Boris Johnson is a liability.

[AM9]

Whether you agree with his political standing or not, you seem to have missed the point he was, deliberately controversial or not, making. Other European countries (apparently far more progressive ones than Britain, or so we're constantly told) have had this debate in public and even introduced laws over it (the usual suspects on here have been very silent about this, perhaps the ECJ only counts when it works in your own favour). Why can't we? Johnson's take seems to be that it shouldn't be for the state to dictate dress codes, and that it'd be better for society to ridicule it than create unnecessary legislation.

He's right. Call me whatever you may, I'm not about to defend a horrendous medieaval style symbol of the oppression of women.

No, you have missed the point of what I said. I'll repeat it here: "There's not much wrong with his discourse on the right to wear Burkas and Hijabs even using Denmarks recent banning of them as an example." That's a straightforward statement. It can be debated on its own merit. I don't necessarily agree with it but the style and presentation of his argument in the Telegraph article is both journalistically acceptable and succinct.
Then read on: "However, he couldn't resist abusing wearers of these garments by describing them to 'pillar boxes' or 'bank robbers'. Now not only does that invalidate the earlier comments about the right to wear them, but it insults those who culture exercises that right, possibly in an inflammatory way." Johnson's decision to use insulting terms to describe these cultural garments cheapens the message in the article to the level of some of the anti-semitic comments coming from the left wing elements in the Labour party. The Telegraph is not targeted at the same demographic as the Sun or the Daily Mail so is unlikely to be justified as speaking in terms that the reader understands. It was probably calculated to get attention. Unfortunately for Johnson, that attention will cause most of his party to distance themselves from such comments (except for those who trade in similar damaging speak).
So, the Conservative party is desperate to wrap this problem up as soon as possible as it prevents them spouting this self-righteous commentary on Labours anti-semitic issues. How would the Conservatives (and their press friends) critique such comments as bnm made in post #27, (if they weren't presented purely for comparison as he has)?

 

[AlterEgo]

No, you have missed the point of what I said. I'll repeat it here: "There's not much wrong with his discourse on the right to wear Burkas and Hijabs even using Denmarks recent banning of them as an example." That's a straightforward statement. It can be debated on its own merit. I don't necessarily agree with it but the style and presentation of his argument in the Telegraph article is both journalistically acceptable and succinct.
Then read on: "However, he couldn't resist abusing wearers of these garments by describing them to 'pillar boxes' or 'bank robbers'. Now not only does that invalidate the earlier comments about the right to wear them, but it insults those who culture exercises that right, possibly in an inflammatory way." Johnson's decision to use insulting terms to describe these cultural garments cheapens the message in the article to the level of some of the anti-semitic comments coming from the left wing elements in the Labour party. The Telegraph is not targeted at the same demographic as the Sun or the Daily Mail so is unlikely to be justified as speaking in terms that the reader understands. It was probably calculated to get attention. Unfortunately for Johnson, that attention will cause most of his party to distance themselves from such comments (except for those who trade in similar damaging speak).
So, the Conservative party is desperate to wrap this problem up as soon as possible as it prevents them spouting this self-righteous commentary on Labours anti-semitic issues. How would the Conservatives (and their press friends) critique such comments as bnm made in post #27, (if they weren't presented purely for comparison as he has)?

I think this is it in a nutshell - well put.

 

[Warwick]

What's he said this time?

The truth. Never a good idea for a politician.

 

[bnm]

The truth. Never a good idea for a politician.

The truth being that women in niqabs and burqas look like pillar boxes and bank robbers?

 

[bnm]

Well, at least he isn't calling for legislation. He said the Denmark solution was wrong. So his only 'truth' was a ham-fisted attempt at humour, with the aim not really being to raise a smile, but to pander to the prejudices if his audience.

 

[DarloRich]

Boris Johnson is a liability: Yes, yes he is. He is also a shameful self promoting opportunistic charlatan with a history of behaving badly. I may go as far as suggesting he is both a cad and a bounder. He may also be considered a rotter by some.

