Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Newbury Today Forum _ Random Rants _ Apologise? Apologise for what exactly?

Posted by: On the edge Aug 8 2018, 07:02 AM

Why on earth should Boris Johnson apologise for what he said about the burka?

It covers the wearers face and so is displaying an arrogant rudeness to anyone the wearer needs to communicate with. There is no religious requirement at all to cover the face and in some cases, it's actually symbolic of repression. On top of this, at this time of heightened national security, it is difficult to identify wearers and, just like the full face hoodie, ought to be restricted.

Some seeking to integrate into our community, with cultures and practices very different to those here in the UK might find this disturbing. However, integration is a two way street and arguably, this is one of the existing communities 'lines in the sand'.

Stifling debate as the PM clearly seeks to do is foolhardy and likely to create even more discontent and tension in both communities than there is already.

For me, this continual denial of real debate on crucial matters of difference is far more damaging to democracy than 'fake' news.

Posted by: newres Aug 8 2018, 07:28 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 8 2018, 08:02 AM) *
Why on earth should Boris Johnson apologise for what he said about the burka?

It covers the wearers face and so is displaying an arrogant rudeness to anyone the wearer needs to communicate with. There is no religious requirement at all to cover the face and in some cases, it's actually symbolic of repression. On top of this, at this time of heightened national security, it is difficult to identify wearers and, just like the full face hoodie, ought to be restricted.

Some seeking to integrate into our community, with cultures and practices very different to those here in the UK might find this disturbing. However, integration is a two way street and arguably, this is one of the existing communities 'lines in the sand'.

Stifling debate as the PM clearly seeks to do is foolhardy and likely to create even more discontent and tension in both communities than there is already.

For me, this continual denial of real debate on crucial matters of difference is far more damaging to democracy than 'fake' news.

He was deliberately fanning the flames. He knew it would cause offence. If you can’t see it was designed to appeal to the knuckle draggers it can only mean you’re one of them.

Posted by: SirWilliam Aug 8 2018, 07:34 AM

I see the baying hordes are calling for his blood because the opportunity to do so has been presented to them on a plate. The fact that BJ used the pillar box analogy with a degree of levity holds no sway with the lefties who will not be happy until every woman in the country is forced to wear these ridiculous outfits in the name of multi -culturism. We have experienced the hottest spell of weather for 40 years yet they still expect their women to dress from head to toe in black.
Wake up Britain before it is to late. angry.gif

Posted by: On the edge Aug 8 2018, 07:54 AM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 8 2018, 08:28 AM) *
He was deliberately fanning the flames. He knew it would cause offence. If you can’t see it was designed to appeal to the knuckle draggers it can only mean you’re one of them.


You don't know that of course, and given that the remarks were in his usual style, it's doubtful that they were designed to cause offence, indeed quite the reverse.

What I'm seeing more and more, talking to groups of people throughout the country is the bitter resentment being built up against the governing establishment's failure to address such issues head on. I've met those involved in the administration of justice, education in schools and colleges, as well as commercial management who are also very offended by women refusing to 'show their face' and use it as an example of myriad other failures to properly manage integration.

It strikes me, that just like your response, ungrounded attempts to close any even sensible debate is as foolish as it is counter productive. It's sad that Johnson's attempt to lighten the issue is, as usual, misinterpreted. Can you imagine the fury if he'd used even plain language.

I'm sorry, but I'd argue that your final paragraph says more about you than me. Intelligent debate isn't about trading insults.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 8 2018, 08:01 AM

QUOTE (SirWilliam @ Aug 8 2018, 08:34 AM) *
I see the baying hordes are calling for his blood because the opportunity to do so has been presented to them on a plate. The fact that BJ used the pillar box analogy with a degree of levity holds no sway with the lefties who will not be happy until every woman in the country is forced to wear these ridiculous outfits in the name of multi -culturism. We have experienced the hottest spell of weather for 40 years yet they still expect their women to dress from head to toe in black.
Wake up Britain before it is to late. angry.gif


And yet we have had absolutely no response to those who are asking why? After all, if it was simply women's choice (or what is normally called fashion) it would be worn by all women, not just a specific segment. It would by now have run its course and be regarded as yesterday's dress. If it's helping women's equality, should not similar fashions also now appeal to men?

Posted by: newres Aug 8 2018, 09:30 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 8 2018, 08:54 AM) *
You don't know that of course, and given that the remarks were in his usual style, it's doubtful that they were designed to cause offence, indeed quite the reverse.

What I'm seeing more and more, talking to groups of people throughout the country is the bitter resentment being built up against the governing establishment's failure to address such issues head on. I've met those involved in the administration of justice, education in schools and colleges, as well as commercial management who are also very offended by women refusing to 'show their face' and use it as an example of myriad other failures to properly manage integration.

It strikes me, that just like your response, ungrounded attempts to close any even sensible debate is as foolish as it is counter productive. It's sad that Johnson's attempt to lighten the issue is, as usual, misinterpreted. Can you imagine the fury if he'd used even plain language.

I'm sorry, but I'd argue that your final paragraph says more about you than me. Intelligent debate isn't about trading insults.

Oh the irony? Is saying people look like pillar boxes and bank robbers intelligent debate or trading insults? rolleyes.gif

Posted by: On the edge Aug 8 2018, 10:27 AM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 8 2018, 10:30 AM) *
Oh the irony? Is saying people look like pillar boxes and bank robbers intelligent debate or trading insults? rolleyes.gif


It's what used to be called banter, or chaffing. Johnson was not insulting the wearers, just the style of dress. Just as I find Nurses wearing uniforms in public unacceptable because it's unhygienic.

Posted by: newres Aug 8 2018, 11:51 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 8 2018, 11:27 AM) *
It's what used to be called banter, or chaffing. Johnson was not insulting the wearers, just the style of dress. Just as I find Nurses wearing uniforms in public unacceptable because it's unhygienic.

Ridiculous comment. His remarks have caused offence and he's been told to apololgise by both the leader & the chairman of the party. He's deliberately courting the right following his meeting with Bannon.

Posted by: SirWilliam Aug 8 2018, 12:10 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 8 2018, 09:01 AM) *
And yet we have had absolutely no response to those who are asking why? After all, if it was simply women's choice (or what is normally called fashion) it would be worn by all women, not just a specific segment. It would by now have run its course and be regarded as yesterday's dress. If it's helping women's equality, should not similar fashions also now appeal to men?


