermining our society by sticking safety pins through their noses? A ban, right?

    That would be wonderful. Whilst we're about it, tattoos as well, although I could settle for a compromise where they are banned only for women.
    No, no. Why should we have to look at men with tattoos? Ghastly. Perhaps we could compromise and make men with tattoos, men with long, dirty fingernails, men who don’t take care of their feet wear burqas.
    Tatoos on women are even worse.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Cyclefree said:

    TOPPING said:

    What was your position on punk rock and those degenerates undermining our society by sticking safety pins through their noses? A ban, right?

    That would be wonderful. Whilst we're about it, tattoos as well, although I could settle for a compromise where they are banned only for women.
    No, no. Why should we have to look at men with tattoos? Ghastly. Perhaps we could compromise and make men with tattoos, men with long, dirty fingernails, men who don’t take care of their feet wear burqas.
    I think we can reach a deal on this.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    Cyclefree said:

    Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?

    The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.

    I actually see quite a lot near me, surprisingly. In the last 4 days I’ve seen 4. None in Cumbria. But we came back to London when this story broke so perhaps we were more aware. A few years ago I was helping a friend look for a flat in Willesden Green and I was astonished to see two shops selling burqas in one of the main shopping streets.
    You won't see many burqas anyway which have a mesh covering the eyes - it's niqabs which are worn in the UK which have a slit which allow you to see the person's eyes.

    If you live in much of the country you will see none - if you live in east London or Bradford say you might see it a lot more frequently. The area I live in has had quite a large Muslim population and you never saw any women wearing a niqab until about two years ago - now it's a lot more common.

    Perhaps more Muslim women are exercising a new fashion choice, perhaps there is more pressure from Muslim men and clerics expecting them to wear them - the former have a voice whereas the latter perhaps do not. We hear from the women who 'choose' to wear it but not from those who have little choice in practice.

    I am aware that Liz Jones wrote an article about her experience wearing the niqab for a week in the Sunday papers - lets just say it wasn't something she would exercise a fashion choice to wear after her experience. Perhaps we should force a few men to wear it and see how much they enjoy the fashion experience?
  • Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?

    The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.

    rare birds?
    Is calling burqa wearing women birds: insulting, racist or irrelevant?

    I did think of comparing this row with the equally ridiculous row about banning animals in circuses (there are 19 such animals in the country - six reindeer, four zebra, three camels, three racoons, a fox, a macaw and a zebu, fact lovers - and none of them are obviously badly treated). But even I saw the dangers of that comparison.
    Very wise. A macaw could talk back.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I have a feeling that some of pb's regular posters would fall foul of the outrage police very quickly if they were in a position of political prominence.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    TOPPING said:

    What was your position on punk rock and those degenerates undermining our society by sticking safety pins through their noses? A ban, right?

    That would be wonderful. Whilst we're about it, tattoos as well, although I could settle for a compromise where they are banned only for women.
    No, no. Why should we have to look at men with tattoos? Ghastly. Perhaps we could compromise and make men with tattoos, men with long, dirty fingernails, men who don’t take care of their feet wear burqas.
    Tatoos on women are even worse.
    In Lanzarote a few weeks ago I would say that the majority of English speakers under 50 had tattoos, men and women. The lower leg seems to be a favourite site.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    edited August 2018
    brendan16 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?

    The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.

    I actually see quite a lot near me, surprisingly. In the last 4 days I’ve seen 4. None in Cumbria. But we came back to London when this story broke so perhaps we were more aware. A few years ago I was helping a friend look for a flat in Willesden Green and I was astonished to see two shops selling burqas in one of the main shopping streets.
    You won't see many burqas anyway which have a mesh covering the eyes - it's niqabs which are worn in the UK which have a slit which allow you to see the person's eyes.

    If you live in much of the country you will see none - if you live in east London or Bradford say you might see it a lot more frequently. The area I live in has had quite a large Muslim population and you never saw any women wearing a niqab until about two years ago - now it's a lot more common.

    Perhaps more Muslim women are exercising a new fashion choice, perhaps there is more pressure from Muslim men and clerics expecting them to wear them - the former have a voice whereas the latter perhaps do not. We hear from the women who 'choose' to wear it but not from those who have little choice in practice.

