Splits deepen over British minister Johnson's burqa comments

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, naboo said:

 

What does "free speech" mean?

Free speech is the right to say what may offend others. The only exception is where it may cause harm, as in calling "fire" in a crowded auditorium when there is none.

I thought "free speech" was well understood by most thinking people, but apparently a new generation has grown up thinking that only what they agree with is permitted.

[superal]

People are reluctant to voice their opinions regarding the habits / customs of  ethnic groups who reside in the UK because of the fear of being accused of racism  .  The burqa by Johnson highlights the problem and the condemnation will come mostly from the non native British .  The " burqa " has made problems in many other countries , some of which have banned it  . 

For my thoughts I cannot understand why there is no real attempt at integration , only to segregate themselves and build their insular communities & schools etc .  There does not appear to be any allegiance to the country or efforts to show their thanks for the fact that they are living in a generous  UK that is tolerant of their customs .

Multi cultural societies , are they successful ? I think not      

[stud858]

Here's to free unvoilent speech and not allowing religion to trump the safety and rights to it of others.

[spidermike007]

18 hours ago, TPI said:

Boris is just saying what everyone is thinking, I'm having trouble working out how people can be offended by a simple funny jibe!

 

People can be pretty sensitive, and thin skinned these days. Everything seems to offend someone. As Clint Eastwood said, "stop being such pussies!" As far as the whole tent thing goes, if they want to look like stand out super freaks in a foreign land, they have to assume they will be subject to some ridicule. And though I am not racist at all, Islam does have a major PR issue these days. They have to know how completely ridiculous those costumes look to the rest of the world, who are not locked into their tiny little 13th century, three square meter boxes of existence. I literally cringe every time I see a women in one of those silly costumes. It might be ok for them to wear them in their home countries, at least for them. I feel for her, and I have zero respect for the men she is surrounded by. Primeval stuff. Not appropriate on any level for contemporary society, and especially not appropriate for a society that they are expected to assimilate into. How are their daughters expected to feel comfortable in a bikini, or lingerie, when they are dressing like that? Get with it. Step out and step out of the Burqa and Niqab. This is 2018.

[superal]

16 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

People can be pretty sensitive, and thin skinned these days. Everything seems to offend someone. As Clint Eastwood said, "stop being such pussies!" As far as the whole tent thing goes, if they want to look like stand out super freaks in a foreign land, they have to assume they will be subject to some ridicule. And though I am not racist at all, Islam does have a major PR issue these days. They have to know how completely ridiculous those costumes look to the rest of the world, who are not locked into their tiny little 13th century, three square meter boxes of existence. I literally cringe every time I see a women in one of those silly costumes. It might be ok for them to wear them in their home countries, at least for them. I feel for her, and I have zero respect for the men she is surrounded by. Primeval stuff. Not appropriate on any level for contemporary society, and especially not appropriate for a society that they are expected to assimilate into. How are their daughters expected to feel comfortable in a bikini, or lingerie, when they are dressing like that? Get with it. Step out and step out of the Burqa and Niqab. This is 2018.

Lets face it the wearers of the burqa etc suffer inequality , lack of basic rights , female genitalia mutilation and must obey their husbands wishes . To me these people are an alien race who do not belong in the western word but use and abuse the hand that feeds them . If they are so determined to follow their customs then do so in their country of origin and give us all a break . Sorry to go off on a tangent but one thing leads to another .

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

People can be pretty sensitive, and thin skinned these days. Everything seems to offend someone. As Clint Eastwood said, "stop being such pussies!" As far as the whole tent thing goes, if they want to look like stand out super freaks in a foreign land, they have to assume they will be subject to some ridicule. And though I am not racist at all, Islam does have a major PR issue these days. They have to know how completely ridiculous those costumes look to the rest of the world, who are not locked into their tiny little 13th century, three square meter boxes of existence. I literally cringe every time I see a women in one of those silly costumes. It might be ok for them to wear them in their home countries, at least for them. I feel for her, and I have zero respect for the men she is surrounded by. Primeval stuff. Not appropriate on any level for contemporary society, and especially not appropriate for a society that they are expected to assimilate into. How are their daughters expected to feel comfortable in a bikini, or lingerie, when they are dressing like that? Get with it. Step out and step out of the Burqa and Niqab. This is 2018.

