Boris Johnson is a liability.

[EM2]

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?

What cultural practice 'requires' women to be covered? If that were the case, surely all women of that culture would be covered?
I talk to people all the time in my job. People covered from head to toe are no more difficult to talk to than people with beards. The woman behind the counter in my local shop wears a niqab. She and I have no problem understanding each other.

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.

Y'see, the important word there is 'forced'. If someone is forced to do something against their will, in this country that is illegal. What evidence do you have that women in this country who wear a niqab or burka are forced to?

 

[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.

Why would he have to, out of interest?

Well, of course, he doesn't have to do anything ... but it puts into context the comments that he has made.
We have to have a 'discussion' about one of these but not about the other.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well, of course, he doesn't have to do anything ... but it puts into context the comments that he has made.
We have to have a 'discussion' about one of these but not about the other.

It doesn’t put it into context at all. Boris Johnson doesn’t have to speak about the sexualisation of women in the West to be able to make a point about whether full face coverings should be tolerated.

There’s enormous debate about the sexualisation of women in the West, by the way, mostly led by women. It’s hardly an issue brushed under the carpet.

 

[Geezertronic]

Y'see, the important word there is 'forced'. If someone is forced to do something against their will, in this country that is illegal. What evidence do you have that women in this country who wear a niqab or burka are forced to?

By the same token, you could be asked to provide evidence that women are not forced to wear a niqab or burka. Women, or anyone in general, who are forced into a position or have had it drilled into them from an early age, are not exactly going to stand up and admit they have been forced for fear of repercussions - violent, social or religious. Whilst illegal, it is difficult to prove that someone has been forced to do something against their will if they are too fearful of admitting it

 

[433N]

It doesn’t put it into context at all. Boris Johnson doesn’t have to speak about the sexualisation of women in the West to be able to make a point about whether full face coverings should be tolerated.

There’s enormous debate about the sexualisation of women in the West, by the way, mostly led by women. It’s hardly an issue brushed under the carpet.

"...whether full face coverings should be tolerated. "

Blimey. I am quite able to 'tolerate' full face coverings, thank you - it astounds me that there may be a pool of people who may not be able to. Are we talking criminalisation here then ?

 

[EM2]

By the same token, you could be asked to provide evidence that women are not forced to wear a niqab or burka.

Why? I am the not one making the assertion.

 

[Geezertronic]

Why? I am the not one making the assertion.

You are the one asking for evidence that women are forced to wear a niqab or burka. Had you read all of my post, you would understand that evidence is not always easy to obtain from people who are being oppressed or forced to do something against their will

 

[AlterEgo]

"...whether full face coverings should be tolerated. "

Blimey. I am quite able to 'tolerate' full face coverings, thank you - it astounds me that there may be a pool of people who may not be able to. Are we talking criminalisation here then ?

A lot of people find them an affront to their sensibilities. Boris Johnson doesn’t support criminalising covering one’s face. And nor would I.

I find the niqab as offensive as some niqab wearers find bikinis (though for a different reason). Try picking your way around that one.

 

[Bromley boy]

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

Some people call them the Nasty Party .

Conflation. The discussion is about a conservative cultural practice (not even required by Islam, according to the majority of adherents to the faith).

The only person commenting on race appears to be you: what does Johnson’s ethnicity have to do with anything?!

 

[EM2]

You are the one asking for evidence that women are forced to wear a niqab or burka.

I didn't ask for evidence. I asked what evidence there is. There is a subtle difference.

 

[Geezertronic]

I didn't ask for evidence. I asked what evidence there is. There is a subtle difference.

Maybe a reminder of what you said is in order...

What evidence do you have that women in this country who wear a niqab or burka are forced to?

"What evidence do you have" is asking for evidence. If you had phrased the question as "is there any evidence" then you would be asking what evidence there is. There is a subtle difference as you say, but you did ask...

 

[EM2]

"What evidence do you have" is asking for evidence.

I disagree, but that's one of the delights of the nuances of language

 

[EM2]

By the same token, you could be asked to provide evidence that women are not forced to wear a niqab or burka.

As you asked - http://aboutislam.net/counseling/ask-about-islam/husband-forcing-niqab/

Tell him how heavy you feel this step is for you now and promise him to be more conservative with strangers.

Tell him that you love him and that you want to continue your life with him, but that you don’t see that you will be a faithful Muslim if you wear niqab just for him.

