Boris Johnson slammed over Islamophobic comments

[ELVIS123456]

I can still remember arguing one day with a very PC liberal left winger about this very issue, when one of Australia's own less 'media sensitive' politicianc demanded that the burqa be outlawed in public areas.  He thought his 'debate' was going well until I pointed out that I was not allowed to wear my motor bike helmet in certain public areas (banks, government offices, airports, petrol stations etc etc etc). The rhetoric and vitriolic rubbish that he responded with reminded me of that old saying - arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon. 

 

And the point still remains valid - if the Govt can pass a law that prohibits me from wearing my motorcycle helmet in public for reasons of safety and security, and that law has been accepted as not being an infringeemtn of my human rights, then why is a law outlawing the wearing of burqas in certain public places not allowed?

 

This reminds me of the situation in France, whereby Muslims complained about the placement of pictures of Jesus and/or the Holy Cross in public schools as offensive to their religion.  This matter went to Court and the Muslims won.  But when Christians complained about the Burqa saying that it was a symbol of religious hatred and control over women, and that they find it offensive, their complaints were dismissed.  

[AsiaHand]

6 hours ago, cornishcarlos said:

I like Boris, he's such a buffoon but this time he's cracked a classic...

He's spot on though and he has refused to apologize, for once sticking to his believes and not pandering to others believes...

 

WOW an ex foreign secretary with balls in The UK ? I applaud him.

[Esso49]

1 minute ago, AsiaHand said:

WOW an ex foreign secretary with balls in The UK ? I applaud him.

Yes for speaking the truth he is on the road to be a conservative party outcast like Enoch Powell became.   The Tories,  or for that matter ,   any PC correct politically motivated group of apologists,  just hate the truth don't they.

[Naam]

who cares what the BoJo bozo says?

[swanny321]

  ''You could take someones eye out with that package!''  ?

[Pilotman]

4 hours ago, Topdoc said:

 

It didn't offend me, it cheered me up that a UK politician was actually telling the truth.  Makes  a nice change.  

[Siamesecarper]

Too many snowflakes these days.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pilotman]

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

I never know what is offensive or not these days. I am so non PC that I often say things people find offensive. I do agree with him. The hajib is rather attractive, and usually I consider women wearing them to be fairly moderate in their beliefs. But, the Niqab and the burka are downright ridiculous. Why on earth do you need to be entirely covered up with a little slit for your eyes? The middle eastern men who insist their women wear them, strike me as the most insecure men on the planet. If my woman is covered from head to foot, and nobody can see her face, body, or skin, nobody will desire her, and she cannot get in trouble. While that reasoning might have worked in 1290AD, it seems rather inane, silly, inappropriate, grossly misogynistic, and brain dead these days. Am I missing something here? 

 

Lastly, the debate about assimilation. How on earth can we hope that people from these nations who wear these ridiculous costumes, can assimilate into our societies? Is Johnson being Islamophobic, or just saying what many of us are thinking?

 

 I saw the movie, its on Netfix.  Its scary stuff. 

[vogie]

Don't ban Boris, ban the burqa.

 

Is Boris Islamophobic? Is the Pope a cisgender Venusian? “Boris, he is Turkish!” exclaimed a group of Muslims with fraternal glee when I chatted to them on holiday ten days ago. That was before the blond bombshell’s column in this paper on Monday in which he made a strong case for Britain not banning the burka as Denmark has just done. 

Boris’s notably liberal argument was forgotten, however, as critics conveniently focused on his contention that it was “absolutely ridiculous… to go around looking like letter boxes”. 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/dont-ban-boris-ban-burka/

[simple1]

1 hour ago, ELVIS123456 said:

<snip>

 

This reminds me of the situation in France, whereby Muslims complained about the placement of pictures of Jesus and/or the Holy Cross in public schools as offensive to their religion.  This matter went to Court and the Muslims won.  But when Christians complained about the Burqa saying that it was a symbol of religious hatred and control over women, and that they find it offensive, their complaints were dismissed.  

France is officially secular in the school system so no surprise, but would be interested to view your link to the claim. Wearing of the Burka was  banned in France, the ban was upheld by European Court of Human Rights in 2014.

 

 

[ELVIS123456]

7 minutes ago, simple1 said:

France is officially secular in the school system so no surprise, but would be interested to view your link to the claim. Wearing of the Burka was  banned in France, the ban was upheld by European Court of Human Rights in 2014.

