|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 17, 2018 1:08:14 GMT 1
You get no more from me just now;
I've just been asked to make a bow.
My Devon-borns are bearing up -
Grandad, they say, why not give up?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 17, 2018 1:20:23 GMT 1
And me, I am drunk, the chorus chants
And so am heading uphill for bed
You are lucky, the Gods all agree
In your Laura Ashley pyjamas of filagree
He's a fool! The chorus sing
Yes.
But he's only from Devon.
(I thought you'd appreciate that rare example of trombic unidextrose hexameter.)
|
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 17, 2018 1:21:53 GMT 1
It's a trochaic bouillabaisse.
You Klutz.
|
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 17, 2018 9:26:38 GMT 1
mrsonde said
Wrong on both counts. It is not true to say your questions always polite, Jean and I frequently answer your questions.
You asked why I contend that these muslim women believe that going out in public without being covered up is indecent. I gave you the link which shows that the Koran's advice is interpreted as "advice to cover the all areas of the body except their face, hands and feet", supporting what I said. Regarding the burkha, where the face is covered as well, I have listened to a couple of women on the radio who do cover their face in public. They said that they do it for religious reasons and feel it gives them freedom to not be judged by their appearance. They didn't say that they did it in support of Islamic extremism. (What exactly do you mean by that term?).
No, don't bother. As it happens I regard your illogical leap, imputing vile opinions to me, such as having sex with 9 year olds, as sneering rudeness, which seems fairly routine from you.
As it is, you now understand that those practices you suggested that I support, I deplore.
Some do use those verses to justify their use of violence. Women wearing certain modes of dress doesn't prove that they also hold to those verses.
I'm shifiting my position a bit - I think that there should be, not a ban, but certain restrictions on the wearing of the burkha and niqab. Even though we aspire to complete freedom to wear what you like, and this is part of Western culture, there are still some limited restrictions; you can't walk down the street naked. Quite possibly a women would get stopped by an officer if she wore only a bikini in the high street. No doubt a cafe owner can legally refuse a man entry if he is wearing only a thong (yuk!). A church can refuse entry to people in shorts. The covering of the face renders the person practically unidentifiable. It's reasonable to require persons (including motorcyclists wearing the full-face helmet) to have the face uncovered in public spaces.
Yes it is my question. Now who is refusing to answer?
I'm not rewriting the dictionary, so I am not disruptive
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Aug 17, 2018 11:30:44 GMT 1
And the discussion is already under way, as the incident I cite should remind you. Johnson has enabled nothing - except to dilute the seriousness with his silly jokes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Aug 17, 2018 13:51:35 GMT 1
Johnson has enabled nothing - except to dilute the seriousness with his silly jokes. I do not believe that you have read Johnsdon's article. He defended the rights of these people to wear the burqa. That is the British liberal tradition of freedom of choice He also scorned the dress as ridiculous. That is the British liberal position of free expression of thought Much of the criticism of Johnson is absurd - Aqua considers the article to be 'divisive'; in fact nothing is more socially divisive than to hide your face in publc The dress is unecessary and absurd and is worn by Islamic extremists - it is of the extremism mileau that reaches its apogee in eviscerated Britons hanging in entrails from London buses, charred body parts after a terrorist explosion, British people hacking off the heads of innocents and filming it. All that can be said in favour of this ugly apparel is that the extremists are very visible |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Aug 17, 2018 14:42:58 GMT 1
I do not believe that you have read Johnsdon's article. He defended the rights of these people to wear the burqa. That is the British liberal tradition of freedom of choice I have read it, and I agree with you. The bulk of the article is reasonable, but there's nothing new there - it's all been discussed in depth before. That's my point. So it may be - but it is not always wise to say exactly what one thinks, without considering the consequences. Has Johnson inspired new thoughtful reflections on the subject? So far, the answer is NO. |
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Aug 17, 2018 15:01:46 GMT 1
I have read it, and I agree with you. The bulk of the article is reasonable, but there's nothing new there - it's all been discussed in depth before. That's my point. The subject, of its nature requires lots of airing - indeed it is difficult to find anything new to say on the subject So it may be - but it is not always wise to say exactly what one thinks, without considering the consequences. The consequences were self evident as some Moslems will not tolerate any criticism of their mores - that in itself justifies the inclusion of the 'silly' remarks - those Moslems that so react (many it seems out of political self-interest) must accept that they live in a society where people my freely say offensive things about their mores Has Johnson inspired new thoughtful reflections on the subject? So far, the answer is NO. per contra the answer is yes - he has provoked positive reactions from some liberal Moslems - I have provided links - in one or two cases with hidden identity - just another goood reason why the illiberalism of political Islam MUST be challenged |
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 18, 2018 9:04:36 GMT 1
Or a subjugated woman, kept in her place via her own wish to retain her social membership in a culture where that is the jealously guarded norm. And here we come up against a problem. Miniskirt and kitten heels or a Mao suit and work boots? Either could be considered oppressive if mandated by a bloke, or fun/sensible if worn voluntarily. It's dangerous to distinguish on a presumption of motive, and if you want to promulgate a social norm by legislation, you are going to spend a lot of court time arguing about choice and constraint rather than what was actually done. Hence my "cop out": let individuals dictate what is not acceptable to them or their business. |
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 18, 2018 9:38:46 GMT 1
Alan, you did say previously "it is entirely reasonable for any trader to refuse to deal with someone he cannot recognise, or for the police to assume that anyone who covers his/her face has a nefarious reason for wishing to be unrecognisable. You can't enter a bank or a petrol station wearing a crash helmet, so why permit a burqua?