 

[Jonny]

Yes. One singular pillar with a slot for the eyes. Yes, facial features covered. I know of one (in Selfridge's) robbery carried out by members disguised in a Burka. The men say it's their culture whilst happily wearing western clothes. Boris in his blundering way has stated a truth.

I did a google search and came up with a few other examples:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...news/robbers-dressed-up-burkas-steal-13003217
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/robbers-wearing-burkas-who-raided-6339126
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-high-profile-smash-grab-raids-convicted.html
Meanwhile in Australia: http://archive.fo/p8XdJ

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Those who know my political leanings may be surprised to hear this from me, but i have no problem with what Boris Johnson said in this latest "controversy". He used a metaphor simile to express an opinion. Some might say it was unwise to publish such a thing. Others might suggest that he knew exactly what he was doing and was intentionally provoking the SJW mob, knowing that a backlash against that movement is building- unfortunately predominantly from the right.

I disagree with Boris on the vast majority of issues, but what he said was not hateful or oppressive. It wasn't and shouldn't be something he should face any real-world repercussions for, other than those who disagree challenging him on it.

I will add though, that I've never seen a black post-box or a muslim woman wearing a bright red burka. Maybe a gold burka, but that only applies post-2012!

 

[Bromley boy]

No, you have missed the point of what I said. I'll repeat it here: "There's not much wrong with his discourse on the right to wear Burkas and Hijabs even using Denmarks recent banning of them as an example." That's a straightforward statement. It can be debated on its own merit. I don't necessarily agree with it but the style and presentation of his argument in the Telegraph article is both journalistically acceptable and succinct.
Then read on: "However, he couldn't resist abusing wearers of these garments by describing them to 'pillar boxes' or 'bank robbers'. Now not only does that invalidate the earlier comments about the right to wear them, but it insults those who culture exercises that right, possibly in an inflammatory way." Johnson's decision to use insulting terms to describe these cultural garments cheapens the message in the article to the level of some of the anti-semitic comments coming from the left wing elements in the Labour party. The Telegraph is not targeted at the same demographic as the Sun or the Daily Mail so is unlikely to be justified as speaking in terms that the reader understands. It was probably calculated to get attention. Unfortunately for Johnson, that attention will cause most of his party to distance themselves from such comments (except for those who trade in similar damaging speak).
So, the Conservative party is desperate to wrap this problem up as soon as possible as it prevents them spouting this self-righteous commentary on Labours anti-semitic issues. How would the Conservatives (and their press friends) critique such comments as bnm made in post #27, (if they weren't presented purely for comparison as he has)?

And you’ve rather missed the point that you’re referring to garments which strip women of human identity and independence in the same sentence as “rights”. Keep in mind these garments are required to be worn in culturally conservative, wahhabist, states yet are not required by the wider religion of Islam.

Should Muslim women in the U.K. also be exercising their “rights” not to be allowed to drive, and only be permitted to leave the house with male chaperones?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I will add though, that I've never seen a black post-box or a muslim woman wearing a bright red burka. Maybe a gold burka, but that only applies post-2012!

If I'm honest I'd say anyone who sees a person wearing a red burka is more likely to think that they're film geeks dressing up like the Emperor's Royal Guard from Star Wars...

 

[Starmill]

Sayeeda Warsi says that this intervention from Boris makes hate crime more likely:

Tory peer accuses Boris Johnson of making 'hate crime more likely'

One of the Conservative party’s most high-profile Muslims has accused Boris Johnson of making “hate crime more likely” with an indefensible, “dog-whistle” reference to fully veiled Muslim women.

Sayeeda Warsi, writing in the Guardian on Wednesday, said the former foreign secretary had used rightwing, “alt-right” language in criticising the appearance of the burqa, which contributes to a view that “Muslim women are fair game”.

