Boris Johnson's Burkha Comments

imposter2.0

imafatman wrote:

FishFish wrote:

imafatman wrote:

It was a general rant at the absolute shambles this country is in.

Your perspective. There is nothing wrong with this country - it is you that is the absolute shambles. You are an utter disgrace to it.

I feel sorry for you having to resort to insulting me personally because I posted some words that you don't agree with. Oh well. That is the state of the some people in this country as you have so eloquently shown.

He's not in this country though. Being insulted by a gold-standard internet troll should not be a big deal. It's entirely incidental, so don't let it worry you..

FishFish

Imposter wrote:

He's not in this country though. Being insulted by a gold-standard internet troll should not be a big deal. It's entirely incidental, so don't let it worry you..

Well accurate in two respects - currently Bangalore and thanks for the 'gold standard' accolade. Back tomorrow. BTW - 'Imposter'....?

ballysmate

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

A selection of views from women directly affected by Johnson's comments.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... nson-burqa

You should post that well known right winger Polly Toynbee's article too, according to some on here she is espousing racist views in print maybe have her up for hate crime.

Interesting - got a link to that Toynbee article?

Here you go. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... slim-women

As mentioned, she's a patron of Humanists UK, so pretty opposed to religion of all kinds. The article seems fairly consistent with that, without the need for the schoolboy insults.

I take it nobody needed Boris' "joke" explaining to them? I assume you all "got" the letterbox reference? After all, as has been pointed out, his was only repeating an earlier joke. So it seems that the ones on here that are offended by his comments are not so much offended by something that is obvious but are offended that someone said it.

Perhaps they prefer this

“I wouldn’t want my four year old looked after by somebody wearing a burka. I wouldn’t want my elderly mum looked after by somebody wearing a burka. They need to be able to show their face,”


Emily Thornberry, our would be Foreign Sec under Jezza. Islamophobic?

Or this?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... amed-image

ballysmate

Or this by Ms Toynbee

“The top-to-toe burka, with its sinister, airless little grille, is more than an instrument of persecution, it is a public tarring and feathering of female sexuality. It transforms any woman into an object of defilement too untouchably disgusting to be seen. It is a garment of lurid sexual suggestiveness: what rampant desire and desirability lurks and leers beneath its dark mysteries? In its objectifying of women, it turns them into cowering creatures demanding and expecting violence and victimisation. Forget cultural sensibilities.”

Muslim Women, Social Movements and the 'War on Terror'
By Narzanin Massoumi

rjsterry

It doesn't offend me in the slightest but that's hardly the point. I doubt many of the women who actually wear either garment are that bothered about the comments themselves, but they obviously are worried about being abused in the street by idiots that take Johnson's 'joke' as some sort of approval of their behaviour. The far wider audience and the position that Johnson has, and his tone are what makes the difference.

There have been lots of comments along the lines of "we should be having a grown up debate about this issue". Johnson's comments actually make that more difficult.

FishFish

rjsterry wrote:

There have been lots of comments along the lines of "we should be having a grown up debate about this issue". Johnson's comments actually make that more difficult.

Nothing in this forum constitutes a place within an infinity of space or time to have a grown up debate about anything.
And you would be the last person in the universe to validly contribute to one.

ballysmate

rjsterry wrote:

It doesn't offend me in the slightest but that's hardly the point. I doubt many of the women who actually wear either garment are that bothered about the comments themselves, but they obviously are worried about being abused in the street by idiots that take Johnson's 'joke' as some sort of approval of their behaviour. The far wider audience and the position that Johnson has, and his tone are what makes the difference.

There have been lots of comments along the lines of "we should be having a grown up debate about this issue". Johnson's comments actually make that more difficult.

Or perhaps any Muslim women who identify with Toynbee's statement are encouraged that a leading politician has highlighted how ridiculous these garments are?

rjsterry

FishFish wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

There have been lots of comments along the lines of "we should be having a grown up debate about this issue". Johnson's comments actually make that more difficult.

Nothing in this forum constitutes a place within an infinity of space or time to have a grown up debate about anything.
And you would be the last person in the universe to validly contribute to one.

Aww, petal. I'd hoped for so much more?

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

A selection of views from women directly affected by Johnson's comments.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... nson-burqa

You should post that well known right winger Polly Toynbee's article too, according to some on here she is espousing racist views in print maybe have her up for hate crime.

Interesting - got a link to that Toynbee article?

Here you go. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... slim-women

As mentioned, she's a patron of Humanists UK, so pretty opposed to religion of all kinds. The article seems fairly consistent with that, without the need for the schoolboy insults.

Blimey, criticising the Burkha. When is she being excommunicated?

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

I take it nobody needed Boris' "joke" explaining to them? I assume you all "got" the letterbox reference? After all, as has been pointed out, his was only repeating an earlier joke. So it seems that the ones on here that are offended by his comments are not so much offended by something that is obvious but are offended that someone said it.

Perhaps they prefer this

“I wouldn’t want my four year old looked after by somebody wearing a burka. I wouldn’t want my elderly mum looked after by somebody wearing a burka. They need to be able to show their face,”


Emily Thornberry, our would be Foreign Sec under Jezza. Islamophobic?