What happened was what I posted before - but I should have elaborated more.  Some Muslims many years ago demanded withdrawal of Christian symbols in public schools - they won their case quickly and easily and the schools complied.  There was some protest by Christian groups etc. but not much.  What happened next was that some Christians then demanded removal of Islamic symbols - in particular the Burqa.  Muslims protested vehemently against the change and many refused to comply and were expelled from schools.  There was a masive campaign against this change and 'Islamaphobic' was a common catchcry.  The French Parliament had to pass a specific Law banning all religious symnbols in schools and all government buildings. This was then subjected to ongoing complaints and massive campaigns of 'equality' and 'discrimination' by Muslims and their associated supporters and human rights groups, and the matter went to the EU Human Rights - which as you said upheld the decision.  Every criticsm of Islamic behaviours is met with outrage and Islamophobia claims - it is a standard part of their playbook and they do it everwhere all over the western world.  

[ELVIS123456]

Denmark has banned the wearing of face veils in public, joining France and other European countries in outlawing the burka and the niqab worn by some Muslim women to uphold what some politicians say are secular and democratic values.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-01/denmark-joins-france-in-banning-wearing-of-face-veils-in-public/9823502

 

Human rights group Amnesty International called the ban "a discriminatory violation of women's rights ... all women should be free to dress as they please and to wear clothing that expresses their identity or beliefs".  Who would have predicted that?  ? 

 

And as I said in an earlier post - where was my 'human rights' supporters when they banned me from wearing my motorbike helmet in public??

 

 

[wildewillie89]

4 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

If my woman is covered from head to foot, and nobody can see her face, body, or skin, nobody will desire her, and she cannot get in trouble. While that reasoning might have worked in 1290AD, it seems rather inane, silly, inappropriate, grossly misogynistic, and brain dead these days. Am I missing something here? 

I think so, yes.

Surely the discussion is about women wearing the relevant dress outside of the very limited places in the world that require it by law. As it is not required by law to wear in the UK, one must assume these women are doing it by their own free choice. These issues are always debated (in many countries), yet not many people ever ask the actual women why they choose to wear certain dress. The ones that do ask the relevant women get the same answer, reasons based around choice, and how some women do and some do not within the same social circle. I bet if the women gave the wanted answer of my husband is forcing me, they would be all over these stories...they do not give that answer though so are rarely even mentioned. 

I think that is one of the problems with the discussion. Westerners look at it as saving women being oppressed by men. I would like to think they look at it that way for moral reasons, but I think it more just convenient reasoning to hide the us vs them mentality. 

Do I think it is illogical to wear religious dress? Personally, yes. I think it is as illogical as the orthodox Jews wearing their dress. Or as illogical as people wearing a cross around their neck with a body on it whilst behaving in a manner completely opposite to what the body is supposedly meant to represent. But religion and freedom of religious expression (based on choice) is a human right and until it is not a human right who are we to comment otherwise. I think your comment maybe better suited to certain places in the world...not this story. 

[simple1]

31 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

What happened was what I posted before - but I should have elaborated more.  Some Muslims many years ago demanded withdrawal of Christian symbols in public schools - they won their case quickly and easily and the schools complied.  There was some protest by Christian groups etc. but not much.  What happened next was that some Christians then demanded removal of Islamic symbols - in particular the Burqa.  Muslims protested vehemently against the change and many refused to comply and were expelled from schools.  There was a masive campaign against this change and 'Islamaphobic' was a common catchcry.  The French Parliament had to pass a specific Law banning all religious symnbols in schools and all government buildings. This was then subjected to ongoing complaints and massive campaigns of 'equality' and 'discrimination' by Muslims and their associated supporters and human rights groups, and the matter went to the EU Human Rights - which as you said upheld the decision.  Every criticsm of Islamic behaviours is met with outrage and Islamophobia claims - it is a standard part of their playbook and they do it everwhere all over the western world.  

As said France is secular, enshrined in law.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laïcité

 

What do think would have happened if Muslims tried to have their symbolism in the public education system?

 

We all know within the Koran the Jewish and Christian prophets are spiritually respected, with many depicted, including stories from the bible such as Noah's Ark. My personal view in today's world all this conflict stuff has been enacted by man for power and control, not for religious purposes - religion is the excuse / deflection for consumption by the ignorant.