Personally I can have an ambivalent stance on the matter but if I was female I would be incandescent that in this country an element of my "sisterhood" should still be subjected to the will of the male. As you say, if it was a fashion phase it would run it's course, but this is a heinous imposition on those who are too indoctrinated to say no.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 8 2018, 01:02 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 8 2018, 12:51 PM) *
Ridiculous comment. His remarks have caused offence and he's been told to apololgise by both the leader & the chairman of the party. He's deliberately courting the right following his meeting with Bannon.


What a sad state our politics are today then. You are implying that all MPs must be simply pawns and certainly must upset no one. Do you honestly think David Cameron should apologise for the offensive remarks he made about Nigel Fararge, or Mrs May for being offensive to Jeremy Corbyn? Perhaps you'd like us to follow the EU member states that are introducing prohibitions?

Demanding apologies and then even penance for bogus offences is a classic way to divert attention from the real issue. That then festers and gradually erupts with significant consequences. Why are you and your peers so afraid to engage in meaningful debate?


QUICK ADD
Have just spent time with a Muslim couple I've known for ages, yes, they are incensed by the Johnson issue ..... but mainly by people who aren't Muslim being offended in their behalf! As they said, how can you be offended by something that isn't true. Their religion does not require any women to dress, other modestly, that's essentially covering private parts; the face is not specified. In fact, their view is that the noise being made about this is very unhelpful indeed.

Posted by: newres Aug 8 2018, 03:31 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 8 2018, 02:02 PM) *
What a sad state our politics are today then. You are implying that all MPs must be simply pawns and certainly must upset no one. Do you honestly think David Cameron should apologise for the offensive remarks he made about Nigel Fararge, or Mrs May for being offensive to Jeremy Corbyn? Perhaps you'd like us to follow the EU member states that are introducing prohibitions?

Demanding apologies and then even penance for bogus offences is a classic way to divert attention from the real issue. That then festers and gradually erupts with significant consequences. Why are you and your peers so afraid to engage in meaningful debate?


QUICK ADD
Have just spent time with a Muslim couple I've known for ages, yes, they are incensed by the Johnson issue ..... but mainly by people who aren't Muslim being offended in their behalf! As they said, how can you be offended by something that isn't true. Their religion does not require any women to dress, other modestly, that's essentially covering private parts; the face is not specified. In fact, their view is that the noise being made about this is very unhelpful indeed.

And FGM isn't a Muslim thing either but I'll bet the alt right won't be able to separate THAT from being a Muslim.

Shall we start making jokes about Hasidic Jews too? Can you see Boris doing that?

As I said, he's done that to be divisive. It was no accident. And for that reason alone he's an A R S E.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 8 2018, 04:26 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 8 2018, 04:31 PM) *
And FGM isn't a Muslim thing either but I'll bet the alt right won't be able to separate THAT from being a Muslim.

Shall we start making jokes about Hasidic Jews too? Can you see Boris doing that?

As I said, he's done that to be divisive. It was no accident. And for that reason alone he's an A R S E.

Perhaps anyone who doesnt agree with newres should be muted?
You must be so much fun. Any joke at all would be seized on by you. Do you take your inspiration from Lammy?


Posted by: On the edge Aug 8 2018, 04:27 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 8 2018, 04:31 PM) *
And FGM isn't a Muslim thing either but I'll bet the alt right won't be able to separate THAT from being a Muslim.

Shall we start making jokes about Hasidic Jews too? Can you see Boris doing that?

As I said, he's done that to be divisive. It was no accident. And for that reason alone he's an A R S E.


The FGM laws are nothing to do with religion. They were put in place to protect women from dangerous mutilation which results in severe disability in later life.

Hasidic Jews, Nuns, Air cabin crews, etc.etc. all wear 'different' clothes, but don't cover their faces. That's the issue; again not a religious issue but one where for the proper functioning and safety of our society, an individual's face needs to be seen. However, the most virulent objections to any attempt to stop face covering come only from a religious group. Oddly, this group cannot justify their objection!

I agree Boris Johnson's intervention here was no accident. It was a main stream press column he wrote, which doubtless was carefully thought through. It also passed the Newspapers legal team. Yes, it's worth asking why he mentioned it right now, particularly where there is much more obvious low hanging political fruit. Rather than thinking up more insults; a good test would be to think objectively; why? I some how doubt if you'll like the answer.

Posted by: newres Aug 8 2018, 04:56 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 8 2018, 05:27 PM) *
The FGM laws are nothing to do with religion. They were put in place to protect women from dangerous mutilation which results in severe disability in later life.

Hasidic Jews, Nuns, Air cabin crews, etc.etc. all wear 'different' clothes, but don't cover their faces. That's the issue; again not a religious issue but one where for the proper functioning and safety of our society, an individual's face needs to be seen. However, the most virulent objections to any attempt to stop face covering come only from a religious group. Oddly, this group cannot justify their objection!

I agree Boris Johnson's intervention here was no accident. It was a main stream press column he wrote, which doubtless was carefully thought through. It also passed the Newspapers legal team. Yes, it's worth asking why he mentioned it right now, particularly where there is much more obvious low hanging political fruit. Rather than thinking up more insults; a good test would be to think objectively; why? I some how doubt if you'll like the answer.

There’s nothing wrong with the debate. You have your view and that’s fine. I on the other hand am not bothered if someone wants to wear a veil. It’s a debate and there will be differing views. That’s not the issue. Boris’s outburst was deliberately offensive (many Muslims have described it as such) and the talk isn’t about the issue, but about Boris. It’s about keeping his profile up. However, whilst it played well with people like you, most people will see Boris for what he is.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 8 2018, 05:49 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 8 2018, 05:56 PM) *
There’s nothing wrong with the debate. You have your view and that’s fine. I on the other hand am not bothered if someone wants to wear a veil. It’s a debate and there will be differing views. That’s not the issue. Boris’s outburst was deliberately offensive (many Muslims have described it as such) and the talk isn’t about the issue, but about Boris. It’s about keeping his profile up. However, whilst it played well with people like you, most people will see Boris for what he is.


People 'like me'? Ah, same as the majority of the UK's population, so thanks for the vote of confidence.

I can't see how Muslims would find what Boris Johnson said is offensive.

I can find no trace of any religious reason as to why anyone would wear a full face cover in their writings. So, perhaps it's down to deliberate misinterpretation - like the techniques the hate preachers use.

No matter what anyone says these days someone will be 'offended' - Cliff Richard wins his libel case, Head of News at BBC 'offended'. Time we all grew up and spoke plainly.

Posted by: newres Aug 8 2018, 06:17 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 8 2018, 06:49 PM) *
People 'like me'? Ah, same as the majority of the UK's population, so thanks for the vote of confidence.

