Boris Johnson is a liability.

[EM2]

No, you haven’t - I asked you if you’d disagree with the statement that some women are forced into wearing it, and you did indeed say you disagreed (as well as saying you also didn’t know).

Your statement was

that some women choose to wear a niqab and some don’t?

That is surely obvious? There are millions of Muslim women that don't wear it.
If you mean that some of those that do wear it don't do so of their own volition, I agree also, but that is, as I've already said a number of times, because of coercion and emotional control, not because of religious doctrine.

 

[AlterEgo]

I agree also, but that is, as I've already said a number of times, because of coercion and emotional control, not because of religious doctrine.

But those men use their interpretation of the Koran as the reason to wear it.

That interpretation of Islam is the problem, and finding quotes from Muslim scholars saying "no, the niqab isn't a requirement" doesn't change the fact that a significant minority of people do indeed interpret the Koran that way!

People within a religion - particularly ones based around a primary text - will disagree about any number of things. Don't fall into the trap of excluding, for political convenience, people with extreme or literal interpretations of the religion. There's no point beating about the bush; the people who wear the niqab are Muslims and some of the women who choose to wear it are doing so out of a sincere religious obligation, and many of the men who coerce them believe it's a religious obligation too.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I find it pretty ludicrous that we have people saying that women only wear the Burqa because controlling men in their religion force them too and no woman could want to wear one on their own accord, and so we should not allow any woman to wear it, totally ignoring the fact by saying it should be banned, they are being just as bad as those who do force women to wear it? What the hell happened to personal choice in this country?

If a woman wants to wear one, then she should be able to, surely? And if a woman doesn't want to wear one, then she shouldn't have to.

Did anyone else not get as uncomfortable as I did at what happened in France not long after they introduced their ban, where a woman was basically told "undress or you'll be arrested" because she was wearing one on the beach?

 

[AlterEgo]

I find it pretty ludicrous that we have people saying that women only wear the Burqa because controlling men in their religion force them too

Literally nobody is saying that (my bold).

I've also literally never seen a burqa in this country. That's the garment which has a mesh over the eye slit, which people will associate with the Taliban. The niqab is prevalent in some areas of this country.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Literally nobody is saying that (my bold).

Some people are certainly implying it.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

It's gross over reaction to a flippant comment regarding an alien religion that oppresses minorities wherever it rules. Why not concentrate on the oppressive Saudi regime ? Why not concentrate on the murder of Coptic Christians in Egypt ? Why not concentrate on human rights abuses in Turkey ? ...no lets rant about some ambitious tory making a relatively innocuous comment. Get fed up with all the islamophobe nonsense - people can practice what they want but when the resulting fascism and those who strive to appease such fascism impinges on how people have to behave in a non-fascist country then it has gone too far. People are becoming afraid to say anything humorous for fear of offending something, someone or other. The comment was more descriptive, it wasn't along the lines of muslims smell of sh*t or kill them all - which are the kind of comments regularly aimed towards non-Muslims and the US in particular on the streets of many muslim nations. Yet the patronising appeasers want us all to accept something that believes it's destiny is to rule over us all.

 

[433N]

People are becoming afraid to say anything humorous for fear of offending something, someone or other.

Do you mean it's political correctness gone mad ?

Which people are afraid, Johnson clearly isn't so who is ? If people are becoming afraid to make ill-informed, bigoted 'jokes' which seek to ridicule ethnic minorities ... good.

Perhaps we should return to the simpler times that Brexiteers like BoJo want where we spend Sunday nights watching the Black and White Minstrel Show followed by Sunday Night at the London Palladium starring Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning.

 

[EM2]

It's gross over reaction to a flippant comment regarding an alien religion that oppresses minorities wherever it rules. Why not concentrate on the oppressive Saudi regime ? Why not concentrate on the murder of Coptic Christians in Egypt ? Why not concentrate on human rights abuses in Turkey ?

If you want to discuss these issues, open threads for them.
Personally, I'm quite capable of disagreeing with all of those issues, as well as thinking that Boris Johnson is a crass, incompetent fool.

 

[AM9]

Do you mean it's political correctness gone mad ?

Which people are afraid, Johnson clearly isn't so who is ? If people are becoming afraid to make ill-informed, bigoted 'jokes' which seek to ridicule ethnic minorities ... good.

Perhaps we should return to the simpler times that Brexiteers like BoJo want where we spend Sunday nights watching the Black and White Minstrel Show followed by Sunday Night at the London Palladium starring Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning.

