Boris Johnson is a liability.

[najaB]

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

Agreed, as long as it doesn't directly harm others.

 

[Intercity 225]

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

How can you justify that statement when the Conservatives have won more votes than any other party in British history?

And if anything Cameron’s policies were moderate compared to many other Tory governments, why do consider his premiership in particular to be against British values?

 

[Intercity 225]

To add to the general thread, I do believe in the right for individuals to wear whatever they choose however I do think it’s a bit hypocritical for those supportive of women’s rights and equality to also be in support of full face niqabs/burkas.

The areas of the world where they’re worn en masse have extremely conservative values where women are subservient to men and that’s not the way I want society to develop, we’ve come a long way in this country to ensure that women have equal opportunities to men (although there’s still more work to be done on that front) and whilst some women may choose to wear full face niqabs/burkas at their own free will, the idea that all do is simply naive.

I also believe that in all places where there are requirements to remove masks/helmets/hoodies etc it should also apply to those wearing full face niqabs/burkas - one rule for one, one rule for all.

 

[bnm]

How can you justify that statement when the Conservatives have won more votes than any other party in British history?

Since universal suffrage was granted by the Representation of the People Act 1928, and excluding National Governments and Wartime Coalitions, the Conservatives have won 10 General Elections. One in coalition and one (the current) in minority.

Over that same period Labour have won 10 General Elections too. Two in minority.

Between the Reform Act 1832 and 1928 the Conservatives won 12 elections. The Whigs/Liberals won 12.

By 'won' I mean going on to form a Government after a General Election.

 

[Intercity 225]

Since universal suffrage was granted by the Representation of the People Act 1928, and excluding National Governments and Wartime Coalitions, the Conservatives have won 10 General Elections. One in coalition and one (the current) in minority.

Over that same period Labour have won 10 General Elections too. Two in minority.

Between the Reform Act 1832 and 1928 the Conservatives won 12 elections. The Whigs/Liberals won 12.

By 'won' I mean going on to form a Government after a General Election.

Thank you for using facts, really good to see that during an era where hyperbole and misinformation are used by many. The point I was making was to debunk 433N’s ludicrous statement that a “Tory government” can’t have “British values” when the Conservatives have won more total votes from British people than any other party in history.

For what it’s worth I also believe that the Labour Party can justifiably claim to have “British values” - they’ve amassed a huge amount of total support since their inception and obviously also governed for significant periods of time. I’d also suggest that the “values” of both the Conservatives and Labour are similar in terms of what they want to achieve - it’s the method of execution that’s significantly different.

I think it’s unhealthy that we’re heading towards an increasingly polarised society where Tories = bad, Labour = good or vice versa to the extent that many supporters of both main parties won’t ever even countenance that the other side may have some good ideas/policies. The truth is that there are merits and disadvantages to both approaches - that’s the main reason why total support for both main parties varies over the course of history but when it boils down to it, it’s fairly evenly split.

The remark made by @433N may have been flippant (I’ll leave it to them to justify their meaning) but I don’t personally believe that throwaway comments are useful in any way, and certainly not conducive to good political debate.

 

[Bromley boy]

Thank you for using facts, really good to see that during an era where hyperbole and misinformation are used by many. The point I was making was to debunk 433N’s ludicrous statement that a “Tory government” can’t have “British values” when the Conservatives have won more total votes from British people than any other party in history.

For what it’s worth I also believe that the Labour Party can justifiably claim to have “British values” - they’ve amassed a huge amount of total support since their inception and obviously also governed for significant periods of time. I’d also suggest that the “values” of both the Conservatives and Labour are similar in terms of what they want to achieve - it’s the method of execution that’s significantly different.

I think it’s unhealthy that we’re heading towards an increasingly polarised society where Tories = bad, Labour = good or vice versa to the extent that many supporters of both main parties won’t ever even countenance that the other side may have some good ideas/policies. The truth is that there are merits and disadvantages to both approaches - that’s the main reason why total support for both main parties varies over the course of history but when it boils down to it, it’s fairly evenly split.

The remark made by @433N may have been flippant (I’ll leave it to them to justify their meaning) but I don’t personally believe that throwaway comments are useful in any way, and certainly not conducive to good political debate.

Fully agreed. It was a nonsensical statement.

 

[433N]

I apologise in full. Forgot that jokes weren't allowed on internet forums. Carry on with your very earnest discussion.

 

[bnm]

I apologise in full. Forgot that jokes weren't allowed on internet forums. Carry on with your very earnest discussion.