Promise him to read and study more about niqab. And do that. If you are ever convinced, then wear it for the sake of Allah. If you are not, then never do it.

Now, if your husband ever takes it to the edge, saying that you will have to choose between him and niqab on one side, or letting go completely on the other side, then it will be your choice. Try never to take it that far.

But if it is ever there, then think carefully if you really want to continue life with a man who solves marital conflicts through this attitude.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don’t understand what that’s supposed to prove. Marriage guidance telling women how to refuse their husbands? Surely that underscores the issue of being pressured entirely?

Would the presence of online material advising girls on how to say no to young men who want to rush into sex, be evidence that young girls don’t get pressured into having sex?

 

[EM2]

I don’t understand what that’s supposed to prove.

The argument has been that women are forced to be covered from head to foot because of 'ultra-conservative cultural practice'. That is clearly not the case.

 

[AlterEgo]

The argument has been that women are forced to be covered from head to foot because of 'ultra-conservative cultural practice'. That is clearly not the case.

I don’t think anyone is thinking that literally *every single* niqab wearer is being forced to wear it.

An online help article advising women how to avoid being manipulated by their husband is hardly evidence that “women don’t get manipulated by their husbands”. Quite the opposite!

 

[433N]

Conflation. The discussion is about a conservative cultural practice (not even required by Islam, according to the majority of adherents to the faith).

The only person commenting on race appears to be you: what does Johnson’s ethnicity have to do with anything?!

Due respect but I think you are the one conflating.

Writing an article for the Daily Telegraph does not constitute a 'discussion' about conservative religious cultural practice. Moreover, it is an article which one of his one party from an ethnic minority says 'could trigger a rise in hate crime'. Does it do anything to promote better relations Muslims and Non-Muslims in this country, which is what we desperately need ?

An over-priviliged white male trying to ridicule and demean (and with the comment 'bank robber' also demonise) women from an ethnic minority : it is what it is and I have no qualms about commenting on the racial aspect.

Depressingly vile man who is becoming the poster boy of depressingly vile men.

 

[Bromley boy]

Y'see, the important word there is 'forced'. If someone is forced to do something against their will, in this country that is illegal. What evidence do you have that women in this country who wear a niqab or burka are forced to

Quite simply:

As a matter of fact, women are forced to wear this oppressive covering in some countries around the world, as they were in ISIS occupied territories:

The culture that requires them to do so is ultra- conservative, patriarchal and the antithesis of the liberal values we supposedly espouse in the U.K.

You are arguing for the “right” for said garment to be worn in the U.K.

Why is that?

 

[AlterEgo]

The reason a lot of Tories hate Johnson talking about this has nothing to do with hate crime, and everything to do with the fact the focus is now *off* Labour and anti-Semitism, a gift which was keeping on giving.

 

[EM2]

An online help article advising women how to avoid being manipulated by their husband is hardly evidence that “women don’t get manipulated by their husbands”. Quite the opposite!

Yes, manipulative (or as I prefer to call them emotionally abusive, controlling) husbands. Not religious doctrines.

 

[EM2]

You are arguing for the “right” for said garment to be worn in the U.K.

Why is that?

Because people should be free to wear whatever they want, for whatever reason they want (caveat: as long as that reason is not to cause distress or upset, e.g. SS uniform, KKK robes).

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes, manipulative (or as I prefer to call them emotionally abusive, controlling) husbands. Not religious doctrines.

Where’s the evidence that the husbands aren’t doing it based on a religious interpretation then?

 

[mmh]

What cultural practice 'requires' women to be covered?

The culture in many Muslim-majority areas of the world with the worst human rights records and where women have no rights and are possessions. And in an increasing number of "communities" (I hate that word) in Europe where it is incompatible with the status quo, hence the fuss about it across Europe.

Merkel herself proposed Germany should legislate against it.

 

[mmh]

Because people should be free to wear whatever they want, for whatever reason they want (caveat: as long as that reason is not to cause distress or upset, e.g. SS uniform, KKK robes).

Well that doesn't work. Allo Allo was a fantastic TV show. In the great tradition of being allowed to take the mickey.

 

[EM2]

Well that doesn't work. Allo Allo was a fantastic TV show. In the great tradition of being allowed to take the mickey.

So not to cause distress or upset, then.

 

[EM2]

Where’s the evidence that the husbands aren’t doing it based on a religious interpretation then?