    I am aware that Liz Jones wrote an article about her experience wearing the niqab for a week in the Sunday papers - lets just say it wasn't something she would exercise a fashion choice to wear after her experience. Perhaps we should force a few men to wear it and see how much they enjoy the fashion experience?
    I believe some women wear them, uncompelled, as a statement. À chacun son goût of course!
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    ....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    King Cole, the appeal of tattoos is lost on me. But there we are.
  • Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    TOPPING said:

    What was your position on punk rock and those degenerates undermining our society by sticking safety pins through their noses? A ban, right?

    That would be wonderful. Whilst we're about it, tattoos as well, although I could settle for a compromise where they are banned only for women.
    No, no. Why should we have to look at men with tattoos? Ghastly. Perhaps we could compromise and make men with tattoos, men with long, dirty fingernails, men who don’t take care of their feet wear burqas.
    Tatoos on women are even worse.
    It reminds me of a conversation I had with a young pretty little thing in my local a few years ago.
    Me: why are you covered in all these tattoos? they look horrible
    Her: It's to cover up the scars from when I used to self harm a few years ago.

    *foot in mouth*
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    brendan16 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?

    The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.

    I actually see quite a lot near me, surprisingly. In the last 4 days I’ve seen 4. None in Cumbria. But we came back to London when this story broke so perhaps we were more aware. A few years ago I was helping a friend look for a flat in Willesden Green and I was astonished to see two shops selling burqas in one of the main shopping streets.
    You won't see many burqas anyway which have a mesh covering the eyes - it's niqabs which are worn in the UK which have a slit which allow you to see the person's eyes.

    If you live in much of the country you will see none - if you live in east London or Bradford say you might see it a lot more frequently. The area I live in has had quite a large Muslim population and you never saw any women wearing a niqab until about two years ago - now it's a lot more common.

    Perhaps more Muslim women are exercising a new fashion choice, perhaps there is more pressure from Muslim men and clerics expecting them to wear them - the former have a voice whereas the latter perhaps do not. We hear from the women who 'choose' to wear it but not from those who have little choice in practice.

    I am aware that Liz Jones wrote an article about her experience wearing the niqab for a week in the Sunday papers - lets just say it wasn't something she would exercise a fashion choice to wear after her experience. Perhaps we should force a few men to wear it and see how much they enjoy the fashion experience?
    I agree, I think to wear these Niqabs or Burkas would be horrendous. To think that every time you go out you have to put these ludicrous outfits on is a terrible lifelong punishment. I was in Bournemouth last week and one of the oddest things I have seen in a long time was two women in full Burkas sat in the sea. It was ok for their husands to surround themselves with western women in bikinis on the beach but their wives have to wear Burkas in the sea. Its a very odd religion that would see that as ok.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?

    The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.

    Several hundred full burqas here, thousands of niqabs and headscarves ;)
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    People who dress like this in public should be banned from commenting on how others dress.

    https://twitter.com/MarianneVelvart/status/1028111852633509888

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Pubgoer, sounds a shade awkward...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    I have a feeling that some of pb's regular posters would fall foul of the outrage police very quickly if they were in a position of political prominence.

    To be fair it's tricky not to with, amongst others, prominent people such as Peter Tatchell, Germaine Greer and Trevor Noah who aren't exactly on the hard right managing to fall foul of various pitchforks.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,572

    Its not overt racism. Put people on the spot and they would tell you "I'm not a racist". And on their measure they aren't. They just don't like Burkas. Or swarthy types. Or people who don't look/speak/think like them. Fans of another club. Northerners/Southerners. "Gypsies" (or people they think are Gypsies). Other people's kids. Other people's dogs. Speeding cars they aren't driving.

    I don't like burkas for much the same reasons as Polly Toynbee has previously stated.

    I am writing this while drinking coffee from a mug given on a visit to the local Mosque at an open day containing the words "Even a smile is charity. UK Islamic Mission. Serving Humanity since 1962."

    Label me as you wish.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    I have a feeling that some of pb's regular posters would fall foul of the outrage police very quickly if they were in a position of political prominence.

    I'd be disappointed if we didn't.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    Sandpit said:

    Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?

    The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.