*like*

Don't worry. Some folk can get a little precious when something they hold dear is the target of satire.

It's worth remembering that winning votes and being in government doesn't mean those that have done so are any good at it.

 

[Intercity 225]

I apologise in full. Forgot that jokes weren't allowed on internet forums. Carry on with your very earnest discussion.

I didn’t realise you were simply making a joke, the written word isn’t the best method of delivering subtle humour because communication isn’t wholly reliant on language. There are many individuals who would have made such a statement and meant it wholeheartedly.

If we were speaking face to face I’d have almost certainly picked up on the joke due to your tone of voice or facial expression.

To add to that doesn’t what we’ve actually just gone through here add to the debate? In the sense that those who cover their face in society are probably at a disadvantage when it comes to communicating effectively with others because nuances are far less likely to be picked up upon?

 

[Cowley]

To add to that doesn’t what we’ve actually just gone through here add to the debate? In the sense that those who cover their face in society are probably at a disadvantage when it comes to communicating effectively with others because nuances are far less likely to be picked up upon?

Very good.
I’ve just spent half an hour (until I went cross eyed) looking through the legislation covering naturists in this country (surely the opposite extreme to wearing a Burkha?) and I’d like to stand up for their rights too...
I saw an old boy walking up to Dartmoor recently (he’s quite well known in the area) with no clothes on, and his ‘Last chicken in the shop’ was swinging around as he plodded along for all to see...
I read online the day after though that he’d been picked up by the police soon after, and told (again) not to do it as he’d yet again broken the law.
I felt like protecting his rights. As long as I could’ve looked in a different direction.

 

[najaB]

I do believe in the right for individuals to wear whatever they choose however I do think it’s a bit hypocritical for those supportive of women’s rights and equality to also be in support of full face niqabs/burkas.

I can't speak for others, but I'm 'in support' of neither the niquab nor the burka. My position is that those who want to ban the wearing of either are no different than those who want to make their use compulsory. Both groups want to control what women wear based on their value systems.

 

[Bromley boy]

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

Head, you will notice. Not face.

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


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

I’m not sure the sky article you’ve linked to helps your argument as much as you think it does. It states that head coverings are still mandated in Iran, just that arrests are a little less frequent (big of them).

The burqua/niqab are widely worn in Iran, I rather doubt that is through “freedom of choice”, in a county where even wearing nail varnish is frowned upon/prohibited!

As for comments from the Saudi crown prince: I’m not sure how much they add when people can be beheaded in public in Saudi, in 2018, for the “crimes” of sorcery and homosexuality.

I’m not sure there’s much scope for further discussion since you don’t appear to be want to engage with this issue beyond dogmatically stating the burqa/niqab are down to freedom of choice, even when that clearly isn’t the case in many instances.

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

Hardly skewered, was it. But yes, that too, I did mention the collectivism and societal pressure but that, along with the rest of my argument, has been ignored.

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.

Ah, good old moral relativism. Maybe Jezza should shut up about Palestine, then?

But generally I agree - far too many Brits have laid down their lives in godforsaken lands over the last couple of decades. What I don’t want is those cultures impinging onto the values we live by here.

People wishing to live according to alien and illiberal cultural norms are free to live somewhere that better fits their values, should they choose to. Sadly many seem to want the best of both worlds: living in this country according to deeply illiberal practices and then crying discrimination when it suits them.

If you want the U.K. to be a liberal society, and you believe women should be equal to men, you should be considering why the burqa/niqab might not be such a good idea in this country.

 

[Bromley boy]

My position is that those who want to ban the wearing of either are no different than those who want to make their use compulsory.

I would disagree with that. The groups are fundamentally different.

Liberal arguments can be made for and against their banning, as we are doing on here (Bojo agrees with you on this)! We are all in the same (liberal) group.

On the other hand people arguing to make them compulsory are not liberals and are an entirely different group.

Both groups want to control what women wear based on their value systems.

And at some point we have to decide what values we want in this country, and enforce them, lest they should be eroded and lost in future.

As I said earlier, we have equal pay legislation etc. (which I’m sure we are all in favour of). I don’t see how this is different in principle to a potential burqua ban (applying to all religious groups).

 

[Bromley boy]

Very good.
I’ve just spent half an hour (until I went cross eyed) looking through the legislation covering naturists in this country (surely the opposite extreme to wearing a Burkha?) and I’d like to stand up for their rights too...
I saw an old boy walking up to Dartmoor recently (he’s quite well known in the area) with no clothes on, and his ‘Last chicken in the shop’ was swinging around as he plodded along for all to see...
I read online the day after though that he’d been picked up by the police soon after, and told (again) not to do it as he’d yet again broken the law.
I felt like protecting his rights. As long as I could’ve looked in a different direction.

