Discussion:
Johnson has created a moment more divisive than 'rivers of blood'
(too old to reply)
MM
2018-08-13 16:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
'There was a time when Conservatives used to split over this or that
aspect of an EU treaty; or the practice of monetarism; or the
composition of the House of Lords; or the consequences of welfare
policy. Now they argue over whether it is acceptable to sneer at
Muslim women in religious dress. O tempora, o mores, as Jacob
Rees-Mogg might say.

'There is depressing bathos in the fact that two cheap gags in Boris
Johnson's Daily Telegraph column about the burqa have caused such a
rift. But they have.

'The former foreign secretary refuses to apologise for writing that a
Muslim woman wearing the veil resembles "a bank robber" and that it is
"absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking
like letter boxes". He is now under investigation by his own party,
which has received dozens of complaints.

'According to Rees-Mogg, this inquiry is nothing more than a "show
trial", animated by envy of Johnson's "many successes, popularity with
voters and charisma". Four cabinet ministers to whom the Sunday Times
spoke are reportedly unhappy about the Tory leadership's "cack-handed"
handling of the furore. Andrew Bridgen, Iain Duncan Smith and other
Conservative MPs have raced to support Johnson.

'On the other side Andrew Cooper, a Conservative peer and former No 10
director of strategy, tweets that "the rottenness of Boris Johnson
goes deeper even than his casual racism & his equally casual courting
of fascism". Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Tory leader, has demanded an
apology for his "gratuitously offensive" remarks. Dominic Grieve, the
former attorney general, has said he will leave the Conservative party
if Johnson becomes its leader.

'Let's first establish what this row is not about. For a start, it is
emphatically not about freedom of speech. In absolutely no way has
Johnson's liberty to speak out been forcibly curtailed or legally
constrained. On Thursday the Met police commissioner disclosed her
"preliminary view" that "what Mr Johnson said would not reach the bar
for a criminal offence". There will be no campaign to free the
Bullingdon One (though you can bet that the populist right would love
nothing more).

'Nor is this an example of our old friend, "political correctness gone
mad". The debate about the place of the niqab and burqa in a liberal
secular society long preceded Johnson's clodhopping contribution, and
will carry on long after he heads off greedily to the next opportunity
for self-advancement.

'Nor is the row about the limits of comedy. It pains me to criticise
Rowan Atkinson, whose portrayal of the mime, "Alternative Carpark", is
one of the greatest achievements of British humour. But his defence of
"the freedom to make jokes about religion" in the Times last week was
unnecessary. That freedom has not been imperilled by this particular
case. What Atkinson's letter does reveal is a dangerous confusion
between the functions of the comedian and of the politician, between
entertainment and statecraft. Politicians have always told jokes, and
a fair few have become them. But - as Donald Trump, the reality TV
star turned President has shown - showbusiness has now fully colonised
the world of politics.

'In Johnson's case, what we are witnessing is a man who until very
recently held one of the great offices of state claiming jester's
privilege. When he writes or speaks, he does so as an MP and privy
counsellor well known for his ambition to become prime minister in the
near future. To borrow the language of King Lear, he plays the Fool
but wants to be Nuncle. This may be clever, but it is also
intolerable.

'It is almost a working definition of politics: you can say what you
like, within the law, but you must then face the consequences. A
standup comedian will point out that he is just making jokes, or being
ironic or testing taboos. A politician does not enjoy such licence -
indeed how could he or she? A political party is not a free-for-all or
a convenient platform for uncurtailed rhetoric, but an organisation
for the disciplined achievement of power and implementation of
principled policy. It is this basic structural reality that Johnson
has never respected.

'The problem is that the spirit of the age is on his side. In an era
of digital networks, the old systems and structures are crumbling
fast. When Enoch Powell made his notorious "rivers of blood" speech,
the then Conservative party leader, Edward Heath, was able to despatch
him to the fringes of political life with relative ease. But the new
contours of the web mean that there are no fringes: only voices, and
those eager to heed them. This Johnson understands all too well, urged
on by Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist - who praises him
in the Sunday Times for "giving the people what they want -
authenticity".

'What a weasel word that has become. It started life as a near-synonym
for "sincerity" or "honesty", the opposite of spin. Now it has become
code for "giving the voters permission to feel all right about their
most irrational hatreds and least honourable emotions". In this case,
Johnson's "authenticity" resides in his signal that is acceptable to
use demeaning, dehumanising language about Muslim women in religious
clothing.

'I think - no, I insist - that this is nothing short of deplorable,
and that this confrontation poses greater long-term dangers than
Powell's speech in 1968. It is a founding principle of any pluralist
society that in our permanent negotiation with one another we strive
to be decent and dignified.

'But that principle will not defend itself. We have reached a fork in
the road where it is under sustained attack from nativists,
opportunists and bigots in suits. There are only two paths available.
Johnson has chosen. So must we.'
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/12/boris-johnson-moment-more-decisive-rivers-of-blood

Well, every rotten court deserves its fool, I suppose.

MM
The Todal
2018-08-13 17:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
'There was a time when Conservatives used to split over this or that
aspect of an EU treaty; or the practice of monetarism; or the
composition of the House of Lords; or the consequences of welfare
policy. Now they argue over whether it is acceptable to sneer at
Muslim women in religious dress. O tempora, o mores, as Jacob
Rees-Mogg might say.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/12/boris-johnson-moment-more-decisive-rivers-of-blood
Well, every rotten court deserves its fool, I suppose.
MM
After all this fuss about Boris's article I thought it was time someone
quoted the relevant bits. If someone has already done so in uk.legal I
must have missed it.

quote

Ah Denmark, what a country. If any society breathes the spirit of
liberty, this is it.

It was only a few weeks ago that I was in Copenhagen for some
international conference, and as ever I rose early and went for a run.
As I passed through some yuppie zone of warehouse conversions and posh
restaurants I saw to my amazement that the Danes had also got up early
for exercise – and they were diving stark naked into the bracing waters
of the harbour. And I thought to myself – that’s the Danes for you;
that’s the spirit of Viking individualism. I mean, we have a climate
warmer than Denmark; but even so, would you expect to see Brits
disrobing and plunging into the waters of Canary Wharf, or even
Greenwich? We are pretty easy-going, but not that easy-going.

The Danes don’t cycle with their heads down, grimly, in Lycra, swearing
at people who get in their way. They wander and weave helmetless down
the beautiful boulevards on clapped-out granny bikes, with a culture of
cycling in which everyone is treated with courtesy and respect. Yes, if
you wanted to visit a country that seemed on the face of it to embody
the principles of JS Mill - that you should be able to do what you want
provided you do no harm to others – I would advise you to head for
wonderful, wonderful Copenhagen.

So I was a bit surprised to see that on August 1 the Danes joined
several other European countries – France, Germany, Austria, Belgium –
in imposing a ban on the niqab and the burka – those items of Muslim
head-gear that obscure the female face. Already a fine of 1000 kroner –
about £120 – has been imposed on a 28-year-old woman seen wearing a
niqab in a shopping centre in the north eastern town of Horsholm. A
scuffle broke out as someone tried to rip it off her head. There have
been demonstrations, on both sides of the argument. What has happened,
you may ask, to the Danish spirit of live and let live?

