Boris Johnson's Burkha Comments

bianchimoon

MrB123 wrote:

Good letter from Rowan Atkinson in today's Times about the matter.

He said "it was a good joke", if boris wants to be a full time clown, he should leave parliament and go to the fringe.
It still goes back to why he said it why he won't apologise, it was a populist comment to help his forthcoming leadership bid

Vino'sGhost

bianchimoon wrote:

MrB123 wrote:

Good letter from Rowan Atkinson in today's Times about the matter.

He said "it was a good joke", if boris wants to be a full time clown, he should leave parliament and go to the fringe.
It still goes back to why he said it why he won't apologise, it was a populist comment to help his forthcoming leadership bid

And a lot of the comment from politicians against his comment is populist to help their career/ derail his.

It’s what politicians do.

Liberals of course get on their high horses whenever anything doesn’t meet their perceived view of the world. There’s nothing so iliberal as a liberal.

My personal view is that the Niqab has no place in modern society, it’s corosive. As is Islam.

DeVlaeminck

Surrey Commuter wrote:

people are asked to remove helmets and balaclavas because there is a history of people using them to hide their identity when robbing the premises. He clearly stated that he wanted to stop muslim women covering up in his shop for the safety and security of his staff.

er

Yes the point is religious belief and religious based culture shouldn't be put on a pedastal above other beliefs and cultures. As with the Boris Johnson jokes, they were flippant but the furore they've caused is because he's made a little fun of Islamic dress, if it were just some new youth fashion nobody would have batted an eyelid. When you make an ideology above criticism, by stuff like screaming racism whenever someone does criticise it, that's dangerous.

TheBigBean

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Just because more than a few people think it, doesn’t make it an acceptable position to take per se. Anxieties about multiculturalism is just another term for xenophobia (quite literally). People need to recognise that.

It might help them realise that their anxieties aren’t all that beneficial. We know racism is bad, so people who are racist don’t like being called it, because then their position is bad.

But it IS bad, so why shouldn’t they know it?

It isn't racist to think that the niqab and burqa represent a regressive and misogynistic form of Islam, I can easily find plenty of muslims who don't have white skin just to cover both bases for you who argue the same thing.

Large parts of the left have become apologists for an extreme right wing ideology because they have given up on economic inequality and focused on some simplistic form of identity politics.

Look at the position of women in any community where the burqa and niqab are common - that's all you have to do to realise they are something to be opposed. The point the guy made about motorcyclists removing helmets in his store does indicate that we make exceptions for religion - they get a free pass for things that would be rightly condemned otherwise.

Most western observers would say that women in Afghanistan are oppressed. The point is that outlawing a form of clothing in Afghanistan is simply more oppression. Now you could argue that it is less oppressive than legally requiring every woman to wear it as was the case under the Taliban, but in the end that comes down to how many do so out of choice and how many do so because of the law/culture. Noting that there is an overlap between the two.

Instead it would be better targeting oppression with other mechanisms e.g. increasing access to education, and allowing people to wear what they like.

drlodge

Unbelievable this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45139084

Lord Sheikh, whoever the heck he is, saying he's had a load of abusive emails. Not obusive to him, but to the Prophet Muhammad. So Bloomin what?! This is not a theocracy you know, we have this thing called freedom of speech and your imaginary Prophet is not even a person so has no rights! We have a right to ridicule religion, you ignoramus.

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

people are asked to remove helmets and balaclavas because there is a history of people using them to hide their identity when robbing the premises. He clearly stated that he wanted to stop muslim women covering up in his shop for the safety and security of his staff.

er

Yes the point is religious belief and religious based culture shouldn't be put on a pedastal above other beliefs and cultures. As with the Boris Johnson jokes, they were flippant but the furore they've caused is because he's made a little fun of Islamic dress, if it were just some new youth fashion nobody would have batted an eyelid. When you make an ideology above criticism, by stuff like screaming racism whenever someone does criticise it, that's dangerous.

But it inevitably is racist.

It's not screaming. It's a factual description.

Understand that.

rick_chasey

drlodge wrote:

Unbelievable this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45139084

Lord Sheikh, whoever the heck he is, saying he's had a load of abusive emails. Not obusive to him, but to the Prophet Muhammad. So Bloomin what?! This is not a theocracy you know, we have this thing called freedom of speech and your imaginary Prophet is not even a person so has no rights! We have a right to ridicule religion, you ignoramus.

So what was the purpose of those e-mails, if they weren't abusive?

Or they are abusive, but it's now cool to send abusive e-mails to strangers?

drlodge

Rick Chasey wrote:

But it inevitably is racist..

