3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That was my opinion on page 3 of the comments under this thread, we've reached page 35 and then evidence suggests I was right.

IMO all you have proven is that you don't believe in free speech.

5 hours ago, Scott said:

Off-topic post and post violating Fair Use Policy have been removed.

 

Because this thread is about Boris Johnson's Islamophobia it does not mean members can post Islamophobic remarks.    

 

You have been warned. 

 

 

As per the above, more off topic posts and the replies have been removed.  

 

A post commenting on moderation has now been removed.

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

IMO all you have proven is that you don't believe in free speech.

I'm not at all sure on what basis you come to that conclusion. 

 

I absolutely  do believe in free speech, but I don't believe in speech free from consequences.

 

The consequences for your free speech, my free speech or anyone else's free speech should not be reserved for others to suffer. 

 

 

Can somebody explain how Boris Johnson ridiculing the dress these women choose to wear as an expression of their identity  and faith helps these women integrate to wider society?

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Can somebody explain how Boris Johnson ridiculing the dress these women choose to wear as an expression of their identity  and faith helps these women integrate to wider society?

I suppose the most obvious answer is that people like to see who they are talking to.

Just now, vogie said:

I suppose the most obvious answer is that people like to see who they are talking to.

That's an answer, but not to the question I asked, so let's modify the question to help you. 

 

If we take the reasonable view that people like to see the face of those they talk to, then how does Boris Johnson ridiculing the dress these women choose to wear as an expression of their identity* and faith encourage these women abandon this form of expressing their faith and identity*?

 

Pre-emtive anti pedantry strike - 'Identity ' as in how they perceive themselves not 'Identity' as in what they look like.

 

2 hours ago, happy chappie said:

It's the same as saying a vicar wearing what we call a dog collar.its not anti Christian or saying he's a dog...the pc  world at it again <deleted>.

"It's the same as saying a vicar wearing what we call a dog collar.its not anti Christian or saying he's a dog"

 

Very good point.  Very few (if any) take offense at a vicar's collar being called a dog collar - even Christians! edit - or vicars!

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

That's an answer, but not to the question I asked, so let's modify the question to help you. 

 

If we take the reasonable view that people like to see the face of those they talk to, then how does Boris Johnson ridiculing the dress these women choose to wear as an expression of their identity* and faith encourage these women abandon this form of expressing their faith and identity*?

 

Pre-emtive anti pedantry strike - 'Identity ' as in how they perceive themselves not 'Identity' as in what they look like.

 

It really doesn't matter how I try to explain things to you, you seem to get confused by every one of my replies. Have you a friend that can explain them to you.

1 minute ago, vogie said:

It really doesn't matter how I try to explain things to you, you seem to get confused by every one of my replies. Have you a friend that can explain them to you.

Go on give it a go. 

On 8/8/2018 at 7:46 AM, cornishcarlos said:

The PC brigade, aka politicians, will give up our culture and heritage for fear of offending those not wishing to assimilate to their chosen country of residence....

It's embarrassing...!!

They gave up the British culture when they started allowing anyone to come into the country. Enoch Powell spoke the truth but in the process had his political career ruined

39 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Can somebody explain how Boris Johnson ridiculing the dress these women choose to wear as an expression of their identity  and faith helps these women integrate to wider society?

Can you explain how wearing a burka helps these woment integrate western non muslim societies whose populations mostly approve its ban - If ever they at least bother to undertstand/care a little bit about the history and culture that shaped our identities here and values?  

Who is causing offence first? 

Deleted, as Opl made the point far more succinctly.

11 minutes ago, Opl said:

Can you explain how wearing a burka helps these woment integrate western non muslim societies whose populations mostly approve its ban - If ever they at least bother to undertstand/care a little bit about the history and culture that shaped our identities here and values?  

Who is causing offence first? 

If you take the view that you wish these women to integrate (I assume you take that view) then when a politician speaks on the matter it is worth asking how does what he says impact the desire to help these women integrate.

 

6 hours ago, owl sees all said:

Try to walk into some moske in Saudi wearing a vest, shorts and flip-flops and see if there is not looks of disapproval.

Using the above argument is asinine. Since when is their a moral equivalence between an Islamic dictatorship and rule of law in the UK

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

This is about burkas. Only.

 

They are indefensible in the U.K. as they offend many.

 

Ban them in public. Now.

With relevance to the OP Boris has not called for a general ban on face coverings. What he has been called out for is vilification, which as a self declared bigot I assume you support.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/05/denmark-has-got-wrong-yes-burka-oppressive-ridiculous-still/

 

Gays kissing in public and other minority activities would 'offend many', why not a general ban? BTW 'the many' regards the OP has been captured as relating to specific older age groups, not across all demographics.

36 minutes ago, vogie said:

It really doesn't matter how I try to explain things to you, you seem to get confused by every one of my replies. Have you a friend that can explain them to you.

 

34 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Go on give it a go. 

We've mostly given up (for the time being ?), as it's very obvious that you ignore the multitude of points made - which makes it a pointless exercise for all of us.

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If you take the view that you wish these women to integrate (I assume you take that view) then when a politician speaks on the matter it is worth asking how does what he says impact the desire to help these women integrate.

 

Once again, you will not help or force to integrate - someone who knowingly publicly wears a statement that says the opposite.

Is it so difficult to understand?  

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

We've mostly given up (for the time being ?), as it's very obvious that you ignore the multitude of points made - which makes it a pointless exercise for all of us.