“As a feminist, what really disgusts me in this whole episode is that Muslim women are simply political fodder, their lives a convenient battleground on which to stake out a leadership bid,” Lady Warsi wrote.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...likely?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Bromley boy]

Now, should the UK ban the niqāb and burqa? Possibly, on the grounds that it prevents easy identification. Let's not make it about oppression of woman.

No?!

What are these garments about, then, if not to oppress women?

 

[EM2]

Should Muslim women in the U.K. also be exercising their “rights” not to be allowed to drive, and only be permitted to leave the house with male chaperones?

If they want to. It's entirely up to them.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

No?!

What are these garments about, then, if not to oppress women?

That really depends on who is deciding that the woman wears the face-covering.

Is she wearing it because her husband/father/imam tells her that it's the only way she can be righteous and get into paradise, and will shame her or shun her (or worse) if she reveals her face? Then it's not okay in my book and shouldn't be something to encourage.

Or, has she chosen to wear it freely and without pressure from a family member or religious leader/preacher? Then it's up to her to wear it...

With the caveat that it be removed in situations where she needs to be identified. Something being religious shouldn't make one exempt from secular law and civil obligations, just because someone thinks a weird bloke in the sky says it should be that way (regardless of which sky-fairy is saying it). If you don't need to be identified then wear whatever the heck you feel happy in. That said, a woman choosing the face-covering seems (to my liberal, western mind at least) a bit like Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[AM9]

And you’ve rather missed the point that you’re referring to garments which strip women of human identity and independence in the same sentence as “rights”. Keep in mind these garments are required to be worn in culturally conservative, wahhabist, states yet are not required by the wider religion of Islam. ...

As I said, "That's a straightforward statement. It can be debated on its own merit. I don't necessarily agree with it but the style and presentation of his argument in the Telegraph article is both journalistically acceptable and succinct." Why are you presuming that I agree with either side of the argument? This thread was about an ex-minister, ex-mayor of London and if we are to believe the Boris friendly media, a prospective PM who (currently) happens to be a whipped member of the Conservative party, who has published an article about a sensitive issue in Western European countries. Within that article, are comments on recent acts by the Danish administration and his view on why that is wrong. Maybe controversial for many but fair comment in a respectable way. This article was a written piece, i.e. not some off the cuff comment or ad-libbed vox pop so we can assume that it was well prepared. The Eton educated MP with a legendary command
of the English language then decided to drop in a couple of childish but insulting (and potentially imflammatory) likening of a Nijab wearer's appearance. Such a comment might get a rip-roaring accolade in a Bullingdon Club restaurant-trashing evening, but it certainly won't help the fragile relationship between parts of the UK's muslim community and those that interface with them. Clearly I am not the only one either here or elsewhere that thinks like this. Indeed, there is an increasing voice in the Conservative government that feels that his latest prank is totally unacceptable. Of course, there are the few Conservatives who have expressed support for him, (maybe because they are on a promise should he get to be PM. Nobody (yet) seems to be linking the panic within Conservative circles with the potential loss of the higher moral ground that they claim over the Labour anti-semitic matter.

Should Muslim women in the U.K. also be exercising their “rights” not to be allowed to drive, and only be permitted to leave the house with male chaperones?[/QUOTE]
Not worth commenting on such a meaningless statement.

 

[433N]

Over-priviliged white male tries to ridicule and demean women from an ethnic minority.

Some people call them the Nasty Party .

 

[AlterEgo]

If they want to. It's entirely up to them.

Sometimes it is, and sometimes it is not.

However I don't think our cultural values support interacting with people who have chosen to cover their faces. That's why you won't get served in a petrol station with a full face bicycle helmet. I don't find covered faces threatening (unless it's done by way of a mask or balaclava or some other way that implies violence or ill-intent), but I also don't think they should be tolerated.

 

[EM2]

However I don't think our cultural values support interacting with people who have chosen to cover their faces.

