Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Social Justice League

Boris Burkagate Under Investigation By Tories

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Corbyn has been subject to an appaling campaign of personal abuse and vilification by the UK press for the last three years, including most shamefully the left-leaning Guardian. During that time not one single Conservative MP or councillor has had the professional integrity or basic human decency to speak out against it, or sought to curtail it in any way . Not one.

Now the shoe's on the other foot, too bad. The grasshopper lies heavy.

It's not the same thing at all, though I agree that Corbyn is the least likely man to be an anti-semite. But we all know that the Labour party is infested with people who are and many of us also know what section of society  they come from. The Jewish people punch well above their weight in so many ways, and through personal experience they don't see ANYTHING as racist to them personally unless it is meant as so, they are the greatest at making fun of themselves, even their cherished religion. The crap those people have had to put up with is intolerable, do not compare  faux "I am offended" claim over a silly looking costume to be anywhere close to their plight. The Jeish community are blessing to British society and many welcome them

Edited by inbruges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Would there have been such a fuss if he'd said something about judges' wigs and gowns? The world is full of things that set themselves up for derogatory comments (and not even all of them are things I dislike), and I'd rather people did mock them than offending someone being a taboo. Some things fully deserve to be treated offensively, others not at all, but better that people say so (and get scorned back if appropriate) than feel compelled to keep quiet.

Best example ever was the film Life of Brian.

May Christians were massively offended, and that was taking the p*** at their religion at the very top, God and Jesus,not some totally unrelated bit of silly clothing which has nothing to do with Islam.

so, were you

1. unconcerned about the offence it caused.

2. concerned

I was a big fat 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

Some good analysis of the whole immigration/cultural issue here, including reference to Boris' burka comments:

https://www.capitalandconflict.com/end-of-europe/the-immigration-dupe-fails-miserably/

Bottom line is that the commentator believes that the electorate in general are hitting the end of their tolerance for politically correct BS and Boris is positioning himself to capitalise on it.

I think it's got to the point now that the Tories genuinely have to reposition themselves on immigration or else risk being outflanked on the Right by the friends of Tommy Robinson. Johnson, ironically, must be one of the least qualified for the job, given his advocacy of a blanket amnesty for illegals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has not adhered to the 'rules' - if making any utterance in respect to Muslim traditions a tone of the utmost respect, care and deference has to be adopted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boris has got form for stupid comments - Remember this?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-apology-iran-comments-teach-

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ah-so said:

The burka has something to do with Islam.  To say it has "nothing to do with" it is being wilfully myopic. 

While it has traditionally been a practice in the middle east you can see it taken up with enthusiasm in East London. 

I should have said the burka is not required by Islam. Islam requires women dress modestly, without specifying how. The point is it's a cultural issue, not a religious one.

Evidently it has not been a traditional practice in the middle east. It has become popular recently.

 

1 hour ago, Ah-so said:

I have followed this case to some extent and was highly sceptical of the chap from the Muslim council of GB stating that not a single person in the UK was being compelled to wear it. Considering the numbers being forced into marriage getting someone to wear certain clothes is not much of a stretch.

I heard  a woman muslim caller into LBC from what sounded like Bradford originally who stated that it was often families that forced it and that was combined with wider community pressure. Of course there will be many who entirely voluntarily choose to wear what is clearly the ultimate symbol of female oppression. But no one seems to mention the irony.

But all the same it is a free country and people should be able to wear what they want, even if I fund it slightly discomforting. It won't affect me as I never meet these people as they are unlikely to cross paths with me.

Boris did use offensive language.  At least he didn't compare them to bin bags - he knew that would have seen him in deep water, possibly career ending. He chose something else but neither was good - bank robbers and post boxed look very different. 

We are not really a free country in that we have numerous restrictions to prevent people from harming themselves (laws against drugs as we think people cannot be trusted with these decisions, and restrictions on working (limitations on hours, dangerous conditions, sex work, etc.) as we think people who would accept these jobs are likely to have been coerced). Even on the specific issue of clothing, people aren't free to where what they want. People aren't allowed to wear clothes associated with particular political positions and there are restrictions on wearing too much or not enough in many places. A ban on the burka seems to me to be consistent with this.