 

These days right of centre political groups whine and whinge as much as any other group. Exact same behaviour you complain about by others

[dick dasterdly]

2 minutes ago, wildewillie89 said:

I think so, yes.

Surely the discussion is about women wearing the relevant dress outside of the very limited places in the world that require it by law. As it is not required by law to wear in the UK, one must assume these women are doing it by their own free choice. These issues are always debated (in many countries), yet not many people ever ask the actual women why they choose to wear certain dress. The ones that do ask the relevant women get the same answer, reasons based around choice, and how some women do and some do not within the same social circle. I bet if the women gave the wanted answer of my husband is forcing me, they would be all over these stories...they do not give that answer though so are rarely even mentioned. 

I think that is one of the problems with the discussion. Westerners look at it as saving women being oppressed by men. I would like to think they look at it that way for moral reasons, but I think it more just convenient reasoning to hide the us vs them mentality. 

Do I think it is illogical to wear religious dress? Personally, yes. I think it is as illogical as the orthodox Jews wearing their dress. Or as illogical as people wearing a cross around their neck with a body on it whilst behaving in a manner completely opposite to what the body is supposedly meant to represent. But religion and freedom of religious expression (based on choice) is a human right and until it is not a human right who are we to comment otherwise. I think your comment maybe better suited to certain places in the world...not this story. 

"I bet if the women gave the wanted answer of my husband is forcing me, they would be all over these stories...they do not give that answer"

 

Any person that was frightened enough to wear something insisted upon by the person/people of whom they are frightened - is hardly likely to answer the question!

 

I've obviously no idea why a very few women presumably choose to wear the niqab, but it's hard to imagine that 'conditioning' doesn't play a part in the decision.  Or perhaps it's anger (for some obscure reason) at the countries they live in having the audacity to ban this pointless article of 'clothing'....  And let's be clear here, whilst some posters refer to it as a veil, it's not.  Its something that completely hides the face, other than the eyes.

 

The most important point is that it separates them from the majority of those in the country in which they live (thereby making the chance of integration nigh on impossible) and, is a physical expression of the misogyny in their own 'culture'.  Which is understandably abhorrent to most people in the countries in which they now live.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why? Burkas etc are not Islamic.

Then why are the forum’s Islamophobes and Anti-Muslim ranters all over this topic like a nasty rash?

[wildewillie89]

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"I bet if the women gave the wanted answer of my husband is forcing me, they would be all over these stories...they do not give that answer"

 

Any person that was frightened enough to wear something insisted upon by the person/people of whom they are frightened - is hardly likely to answer the question!

 

I've obviously no idea why a very few women presumably choose to wear the niqab, but it's hard to imagine that 'conditioning' doesn't play a part in the decision.  Or perhaps it's anger (for some obscure reason) at the countries they live in having the audacity to ban this pointless article of 'clothing'....  And let's be clear here, whilst some posters refer to it as a veil, it's not.  Its something that completely hides the face, other than the eyes.

 

The most important point is that it separates them from the majority of those in the country in which they live (thereby making the chance of integration nigh on impossible) and, is a physical expression of the misogyny in their own 'culture'.  Which is understandably abhorrent to most people in the countries in which they now live.

Integration works or doesn't work depending on how hard the government of the day works. Melbourne has a few issues with African gangs at the moment. The writing was on the wall many years ago, the issues were expressed by the Africans, the government didn't put in the hard yards so issues came about. It is the same everywhere, if you ignore people or put them in a place, which is usually lower than everyone else, their will be issues. 

I don't think you quite fully understand choice of dress. I suggest you go and look into it deeper. Women within the same family even differ on what they do and do not wear when living in the West. Personally, I am not scared of people if I cannot see their face. I have no problems talking to the locals who cut my grass protecting themselves from the sun. 

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Then why are the forum’s Islamophobes and Anti-Muslim ranters all over this topic like a nasty rash?

But then again - those of us who have nothing against ordinary Moslems and also have no time for Boris, are also on this thread!

 

You presumably fail to understand that some of us are not anti-moslem - but still seriously dislike that burkas are allowed in 'our' countries.

 

As I said before (a long time ago, and probably on a different thread), women in the uk had to fight long and hard for some semblance of equality.  So you shouldn't be suprised that we are now less than happy at misogynist symbols being considered acceptable by some....

