|
Post by Progenitor A on Aug 8, 2018 10:05:55 GMT 1
What a brouhaha abot nowt at all eh? Freedom of speech is THE right to offend people - if we examine everything we say for offence before saying it - then nothing worthwhile would be said. The freedon to offend people is an ESSENTIAL element of our freedoms, and if our MPs are not to practice free speech , then who will? The burkha is perhaps the most obvious sign of that awful political movement - ISLAMISM- it is worn precisely to offend our liberal traditions - it is the exact equivalent of a punk with a pink spiky cherokee haircut - it says Fuck you - I do not give a shit what you think Fair enough - we are a free society and people can wear what they wish - but if they deliberately dress to offend then they do not have a leg to stand on when their dress is criticised -as has Johnson - accurately and amusingly People that say he should not have said what he said - the mild expression of distaste at what some people choose to wear, are people, possibly out of the best of intentions, that would deny our fundamental freedoms. They are WRONG. The wearing of the Burkha is a prime example of passive-aggression, a siding with the very worst aspect of Islam, a statement that 'I am with the Islamic Extremists' Well I , and many other people in this country are NOT with the Islamic extremists Our Government is in denial about the evils of Islam -even to the extent of claiming Islamic acts of terror as UNISLAMIC To criticise Johnson for his very reasonable article is to play into the hands of Islamists, to take the side of Islamic terror and against our liberal traditions of freedom
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 8, 2018 23:43:06 GMT 1
Curious that most of the content of most tabloids is about what women wear (or don't). It is arguable that, in a country where the royal family wear toilet seats on their heads at weddings, tolerance of absurdity is the norm, but only as long as we have the freedom to take the piss. If anyone chooses to wear the uniform of an obnoxious sect, they can expect the scorn due to that sect.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 9, 2018 8:58:07 GMT 1
The whole thing is a storm in a teacup, with far too much attention given to Boris's silly similes and not enough to his general point which, I believe (can't access the article) was that these forms of attire should not be banned. The story is kept going by people who seem to think that they must pretend that they are offended, on behalf of muslim women, at Boris's jokes.
It has long been said that nuns look like penguins, and there are many jokes on those lines; were there ever nuns on phone-in programs saying how much they were offended? If the Catholic church had ever complained of such jokes, they would have been further ridiculed.
I must disagree with the OP though. The women dress this way because they have been brought up to believe that going out in public without being covered up is indecent. This is the way millions of muslims live, in foreign countries, and in itself does not signify adherence to islamic extremism (in the sense of using violence).
Also, it is extraordinary to say that NOTHING worthwhile can be said if we have to examine what we say for risk of causing offence. Whole books full of informative facts have been written without any danger offence being caused.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 9, 2018 23:18:36 GMT 1
I must disagree with the OP though. The women dress this way because they have been brought up to believe that going out in public without being covered up is indecent. Why are you making this contention? And this one? Your general thesis is that people who have been brought up abroad should be allowed to carry on behaving in whatever way they used to do there if they choose to come and live here, I take it? They should, for example, be allowed to have six wives? Marry or merely have sex with nine year olds? Own slaves, perhaps? I'd guess you'd draw a line somewhere, but it isn't so far where you've drawn it. Genital mutilation? On the grounds of? hurting people? That's not what moslems believe. Who are you to impose your beliefs and code of behaviour on them? That's a highly dubious proposition. Wearing the burka or niqab or even headscarf is itself adhering to Islamic extremism - the vast majority of moslems don't do so, and most would say that the verses recommending modesty in dress are very freely interpretable. You confirm Nay's point - there'll always be someone rigid and needlessly disputative enough to object, whatever you say. I suppose you mean telephone directories, perhaps? Some people get very upset by the number 666. Others object to 8008, because it spells out Boob on a digital display.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 9, 2018 23:40:24 GMT 1
So here's a question. Why, I wonder, is it de rigeur in some hot countries for women to cover themeselves completely for fear of being flogged or decapitated, whilst near-public nudity is considered unremarkable in Scandinavia and Germany?
The most famous statue in Milan Cathedral is St Bartholmew, not merely nude but carrying his flayed skin like a stole. Women are not permitted to enter the cathedral with bare arms.
But The Last Judgement, up there on the altar, is full of nudes!
Closer to home, why do men remove their hats on entering a church, whilst women compete to wear the biggest or most bizarre hats at weddings? Both sexes traditionally cover their heads in a synagogue, but the requirement for female modesty can be met by a wig worthy of Hollywood's glamour days, itself sometimes covered with a scarf in case it looks too natural!
Can any Earthling please explain to this visiting Martian?
Back to the real question. There being no recognised English national dress, it is impossible to insist on conformity to any norm in these islands outside of a ceilidh. This makes it difficult to object to anyone wearing anything that might be considered traditional somewhere else, and AFAIK no sane British politician or human has complained about dirndls, saris or Nigerian robes appearing in the High Street.
