Main Discussion

BoJo shouldn't apologise for telling truth...
Rate it
0
Report as offensive
131 sleeps till Christmas
Posted - 10 August 2018 09:49
...says Dr Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation.

According to him "the Wahhabi/Salafi-inspired fad of female facial masking has no Koranic legitimacy" and instead represents "a toxic patriarchy controlling women".

He goes further than the liberal approach promoted by Boris, describing the clothes as "hideous tribal ninja-like garments" which are in fact a "nefarious component of a trendy gateway theology for religious extremism and militant Islam" and calling for Britain to "emulate France, Belgium, Austria, Bulgaria and Denmark in banning the burka".

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-and-the-debate-over-burkas-g7xqf7t sm

Still, I'm sure some will say Dr Taj Hargey doesn't know what he's talking about when backing Boris.
B•a•M
Posted - 10 August 2018 09:53
Report as offensive
it's all about context you massive penis

Bojo is Brexit, he's about fucking things up for that poor lady in Iran, he's about siding himself with the Tory hard right, he's a fucking bumbling tactless idiot that has ridiculously high visibility

wanted he said may have had some substance but any sensible, thoughtful politician in the past would have thought "right this is a delicate issue, at a delicate time maybe I leave this to more delicate politicians to sort out. I don't need to get involved. my bumbling stupidity might just add fuel to the fire"


but that isn't him and really sadly that isn't modern politics.



131 sleeps till Christmas
Posted - 10 August 2018 09:55
Report as offensive
long tall
Posted - 10 August 2018 09:52

Ruth Davidson is also very fat.

--

She is with child!
Cyprian
Posted - 10 August 2018 09:57
Report as offensive
Was Dr Taj Hargey using speaking as a Bannon-inspired racist -whistle to build credentials with the Daily Heilers?
Captain Mal
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:02
Report as offensive
Still, I'm sure some will say Dr Taj Hargey doesn't know what he's talking about when backing Boris.

Oh gosh! Does a religionist of an effectively competing religion disagree with the other side?

Either you respect mainstream (ish) religions or you don't.

The Catholic church disagrees with most of the customt of the CofE and vice versa. If all you need is someone of a different religion to say they disagree with the customs of a different religion then we should just stop respecting religion altogether (not necessarily a bad outcome).
SumoKing
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:07
Report as offensive
Sleeps

do you know the difference between ridiculing a garment and ridiculing the oppressed people who it is forced on

you know, like the difference between saying "slavery is bad and slave owners should be jailed" and "haha slaves, the dumb piccaninnies"
Captain Mal
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:07
Report as offensive
Most muslims disagree with a full face veil, so when Boris is attacked by people like Ruth Davidson (who think the veil is no different to wearing a crucifix) they're scoring a big fat own goal.

You do realise that most Christians disagree with the idea that wearing a crucifix is a requirement of observing a Christian religion?
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:07
Report as offensive
If you think Boris actually gives a shyt about this issue (or anything except Boris tbh) then you really are very very stupid.

This was just about getting more attention for Boris and more support for Boris from people who start foaming at the mouth as soon as you say the word "burka".

(FAOD I do not agree with veils or any kind of head coverings for women for "religious" reasons.)
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:12
Report as offensive
Oh very clever.

Oh wait, no it wasn't.

It is perfectly possible to have a strong opinion on this either way and think that Boris is a collossal twat. I suspect there are actually tens of millions of people who fall into this category.
GMT
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:16
Report as offensive
Absolutely with both of you. Boris doesn't give a shvt and said this to boost his prospects with the Tory party membership and in terms of trying to usurp the likes of Rees Mogg and Gove as the Brexit candidate in any likely Tory leadership election.

However Long Tall is also right, the sheer level of vitriol and abuse he has had for saying this (which is probably right or wrong an opinion shared by a narrow majority of people in the UK) really is very troubling in terms of what seems to be an attempt to restrict free speech and to only allow public discourse within very narrow parameters (a point which arguably can also be made in terms of the anti semitism debate and Labour as well).

Free speech until quite recently meant that so long as it wasn't criminal incitement etc, but with no platforming, the constant playing of diversity/race/religion etc. cards (on both sides) and similar the old Voltaire idea you ridicule or argue against views you don't agree with, rather than ban them has been moved away from.

