Boris Johnson slammed over Islamophobic comments

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

In that case you haven't understood what I'm saying. I'll try again

 

> These women are wearing Saudi Wahabbi garb.

> The Saudi Wahabbi sect does not allow women to freely chose their dress.

> The punishement for women not conforming to the dress code is beating.

> The punishment for leaving the religion is stoning to death.

 

So all you're doing is colluding with the negative forces that control their lives. Your "liberalism" is supporting the most illiberal misogynistic doctrine on earth.  Nice.

No. 

 

All im doing is saying people have the right to choose. 

 

I, at no point have condoned enforced dress codes or any of the other things you refer to. 

 

But you knew that didn’t you...

[wildewillie89]

32 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

More importantly, it will hopefully give the women involved a chance to start communicating with other people.

The women don't have a chance? The women participate in different television debates, have funny YouTube channels discussing the ridiculous comments people make about their dress (many comments on this thread), and participate in the world like any other person does when they are not discriminated against. If you miss out on knowing them or understanding them due to your irrational fear, then really it is you who misses out, not them. It seems like you are picking a tiny village in the world where Islamic women are indeed oppressed and taking that village as a representation of the whole world. The reality is not like that. 

Why is it this forum always ends up with silly remarks when speaking Islam. When the Mrs worked in Yala and I travelled to the insurgency down South (red zone), I was shown around 'in public' by Islamic women who knew I was an atheist dog lover. Yes, a white 6'5 man being shown around by Islamic women in public during an insurgency who wasn't their husband or of their faith. Shock horror! The Mrs, a Buddhist, who has worked all over the country still to this day says Yala is her favourite place in terms of the work friends she has made. These women even made the 20 plus hour bus trip to attend our wedding reception. Yes, alcohol and pork was served. Shock horror! The world is not as black and white as the fear mongering campaigns you fall victim to imply. The women, whether they cover themselves from head to toe, or just their hair, or whatever, have choice in what they decide to do or not do. Even if that choice has had other ideas attached to it in the past, it is their choice now! It is not hurting us having that choice. Get over it, it is a non-issue. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by wildewillie89

[cmsally]

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No. 

 

All im doing is saying people have the right to choose. 

 

I, at no point have condoned enforced dress codes or any of the other things you refer to. 

 

But you knew that didn’t you...

You are supporting the right to choose for people who don't and won't have that right. In doing so you are just capitulating to a non individualistic non democratic society.

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, cmsally said:

You are supporting the right to choose for people who don't and won't have that right. In doing so you are just capitulating to a non individualistic non democratic society.

No.

 

I am saying it is wrong to legislate against clothing choices and wrong for johnson to use the derogatory terms he did. 

[Opl]

6 minutes ago, wildewillie89 said:

The women don't have a chance? The women participate in different television debates, have funny YouTube channels discussing the ridiculous comments people make about their dress (many comments on this thread), and participate in the world like any other person does when they are not discriminated against. If you miss out on knowing them or understanding them due to your irrational fear, then really it is you who misses out, not them. It seems like you are picking a tiny village in the world where Islamic women are indeed oppressed and taking that village as a representation of the whole world. The reality is not like that. 

Why is it this forum always ends up with silly remarks when speaking Islam. When the Mrs worked in Yala and I travelled to the insurgency down South (red zone), I was shown around 'in public' by Islamic women who knew I was an atheist dog lover. Yes, a white 6'5 man being shown around by Islamic women in public during an insurgency who wasn't their husband or of their faith. Shock horror! The Mrs, a Buddhist, who has worked all over the country still to this day says Yala is her favourite place in terms of the work friends she has made. These women even made the 20 plus hour bus trip to attend our wedding reception. Yes, alcohol and pork was served. Shock horror! The world is not as black and white as the fear mongering campaigns you fall victim to imply. The women, whether they cover themselves from head to toe, or just their hair, or whatever, have choice in what they decide to do or not do. Even if that choice has had other ideas attached to it in the past, it is their choice now! It is not hurting us having that choice. Get over it, it is a non-issue. 

 

I did not notice how easy it must be to apply for a job, get an interview, become independant financially in the field of your choice wearing a face-veil in your everyday life in a non-muslim country.

With the ban, as a woman you can claim the right not to submit when told to cover your face by your husband, because it's against the law, and that is something. 

 

[My Thai Life]

19 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

All im doing is saying people have the right to choose. 

 

That's laudable in itself. But you're missing the context completely.

 

The women of this Wahabbi sect do not have the right to chose their dress.

 

So, what you are actually doing in this context is supporting the koranic rights of their imams/husbands to control the women.

 

Funny kind of liberalism that is.

 

 

[Bluespunk]

Just now, My Thai Life said:

That's laudable in itself. But you're missing the context completely.

 

The women of this Wahabbi sect do not have the right to chose their dress.

 

So, what you are actually doing in this context is supporting the koranic rights of their imams/husbands to control the women.

 

Funny kind of liberalism that is.

 

 

Please stop being so patronising and telling me what I am or am not missing. 