If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you. If you
say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces,
then I totally agree – and I would add that I can find no scriptural
authority for the practice in the Koran. I would go further and say that
it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around
looking like letter boxes; and I thoroughly dislike any attempt by any –
invariably male – government to encourage such demonstrations of
“modesty”, notably the extraordinary exhortations of President Ramzan
Kadyrov of Chechnya, who has told the men of his country to splat their
women with paintballs if they fail to cover their heads.

If a constituent came to my MP’s surgery with her face obscured, I
should feel fully entitled – like Jack Straw – to ask her to remove it
so that I could talk to her properly. If a female student turned up at
school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber then ditto:
those in authority should be allowed to converse openly with those that
they are being asked to instruct. As for individual businesses or
branches of government – they should of course be able to enforce a
dress code that enables their employees to interact with customers; and
that means human beings must be able to see each other’s faces and read
their expressions. It’s how we work.

All that seems to me to be sensible. But such restrictions are not quite
the same as telling a free-born adult woman what she may or may not
wear, in a public place, when she is simply minding her own business.

I am against a total ban because it is inevitably construed – rightly or
wrongly – as being intended to make some point about Islam. If you go
for a total ban, you play into the hands of those who want to politicise
and dramatise the so-called clash of civilisations; and you fan the
flames of grievance. You risk turning people into martyrs, and you risk
a general crackdown on any public symbols of religious affiliation, and
you may simply make the problem worse. Like a parent confronted by a
rebellious teenager determined to wear a spike through her tongue, or a
bolt through her nose, you run the risk that by your heavy-handed
attempt to ban what you see as a bizarre and unattractive adornment you
simply stiffen resistance.

The burka and the niqab were certainly not always part of Islam. In
Britain today there is only a tiny, tiny minority of women who wear
these odd bits of headgear. One day, I am sure, they will go.
The Danes swim starkers in the heart of Copenhagen. If The Killing is to
be believed, their female detectives wear Faroe sweaters on duty, as is
their sovereign right. If Danish women really want to cover their faces,
then it seems a bit extreme – all the caveats above understood – to stop
them under all circumstances. I don’t propose we follow suit. A total
ban is not the answer.


unquote

Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of the
pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who didn't happen
to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.

Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have come
out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that the burqa
should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has said at all. The
fuckwits either haven't read his article or they are making assumptions
about a coded message within his article. Nobody with half a brain wants
to ban the burqa or the niqab.

Some Muslim women have been jeered at in the streets, with insults
inspired by Johnson's article (I suppose the lager-swilling racists
don't actually subscribe to the Telegraph so they haven't fully
understood the points he was making) and it's probably high time that
Boris instructed his praetorian guard of bigots to behave themselves,
just as Corbyn instructed his followers to stop saying bad things in
social media.
Brian Reay
2018-08-13 21:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
'There was a time when Conservatives used to split over this or that
aspect of an EU treaty; or the practice of monetarism; or the
composition of the House of Lords; or the consequences of welfare
policy. Now they argue over whether it is acceptable to sneer at
Muslim women in religious dress. O tempora, o mores, as Jacob
Rees-Mogg might say.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/12/boris-johnson-moment-more-decisive-rivers-of-blood
Well, every rotten court deserves its fool, I suppose.
MM
After all this fuss about Boris's article I thought it was time someone
quoted the relevant bits. If someone has already done so in uk.legal I
must have missed it.
quote
Ah Denmark, what a country. If any society breathes the spirit of
liberty, this is it.
It was only a few weeks ago that I was in Copenhagen for some
international conference, and as ever I rose early and went for a run.
As I passed through some yuppie zone of warehouse conversions and posh
restaurants I saw to my amazement that the Danes had also got up early
for exercise – and they were diving stark naked into the bracing waters
of the harbour. And I thought to myself – that’s the Danes for you;
that’s the spirit of Viking individualism. I mean, we have a climate
warmer than Denmark; but even so, would you expect to see Brits
disrobing and plunging into the waters of Canary Wharf, or even
Greenwich? We are pretty easy-going, but not that easy-going.
The Danes don’t cycle with their heads down, grimly, in Lycra, swearing
at people who get in their way. They wander and weave helmetless down
the beautiful boulevards on clapped-out granny bikes, with a culture of
cycling in which everyone is treated with courtesy and respect. Yes, if
you wanted to visit a country that seemed on the face of it to embody
the principles of JS Mill - that you should be able to do what you want
provided you do no harm to others – I would advise you to head for
wonderful, wonderful Copenhagen.
So I was a bit surprised to see that on August 1 the Danes joined
several other European countries – France, Germany, Austria, Belgium –
in imposing a ban on the niqab and the burka – those items of Muslim
head-gear that obscure the female face. Already a fine of 1000 kroner –
about £120 – has been imposed on a 28-year-old woman seen wearing a
niqab in a shopping centre in the north eastern town of Horsholm. A
scuffle broke out as someone tried to rip it off her head. There have
been demonstrations, on both sides of the argument. What has happened,
you may ask, to the Danish spirit of live and let live?
If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you. If you
say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces,
then I totally agree – and I would add that I can find no scriptural
authority for the practice in the Koran. I would go further and say that
it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around
looking like letter boxes; and I thoroughly dislike any attempt by any –
invariably male – government to encourage such demonstrations of
“modesty”, notably the extraordinary exhortations of President Ramzan
Kadyrov of Chechnya, who has told the men of his country to splat their
women with paintballs if they fail to cover their heads.
If a constituent came to my MP’s surgery with her face obscured, I
should feel fully entitled – like Jack Straw – to ask her to remove it
so that I could talk to her properly. If a female student turned up at
those in authority should be allowed to converse openly with those that
they are being asked to instruct. As for individual businesses or
branches of government – they should of course be able to enforce a
dress code that enables their employees to interact with customers; and
that means human beings must be able to see each other’s faces and read
their expressions. It’s how we work.
All that seems to me to be sensible. But such restrictions are not quite
the same as telling a free-born adult woman what she may or may not
wear, in a public place, when she is simply minding her own business.
I am against a total ban because it is inevitably construed – rightly or
wrongly – as being intended to make some point about Islam. If you go
for a total ban, you play into the hands of those who want to politicise
and dramatise the so-called clash of civilisations; and you fan the
flames of grievance. You risk turning people into martyrs, and you risk
a general crackdown on any public symbols of religious affiliation, and
you may simply make the problem worse. Like a parent confronted by a
rebellious teenager determined to wear a spike through her tongue, or a
bolt through her nose, you run the risk that by your heavy-handed
attempt to ban what you see as a bizarre and unattractive adornment you
simply stiffen resistance.
The burka and the niqab were certainly not always part of Islam. In
Britain today there is only a tiny, tiny minority of women who wear
these odd bits of headgear. One day, I am sure, they will go.
The Danes swim starkers in the heart of Copenhagen. If The Killing is to
be believed, their female detectives wear Faroe sweaters on duty, as is
their sovereign right. If Danish women really want to cover their faces,
then it seems a bit extreme – all the caveats above understood – to stop
them under all circumstances. I don’t propose we follow suit. A total
ban is not the answer.
unquote
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of the
pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who didn't happen
to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have come
out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that the burqa
should be banned".  Obviously that isn't what he has said at all. The
fuckwits either haven't read his article or they are making assumptions
about a coded message within his article. Nobody with half a brain wants
to ban the burqa or the niqab.
Some Muslim women have been jeered at in the streets, with insults
inspired by Johnson's article (I suppose the lager-swilling racists
don't actually subscribe to the Telegraph so they haven't fully
understood the points he was making) and it's probably high time that
Boris instructed his praetorian guard of bigots to behave themselves,
just as Corbyn instructed his followers to stop saying bad things in
social media.
Good points, save your last para. As distasteful as BoJo's choice of
language was, it is clear many complaining about his article didn't read it.