I can't see how Muslims would find what Boris Johnson said is offensive.

I can find no trace of any religious reason as to why anyone would wear a full face cover in their writings. So, perhaps it's down to deliberate misinterpretation - like the techniques the hate preachers use.

No matter what anyone says these days someone will be 'offended' - Cliff Richard wins his libel case, Head of News at BBC 'offended'. Time we all grew up and spoke plainly.

He didn't speak plainly. He was deliberately insulting.

Am I ok to use the term "rag head", or instead of looks like a letter box, how about looks like a monkey?

Posted by: On the edge Aug 8 2018, 06:57 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 8 2018, 07:17 PM) *
He didn't speak plainly. He was deliberately insulting.

Am I ok to use the term "rag head", or instead of looks like a letter box, how about looks like a monkey?


I didn't mean Johnson spoke plainly, clearly he didn't but then no one does these days that's the problem. I actually meant we all should speak plainly - without fear or favour.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 8 2018, 08:26 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 8 2018, 07:17 PM) *
He didn't speak plainly. He was deliberately insulting.

Am I ok to use the term "rag head", or instead of looks like a letter box, how about looks like a monkey?

How about #gammon. You lot seem to think that is hilarious to describe middle aged white people probably in ill health due to high blood pressure and stressful jobs. But I guess thats Ok with you and is....funny.

People usung that are just hypocrites. PS..I couldn't give a sh1t if you called me that personally.

Posted by: spartacus Aug 8 2018, 10:46 PM

The luvvies in the BBC may be baying for his blood, and the Guardian readers and sandal wearers and the 'faux shocked' and the Islamic hate preacher may be demanding action, but from a purely personal view I have to say I don't want to see the burka in the streets of Newbury.

It has already become a common item of dress in many areas of this country. In fact in some areas it doesn't even warrant a second glance. Birmingham, Bradford, virtually every London Borough, even parts of Reading. But last week I was driving along the A4 through Thatcham and walking along past the Sainsbury convenience store was a women in full black burka. So out of place and, if I'm honest, so unwelcome.

What does that say about me? I already know I'm religiously intolerant as I close the door on the Jehovah's Witnesses when they come a'knockin'. There's just something sinister about the burka that I don't want in my country. In my neighbourhood even.

Would I feel the same about a family of Amish moving in next door, with their odd dress sense and their quaint modes of transport? Maybe, but at least you can ask the Amish neighbour to help you knock together a garden shed and know they'll be round in a flash with hammers, saws and a whole bunch of willing hands.

Would the people crying out in support of wearing the burka TRUTHFULLY feel the same way if they had neighbours moving in next door who were following this particular practice when showing their faith? In Newbury I mean. I mean really welcome them. Newres included. A knock on the door if you decided to have a Sunday morning fry-up and allowed the waft of sizzling bacon to leak from your kitchen into their airspace?

Posted by: spartacus Aug 8 2018, 11:14 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Aug 8 2018, 09:26 PM) *
How about #gammon. You lot seem to think that is hilarious to describe middle aged white people probably in ill health due to high blood pressure and stressful jobs. But I guess thats Ok with you and is....funny.
... or 'choc ice' as a derogatory term for black people who are seen to be siding with the honkies or selling out on their black brothers. ('Black on the outside, white on the inside'). Rio Ferdinand seemed to think the term was quite funny. Of course you can only get away with that if you have a certain pigment.

As for BoJo maybe he should have added a topical comment about air pollution in London which is seeing more and more people in the city walking around wearing face masks to cover their mouths and noses. All you can see is their eyes. Japanese tourists in particular. ...just their eyes... ...or are they Chinese tourists? I dunno... with their faces all covered up they all look the same to me.


Posted by: x2lls Aug 8 2018, 11:15 PM

QUOTE (spartacus @ Aug 8 2018, 11:46 PM) *
The luvvies in the BBC may be baying for his blood, and the Guardian readers and sandal wearers and the 'faux shocked' and the Islamic hate preacher may be demanding action, but from a purely personal view I have to say I don't want to see the burka in the streets of Newbury.

It has already become a common item of dress in many areas of this country. In fact in some areas it doesn't even warrant a second glance. Birmingham, Bradford, virtually every London Borough, even parts of Reading. But last week I was driving along the A4 through Thatcham and walking along past the Sainsbury convenience store was a women in full black burka. So out of place and, if I'm honest, so unwelcome.

What does that say about me? I already know I'm religiously intolerant as I close the door on the Jehovah's Witnesses when they come a'knockin'. There's just something sinister about the burka that I don't want in my country. In my neighbourhood even.

Would I feel the same about a family of Amish moving in next door, with their odd dress sense and their quaint modes of transport? Maybe, but at least you can ask the Amish neighbour to help you knock together a garden shed and know they'll be round in a flash with hammers, saws and a whole bunch of willing hands.

Would the people crying out in support of wearing the burka TRUTHFULLY feel the same way if they had neighbours moving in next door who were following this particular practice when showing their faith? In Newbury I mean. I mean really welcome them. Newres included. A knock on the door if you decided to have a Sunday morning fry-up and allowed the waft of sizzling bacon to leak from your kitchen into their airspace?


I don't disagree.

Gets popcorn rolleyes.gif

Posted by: spartacus Aug 8 2018, 11:44 PM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Aug 9 2018, 12:15 AM) *
Gets popcorn rolleyes.gif
.... about time we swapped the popcorn for a bag of pork scratchings when we discuss this topic.

Posted by: newres Aug 9 2018, 05:01 AM

QUOTE (spartacus @ Aug 8 2018, 11:46 PM) *
The luvvies in the BBC may be baying for his blood, and the Guardian readers and sandal wearers and the 'faux shocked' and the Islamic hate preacher may be demanding action, but from a purely personal view I have to say I don't want to see the burka in the streets of Newbury.

It has already become a common item of dress in many areas of this country. In fact in some areas it doesn't even warrant a second glance. Birmingham, Bradford, virtually every London Borough, even parts of Reading. But last week I was driving along the A4 through Thatcham and walking along past the Sainsbury convenience store was a women in full black burka. So out of place and, if I'm honest, so unwelcome.

What does that say about me? I already know I'm religiously intolerant as I close the door on the Jehovah's Witnesses when they come a'knockin'. There's just something sinister about the burka that I don't want in my country. In my neighbourhood even.

Would I feel the same about a family of Amish moving in next door, with their odd dress sense and their quaint modes of transport? Maybe, but at least you can ask the Amish neighbour to help you knock together a garden shed and know they'll be round in a flash with hammers, saws and a whole bunch of willing hands.