Whilst I generally agree with the gist of your post - personally, I've nothing against various religious groups wearing unusual (as in unusual for the countries in which they live) clothing.

 

But I draw the line at burkas and niqabs as there is no reasonable (IMO) argument to support their use - particularly as they are restricted to women....

 

I suspect that most of us are quite happy to chat with Moslem women wearing headscarves to show their faith -  but are extremely unlikely to get involved in conversation with a woman who is wearing a burka or niqab.

[zydeco]

On 8/13/2018 at 6:08 AM, webfact said:

But a Conservative member of the upper house of parliament and former government polling adviser, Andrew Cooper

Yea, looked up this guy. About as "conservative" as a twinkie is sour. A Lord with a lot of lard. 

[spidermike007]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Whilst I generally agree with the gist of your post - personally, I've nothing against various religious groups wearing unusual (as in unusual for the countries in which they live) clothing.

 

But I draw the line at burkas and niqabs as there is no reasonable (IMO) argument to support their use - particularly as they are restricted to women....

 

I suspect that most of us are quite happy to chat with Moslem women wearing headscarves to show their faith -  but are extremely unlikely to get involved in conversation with a woman who is wearing a burka or niqab.

 

I have a simple solution. Ask all Muslim men, of the extremist kind, who demand their woman to wear these ridiculous costumes, to dress in them for a week. Chances are, the entire Muslim world, of the extreme ilk, would immediately see how ridiculous they are behaving, and stop insisting that their women dress in tents, or mailboxes. 

[superal]

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

 

I have a simple solution. Ask all Muslim men, of the extremist kind, who demand their woman to wear these ridiculous costumes, to dress in them for a week. Chances are, the entire Muslim world, of the extreme ilk, would immediately see how ridiculous they are behaving, and stop insisting that their women dress in tents, or mailboxes. 

How do you know that they are not wearing them already ? ?

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

 

I have a simple solution. Ask all Muslim men, of the extremist kind, who demand their woman to wear these ridiculous costumes, to dress in them for a week. Chances are, the entire Muslim world, of the extreme ilk, would immediately see how ridiculous they are behaving, and stop insisting that their women dress in tents, or mailboxes. 

If only it was that simple ☹️.

 

A previous poster provided a video link with three young, moslem women explaining why they CHOSE to wear the burka!

 

It boiled down to:-

1) They felt it made their religious beliefs more obvious....  For some obscure reason they thought wearing a scarf wasn't obvious enough....

2) Their parents having moved to the uk were more concerned about integrating, so thought it was preferable to not wear extremist clothing.

3) They (having been born here and therefore integrated), saw no reason not to wear this extremist piece of cloth covering their face.

4) They believed it made everyone 'look at them as themselves - rather than basing their opinion on what they wore/looked like'!

 

The last point made me laugh for a long time - but now I just think it's very sad that they're that stupid ☹️.

[stud858]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The only exception is where it may cause harm, as in calling "fire" in a crowded auditorium when there is none.

 

Good point, 

The radio presenters that pulled a prank on some lady involved in taking care of the Queen and aparantly out of shame she killed herself.  The consequence of someone speaking freely resulted in an unintentional death.  I call that man slaughter. Say what you want but bear the consequences. 

[Opl]

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-what-do-brits-think-about-banning-the-burqa

-> Is it all about the question?

Sky Data poll: Comparing women who wear burkas to bank robbers 'not racist'

Is it all about Boris?

"A separate poll by Sky Data released on Wednesday found that 59 per cent of Brits think the burqa should be banned, with just 26 per cent opposed. The survey also concluded that 60 per cent of people think Mr Johnson’s comments were not racist."

https://news.sky.com/story/sky-data-poll-comparing-women-who-wear-burkas-to-bank-robbers-not-racist-11465688

Edited August 14, 2018 by Opl

[naboo]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Free speech is the right to say what may offend others. The only exception is where it may cause harm, as in calling "fire" in a crowded auditorium when there is none.