I think I'm largely in agreement with you're points about the likelihood of coercion in some cases, though I question whether "wider community pressure" is consistent with choosing "entirely voluntarily." I think it's basically unknowable. Most feminists would tend to say women hardly have free choice in our patriarchal society (Muslim women are coerced to cover up; Western women are coerced to go to great lengths to conform to certain beauty standard and strip off). Where are they in this controversy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, inbruges said:

Best example ever was the film Life of Brian.

May Christians were massively offended, and that was taking the p*** at their religion at the very top, God and Jesus,not some totally unrelated bit of silly clothing which has nothing to do with Islam.

so, were you

1. unconcerned about the offence it caused.

2. concerned

I was a big fat 1

I'd have been 1 if I was old enough to notice the fuss at the time. However that isn't quite the issue. Sometimes people should get offended - if someone is not offended by someone mocking something they hold dear I'd question their whole identity and views. I'm struggling to get my real view on this across because I think the difference seems quite subtle. If people go around being offensive then they're quite probably ****holes themselves and should be treated as such; as ever, whether that's the case is ultimately subjective. The problem though is the idea that some things (whether deserved or not) should be fundamentally free from criticism or questioning. We have a world where it's not someone's views under scrutiny, it's expressing them. And that there arbitrary areas where that applies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

Most feminists would tend to say women hardly have free choice in our patriarchal society (Muslim women are coerced to cover up; Western women are coerced to go to great lengths to conform to certain beauty standard and strip off). Where are they in this controversy?

Unspoken pressure to go along with social norms is different from direct coercion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

I think I'm largely in agreement with you're points about the likelihood of coercion in some cases, though I question whether "wider community pressure" is consistent with choosing "entirely voluntarily." I think it's basically unknowable. Most feminists would tend to say women hardly have free choice in our patriarchal society (Muslim women are coerced to cover up; Western women are coerced to go to great lengths to conform to certain beauty standard and strip off). Where are they in this controversy?

Yeah ,and women aren't allowed to work in promotional roles at events like trade shows, Formula One and darts competitions.   Oh whoops,  thats the so-called 'feminists' issuing that dictat against the rights of women to work as they choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I'd have been 1 if I was old enough to notice the fuss at the time. However that isn't quite the issue. Sometimes people should get offended - if someone is not offended by someone mocking something they hold dear I'd question their whole identity and views. I'm struggling to get my real view on this across because I think the difference seems quite subtle. If people go around being offensive then they're quite probably ****holes themselves and should be treated as such; as ever, whether that's the case is ultimately subjective. The problem though is the idea that some things (whether deserved or not) should be fundamentally free from criticism or questioning. We have a world where it's not someone's views under scrutiny, it's expressing them. And that there arbitrary areas where that applies.

Yep OK

But you have to also remember there are people offended by same sex or mixed raced marriage for example where I don't give the slightest f*** at the sensibilities or offence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

Unspoken pressure to go along with social norms is different from direct coercion.

Yes, direct coercion would be someone pointing a gun to your head and threatening to shoot if you don't comply.

We actually don't know if people who wear the burka face this kind of coercion. There are a small number of cases of people being killed for bringing shame on the family (trying to have a boyfriend or leaving Islam, that kind of thing), so it seems plausible that at least some are facing direct threats if they don't comply. Incidentally this isn't just a Muslim problem. There are problems with domestic violence and we could say "It's a free country. If you want to stay with your husband who beats you, that's your right." In practice, we realise it's more complicated and there are reasons why people struggle to do this and we try to help people to leave such situations.

 

I think there is a lot of fairly extreme coercion (e.g. maybe nobody threatens you with violence, but you reasonably suspect violence will be used if you don't conform. It's reasonable because you know this from extended family members or others in your community or the attitudes of elders etc.) before you get to the women who for whom it was a free choice, but who have such a sheltered upbringing that we can question their freedom because they are so cut off from the alternatives (this is definitely a grey area, but if we say these people should be allowed to choose freely, why don't we allow children who are raised by drunks and drug addicts to take drugs? Why have any restrictions on free choices which don't infringe the rights of others?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, inbruges said:

Like most discussions like this people talk in general and not about individuals, I am sure the Nazis had some really nice blokes amongst  them.

