4 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Rubbish.

Glad to see the pseudo liberals are contributing to the the debate.

 

Apart from the fact that the pseudo liberals are supporting the most illiberal regime on earth, their manners on the forum are also astonishingly limited

 

- ad hominen attacks

- one liners

- one worders.

 

 

 

 

Just now, jak2002003 said:

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.  

 

 

 

 

That's because they are married at 12 years old. What choice do they actually have?

1 hour 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?

Yes, get rid of the ridiculous ugly gear. Smile, say good morning. The end. Everyone lived happily ever after 

4 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Glad to see the pseudo liberals are contributing to the the debate.

 

Apart from the fact that the pseudo liberals are supporting the most illiberal regime on earth, their manners on the forum are also astonishingly limited

 

- ad hominen attacks

- one liners

- one worders.

 

 

 

 

Once again, trolling the unfounded accusation that those who disagree with you are supporting "the most illiberal regime on earth".

 

 

2 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Glad to see the pseudo liberals are contributing to the the debate.

 

Apart from the fact that the pseudo liberals are supporting the most illiberal regime on earth, their manners on the forum are also astonishingly limited

 

- ad hominen attacks

- one liners

- one worders.

Round and around. I have no interest whatsoever in responding point by point  to your personalised extremist right wing BS.

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Yes, get rid of the ridiculous ugly gear. Smile, say good morning. The end. Everyone lived happily ever after 

Ridiculing people's beliefs will achieve all that. 

 

Or will it entrench their beliefs? 

 

 

24 minutes ago, simple1 said:

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

It's very difficult to discuss anything with people who are motivated by dogma and wishful thinking, but have no correct information.

 

Professor Bernard Haykel: IS theology directly linked to Wahhabism

 

"The first Saudi State, based on this Wahhabi faith, seemed to confirm his [Wahab's] message because of the political and military success it had throughout the 18th Century and 19th Century where it conquered most of Arabia.

"Once a town was conquered he would appoint teachers to educate people in his version of the faith. He wrote a number of short books that were the basis for the teaching, books that are used by ISIS today."

 

43 minutes ago, simple1 said:

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.

You can attempt all kinds of deflection but this is about the burkha

 

It is a hideous blot on any situation. It obviously inhibits integration; even a smile is impossible

 

Do what you want in your own home, but, in public, show some courtesy. I don't care and don't wish to know what your religion is. I do wish to exchange pleasantries with everyone.

 

Ban the damned things. They are indefensible in our society.

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Once again, trolling the unfounded accusation that those who disagree with you are supporting "the most illiberal regime on earth".

When I see you criticise this doctrine, and demonstrate some understanding of its connection to Wahabbi dress codes, and the oppression of women, then I'll know you do not support this illiberal regime.

 

Until then you are a fellow traveller supporting the most illiberal misogynistic doctrine on earth.

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Simple things.

BJ makes me smile

 

Can not abide Boris; waste of an education

17 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

ISIAS 

Wow, and your basis for that assertion is what?<snip>

Time for your research. try starting with Sayyid Qut.

10 minutes ago, Grouse said:

You can attempt all kinds of deflection but this is about the burkha

<snip>

No deflection whatsoever, linked to BJ's actual words.

27 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

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.  

Whoosh...

 

  The Burka is an extension of the Harem, arabs traditionally 

hide their prize trinkets away from the jealousy of rivals.The

defending of such would be akin to practitioners of Santiera

being forced to schlep around in chains as a symbol of their

emancipation.

Now here's a thing

 

Ive just been speaking to a real live Muslim young woman. Receptionist at this development and employed by CBRE. Pretty, bright and speaks great English. Ear bud connected to an iPhone. Learning the Qu Ran as she pronounced it, in Arabic. We had a good laugh about Burkhas. She agrees totally out of place in Europe. So there ?