Likewise, those calling for a ban should ask just how many burka wearers
we have.

The French banned the burka. Before doing so, they did some research
into how many wearers there were in France. The came up with a figure
of 1900, which was considered to be inflated, then under 400.

The French have more Muslims than us. Therefore, we probably don't have
a huge number of burka wearers.

Obviously one being abused is one too many but the 'lager swilling
louts' wouldn't exactly find it easy to find a victim. And, thankfully,
claims of widespread abuse area almost certainly bogus for the simple
reason there aren't many burka wearers.


Interestingly, those who have called for a ban on the back of BoJo's
article include a former Bishop and a Muslim Cleric. Neither are your
'lager lout' type, at least I assume not.

While I don't support a ban, it seems burka's aren't permitted in at
least one of the most religious sites to Muslims.

BoJo has already moved on, his (to put it mildly) distasteful language
has got him the attention he wanted. He has moved on to less 'dramatic'
topics.
--
Remarkable Coincidences:
The Stock Market Crashes of 1929 and 2008 happened on the same
date in October. In Oct 1907, a run on the Knickerbocker Trust
Company led to the Great Depression.
Pamela
2018-08-13 22:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of
the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who
didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have
come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that
the burqa should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has
said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Post by The Todal
The fuckwits either haven't read his article or they
are making assumptions about a coded message within his article.
Nobody with half a brain wants to ban the burqa or the niqab.
Some Muslim women have been jeered at in the streets, with insults
inspired by Johnson's article (I suppose the lager-swilling
racists don't actually subscribe to the Telegraph so they haven't
fully understood the points he was making) and it's probably high
time that Boris instructed his praetorian guard of bigots to
behave themselves, just as Corbyn instructed his followers to stop
saying bad things in social media.
Brian Reay
2018-08-13 22:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of
the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who
didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have
come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that
the burqa should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has
said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?

Perhaps you should read the article.


Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
--
Remarkable Coincidences:
The Stock Market Crashes of 1929 and 2008 happened on the same
date in October. In Oct 1907, a run on the Knickerbocker Trust
Company led to the Great Depression.
abelard
2018-08-13 23:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of
the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who
didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have
come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that
the burqa should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has
said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
is the burkha 'offensive'?

what of paramilitary uniforms?
--
www.abelard.org
Brian Reay
2018-08-14 06:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of
the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who
didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have
come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that
the burqa should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has
said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
is the burkha 'offensive'?
Not to me.

I see no reason it should be. It poses no threat to someone seeing it.
True, there is the question of whether it is worn from choice- which is
a key point- but banning it would make 'us' no better than those who
would impose it.
Post by abelard
what of paramilitary uniforms?
Depends on the context.

A bunch of thugs dressing up act as some kind of unofficial/illegal
group which will use force/violence etc is quite different to the
legitimate use of such uniforms/kit in a variety of contexts.

The famous UK military 'Woolly Pully' is one of the best jumpers you can
get for outdoors activities.
--
Remarkable Coincidences:
The Stock Market Crashes of 1929 and 2008 happened on the same
date in October. In Oct 1907, a run on the Knickerbocker Trust
Company led to the Great Depression.
Norman Wells
2018-08-14 08:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of
the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who
didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have
come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that
the burqa should be banned".  Obviously that isn't what he has
said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
is the burkha 'offensive'?
Not to me.
I see no reason it should be. It poses no threat to someone seeing it.
It makes personal transactions asymmetric, therefore unequal, uneasy and
often disturbing. They can see all of you, you can see very little of
them. They can judge what you're thinking or feeling, you can't see
what they are. It's why Jack Straw wanted his constituents not to be
covered. It's why judges want witnesses etc to be uncovered. Covering
up hinders communication, which is by no means all verbal, conceals
identity and obscures true feelings.

It's not necessarily a 'threat', whatever you mean by that, but it is
offensive and not conducive to good, open and honest interaction on
which society depends.
Post by Brian Reay
True, there is the question of whether it is worn from choice- which is
a key point- but banning it would make 'us' no better than those who
would impose it.
Yes it would. It would be a liberating law not a restricting one. It
would be like opening the door of a bird cage and setting the occupants
free. Even if some have become institutionalised and prefer to stay
inside because it's the only thing they know, most will thank you for it
in the longer term.
Incubus
2018-08-14 08:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Brian Reay
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of
the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who
didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have
come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that
the burqa should be banned".  Obviously that isn't what he has
said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
is the burkha 'offensive'?
Not to me.
I see no reason it should be. It poses no threat to someone seeing it.
It makes personal transactions asymmetric, therefore unequal, uneasy and
often disturbing. They can see all of you, you can see very little of
them. They can judge what you're thinking or feeling, you can't see
what they are. It's why Jack Straw wanted his constituents not to be
covered.
I suppose you could also cover up. I think perhaps a white sheet with holes
cut out for the eyes would be an amusing counterpart.
Post by Norman Wells
It's why judges want witnesses etc to be uncovered. Covering
up hinders communication, which is by no means all verbal, conceals
identity and obscures true feelings.
One might then simply distrust them by default - or would that be showing bias?
Post by Norman Wells
It's not necessarily a 'threat', whatever you mean by that, but it is
offensive and not conducive to good, open and honest interaction on
which society depends.
It seems to me that they wish not to be part of society.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Brian Reay
True, there is the question of whether it is worn from choice- which is
a key point- but banning it would make 'us' no better than those who
would impose it.
Yes it would. It would be a liberating law not a restricting one. It
would be like opening the door of a bird cage and setting the occupants
free. Even if some have become institutionalised and prefer to stay
inside because it's the only thing they know, most will thank you for it
in the longer term.
I don't claim to know their minds. However, if the state has the right to
determine what constitutes marriage (previously a religious concept) then it is
within the remit of the state to determine what constitutes appropriate dress.

Personally, I would ban the burqa and niqab but, just to be fair, introduce a
ban on men wearing shorts unless they are playing a sport or at the beach.
MM
2018-08-14 09:38:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 08:59:15 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Personally, I would ban the burqa and niqab but, just to be fair, introduce a
ban on men wearing shorts unless they are playing a sport or at the beach.
Postmen? In the heat of summer? Delivering your mail?