I thought "free speech" was well understood by most thinking people, but apparently a new generation has grown up thinking that only what they agree with is permitted.

In the UK, where BJ's comments were published:

 

Quote

 

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

 

 

Quote

 

A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
 

 

 

Quote

 

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
 

 

 

Quote

 

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
 

 

 

So more restricted than your example of shouting "fire" in an auditorium. An offence is committed in many circumstances, but there is a fine line. Abuse of religion is fine, so long as it is not with the intention of stirring up religious hatred, or if what is written or said is likely to stir up racial hatred. What BJ wrote has been taken well out of context and I don't think crosses that fine line, but he needs to be careful because repetition could be deemed to become guilty under "having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby".

Edited August 14, 2018 by naboo
Fix spacing errors in quotes

[superal]

I will not go into detail but whenever I get into a discussion with true Brits regarding the state of the UK it always focuses on influences to the main stream that have been brought about by cultural differences and the stance taken by other races to retain their identity in their new  country of plenty . There is no intention to adjust their ways to some sort of compromise but instead strive to gain superiority . The burka is only the tip of the iceberg . The future for the younger generation of UK indigenous  folk is scary .

[Opl]

2 hours ago, naboo said:

In the UK, where BJ's comments were published:

 

 

 

 

 

So more restricted than your example of shouting "fire" in an auditorium. An offence is committed in many circumstances, but there is a fine line. Abuse of religion is fine, so long as it is not with the intention of stirring up religious hatred, or if what is written or said is likely to stir up racial hatred. What BJ wrote has been taken well out of context and I don't think crosses that fine line, but he needs to be careful because repetition could be deemed to become guilty under "having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby".

 

This reminds me of back in 2011 when …

" France's controversial burka ban became law today sparking a protest in Paris during which two women wearing full face veils were arrested. Ironically, the biggest protest was actually in London where a group of women in full black burkas gathered outside the French Embassy."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375654/France-burka-ban-Two-arrested-Paris-protest.html

 

[apalink_thailand]

A few clever bank robbers in burkas, that’s whats needed.

[stud858]

21 minutes ago, apalink_thailand said:

A few clever bank robbers in burkas, that’s whats needed.

Sun glasses and a beret is the go

 

[7by7]

On ‎8‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 2:19 AM, terryw said:

Those people wishing to punish Johnson, including Mrs May, have clearly lost the plot when it comes to defending free speech.

 

As have those who want to dictate to other people what they can and cannot wear in public!

 

Before anyone comments; it wouldn't bother me if naturists were allowed to walk around naked whenever and wherever they chose.

[7by7]

On ‎8‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 1:44 AM, My Thai Life said:

"As a Muslim woman, I’d like to thank Boris Johnson for calling out the niqab...."

 

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/as-a-muslim-woman-id-like-to-thank-boris-johnson-for-calling-out-the-niqab/

 Some Muslim women do not like the burka or niqab, others do and choose to wear it.

 

Boris Johnson's burka jibe: Why do some Muslim women wear the veil?

Quote

Tahira Noor, who has been wearing a burka for 20 years, says it's "100% my choice" and Mr Johnson's comments show a "lack of knowledge".

The "majority of the women who wear the burka" she says, are born and brought up in Britain. They are "educated in this country, they've been to colleges, universities, and have understood why they want to do what they're doing," she told BBC Radio 5 Live.

"They're under no oppression, they're not doing it because their husbands want them to or their fathers want them to."

Ms Noor has four daughters none of whom wear a burka

 

You refuse to say where you live, but I live in the UK which is a free country; a country where people can wear what they want; and long may it continue to be so.

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by 7by7
Forgot link, oops!

[7by7]

On ‎8‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 3:43 AM, phantomfiddler said:

No-one should be allowed to walk around in public with their face covered up. Just a pair of eyes peeking out is not enough facial recognition for modern demands.

 Tell that to motorbike wearers, anti pollution mask wearers, ski mask wearers in the winter tec., etc..

 

Anyone who is in a public place with their face covered has to remove that covering when requested to do so by a police officer.