In my view that's quite sinister but also counterproductive. If you don't let people like Boris speak on these issues (or Straw/Clarke etc.) in the past and argue against them if you disagree, you won't get rid of people's views by blocking free speech just drive them underground or into the arms of people like Tommy Robinson who along with Bannon etc. will be delighted by the mainstream/liberal media trying to shut down the debate this week. The debate is better had by argument than by pushing it underground or in more violent directions surely.
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:20
Report as offensive
That would rather suggest that your opinion of Boris is completely independent of the subject matter currently being discussed. Which reinforces my point.

No it doesn't.

You said that the people complaining about this are complaining because they dislike Boris and not because they care about the issue one way or another.

That is patently untrue.
January Sails
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:24
Report as offensive
There are plenty complaining just because it's Boris and a good selection trying to use this as a way to simply have Boris investigated and kicked out of the party amongst other things. I would be a number of them really don't care about the subject matter and would have used anything else Boris said to attack him.
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:25
Report as offensive
Another reading comprehension failure there, Saillaw.
Oslama
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:28
Report as offensive
come on anna, boris could do no right in your eyes if he worked for unicef
Capt Haddock
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:31
Report as offensive
unicef is a haven for kiddie fiddlers.

could have given a better setting, oss
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:31
Report as offensive
True. Boris is an absolute fuckwit and everything he touches turns to

But I still have a strong opinion about religious coverings for women.

So trollface over here is talking shite.
Mr Sugden
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:32
Report as offensive
Boris may be a buffoon and have his own agenda, but that does not mean that what he said on the matter was incorrect or wrong.
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:33
Report as offensive
The way he said it was utterly wrong. And of course, that's why he said it in the way he did, to get attention. Not because he cares about the issue in question.
January Sails
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:41
Report as offensive
Nora you said it's patently untrue that people are complaining because they dislike Boris and not because they care about the issue which means that it must then be true that they are complaining because they care about the issue and not because they dislike Boris. Or was your patently untrue referring to something other than the paragraph immediately preceding it which would be a rather odd way of expressing your point?
January Sails
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:42
Report as offensive
He said it because he thinks people in a ridiculous head covering look ridiculous. I think some people read too much into a simple statement.
...fluffy
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:42
Report as offensive
Isn't the point that he wasn't presenting a view on whether faces should be exposed...

...instead was making jokes at the expense of women who may have no choice as to how they dress.
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:44
Report as offensive
Put it this way.

If you are expressing genuine concern about religious coverings being used as a tool to oppress women, mocking said oppressed women by describing them as looking like "bank robbers" or "letterboxes" is not a kind or sensitive way to go about it.

It's not big and it's not...

...no wait, it is clever. Very clever. Because it's got everyone talking about Boris again, which was precisely his intention.
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:51
Report as offensive
It is perfectly possible to express a strong, clear, coherent opinion on the matter without ridiculing the people who wear them as opposed to the garment itself.

But that wouldn't stir up the right kind of emotions in the right kind of people now, would it.

Let's be serious, does anyone really think that Boris has succeeded in "raising awareness" or "contributing to the debate" on this matter in a way that will convince a single person not to wear a burka?

The kind of people who wear the burka (and their male relatives) will just see this as yet another attack on their culture by the evil west and retreat further into their own communities.
B•a•M
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:52
Report as offensive
this is Dignam isn't it?
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:54
Report as offensive
I meant "contributing to the debate in a manner which might convince some people not to wear the burka".

HTH.
...fluffy
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:58
Report as offensive
"describing, in a colourful manner"... ...are you a lawyer?

However, perhaps you are correct... ...his comments were not funny or even witty.

They were a manifestation of his thoughtlessness and self-centred view of the world. His working method appears to be say it, think about it, bluster through it, apologise.
January Sails
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:59
Report as offensive
Why should it not be permissible to ridicule people for the way they choose to dress in a free society as part of my freedom of expression? People in trousers that end several inches above the ankle look ridiculous and I will say so in the same way that people here take the piss because I wear deck shoes.
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:00
Report as offensive
which is why the article explicitly states that neither he, nor his party, advocate outlawing its use

Yes, very clever.

Phrase it in a way that gets all the usual suspects nicely riled up, but no one can actually pull you up on.