No not Bernard Manning! He abused the Jews who are his friend Trump's friends however badly they behave.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's gross over reaction to a flippant comment regarding an alien religion that oppresses minorities wherever it rules. Why not concentrate on the oppressive Saudi regime ? Why not concentrate on the murder of Coptic Christians in Egypt ? Why not concentrate on human rights abuses in Turkey ? ...no lets rant about some ambitious tory making a relatively innocuous comment. Get fed up with all the islamophobe nonsense - people can practice what they want but when the resulting fascism and those who strive to appease such fascism impinges on how people have to behave in a non-fascist country then it has gone too far. People are becoming afraid to say anything humorous for fear of offending something, someone or other. The comment was more descriptive, it wasn't along the lines of muslims smell of sh*t or kill them all - which are the kind of comments regularly aimed towards non-Muslims and the US in particular on the streets of many muslim nations. Yet the patronising appeasers want us all to accept something that believes it's destiny is to rule over us all.

Funny you should mention Turkey, which although majority Muslim was, until Erdogan came to power (then pulled up the rope-ladder), a strictly secular state.

I agree that it's those violations of human rights and democratic norms seen in states like Turkey or Saudi Arabia that should be the focus of political attention... but then both the UK and US governments consider both allies, and have stayed largely silent as Erdogan has jailed thousands of political prisoners. Perhaps now he's free of any diplomatic constraints, BoJo could write more of his witty observations to raise awareness. His old stuff about Erdogan was some of his best material...

 

[rdeez]

While few politicians command my respect, my lowest opinions are reserved for Boris Johnson.

Boris Johnson is a political weather vane, he sticks up a greasy finger and checks which way the wind is blowing and then adjusts his course accordingly, tossing overboard as ballast any 'principles' or 'values' he may previously have claimed to hold in his haste to change direction. He is nothing more than a vacuous, self-serving moron, and almost everything he says and does is either impulsive or, at the opposite end, carefully calculated to position him a couple of inches closer to the only thing he has ever cared about: greater power.

You can be absolutely sure that his comments, or at the very least his subsequent refusal to apologise, are carefully calculated towards this end.

 

[bramling]

While few politicians command my respect, my lowest opinions are reserved for Boris Johnson.

Boris Johnson is a political weather vane, he sticks up a greasy finger and checks which way the wind is blowing and then adjusts his course accordingly, tossing overboard as ballast any 'principles' or 'values' he may previously have claimed to hold in his haste to change direction. He is nothing more than a vacuous, self-serving moron, and almost everything he says and does is either impulsive or, at the opposite end, carefully calculated to position him a couple of inches closer to the only thing he has ever cared about: greater power.

You can be absolutely sure that his comments, or at the very least his subsequent refusal to apologise, are carefully calculated towards this end.

There's a fine line between being self-serving and being responsive to public opinion. I seem to remember Blair was often criticised for taking a similar approach, although of course Blair was rather less clumsy than Boris.

You may well be right about Boris being more motivated by personal gain. Unfortunately it doesn't help that few other politicians seem comfortable encroaching into certain subjects, simply putting them in the "too difficult" box. Had, for example, the subject of Britain's EU relationship been given greater attention by the political establishment through most of the 1990s and 2000s then perhaps we wouldn't be where we are now.

If women want to cover their face then by all means do it, but don't be surprised if many people find it stupid. There are, however, good practical reasons why a valid case could be made for banning it in public - evasion of crime detection for a start.

 

[EM2]

the people who wear the niqab are Muslims and some of the women who choose to wear it are doing so out of a sincere religious obligation, and many of the men who coerce them believe it's a religious obligation too.

Then we (as in the UK) should be educating those men, and not talk of banning clothing, nor belittling those that wear it.

 

[AlterEgo]

Then we (as in the UK) should be educating those men, and not talk of banning clothing, nor belittling those that wear it.

That’s very sweet but those blokes don’t listen to the majority of the adherents of their own religion, let alone the British state.

 

[EM2]

That’s very sweet but those blokes don’t listen to the majority of the adherents of their own religion, let alone the British state.

So we just let their ideology overrule everything else? A tiny minority force women to wear niqabs and burqas, so instead of showing why they are wrong and allowing people who want to wear them to continue wearing them, we'll throw all our other principles of freedom and personal choice out of the window.
I understand this is not what you personally are arguing for, but there are many, many people that are, here and in other countries.

 

[AlterEgo]

So we just let their ideology overrule everything else? A tiny minority force women to wear niqabs and burqas, so instead of showing why they are wrong and allowing people who want to wear them to continue wearing them, we'll throw all our other principles of freedom and personal choice out of the window.
I understand this is not what you personally are arguing for, but there are many, many people that are, here and in other countries.

I would absolutely love for there to be nobody in this country who thought their religion mandated women should be hidden away or covered up.

But trying to reach the people you need to here is going to involve “weaning them off” some of their religious beliefs, which is going to be more difficult, practically and politically, than might be desirable.

 

[NSEFAN]

I would absolutely love for there to be nobody in this country who thought their religion mandated women should be hidden away or covered up.

But trying to reach the people you need to here is going to involve “weaning them off” some of their religious beliefs, which is going to be more difficult, practically and politically, than might be desirable.