So what, exactly, do Boris and I find offensive about burkhas? I think it goes back to the business of hats and wigs in places of worship. For reasons probably associated with our bizarre climate or diet, the judaeo-christian tradition in these islands is to laugh at some harmless traditional absurdities whilst retaining them. But the problem with islam seems to be an intolerance of deviation or criticism, and that is anathema to the British soul.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 10, 2018 0:11:03 GMT 1
So here's a question. Why, I wonder, is it de rigeur in some hot countries for women to cover themeselves completely for fear of being flogged or decapitated, whilst near-public nudity is considered unremarkable in Scandinavia and Germany? In those hot countries Islam is the ruling ethos, and usually the legislative code. Women are the property of men, or, until they are, are considered inferior beings, and fair game - they really do need protection in public, as many Western women visiting moslem countries have discovered to their cost (the police - and their government spokesmen - in Germany and Sweden have now advised women not to wear "provocative" clothing, or go out after dusk alone, in acknowledgement of the more volatile susceptibilities of their moslem "refugees".) In Scandinavia and Germany women have equal rights under the law as individuals - ultimately this goes back to the Christian ethos: as do Enlightenment values, science, capitalism, etc, generally. The importance of religion, and the philosophical progress impelled thereby, see?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 10, 2018 0:57:10 GMT 1
I think the northern european equality ethos is pre-christian. Not a lot of female priests around for the first 2000 years, as I recall, but plenty of warrior queens and the enshrinement of female equality in pagan Norse law.
Is capitalism of christian origin? IIRC christians were not allowed to charge interest on loans until successive pogroms had reduced the jewish population to the point that banking ground to a halt. Greeks, Romans and all sorts of eastern characters funded trading expeditions and organised wage labour long before Jesus showed up and criticised capitalism!
It is arguable that the philosophy of science depends on the judaeochristian belief that there is a discoverable order and purpose in the universe, but modern mathematics and the dominance of observation over theory seem to have originated in the islamic world.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 10, 2018 1:23:06 GMT 1
I think the northern european equality ethos is pre-christian. Not a lot of female priests around for the first 2000 years, as I recall, but plenty of warrior queens and the enshrinement of female equality in pagan Norse law. Is capitalism of christian origin? IIRC christians were not allowed to charge interest on loans until successive pogroms had reduced the jewish population to the point that banking ground to a halt. Greeks, Romans and all sorts of eastern characters funded trading expeditions and organised wage labour long before Jesus showed up and criticised capitalism! Yes, interesting topics for debate, to be sure. I'm too pressed at the moment, except to point out that you're taking a very narrow definition of "capitalism" - even more narrow that the Marxist one, I think. And that your history of pogroms, usury etc is decidedly dodgy. It flitted across my mind that someone might throw up that old canard. Modern mathematics - I suppose you might try and make the case for algebra, if you really wanted to scratch Euclid, Pythagoras, etc. from the record. Observation over theory originated in the Islamic world? I can't imagine how one might begin to support such a bizarre contention! The North Africans were important for their role in transmitting the Greek knowledge - and the Egyptian, Babylonian, Chaldean, and Sumerian for that matter - from the fall of Constantinople through to Europe. They did not capitalise particularly on that knowledge themselves. A few observations in astronomy, perhaps. The truth is they made no significant discoveries from that base, and no philosophical developments. Their culture lacked the necessary preconditions - that seedbed was waiting in Christian Europe, and the importance of it is not the knowledge they discovered therein - it has already been rediscovered, or not forgotten, by and large - but the institutions that they had been built to profit from the investigative, enquiring approach that the Greeks so exemplified. This did not resonate at all in the Islamic world, where everything was predestined, natural law was merely a manifestation of a capricious God's will, and where the notion of progress was at best suspect in a universe where to accept ordained fate was your primary duty.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 10, 2018 7:58:43 GMT 1
Happy to answer that polite question. "The veil is a modesty garment. The holy text of Islam, the Koran, advises men and women to dress modestly. For some women, that description has been interpreted as advice to cover the all areas of the body except their face, hands and feet when they are in the presence of a man to whom they are not married." "the burka and the niqab “were certainly not always part of Islam,” evidence points to the veils being known in areas of India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan since the beginning of the Muslim religion in 622 c.e." Read more at: inews.co.uk/news/why-muslim-women-burkas-niqabs/mrsonde must think that, because I believe nuns should be allowed to wear their habits, in public, I thereby support their incarceration of unmarried mothers and of course the abuse of children within catholic institutions. No, everyone must obey the laws of this country. As I said, by extremism I mean the adherence to violence. Do you think that those who are seen wearing the muslim garb should be arrested on suspicion of plotting violence? If you banned such dress, would that turn them away from using violence? Who is being needlessly disputive?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 10, 2018 8:35:10 GMT 1
No, everyone must obey the laws of this country. I have mentioned this before, but won't apologise for raising it again. The chink in this sensible legal armor was caused by the (at the time) entirely reasonable concession to Sikhs to wear turbans rather than crash helmets. This now extends to various public service dress uniforms and fire brigades have designed special breathing apparatus to accommodate full beards. All very gracious compromises in favor of a group whose general integration and contribution to British life has been exemplary. But the basis, making concessions on the grounds of a person's religion, is flawed because the concept of religion is too undefined, and the scope of "legitimate" concessions is thus theoretically unlimited. Assuming it is advisable to prevent the erosion of law by faith, how can his be limited? It turns out that UK blasphemy laws only protect the sensibilities of christians, so can we draw a line around sikh concessions? Or should we scrap them entirely?