If he is not trying to convince people not to wear it, what exactly is the point of his article?

(Other than to get attention for himself, which is obviously the point of his article.)
coben
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:03
Report as offensive
sails, i know you try to be ever so reasonable and pragmatic, but try to engage with the subject matter, please.
131 sleeps till Christmas
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:04
Report as offensive
Someone else saying BoJo shouldn't apologise, Rowan Atkinson:

https://news.sky.com/story/rowan-atkinson-among-those-leaping-to-boris-johnsons-de fence-over-burka-comments-11468114

"As a lifelong beneficiary of the freedom to make jokes about religion, I do think that Boris Johnson's joke about wearers of the burka resembling letterboxes is a pretty good one.

"All jokes about religion cause offence, so it's pointless apologising for them.

"You should really only apologise for a bad joke. On that basis, no apology is required."
SumoKing
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:05
Report as offensive
long tall
Posted - 10 August 2018 10:47 Report as offensive Report Offensive

Nora - where is there a necessity to be kind or sensitive? they are a) oppressive, b) look utterly ridiculous, and c) most muslim women agree. Not ridiculing them is a gross disservice to the women subjected to such dress as it highlights the stupidity of those imposing that dress code, not those subject to it
________________________________________________________________________

As I said above

he does not seem to be ridiculing the burkha or the culture around burkha

he seems to ridicule the wearer

which in the context of anyone who believes it's a ridiculous mobile prison and tool of oppression promulgated by a religion which even for religions is one of the worst things humanity has managed to come up with, is something akin to laughing at legless landmine victims and justifying it because you are anti landmine manufacturers.

Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:05
Report as offensive
Why should it not be permissible to ridicule people for the way they choose to dress in a free society as part of my freedom of expression?

It is perfectly permissible. Expressing your opinion might mark you out to all and sundry as an irredeemable twat, but that is your call.

People in trousers that end several inches above the ankle look ridiculous and I will say so in the same way that people here take the piss because I wear deck shoes.

People wearing ankle swingers or deck shoes aren't doing it to comply with the rules of (for want of better words) a religious cult. They aren't being used as a tool of oppression, they aren't inherently misogynistic, and those who wear them are free to continue wearing them or stop wearing them any time they choose, or wear them some days and not others.

Not really comparable.
Elfi
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:07
Report as offensive
I liked Rowan Atkinson's comment:

'As a lifelong beneficiary of the freedom to make jokes about religion, I do think that Boris Johnson's joke about wearers of the burka resembling letterboxes is a pretty good one.'

The actor, known for his comedy performances in Blackadder and Mr Bean, wrote in a letter to the Times: 'All jokes about religion cause offence, so it's pointless apologising for them.

'You should really only apologise for a bad joke. On that basis, no apology is required.'

Atkinson has previously argued in favour of a 'right to offend', saying in 2004 that proposed religious hatred laws would silence 'creative thinkers'.

He said at the time: 'Freedom of expression must be protected for artists and entertainers and we must not accept a bar on the lampooning of religion and religious leaders.'
...fluffy
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:08
Report as offensive
Sails because the ridicule in this instance is the equivalent of ridiculing sex trafficking or child abuse...

New jokes for Boris:

Oh look at that little boy with his two black eyes - doesn't he look like a panda
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:09
Report as offensive
This isn't a freedom of expression issue. Nobody is arguing that Boris shouldn't have the right to say what he said.
...fluffy
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:09
Report as offensive
And wot Sumo said...

**off to wash out mouth**
January Sails
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:10
Report as offensive
Coben what do you want me to do? I've run the scenarios and considered the options and I'm not really bothered what happens either way but I'd just like it to happen quickly so I can stop putting plans on hold. I was always ambivalent about the EU and generally took it for granted that membership was a foregone conclusion and that greater integration was probably inevitable although I had my concerns about it. It's hard to get excited about something that you were never really excited about in the first place.
131 sleeps till Christmas
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:10
Report as offensive
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:09

This isn't a freedom of expression issue. Nobody is arguing that Boris shouldn't have the right to say what he said.

--

Are you deaf and blind?
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:12
Report as offensive
Your right to freedom of expression does not include a right not to be called out for what you have said or the manner in which you have said it.

You say it, you deal with the consequences.