 

 

[7by7]

On ‎8‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 8:11 AM, dunroaming said:

Everything Boris does is orchestrated and planned.  He plays the buffoon but he is actually out to get rid of May as he was out to get rid of Cameron.  If he simply blows then May will fall over and be gone, such is her position now.  The question is when will he blow?  Before or after March next year.  Whatever the result May will be toast anyway.

 

May was pushed into calling for an enquiry but it won't come to anything.  This is Johnson playing to the crowd with his wing man JRM chirping in when he is told to.

"The question is when will he blow?  Before or after March next year"

 

It is obvious that Boris is playing a long game; that's why he withdrew from the leadership race when Cameron resigned.

 

It doesn't take someone of his intelligence, and he is highly intelligent, to know that whatever happens next year, whatever Brexit deal May gets; it will be extremely unpopular. Half the country will say she gave away too much whilst the rest will say she gained too little.

 

Boris knows this, and has done so all along. He fully expects may to fall on her sword, if she isn't pushed, so that he can come riding to the rescue of the Tories and the country as the next Prime Minister.

 

This latest escapade of his was not an accident, was not merely a poor choice of words, was not his 'usual buffoonery.' It was a deliberate ploy to get the right of the party on his side.

 

May and her advisors should have simply laughed it off with the comment 'typical Boris foot in mouth disease; his opinion, not the government's.' It would all be over by now had she done so.

 

[7by7]

On ‎8‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 9:48 AM, dick dasterdly said:

<snip>

Most brits. don't care much about 'their' religion, so have no problem with those making fun of it.  Life of Brian is a prime example - hilarious, and enjoyed by pretty much everyone.

Do you not remember the furore over Life of Brian when it was first released?

 

Why Monty Python's 'foul, disgusting and blasphemous' Life of Brian wouldn't get made today

Quote

Although the Pythons intended the film to be a satire on blind faith and organised religion, they could not have imagined the extent of the furore it would cause on its release. A campaign condemning the film on the grounds of blasphemy – led by Mary Whitehouse and the Christian values organisation, The Festival of Light – resulted in the film being banned in parts of Britain and the whole of Ireland and Norway. In the US, meanwhile, protesters gathered outside cinemas...…..

 

The film premiered in America in August 1979 and immediately caused a brouhaha. The Rabbinical Alliance declared the film “foul, disgusting and blasphemous”. The Lutheran Council described it as “profane parody”. Not to be outdone, the Catholic Film Monitoring Office made it a sin even to see the film

 

[My Thai Life]

5 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Do you not remember the furore over Life of Brian when it was first released?

Yes I can remember Life of Brian's release, "furore" is a wild exaggeration,

 

But can you imagine "Life of Muhammad" being made without fatwas, riots and terrorist acts?

 

6 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Tell that to motorbike wearers, anti pollution mask wearers, ski mask wearers in the winter tec., etc..

The obvious difference is that the groups you mention are not members of a fanatical religious sect dedicated to the subjugation of women.

 

6 hours ago, 7by7 said:

You refuse to say where you live, but I live in the UK which is a free country; a country where people can wear what they want; and long may it continue to be so.

Actually if you go to one of the Wahabbi ghettos in the UK, you will find that freedom of dress is not tolerated by the self-appointed shariah police. 

Edited August 14, 2018 by My Thai Life

[spidermike007]

15 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

If only it was that simple ☹️.

 

A previous poster provided a video link with three young, moslem women explaining why they CHOSE to wear the burka!

 

It boiled down to:-

1) They felt it made their religious beliefs more obvious....  For some obscure reason they thought wearing a scarf wasn't obvious enough....

2) Their parents having moved to the uk were more concerned about integrating, so thought it was preferable to not wear extremist clothing.

3) They (having been born here and therefore integrated), saw no reason not to wear this extremist piece of cloth covering their face.

4) They believed it made everyone 'look at them as themselves - rather than basing their opinion on what they wore/looked like'!

 

The last point made me laugh for a long time - but now I just think it's very sad that they're that stupid ☹️.

 

Dumb, dumb, dumber, and dumbest. If they really think any of this is the case, it only serves to highlight how much they have not assimilated. I say make all Muslim women participate in annual bikini contests, to demonstrate their true degree of assimilation. Simple solution. 