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 13, 2018 0:02:52 GMT 1
What a brouhaha abot nowt at all eh? Freedom of speech is THE right to offend people - if we examine everything we say for offence before saying it - then nothing worthwhile would be said. The freedon to offend people is an ESSENTIAL element of our freedoms, and if our MPs are not to practice free speech , then who will? The burkha is perhaps the most obvious sign of that awful political movement - ISLAMISM- it is worn precisely to offend our liberal traditions - it is the exact equivalent of a punk with a pink spiky cherokee haircut - it says Fuck you - I do not give a shit what you think Fair enough - we are a free society and people can wear what they wish - but if they deliberately dress to offend then they do not have a leg to stand on when their dress is criticised -as has Johnson - accurately and amusingly People that say he should not have said what he said - the mild expression of distaste at what some people choose to wear, are people, possibly out of the best of intentions, that would deny our fundamental freedoms. They are WRONG. The wearing of the Burkha is a prime example of passive-aggression, a siding with the very worst aspect of Islam, a statement that 'I am with the Islamic Extremists' Well I , and many other people in this country are NOT with the Islamic extremists Our Government is in denial about the evils of Islam -even to the extent of claiming Islamic acts of terror as UNISLAMIC To criticise Johnson for his very reasonable article is to play into the hands of Islamists, to take the side of Islamic terror and against our liberal traditions of freedom I much preferred it when, for three hours, you hadn't appended any comment. If you hadn't, it would've been one of your best!
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Aug 13, 2018 12:48:57 GMT 1
I much preferred it when, for three hours, you hadn't appended any comment. If you hadn't, it would've been one of your best! From your tone it appearts as if you do not approve of Johnson's comments I wonder why? Is it that you share the tendency of leftists to not reognise fascism unless the proponent is white with a St George T-shirt, and totally reject the concept if the proponent is predominantly brown? Do you not recognise that Labour's anti-semitism problem is in part because it relies so heavily on the Moslem vote and many Moslems are unashamedly anti-Jew Are you not aware that many moderate Moslems abhor the manifestations of extreme Islam that we see in Britian; do you not recognise that a burqa wearer is almot guaranteed to support the tenets of extreme Islamism with all its anti-liberalism baggage that iplaces it side-by-side with many fascist organisation Are you aware that the following predominatly Moslem countries ban the burqa - Chad, Turkestan, Morocco, Turkey (until recently, Kosovo (since 2009), Azerbaijan (since 2010), Tunisia - and that Egypt is considering doing the same Here are a few moderate Moslem views that support Johnson www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/08/burka-terrifying-defend-do-muslim-women-like-no-favours/blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/as-a-muslim-woman-id-like-to-thank-boris-johnson-for-calling-out-the-niqab/ www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-28/burkas-are-political-symbols-not-islamic-says-muslim-scholar/8843916www.express.co.uk/news/world/767266/Burqa-ban-Australia-Muslim-leader-support-terror-attack-niqab
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 13, 2018 23:56:49 GMT 1
First, I can't read the Telegraph links you post because, as I've told you before, not for ideological reasons of course - but because they require a subscription.
As a one-time connoisseur of political cartoons, I thought your OP (minus your commentary lamentably added later) was well-nigh perfect.
The other lapse my Ofsted colleagues remarked on, which nudged them towards ‘well-nigh’ rather than ‘nigh’ (tho I don’t see the difference myself, and am inclined to think the ‘well-’ prefix is pretty damned good, better than just ‘nigh’).
Let me explain: Your title, with a tweak or two, should be the caption.
OK, let me show you.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 14, 2018 0:01:56 GMT 1
WOULD YOU TRUST THIS MAN TO POST A LETTER TO YOU, AND WANT THIS WOMAN TO DELIVER IT?
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 14, 2018 0:26:30 GMT 1
From your tone it appearts as if you do not approve of Johnson's comments I wonder why? Is it that you share the tendency of leftists to not reognise fascism unless the proponent is white with a St George T-shirt, and totally reject the concept if the proponent is predominantly brown? No.Do you not recognise that Labour's anti-semitism problem is in part because it relies so heavily on the Moslem vote and many Moslems are unashamedly anti-Jew Yes.Are you not aware that many moderate Moslems abhor the manifestations of extreme Islam that we see in Britian; do you not recognise that a burqa wearer is almot guaranteed to support the tenets of extreme Islamism with all its anti-liberalism baggage that iplaces it side-by-side with many fascist organisation Yes to a bit, and NO,No to much elseAre you aware that the following predominatly Moslem countries ban the burqa - Chad, Turkestan, Morocco, Turkey (until recently, Kosovo (since 2009), Azerbaijan (since 2010), Tunisia - and that Egypt is considering doing the same Yes generally, not comprehensively, but it's a good thing.
|
|