MM
abelard
2018-08-14 11:04:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 08:59:15 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Brian Reay
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of
the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who
didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have
come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that
the burqa should be banned".  Obviously that isn't what he has
said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
is the burkha 'offensive'?
Not to me.
I see no reason it should be. It poses no threat to someone seeing it.
It makes personal transactions asymmetric, therefore unequal, uneasy and
often disturbing. They can see all of you, you can see very little of
them. They can judge what you're thinking or feeling, you can't see
what they are. It's why Jack Straw wanted his constituents not to be
covered.
I suppose you could also cover up. I think perhaps a white sheet with holes
cut out for the eyes would be an amusing counterpart.
Post by Norman Wells
It's why judges want witnesses etc to be uncovered. Covering
up hinders communication, which is by no means all verbal, conceals
identity and obscures true feelings.
One might then simply distrust them by default - or would that be showing bias?
Post by Norman Wells
It's not necessarily a 'threat', whatever you mean by that, but it is
offensive and not conducive to good, open and honest interaction on
which society depends.
It seems to me that they wish not to be part of society.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Brian Reay
True, there is the question of whether it is worn from choice- which is
a key point- but banning it would make 'us' no better than those who
would impose it.
Yes it would. It would be a liberating law not a restricting one. It
would be like opening the door of a bird cage and setting the occupants
free. Even if some have become institutionalised and prefer to stay
inside because it's the only thing they know, most will thank you for it
in the longer term.
I don't claim to know their minds. However, if the state has the right to
determine what constitutes marriage (previously a religious concept) then it is
within the remit of the state to determine what constitutes appropriate dress.
Personally, I would ban the burqa and niqab but, just to be fair, introduce a
ban on men wearing shorts unless they are playing a sport or at the beach.
black shorts(sorry, shirts)

we've already had at least one example of a terrorist using the burkha
to escape

bank robber also use face hiding crash hats

meanwhile boris did not say ban them but he has to be careful
and snowflakey in the present pc censored environment
--
www.abelard.org
abelard
2018-08-14 11:00:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of
the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who
didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have
come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that
the burqa should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has
said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
is the burkha 'offensive'?
Not to me.
I see no reason it should be. It poses no threat to someone seeing it.
True, there is the question of whether it is worn from choice- which is
a key point- but banning it would make 'us' no better than those who
would impose it.
and when they are marching down the high street with guns hidden
underneath...and there are as many males as females in that garb?
Post by Brian Reay
Post by abelard
what of paramilitary uniforms?
Depends on the context.
A bunch of thugs dressing up act as some kind of unofficial/illegal
group which will use force/violence etc is quite different to the
legitimate use of such uniforms/kit in a variety of contexts.
paramilitary is not 'legitimate use'
Post by Brian Reay
The famous UK military 'Woolly Pully' is one of the best jumpers you can
get for outdoors activities.
--
www.abelard.org
Brian Reay
2018-08-14 16:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of
the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who
didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have
come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that
the burqa should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has
said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
is the burkha 'offensive'?
Not to me.
I see no reason it should be. It poses no threat to someone seeing it.
True, there is the question of whether it is worn from choice- which is
a key point- but banning it would make 'us' no better than those who
would impose it.
and when they are marching down the high street with guns hidden
underneath...and there are as many males as females in that garb?
Oh dear.
People can hide guns under a large raincoat. Are we to ban those?
abelard
2018-08-14 17:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of
the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who
didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have
come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that
the burqa should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has
said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
is the burkha 'offensive'?
Not to me.
I see no reason it should be. It poses no threat to someone seeing it.
True, there is the question of whether it is worn from choice- which is
a key point- but banning it would make 'us' no better than those who
would impose it.
and when they are marching down the high street with guns hidden
underneath...and there are as many males as females in that garb?
Oh dear.
People can hide guns under a large raincoat. Are we to ban those?
are you incapable of independent judgement?

do you not know understand 'they are marching down the street'?

then comes selective targeting..if incidents of raincoats covering
guns becomes prevalent....then stop and search them...
i expect you would regard that as 'discriminating'...discrimination
is good...it tends to save time...

do try to think for yourself...it would save intelligent people
unnecessary extra work in educating you
--
www.abelard.org
R. Mark Clayton
2018-08-14 17:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of
the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who
didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have
come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that
the burqa should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has
said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
is the burkha 'offensive'?
Not to me.
I see no reason it should be. It poses no threat to someone seeing it.
True, there is the question of whether it is worn from choice- which is
a key point- but banning it would make 'us' no better than those who
would impose it.
and when they are marching down the high street with guns hidden
underneath...and there are as many males as females in that garb?
Oh dear.
People can hide guns under a large raincoat. Are we to ban those?
Maybe, but if you have Lt. Axel Folley on your team ...

James Hammerton
2018-08-14 17:23:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of
the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who
didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have
come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that
the burqa should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has
said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
is the burkha 'offensive'?
Not to me.
I see no reason it should be. It poses no threat to someone seeing it.
True, there is the question of whether it is worn from choice- which is
a key point- but banning it would make 'us' no better than those who
would impose it.
and when they are marching down the high street with guns hidden
underneath...and there are as many males as females in that garb?
Have people been doing this with the burka or the niqab?

Is the ability to hide weapons under the clothing the reason you might
wish to ban said clothing? Is that what makes it paramilitary?

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
abelard
2018-08-14 17:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 18:23:31 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of
the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who
didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have
come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that
the burqa should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has
said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
is the burkha 'offensive'?
Not to me.
I see no reason it should be. It poses no threat to someone seeing it.
True, there is the question of whether it is worn from choice- which is
a key point- but banning it would make 'us' no better than those who
would impose it.
and when they are marching down the high street with guns hidden
underneath...and there are as many males as females in that garb?
Have people been doing this with the burka or the niqab?
s earlier stated at least one in the uk had used it as a means
of escape
Post by James Hammerton
Is the ability to hide weapons under the clothing the reason you might
wish to ban said clothing? Is that what makes it paramilitary?
congregating together in 'demonstrations'...already been done on
uk streets...and claiming you cant act there without their
permission...which then may expand into more violent acts
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2018-08-14 20:48:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 18:23:31 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of
the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who
didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have
come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that
the burqa should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has
said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
is the burkha 'offensive'?
Not to me.
I see no reason it should be. It poses no threat to someone seeing it.
True, there is the question of whether it is worn from choice- which is
a key point- but banning it would make 'us' no better than those who
would impose it.
and when they are marching down the high street with guns hidden
underneath...and there are as many males as females in that garb?
Have people been doing this with the burka or the niqab?
s earlier stated at least one in the uk had used it as a means
of escape
It is far from the only clothing that can be useful for the purpose of
escaping. Anything that you can use to hide your face (even partially)
can suffice - helments, hats or caps, coats with high collars turned up,
dark glasses.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Is the ability to hide weapons under the clothing the reason you might
wish to ban said clothing? Is that what makes it paramilitary?
congregating together in 'demonstrations'...already been done on
uk streets...
So do you regard the burka as paramilitary because of the _combination_
of the following factors?

* you can easily hide weapons
* it hides your face and thus makes it difficult to identify you, thus
facilitating escape should you commit a crime and wish to evade being caught
* it is worn by large groups in public in demonstrations (you put quotes
round this word in your text, why?)

Do all these factors need to be present for you to deem it paramilitary
or only some? Are there any I've missed?
Post by abelard
and claiming you cant act there without their
permission...
I take it this is a reference to 'no go' zones?
Post by abelard
which then may expand into more violent acts
Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
abelard
2018-08-14 21:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 21:48:27 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
congregating together in 'demonstrations'...already been done on
uk streets...
So do you regard the burka as paramilitary because of the _combination_
of the following factors?
* you can easily hide weapons
* it hides your face and thus makes it difficult to identify you, thus
facilitating escape should you commit a crime and wish to evade being caught
* it is worn by large groups in public in demonstrations (you put quotes
round this word in your text, why?)
because the small demonstrations can morph into large
'marches' as confidence in numbers grow
and the snowflake culture is over tolerant
Post by James Hammerton
Do all these factors need to be present for you to deem it paramilitary
or only some? Are there any I've missed?
as above...imv i think it is a fairly natural evolution

the *uncritical* tolerance worries
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
and claiming you cant act there without their
permission...
I take it this is a reference to 'no go' zones?
yes
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
which then may expand into more violent acts
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2018-08-15 21:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 21:48:27 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
congregating together in 'demonstrations'...already been done on
uk streets...
So do you regard the burka as paramilitary because of the _combination_
of the following factors?
* you can easily hide weapons
* it hides your face and thus makes it difficult to identify you, thus
facilitating escape should you commit a crime and wish to evade being caught
* it is worn by large groups in public in demonstrations (you put quotes
round this word in your text, why?)
because the small demonstrations can morph into large
'marches' as confidence in numbers grow
and the snowflake culture is over tolerant
Post by James Hammerton
Do all these factors need to be present for you to deem it paramilitary
or only some? Are there any I've missed?
as above...imv i think it is a fairly natural evolution
So you don't think it is being used as a paramilitary uniform right now
but may do so in the future?