 

I stand by the response i gave earlier. 

 

And before that. 

[My Thai Life]

40 minutes ago, wildewillie89 said:

If you miss out on knowing them or understanding them due to your irrational fear, then really it is you who misses out, not them. It seems like you are picking a tiny village in the world where Islamic women are indeed oppressed and taking that village as a representation of the whole world. The reality is not like that. 

Why is it this forum always ends up with silly remarks when speaking Islam. When the Mrs worked in Yala and I travelled to the insurgency down South (red zone), I was shown around 'in public' by Islamic women who knew I was an atheist dog lover.

This is well-meaning but naive in the extreme

 

> Try to "know" a Wahabbi woman. Please walk up to one and start talking to her. It's against the law for Wahabbi women to talk to men they are not related to, or to spend time in their company. I was once approached by a Wahabbi woman in the street in Riyadh (capital of Saudi Arabia). Within seconds we were surrounded by Saudi men. The men were in no way intimidating towards me, but their disposition towards the woman wasn't very sweet. Check the statistics for how many Wahabbi women in the UK can speak English.

 

> Comparisons between muslim women in Thailand and Wahabbi women are not going to shed much light on this issue. 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by My Thai Life

[simple1]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

The husband will do the shopping, walking the children etc.?

 

Possibly, but it seems more likely that he'll be forced into allowing his wife into walking out without a piece of cloth covering her face.

 

More importantly, it will hopefully give the women involved a chance to start communicating with other people.

How on earth do you think banning the public wearing of a face cover will stop extreme cultural practises. Your reasoning is nonsensical. e.g. if the partner has an extremist husband / family they will not permit the wife to go out unveiled, unaccompanied, talk to non family members etc etc etc

 

Likely will take a long time with conservatives, but changes have to commence within the family / community, helplines, removing ultra conservative Imams - already occurring - and so on. Not legislation which will only add to further isolation for those subjected to oppression.

[nausea]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He’s simply rabble rousing in the hope of being able to lead the rabble.

Agree totally, but he's no Caesar. Just making the point that every now and then he might hit the spot, as the actress said to the bishop.

[simple1]

49 minutes ago, Opl said:

With the ban, as a woman you can claim the right not to submit when told to cover your face by your husband, because it's against the law, and that is something. 

 

To force a women to do something against her will is already illegal - it's called 'abuse'. 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

To force a women to do something against her will is already illegal - it's called 'abuse'. 

It is.

 

And by no streatch of imagination or data is it confined to any single group within society.

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, nausea said:

Agree totally, but he's no Caesar. Just making the point that every now and then he might hit the spot, as the actress said to the bishop.

He might have hit your spot but I ask again, in what way does Johnson making derogatory remarks about these women help them?

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

No. 

 

All im doing is saying people have the right to choose. 

 

I, at no point have condoned enforced dress codes or any of the other things you refer to. 

 

But you knew that didn’t you...

What you are doing washing your hands of this matter because of the paradox before you.  On all other threads you are a bold defender of women and a harsh critic of any misogyny and chauvinistic treatment of women. But because you are also a progressive you are forced to defend minorities against western oppression and interference. But how can you defend the rights of Wahhabists to completely dominate their women, to the point of them being mere chattel. When this activity  would disgust you in any other cultural arrangement. 

The answer is to say, I simply support the right to choose. And then magically your enabling hypocrisy is washed away pure as fresh fallen snow.

Edited August 10, 2018 by canuckamuck

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

What you are doing washing his hands of this matter because of the paradox before you.  On all other threads you are a bold defender of women and a harsh critic of any misogyny and chauvinistic treatment of women. But because you are also a progressive you are forced to defend minorities against western oppression and interference. But how can you defend the rights of Wahhabists to completely dominate their women, to the point of them being mere chattel. When this activity  would disgust you in any other cultural arrangement. 

The answer is to say, I simply support the right to choose. And then magically your enabling hypocrisy is washed away pure as fresh fallen snow.

And if you bothered to read all my posts on this thread you’d see I am against both enforced dress codes and legislation that denies choice. 

 

No contradictions. 

 

No hypocrisy. 

 

No snow. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Bluespunk

[canuckamuck]

7 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

And if you bothered to read all my posts on this thread you’d see I am against both enforced dress codes and legislation that denies choice. 

 

No contradictions. 

 

No hypocrisy. 

 

No snow. 

No stand

[Bluespunk]

Just now, canuckamuck said:

No stand

No sense. 

[canuckamuck]

9 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No sense. 

Good to see you admit it.

[Bluespunk]

9 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Bluespunk
?

[sambum]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

A question from a muslim asking if its ok to force his wife to wear a hijab.