[7by7]

18 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

On ‎8‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 6:54 PM, 7by7 said:

Do you not remember the furore over Life of Brian when it was first released?

Yes I can remember Life of Brian's release, "furore" is a wild exaggeration,

Then you not only have a poor memory, but haven't read the quotes in my post, let alone the actual article!

 

Another reminder:-

 

18 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

But can you imagine "Life of Muhammad" being made without fatwas, riots and terrorist acts?

 

There have been many; from dramatisations to documentaries. This list is 6 years old, so is not complete: List of Western Films about the Prophet Muhammad
 

18 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

On ‎8‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 6:30 PM, 7by7 said:

Tell that to motorbike wearers, anti pollution mask wearers, ski mask wearers in the winter tec., etc..

The obvious difference is that the groups you mention are not members of a fanatical religious sect dedicated to the subjugation of women.

Neither are most, the vast majority in fact, British Muslims; Burka wearing women or not.

 

It has been shown to you many times in the other topic that many. I'm not saying all, British Muslim women who wear a niqab or burka do so of their own free will; exercising a choice you would deny them for no reason other than your hate.

 

18 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

On ‎8‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 6:26 PM, 7by7 said:

You refuse to say where you live, but I live in the UK which is a free country; a country where people can wear what they want; and long may it continue to be so.

Actually if you go to one of the Wahabbi ghettos in the UK, you will find that freedom of dress is not tolerated by the self-appointed shariah police.

 Where are these so called ghettoes, these so called Muslim controlled no go areas where even the police fear to tread?

People are going to Trump's 'no-go areas' to make a point

Quote

Dan Kaszeta @DanKaszeta

 

Replying to @DanKaszeta

 

Note the profligate sale of wine in this alleged no go zone. Obviously the Sharia police don't even come once a blue moon. (Yesterday was a blue moon even.)

5:07 PM - Feb 1, 2018

 

As for the self appointed Sharia police; it is true that some young Muslim men did try such a thing a few years ago. They were roundly condemned by the local Muslim community, including mosques, and dealt with by the police and courts; most of them serving custodial sentences.

 

From the Daily Mail, which not even you can accuse of being PC, leftie and immigrant loving, of 6th December 2013: 'Muslim Patrol' jailed for harassing couple holding hands and men drinking in a bid to enforce Sharia law in East London
 

 

 

 

 

 

[My Thai Life]

On 8/15/2018 at 12:54 AM, 7by7 said:

Do you not remember the furore over Life of Brian when it was first released?

I do remember when Life of Brian was released. There was some reaction, but not a furore.

 

However, imagine what the reaction would be to "Life of Mohammed" - fatwas, riots, beheadings, bombs. And lots of tantrums besides.

[Chomper Higgot]

On 8/15/2018 at 6:49 AM, My Thai Life said:

Yes I can remember Life of Brian's release, "furore" is a wild exaggeration,

 

But can you imagine "Life of Muhammad" being made without fatwas, riots and terrorist acts?

 

The obvious difference is that the groups you mention are not members of a fanatical religious sect dedicated to the subjugation of women.

 

Actually if you go to one of the Wahabbi ghettos in the UK, you will find that freedom of dress is not tolerated by the self-appointed shariah police. 

More unsubstantiated hogwash. 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

I do remember when Life of Brian was released. There was some reaction, but not a furore.

 

However, imagine what the reaction would be to "Life of Mohammed" - fatwas, riots, beheadings, bombs. And lots of tantrums besides.

‘Life of Brian’ 

 

How do you get from that to ‘Life of Mohammed’?

[My Thai Life]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

‘Life of Brian’ 

 

How do you get from that to ‘Life of Mohammed’?

Any British person, or any fan of Monty Python would know ?

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

I do remember when Life of Brian was released. There was some reaction, but not a furore.

 

However, imagine what the reaction would be to "Life of Mohammed" - fatwas, riots, beheadings, bombs. And lots of tantrums besides.

If you can't invoke actual serious instances, I guess you have to start inventing them.