As things stand now, in Britain and other developed countries, ISTM that
the burqa and niqab are primarily worn by women who either believe their
version of Islam demands it or perhaps are forced into it by their
partners because the latter believe their religion demands it, but it is
a small proportion of even the Muslim population that do so.

I doubt that in either case they're viewing it as a paramilitary uniform
rather than as a religious dress they're expected to wear. A ban risks
simply preventing the latter group from leaving their homes, whilst
making martyrs of members of the former group willing to defy the ban.

ISTM you are positing that it might get *widespread* use as a means to
hide weapons (for whatever purpose), or at least that paramilitary
groups of a Muslim fundementist bent (or who wish to appear as such)
might exploit it when/if large numbers of burqa or niqab clad people
routinely appear in our streets. Would that about sum it up?

NB: I'm trying to pin down *with precision* what makes the burqa a
paramilitary uniform in your view...
Post by abelard
the *uncritical* tolerance worries
uncritical tolerance of the clothing or of the religion?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
and claiming you cant act there without their
permission...
I take it this is a reference to 'no go' zones?
yes
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
which then may expand into more violent acts
Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
abelard
2018-08-15 23:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 22:37:14 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 21:48:27 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
congregating together in 'demonstrations'...already been done on
uk streets...
So do you regard the burka as paramilitary because of the _combination_
of the following factors?
* you can easily hide weapons
* it hides your face and thus makes it difficult to identify you, thus
facilitating escape should you commit a crime and wish to evade being caught
* it is worn by large groups in public in demonstrations (you put quotes
round this word in your text, why?)
because the small demonstrations can morph into large
'marches' as confidence in numbers grow
and the snowflake culture is over tolerant
Post by James Hammerton
Do all these factors need to be present for you to deem it paramilitary
or only some? Are there any I've missed?
as above...imv i think it is a fairly natural evolution
So you don't think it is being used as a paramilitary uniform right now
but may do so in the future?
imv we are in transition...but where we are in that process
i don't have the foggiest notion
Post by James Hammerton
As things stand now, in Britain and other developed countries, ISTM that
the burqa and niqab are primarily worn by women who either believe their
version of Islam demands it or perhaps are forced into it by their
partners because the latter believe their religion demands it, but it is
a small proportion of even the Muslim population that do so.
reasonable
Post by James Hammerton
I doubt that in either case they're viewing it as a paramilitary uniform
rather than as a religious dress they're expected to wear.
i am unconvinced
Post by James Hammerton
A ban risks
simply preventing the latter group from leaving their homes, whilst
making martyrs of members of the former group willing to defy the ban.
true
Post by James Hammerton
ISTM you are positing that it might get *widespread* use as a means to
hide weapons (for whatever purpose), or at least that paramilitary
groups of a Muslim fundementist bent (or who wish to appear as such)
might exploit it when/if large numbers of burqa or niqab clad people
routinely appear in our streets. Would that about sum it up?
with the above reservations...yes
Post by James Hammerton
NB: I'm trying to pin down *with precision* what makes the burqa a
paramilitary uniform in your view...
as usual i will continue to respond until i have made myself clear
or one of us changes position :-)
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
the *uncritical* tolerance worries
uncritical tolerance of the clothing or of the religion?
let me use a loose attempt...the supremacism mind set
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2018-08-18 20:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 22:37:14 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 21:48:27 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
congregating together in 'demonstrations'...already been done on
uk streets...
So do you regard the burka as paramilitary because of the _combination_
of the following factors?
* you can easily hide weapons
* it hides your face and thus makes it difficult to identify you, thus
facilitating escape should you commit a crime and wish to evade being caught
* it is worn by large groups in public in demonstrations (you put quotes
round this word in your text, why?)
because the small demonstrations can morph into large
'marches' as confidence in numbers grow
and the snowflake culture is over tolerant
Post by James Hammerton
Do all these factors need to be present for you to deem it paramilitary
or only some? Are there any I've missed?
as above...imv i think it is a fairly natural evolution
So you don't think it is being used as a paramilitary uniform right now
but may do so in the future?
imv we are in transition...but where we are in that process
i don't have the foggiest notion
A transition to a more militant fundemantalist Muslim population
emerging in the west than has been seen so far?

ISTM even if that might be happening, it doesn't necessarily mean the
burqa will be used in the way you suggest (i.e. to conceal weapons
during 'marches' - the burqa is not necessary for that).
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
As things stand now, in Britain and other developed countries, ISTM that
the burqa and niqab are primarily worn by women who either believe their
version of Islam demands it or perhaps are forced into it by their
partners because the latter believe their religion demands it, but it is
a small proportion of even the Muslim population that do so.
reasonable
Post by James Hammerton
I doubt that in either case they're viewing it as a paramilitary uniform
rather than as a religious dress they're expected to wear.
i am unconvinced
Do you think that if someone is wearing the burqa they cannot be unaware
that it signals allegiance to the most fundamentalist, intolerant,
jihadist form of Islam?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
A ban risks
simply preventing the latter group from leaving their homes, whilst
making martyrs of members of the former group willing to defy the ban.
true
Post by James Hammerton
ISTM you are positing that it might get *widespread* use as a means to
hide weapons (for whatever purpose), or at least that paramilitary
groups of a Muslim fundementist bent (or who wish to appear as such)
might exploit it when/if large numbers of burqa or niqab clad people
routinely appear in our streets. Would that about sum it up?
with the above reservations...yes
Post by James Hammerton
NB: I'm trying to pin down *with precision* what makes the burqa a
paramilitary uniform in your view...
as usual i will continue to respond until i have made myself clear
or one of us changes position :-)
Fair enough.

My position currently involves a conflict between my general 'live and
let live' instincts (what clothes you choose to wear don't harm me) and
the knowledge that those who wear them may being forced to wear them and
may not share my instincts.

There is also puzzlement in my mind about what paramilitary means in
your mind.

In my mind a paramilitary uniform is a uniform that might be worn by
members of a terrorist/insurgent group who view themselves as soldiers
of the group (in that they are willing and able to carry out violent
attacks for the group), rather than something worn merely to signal
allegiance to the group.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
the *uncritical* tolerance worries
uncritical tolerance of the clothing or of the religion?
let me use a loose attempt...the supremacism mind set
The uncritical tolerance (by the authorities? by the population in
general?) of Muslim supremacism (or any other supremacism?) worries you?