[7by7]

32 minutes ago, simple1 said:

1 hour ago, ELVIS123456 said:

What happened was what I posted before - but I should have elaborated more.  Some Muslims many years ago demanded withdrawal of Christian symbols in public schools - they won their case quickly and easily and the schools complied.  There was some protest by Christian groups etc. but not much.  What happened next was that some Christians then demanded removal of Islamic symbols - in particular the Burqa.  Muslims protested vehemently against the change and many refused to comply and were expelled from schools.  There was a masive campaign against this change and 'Islamaphobic' was a common catchcry.  The French Parliament had to pass a specific Law banning all religious symnbols in schools and all government buildings. This was then subjected to ongoing complaints and massive campaigns of 'equality' and 'discrimination' by Muslims and their associated supporters and human rights groups, and the matter went to the EU Human Rights - which as you said upheld the decision.  Every criticsm of Islamic behaviours is met with outrage and Islamophobia claims - it is a standard part of their playbook and they do it everwhere all over the western world.  

As said France is secular, enshrined in law.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laïcité

The seperation of religion and stae in France dates back to yhe revolution; although it didnot become official until 1905; some 40 years before the ECHR!

 

 See also French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools

Quote

The law does not mention any particular religious symbol, and thus bans Christian (veil, signs), Muslim (veil, signs), Sikh (turban, signs), Jewish and other religious signs.^[1] It is, however, considered by many to specifically target the wearing of headscarves (a khimar, considered by many Muslims to be an obligatory article of faith as part of hijab ["modesty"]) by Muslim schoolgirls. For this reason, it is occasionally referred to as the French headscarf ban in the foreign press.

 

[vogie]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Then why are the forum’s Islamophobes and Anti-Muslim ranters all over this topic like a nasty rash?

Do you honestly believe because some people have the audacity to have a different opinion to you that makes them Islamophobes.

[7by7]

59 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

And as I said in an earlier post - where was my 'human rights' supporters when they banned me from wearing my motorbike helmet in public??

What country bans the wearing of motorbike helmets in public?

 

Certainly not the UK, as the victims of the motobike mugging gangs can testify!

 

Of course, some institutions, such as banks, demand those wearing full face helmets remove them upon entry , but that is not a law and those institutions could ask the same of any person whose face is covered if they wish; and some do.

[ELVIS123456]

37 minutes ago, simple1 said:

As said France is secular, enshrined in law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laïcité

What do think would have happened if Muslims tried to have their symbolism in the public education system?

We all know within the Koran the Jewish and Christian prophets are spiritually respected, with many depicted, including stories from the bible such as Noah's Ark. My personal view in today's world all this conflict stuff has been enacted by man for power and control, not for religious purposes - religion is the excuse / deflection for consumption by the ignorant.

These days right of centre political groups whine and whinge as much as any other group. Exact same behaviour you complain about by others

I dont agree that it has been 'enacted' as such, but I do agree it is used more for power and control, than it is for religious reasons. I guess it is a matter of degree, but I reckon it is far less planned and organised, and is more like 'that worked, so lets do more of the same'.

 

Cant argue with that about complaining by both sides, but I must say I didnt see the centre/right complain as much when Obama was POTUS - I certainly didn't indulge. IMO any reasonable and impartial analysis would have to agree that the current deliberate 'resistence' is way beyond what Obama had to deal with. Especially so, when that impartial person considers the actual outcomes that Trump is achieving, versus the outcomes that Obama achieved. But lets face it, if I had to live with one of them on an island for 10 years, I would pick Obama - but that is not what Trump was elected to do (be nice and charismatic and considerate of others).  But if I had to play golf once a week with either of them for 10 years I would definitely pick Trump - but only once a week thanks. 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

But then again - those of us who have nothing against ordinary Moslems and also have no time for Boris, are also on this thread!

 

You presumably fail to understand that some of us are not anti-moslem - but still seriously dislike that burkas are allowed in 'our' countries.

 

As I said before (a long time ago, and probably on a different thread), women in the uk had to fight long and hard for some semblance of equality.  So you shouldn't be suprised that we are now less than happy at misogynist symbols being considered acceptable by some....

And what of the freedom

to choose to dress as one pleases?

.....

As a point of note, UK law allows everything which it does not proscribe.