What's racist? Religion is not a race. Muslims are not a race.

bianchimoon

Rick Chasey wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Unbelievable this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45139084

Lord Sheikh, whoever the heck he is, saying he's had a load of abusive emails. Not obusive to him, but to the Prophet Muhammad. So Bloomin what?! This is not a theocracy you know, we have this thing called freedom of speech and your imaginary Prophet is not even a person so has no rights! We have a right to ridicule religion, you ignoramus.

So what was the purpose of those e-mails, if they weren't abusive?

Or they are abusive, but it's now cool to send abusive e-mails to strangers?

Yup, it's the inevitable end result of Johnson doing what he's doing, he's just to thick to think of consequences of his public school rantings and/or is possibly being played by bannon.

kingstongraham

drlodge wrote:

Unbelievable this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45139084

Lord Sheikh, whoever the heck he is, saying he's had a load of abusive emails. Not obusive to him, but to the Prophet Muhammad. So Bloomin what?! This is not a theocracy you know, we have this thing called freedom of speech and your imaginary Prophet is not even a person so has no rights! We have a right to ridicule religion, you ignoramus.

If sticking up for people who email racist insults and also include insults to the one thing they know their target will feel offended by is where you want to be, then your choice, I guess.

DeVlaeminck

Rick Chasey wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

people are asked to remove helmets and balaclavas because there is a history of people using them to hide their identity when robbing the premises. He clearly stated that he wanted to stop muslim women covering up in his shop for the safety and security of his staff.

er

Yes the point is religious belief and religious based culture shouldn't be put on a pedastal above other beliefs and cultures. As with the Boris Johnson jokes, they were flippant but the furore they've caused is because he's made a little fun of Islamic dress, if it were just some new youth fashion nobody would have batted an eyelid. When you make an ideology above criticism, by stuff like screaming racism whenever someone does criticise it, that's dangerous.

But it inevitably is racist.

It's not screaming. It's a factual description.

Understand that.

What sort of argument is that, "computer says no....".

So your view is that criticising religion, in this case Islam, inevitably that is racist?

Vino'sGhost

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

people are asked to remove helmets and balaclavas because there is a history of people using them to hide their identity when robbing the premises. He clearly stated that he wanted to stop muslim women covering up in his shop for the safety and security of his staff.

er

Yes the point is religious belief and religious based culture shouldn't be put on a pedastal above other beliefs and cultures. As with the Boris Johnson jokes, they were flippant but the furore they've caused is because he's made a little fun of Islamic dress, if it were just some new youth fashion nobody would have batted an eyelid. When you make an ideology above criticism, by stuff like screaming racism whenever someone does criticise it, that's dangerous.

But it inevitably is racist.

It's not screaming. It's a factual description.

Understand that.

What sort of argument is that, "computer says no....".

So your view is that criticising religion, in this case Islam, inevitably that is racist?

Im not sure Rick understands what racism is.

drlodge

KingstonGraham wrote:

If sticking up for people who email racist insults and also include insults to the one thing they know their target will feel offended by is where you want to be, then your choice, I guess.

Its not racist, do you understand the meaning of the word?

Religion is an idea, an ideology, it has no rights and is fair game.

Insulting a people on the other hand (Muslims in this case), totally different matter. Insulting an imaginary God is not racist (a) because religion isn't a race (b) the God isn't a person.

Whether you agree with such insulting behaviour is neither here nor there but the idea that people should not be allowed to insult a Religion is reprehensible.

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

people are asked to remove helmets and balaclavas because there is a history of people using them to hide their identity when robbing the premises. He clearly stated that he wanted to stop muslim women covering up in his shop for the safety and security of his staff.

er

Yes the point is religious belief and religious based culture shouldn't be put on a pedastal above other beliefs and cultures. As with the Boris Johnson jokes, they were flippant but the furore they've caused is because he's made a little fun of Islamic dress, if it were just some new youth fashion nobody would have batted an eyelid. When you make an ideology above criticism, by stuff like screaming racism whenever someone does criticise it, that's dangerous.

But it inevitably is racist.

It's not screaming. It's a factual description.

Understand that.

I'd have thought it is more racist to suggest that only dark skinned foreigners can be Muslim and wear a Burka. Whilst being anti-Muslim and being racist probably go hand in hand in many cases with the hatred being more because of their race than their religion being anti-Muslim is not in itself being racist.

Pross

drlodge wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

If sticking up for people who email racist insults and also include insults to the one thing they know their target will feel offended by is where you want to be, then your choice, I guess.