 

"The Qur’an has prescribed a specific graded series of three steps, which the husband should take if the wife shows that she is rebelling against Islamic norms of conduct.
His first step should be to speak to her seriously about the implication and likely consequences of what she is doing. If she fails to respond to this sincere admonition, his next step is to suspend marital relations with her for a period of time, If this also fails he is permitted to beat her lightly as a final act of correction. If she then complies then the husband should take no further action against her. [Qur’an 4:34]"

 

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-my-right-as-a-Muslim-man-to-force-not-physically-my-wife-to-wear-a-hijab-My-desire-is-simply-to-encourage-both-of-us-as-a-couple-to-hold-good-muslim-values

 

"he is permitted to beat her lightly" 

 

And the Muslim community expect that UK law (and Women's groups) will accept that?

[nausea]

How many women are wearing the full face veil voluntarily, how many women are wearing it involuntarily. Anyway, it makes no difference, women will find a way to sexualise their appearance regardless, how you'd do this without eye contact is beyond me, but I'm sure there's a way. In Victorian England a well turned ankle would make your heart miss a beat. Ha!

[duanebigsby]

4 hours 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?

Because the 2-300 have rights.

Discrimination against people of colour, gay, transgender, fat, slavery, you name it,

The 99%  aren't being ignored. The 1% are being abused.

[blazes]

A few sensible words from Rod Liddle:

 

"The liberals believe this is another pitch

from Boris to the right wing of the Conservative

party and that the Islamophobia within

the Conservative party is every bit as corrosive

as the anti-Semitism within Labour. My

own view is that there is not nearly enough

Islamophobia within the Tory party. Having

one or two misgivings about this arrogant,

oppressive ideology is not racism, but

an antipathy based upon our respect for secular

democracy and equal rights, allied to

our Judeo-Christian history. Phobia implies

these misgivings are irrational, when they

are anything but. As it happens we are lagging

behind in the race to ban burkas. They

are already against the law in Latvia, France,

Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, a lot of

Germany, Austria, Quebec and, uh, Morocco.

Boris was against a ban. I used to be but I

am no longer so sure, even if it would be an

infraction of human rights. Maybe I need

to watch a BBC film about how lovely the

burka really is, just to get my mind straight."

[cmsally]

We must be allowed to insult each other.

 

Rowan Atkinson has come out in support of Boris and in general has been campaigning against laws that ban insults.

[duanebigsby]

5 hours 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.

Freedom of choice is not a valid reason to protect their rights?

[duanebigsby]

14 hours ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

But you wouldn't bet your house against it ?

I don't own a house. Only fools do that in Thailand.

But it won't happen.

 

[My Thai Life]

And the excellent Christopher Hitchens...

 

“I dislike the way that the discussion around the Burka and other forms of veiling and enveloping of females is always referred to as a ban especially as it’s been applied or proposed in France. It’s not a ban, it’s the lifting of a ban on the right of women to choose what they can wear. The existing state of affairs is a ban by the male members of a religious cult organisation known as Islam. They believe they have the right to dictate the attire of their women. I think that ban should be lifted. They can’t do it in France. That’s just to say about the rights of the women concerned. If you counterpose to that — well why can’t a woman wear anything she wants, you’d have to give me some evidence that there was ever a woman that wanted to go out in the street only with her husband’s permission and only wearing the curtains. There’s no evidence of that at all, there’s a great deal of evidence the other way."

[duanebigsby]

15 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

And the excellent Christopher Hitchens...

 

“I dislike the way that the discussion around the Burka and other forms of veiling and enveloping of females is always referred to as a ban especially as it’s been applied or proposed in France. It’s not a ban, it’s the lifting of a ban on the right of women to choose what they can wear. The existing state of affairs is a ban by the male members of a religious cult organisation known as Islam. They believe they have the right to dictate the attire of their women. I think that ban should be lifted. They can’t do it in France. That’s just to say about the rights of the women concerned. If you counterpose to that — well why can’t a woman wear anything she wants, you’d have to give me some evidence that there was ever a woman that wanted to go out in the street only with her husband’s permission and only wearing the curtains. There’s no evidence of that at all, there’s a great deal of evidence the other way."

One of the few times I'll disagree with Hitchens.

His objection to the hijab or burka is he says Islam dictates the right of women to choose their attire.

Then he goes on to suggest the EU and UK do the exact same, dictate what women wear.

[Chomper Higgot]

21 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

And the excellent Christopher Hitchens...

 

“I dislike the way that the discussion around the Burka and other forms of veiling and enveloping of females is always referred to as a ban especially as it’s been applied or proposed in France. It’s not a ban, it’s the lifting of a ban on the right of women to choose what they can wear. The existing state of affairs is a ban by the male members of a religious cult organisation known as Islam. They believe they have the right to dictate the attire of their women. I think that ban should be lifted. They can’t do it in France. That’s just to say about the rights of the women concerned. If you counterpose to that — well why can’t a woman wear anything she wants, you’d have to give me some evidence that there was ever a woman that wanted to go out in the street only with her husband’s permission and only wearing the curtains. There’s no evidence of that at all, there’s a great deal of evidence the other way."

Suddenly stops making any sense as soon as a woman chooses of her own free will to wear a Burqa.

[nong38]

He as said what most people think but are not allowed to say these days thanks to the PC brigade.