By using the phrase "the Nazis' you leave the reader in very little doubt that what you mean is Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' Party, as in the actual Nazis; the guys whose political project from day one included in its 25 point programme that "Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently, no Jew can be a member of the race."

The vastly, vastly overwhelming majority of Muslims living in this country will be either the descendants of legal immigrants or legal immigrants. In Germany in the 1930s most Jews were German citizens, and most of the remainder were either German-born Polish citizens or Polish citizens legally resident in Germany. The Jews were about 1% of the German population.

Today, British Muslims represent about 5% of the UK population overall but they are not distributed evenly; outside London and (historically) industrial areas in the Midlands and the North, it's more like 1%

image.png.d121aa94adb9eaa34f11f8131bae608e.png

Source: ONS

The migration of Muslims into the UK was really a migration of citizens of the Commonwealth in the 1950s through to the 1970s, a share of whom were Muslims. Having shown that they were good enough to pay taxes to the Empire and fight its wars they came here, as citizens, to work. Another major driver of the migration of Muslim Commonwealth citizens to the UK was the partition of India, and that, again, is a story of Empire.

Contemporary white ethno-nationalism (the politically correct way to say something else) is rooted in ignorance of the past. David Lammy, talking about Windrush nailed it, so I'll just quote that:

Quote

My ancestors were British subjects, but they were not British subjects because they came to Britain. They were British subjects because Britain came to them, took them across the Atlantic, colonised them, sold them into slavery, profited from their labour and made them British subjects. That is why I am here, and it is why the Windrush generation are here.

There is no British history without the history of the empire. As the late, great Stuart Hall put it: “I am the sugar at the bottom of the English cup of tea.”

The Windrush children are imprisoned in this country—as we have seen of those who have been detained—centuries after their ancestors were shackled and taken across the ocean in slave ships. They are pensioners imprisoned in their own country. That is a disgrace, and it happened here because of a refusal to remember our history.

Last week, at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that “we…owe it to them and to the British people”.The former Home Secretary said that the Windrush generation should be considered British and should be able to get their British citizenship if they so choose. This is the point the Government simply do not understand: the Windrush generation are the British people. They are British citizens. They came here as citizens. That is the precise reason why this is such an injustice. Their British citizenship is, and has always been, theirs by right. It is not something that the Government can now choose to grant them.

Source

(Coincidentally, it is not without irony that the salience of Islam in contemporary British politics is predicated not on the history and practice of British Muslims but on the political violence of Saudi extremists whose extremism was earlier knowingly fostered, aided and abetted for geopolitical ends by the US - i.e. it's a story of contemporary imperialism)

When you say that some of Hitler's Nazis were "nice blokes" you speak about the perpetrators of the mass murder of millions. That you speak in this way about those responsible for genocide of a people on the basis of their religion on a thread where you incrementally try to suggest that somehow British Muslims are different and other, in a way that Sikhs and Hindus are not, is terrifying if you don't realise you're doing it and astonishingly brazen if you do.

You describe yourself as the child of immigrants - reading between the lines, possibly Irish immigrants who came to London. If that's how things are then you are bound up in the history of this nation just as British Muslims are. If you think that the colour of your skin makes you different, that's one thing. If you think that somehow Protestantism or Catholicism is inherently morally superior to Islam then I encourage you to read up on the sectarian violence (and persecution of non-Christians and Christian heretics) that the Christian church has fostered throughout its history, right down to this very day.

Edited by Bland Unsight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

Yeah ,and women aren't allowed to work in promotional roles at events like trade shows, Formula One and darts competitions.   Oh whoops,  thats the so-called 'feminists' issuing that dictat against the rights of women to work as they choose.