    Several hundred full burqas here, thousands of niqabs and headscarves ;)
    Now that’s interesting. Some women wearing burqa or niqab..... ie with the face covered....., some happily in hijabs.
    Which can, to my mind, often look extremly fetching.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    Pulpstar said:

    I have a feeling that some of pb's regular posters would fall foul of the outrage police very quickly if they were in a position of political prominence.

    To be fair it's tricky not to with, amongst others, prominent people such as Peter Tatchell, Germaine Greer and Trevor Noah who aren't exactly on the hard right managing to fall foul of various pitchforks.
    Germaine Greer brought it on herself. She's been a leading proponent of homophobic and transphobic schools of third wave feminist thought for as long as I can remember. It's no great surprise that she's widely loathed by modern feminists.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    John_M said:

    I have a feeling that some of pb's regular posters would fall foul of the outrage police very quickly if they were in a position of political prominence.

    I'd be disappointed if we didn't.
    Some of us try very hard not to offend.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited August 2018
    Headscarves/hijabs and niqabs/burqas are totally different things entirely so it's a ridiculous comparison - the former does not strip anyone of a public identity as you can still see their face, their expressions, their eyes and lips moving when they speak. But as is repeatedly said its a cultural not a religious garment which predates the prophet. Muslim women in south East Asian nations like Malaysia and Indonesia which were not subject to the same Arab and middle eastern influences do not wear niqabs or burqas.

    The vast majority of Muslim women don't wear the niqab and reject it - does that make them Islamophobic or do they just reject something they consider is unnecessary to dress modestly and is arguably oppressive to women. Because men are also supposed to dress modestly - but the same rules don't seem to apply to them.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    brendan16 said:

    Headscarves/hijabs and niqabs/burqas are totally different things entirely so it's a ridiculous comparison - the former does not strip anyone of a public identity as you can still see their face, their expressions, their eyes and lips moving when they speak. But as is repeatedly said its a cultural not a religious garment which predates the prophet. Muslim women in south East Asian nations like Malaysia and Indonesia which were not subject to the same Arab and middle eastern influences do not wear niqabs or burqas.
    I seem to recall being told by a lecturer on Islam, orginally from SE Asia, that they regarded both the burqa and niqab unIslamic. And took the same view of FGM.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    Sean_F said:

    Fenster said:

    What's interesting about the Burqa Boris farrago is the same people who put French flags in their Facebook profiles and went about hashtagging jesuischarlie are now calling Boris a bigot.

    Support for the Charlie Hebdo victims was quite literally support for a magazine which took the piss out of the Prophet Mohammed.

    That's worse than what Boris did. So why is it okay to support them and not Boris?

    I guess it's because Boris is a Tory and a Brexiteer.

    Or because the Hebdo people were murdered? There's a difference between disagreeing with how public figures phrase their views and defending their right to express them without fear. Boris and Hedo have a right to satirise pretty much any way they like. Saying that doesn't mean we have to agree.
    Boris defended the right of people to wear what they want but also used free speech to satirise what they wear.

    So Boris was liberal about what people wear and liberal about satire. What's not to like?
    As people have said upthread, Boris was aiming at the wrong target - oppressed women, rather than people who oppress women.
    He could yet return to that subject......
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited August 2018
    brendan16 said:


    Headscarves/hijabs and niqabs/burqas are totally different things entirely so it's a ridiculous comparison - the former does not strip anyone of a public identity as you can still see their face, their expressions, their eyes and lips moving when they speak.

    Oh I know, I was just being flippant.

    Personally, as a confirmed anti-theist, I'm very much in favour of jackbooted secularism.

    I just find it ever so slightly *troubling* that this debate about the protection of vulnerable ethnic minority women seems to be driven by the racist far right.

    I do not believe for a single fucking second that Steve "an actual Nazi" Bannon cares about the wellbeing of oppressed Muslim women.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    brendan16 said:


    You won't see many burqas anyway which have a mesh covering the eyes - it's niqabs which are worn in the UK which have a slit which allow you to see the person's eyes.

    Same, I've only ever seen the burqa once (Edinburgh).

    Hard to see them as anything other than husbands treating their wives as property. Other than that I don't care too much.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited August 2018

    Sandpit said:

    Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?

    The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.

    Several hundred full burqas here, thousands of niqabs and headscarves ;)
    Now that’s interesting. Some women wearing burqa or niqab..... ie with the face covered....., some happily in hijabs.
    Which can, to my mind, often look extremly fetching.
    The hijab is way more common than niqabs and full burqas here, although other places in the region may be different.