Would the people crying out in support of wearing the burka TRUTHFULLY feel the same way if they had neighbours moving in next door who were following this particular practice when showing their faith? In Newbury I mean. I mean really welcome them. Newres included. A knock on the door if you decided to have a Sunday morning fry-up and allowed the waft of sizzling bacon to leak from your kitchen into their airspace?

To be honest I find chavs in Tesco’s in their pyjamas more offensive. Or their boyfriends displaying their undercrackers, but I wouldn’t ban them.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 9 2018, 05:02 AM

QUOTE (spartacus @ Aug 9 2018, 12:44 AM) *
.... about time we swapped the popcorn for a bag of pork scratchings when we discuss this topic.

One of my black friends at work is called "coconut" when he visits his father in Ghana just because he has a British accent...

Newres and the like love to get enragred by what they perceive to be racism on behalf of others. Bless them.

Posted by: newres Aug 9 2018, 07:22 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Aug 9 2018, 06:02 AM) *
One of my black friends at work is called "coconut" when he visits his father in Ghana just because he has a British accent...

Newres and the like love to get enragred by what they perceive to be racism on behalf of others. Bless them.

But is that like the "n" word though? When it's ok for a black person to use it, but not a white person? I confess I don't get that by the way.

Posted by: x2lls Aug 9 2018, 09:38 AM

If you can call Catholic nuns "penguins", then you can poke fun at burka wearers. Welcome to the Free West. We make fun of everyone.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 9 2018, 12:21 PM

In my opinion the problem with Boris is that he is a senior politician, representing our country and our government. If he is against the Burka then that's his position and fair enough. But he should be able to engage his opponents through interest and reasoned debate, he should have a level of understanding for other views, and he should be able to say what he means without pi55ing off thousands of people. Basic skills.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 9 2018, 12:46 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Aug 9 2018, 01:21 PM) *
In my opinion the problem with Boris is that he is a senior politician, representing our country and our government. If he is against the Burka then that's his position and fair enough. But he should be able to engage his opponents through interest and reasoned debate, he should have a level of understanding for other views, and he should be able to say what he means without pi55ing off thousands of people. Basic skills.


That’s exactly the issue. You can’t say anything today without offending someone no matter how good your skills.

Has anyone spared a thought for those who are genuinely offended by people wearing these things? Or is that another group that doesn’t count these days?

Posted by: SirWilliam Aug 9 2018, 01:16 PM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Aug 9 2018, 10:38 AM) *
If you can call Catholic nuns "penguins", then you can poke fun at burka wearers. Welcome to the Free West. We make fun of everyone.


Reminds me of an incident 50 odd years ago while walking with my 3 year old daughter we met a couple of nuns en route, " look daddy penguins". Oh how I wished the ground had opened up but they laughed it off and all was well. One wonders what the outcome would have been had it been a burka wearer?

Posted by: x2lls Aug 9 2018, 02:31 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Aug 9 2018, 01:21 PM) *
In my opinion the problem with Boris is that he is a senior politician, representing our country and our government. If he is against the Burka then that's his position and fair enough. But he should be able to engage his opponents through interest and reasoned debate, he should have a level of understanding for other views, and he should be able to say what he means without pi55ing off thousands of people. Basic skills.


That is impossible, considering there are millions of us who have our own views.
That is an assumption that pi55ing off thousands of people is somehow wrong, it isn't, they are a minority. Check out the various polls online.
Where are their basic skills that stop them from pearl clutching every five minutes when someone says something they don't like?

"interest and reasoned debate" has failed miserably. We will only see that when the likes of Antifa start taking off their masks and start to use their brains, not that I'm waiting. This government, the opposition and the House of Lords are increasingly being isolated, sorry, isolating themselves from a huge proportion of the BRITISH public. All they come up with is virtue signalling rubbish, and many more are now seeing it for what it is, rubbish.

More messenger shooting.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 9 2018, 03:43 PM

I don't think it is messenger shooting. I think he's been hugely incompetent again, and has a long history of upsetting people. In this instance you don't care about the group being insulted, in fact you're against them so the impact for you doesn't exist. I don't disagree with Boris, but I don't like his methods, and previously his gaffes has cost people dearly, for example that lady imprisoned in Iran.

Posted by: newres Aug 9 2018, 03:56 PM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Aug 9 2018, 10:38 AM) *
If you can call Catholic nuns "penguins", then you can poke fun at burka wearers. Welcome to the Free West. We make fun of everyone.

When was the last time a foreign secretary referred to a nun as a penguin? I’ve only ever heard that oce. On Blues Brothers. And I’m a catholic.

Posted by: newres Aug 9 2018, 03:58 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 9 2018, 01:46 PM) *
That’s exactly the issue. You can’t say anything today without offending someone no matter how good your skills.

Has anyone spared a thought for those who are genuinely offended by people wearing these things? Or is that another group that doesn’t count these days?

How on earth can any normal person be offended by the dress of another unless they have a hatred for the wearer. And therein I think lies the problem.

Posted by: x2lls Aug 9 2018, 04:01 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 9 2018, 04:56 PM) *
When was the last time a foreign secretary referred to a nun as a penguin? I’ve only ever heard that oce. On Blues Brothers. And I’m a catholic.



The clue is in "If you can".

Posted by: newres Aug 9 2018, 04:39 PM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Aug 9 2018, 05:01 PM) *
The clue is in "If you can".

Well I’d be staggered if a member of the government referred to a nun as a penguin. It makes me laugh at how people like you moan about our culture being ruined by immigrants yet you don’t see that for a person of high office to insult members of our population is totally alien to our culture.

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 9 2018, 05:37 PM

Things to note;

It's not a religious issue in any way.

it wasn't an 'outburst'.

Bo Jo doesn't support a ban.

People wearing it do look stupid.

Its a security issue as well.

It's men forcing women to wear them.

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 9 2018, 05:44 PM

Allegedly; The reason women must cover themselves is so they do not seduce a man.

So then; If a man catches a glimpse of her ankle, and he becomes seduced, then he isn't responsible for his actions. He might rape her, accidentally of course, and it'd all be her fault. Traitorous, adulterous witch. She should've covered herself up! That poor guy! She seduced him. She must be punished.

You can see where I'm going with this, right?

The burka is not a religeous garment. It is a gender enslavement tool, and 100% away from what our country has been fighting to overcome for the last 100 years.

But here's the rub: We agreed that a woman should be allowed to wear whatever she likes, right? So if she wants to cover herself from head to toe, we have to let her!

Now why would she want to do that?