That's different. The argument here is not that the attractive women in such promotional roles are coerced, but rather that their choice imposes externalities on other women (it does this by to contributing to a hyper-sexualised society where people are viewed as sex objects, or making others feel unattractive in comparison).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

That's different. The argument here is not that the attractive women in such promotional roles are coerced, but rather that their choice imposes externalities on other women (it does this by to contributing to a hyper-sexualised society where people are viewed as sex objects, or making others feel unattractive in comparison).

So should we stop male athletes performing on TV as they are fitter, more coordinated, and faster than I am and make me feel inferior?

Stop hairy men appearing on TV so not offend baldies?

Ultimately how do you stop people being better, or better suited to some activity without offending those who arent, without resorting to something horribly oppressive?

As the great philosopher Uncle Albert said, "I was in the war you know fighting for you youngster freedom, and what do all these youngsters do with it? Anything they like".

Edited by nightowl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nightowl said:

So should we stop male athletes performing on TV as they are fitter, more coordinated, and faster than I am and make me feel inferior?

Stop hairy men appearing on TV so not offend baldies?

Ultimately how do you stop people being better, or better suited to some activity with offending those who arent without resorting to something horribly oppressive?

By the way, I wasn't advocating restrictions on those things. I was just explaining the argument as I understand it. I sympathetic to the argument, but I think it can be removed without resorting to force.

 

I think the argument against having hot women in bikinis standing next to darts or cars is that you can enjoy darts or cars without the hot women. It contributes to a perverse sexualisation which is unnecessary. If you took the athletic people out of athletics there would be no point to it.

I think there is a growing awareness that men are becoming more self-conscious too, as there increasingly an effort to make men feel inadequate in order to sell them the kind of things which used to be exclusively for women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Errol said:

Just another distraction from Brexit as well. Like the Skripal Russian nonsense.

I wish as much effort was put into sorting out the cause of the hundreds of chemical attacks we have seen in London which have resulted in permanent life altering injuries in recent years - acid attacks - rather worrying about a Russian traitor and his daughter who fully recovered from an incident a few miles from our UK chemicals facility. Odd  as well that the Daughter was seemingly very happy to go back to Russia which is a little odd if you believe the Russian government wants her dead?!!

Edited by MARTINX9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, inbruges said:

Best example ever was the film Life of Brian.

May Christians were massively offended, and that was taking the p*** at their religion at the very top, God and Jesus,not some totally unrelated bit of silly clothing which has nothing to do with Islam.

so, were you

1. unconcerned about the offence it caused.

2. concerned

I was a big fat 1

It's arguably not a good example if we consider that perhaps the key issue is not offence but the persecution of a minority by the majority.

I've read posters suggesting that populism is somehow simply democracy and that democracy is simply control by the majority ('the will of the people'). A more conventional explanation of what populism means is to think about the difference between two alternatives forms of democracy; populism and liberalism.

In liberalism there is a recognition that universal suffrage (everyone having a vote) allows the so-called tyranny of the majority where a majority can extinguish the rights of others - including their right to life. Most democracies have some checks and balances to guard against these dangers. To a limited extent the House of Lords takes on this role whenever it blocks or amends legislation that comes up from the Commons. From time to time the Lords protects a minority by preventing the majority from passing new laws (or by modifying those laws before they are passed).

Populism takes an opposing view - something is right if the majority say it is right; nobody has any inherent human rights that the majority cannot take away if they want to.

The problem with taking The Life of Brian as a context for scrutinising Boris Johnson (sitting MP, former Foreign Secretary - possibly next Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister) making remarks about postboxes and bank robbers is that he is a drawn from a majority (non-Muslims) and he is talking about a persecuted minority (Muslim women who wear the niqab). Obviously, the Python team were comics and their explicit intent was to entertain.

As far as I am concerned, offence is a red herring. I regard Johnson's remarks as irresponsible and wrong because of who he is, where we are and who he is talking about. He is not an entertainer. We are a divided nation and the targets of his words are a tiny number of women drawn from a religious minority. If there is a desperate need for a new law on people performing religious observation by covering some or all of their faces then let us have one, but I cannot conceive of any reason why a responsible politician would need the to say "bank robbers" or "postboxes" in order to initiate or contribute to that conversation.