Or this?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... amed-image

I suppose that Labour are trying to be even handed by being Islamophobic as well as anti-Semitic.

Btw that article you linked above is possibly the first vaguely humorous Guardian article I have ever read. I wonder what happened to the journo who coined the phrase 'black onesie'?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

A selection of views from women directly affected by Johnson's comments.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... nson-burqa

You should post that well known right winger Polly Toynbee's article too, according to some on here she is espousing racist views in print maybe have her up for hate crime.

Interesting - got a link to that Toynbee article?

Here you go. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... slim-women

As mentioned, she's a patron of Humanists UK, so pretty opposed to religion of all kinds. The article seems fairly consistent with that, without the need for the schoolboy insults.

Blimey, criticising the Burkha. When is she being excommunicated?

Missing the point, no?

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

A selection of views from women directly affected by Johnson's comments.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... nson-burqa

You should post that well known right winger Polly Toynbee's article too, according to some on here she is espousing racist views in print maybe have her up for hate crime.

Interesting - got a link to that Toynbee article?

Here you go. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... slim-women

As mentioned, she's a patron of Humanists UK, so pretty opposed to religion of all kinds. The article seems fairly consistent with that, without the need for the schoolboy insults.

Blimey, criticising the Burkha. When is she being excommunicated?

Missing the point, no?

You may have taken a different point from the one I did. I can see how some people would take offence to what she said if it hadn't been written by a Guardianista.

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I take it nobody needed Boris' "joke" explaining to them? I assume you all "got" the letterbox reference? After all, as has been pointed out, his was only repeating an earlier joke. So it seems that the ones on here that are offended by his comments are not so much offended by something that is obvious but are offended that someone said it.

Perhaps they prefer this

“I wouldn’t want my four year old looked after by somebody wearing a burka. I wouldn’t want my elderly mum looked after by somebody wearing a burka. They need to be able to show their face,”


Emily Thornberry, our would be Foreign Sec under Jezza. Islamophobic?

Or this?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... amed-image

I suppose that Labour are trying to be even handed by being Islamophobic as well as anti-Semitic.

Btw that article you linked above is possibly the first vaguely humorous Guardian article I have ever read. I wonder what happened to the journo who coined the phrase 'black onesie'?

You should take a look more often, it can be funny as fcuk. Not by design, I grant you, but funny never the less.

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

Btw that article you linked above is possibly the first vaguely humorous Guardian article I have ever read.

Never read John Crace, David Squires or Marina Hyde?

This one from last week is top notch Squires.

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Btw that article you linked above is possibly the first vaguely humorous Guardian article I have ever read.

Never read John Crace, David Squires or Marina Hyde?

This one from last week is top notch Squires.

It could be down to the fact that when I read Guardian articles that are linked on here, they may reflect the level of humour of the 'linker'

verylonglegs

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Btw that article you linked above is possibly the first vaguely humorous Guardian article I have ever read.

Never read John Crace, David Squires or Marina Hyde?

This one from last week is top notch Squires.

Hyde has written some of the funniest articles by long a way in the last couple of years in my opinion, on both politics and sport.

finchy

verylonglegs wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Btw that article you linked above is possibly the first vaguely humorous Guardian article I have ever read.

Never read John Crace, David Squires or Marina Hyde?

This one from last week is top notch Squires.

Hyde has written some of the funniest articles by long a way in the last couple of years in my opinion, on both politics and sport.

I like Hyde, but don't think she always understands what her targets are saying, whereas Crace manages to hit the nail on the head every single time.

Stevo_666

verylonglegs wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Btw that article you linked above is possibly the first vaguely humorous Guardian article I have ever read.

Never read John Crace, David Squires or Marina Hyde?

This one from last week is top notch Squires.

Hyde has written some of the funniest articles by long a way in the last couple of years in my opinion, on both politics and sport.

Probably should read more, butI also worry that reading too much of the Guardian may somehow 'turn' me



(Any similarity to actual forumites, living or dead, is purely coincidental )

finchy

^^^ Stevo, you're now officially an Old Man.

sgt.pepper

rjsterry wrote:

There have been lots of comments along the lines of "we should be having a grown up debate about this issue". Johnson's comments actually make that more difficult.

This hits the nail on the head. It's irrefutable that Islam has an appalling attitude towards women, and the burqa is a living embodiment of that. Johnson making ridiculous comments, (which, insanely, have garnered more attention than the most recent terror attack) makes having a sensible debate about legitimate concerns far more difficult.

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

^^^ Stevo, you're now officially an Old Man.

Tell me something I dont know...

It's a bit like those zombie movies where any form of human existence is better than being one of those

finchy

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

It's irrefutable that Islam has an appalling attitude towards women, and the burqa is a living embodiment of that.

AFAIK, there is no requirement in Islam for women to wear the Burqa, and the Koran is ambiguous about women's dress, requiring only that men and women dress "modestly". Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

verylonglegs

Stevo 666 wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Btw that article you linked above is possibly the first vaguely humorous Guardian article I have ever read.