It will probably take a while, but then this is hardly surprising look how long it took us to stop burning people for being the wrong kind of Christian. People never like change, even when it's for their own good. Indeed, they are often bloody minded to the point that banning something just makes them want it more!

 

[PeterC]

Literally nobody is saying that (my bold).

I've also literally never seen a burqa in this country. That's the garment which has a mesh over the eye slit, which people will associate with the Taliban. The niqab is prevalent in some areas of this country.

Take a walk around the Marylebone / Baker Street are of London, there is a good chance of spotting a burqa there. My feeling is that more women are wearing the niqab and also more men wearing the shalwa kameez.

My view on any face covering is that they should be prohibited when driving and that police and Border Force officers should be entitled to require their removal to check identity.

 

[Howardh]

Take a walk around the Marylebone / Baker Street are of London, there is a good chance of spotting a burqa there. My feeling is that more women are wearing the niqab and also more men wearing the shalwa kameez.

My view on any face covering is that they should be prohibited when driving and that police and Border Force officers should be entitled to require their removal to check identity.

Driving - you have a good point there as cameras catch who the driver is and can me material in prosecuting. Also may help the vehicles owner to identify who may have broken the law (ie when a works car is used by several drivers, example a pharmacy/delivery) when they get the "letter",

When I go into a pub and there's a doorman I am often required to remove my cap, probably for CCTV ID when I kick off after a half with my zimmer frame. If someone wearing a full burqa wishes to enter said premises - maybe for a soft drink etc - is the doorman obliged by law to let them in, if so, why not me?

 

[Iskra]

Anyone else think Boris will be the next UKIP leader on the back of this?

 

[rdeez]

There's a fine line between being self-serving and being responsive to public opinion.

Indeed, but being "responsive to public opinion" rather than self-serving requires insight and the ability to admit when one is wrong. I've seen little evidence of either from Boris Johnson. This is a man who skipped the vote on a third runway at Heathrow on flimsy excuses rather than resign to vote against it, because doing so wouldn't have served his interests at the time.

 

[rdeez]

Anyone else think Boris will be the next UKIP leader on the back of this?

I do hope so, that virtually guarantees he'll never be in a position of real power.

 

[greyman42]

Anyone else think Boris will be the next UKIP leader on the back of this?

More likely the next Conservative Party leader.

 

[greyman42]

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.

A lot of people do agree with his sentiments. A lot won't admit it though because of political correctness gone mad.

 

[bnm]

PC gone mad? Are people still trotting out that line with serious intent?

Boris Johnson is a liability. For the Conservatives and for the country.

More important than his comments in The Telegraph is the fact he shouldn't even be making them at all, for remuneration, so soon after leaving office.

 

[bramling]

PC gone mad? Are people still trotting out that line with serious intent?

Boris Johnson is a liability. For the Conservatives and for the country.

More important than his comments in The Telegraph is the fact he shouldn't even be making them at all, for remuneration, so soon after leaving office.

I tend to agree Boris would almost certainly be a liability - this has already been seen in his foreign secretary role. However none of this, in my view, diminishes his right to say what he has said. So yes it may make him a liability, it may not be the best demonstration of judgement and suitability for high office, but that’s all IMV.

 

[Bromley boy]

When I go into a pub and there's a doorman I am often required to remove my cap, probably for CCTV ID when I kick off after a half with my zimmer frame.

Does that happen often?

There's a fine line between being self-serving and being responsive to public opinion. I seem to remember Blair was often criticised for taking a similar approach, although of course Blair was rather less clumsy than Boris.

You may well be right about Boris being more motivated by personal gain. Unfortunately it doesn't help that few other politicians seem comfortable encroaching into certain subjects, simply putting them in the "too difficult" box. Had, for example, the subject of Britain's EU relationship been given greater attention by the political establishment through most of the 1990s and 2000s then perhaps we wouldn't be where we are now.

If women want to cover their face then by all means do it, but don't be surprised if many people find it stupid. There are, however, good practical reasons why a valid case could be made for banning it in public - evasion of crime detection for a start.

A very well observed post indeed.

 

[Bromley boy]

More important than his comments in The Telegraph is the fact he shouldn't even be making them at all, for remuneration, so soon after leaving office.

“Shouldn’t” according to whom?

You?

 

[EM2]

“Shouldn’t” according to whom?

You?

The ministerial watchdog:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-breaks-job-rules-column-daily-telegraph-ministers-a8451691.html

Boris Johnson has broken rules governing how soon ex-ministers can take new jobs in the private sector after leaving office.

The former foreign secretary failed to apply for permission from the ministerial watchdog to accept his role writing a column for The Daily Telegraph.

Mr Johnson – who was being paid £275,000 for his columns by the paper before becoming a minister – had his first article since resigning published this week, despite rules saying he should have waited three months.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Where's the LOL button when you need one?

You rang, M'Lady?

Even seen them wearing the garment on ID cards when I worked in Birmingham

I thought you're supposed to remove all garments that obstruct your face when doing a passport/ID photo?