Well, since a woman isn't trying to seduce anybody while out buying her dhania, atta and haldi then she won't mind covering herself, particularly as she's already married. After all, who needs to see her anyway? Only her husband has any interest in being attracted to her, so it should be 'no skin of anyone's nose', right? Why do you even want to look at this man's wife anyway. She's private property.

So ... this leaves us with a dillema:

Either we must enforce our belief that a woman should be allowed to express herself any way she chooses. This will mean accepting the burka as a fashion garment, and a legitimate choice of self-expression. This means we'll have to ignore the surrepticious gender/social constrictions to the women involved.

Or we must accept we were wrong, and that some clothing really isn't suitable or acceptable. Bikinis, miniskirts and hot-pants might well fall into this category. Which means we might have been wrong all along! Maybe these burka people have a point? Then we're forced to adopt it.

There are no winners in this. Somehow the logic betrays us. And now we see why religeous fanaticism has such a firm grip in the 21st century. The control methods run so deep they're practically invisible.

So if anyone can unpick that little thorn-in-the-side-of-equality, because I can't see a route out. I think the burka is here to stay, because our liberal society prevents us from enforcing liberation. Thus, these women will remain victims to a regime which is beyond criticism, and the controlling behaviour this silly garment permits will remain unspoken.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 9 2018, 06:44 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 9 2018, 04:58 PM) *
How on earth can any normal person be offended by the dress of another unless they have a hatred for the wearer. And therein I think lies the problem.


Of course I don't hate the person, I feel it's offensive and actually very rude for people to deliberately keep their faces covered in public and in particular when transacting with others. It's not something our society had ever condoned.

Taking your twisted example. In the UK people do not hold the physical national flag as any more than material. Try doing that in the States, where by your reconing Americans must hate people who burn or deface their flag.


Posted by: On the edge Aug 9 2018, 06:48 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 9 2018, 05:39 PM) *
Well I’d be staggered if a member of the government referred to a nun as a penguin. It makes me laugh at how people like you moan about our culture being ruined by immigrants yet you don’t see that for a person of high office to insult members of our population is totally alien to our culture.


Err, in many other areas, it's quite common for persons of high office to insult members of our population. Been going on for years. Nye Bevan called Tories less than Vermin, then we had the attacks on the unemployed and trades unionists in the Thatcher years, I'm sure we can all come up with examples.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 9 2018, 06:50 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Aug 9 2018, 06:44 PM) *
Allegedly; The reason women must cover themselves is so they do not seduce a man.

So then; If a man catches a glimpse of her ankle, and he becomes seduced, then he isn't responsible for his actions. He might rape her, accidentally of course, and it'd all be her fault. Traitorous, adulterous witch. She should've covered herself up! That poor guy! She seduced him. She must be punished.

You can see where I'm going with this, right?

The burka is not a religeous garment. It is a gender enslavement tool, and 100% away from what our country has been fighting to overcome for the last 100 years.

But here's the rub: We agreed that a woman should be allowed to wear whatever she likes, right? So if she wants to cover herself from head to toe, we have to let her!

Now why would she want to do that?

Well, since a woman isn't trying to seduce anybody while out buying her dhania, atta and haldi then she won't mind covering herself, particularly as she's already married. After all, who needs to see her anyway? Only her husband has any interest in being attracted to her, so it should be 'no skin of anyone's nose', right? Why do you even want to look at this man's wife anyway. She's private property.

So ... this leaves us with a dillema:

Either we must enforce our belief that a woman should be allowed to express herself any way she chooses. This will mean accepting the burka as a fashion garment, and a legitimate choice of self-expression. This means we'll have to ignore the surrepticious gender/social constrictions to the women involved.

Or we must accept we were wrong, and that some clothing really isn't suitable or acceptable. Bikinis, miniskirts and hot-pants might well fall into this category. Which means we might have been wrong all along! Maybe these burka people have a point? Then we're forced to adopt it.

There are no winners in this. Somehow the logic betrays us. And now we see why religeous fanaticism has such a firm grip in the 21st century. The control methods run so deep they're practically invisible.

So if anyone can unpick that little thorn-in-the-side-of-equality, because I can't see a route out. I think the burka is here to stay, because our liberal society prevents us from enforcing liberation. Thus, these women will remain victims to a regime which is beyond criticism, and the controlling behaviour this silly garment permits will remain unspoken.


Dint think anyone much would object to the dress other than the face cover. Eliminate that as other EU nation states have and that solves the problem. I can't remember this fuss being made when the same disquiet was voiced about full face hoodies?

Posted by: newres Aug 9 2018, 08:18 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 9 2018, 07:44 PM) *
Of course I don't hate the person, I feel it's offensive and actually very rude for people to deliberately keep their faces covered in public and in particular when transacting with others. It's not something our society had ever condoned.

Taking your twisted example. In the UK people do not hold the physical national flag as any more than material. Try doing that in the States, where by your reconing Americans must hate people who burn or deface their flag.

What are you wittering on about?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 9 2018, 08:55 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 9 2018, 05:39 PM) *
Well I’d be staggered if a member of the government referred to a nun as a penguin. It makes me laugh at how people like you moan about our culture being ruined by immigrants yet you don’t see that for a person of high office to insult members of our population is totally alien to our culture.

If a person is dressed head to toe in black, and does not speak English I do wonder if they count as "our population". Sure they may hold a British passport, but that doesn't make them "British". When I go to Saudi I dress accordingly. I wouldnt dream of wearing budgie smugglers on the beach. If I go to Ibiza I may wear them and go swimming. Its not difficult to assimilate into a population. They choose not to. Thats the nub of the issue. You just cant see it for your "everthing is racist" mentality.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 9 2018, 09:02 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 9 2018, 09:18 PM) *
What are you wittering on about?


A response which indicates your points are as bogus as the 'offence' Boris Johnson is supposed to have caused.

Posted by: x2lls Aug 9 2018, 10:49 PM

He makes a lot of valid points, again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf8uYue1vtk

tongue.gif

Posted by: newres Aug 10 2018, 12:37 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Aug 9 2018, 09:55 PM) *
If a person is dressed head to toe in black, and does not speak English I do wonder if they count as "our population". Sure they may hold a British passport, but that doesn't make them "British". When I go to Saudi I dress accordingly. I wouldnt dream of wearing budgie smugglers on the beach. If I go to Ibiza I may wear them and go swimming. Its not difficult to assimilate into a population. They choose not to. Thats the nub of the issue. You just cant see it for your "everthing is racist" mentality.

Should we therefore mock and ban the curls of Hasidic Jews? Ban turbans?

