1 hour ago, cmsally said:

As a woman , I must say, I find it extremely disturbing that there are some people who do not see the fact that the clothing in question is  extreme and repressive.

Are there actually any other women on here debating the fact; it seems most on here are men. Maybe some are women and it would be useful to point that out when arguing your point of view as from my stance I see it as an irrelevant topic for men.

To see this form of extreme dress code as acceptable is to give a kick in the face to all that western women have worked so hard for in the last 100 years+. Property ownership, job opportunity, educational equality, financial independence, individual expression : all completely ignored because of the present hyper politically correct mentality that minorities do not have to assimilate.

I've frequently made it very clear that I too, am a woman.

11 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Who are you to judge?

 

Now you are progressing to criticise faith in religion, so be it. 

 

ALL RELIGIONS are loaded with faulty and bizarre beliefs as well as many primitive, discriminatory practices, 

Call it faith or brainwashing.

 

49 minutes ago, notmyself said:

 

2nd first if I may. I have a tin and on this tin it states 'It does exactly what it says on the tin'. If I use this tin in another way then would I be extreme. 

 

so.. 'do I consider this form of dress to be directive rather than choice'  It is exactly both so as a society we have to accept some degree of 'directive', as you put it. What price the freedom of others? A member said the 250 people would be affected in Denmark  which may be correct or not but lets use that as a pure number. If the lifting on a ban of showing their face were lifted then a number of people would find some kind of freedom and the cost to others is? 

"A member said the 250 people would be affected in Denmark  which may be correct or not but lets use that as a pure number."

 

I wondered about that too, but couldn't be bothered at the time to point out that if only 2-300 women in Denmark wear the nikab - whereas (presumably) multiples of this number find it offensive for various reasons - why on earth should 99% (?) of the population be ignored to accommodate the 2-300?

3 minutes ago, cmsally said:

I am saying that faith in religion should not be determined by dress code and especially not the dress code of females.

As for "who am I to judge" - I am not judging , I am putting forward my opinion as a well educated, well travelled European woman , with many members of my family who fought hard for the rights of women, owned their own businesses and entered politics when it was not the norm for women many years back.

 

The choices you talk about, are for me fundamentally against what so women have worked hard for.

You are questioning people's religiosity based upon their dress code, can say the exact same regards Jews, Nuns etc etc - ridiculous

 

Again I ask you have you ever held conversations with women practising the Islamic faith, cause right now I do not think so.

11 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"A member said the 250 people would be affected in Denmark  which may be correct or not but lets use that as a pure number."

 

I wondered about that too, but couldn't be bothered at the time to point out that if only 2-300 women in Denmark wear the nikab - whereas (presumably) multiples of this number find it offensive for various reasons - why on earth should 99% (?) of the population be ignored to accommodate the 2-300?

What?

 

Are the 99% being told by the 1% how they must dress?

 

Are all the 99% in agreement?

 

14 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"A member said the 250 people would be affected in Denmark  which may be correct or not but lets use that as a pure number."

 

I wondered about that too, but couldn't be bothered at the time to point out that if only 2-300 women in Denmark wear the nikab - whereas (presumably) multiples of this number find it offensive for various reasons - why on earth should 99% (?) of the population be ignored to accommodate the 2-300?

Ever heard of protecting the rights of a minority - it's core to a democratic society

50 minutes ago, Opl said:

 who feel they have no choice but to execute what they are directed to do.

Many choose to wear the veil because that is their wish. 

 

It is as wrong to take away a person’s choice as impose a dress code. 

 

I have made it very clear I view both of these situations as being wrong 

well done boris keep saying the plain truth. the veil is an islamic expression of muslim male guardianship to suppress female human rights.

it stems from the stoneage.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Their "choice" impinges on the operation of a liberal democratic non segregated society.

A flame post has been removed.

35 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What?

 

Are the 99% being told by the 1% how they must dress?

 

Are all the 99% in agreement?

 

The 1% have by choice moved to a very different society to their own. It will be almost impossible to assimilate and have a normal life with such an extreme dress code.

43 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"A member said the 250 people would be affected in Denmark  which may be correct or not but lets use that as a pure number."

 

I wondered about that too, but couldn't be bothered at the time to point out that if only 2-300 women in Denmark wear the nikab - whereas (presumably) multiples of this number find it offensive for various reasons - why on earth should 99% (?) of the population be ignored to accommodate the 2-300?