Except, of course, in Boris's case he is laughing his head off because the only consequences for him are the fact that everyone is talking about him, which is exactly what he was aiming for.
coben
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:12
Report as offensive
in what world is a joke comparing an item of clothing to a letterbox 'funny'? how low is Atkinson's comedy threshold?
January Sails
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:13
Report as offensive
Oops confused my threads there after being interrupted.

Nora I know they are a small minority but some of the wearers are converts who converted knowing what it would involve so have in effect chosen to end up wearing such outfits.
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:15
Report as offensive
You can be complicit in your own oppression, Saillaw.

It happens all the time.
SumoKing
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:18
Report as offensive
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:09 Report as offensive Report Offensive

This isn't a freedom of expression issue. Nobody is arguing that Boris shouldn't have the right to say what he said.
__________________________________________________________________

this is correct

the issue is Boris, as usual, picking the absolute weakest person he can find to make his shitt joke

If he had any guts he would have gone hard against "Imams who force women to dress like" or "outdated (even misinterpreted) religious dogma that forces....."
GMT
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:20
Report as offensive
Kind of Stockholm syndrome potentially; clearly none of us can deign to speak for the whole of the female muslim community nor should we; but that argument can't be discounted.

Though are perfectly good other arguments, especially security ones, why face coverings including religious ones should be banned in public (clearly what people do in private is own business) as well.
SumoKing
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:21
Report as offensive
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:15 Report as offensive Report Offensive

You can be complicit in your own oppression, Saillaw.
_______________________________________________________________________

for any manner of reasons;

-indoctrination

-stockholm syndrome

-parents were conservative and you were born with low intelligence
January Sails
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:21
Report as offensive
Indeed but there's a big difference between being born into a religion and accepting it and making a conscious decision as an adult to adopt a set of beliefs knowing what will be involved. Even if I was madly in love with an Islamic lady I wouldn't agree to adopt her religion if she wanted me to.
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:23
Report as offensive
My main issue with a ban is what happens to the women in question if they can no longer go out with their faces covered.

Do they go out with their faces uncovered, or do they effectively become prisoners in their own home?

I suspect that in some cases, banning the burka would result in removing some of the precious little freedom the women in question still have.
SumoKing
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:32
Report as offensive
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:23 Report as offensive Report Offensive

My main issue with a ban is what happens to the women in question if they can no longer go out with their faces covered.
____________________________________________________________________

I would be more inclined to enforce equality than to ban clothing outright, i.e. if your wife wears a burkha you wear a burkha
131 sleeps till Christmas
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:55
Report as offensive
SumoKing
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:32

I would be more inclined to enforce equality

--

Now where has that been tried before...?

SumoKing
Posted - 10 August 2018 12:18
Report as offensive
136 sleeps till Christmas
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:55 Report as offensive Report Offensive
SumoKing
Posted - 10 August 2018 11:32

I would be more inclined to enforce equality

--

Now where has that been tried before...?
_______________________________________________________________________

Y ou're right Sleeps, I just checked the wiki and Mao's famous "burkha for men law" caused 10 million deaths
3-ducks
Posted - 10 August 2018 12:30
Report as offensive
The letterbox gag has been going round for ages. I remember the senior partner of a firm I worked for telling me that one over a decade ago.
fumio
Posted - 10 August 2018 12:32
Report as offensive
He was just sick of looking at your face dux
Pinkus
Posted - 10 August 2018 12:40
Report as offensive
Didn't we have all this post 9/11 and then everyone decided that they should just let people dress how they want to dress as a) nobody gives a fvck apart from people who want to use the 'the veil isn't even part of Islam' thing to claim that they're not racist twats when they're being racist twats; and b) TV got really, really good and therefore more interesting than listening to racist twats?
Kimmy
Posted - 10 August 2018 13:09
Report as offensive
I Support rowan atkinson’s point about the freedom to make jokes about religion, but not that johnson’s “letterbox” comment was a good joke, or even a joke, really.

As others have said, johnson’s comments are all about getting him attention, no more, no less.