It seems to me that the only legitimate argument is a security one. Things like airports, banks and so on. Talk of assimilation is just prejudice. As I said, given a choice between looking at someone walking around with their undercrackers on display or a woman in a bureau, I’d be less “offended” by the burqua.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 10 2018, 02:57 AM

I have to remove my crash helmet when I get fuel at a petrol station! tongue.gif

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 10 2018, 06:13 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 10 2018, 03:57 AM) *
I have to remove my crash helmet when I get fuel at a petrol station! tongue.gif

Here is newres....

Posted by: On the edge Aug 10 2018, 06:43 AM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 10 2018, 01:37 AM) *
Should we therefore mock and ban the curls of Hasidic Jews? Ban turbans?

It seems to me that the only legitimate argument is a security one. Things like airports, banks and so on. Talk of assimilation is just prejudice. As I said, given a choice between looking at someone walking around with their undercrackers on display or a woman in a bureau, I’d be less “offended” by the burqua.


Yes security is a legitimate argument, even if its the only one, but its legitimate still the same. Your example of someone walking around indecently dressed is dealt with by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 along with a body of other case law.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 10 2018, 08:35 AM

Thing is though, if you ban face coverings you will have to remove your motorcycle helmet to do all sorts of things. How about a scarf over your mouth when it's cold? Same deal. And that's why we can't ban face coverings. But we can make it unacceptable through persuasion and reasoned debates and discussions. Or just ban religion.

Posted by: newres Aug 10 2018, 11:31 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 10 2018, 07:43 AM) *
Yes security is a legitimate argument, even if its the only one, but its legitimate still the same. Your example of someone walking around indecently dressed is dealt with by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 along with a body of other case law.

But only at an airport or a bank.

Not sure underwear on display would come under that, but I genuinely find it very distasteful.

Posted by: newres Aug 10 2018, 11:32 AM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Aug 10 2018, 09:35 AM) *
Thing is though, if you ban face coverings you will have to remove your motorcycle helmet to do all sorts of things. How about a scarf over your mouth when it's cold? Same deal. And that's why we can't ban face coverings. But we can make it unacceptable through persuasion and reasoned debates and discussions. Or just ban religion.

And how would the IRA manage funerals?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 10 2018, 06:59 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 10 2018, 12:32 PM) *
And how would the IRA manage funerals?

The last time I checked the IRA were an illegal terrorist organisation so Im not sure what the **** that has to do with Burkas?

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 10 2018, 10:56 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Aug 10 2018, 09:35 AM) *
Thing is though, if you ban face coverings you will have to remove your motorcycle helmet to do all sorts of things. How about a scarf over your mouth when it's cold? Same deal. And that's why we can't ban face coverings. But we can make it unacceptable through persuasion and reasoned debates and discussions. Or just ban religion.


Except it has nothing to do with religion rather it has to do with men holding medieval attitudes towards women.

Posted by: newres Aug 11 2018, 06:14 AM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Aug 10 2018, 11:56 PM) *
Except it has nothing to do with religion rather it has to do with men holding medieval attitudes towards women.

Muslims who wear it disagree. I reckon they know more than you.

Posted by: newres Aug 11 2018, 06:16 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Aug 10 2018, 07:59 PM) *
The last time I checked the IRA were an illegal terrorist organisation so Im not sure what the **** that has to do with Burkas?

Balaclavas aren’t though.

Posted by: SirWilliam Aug 11 2018, 10:50 AM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Aug 10 2018, 11:56 PM) *
Except it has nothing to do with religion rather it has to do with men holding medieval attitudes towards women.


And there by lies the crux of the matter. Instead of disappearing up there own backsides in an effort to embrace multiculturalism the lefty lovies should be outraged that women in this country are being indoctrinated from an early age to adopt practices that are abhorrent to a civilised society. This is not simply about the questionable dress sense but the whole doctrine that requires females to be chattels of the male.
Little doubt someone will wheel out a quote by an islamic female saying it is her choice, but I would put my pension on her childhood not being as enjoyable as most children's should be.

Posted by: newres Aug 11 2018, 06:20 PM

QUOTE (SirWilliam @ Aug 11 2018, 11:50 AM) *
And there by lies the crux of the matter. Instead of disappearing up there own backsides in an effort to embrace multiculturalism the lefty lovies should be outraged that women in this country are being indoctrinated from an early age to adopt practices that are abhorrent to a civilised society. This is not simply about the questionable dress sense but the whole doctrine that requires females to be chattels of the male.
Little doubt someone will wheel out a quote by an islamic female saying it is her choice, but I would put my pension on her childhood not being as enjoyable as most children's should be.

However my understanding is that in this country Muslim women choose to wear it. I appreciate that isn’t the case everywhere and I would be against anyone being forced to wear it. Have you evidence that this is the norm here?

Posted by: SirWilliam Aug 11 2018, 07:19 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 11 2018, 07:20 PM) *
However my understanding is that in this country Muslim women choose to wear it. I appreciate that isn’t the case everywhere and I would be against anyone being forced to wear it. Have you evidence that this is the norm here?


I think the evidence lies in the fact that those who wear the full burka are rarely seen in anything else. Now we all know that women would change their wardrobe daily if they could and to be seen in the same attire two days running almost a sin, yet there is a section of women that choose to wear a drab clothing irrespective of weather, work, or leisure because of their male counterparts insistence.
When I meet one of these ladies just once walking down the street in a polka dot mini dress I will accept they have free will but we all know that is not going to happen.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 11 2018, 07:33 PM

QUOTE (SirWilliam @ Aug 11 2018, 08:19 PM) *
I think the evidence lies in the fact that those who wear the full burka are rarely seen in anything else. Now we all know that women would change their wardrobe daily if they could and to be seen in the same attire two days running almost a sin, yet there is a section of women that choose to wear a drab clothing irrespective of weather, work, or leisure because of their male counterparts insistence.
When I meet one of these ladies just once walking down the street in a polka dot mini dress I will accept they have free will but we all know that is not going to happen.


Stop making sense. Newres will hate it and resort to calling you a racist. I work with an ex Muslim girl who renounced her faith (saw the light you may say). She still has contact with her mother but her brothers and father have not spoken to her once since that day. She actually embraces the fact they don't and realises it is a medieval practice. Shes just lucky that nothing has "happened" to her. But you go Newres.. Embrace the devil.

