Boris Johnson slammed over Islamophobic comments

[My Thai Life]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Do just type random stuff hoping it might be relevant or do just type random stuff but don’t care if it’s relevant?

Are you talking about your own posts?

 

By the way, your continued accusations that I hate muslims are farcical.

 

You're the one that hates muslims by supporting Wahabbi oppression of muslim women.

[NoshowJones]

On 8/8/2018 at 9:05 AM, Nurseynutcase said:

Oh how I agree with Bojo on this.  The face veils are a disgusting piece of clothing -  if you can call it clothing!!!!

If only the UK would follow Denmarks lead and and ban it.

I could not have put it better.

[NoshowJones]

On 8/8/2018 at 12:30 PM, Justgrazing said:

What's the problem Jonners is only saying it like it is .. They do look like letter box slits .. Typical overreaction of the " you can't say that " brigade .. And not to be forgotten is one of the unsuccessful London bombers of late July 2005 done a runner outta the UK .. wearing a burkha .. which is conveniently overlooked .. 

Of course it is overlooked. we must not upset the Muslims got it?

[My Thai Life]

Here's an interesting point of view about banning the burqa, following my earlier posting quoting the suggestion to ban the burqa by Dr Taj Hargey, the imam at the Oxford Islamic Congregation.

 

Christopher Hitchens believes that banning the burqa is actually the lifting of a ban on freedom of dress imposed on muslim women by muslim men. I wholeheartedly agree with him, and call on all my fellow liberals to do so too.

 

“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. 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.”

 

 

https://medium.com/@slinafirinne/christopher-hitchens-on-the-burka-8fe562032cb8

 

 

[duanebigsby]

7 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Here's an interesting point of view about banning the burqa, following my earlier posting quoting the suggestion to ban the burqa by Dr Taj Hargey, the imam at the Oxford Islamic Congregation.

 

Christopher Hitchens believes that banning the burqa is actually the lifting of a ban on freedom of dress imposed on muslim women by muslim men. I wholeheartedly agree with him, and call on all my fellow liberals to do so too.

 

“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. 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.”

 

 

https://medium.com/@slinafirinne/christopher-hitchens-on-the-burka-8fe562032cb8

 

 

Outlawing a form of dress is a ban no matter how you spin it.

I disagree with the Saudis mandating the dress code every bit as much as I oppose Western nations banning it.

Saudi is changing ever so slowly and the new Prince is suggesting women are no longer required to adhere to the ancient dress codes.

I think in the UK Muslim immigrants will eventually drop the face coverings. It might take a generation or two, but I see a natural progression where the younger generations of girls will reject it naturally.

[vogie]

10 minutes ago, duanebigsby said:

Outlawing a form of dress is a ban no matter how you spin it.

I disagree with the Saudis mandating the dress code every bit as much as I oppose Western nations banning it.

Saudi is changing ever so slowly and the new Prince is suggesting women are no longer required to adhere to the ancient dress codes.

I think in the UK Muslim immigrants will eventually drop the face coverings. It might take a generation or two, but I see a natural progression where the younger generations of girls will reject it naturally.

Do you believe a KKK outfit is ok to be seen out in, just curious.

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, duanebigsby said:

If one wants to wear one, go ahead. It's public opinion that discourages it, not outlaws it.

Are you ok with that, someone wearing attire that promotes hatred.

[My Thai Life]

1 hour ago, duanebigsby said:

Outlawing a form of dress is a ban

And that's precisely what Christopher Hitchens is saying.

 

The Wahabbi men, mandated by their misreading of koranic dogma, have outlawed all but the most dehumanising dress for Wahabbi women.

 

Hitchens is suggesting that this koranic-inspired (so the Wahabbi "imams" claim) ban is overturned. Dr Taj Hargey, the imam at the Oxford Islamic Congregation agrees (I have given his quote twice already, so I won't do it again here).

 

Dr Taj goes further in that his specialist knowledge indicates this form of attire is just desert tribe stuff, not muslim. Just desert gear imposed on Wahabbi sect women by Wahabbi men and their "imams", and endorsed by western pseudo-liberals who don't know what they're talking about.

 

I agree with both of them wholeheartedly, and I call on all serious liberals to do so to.

 

The schoolboy liberals can carry on as before, jumping up and down and shouting "islamophobe islamophobe" in the absence of any informed opinion.

 

Sadiq Khan, the current Mayor of London, a well known muslim, agrees that this Wahabbi gear is not the result of free choice. I'll be talking about that tomorrow. Have a good evening.

 

[duanebigsby]

2 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

And that's precisely what Christopher Hitchens is saying.