I've asked a very specific question, that you are now dodging?

 

Odd that.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Opl said:

Once again, you will not help or force to integrate - someone who knowingly publicly wears a statement that says the opposite.

Is it so difficult to understand?  

The subject under discussion is Boris Johnson's comments relating to a specific group of women. 

 

You wish to discuss the specific group of women but don't wish to discuss the subject 'Boris Johnson's comments'.

 

 

 

Boris is such a clown. Not a reasonable candidate for PM in my opinion. This is a very serious issue and a bull in a China shop springs to mid no matter what your actual opinion is on the subject. 

9 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Gays kissing in public and other minority activities would 'offend many',

Dead right it would, the Wahabbis would stone them to death, push them off tower blocks, burn them alive.

 

But you carry on aligning yourself with the most illiberal doctrine in the world, in the delusion that you are supporting freedom of dress. In reality, you are supporting the right of Wahabbi men to tell women what to to do, and to punish them when they don't.

 

I assume you consider yourself to be a liberal of some sort: you are not, you're just floating on a cloud of smug, self-satisfied ignorance.

 

Wake up or grow up.

6 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

If that's what you think this is about you have completely missed the point, unless you belong to a motorbike helmet wearing sect committed to the subjugation of women.

 

Wahabbism is the most profoundly regressive illiberal misogynistic islamofascist nonsense in the world today. The Wahabbis gave you 9-11 and ISIS.

 

That "liberals" support Wahabbi culture and doctrine on the pretext of freedom of dress, when the Wahabbi women are not allowed not to wear Wahabbi dress, can no longer be explained by their "liberal" ignorance. 

 

These "liberals" are fascist sympathisers, plain and simple.

 

As a lifelong liberal myself, I urge you to do a bit more researching and thinking about this.

 

 

 

Try again, ISIS is /was a direct threat to Wahhabism and the Saudis. ISIS core ideology originated from the Muslim Brotherhood as did their insurgency ideology "Management of Savagery". Bin Laden's ideology was in contradiction to today's Wahhabism.

 

Show me a direct quote from liberals supporting Wahhabism, plus support from credible sources, other than Alt Right drivel.

Like Princes in Saudi Boris speaks as Englishmen have done in their own Nation since Gods Dog bit the Postman, and wont be stopped by a few  Lefty Snowflakes, everyday Muslims regard him as a Clown thathe is, not a threat. Get a Life Chomper, you sound like a Petulant Child.!!

Just now, My Thai Life said:

Dead right it would, the Wahabbis would stone them to death, push them off tower blocks, burn them alive.

 

But you carry on aligning yourself with the most illiberal doctrine in the world, in the delusion that you are supporting freedom of dress. In reality, you are supporting the right of Wahabbi men to tell women what to to do, and to punish them when they don't.

 

I assume you consider yourself to be a liberal of some sort: you are not, you're just floating on a cloud of smug, self-satisfied ignorance.

 

Wake up or grow up.

A fine example of a disingenuous argument:

 

"But you carry on aligning yourself with the most illiberal doctrine in the world, in the delusion that you are supporting freedom of dress. In reality, you are supporting the right of Wahabbi men to tell women what to to do, and to punish them when they don't."

 

Nobody in this discussion is aligning themselves with Whabbiasm, even Boris Johnson himself is not calling for the banning of this form of dress.

 

The accusation of supporting Wahabbiasm is your own disingenuous hyperbole.

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Dead right it would, the Wahabbis would stone them to death, push them off tower blocks, burn them alive.

 

But you carry on aligning yourself with the most illiberal doctrine in the world, in the delusion that you are supporting freedom of dress. In reality, you are supporting the right of Wahabbi men to tell women what to to do, and to punish them when they don't.

 

I assume you consider yourself to be a liberal of some sort: you are not, you're just floating on a cloud of smug, self-satisfied ignorance.

 

Wake up or grow up.

Rubbish.

ISIAS 

2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Try again, ISIS is /was a direct threat to Wahhabism and the Saudis

Wow, and your basis for that assertion is what?

 

All of the pseudo liberal comments on this thread have tacitly supported the oppression of Wahabbi women. Take off the rose-tinted specs and read again.

21 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The subject under discussion is Boris Johnson's comments relating to a specific group of women. 

 

You wish to discuss the specific group of women but don't wish to discuss the subject 'Boris Johnson's comments'.

 

 

 

BJ's analogy makes me smile anytime I see a letter box.

 

Just now, Opl said:

BJ analogy makes me smile anytime I see a letter box.

 

Simple things.

4 minutes ago, Opl said:

BJ's analogy makes me smile anytime I see a letter box.

 

or a bank robber

29 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Gays kissing in public and other minority activities would 'offend many', why not a general ban? BTW 'the many' regards the OP has been captured as relating to specific older age groups, not across all demographics.

As a gay man I can tell you I am in full agreement with banning these Burka things.

 

It is a symbol of what kind of person that women is.  If she truly chooses and  wants to wear such a costume to proclaim her religions beliefs... then one of her Islamic beliefs will be to have me and other gay people murdered for our 'sins'.  

 

Its the same as the KKK being allowed to wear their white costumes out in public and black people supposed to accept it in case if offends the KKK people.

 

However, I believe that most of these women do no choose to wear these things.  They are forced to, bullied into it from childhood by their families.  Once they grow up its going to be near impossible for them to 'wake up' and change their attitudes to it as its been ingrained into them for so long and become part of themselves.