If Johnson wants to have his political language judged according to the same standards we apply to comedians and newspaper commentators he can resign his seat and give up on all this 'The buffoon who thought he was Churchill reborn' idiocy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2p on this. Where I live I see people with full covering on all the time and I've got used to it. I try to be really nice to people wearing them to see if I can detect, through the obvious barrier, some reaction, humanity, emotion. And sometimes I can detect genuine warmth and I get the impression they are pretty ordinary under the veil. Like with everyone it varies, though it's taken time to realise it varies and maybe that's my prejudice, thinking because people wear what to me is the same thing, then they are the same person. Same with hoodies, posh old ladies in daft hats, orthodox Jews, police officers, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd argue that we should hold ourselves to higher standards than Johnson manages. There are vulnerable people out there.

Take the remarks of the judge sentencing Darren Osborne, the man from Cardiff who hired a van and drove it into a crowd of worshippers outside a mosque in Finsbury Park. Osborne was reported to have been radicalised in about three weeks (link).

Quote

His trial heard he regularly read material from the former EDL leader Tommy Robinson and the far-right group Britain First, among others. “Over the space of a month or so, your mindset became one of malevolent hatred. You allowed your mind to be poisoned by those who claim to be leaders,” Cheema-Grubb told him.

The court also heard that the catalyst for Osborne’s descent was the BBC drama-documentary Three Girls, which focused on the grooming and sexual abuse of young girls in Rochdale by British-Pakistani Muslim men. “Your research and joining Twitter early in June 2017 exposed you to a great deal of extreme racist and anti-Islamic ideology,” Cheema-Grubb said.

Source: Darren Osborne jailed for life for Finsbury Park terrorist attack, Guardian, 2 February 2018

In the US you had the grim matter of Lane Davis murdering his own father.

Quote

I went to try to find some answers about Lane. I discovered that his life leading up to the killing — isolated, dependent, resentful, and ruled by the perverse incentives of internet content production — has much to tell us about the kind of man for whom the new fringes of American life are most dangerous. In his room, online, as a combatant in an endless culture war, Lane found what had eluded him everywhere else in life: a sense of purpose.

Source: Alt-Right Troll To Father Killer: The Unraveling Of Lane Davis, Buzzfeed, 18 July 2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

By the way, I wasn't advocating restrictions on those things. I was just explaining the argument as I understand it. I sympathetic to the argument, but I think it can be removed without resorting to force.

You'll have to forgive me as I am very defensive of track girls simply because I used to know one and would defend her right to do so.

Anyway back to Boris.....

I suspect the best way to deal with Boris is simply let him be Boris and given enough rope he will hang himself as that appears in his nature to me.  Or maybe ask him how many 'letterbox ladies' have actually committed serious crimes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was no slip of the tongue, definitely premeditated from Boris.

 

There does seem to be a current Zeitgeist about freedom of speech, and UKIP seem to be making a comeback on the back of it.

 

My personal view is he wants to differentiate himself from the current crop of Tory drops, Theresa May reminds me of an over promoted middle manager at the local council.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, LittlePig said:

The burka and niqab are controversial in mainstream Islam to say the least... This being held up as the face of Islam is a bit like Mormons or branch dravidians being held up as the face of Christianity - not that the Catholic Church has been great for women...

Boris isn't in trouble because of his objection to the Burka.

 

He's in trouble because he made fun of a group of people based on they way they look and asserted that they were criminal because of their dress sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, reddog said:

My personal view is he wants to differentiate himself from the current crop of Tory drops, Theresa May reminds me of an over promoted middle manager at the local council.

I think that's a bit of stretch, but I'd say she might be capable of being an adequate Sunday school teacher, if only she had a moral compass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Bank of England Base Rate   291 members have voted

    1. 1. What do you predict the Bank of England base rate to be at the end of 2018?


      • .25% or lower
      • .5%
      • .75%
      • 1% or higher

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.