 

The Wahabbi men, mandated by their misreading of koranic dogma, have outlawed all but the most dehumanising dress for Wahabbi women.

 

Hitchens is suggesting that this koranic-inspired (so the Wahabbi "imams" claim) ban is overturned. Dr Taj Hargey, the imam at the Oxford Islamic Congregation agrees (I have given his quote twice already, so I won't do it again here).

 

Dr Taj goes further in that his specialist knowledge indicates this form of attire is just desert tribe stuff, not muslim. Just desert gear imposed on Wahabbi sect women by Wahabbi men and their "imams", and endorsed by western pseudo-liberals who don't know what they're talking about.

 

I agree with both of them wholeheartedly, and I call on all serious liberals to do so to.

 

The schoolboy liberals can carry on as before, jumping up and down and shouting "islamophobe islamophobe" in the absence of any informed opinion.

 

Sadiq Khan, the current Mayor of London, a well known muslim, agrees that this Wahabbi gear is not the result of free choice. I'll be talking about that tomorrow. Have a good evening.

 

Mandating clothing is the polar opposite of a ban. I disagree with both, but if women in the UK want to wear the gear they  have the right to do so.

[upu2]

2 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

And that's precisely what Christopher Hitchens is saying.

 

The Wahabbi men, mandated by their misreading of koranic dogma, have outlawed all but the most dehumanising dress for Wahabbi women.

 

Hitchens is suggesting that this koranic-inspired (so the Wahabbi "imams" claim) ban is overturned. Dr Taj Hargey, the imam at the Oxford Islamic Congregation agrees (I have given his quote twice already, so I won't do it again here).

 

Dr Taj goes further in that his specialist knowledge indicates this form of attire is just desert tribe stuff, not muslim. Just desert gear imposed on Wahabbi sect women by Wahabbi men and their "imams", and endorsed by western pseudo-liberals who don't know what they're talking about.

 

I agree with both of them wholeheartedly, and I call on all serious liberals to do so to.

 

The schoolboy liberals can carry on as before, jumping up and down and shouting "islamophobe islamophobe" in the absence of any informed opinion.

 

Sadiq Khan, the current Mayor of London, a well known muslim, agrees that this Wahabbi gear is not the result of free choice. I'll be talking about that tomorrow. Have a good evening.

 

Good to know. I assume you agree with the clothing rules that you must obey in other countries as well, such as places like Saudi

[Naam]

9 hours ago, vogie said:

Why do you say "what you don't like" most of the citizens in the UK don't like it and want it banned. Why can't the majority have a "choice" for a change.

minorities have the right of choice too.

[vogie]

7 minutes ago, Naam said:

minorities have the right of choice too.

So if the minorities have a right to choose and the majority have a right to choose, wouldn't that make it a free for all. Should we change our culture to suit the minorities. 

 

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, Naam said:

our Western "culture" also protects minorities, e.g. in U.K. a Sikh male is not required a protective helmet when driving a motorcycle even though his turban provides no protection in case of an accident. a Catholic nun is wearing in most countries a garment which could be called a hybrid of a burqa and an abaya. nobody cares a flying fàrt that it might hide 25 kg of Semtex strapped to her body.

If our law says that someone riding a motorbike must wear an helmet, then I see no reason why a sikh should get away with it, as for comparing a nun whose face is fully visable to a woman wearing a burqa is very questionable indeed. Have you a link to the odds of a nun secreting Semtex on her person.

[bristolboy]

25 minutes ago, vogie said:

So if the minorities have a right to choose and the majority have a right to choose, wouldn't that make it a free for all. Should we change our culture to suit the minorities. 

 

You mean like a free market? Where goods and ideas are subject to choice by people who get to choose amongst them?

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, duanebigsby said:

Many African Christians do this. It happens in Christian societies more than you want to admit. This is NOT strictly a Muslim practice.

Passing the book doesn't make it right.

[duanebigsby]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

Passing the book doesn't make it right.

Of course not. I never said it did.

But saying it's a Muslim thing and blaming the practice on one religion is hate mongering.

[duanebigsby]

5 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

i don't deny its existence in african christian societies but i deny its prevalence in the whole christian society and utterly sceptical that it is religiously motivated in the christian society. wbr roobaa01

I agree with you on this.

I would also deny its prevalence in the whole of Muslim society.

It's cultural, not religious. See my link #841

 

[roobaa01]

6 minutes ago, duanebigsby said:

I agree with you on this.

I would also deny its prevalence in the whole of Muslim society.