Never read John Crace, David Squires or Marina Hyde?

This one from last week is top notch Squires.

Hyde has written some of the funniest articles by long a way in the last couple of years in my opinion, on both politics and sport.

Probably should read more, butI also worry that reading too much of the Guardian may somehow 'turn' me



(Any similarity to actual forumites, living or dead, is purely coincidental )

But if you've a fully functioning brain you can filter the crap out. I read the Guardian website but I have no problem in saying it produces things that are plain daft, this was the most recent article I can think of that I just thought 'oh just shut up'.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... ts-outrage

finchy

verylonglegs wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Btw that article you linked above is possibly the first vaguely humorous Guardian article I have ever read.

Never read John Crace, David Squires or Marina Hyde?

This one from last week is top notch Squires.

Hyde has written some of the funniest articles by long a way in the last couple of years in my opinion, on both politics and sport.

Probably should read more, butI also worry that reading too much of the Guardian may somehow 'turn' me



(Any similarity to actual forumites, living or dead, is purely coincidental )

But if you've a fully functioning brain you can filter the crap out. I read the Guardian website but I have no problem in saying it produces things that are plain daft, this was the most recent article I can think of that I just thought 'oh just shut up'.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... ts-outrage

Any Guardian article containing the words "cultural appropriation" should be given a very wide berth.

Stevo_666

verylonglegs wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Btw that article you linked above is possibly the first vaguely humorous Guardian article I have ever read.

Never read John Crace, David Squires or Marina Hyde?

This one from last week is top notch Squires.

Hyde has written some of the funniest articles by long a way in the last couple of years in my opinion, on both politics and sport.

Probably should read more, butI also worry that reading too much of the Guardian may somehow 'turn' me



(Any similarity to actual forumites, living or dead, is purely coincidental )

But if you've a fully functioning brain you can filter the crap out. I read the Guardian website but I have no problem in saying it produces things that are plain daft, this was the most recent article I can think of that I just thought 'oh just shut up'.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... ts-outrage

I do have one of those, but when the majority of what I read there makes me think that the paper is populated by a 'wunch of bankers' then sometimes my subconscious says 'why bother?'

sgt.pepper

finchy wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

It's irrefutable that Islam has an appalling attitude towards women, and the burqa is a living embodiment of that.

AFAIK, there is no requirement in Islam for women to wear the Burqa, and the Koran is ambiguous about women's dress, requiring only that men and women dress "modestly". Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

This was the translation I had heard, though recently I was informed that there are also different interpretations. Either way, there's no doubt that as a rule its attitude towards women (and homosexuality) is dreadful. The fact the modern """""Left"""""" has decided that it's beyond criticism is insane.

pblakeney

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

...though recently I was informed that there are also different interpretations.

And therein lies the root of most problems.

PS - 17 pages because stupid Boris said something stupid. Really?

rjsterry

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

finchy wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

It's irrefutable that Islam has an appalling attitude towards women, and the burqa is a living embodiment of that.

AFAIK, there is no requirement in Islam for women to wear the Burqa, and the Koran is ambiguous about women's dress, requiring only that men and women dress "modestly". Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

This was the translation I had heard, though recently I was informed that there are also different interpretations. Either way, there's no doubt that as a rule its attitude towards women (and homosexuality) is dreadful. The fact the modern """""Left"""""" has decided that it's beyond criticism is insane.

As compared to Christianity or Judaism? Or the more socially conservative sections of any society? Possibly Islam (or any other religion) is just a convenient scapegoat to avoid having to look more closely. Possibly us secular types are just better at hiding these things. I mean, that Ben Stokes incident appears to have arisen from two idiots threatening a gay couple.

I think Polly Toynbee is pretty left wing and also fairly critical of the burqa, so not sure where the idea that Islam is beyond criticism comes from. Maybe you are conflating criticism with general abuse.

surrey_commuter

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

A selection of views from women directly affected by Johnson's comments.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... nson-burqa

You should post that well known right winger Polly Toynbee's article too, according to some on here she is espousing racist views in print maybe have her up for hate crime.

Interesting - got a link to that Toynbee article?

Here you go. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... slim-women

As mentioned, she's a patron of Humanists UK, so pretty opposed to religion of all kinds. The article seems fairly consistent with that, without the need for the schoolboy insults.

I take it nobody needed Boris' "joke" explaining to them? I assume you all "got" the letterbox reference? After all, as has been pointed out, his was only repeating an earlier joke. So it seems that the ones on here that are offended by his comments are not so much offended by something that is obvious but are offended that someone said it.

Perhaps they prefer this

“I wouldn’t want my four year old looked after by somebody wearing a burka. I wouldn’t want my elderly mum looked after by somebody wearing a burka. They need to be able to show their face,”


Emily Thornberry, our would be Foreign Sec under Jezza. Islamophobic?

Or this?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... amed-image

I would like to sheepishly put my hand in the air and say that I need the Boris "joke" explaining to me

Ben6899

I don't think (m)any of the contributors to Cake Stop are actually millennials. Are they?