From what I’ve seen of naturists the people choosing that “lifestyle” are the people who should definitely remain covered up.

Perhaps we could introduce mandatory burqas for naturists? After all we have been told on this thread that niqabs/burqas liberate people to wear whatever they want (including nothing) underneath .

 

[bnm]

Perhaps we could introduce mandatory burqas for naturists

One is hardly a naturist if one is wearing a head to toe garment.

 

[najaB]

I would disagree with that. The groups are fundamentally different.

Only because you (and I) are in the group that's 'right' and the other side are holding on to outmoded ideas.

The thing to remember is that the other group equally sees themselves as being right, and we are the ones who are being barbaric.

Outright bans aren't the solution, reducing the power of the mullahs and imams who preach ultra-conservative Islam and highlighting people who show that it is possible to be Muslim and western would go a lot further.

 

[Geezertronic]

One is hardly a naturist if one is wearing a head to toe garment.

However people arguing that a person can wear what they like should also argue in favour of a person being able to wear nothing too

 

[EM2]

I’m not sure the sky article you’ve linked to helps your argument as much as you think it does. It states that head coverings are still mandated in Iran, just that arrests are a little less frequent (big of them).

Yes, the head. Not the face, which you stated is mandated to be covered in Iran. Clearly not the case.

As for comments from the Saudi crown prince: I’m not sure how much they add when people can be beheaded in public in Saudi, in 2018, for the “crimes” of sorcery and homosexuality.

Irrelevant. He rules the country. If he says that it's not compulsory, then it's not compulsory.
What other practices are punished by whatever method is not under discussion.

 

[najaB]

However people arguing that a person can wear what they like should also argue in favour of a person being able to wear nothing too

You should, and can. It isn't illegal to walk around naked, as long as you don't cause offense.

 

[Groningen]

Boris Johnson was (btw) right about Amsterdam. But than. It is the British that mainly visit Amsterdam.

 

[Intercity 225]

Very good.
I’ve just spent half an hour (until I went cross eyed) looking through the legislation covering naturists in this country (surely the opposite extreme to wearing a Burkha?) and I’d like to stand up for their rights too...
I saw an old boy walking up to Dartmoor recently (he’s quite well known in the area) with no clothes on, and his ‘Last chicken in the shop’ was swinging around as he plodded along for all to see...
I read online the day after though that he’d been picked up by the police soon after, and told (again) not to do it as he’d yet again broken the law.
I felt like protecting his rights. As long as I could’ve looked in a different direction.

Haha - I can imagine that being quite a sight!

And also like you, whilst I wouldn’t want to look at him for any longer than necessary I’d still be supportive of his right to go out in public like that if that’s how he feels most comfortable. Saying that, I would also be completely supportive of let’s say a shop owner refusing him access to their store because he wasn’t clothed.

As I’ve already stated I don’t support a burka ban in the same way I don’t believe individuals should be prosecuted for leaving their home undressed but we need consistency in what is/isn’t deemed acceptable/appropriate because in many places we’re creating a two tiered approach based on religious grounds and I’m fundamentally against that.

To give two examples:

1. If someone goes to my local petrol station and they’re wearing a motorcycle helmet they need to remove it before they’ll switch the pumps on whereas if someone turns up in a full face niqab or burka there’s no requirement to take it off before service. That’s completely wrong, either allow both to remain covered or require both to reveal their identity.

2. A pub local to me doesn’t typically allow headgear, anyone wearing a baseball cap or hat of any variety is asked to remove it or leave... however I recently saw someone in there wearing a Jewish yamaka - again that’s completely wrong.

They’re just two examples but there’s a bizarre prevalent trend where many places allow their typical rules to be circumvented in order not to cause offence to religious individuals and that’s unacceptable. We’re all equal and all of us should be subject to the same laws and requirements without exception.

 

[Senex]

To give two examples:

1. If someone goes to my local petrol station and they’re wearing a motorcycle helmet they need to remove it before they’ll switch the pumps on whereas if someone turns up in a full face niqab or burka there’s no requirement to take it off before service. That’s completely wrong, either allow both to remain covered or require both to reveal their identity.

2. A pub local to me doesn’t typically allow headgear, anyone wearing a baseball cap or hat of any variety is asked to remove it or leave... however I recently saw someone in there wearing a Jewish yamaka - again that’s completely wrong.