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
abelard
2018-08-18 22:54:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 21:27:53 +0100, James Hammerton
snipped s i see nothing to add...if i'm wrong i expect
you to let me know!
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
as usual i will continue to respond until i have made myself clear
or one of us changes position :-)
Fair enough.
My position currently involves a conflict between my general 'live and
let live' instincts (what clothes you choose to wear don't harm me) and
the knowledge that those who wear them may being forced to wear them and
may not share my instincts.
i don't believe anyone sane likes it
Post by James Hammerton
There is also puzzlement in my mind about what paramilitary means in
your mind.
mosley, hitler
black shirts, brown shirts

borderline, hell's angels
Post by James Hammerton
In my mind a paramilitary uniform is a uniform that might be worn by
members of a terrorist/insurgent group who view themselves as soldiers
of the group (in that they are willing and able to carry out violent
attacks for the group), rather than something worn merely to signal
allegiance to the group.
but like adolf you claim to be strictly legal and constitutional...
until you are strong enough
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
the *uncritical* tolerance worries
uncritical tolerance of the clothing or of the religion?
let me use a loose attempt...the supremacism mind set
The uncritical tolerance (by the authorities? by the population in
general?) of Muslim supremacism (or any other supremacism?) worries you?
only one that is organised and capable

the supremacist mind-set i see as simply deranged...
as i regard most people as somewhat delusionary i don't much care
about the particular delusion until they start trying to impress
their madness on others
of course even governments are constantly trying that
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2018-08-19 14:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 21:27:53 +0100, James Hammerton
snipped s i see nothing to add...if i'm wrong i expect
you to let me know!
no problem - I'd forgotten to snip it myself!
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
as usual i will continue to respond until i have made myself clear
or one of us changes position :-)
Fair enough.
My position currently involves a conflict between my general 'live and
let live' instincts (what clothes you choose to wear don't harm me) and
the knowledge that those who wear them may being forced to wear them and
may not share my instincts.
i don't believe anyone sane likes it
Post by James Hammerton
There is also puzzlement in my mind about what paramilitary means in
your mind.
mosley, hitler
black shirts, brown shirts
ISTM in all those cases the uniforms signalled more than mere allegiance
to the group.
Post by abelard
borderline, hell's angels
Don't know enough about them to comment.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
In my mind a paramilitary uniform is a uniform that might be worn by
members of a terrorist/insurgent group who view themselves as soldiers
of the group (in that they are willing and able to carry out violent
attacks for the group), rather than something worn merely to signal
allegiance to the group.
but like adolf you claim to be strictly legal and constitutional...
until you are strong enough
I don't see much in the way of claims being made re: wearing the burqa
beyond the right to wear it and not be harassed for doing so.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
the *uncritical* tolerance worries
uncritical tolerance of the clothing or of the religion?
let me use a loose attempt...the supremacism mind set
The uncritical tolerance (by the authorities? by the population in
general?) of Muslim supremacism (or any other supremacism?) worries you?
only one that is organised and capable
Noted.

Is it the tolerance of the general population or the government or both
that worries you?
Post by abelard
the supremacist mind-set i see as simply deranged...
as i regard most people as somewhat delusionary i don't much care
about the particular delusion until they start trying to impress
their madness on others
of course even governments are constantly trying that
Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
abelard
2018-08-19 15:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:41:52 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 21:27:53 +0100, James Hammerton
but like adolf you claim to be strictly legal and constitutional...
until you are strong enough
I don't see much in the way of claims being made re: wearing the burqa
beyond the right to wear it and not be harassed for doing so.
the claim can be that it is 'purely religious' and therefore not
really a paramilitary uniform

i haven't been attending to the justification of uniforms in
the '30s but i strongly doubt any of them openly claimed
that it was intended as a private army aimed at taking over
the state
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
the *uncritical* tolerance worries
uncritical tolerance of the clothing or of the religion?
let me use a loose attempt...the supremacism mind set
The uncritical tolerance (by the authorities? by the population in
general?) of Muslim supremacism (or any other supremacism?) worries you?
only one that is organised and capable
Noted.
Is it the tolerance of the general population or the government or both
that worries you?
i'd use a term like 'the culture' in general
--
www.abelard.org
Joe
2018-08-19 15:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 17:20:56 +0200
Post by abelard
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:41:52 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 21:27:53 +0100, James Hammerton
but like adolf you claim to be strictly legal and constitutional...
until you are strong enough
I don't see much in the way of claims being made re: wearing the
burqa beyond the right to wear it and not be harassed for doing so.
the claim can be that it is 'purely religious' and therefore not
really a paramilitary uniform
But we know that it isn't. Islam does not require it, and it is
forbidden to try to change Islam. The various sects that try to tack
their own requirements onto Islam are by definition un-Islamic.
--
Joe
abelard
2018-08-19 15:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:41:52 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 21:27:53 +0100, James Hammerton
but like adolf you claim to be strictly legal and constitutional...
until you are strong enough
I don't see much in the way of claims being made re: wearing the burqa
beyond the right to wear it and not be harassed for doing so.
the claim can be that it is 'purely religious' and therefore not
really a paramilitary uniform
i haven't been attending to the justification of uniforms in
the '30s but i strongly doubt any of them openly claimed
that it was intended as a private army aimed at taking over
the state
ps, i do recall hitler's brownshirts presenting as a matter of
welfare for members/thepoor
a presentation also seen in the likes of the moslem brotherhood

both religions also regard lying as legitimate in pursuit of
their objectives
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
the *uncritical* tolerance worries
uncritical tolerance of the clothing or of the religion?
let me use a loose attempt...the supremacism mind set
The uncritical tolerance (by the authorities? by the population in
general?) of Muslim supremacism (or any other supremacism?) worries you?
only one that is organised and capable
Noted.
Is it the tolerance of the general population or the government or both
that worries you?
i'd use a term like 'the culture' in general
--
www.abelard.org
Norman Wells
2018-08-14 08:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of
the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who
didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have
come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that
the burqa should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has
said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
is the burkha 'offensive'?
I find it offensive, yes.
Post by abelard
what of paramilitary uniforms?
Yes, they're offensive too.
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
2018-08-14 11:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of the
pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who didn't
happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have come
out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that the burqa
should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
is the burkha 'offensive'?
what of paramilitary uniforms?
Sometimes, the British can be quite amusing in their inability to remain
consistent.

'... the Jews found out that Arab warriors had disguised themselves as
women. The Jews searched the women too. One of the people being checked
realized he had been caught, took out a pistol and shot the Jewish
commander. His friends, crazed with anger, shot in all directions and
killed the Arabs in the area...'
(<https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-capture-of-deir-yassin>)

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men
stand ready to do violence on their behalf'
(George Orwell (1903 - 1950))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
abelard
2018-08-14 11:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 12:10:30 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of the
pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who didn't
happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have come
out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that the burqa
should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
is the burkha 'offensive'?
what of paramilitary uniforms?
Sometimes, the British can be quite amusing in their inability to remain
consistent.
'... the Jews found out that Arab warriors had disguised themselves as
women. The Jews searched the women too. One of the people being checked
realized he had been caught, took out a pistol and shot the Jewish
commander. His friends, crazed with anger, shot in all directions and
killed the Arabs in the area...'
(<https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-capture-of-deir-yassin>)
the british are tolerant to a fault...they are very slow to arouse and
to get off their complacent butts...
but when the barrier goes they are one of the most organised bunch of
violent warriors on the planet
--
www.abelard.org
The Todal
2018-08-14 11:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 12:10:30 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of the
pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who didn't
happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have come
out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that the burqa
should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
is the burkha 'offensive'?
what of paramilitary uniforms?
Sometimes, the British can be quite amusing in their inability to remain
consistent.
'... the Jews found out that Arab warriors had disguised themselves as
women. The Jews searched the women too. One of the people being checked
realized he had been caught, took out a pistol and shot the Jewish
commander. His friends, crazed with anger, shot in all directions and
killed the Arabs in the area...'
(<https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-capture-of-deir-yassin>)
I think we now know that women and children can be suicide bombers. No
need for men to disguise themselves as women.