The evidence from the majority of Muslim scholars is that that interpretation is incorrect. That is why the majority of Muslim women do not wear a niqab or a burqa. There will always be people who interpret religious texts to suit their own twisted agenda.

 

[EM2]

The culture in many Muslim-majority areas of the world with the worst human rights records and where women have no rights and are possessions. And in an increasing number of "communities" (I hate that word) in Europe where it is incompatible with the status quo, hence the fuss about it across Europe.

Merkel herself proposed Germany should legislate against it.

Yet the majority of Muslim women across the world wear neither a niqab or a burka. Even Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salam says that it is not mandatory.
https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/n...t-mandatory-for-women-says-saudi-crown-prince

Saudi women do not have to wear the traditional abaya gown and hijab headscarf, Riyadh's powerful crown prince has claimed ahead of a three-week US charm offensive.

Mohammed bin Salman said women in Saudi Arabia do not have to wear the traditional abaya gown and hijab headscarf, during an interview with US broadcaster CBS published Monday.

Islamic clothing in Saudi Arabia is compulsory, but the crown prince has claimed this does not have to the case so long as women maintain a modest appearance in public.

Saudi Arabia requires women to wear the black robe and hijab by law.

"The laws are very clear and stipulated in the laws of Sharia: that women wear decent, respectful clothing, like men," Prince Mohammed said in his first US television interview.

"This, however, does not particularly specify a black abaya or a black head cover. The decision is entirely left for women to decide what type of decent and respectful attire she chooses to wear," he said.

Prince Mohammed also said that authorities were working to come up with regulations to ensure equal pay for men and women.

The crown prince is set to meet with US President Donald Trump in Washington on Tuesday.

Prince Mohammed has implemented some reforms on women's rights, pushing for greater participation in the workforce and lifting a ban on women driving.

But women still face a number of restrictions.

Under Saudi Arabia's existing guardianship system, a male family member - normally the father, husband or brother - must grant permission for a woman's study, travel and a host of other activities.

"We have extremists who forbid mixing between the two sexes and are unable to differentiate between a man and a woman alone together and their being together in a workplace. Many of those ideas contradict the way of life during the time of the Prophet," the Prince said.

In February, leading Saudi cleric Abdullah al-Mutlaq also said that the loose-fitting abaya was not mandatory for women.

"More than 90 percent of pious Muslim women in the Muslim world do not wear abayas. So we should not force people to wear abayas," Sheikh Mutlaq said.

In 2016, a Saudi woman received death threats after a picture emerged online of her walking in the streets of the capital Riyadh not wearing the gown.

 

[AlterEgo]

The evidence from the majority of Muslim scholars is that that interpretation is incorrect. That is why the majority of Muslim women do not wear a niqab or a burqa. There will always be people who interpret religious texts to suit their own twisted agenda.

It’s their interpretation of a text. That’s not evidence.

That’s like saying that most Christian scholars and priests don’t advocate women wearing a veil in church, yet millions of conservative Catholic women worldwide do it.

It doesn’t make the conservative Catholics “wrong” nor does it suggest that they aren’t doing it because of an ultra conservative doctrine. That’s exactly why those women are doing it.

 

[mmh]

The evidence from the majority of Muslim scholars is that that interpretation is incorrect. That is why the majority of Muslim women do not wear a niqab or a burqa. There will always be people who interpret religious texts to suit their own twisted agenda.

Aha, we actually agree then. If face covering is a result of a twisted interpretation of a religion it definitely should be criticised and ridiculed.

 

[bramling]

Whatever BJ thinks about how clever his latest outburst is as part of his bid to become PM, I think that he has shot his party in the foot again. Brandon Lewis must be desperate for Johnson to apologise so that the matter can be swept under the carpet asap. If the matter drags on for long, it will destroy any moral high ground that they might think they have over the Labour Party with its anti-semitic issues. Some members of the Government are so far out of touch with modern UK society.
Things could be quite entertaining.

I agree on the last sentence!

Whatever one thinks of Boris, I suspect a lot of people will agree with his sentiments. So it might well be the case that Boris is rather more in touch with mainstream opinion than given credit for, and not for the first time - c.f. the EU referendum.

Personally I feel uncomfortable speaking to someone whose face is covered, religious sensitivity or otherwise I find it rude. However if people wish to do it then it’s a free country and good luck to them, however by the same token it’s a free country and people should be free to criticise.