Posted by: newres Aug 11 2018, 07:33 PM

QUOTE (SirWilliam @ Aug 11 2018, 08:19 PM) *
I think the evidence lies in the fact that those who wear the full burka are rarely seen in anything else. Now we all know that women would change their wardrobe daily if they could and to be seen in the same attire two days running almost a sin, yet there is a section of women that choose to wear a drab clothing irrespective of weather, work, or leisure because of their male counterparts insistence.
When I meet one of these ladies just once walking down the street in a polka dot mini dress I will accept they have free will but we all know that is not going to happen.

I’ll take that as a no then.

Posted by: newres Aug 11 2018, 07:35 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Aug 11 2018, 08:33 PM) *
Stop making sense. Newres will hate it and resort to calling you a racist. I work with an ex Muslim girl who renounced her faith (saw the light you may say). She still has contact with her mother but her brothers and father have not spoken ro her once since that day. She actually embraces the fact they don't and realises it is a medieval practice. Shes just lucky that nothinhg has "happened" to her. But you go Newres.. Embrace the devil.

Making sense? So if he sees one these fillies in a burkha out in a short polka dot dress he’ll believe. Are you two actually allowed out on your own?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 11 2018, 07:42 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 11 2018, 08:35 PM) *
Making sense? So if he sees one these fillies in a burkha out in a short polka dot dress he’ll believe. Are you two actually allowed out on your own?

Funnily enough yes. Are you? And sorry but I take offence to the word "fillies". That is a horse that is used for breeding. Are you comparing muslim women to breeding animals? Thats disgusting. Hang your head in shame.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 11 2018, 07:54 PM

One more thing.... People like newres saw to the end of darts girl walk ons and grid girls... BUT are outraged when any criticism of women that basically have to or even choose to wear a bin bag takes place.

Funny that.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 11 2018, 07:57 PM

The operative word is 'choose', some Muslim girls 'choose' to wear these things. Umm, a bit like their 'choice' of husband isn't it? Choice, but not as we know it.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 11 2018, 08:06 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 11 2018, 08:57 PM) *
The operative word is 'choose', some Muslim girls 'choose' to wear these things. Umm, a bit like their 'choice' of husband isn't it? Choice, but not as we know it.

Completely agree. Newres seems to be in a minority. Perhaps he ought to campaign to have this site closed down. After all thats what they do isn't it?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/10/infowars-social-media-companies-conspiracy

Even the Guardian worries about it. These sites may spew nonsense but its more dangerous to stop it. Thays when you get real issues by driving it underground.

Posted by: x2lls Aug 11 2018, 08:55 PM

QUOTE (SirWilliam @ Aug 11 2018, 11:50 AM) *
And there by lies the crux of the matter. Instead of disappearing up there own backsides in an effort to embrace multiculturalism the lefty lovies should be outraged that women in this country are being indoctrinated from an early age to adopt practices that are abhorrent to a civilised society. This is not simply about the questionable dress sense but the whole doctrine that requires females to be chattels of the male.
Little doubt someone will wheel out a quote by an islamic female saying it is her choice, but I would put my pension on her childhood not being as enjoyable as most children's should be.



I so wish this site had 2018 buttons. Consider this a "Like"!.

Posted by: x2lls Aug 11 2018, 09:01 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 11 2018, 07:20 PM) *
However my understanding is that in this country Muslim women choose to wear it. I appreciate that isn’t the case everywhere and I would be against anyone being forced to wear it. Have you evidence that this is the norm here?



Where do you get your "My understanding is that in this country Muslim women choose to wear it."?

Posted by: x2lls Aug 11 2018, 09:04 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Aug 10 2018, 11:56 PM) *
Except it has nothing to do with religion rather it has to do with men holding medieval attitudes towards women.



Agree

Posted by: x2lls Aug 11 2018, 09:11 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 11 2018, 07:14 AM) *
Muslims who wear it disagree. I reckon they know more than you.


Would that include Imam Tawhidi? He would wipe the floor with you. He will agree that the covering of female bodies is a disgusting attribute of a corrupt ideology that needs changing.
Go Newres, counter Imam Tawhidi and see how it pans out. If you really want to pursue your leftist politics, br prepared to argue with those that are on the inside.

Posted by: x2lls Aug 11 2018, 09:42 PM

Hey Newres, check out the comments.
You will see that regardless the messenger the voices are "Assimilated".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6050159/Motorbike-instructor-accused-Shell-garage-racism-told-remove-helmet.html

Posted by: newres Aug 12 2018, 05:26 AM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Aug 11 2018, 10:01 PM) *
Where do you get your "My understanding is that in this country Muslim women choose to wear it."?

Where do you get your belief that they don’t? And as I said, I would be against anyone being forced to wear anything. I could point you to interviews of women not forced to wear a burqua but it’s just anecdotal. If I believed it was forced I would oppose it. For you lot it’s just another excuse to attack foreigners.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 12 2018, 07:08 AM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 12 2018, 06:26 AM) *
Where do you get your belief that they don’t? And as I said, I would be against anyone being forced to wear anything. I could point you to interviews of women not forced to wear a burqua but it’s just anecdotal. If I believed it was forced I would oppose it. For you lot it’s just another excuse to attack foreigners.


Except that no one has mentioned foreigners!

There is a body of evidence collected by Social Workers which backs up the abuse of females in these circumstances which has been supressed and hidden for quite some time because of wrong inclusivity direction. Didn't you realise that's what much of the fuss is about in Rotherham and such places?

The choice isn't the one the genteel middle class adolescent girl usually has, 'should I wear this to stand out, or not? More, 'should I wear this, or just take the punishment (physiological or otherwise) instead?'.

Ironically, even the religion in question does not demand these things are worn!

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 12 2018, 08:20 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 12 2018, 08:08 AM) *
Except that no one has mentioned foreigners!

There is a body of evidence collected by Social Workers which backs up the abuse of females in these circumstances which has been supressed and hidden for quite some time because of wrong inclusivity direction. Didn't you realise that's what much of the fuss is about in Rotherham and such places?

The choice isn't the one the genteel middle class adolescent girl usually has, 'should I wear this to stand out, or not? More, 'should I wear this, or just take the punishment (physiological or otherwise) instead?'.

Ironically, even the religion in question does not demand these things are worn!


Perhaps we should learn to shut our mouths, for the good of diversity?



Posted by: SirWilliam Aug 12 2018, 08:36 AM

This debate seems to concentrate round the freedom of the doctrine as opposed to that of the individual. Had I been born and raised a muslim female then it is safe to assume that I would taught from an early age what was expected of me from my family and members of my faith. To question that position would be unthinkable and therefore when confronted by some "western" view that somehow I am a freak would be worryingly offensive, but, and it is a very big but, I have never been allowed to be mix freely with my contemporaries and know very little of "liberalism", so I feel compelled to stay and marry within the safety of my peers and the more society alienates me the more entrenched I become.
This is not so much about wearing a bin bag as questioning the attitude of those who insist that a girl must, and it is about time the coffee was smelt on that one.

