Boris Johnson is a liability.

[mmh]

As a leftie, I really don't understand why ridicule of an outdated, patriarchal culture as an anachronism is bad when it's about religion, yet perfectly fine when when it's directed at Rees-Mogg for exactly the same

 

[EM2]

So not really religious conviction in those cases?

No, just freedom of choice.

 

[bramling]

Jew watch. Day 92.

Another irrelevant shoehorning in of your favourite bête noire.

Please start that thread. Beyond tiresome now.

Sadly the bete noire is spot on. Any reputation (*) he might once have had has been well and truly trashed over the last decade. Frankly I find it a national disgrace that this guy was ever mayor of London.

(Despite finding the guy utterly repellent and disagreeing with pretty much every word and idea that has ever come out of his mouth, I did once have just a tiny milligram of respect for him in that I thought he was at least a conviction politician and during his mayoral tenure he did at least deliver what he promised).

 

[bnm]

And he, his conviction politics, his alleged anti-semitism and his reputation are of zero relevance to this thread.

 

[bramling]

And he, his conviction politics, his alleged anti-semitism and his reputation are of zero relevance to this thread.

I know. However it does provide an interesting comparison to Boris Johnson, who is of course very much the subject of this thread, as well as Ken being one of only two other people who have held the mayor of London position.

Perhaps there is something in it that London seems to keep making bad choices when making decisions (or that political parties feel that they need to keep fielding freaks to win the mayoral election in London), which may well tell us that yes Boris is a liability!

 

[bnm]

Don't get me started on the Mayor of London role - another Blair creation

Point of order before returning to the main man in this thread. Tony Blair didn't create the role of London Mayor. The London electorate did in a referendum. You can blame him for creating the referendum if you like, but not the outcome.

 

[bnm]

Removed. Off topic.

 

[mmh]

That bus driver deserves nothing less than sacking.

Why? What benefit would that give anyone?

This is a perfect example of why you should record and publish

What a horrible world we live in.

I notice you haven't mentioned the most obvious thing about the bus driver from the video clip.

 

[bnm]

Removed. Off topic.

 

[yorksrob]

I wonder if all those teenagers who were denied access to shopping centres without removing their hoodies a few years back, were also discriminated against.

 

[Bromley boy]

Do you know - for a fact - that he makes her wear it? It might be justification, but I have spoken with Muslim women who say that they actually like wearing a niqab since there's no pressure to be fashionable and they can wear whatever they like underneath it.

I don’t know for a fact that he makes her wear or, or that he doesn’t make her wear it. I’ve literally never seen her without him, yet I seem him out and about on his own all the time. When it was 35 degrees, he was slobbing around in his shorts, she was robed up in black fabric. That’s something I don’t like to see any human being subjected to.

It sounds like the women you have spoken to are confused themselves about why they wear it. I know plenty of women who feel no pressure to be fashionable and wear whatever they like. None of them feel the need to wrap themselves up in a sheet from head to foot when they leave the house!

None of the people rushing to defend wearing of the burqa on this thread -seemingly due to not wanting to discriminate - seem able to acknowledge that the practice of wearing it is inherently discriminatory: the culture concerned only mandates it for women. The fact that some women may have been brought up/brainwashed into wearing it doesn’t change the facts that the burqa is fundamentally an instrument of female oppression:

- some women may choosing to wear it due to religious obligation (in which case they are electing into that system of discrimination);
- some women around the world, including some in the UK, wear it due to a sense of coercion*, ranging from societal pressure up to threats of violence and worse.

Anyone who is in favour of personal choice, equality of the sexes, gay rights etc. should fundamentally object to that culture, and should resist its encroachment into the U.K. in all it’s forms. It’s extraordinarily that people can’t seem to see that. The twisted logic of (mostly the left) in defending fundamentally repressive and discriminatory practices in the name of “equality” is very worrying indeed, and seems to be increasing.

*the other thing to consider is that these communities are collectivist. As such pressure can be subtle and can come from other women/society at large. If you live in a community (including parts of Bradford and Tower Hamlets) where almost every woman wears the niqab, what will the attitude be of that community toward those women who choose not to wear it?

(I will reply to others as and when I can, busy weekend).