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Now here's a thing

 

Ive just been speaking to a real live Muslim young woman. Receptionist at this development and employed by CBRE. Pretty, bright and speaks great English. Ear bud connected to an iPhone. Learning the Qu Ran as she pronounced it, in Arabic. We had a good laugh about Burkhas. She agrees totally out of place in Europe. So there ?

Serendipity is a wonderful thing, even more so during internet debates.

Doubt burka Boris will be doing much apologizing he once wrote a poem about sultan Erdogan calling him the wankra from Ankara and they made him foreign secretary, he also said the UK would end up  better deal with the EU out than in so with his thick skin a letter box and bank robber reference is just to keep him in the limelight and appeal to the die hard Brexit stereotypes when he finally mounts his leadership challenge? 

35 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Ridiculing people's beliefs will achieve all that. 

 

Or will it entrench their beliefs? 

 

 

Quite the reverse. No wish to ridicule anyone ( well the occasional Brexiter just for fun)

 

I don't want know anyone's religious preferences.

 

I do think states should be secular though.

 

Do as you wish in private; don't shove it in my face or make the place uglier. Smile, pass the time of day, off you go!

29 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

When I see you criticise this doctrine, and demonstrate some understanding of its connection to Wahabbi dress codes, and the oppression of women, then I'll know you do not support this illiberal regime.

 

Until then you are a fellow traveller supporting the most illiberal misogynistic doctrine on earth.

It is your accusation that others support Wahabbiasm, it is for you to prove your accusation, not for the accused to prove you wrong. 

 

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Serendipity is a wonderful thing, even more so during internet debates.

You doubt me brother Chomper?

 

Ill put her online if you so desire...

5 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.

They are "indefensible because they offend many? " And why do these "many" have a superseding right to have their feelings protected from hurt? What actual damages to their persons, property, or reputation of these poor offended souls are incurred?

You can hide on Zebra Crossings Too.

5 minutes ago, HAKAPALITA said:

You can hide on Zebra Crossings Too.

Is that from a fortune cookie?

47 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It is your accusation that others support Wahabbiasm, it is for you to prove your accusation, not for the accused to prove you wrong. 

 

The dress code that you are supporting is Wahabbi. This has been said a thousand times. 

 

> Wahabbi women are not allowed not to wear the dress code

> Wahabbi shariah law permits men to beat women for not conforming to the dress code

> shariah law permits the murder of people who leave the "faith".

 

You support this state of affairs by not criticising this illiberal doctrine, hence the term "fellow traveller". 

 

Other terms may include "gullible fool" or "tacit supporter".

 

Whichever term you prefer, you are supporting the most illiberal doctrine on earth, and the the subjugation and dehumanisation of women.

 

Wake up or grow up.

 

2 hours ago, Opl said:

3 hours 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? 

a veiled woman causes offence? gimme a break man!     

Quote

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.

no looks of disapproval, just kicked out.

3 hours 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?

They don't intergrate.we are all infidels and they will be severely punished  under sharia law for integrating in any way.  

 

4 minutes ago, Naam said:

a veiled woman causes offence? gimme a break man!     

Well, covering your face like this is offensive to many. The only people that used to do it in the UK were the IRA.

 

But Naam, you're American, so why do you bother with this discussion?

 

Muslim immigration into the US is very different from muslim immigration into the UK and Europe, did you know that?

 

 

 

.

15 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

They are "indefensible because they offend many? " And why do these "many" have a superseding right to have their feelings protected from hurt? What actual damages to their persons, property, or reputation of these poor offended souls are incurred?

The ban is on full-face coverings in public places, institutions etc..

And for the burka,  we are entitled to make our rejection of the nonsense of an archaic tribal habit poisoning our communities, imported from régions where Islam is practiced in its most oppressive forms 

6 minutes ago, Naam said:

a veiled woman causes offence? gimme a break man!     

it's not a "veiled" it's "full-face covering"… give us a break if you can't grasp the difference