When did anyone commit an act of terrorism in Britain (or France, or
America) whilst dressed in a burqa or niqab?
Post by abelard
the british are tolerant to a fault...they are very slow to arouse and
to get off their complacent butts...
but when the barrier goes they are one of the most organised bunch of
violent warriors on the planet
As your good friend Mr Hitler was wont to say, "my patience is exhausted".
abelard
2018-08-14 11:47:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by abelard
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 12:10:30 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of the
pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who didn't
happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have come
out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that the burqa
should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
is the burkha 'offensive'?
what of paramilitary uniforms?
Sometimes, the British can be quite amusing in their inability to remain
consistent.
'... the Jews found out that Arab warriors had disguised themselves as
women. The Jews searched the women too. One of the people being checked
realized he had been caught, took out a pistol and shot the Jewish
commander. His friends, crazed with anger, shot in all directions and
killed the Arabs in the area...'
(<https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-capture-of-deir-yassin>)
I think we now know that women and children can be suicide bombers. No
need for men to disguise themselves as women.
When did anyone commit an act of terrorism in Britain (or France, or
America) whilst dressed in a burqa or niqab?
Post by abelard
the british are tolerant to a fault...they are very slow to arouse and
to get off their complacent butts...
but when the barrier goes they are one of the most organised bunch of
violent warriors on the planet
As your good friend Mr Hitler was wont to say, "my patience is exhausted".
what patience? none of your cult have any patience...fortunately...

like anyone immature, they are entirely short term
--
www.abelard.org
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
2018-08-14 18:37:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 12:10:30 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of
the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who
didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have
come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that
the burqa should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has said
at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
is the burkha 'offensive'?
what of paramilitary uniforms?
Sometimes, the British can be quite amusing in their inability to remain
consistent.
'... the Jews found out that Arab warriors had disguised
themselves as women. The Jews searched the women too. One of the
people being checked realized he had been caught, took out a
pistol and shot the Jewish commander. His friends, crazed with
anger, shot in all directions and killed the Arabs in the area...'
(<https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-capture-of-deir-yassin>)
the british are tolerant to a fault...
It is curious that you should think that, although considering how
catastrophically bad you are at every other sphere of human endeavor and
behaviour, it shouldn't be that surprising. You seem to subscribe to the
amusingly naive and childish - as well as wholly erroneous - notion that
Wogs Out was in some way a 'blip' on the journey through life of the
ordinarily placid, open and tolerant Brits.

It wasn't. Wogs Out just let the scum rise to the top of the glass.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'I want to tell you a terrific story about oral contraception. I asked
this girl to sleep with me and she said "No"'
(Woody Allen)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
Incubus
2018-08-15 09:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by abelard
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 12:10:30 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by abelard
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of
the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who
didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have
come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that
the burqa should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has said
at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was chosen
to offend.
is the burkha 'offensive'?
what of paramilitary uniforms?
Sometimes, the British can be quite amusing in their inability to remain
consistent.
'... the Jews found out that Arab warriors had disguised
themselves as women. The Jews searched the women too. One of the
people being checked realized he had been caught, took out a
pistol and shot the Jewish commander. His friends, crazed with
anger, shot in all directions and killed the Arabs in the area...'
(<https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-capture-of-deir-yassin>)
the british are tolerant to a fault...
It is curious that you should think that, although considering how
catastrophically bad you are at every other sphere of human endeavor
Tsk tsk. It should be spelled 'endeavour'.
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
2018-08-15 09:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Incubus
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by abelard
the british are tolerant to a fault...
It is curious that you should think that, although considering how
catastrophically bad you are at every other sphere of human endeavor
Tsk tsk. It should be spelled 'endeavour'.
Conceded. I did have a 'squint at the screen' moment and a 'should there
be a "u" in there..?'.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've
always worked for me'
(Hunter Thompson)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
Pamela
2018-08-14 10:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any
of the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph
who didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits
have come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to
say that the burqa should be banned". Obviously that isn't what
he has said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
I am summarising what Johnson wrote. He said restrictions should be
placed on wearing it in some situations (that is to say, it is banned
in those circumstances) but in other circumstances it should not be
banned.

I have read Johnson's Telegraph column for too many years to be misled
by his frequent dog-whistling.
Post by Brian Reay
Note: I'm not defending BoJo, at best his choice of language was
chosen to offend.
I believe the opposite: that Johnson's language was chosen deliberately
not to give offense but to advocate a partial ban.

Johnson touches upon more extreme outcomes in order to encourage you to
accept a more mdoest outcome.

Personally I think the burqa should be banned in public more along the
lines the French and Germans have done.
Brian Reay
2018-08-14 16:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pamela
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any
of the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph
who didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits
have come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to
say that the burqa should be banned". Obviously that isn't what
he has said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps you should read the article.
I am summarising what Johnson wrote. He said restrictions should be
placed on wearing it in some situations (that is to say, it is banned
in those circumstances) but in other circumstances it should not be
banned.
He actually focused on the Danish ban.
Norman Wells
2018-08-14 08:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pamela
Post by The Todal
Seems fine to me. Fine, that is, if it had been written by any of
the pompous columnists of the Times, Guardian or Telegraph who
didn't happen to have ambitions to be Prime Minister.
Unfortunately what has now happened is that all the fuckwits have
come out of the woodwork arguing that "Boris is right to say that
the burqa should be banned". Obviously that isn't what he has
said at all.
Didn't Johnson say the burka should be banned but not totally?
Why on earth don't you read the thread where what he said has been set out?

Or even Google to find out?

