Who agrees with Boris?

[random37]

You stand even less chance of identifying a shoplifter from direct sighting or CCTV if you never got to see their face in the first place.

As the former owner of a retail business, I can tell you that a wearing a burqa would not make it easier to shoplift. If anything, it would attract more attention.

[bovlomov]

and he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is unfit for public office.

Yet the qualification needed is to be elected in your constituency. It is that old democracy problem again, what can be done about those errant voters who just keep making the wrong decision?

Rather-
- what can be done about a corrupt politician who awards contracts without due process?
- what can be done about a corrupt politician who conspires to break electoral law?
- what can be done about a state broadcaster that acts as a cheerleader for such a politician?
- what can be done about media ownership, that allows tax avoiding press barons to promote such a politician?

That is the democratic problem. Johnson has learned that flying in the face of due process and breaking electoral law has no consequences.

I think the absence of law enforcement is a serious matter. Much more serious than your 'voters making the wrong decision' scenario.

[meic]

All that really doesnt disturb the establishment in quite the same way as saying a Burka resembles a letterbox or that wearing a niqab makes you look like a bank robber does.

You are consistent in bashing Boris for what he has done in the past.
Which is interesting in itself but not the subject which has got everybody else talking.

It appears that the argument is more with who wrote the piece, than what was written in it.
As Boris is not without his supporters the polls show a small majority saying that he should not apologise for what he said. Which is probably also based on who said it rather than what was said.

Personally I agree with him on the point that we should not ban the burka and for most of the reasons he said for coming to that opinion. One thing which I do have in common with him is a tendency towards libertarianism.

[bovlomov]

All that really doesnt disturb the establishment in quite the same way as saying a Burka resembles a letterbox or that wearing a niqab makes you look like a bank robber does.

You are consistent in bashing Boris for what he has done in the past.
Which is interesting in itself but not the subject which has got everybody else talking.

Yes. I wish they wouldn't go on about that, as it merely feeds his sniggering naughty boy act. His insults were cheap, crappy and charmless - but now his supporters can paint him as a Martin Luther nailing his radical thoughts to the church door.

But he is a dreadful man with a dreadful record. His thoughts are of no interest.

By the way, '...for what he has done in the past' doesn't really describe it. The parade of dishonesty has lasted 20 years and it shows no sign of letting up.

One thing which I do have in common with him is a tendency towards libertarianism.

I imagine that is the only thing you have in common with him. And perhaps not even that. It has been easy for him to be a libertarian, but I wouldn't be surprised if he abandoned that just as he has abandoned everything and everybody else he has ever claimed to hold dear.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Watching GP's behind closed doors on tv today.

Very common that Muslim women suffer from vit D deficiency..........................another reason not to cover up....

[random37]

Very common that Muslim women suffer from vit D deficiency..........................another reason not to cover up....

So is working in an office.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

Very common that Muslim women suffer from vit D deficiency..........................another reason not to cover up....

So is working in an office.

So you work in an office and you put a raincoat on every time you go out side.
Offices may well have windows.
why would anyone want to hide from the sun?

I had a mate once who went to the doctor...............scurvy.................

[landsurfer]

For goodness sake !
If you voluntarily decide to disengage with western society by wearing a garment the accomplishes that ... fine.
Do it ... "I will fight for your right to do so" etc. etc.

But don't partially disengage ... do it .. live in an area where your disengagement can be worn as a badge of courage ...

But disengage ... from the NHS, the Benefits System, Schools, the free child care system, Social Care etc. etc.

Don't decide to disengage from our poisoned western society ... and still expect to reap the benefits of our kaffar society !

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
That's why everyone travels half way across the world to little old GB.

How many countries in the world would it be safe to wear a union flag or even English / welsh / scotts flag on your shirt

When we leave the EU, we will still be called on for humanitarian aid to foreign countries, little old gb....................

[meic]

For goodness sake !
If you voluntarily decide to disengage with western society by wearing a garment the accomplishes that ... fine.
Do it ... "I will fight for your right to do so" etc. etc.

But don't partially disengage ... do it .. live in an area where your disengagement can be worn as a badge of courage ...