I have numerous interactions with people that have chosen to cover their faces. It makes not one iota of difference.
Nor does it when people cover their eyes with sunglasses, or their mouths with moustaches and beards, or their ears with woolly hats.

 

[Bromley boy]

Is she wearing it because her husband/father/imam tells her that it's the only way she can be righteous and get into paradise, and will shame her or shun her (or worse) if she reveals her face? Then it's not okay in my book and shouldn't be something to encourage.

Or, has she chosen to wear it freely and without pressure from a family member or religious leader/preacher? Then it's up to her to wear it...

But unfortunately in the parts of the world in which the burqa/niqab is mandatory your first scenario applies. That should tell us something about whether these garments are desirable in the U.K.

That said, a woman choosing the face-covering seems (to my liberal, western mind at least) a bit like Stockholm Syndrome.

Agreed. It’s also not a requirement of Islam. Most Muslim women do not wear it.

As I said, "That's a straightforward statement. It can be debated on its own merit. I don't necessarily agree with it but the style and presentation of his argument in the Telegraph article is both journalistically acceptable and succinct."

I don’t agree with Johnson on this either. I think the Danish approach has much to recommend it - if we want to be a liberal, tolerant society where women are viewed as equal participants in society to men, we need to start being a bit more robust in our approach.

The bit of your statement I was objecting to was where you said:

Now not only does that invalidate the earlier comments about the right to wear them, but it insults those who culture exercises that right, possibly in an inflammatory way. Not much of an election pitch for a PM.

I find that statement ironic, primarily because the culture you’re referring to (ultra conservative, Wahhabism/Salafism) has very little concern about the rights of women.

Not worth commenting on such a meaningless statement.

But the attitudes I mentioned (male chaperones etc.) come from the same ultra-conservative culture as the burqa, so are very relevant indeed.

 

[EM2]

if we want to be a liberal, tolerant society where women are viewed as equal participants in society to men, we need to start being a bit more robust in our approach.

If that is what we want to be, shouldn't we let women make their own choices about what they wear, for whatever reason they want to wear it?

 

[AlterEgo]

I have numerous interactions with people that have chosen to cover their faces. It makes not one iota of difference.
Nor does it when people cover their eyes with sunglasses, or their mouths with moustaches and beards, or their ears with woolly hats.

That's alright for you.

I've no issue with the hijab.

 

[Bromley boy]

I have numerous interactions with people that have chosen to cover their faces. It makes not one iota of difference.
Nor does it when people cover their eyes with sunglasses, or their mouths with moustaches and beards, or their ears with woolly hats.

Come off it.

Can you honestly not see the distinction between someone choosing to wear a woolly hat or a beard, and an ultra conservative cultural practice which requires women (and only women) to be covered from head to toe and only reveal themselves in private?

If that is what we want to be, shouldn't we let women make their own choices about what they wear, for whatever reason they want to wear it?

What if the reason is because they will be subject to domestic violence if they don’t wear it, or because they have been brainwashed by an illiberal, regressive, patriarchal culture?

When Aleppo was liberated from ISIS women burned the burqas they had been forced to wear in celebration. I’m therefore at a loss as to why a “right” to wear these oppressive garments is seen as desirable in the U.K.

 

[Senex]

Yes. One singular pillar with a slot for the eyes. Yes, facial features covered. I know of one (in Selfridge's) robbery carried out by members disguised in a Burka. The men say it's their culture whilst happily wearing western clothes. Boris in his blundering way has stated a truth.

Yes, it's interesting how it's the religion, not the social organisation, that demands one rule for the women but quite another and vastly more liberal one for the men, isn't it? As for Boris Johnson's comment, was I alone in finding both analogies rather amusing because of the element of appropriateness in both? (And normally I have no time for Boris and his views at all, and I do not subscribe to the basic argument he was putting forward that certain items of clothing should not be banned in this country.)