 

The UK ‘allows’ wearing a Burqa just like the UK allows everything else that is not banned by law.

 

Are you now arguing the law should determine what people are allowed to wear?  And if so, does it not concern you that laws telling women what they can choose to wear are an attack on the liberty of women?

 

 

[ELVIS123456]

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

What country bans the wearing of motorbike helmets in public?

 

Certainly not the UK, as the victims of the motobike mugging gangs can testify!

 

Of course, some institutions, such as banks, demand those wearing full face helmets remove them upon entry , but that is not a law and those institutions could ask the same of any person whose face is covered if they wish; and some do.

Read my post referred to, then comment please.  I gave a list of many public places - including banks - and didnt include many more.  

 

And in passing I would also point out that anywhere and at anytime the Police can require that I remove the helmet.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, vogie said:

Do you honestly believe because some people have the audacity to have a different opinion to you that makes them Islamophobes.

If the opinions they express are Islamophobic, yes I do.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Read my post referred to, then comment please.  I gave a list of many public places - including banks - and didnt include many more.  

 

And in passing I would also point out that anywhere and at anytime the Police can require that I remove the helmet.

 

Banks are not public places, they ar private businesses.

 

A police officer may ask anyone to remove a helmet, mask, veil or Burqa to identify themselves.

 

[My Thai Life]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And if so, does it not concern you that laws telling women what they can choose to wear are an attack on the liberty of women?

Yes it does, and that is why shariah law is so disgusting. It will take women from the most regressive and repressive muslim countries (which is where we get a large number of our immigrants from) years of our liberal influence to escape their illiberal brainwashing. And lo and behold, when they do, and decide to live freely in Britain and marry an ethnic Briton, mom and pop send them to Asia and murder them.

 

Tell me Chomper, what actual experience do you have of muslims and Islam, inside or outside of the UK.

[Enoon]

8 hours ago, MRToMRT said:

Another calculated and staged move by Boris J - he has his eye on ousting May and copying the "Trump appeal" by playing non-muslim voters for the next election.

 

I think if he became head of Tory Party or PM it would be a sad day for centrists like myself.

 

Possibly staged move that got out of control due to turette-like improvising after reading the script..

 

If the leadership do not de-whip him after his refusal to apologise for the insulting and immature abuse (as it has asked him to) it will only encourage further insubordination by him and his confederates.

 

He has amply demonstrated that it is not safer to have him "inside the tent p****** out", he is an untrustworthy, self-serving rat.

 

He p***** and s**** on the move, at a rest, everywhere he goes, irrespective of location..........as rats do.

 

The nation weeps as the Curse of the Bullingdonians continues to bear upon it.

 

The whole country is poisoned.

 

 

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And what of the freedom

to choose to dress as one pleases?

.....

As a point of note, UK law allows everything which it does not proscribe.

 

The UK ‘allows’ wearing a Burqa just like the UK allows everything else that is not banned by law.

 

Are you now arguing the law should determine what people are allowed to wear?  And if so, does it not concern you that laws telling women what they can choose to wear are an attack on the liberty of women?

 

 

As another poster pointed out (on a different thread I suspect), freedom of 'dress' has certain limitations.  i.e. One would be in serious trouble if walking around in public if dressed in KKK 'clothes' or nazi uniform!  For obvious reasons, it would be seriously disliked/hated by everyone else, and the individual would likely be taken to the police station, reprimanded, taken home - and told not to be so stupid again.

 

But this is just a side-point.  Dressing as one pleases is generally fair enough - but a piece of cloth, completely hiding one's face is not a 'fashion choice'....  

[dunroaming]

9 hours ago, cornishcarlos said:

I like Boris, he's such a buffoon but this time he's cracked a classic...

He's spot on though and he has refused to apologize, for once sticking to his believes and not pandering to others believes...

 

That is fine if you are just another drunk in the pub.  But Johnson wrote this in a national newspaper.  This is Boris Johnson the MP who represents the people who voted for him.  If he wants to spout this sort of garbage as a private person then so be it, but to broadcast it as a sitting MP is a different level.

 

He has refused to apologise and May hasn't got the guts to suspend him (which he knows only too well).  I like Johnson as a bumbling buffoon and find him amusing.  In fact I thought the letter box comment was very funny.  But I like him as you like the pub drunk, not as someone who is supposed to represent the people.