But disengage ... from the NHS, the Benefits System, Schools, the free child care system, Social Care etc. etc.

Don't decide to disengage from our poisoned western society ... and still expect to reap the benefits of our kaffar society !

Strangely, you dont get to decide what constitutes Western Society on your own like that.
It isnt an exclusive club for "people like you". Wearing a Burka doesnt contradict any real Western values any more than speaking Welsh does.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41917784

[Vorpal]

Feminism and Islam are mutually exclusive ideologies.

Many religions have misogynistics sects, including Christianity. That doesn't make them mutually exclusive with feminism/

One can favour one or the other, but no both, yet many feminists defend practice which correlates (not necessarily causation) with the removal of the right to choose (wearing of the burkha).

I don't understand this. Feminists no more agree on any single philosophy than cyclists do. Some object to sex work or pornography, and others support it, as long as it is among mutually consenting adults. Personally, I support people's right to wear what they wish, and I don't know any feminists who support banning articles of clothing, such as the burqa.

No such accommodations are made for Christianity, nor, given the ideology of feminism, should you expect them to be made. Why do they accommodate Islam, and most mainstream feminists/Feminists do it, even going as far to defend it and the burkha as a 'symbol of empowerment'.

A paragraph, or even a single post is insufficient for unpacking the relationship between feminism and religion, when entire books are written about this, but I will just say briefly that this has more to do with religious belief, or at least religious culture than it does feminism. Personally, I don't think one religion is necessarily better than another. There are misogynistic tendancies in all of the major religions and people or sects in them that wish to oppress women. If a Muslim woman says a burqa represents empowerment to her, I am no more going to argue with that than I would a nun who says her habit represents empowerment. Neither would be empowerment for me.

It is absurd, but then perhaps the belief system is not what it first seems. You explain it to me, or don't, up to you. It makes no sense if we take feminism at face value though. I hope that is not too interleaved.

It is only absurb if we suppose that all Muslims believe the same things about their religion and that all feminists believe the same things about Islam.

[bovlomov]

We have a large Plymouth Brethren community in our area.

When we were children, all we 'knew' about them is that they wouldn't talk to anyone. That may not have been true, but they did keep themselves to themselves, apart from the weekly hellfire and damnation sermons delivered from in front of the Red Lion on Saturday mornings.

Later on I learned a bit more about them. They didn't watch television, read newspapers or listen to recorded music. At school the children were asked to be excused from computer studies. They ate separately from their classmates. Girls were discouraged from pursuing further education. Women and girls above a certain age wore long dresses, with headscarves on long hair. Adults had to be married. While they appeared to shun the modern world in some respects, they ran businesses producing plastic kitchen ware and stickers.

More darkly, stories about child abuse have been swirling around.

In short, many of the criticisms of Muslims could just as easily be directed at the Brethren, yet it's not something that has bothered Alex Jones and his fellow travellers. The brethren are white Christians, you see. Interestingly, I have found several Daily Mail articles about them, but nothing from The Sun.

The Brethren's history is nothing if not a history of schisms. In recent years the Brethren in our area have adopted a much more open approach. They are friendly neighbours. The clothing requirements have been relaxed. I'm not sure about the other stuff, but from what I can see, pragmatism rules. As it does with the majority of Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus.

[Freddie]

Don't decide to disengage from our poisoned western society ... and still expect to reap the benefits of our kaffar society !

Islam allows, even encourages, reaping the benefits of kaffir society whilst still being a practising muslim. Hypocrisy doesn't matter in this regard.

It isnt an exclusive club for "people like you". Wearing a Burka doesnt contradict any real Western values any more than speaking Welsh does.

Wearing a burkha is an explicit anti-western statement. It is saying 'I am not of you, and I am against your civilisation', whilst, as landsurfer said, benefitting from the advantages western civilisation offers.

Has there ever been anywhere where burkha wearing increased coinciding with an increase in female liberties (or liberties in general) or does increased burkha wearing have a strong correlation with increasingly illiberal views and the spread of Islam?

I imagine this is what Boris was trying to say, but couldn't find the words (or wanted to dance round the issue). If there is an increase in burkha wearing that means an increase in Islam which means a decrease in liberties and western civilisation. You can have degrees of one or the other, but not both equally. If you defend Islamification, even under the banner of liberty for all, then you essentially make way, with no fight whatsoever, for illiberal ideas to destroy your liberal society.