Is that too difficult for a 'female' of your persuasion perhaps?
Peter Percival
2018-08-13 17:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
'There was a time when Conservatives used to split over this or that
aspect of an EU treaty; or the practice of monetarism; or the
composition of the House of Lords; or the consequences of welfare
policy. Now they argue over whether it is acceptable to sneer at
Muslim women in religious dress. O tempora, o mores, as Jacob
Rees-Mogg might say.
'There is depressing bathos in the fact that two cheap gags in Boris
Johnson's Daily Telegraph column about the burqa have caused such a
rift. But they have.
'The former foreign secretary refuses to apologise for writing that a
Muslim woman wearing the veil resembles "a bank robber" and that it is
"absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking
like letter boxes". He is now under investigation by his own party,
which has received dozens of complaints.
'According to Rees-Mogg, this inquiry is nothing more than a "show
trial", animated by envy of Johnson's "many successes, popularity with
voters and charisma". Four cabinet ministers to whom the Sunday Times
spoke are reportedly unhappy about the Tory leadership's "cack-handed"
handling of the furore. Andrew Bridgen, Iain Duncan Smith and other
Conservative MPs have raced to support Johnson.
'On the other side Andrew Cooper, a Conservative peer and former No 10
director of strategy, tweets that "the rottenness of Boris Johnson
goes deeper even than his casual racism & his equally casual courting
of fascism". Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Tory leader, has demanded an
apology for his "gratuitously offensive" remarks. Dominic Grieve, the
former attorney general, has said he will leave the Conservative party
if Johnson becomes its leader.
'Let's first establish what this row is not about. For a start, it is
emphatically not about freedom of speech. In absolutely no way has
Johnson's liberty to speak out been forcibly curtailed or legally
constrained. On Thursday the Met police commissioner disclosed her
"preliminary view" that "what Mr Johnson said would not reach the bar
for a criminal offence". There will be no campaign to free the
Bullingdon One (though you can bet that the populist right would love
nothing more).
'Nor is this an example of our old friend, "political correctness gone
mad". The debate about the place of the niqab and burqa in a liberal
secular society long preceded Johnson's clodhopping contribution, and
will carry on long after he heads off greedily to the next opportunity
for self-advancement.
'Nor is the row about the limits of comedy. It pains me to criticise
Rowan Atkinson, whose portrayal of the mime, "Alternative Carpark", is
one of the greatest achievements of British humour. But his defence of
"the freedom to make jokes about religion" in the Times last week was
unnecessary. That freedom has not been imperilled by this particular
case. What Atkinson's letter does reveal is a dangerous confusion
between the functions of the comedian and of the politician, between
entertainment and statecraft. Politicians have always told jokes, and
a fair few have become them. But - as Donald Trump, the reality TV
star turned President has shown - showbusiness has now fully colonised
the world of politics.
'In Johnson's case, what we are witnessing is a man who until very
recently held one of the great offices of state claiming jester's
privilege. When he writes or speaks, he does so as an MP and privy
counsellor well known for his ambition to become prime minister in the
near future. To borrow the language of King Lear, he plays the Fool
but wants to be Nuncle. This may be clever, but it is also
intolerable.
'It is almost a working definition of politics: you can say what you
like, within the law, but you must then face the consequences. A
standup comedian will point out that he is just making jokes, or being
ironic or testing taboos. A politician does not enjoy such licence -
indeed how could he or she? A political party is not a free-for-all or
a convenient platform for uncurtailed rhetoric, but an organisation
for the disciplined achievement of power and implementation of
principled policy. It is this basic structural reality that Johnson
has never respected.
'The problem is that the spirit of the age is on his side. In an era
of digital networks, the old systems and structures are crumbling
fast. When Enoch Powell made his notorious "rivers of blood" speech,
the then Conservative party leader, Edward Heath, was able to despatch
him to the fringes of political life with relative ease. But the new
contours of the web mean that there are no fringes: only voices, and
those eager to heed them. This Johnson understands all too well, urged
on by Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist - who praises him
in the Sunday Times for "giving the people what they want -
authenticity".
'What a weasel word that has become. It started life as a near-synonym
for "sincerity" or "honesty", the opposite of spin. Now it has become
code for "giving the voters permission to feel all right about their
most irrational hatreds and least honourable emotions". In this case,
Johnson's "authenticity" resides in his signal that is acceptable to
use demeaning, dehumanising language about Muslim women in religious
clothing.
'I think - no, I insist - that this is nothing short of deplorable,
and that this confrontation poses greater long-term dangers than
Powell's speech in 1968. It is a founding principle of any pluralist
society that in our permanent negotiation with one another we strive
to be decent and dignified.
There was nothing wrong with Powell's speech. (Is it necessary to point
out again that he never used the phrase 'rivers of blood'?) Nor was
there anything wrong with Johnson's article.
Post by MM
'But that principle will not defend itself. We have reached a fork in
the road where it is under sustained attack from nativists,
opportunists and bigots in suits. There are only two paths available.
Johnson has chosen. So must we.'
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/12/boris-johnson-moment-more-decisive-rivers-of-blood
Well, every rotten court deserves its fool, I suppose.
MM
R. Mark Clayton
2018-08-14 16:06:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, 13 August 2018 17:33:47 UTC+1, MM wrote:
SNIP
Post by MM
'But that principle will not defend itself. We have reached a fork in
the road where it is under sustained attack from nativists,
opportunists and bigots in suits. There are only two paths available.
Johnson has chosen. So must we.'
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/12/boris-johnson-moment-more-decisive-rivers-of-blood
Well, every rotten court deserves its fool, I suppose.
MM
Complete hyperbole of course. Enoch Powell deliberately tried to stoke racial tension with his "rivers of blood" speech.

Buffoon Boris has gratuitously derided a tiny minority of Mulsim women who CHOOSE to cover their faces, whilst at the same time they have every right to do so.

No one takes him too seriously and he is just deliberately stirring the pot to further his own political objectives.

PS do British women ever cover their faces? Here is a picture of three Queens of the UK: -

Loading Image...
Norman Wells
2018-08-14 16:26:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by MM
'But that principle will not defend itself. We have reached a fork in
the road where it is under sustained attack from nativists,
opportunists and bigots in suits. There are only two paths available.
Johnson has chosen. So must we.'
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/12/boris-johnson-moment-more-decisive-rivers-of-blood
Well, every rotten court deserves its fool, I suppose.
MM
Complete hyperbole of course. Enoch Powell deliberately tried to stoke racial tension with his "rivers of blood" speech.
Buffoon Boris has gratuitously derided a tiny minority of Mulsim women who CHOOSE to cover their faces, whilst at the same time they have every right to do so.
No one takes him too seriously and he is just deliberately stirring the pot to further his own political objectives.
PS do British women ever cover their faces? Here is a picture of three Queens of the UK: -
https://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/ron_case_obit_pic_large.jpg
FFS! Is that what passes for argument up there in the intellectual
desert that is Wigan? Yes, three old-fashioned women once wore very
thin veils that didn't conceal their faces, at a single funeral in 1952,
so a mere 66 years ago.

What are we to make of that, eh?

Some more modern northern women from your neck of the woods even briefly
covered their hair:

http://coronationstreet.wikia.com/wiki/Violet_Carson
R. Mark Clayton
2018-08-14 16:35:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by MM
'But that principle will not defend itself. We have reached a fork in
the road where it is under sustained attack from nativists,
opportunists and bigots in suits. There are only two paths available.
Johnson has chosen. So must we.'
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/12/boris-johnson-moment-more-decisive-rivers-of-blood
Well, every rotten court deserves its fool, I suppose.
MM
Complete hyperbole of course. Enoch Powell deliberately tried to stoke racial tension with his "rivers of blood" speech.
Buffoon Boris has gratuitously derided a tiny minority of Mulsim women who CHOOSE to cover their faces, whilst at the same time they have every right to do so.
No one takes him too seriously and he is just deliberately stirring the pot to further his own political objectives.
PS do British women ever cover their faces? Here is a picture of three Queens of the UK: -
https://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/ron_case_obit_pic_large.jpg
FFS! Is that what passes for argument up there in the intellectual
desert that is Wigan? Yes, three old-fashioned women once wore very
thin veils that didn't conceal their faces, at a single funeral in 1952,
so a mere 66 years ago.
What are we to make of that, eh?
Some more modern northern women from your neck of the woods even briefly
http://coronationstreet.wikia.com/wiki/Violet_Carson
ha ha - even my mum often wore a headscarf when I was a kid, and coincidentally introduced me to Violet Carson (before Coronation Street), although I do not remember the encounter.
Loading...