I hope the fact that he took a job at the telegraph without following parliamentary procedure gets followed up, though. The fvcker cleary thinks he can do whatever he likes, and god knows why people let him.
Massive fuckwit
Posted - 10 August 2018 13:29
Report as offensive
Those Chinese people look so happy! Maybe we should try a bit of that?
131 sleeps till Christmas
Posted - 10 August 2018 15:01
Report as offensive
Janet Street-Porter nails it in today's Daily Mail:

"Boris is brilliant at one thing - flushing out the tosspots who feel compelled to pontificate on any issue of the day."
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 15:12
Report as offensive
I really could not give any less of a shyt what Janet Street Porter or any other Daily Fail columnist says. (Originally typed "thinks" but decided I was giving them too much credit.)
3-ducks
Posted - 10 August 2018 15:23
Report as offensive
Heh. I r8 Street-Porter.
Bloody Nora
Posted - 10 August 2018 15:49
Report as offensive
You would.
131 sleeps till Christmas
Posted - 10 August 2018 15:50
Report as offensive
#MeToo
SumoKing
Posted - 10 August 2018 15:58
Report as offensive
136 sleeps till Christmas
Posted - 10 August 2018 15:01 Report as offensive Report Offensive
Janet Street-Porter nails it in today's Daily Mail:

"Boris is brilliant at one thing - flushing out the tosspots who feel compelled to pontificate on any issue of the day."

136 sleeps till Christmas
Posted - 10 August 2018 15:50 Report as offensive Report Offensive
#MeToo

__________________________________________________________________ _

this seems to be something of a gift
Excession
Posted - 10 August 2018 16:42
Report as offensive
'in what world is a joke comparing an item of clothing to a letterbox 'funny'? How low is Atkinson's comedy threshold?'

Is it OK to make jokes criminal if you/a Judge/the AG dioesn't feel they are funny enough?

What has happened to freedom of speech in the country since and his cronies started criminalising 'offensive' speech has been appalling.

'Je suis Charlie' - bollox - we've have locked the cartoonists up.

We've given people criminal records for amongst other things:
burning a poppy on Facebook (not in the street, not at a Remembrance Parade, but on fking Facebook)
saying soldiers would go to hell for crimes committed in Iraq (again on FB)
re-tweeting sick jokes about a child murder
making your girlfriend's do hilter salutes and filiming it on you tube (as a joke)
leaving anti-religious cartoons and pamplets in a public prayer room in an airport (six months in prison for that one)
an evangelist with a sign that said homosexuality was a sin
grossly offensive 'satirical' songs (FB again)
posting lyrics from a rap song containing the 'n' word
an obviously not serious 'bounty' offer of £5000 to anyone who would run over Gina Miller


It's fucking ridiculous.
The law used to be clear and simple - if what you say is (seriously) advocating commission of a crime or likely to cause a disturbance of the peace then it's illegal.
If it's defamatory then it will be a civil wrong.
Otherwise - if you're offended - tought sh8t - freedom of speech to say only what the giovernment deems inoffensive is no freedom of speech at all...freedom of speech must extend to offence or your don't have it...

I bet someone could tweet out word for word what the Tory Govt ministres said about homosexuality in defending the dreadful clause 28 and get arrested for it now - and even a defence of satire probably wouldn't save them...



Originally the law was brought in off the back of some electronic stalking cases where women had been subjected to hateful streams of targetted abuse by text. Fair enough to criminalise that. When people like Rowan Atkinson warned it would be used against jokes he was told that he was being alarmist.



coben
Posted - 10 August 2018 16:45
Report as offensive
chill out.... no-one is talking about criminalising jokes. i was just pointing out it's a really, really crap joke.
Excession
Posted - 10 August 2018 19:54
Report as offensive
Already happened mate - tell a joke the State deems offensive - get a criminal record - and Atkinson warned about it 15 years ago and everyone ignored him - so I'd suggest his political foresight as well as his sense of humour is pretty much spot on.

As for Boris he's attention grabbing narcissist twat of the first order, but what he is saying is fine.

People dressing up as Daleks basically look ridiculous.
They are purposefully segregating themselves from and rejecting the norms of British customs and society.
They are self-identifying as members of the Salafist cult which is antithetical to Western Democratic civilisation. And in case you haven't noticed, is backward, intolerant and dangerous.

The tricky part is in knowing how much of it is forced on them by the men as it's a medieval patriachal shitshow in there - as if it wasn't bad enough for a hundred other reasons.