Posted by: x2lls Aug 12 2018, 11:51 AM

^^^^^ Previous two posts, very well said indeed.


Posted by: x2lls Aug 12 2018, 08:16 PM

haha!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13Yy3VYqbfY

Posted by: je suis Charlie Aug 12 2018, 11:09 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 11 2018, 07:14 AM) *
Muslims who wear it disagree. I reckon they know more than you.


Right my little Captain Clownshoe, show me where precisely in the Scriptures of Islam, in the Quran does it say women have to wear bed sheets with slits to see out of. Where, precisely?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Aug 12 2018, 11:11 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 11 2018, 07:16 AM) *
Balaclavas aren’t though.


Ban balaclavas and Momentum wouldn't have any thing to wear when they go out.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 13 2018, 08:59 AM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 10 2018, 12:32 PM) *
And how would the IRA manage funerals?

I don't understand your question? I have suggested that face coverings shouldn't be banned.

So presumably they would carry on? If they're still going that is.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 13 2018, 09:03 AM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Aug 13 2018, 12:09 AM) *
Right my little Captain Clownshoe, show me where precisely in the Scriptures of Islam, in the Quran does it say women have to wear bed sheets with slits to see out of. Where, precisely?


You can make any of the religious texts mean anything you want. They are extremely vague and also bollocks!

Posted by: newres Aug 13 2018, 09:15 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Aug 12 2018, 09:20 AM) *
Perhaps we should learn to shut our mouths, for the good of diversity?

There’s been a huge problem among catholic priests but we don’t blame Catholicism though. That’s the difference.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 13 2018, 12:43 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 13 2018, 10:15 AM) *
There’s been a huge problem among catholic priests but we don’t blame Catholicism though. That’s the difference.


Well done; that's exactly the point. The sexual impropriety issue is a problem with Catholic Priests.......scout masters, disc jocks, school teachers, children's home wardens, TV stars, football coaches, step fathers, etc, etc, etc, etc.

The issue with coerced wearing of facial covers and the co-erced wearing of predominantly in just what is clearly sect of one faith group.


Took me long enough to see this but I'm old; you are supposed to be young and so understand facts. Glad you've got there though!

Posted by: x2lls Aug 13 2018, 06:05 PM

From within.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/11/back-boris-burka-do-millions-muslim-women-like/

Have you Newres, no understanding of the concept of repression?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Aug 13 2018, 07:18 PM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Aug 13 2018, 07:05 PM) *
From within.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/11/back-boris-burka-do-millions-muslim-women-like/

Have you Newres, no understanding of the concept of repression?

Do any of the damp palmed snot nosed liberals who infest society??

Posted by: je suis Charlie Aug 13 2018, 07:19 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 13 2018, 10:15 AM) *
There’s been a huge problem among catholic priests but we don’t blame Catholicism though. That’s the difference.

What? do priests wear burkas as well??

Posted by: SirWilliam Aug 13 2018, 07:22 PM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Aug 13 2018, 07:05 PM) *
From within.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/11/back-boris-burka-do-millions-muslim-women-like/

Have you Newres, no understanding of the concept of repression?


Repression is what the white imperialists imposed on certain areas of the world in the forlorn hope of turning their unproductive land into an economic entity. This of course was a totally unacceptable and so the locals democratically elected a few of their own through peaceful means and threw out the oppressive colonialists so age old customs such as forced marriage, stoning, and starvation could once again be embraced as a given right and no one from the old rule could stop them.

Well that's the way I see it. angry.gif

Posted by: Strafin Aug 14 2018, 07:23 AM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Aug 13 2018, 08:19 PM) *
What? do priests wear burkas as well??

Well dresses, so similar.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 14 2018, 08:15 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Aug 11 2018, 08:33 PM) *
I work with an ex Muslim girl who renounced her faith (saw the light you may say).

What's the penalty for apostasy?
I think you'll find it's death!! ohmy.gif

Posted by: newres Aug 14 2018, 10:14 AM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Aug 13 2018, 07:05 PM) *
From within.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/11/back-boris-burka-do-millions-muslim-women-like/

Have you Newres, no understanding of the concept of repression?

I was unable to read it as I don’t subscribe. If it is the case that majority of women in the UK that wear the Burka are forced to wear it, then I agree it should be banned. I’ve seen no evidence of that though.

Posted by: SirWilliam Aug 14 2018, 02:12 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 14 2018, 11:14 AM) *
I was unable to read it as I don’t subscribe. If it is the case that majority of women in the UK that wear the Burka are forced to wear it, then I agree it should be banned. I’ve seen no evidence of that though.


Banning the wearing of the burka would not stop the ideology behind the requirement. I would be far happier if muslim women wore it freely, than not wearing it only to still be under the dominion of their male counterparts. I would be every interested to listen to the "teachings" that are so persuasive as to influence girls to such a degree.

Posted by: x2lls Aug 14 2018, 06:36 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Aug 14 2018, 08:23 AM) *
Well dresses, so similar.



last time I saw a dress, it stopped upwards at the neckline. In the other direction, at the ankles or lower.

Posted by: x2lls Aug 14 2018, 06:39 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 14 2018, 11:14 AM) *
I was unable to read it as I don’t subscribe. If it is the case that majority of women in the UK that wear the Burka are forced to wear it, then I agree it should be banned. I’ve seen no evidence of that though.



Nice.

Can't see the link but still makes assumptions.

Posted by: newres Aug 14 2018, 07:03 PM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Aug 14 2018, 07:39 PM) *
Nice.

Can't see the link but still makes assumptions.

It’s not the only news source. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 15 2018, 05:31 AM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 14 2018, 08:03 PM) *
It’s not the only news source. rolleyes.gif

I think its whats called living in an echo chamber. I guess ita the Independent and Guardian for you. 😂

Posted by: newres Aug 15 2018, 06:13 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Aug 15 2018, 06:31 AM) *
I think its whats called living in an echo chamber. I guess ita the Independent and Guardian for you. 😂

Or the BBC. When I bought a newspaper it was The Times.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 15 2018, 09:09 AM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Aug 14 2018, 07:36 PM) *
last time I saw a dress, it stopped upwards at the neckline. In the other direction, at the ankles or lower.

I understand they come in all shapes and sizes - different colours too, and if my wife comes back from shopping with 5 of them I know we have saved a lot more money than if she had only bought one!

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)