It's cultural, not religious. See my link #841

 

how would think about it is strictly tribal since it was predating christianity and islam wbr roobaa01

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

So if the minorities have a right to choose and the majority have a right to choose, wouldn't that make it a free for all. Should we change our culture to suit the minorities. 

 

"Should we change our culture to suit the minorities." 

 

Nobody is forcing you to wear a burka.

 

 

 

[duanebigsby]

1 hour ago, Naam said:

our Western "culture" also protects minorities, e.g. in U.K. a Sikh male is not required a protective helmet when driving a motorcycle even though his turban provides no protection in case of an accident. a Catholic nun is wearing in most countries a garment which could be called a hybrid of a burqa and an abaya. nobody cares a flying fàrt that it might hide 25 kg of Semtex strapped to her body.

I have a bit of a problem with this Sikhs not needing helmets.

While all in favour of religious rights this one is borderline for me. Couldn't someone invent a helmet that encompasses a turban?

In Vancouver, I've seen many females on the pillion seat with no helmet piggybacking on the exclusion for Sihks.

I'm all for the protection of minorities but I'd like to see some form of helmet.

[Naam]

1 hour ago, duanebigsby said:

I have a bit of a problem with this Sikhs not needing helmets.

While all in favour of religious rights this one is borderline for me. Couldn't someone invent a helmet that encompasses a turban?

In Vancouver, I've seen many females on the pillion seat with no helmet piggybacking on the exclusion for Sihks.

I'm all for the protection of minorities but I'd like to see some form of helmet.

i don't have a problem with anybody on a motorcycle not wearing a helmet whether it's in Vancouver, Stratford-on-Avon or Königswusterhausen. i'm also not sure whether that exemption applies to Sardarnis as they usually don't wear (to the best of my knowledge) turbans.

[Naam]

2 hours ago, roobaa01 said:

for muslims religious

for copts social due to islam mayority pressure but certainly not prevalent in christian society.

 

wbr

roobaa01

wrong assunption!

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, vogie said:

Are you ok with that, someone wearing attire that promotes hatred.

If their attire elicits hatred from you, that's your problem.

[vogie]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

If their attire elicits hatred from you, that's your problem.

You have the problem, the far left always debate on their terms, you cannot debate in a fair manner you always attack the poster, if I stood on a muslims toe you would accuse me of attempted murder, think about it.

[Chomper Higgot]

43 minutes ago, vogie said:

You have the problem, the far left always debate on their terms, you cannot debate in a fair manner you always attack the poster, if I stood on a muslims toe you would accuse me of attempted murder, think about it.

Poor poor you.

 

Have tried offering a balanced argument not rooted in hate or reliant on gross generalizations?

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Poor poor you.

 

Have tried offering a balanced argument not rooted in hate or reliant on gross generalizations?

Have you tried offering any argument besides attacking other members, if you are not happy with my posts and think they are rooted in hate can I suggest you report them. You cannot take the least bit of criticism can you.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, vogie said:

Have you tried offering any argument besides attacking other members, if you are not happy with my posts and think they are rooted in hate can I suggest you report them. You cannot take the least bit of criticism can you.

Read that again, especially the last sentence.

 

Pointing out hate and Islamophobia is not attacking the person who posts such comments, it’s challenging their hate and Islamophobia.

 

I often do report hate, racism and Islamophobia.

[vogie]

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Read that again, especially the last sentence.

 

Pointing out hate and Islamophobia is not attacking the person who posts such comments, it’s challenging their hate and Islamophobia.

 

I often do report hate, racism and Islamophobia.

Well you obviously do have problems with my postings, nearly everyone I post receives the dreaded confused face from yourself, I had 3 posts from you simultaniously last night unessessary criticising my posts, are you sure you are not making things a little too personal. I have mentioned before you have an option of not seeing my posts if they disturb so much, chill out man.

[roobaa01]

2 minutes ago, duanebigsby said:

I believe it started out as tribal and cultural long before the two major religions were invented. Then, in the same manner as Christianity usurping pagan ritual,  religions claimed it as their own.

i agree with u but islam seeks for myopinion fmg justification in the quaran as to name for example salafist medina quaran school, whereas i cannot detect a similar religious approach by for example copts.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[duanebigsby]

4 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

i agree with u but islam seeks for myopinion fmg justification in the quaran as to name for example salafist medina quaran school, whereas i cannot detect a similar religious approach by for example copts.

 

wbr

roobaa01

FMG is not mentioned in the Quran. It is however mentioned in some hadiths  as if later day Muslim imans usurped the tribal customs to become part of religion. It's an awful practice.