Many religions have misogynistics sects, including Christianity. That doesn't make them mutually exclusive with feminism/

So feminism is not fundamentally about the empowerment of women and their right to independent choices minus any outside (particularly male) judgement? If so, it is in contrast to Christianity and Islam which says, in differing ways, that God is the final judge on these matter. Everything is not up to the individual as to whether it is good or bad under religion. Hence feminism and religion (probably of any sort) are mutually exclusive doctrines. You cannot truly believe both feminism and religion, without disbelieving one or the other in significant enough of a way as to make it unsustainable.

I don't understand this. Feminists no more agree on any single philosophy than cyclists do. Some object to sex work or pornography, and others support it, as long as it is among mutually consenting adults. Personally, I support people's right to wear what they wish, and I don't know any feminists who support banning articles of clothing, such as the burqa.

This is not correct. The media (BBC/Channel 4/newspapers) and most mainstream feminists have an almost completely similar view of feminism than they do dissimilar ones. The 'sex positive' feminists (favour pornography etc) are in a tiny minority today and have very little mainstream representation. Todays modern feminism seems a mix of 'do what thou wilt' for women, 'don't you dare do that' for men (I remember a topic about objections to men placing adverts for free rooms, as long as women kept them company; this is an outrage if men do it and an abuse of power, but if women place these adverts then no problem - according to mainstream feminists) and apologetics for Islam (and only Islam, it wouldn't apologise for the Christianity), including the absurd statement that the burkha is empowering women.

What next in this inversion of logic? Smacking children is empowering children; malnutrition is empowering anorexics...

If a Muslim woman says a burqa represents empowerment to her, I am no more going to argue with that than I would a nun who says her habit represents empowerment. Neither would be empowerment for me.

Right, but this is because, I imagine, you are a feminist and irreligious. The nun wearing a habit wouldn't say that it empowers her, but that it helps her get closer to God, the same is likely true of the muslim woman wearing a burkha. The habit, as the burkha, represents obedience to God (male authority figure), which is in stark contrast to feminist ideas of female empowerment.

Religion is submission to a male authority, whereas feminism, like other individualistic ideologies, is worship of almost limitless personal freedom, up to and including freedom from judgment.

It is only absurb if we suppose that all Muslims believe the same things about their religion and that all feminists believe the same things about Islam.

Islam is not monolithic, there are Sufis who have a more open version of Islam, but true muslims (as they like to style themselves) see Sufi Islam as heresy. I remember the story of a Sufi shopkeeper from 3 or so years ago wishing his patrons a Merry Christmas (or perhaps a Happy Easter), which led a more devout, non-Sufi muslim, to go up to the man's shop and run him through. Obviously, the true muslim believed the Sufi (who make up a tiny proportion of Islam) was not a muslim at all and that he should be done away with for his blasphemy.

Sufis exist, but they hardly matter and are more roundly attacked/despised by their fellow muslims, than any non-muslims.

A similar disposition is true of feminism - pornography favouring feminists (probably 1% of all feminists) are shouted down as supporting abuse and the male power structure, almost never have their version of feminism promoted on television or in the media, and are all but unknown to the wider culture. The biggest opponents of pro-pornography feminists are the anti-pornography feminists. They share a name, yet the latter see the former as heretical (agents of the patriarchy?) and some of their staunchest opponents.

[meic]

Wearing a burkha is an explicit anti-western statement. It is saying 'I am not of you, and I am against your civilisation',

I think that you are over imagining extreme Western ideology's level of importance in the world. Large sections of the world dont get up in the morning and wear a burka just to annoy the West.

I am Western and many Burka wearers are equally Western, what we fail to conform to is a particular extremist idea of what Western society is (or should be or once was).

[Cyril Haearn]

Plymouth Bretheren..

The media are obsessed with Islam but many other religions are available, the Wee Wee Frees for example

One of my favourite stories on these fora:
Gloomyandy described attending church in the Hebrides, he was made very welcome, the service was even held in English instead of Gaelic, so he could understand, +1