IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Apologise? Apologise for what exactly?
On the edge
post Aug 8 2018, 07:02 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,826
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



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.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newres
post Aug 8 2018, 07:28 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,651
Joined: 27-November 12
Member No.: 8,961



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 canít see it was designed to appeal to the knuckle draggers it can only mean youíre one of them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SirWilliam
post Aug 8 2018, 07:34 AM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 765
Joined: 6-March 14
From: West Berks
Member No.: 10,341



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


--------------------
Si non prius succederent.......... relinquere
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Aug 8 2018, 07:54 AM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,826
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (newres @ Aug 8 2018, 08:28 AM) *
He was deliberately fanning the flames. He knew it would cause offence. If you canít see it was designed to appeal to the knuckle draggers it can only mean youíre 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.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Aug 8 2018, 08:01 AM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,826
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



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?


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newres
post Aug 8 2018, 09:30 AM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,651
Joined: 27-November 12
Member No.: 8,961



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Aug 8 2018, 10:27 AM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,826
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



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.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newres
post Aug 8 2018, 11:51 AM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,651
Joined: 27-November 12
Member No.: 8,961



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SirWilliam
post Aug 8 2018, 12:10 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 765
Joined: 6-March 14
From: West Berks
Member No.: 10,341



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.


--------------------
Si non prius succederent.......... relinquere
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Aug 8 2018, 01:02 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,826
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



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.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newres
post Aug 8 2018, 03:31 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,651
Joined: 27-November 12
Member No.: 8,961



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TallDarkAndHands...
post Aug 8 2018, 04:26 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,260
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 60



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?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Aug 8 2018, 04:27 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,826
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



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.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newres
post Aug 8 2018, 04:56 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,651
Joined: 27-November 12
Member No.: 8,961



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.

Thereís nothing wrong with the debate. You have your view and thatís fine. I on the other hand am not bothered if someone wants to wear a veil. Itís a debate and there will be differing views. Thatís not the issue. Borisís outburst was deliberately offensive (many Muslims have described it as such) and the talk isnít about the issue, but about Boris. Itís about keeping his profile up. However, whilst it played well with people like you, most people will see Boris for what he is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Aug 8 2018, 05:49 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,826
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (newres @ Aug 8 2018, 05:56 PM) *
Thereís nothing wrong with the debate. You have your view and thatís fine. I on the other hand am not bothered if someone wants to wear a veil. Itís a debate and there will be differing views. Thatís not the issue. Borisís outburst was deliberately offensive (many Muslims have described it as such) and the talk isnít about the issue, but about Boris. Itís 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.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newres
post Aug 8 2018, 06:17 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,651
Joined: 27-November 12
Member No.: 8,961



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Aug 8 2018, 06:57 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,826
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



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.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TallDarkAndHands...
post Aug 8 2018, 08:26 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,260
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 60



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Aug 8 2018, 10:46 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,798
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Aug 8 2018, 11:14 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,798
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th October 2018 - 06:13 PM