 

[Senex]

What if the reason is because they will be subject to domestic violence if they don’t wear it, or because they have been brainwashed by an illiberal, regressive, patriarchal culture?
When Aleppo was liberated from ISIS women burned the burqas they had been forced to wear in celebration. I’m therefore at a loss as to why a “right” to wear these oppressive garments is seen as desirable in the U.K.

Unusually (in this thread at least), I agree with you completely. Did you by any chance hear the quite thoughtful comments on R4 from Mona Siddiqui yesterday afternoon?

 

[Bromley boy]

Unusually (in this thread at least), I agree with you completely. Did you by any chance hear the quite thoughtful comments on R4 from Mona Siddiqui yesterday afternoon?

I think it’s happened before (just not when discussing EU matters).

Nope I’ll google and give it a listen. I thought my mum was their only listener, now I see she only makes up 50% of the audience.

 

[thejuggler]

I did a google search and came up with a few other examples:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...news/robbers-dressed-up-burkas-steal-13003217
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/robbers-wearing-burkas-who-raided-6339126
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-high-profile-smash-grab-raids-convicted.html
Meanwhile in Australia: http://archive.fo/p8XdJ

So far I haven't read any sensible reason why Muslim women shouldn't be allowed to wear what they like.

'The women are forced to by men'. They aren't.
'We need to see someone's face when talking to them'. Never used a phone then? David Blunkett may also disagree.

I'm pretty sure far more crimes use waeapons which have been carried in pockets. Maybe we should ban clothes with pockets too.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

One thing that's just occurred to me: clearly Johnson's remark about Muslim head coverings were intended to be humorous, but it's also clear to me that he genuinely thinks that the garments look a bit ridiculous and alien, on a purely aesthetic level- otherwise the humour of his piece wouldn't work.

Many of us will be aware of a YouTuber by the name of Count Dankula, who was fined £800 by a Scottish court over a video in which he trains his girlfriend's pug to do a Nazi salute. His initial attempt to appeal his conviction for a hate crime was rejected this week, despite the video in question giving lots of context about his own beliefs: i.e. that he is not racist or anti-semitic and that the very reason he used the language he did was because it was the worst thing he could think of. The humour being the juxtaposition of this cute little dog appearing to behave in an abhorrent manner... and that's without going into the fact that a dog cannot be racist, because IT'S A ******* DOG!

My point being that what Johnson wrote is more inflammatory and "hateful" than Count Dankula's "Nazi Pug" video. I don't believe either should be a criminal offence*, but if Dankula's is then surely so is what Boris Johnson wrote. Therefore I assume the CPS are currently drawing up hate-speech charges against the former London mayor...

*=Yes, I know that Scotland's legal system is separate, but the point still stands).

 

[433N]

So Johnson makes comments about burkhas and the modest dress of Muslim women.
I am not familiar with all his great pronouncements but has he ever gone on record to condemn the sexualisation of young girls and women in Western society ?
I would guess not because that would alienate him from his Daily Mail audience.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

So far I haven't read any sensible reason why Muslim women shouldn't be allowed to wear what they like.

'The women are forced to by men'. They aren't.
'We need to see someone's face when talking to them'. Never used a phone then? David Blunkett may also disagree.

I'm pretty sure far more crimes use waeapons which have been carried in pockets. Maybe we should ban clothes with pockets too.

Not always, but they often are- not neccessarily under threat of violence but threat of being shamed or shunned. Religions of all types seem to have a problem with women making their own choices, sometimes by outright forbidding of certain behaviours but often using "soft power". And I'll say it again: "choosing" to follow a practice which has been drilled into you from a young age by people who have control/authority over you, reeks of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[AlterEgo]

So Johnson makes comments about burkhas and the modest dress of Muslim women.
I am not familiar with all his great pronouncements but has he ever gone on record to condemn the sexualisation of young girls and women in Western society ?
I would guess not because that would alienate him from his Daily Mail audience.

Why would he have to, out of interest?