They’re just two examples but there’s a bizarre prevalent trend where many places allow their typical rules to be circumvented in order not to cause offence to religious individuals and that’s unacceptable. We’re all equal and all of us should be subject to the same laws and requirements without exception.

Agreed.

Unlike you, I should like to see a legal ban on any covering of the face in public (except for the very rare cases of masks needed after surgery). However, if that does not happen, then there should be no obligation on anyone, either in the course of their employment or privately, to deal with a masked person. I find the assumption that people should be able to conceal their faces from me whilst talking to me an offensive assumption that pays excessive attention to the cultural practices of certain societies alien to this country and not to the requirements of a particular religion.

 

[AlterEgo]

You should, and can. It isn't illegal to walk around naked, as long as you don't cause offense.

...which is entirely subjective.

 

[SilentGrade]

Outright bans aren't the solution, reducing the power of the mullahs and imams who preach ultra-conservative Islam and highlighting people who show that it is possible to be Muslim and western would go a lot further.

Exactly, if the concern with banning the burka and niqab is to do with women’s freedoms, isn’t the solution to make the controlling or coercive behaviour illegal (e.g as a form of domestic abuse) rather than a ban

 

[najaB]

...which is entirely subjective.

Indeed it is. The key is if anyone complains: if there's nobody there to see, or nobody who sees makes a complaint then you're golden.

 

[Bromley boy]

Agreed.

Unlike you, I should like to see a legal ban on any covering of the face in public (except for the very rare cases of masks needed after surgery). However, if that does not happen, then there should be no obligation on anyone, either in the course of their employment or privately, to deal with a masked person. I find the assumption that people should be able to conceal their faces from me whilst talking to me an offensive assumption that pays excessive attention to the cultural practices of certain societies alien to this country and not to the requirements of a particular religion.

I agree with every word of this.

Exactly, if the concern with banning the burka and niqab is to do with women’s freedoms, isn’t the solution to make the controlling or coercive behaviour illegal (e.g as a form of domestic abuse) rather than a ban

It’s both (although controlling and coercive behaviour is already a specific criminal offence).

There’s a good liberal argument for banning the burqa/niqab on similar grounds, since these garments prevent participation of the wearer in society, and are incompatible with liberal values.

They are also a cultural rather than religious requirement and are already banned in some Islamic majority countries as an attempt to provide the rise of Islamic extremism.

That should tell us something.

 

[najaB]

since these garments prevent participation of the wearer in society

Prevent? That'll be news to the wearers who I've met at work.

 

[Bromley boy]

Prevent? That'll be news to the wearers who I've met at work.

So you’re saying you share an office with women who show up to work in full face niqabs (as opposed to hijab/headscarves)?

I’m surprised by that. I’ve never seen a single example of the niqab being worn in the workplace, having worked in quite a few jobs/industries over the years, nor seen it worn by an employee of any business I have been a customer of.

If you honestly can’t see how going around dressed up in a black sheet with only eyes on display is going to prevent human interaction/participation in society then we will have to agree to disagree!*

Let me guess, the answer will be that the racist/bigoted U.K. is to blame for failing to integrate them?!

*and remind me again why it’s only the women who are required to wear it?

 

[najaB]

So you’re saying you share an office with women who show up to work in full face niqabs (as opposed to hijab/headscarves)?

Used to. I've since changed jobs.

If you honestly can’t see how going around dressed up in a black sheet with only eyes on display is going to prevent human interaction/participation in society then we will have to agree to disagree!

Make it more difficult? Sure, I agree with that. Prevent? Nope, not going to buy that one. And, by the way, the 'sheet' doesn't have to be black.

 

[Geezertronic]

So you’re saying you share an office with women who show up to work in full face niqabs (as opposed to hijab/headscarves)?

I’m surprised by that. I’ve never seen a single example of the niqab being worn in the workplace, having worked in quite a few jobs/industries over the years, nor seen it worn by an employee of any business I have been a customer of.

If you honestly can’t see how going around dressed up in a black sheet with only eyes on display is going to prevent human interaction/participation in society then we will have to agree to disagree!*

Let me guess, the answer will be that the racist/bigoted U.K. is to blame for failing to integrate them?!

*and remind me again why it’s only the women who are required to wear it?

I used to work for a company in Birmingham where their call centre was located back in 2001 and there was at least half a dozen women (I assume) wearing full face niqabs, and as I mentioned before in this thread their company ID card photos were of them wearing the full face niqab which made them very much non-identifable from each other