 

27 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Ever heard of protecting the rights of a minority - it's core to a democratic society

A bit simplistic I admit, but it depends on whether there is a good reason for protecting the 'rights' of a tiny minority that are actually justifiable.

 

And in the case of the burka/nikab - there is no reason at all to protect such a mosogynist symbol.

4 minutes ago, cmsally said:

The 1% have by choice moved to a very different society to their own. It will be almost impossible to assimilate and have a normal life with such an extreme dress code.

Explain to me how a leading politician ridiculing a minority helps that minority integrate?

32 minutes ago, cmsally said:

Their "choice" impinges on the operation of a liberal democratic non segregated society.

It’s still their choice and, while it may not be part of traditional society and to the distaste of many, legislation to ban veils or the use of derogatory language is not going to make the situation better. 

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

It’s still their choice. 

it's still their choice to not abide by the law, and not integrate.

 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Explain to me how a leading politician ridiculing a minority helps that minority integrate?

Denigratory  sense of humour. Presumably you must have watched Monty Python or Spitting Image ?

His whole point being the type of attire makes it almost impossible to integrate.

1 minute ago, Opl said:

it's still their choice to not abide by the law, and not integrate.

 

It’s their choice to decide how they dress  

So presumably , I could wear a miniskirt in Pakistan or Saudi ? That would be my right to choose ?

1 minute ago, cmsally said:

So presumably , I could wear a miniskirt in Pakistan or Saudi ? That would be my right to choose ?

If you are responding to my posts it would help me if you’d quote me in them. 

 

I’d support the right to dress as you say in those countries. 

8 minutes ago, cmsally said:

Denigratory  sense of humour. Presumably you must have watched Monty Python or Spitting Image ?

His whole point being the type of attire makes it almost impossible to integrate.

You didn’t answer the question.

4 minutes ago, cmsally said:

So presumably , I could wear a miniskirt in Pakistan or Saudi ? That would be my right to choose ?

Whataboutary.

 

Or are you now arguing the UK should model it’s idea of tolerance in that of Saudi Arabia/Pakistan?

10 minutes ago, Opl said:

it's still their choice to not abide by the law, and not integrate.

 

What law are they breaking?

10 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

It’s their choice to decide how they dress  

Actually no it's not. It's their husband's and/or imam's choice, and the refusal to do so allows the male to beat them, according to their superstition. It's enforced mental slavery. Forced "prayer" 3 times a day to rub it in. 

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Explain to me how a leading politician ridiculing a minority helps that minority integrate?

They have no intention of intergrating, so it makes no difference what anybody says. Pointless question.

11 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

A bit simplistic I admit, but it depends on whether there is a good reason for protecting the 'rights' of a tiny minority that are actually justifiable.

 

And in the case of the burka/nikab - there is no reason at all to protect such a mosogynist symbol.

The OP is in reality pandering by an opportunistic politician.

 

All democratic societies include freedom of religion and freedom of expression, so long as no harm caused. As already mentioned IMO same security policies should be applied as for full face helmets which I understand is already enacted.

 

To repeat, domestic violence legislation is already enacted to deal with misogynist violence, oppression being a form of violence. Banning female face covering in all public places will not stop or hinder misogyny. 

2 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Actually no it's not. It's their husband's and/or imam's choice. It's enforced mental slavery. Forced "prayer" 3 times a day to rub it in. 

Again. 

 

I have said all along I oppose imposed dress codes and legislation restricting the right to choose. 

 

Oh and the derogatory language choices johnson made. 

7 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Actually no it's not. It's their husband's and/or imam's choice, and the refusal to do so allows the male to beat them, according to their superstition. It's enforced mental slavery. Forced "prayer" 3 times a day to rub it in. 

Once again you return to your habit of unsubstantiated statements.

5 minutes ago, vogie said:

They have no intention of intergrating, so it makes no difference what anybody says. Pointless question.

The question was not ‘please expose your personal bias’.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The question was not ‘please expose your personal bias’.

I really think it would be nice if these people tried to intigrate a little, but the whole country is becoming us and them. But maybe you agree with Dianne Abbott that "the problem with Britain is the white people."

Oh What irony if Boris gets his "fatwa" delivered by post?