"No face, no service" should be protected by law."
So you do think that restriction on full face veil should be imposed. You seem to say that the police should assume that a person walking with their face covered has nefarious purposes and should be questioned?
|
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 19, 2018 0:11:23 GMT 1
Like the appalling European Union and most religions, you pretend that there is no difference between mandate and freedom. Whether you wear a burqua, a welding mask or a bikini is of no importance to me or in English law. I simply want anyone to be able to refuse you service if he can't see your face. That is freedom.
I do not "seem to say" anything of the sort. The fuzz stopped a fried of mine in the street because he was carrying a shopping bag (this was in the sixties). Asked him what was in the bag. He said "bog rolls". They arrested him on suspicion and at the cop shop he was discovered to be carrying a dozen toilet rolls. Nobody told the coppers to arrest everyone carrying a shopping bag, but they have the statutory power to question anyone who looks suspicious. Said friend was in fact en route to a football match with the intention of decorating the visitors' goal in what was then the (illegal) fashion.
|
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 19, 2018 9:23:17 GMT 1
How do you come the conclusion that I pretend that? I was simply trying to understand what you meant by "it is entirely reasonable .... for the police to assume that anyone who covers his/her face has a nefarious reason for wishing to be unrecognisable". That implies it is entirely reasonable for the police to stop women who wear burkhas.
|
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 19, 2018 10:47:45 GMT 1
You might think so, but that is a very totalitarian attitude that the fuzz and I don't share. There's a significant difference between being a suspect (who may be questioned or arrested on suspicion) and being "stopped" by some means (forcible removal?) from wearing something.
In a civilised country like ours, police powers are limited to prevention detection and investigation except in an emergency or crime in progress. Wearing a burkha is not a crime. IMHO there should be no "crimes of apparel". But covering your face in public is grounds for suspicion, whether it's a hoodie, balaclava or burkha.
If you want to make an exception for a burkha, I can see a huge market for burkhas among the general scum who hang around cash machines and dark alleyways. "You can't question me, pig, I'm wearing a religious garment".
|
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 19, 2018 11:18:08 GMT 1
Yes, an example of this was shown in a recent edition of "Police Interceptors". A guy was seen cycling on a road, at around midnight. Mostly from his body language (he was at that point commiting no crime) the police regarded him as suspicious and stopped to question him. Sure enough, there were tools on him that were gave good reason to believe he was a burglar. Now you have said that anyone who covers their face gives the police reason to assume something nefarious. Do you think the police should question people wearing burkhas or not?
I said that it is reasonable to require all persons (eg wearers of burkhas or full-face helmets) in public spaces to have their faces uncovered.
|
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 19, 2018 16:04:57 GMT 1
And there's the difference between us.
You say it reasonable to issue a directive telling people how to behave. Like most Roman-law-derived EU directives it is absurd, illiberal, and irrational. The highway is a public place. It is dangerous to ride a motor bike without a full helmet and visor. So now you have to redefine public place, to exclude garage forecourts (unless you are wearing a hoodie and a balaclava), hospitals (where we often wear gowns, masks, hats, and even gloves, to the extent that we need a roll call before starting an operation so that students and locums know who is doing what), building sites (helmet, goggles, gloves, possibly welding mask..., city streets (Japanese tourists in particular like to wear breathing masks, as do many pedal cyclists).....
On the other hand I simply say it is reasonable for the police to suspect that anyone who has chosen to cover his face may have a nefarious reason for doing so, and let the fuzz interpret "reasonable" in the context of riot, pollution, or any other circumstance. I'm not for telling anyone what to do or even in this context what not to do, but to warn everyone of the consequences of acting suspiciously. The strongest words in English law are "reasonable" and "normally" - abandon them at your peril and you are en route for a dictatorship or theocracy.
|
|