    There’s a huge market in ‘designer abayas’ over here, made from the finest silks and often with sparkly features sewn into them. Also a huge market in eye makeup, the local fashion magazines are full of women who look beautiful while covering their hair or face. A fair number of the rebellious teenagers also ditch the abayas for jeans, jumper and coloured headscarf once they get to the mall.

    A sharp contrast to the women of Bradford, who have been described by various commentators as looking like bin bags in matt black coverings.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    Fenster said:

    What's interesting about the Burqa Boris farrago is the same people who put French flags in their Facebook profiles and went about hashtagging jesuischarlie are now calling Boris a bigot.

    Support for the Charlie Hebdo victims was quite literally support for a magazine which took the piss out of the Prophet Mohammed.

    That's worse than what Boris did. So why is it okay to support them and not Boris?

    I guess it's because Boris is a Tory and a Brexiteer.

    Or because the Hebdo people were murdered? There's a difference between disagreeing with how public figures phrase their views and defending their right to express them without fear. Boris and Hedo have a right to satirise pretty much any way they like. Saying that doesn't mean we have to agree.
    Boris defended the right of people to wear what they want but also used free speech to satirise what they wear.

    So Boris was liberal about what people wear and liberal about satire. What's not to like?
    So you can't disagree with anything anyone says because they're "using free speech" to say it?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    Cyclefree said:

    Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?

    The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.

    I actually see quite a lot near me, surprisingly. In the last 4 days I’ve seen 4. None in Cumbria. But we came back to London when this story broke so perhaps we were more aware. A few years ago I was helping a friend look for a flat in Willesden Green and I was astonished to see two shops selling burqas in one of the main shopping streets.
    I am able to report that there appears to be a total absence of oppressed women forced to wear the burqa in south Devon.

    Must be down to our legendary tolerance.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited August 2018



    So you can't disagree with anything anyone says because they're "using free speech" to say it?

    Free speech means you can say and do what you want, to who you want, at any time, without consequence or censure and absolutely nobody is allowed to react, respond, complain or take exception in any way.

    Right? GOOD.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    edited August 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    Tedious as I find the Anglo obsession with a fictional Swiss/Scotch secret agent, perhaps a momentary distraction from Burqas can be enjoyed laughing at Richard 'dick' Spencer.

    https://twitter.com/JaneyGodley/status/1028855662435033088

    Quantum of Solace was absolute tripe so lets hope Idris takes Bond back to winning ways.
    Spectre, which came out later, was back on form.

    I know a fabulous piece of gossip about Dan Craig/Bond which the tabloids would kill for. Sadly, my lips are sealed.

    But trust me - it's great!
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669



    So you can't disagree with anything anyone says because they're "using free speech" to say it?

    Free speech means you can say and do what you want, to who you want, at any time, without consequence or censure and absolutely nobody is allowed to react, respond, complain or take exception in any way.

    Right? GOOD.
    Like shouting 'Fire!' in a theatre?
    Of course not.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    A persuasive argument in favour of a WTO terms Brexit, rather than the Chequers deal, from Ruth Lea.
    https://brexitcentral.com/wto-option-now-best-choice-brexit/
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Sandpit said:

    A persuasive argument in favour of a WTO terms Brexit, rather than the Chequers deal, from Ruth Lea.
    https://brexitcentral.com/wto-option-now-best-choice-brexit/

    It's substanceless nonsense of the "it's all proved too hard to negotiate a deal so I'm going to pretend that no deal is a really good thing after all" type.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745

    I am able to report that there appears to be a total absence of oppressed women forced to wear the burqa in south Devon.

    Must be down to our legendary tolerance.

    According to the census of 2011, there are 521 Muslims in Torbay out of a population of nearly 131,000.

    http://www.ukcensusdata.com/torbay-e06000027#sthash.8GRY7gfy.dpbs

  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Sandpit said:

    A persuasive argument in favour of a WTO terms Brexit, rather than the Chequers deal, from Ruth Lea.
    https://brexitcentral.com/wto-option-now-best-choice-brexit/

    Lea was long ago outed as a laughing stock.
This discussion has been closed.