 

[furnessvale]

No, just freedom of choice.

So no problem when they are asked to remove said item of clothing in situations such as entering a bank, driving a car, or giving evidence in court?

 

[EM2]

So no problem when they are asked to remove said item of clothing in situations such as entering a bank, driving a car, or giving evidence in court?

If you're happy to ask people very personal, intrusive questions about their clothing choices and the reasons for them, you crack on.

 

[Geezertronic]

If you're happy to ask people very personal, intrusive questions about their clothing choices and the reasons for them, you crack on.

If it helps identify someone who could be vulnerable and being forced to do something they did not want to do, then I agree, crack on. This is not just about clothing choice because some people may not have that choice

 

[furnessvale]

If you're happy to ask people very personal, intrusive questions about their clothing choices and the reasons for them, you crack on.

If I was still in a position involving security I certainly would "crack on".

A friend of mine was a magistrate. A person appeared as a defendant wearing a full head covering. When this person attempted to give evidence on oath my friend asked that the head covering be removed so he could assess the veracity of the evidence. The person refused so my friend refused to hear the evidence.

Far from being supported by the powers that be, my friend was sent for corrective training. Needless to say, he resigned from the bench.

 

[AlterEgo]

If I was still in a position involving security I certainly would "crack on".

A friend of mine was a magistrate. A person appeared as a defendant wearing a full head covering. When this person attempted to give evidence on oath my friend asked that the head covering be removed so he could assess the veracity of the evidence. The person refused so my friend refused to hear the evidence.

Far from being supported by the powers that be, my friend was sent for corrective training. Needless to say, he resigned from the bench.

Did this make the news? I remember reading that some years ago.

 

[najaB]

It sounds like the women you have spoken to are confused themselves about why they wear it.

They weren't. For them it was an easy, comfortable garment - and just that. Sometimes they didn't wear it, sometimes they did.

 

[furnessvale]

Did this make the news? I remember reading that some years ago.

It certainly did. Around 2008 and it made the national press.

 

[EM2]

The irony is that if wearing of the burqa was a Christian or Jewish practice, the same people defending it as an object of choice (it’s an object of oppression) would be on here criticising it.

Have you heard of Haredi Judaism?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=h...ViOXcAhUQMd4KHXeFBdEQ_AUIESgB&biw=376&bih=544

 

[najaB]

None of the people rushing to defend wearing of the burqa on this thread -seemingly due to not wanting to discriminate - seem able to acknowledge that the practice of wearing it is inherently discriminatory: the culture concerned only mandates it for women.

Neither the niquab nor the burqua are mandated by culture (or, more specifically, by religion). Islam requires hijab, which can be as simple as wearing a headscarf.

There are specific individual mullahs/imams who insist that the full veil (niquab or burqua) be worn - as a society we should be working on reducing those people's influence over others and supporting people who are persecuted as a result of wanting to express themselves.

Simply banning full veils is just treating a symptom and does nothing to treat the cause (as well as giving more ammunition to the 'they hate Muslims' narrative).

 

[Senex]

Islam requires hijab, which can be as simple as wearing a headscarf.

Then how is it that there are so many Moslem women, especially in the professions, who seem perfectly able to reconcile their faith with not wearing a headscarf of any sort, let alone one of the more intrusive varieties?

 

[najaB]

Then how is it that there are so many Moslem women, especially in the professions, who seem perfectly able to reconcile their faith with not wearing a headscarf of any sort, let alone one of the more intrusive varieties?

Differing opinions on what hijab actually means. In much the same way that Protestants and Catholics differ on how to conduct services.

 

[Bromley boy]

Have you heard of Haredi Judaism?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=h...ViOXcAhUQMd4KHXeFBdEQ_AUIESgB&biw=376&bih=544

I’d be fully in favour of a blanket ban of the hiding of peoples’ faces, including this, although I doubt the Haredi Jewish community population in the U.K. is anything like as big as the section of the Muslim community who wear the niqab/burqa.

They weren't. For them it was an easy, comfortable garment - and just that. Sometimes they didn't wear it, sometimes they did.

I’ve heard it all now. A sheet covering a human being from head to foot is an “easy comfortable garment”?

If they’re honestly unable to see what that practice says about how that practice views women I’d suggest they’ve been brainwashed, or simply aren’t thinking very deeply. Wearing these garments is also opting out of mainstream British society and shoving two fingers up at the values of the country they are living in, in the view of many.

Apart from the security issues, as a man, I find the concept of the niqab/burqa offensive. Is the presumption that men can’t control themselves and are going to attack strange women in public if they aren’t veiled?

Neither the niquab nor the burqua are mandated by culture (or, more specifically, by religion). Islam requires hijab, which can be as simple as wearing a headscarf.

There are specific individual mullahs/imams who insist that the full veil (niquab or burqua) be worn - as a society we should be working on reducing those people's influence over others and supporting people who are persecuted as a result of wanting to express themselves.

But you’re misrepresenting things. It isn’t just a few individual religious figures, there are entire countries where these extreme interpretations of Islam are mandated - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, for example.

These are countries and regions with appalling record on the way women and minorities are treated. The burqa is the tip of the iceberg. Which other practices do you believe Muslims living in the U.K. should be free to exercise “freedom of choice” to elect into?

Differing opinions on what hijab actually means. In much the same way that Protestants and Catholics differ on how to conduct services.

It is simply dishonest to compare women being covered from head to toe in public, denied the ability to properly communicate or integrate into U.K. society, with differences between the way Protestants and catholics conduct church services. I should have thought that went without saying!

We have finally built a society in the U.K. where women have more protection from patriarchy and discrimination than ever before (and there’s still some way to go). How depressing many here seem to want to import extreme religious conservative practices, undermining what has been achieved.

If we have legislation requiring women to be paid equally to men, protection from domestic violence and stalking, it follows that there is a case for legislation banning extremely patriarchal practices such as the niqab/burqa (applying equally to Christians, Muslims, Haredi Jews, and any other groups using similar).

As for any ban feeding “hate the Muslims” rhetoric, you do realise these appalling garments have even been banned in some predominantly Islamic countries!

 

[433N]

... shoving two fingers up at the values of the country they are living in ...

Thanks. If asked, this is how I'll describe the last 8 years of Tory government.

 

[AlterEgo]

Differing opinions on what hijab actually means. In much the same way that Protestants and Catholics differ on how to conduct services.

Does “hijab” ever mean “not wearing any head covering at all”?

 

[najaB]

It isn’t just a few individual religious figures, there are entire countries where these extreme interpretations of Islam are mandated - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, for example.

I thought we were talking about the UK? In any case, it's still a small group of men setting the rules.

 

[najaB]

Does “hijab” ever mean “not wearing any head covering at all”?

The closest translation is 'modesty', so yes it could.

 

[EM2]

It isn’t just a few individual religious figures, there are entire countries where these extreme interpretations of Islam are mandated - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, for example.

https://news.sky.com/story/iranian-...-jailed-for-not-covering-their-heads-11187657

Women in Tehran will no longer routinely face being locked up or prosecuted for failing to observe strict Islamic dress codes in force since the 1979 revolution, the Iranian capital's police chief has said.

General Hossein Rahimi said those who do not observe the code "will no longer be taken to detention centres, nor will judicial cases be filed against them", the reformist newspaper Sharq reported.

However, women found to be in breach of the rules will instead be made to attend classes given by police, semi-official news agency Tasnim said.

Head, you will notice. Not face.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab_by_country

There is no hijab enforcement in Afghanistan, but it is predominantly worn. In the mid-20th century many women in urban areas did not wear head covering, but this ended with the outbreak of civil war in the 1990s.

I've already posted comments from the Saudi Crown Prince.

 

[bnm]

Ah but... individual husbands, fathers, religious leaders... will no doubt be the response to that skewering of Bromley boy's argument.

We in the UK are no longer imperialist world police. Its none of our business how others run their country provided it doesn't affect UK security. Any abuses are for the UN to deal with by consensus.

Let's just deal with the issue in our own country. Where no one in power is calling for a ban on religious head or face coverings.

 

[EM2]

Which other practices do you believe Muslims living in the U.K. should be free to exercise “freedom of choice” to elect into?

Like everyone else that lives here, they should be free to do whatever is not illegal.