Its not racist, do you understand the meaning of the word?

Religion is an idea, an ideology, it has no rights and is fair game.

Insulting a people on the other hand (Muslims in this case), totally different matter. Insulting an imaginary God is not racist (a) because religion isn't a race (b) the God isn't a person.

Whether you agree with such insulting behaviour is neither here nor there but the idea that people should not be allowed to insult a Religion is reprehensible.

I don't think that's true. People are protected from discrimination on religious grounds by the Human Rights Act.

drlodge

Pross wrote:

I don't think that's true. People are protected from discrimination on religious grounds by the Human Rights Act.

Yes that's true - people are protected from discrimination. Their religion is not.

Vino'sGhost

drlodge wrote:

Pross wrote:

I don't think that's true. People are protected from discrimination on religious grounds by the Human Rights Act.

Yes that's true - people are protected from discrimination. Their religion is not.

You can discriminate without it being racism.........

imposter2.0

drlodge wrote:

Pross wrote:

I don't think that's true. People are protected from discrimination on religious grounds by the Human Rights Act.

Yes that's true - people are protected from discrimination. Their religion is not.

Not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse. People are protected from being discriminated against because of their religion. I also agree that religion, in itself, is fair game for ridicule and criticism - but using it as a means of discriminating against 'people' is not ok.

kingstongraham

drlodge wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

If sticking up for people who email racist insults and also include insults to the one thing they know their target will feel offended by is where you want to be, then your choice, I guess.

Its not racist, do you understand the meaning of the word?

Religion is an idea, an ideology, it has no rights and is fair game.

Insulting a people on the other hand (Muslims in this case), totally different matter. Insulting an imaginary God is not racist (a) because religion isn't a race (b) the God isn't a person.

Whether you agree with such insulting behaviour is neither here nor there but the idea that people should not be allowed to insult a Religion is reprehensible.

Try reading what I wrote. The people who emailed the insults to his religion also included racist insults directed at him. I think I'm safe in assuming that these were racist emails from racist people. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 08451.html

rick_chasey

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

people are asked to remove helmets and balaclavas because there is a history of people using them to hide their identity when robbing the premises. He clearly stated that he wanted to stop muslim women covering up in his shop for the safety and security of his staff.

er

Yes the point is religious belief and religious based culture shouldn't be put on a pedastal above other beliefs and cultures. As with the Boris Johnson jokes, they were flippant but the furore they've caused is because he's made a little fun of Islamic dress, if it were just some new youth fashion nobody would have batted an eyelid. When you make an ideology above criticism, by stuff like screaming racism whenever someone does criticise it, that's dangerous.

But it inevitably is racist.

It's not screaming. It's a factual description.

Understand that.

I'd have thought it is more racist to suggest that only dark skinned foreigners can be Muslim and wear a Burka. Whilst being anti-Muslim and being racist probably go hand in hand in many cases with the hatred being more because of their race than their religion being anti-Muslim is not in itself being racist.

Semantics.

Is the outcome the same? yes. Does it work just like racism? yes.

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

people are asked to remove helmets and balaclavas because there is a history of people using them to hide their identity when robbing the premises. He clearly stated that he wanted to stop muslim women covering up in his shop for the safety and security of his staff.

er

Yes the point is religious belief and religious based culture shouldn't be put on a pedastal above other beliefs and cultures. As with the Boris Johnson jokes, they were flippant but the furore they've caused is because he's made a little fun of Islamic dress, if it were just some new youth fashion nobody would have batted an eyelid. When you make an ideology above criticism, by stuff like screaming racism whenever someone does criticise it, that's dangerous.

But it inevitably is racist.

It's not screaming. It's a factual description.

Understand that.

What sort of argument is that, "computer says no....".

So your view is that criticising religion, in this case Islam, inevitably that is racist?

All about the context of the criticism.

In this context and indeed in yours, yes it is.

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Do you really think women in the kind of households where this is normal have a free choice, that they are raised with an open mind on the subject? Come on you aren't that naive are you?

So this is a useful illustration.

What assumptions are you making here?

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

people are asked to remove helmets and balaclavas because there is a history of people using them to hide their identity when robbing the premises. He clearly stated that he wanted to stop muslim women covering up in his shop for the safety and security of his staff.

er

Yes the point is religious belief and religious based culture shouldn't be put on a pedastal above other beliefs and cultures. As with the Boris Johnson jokes, they were flippant but the furore they've caused is because he's made a little fun of Islamic dress, if it were just some new youth fashion nobody would have batted an eyelid. When you make an ideology above criticism, by stuff like screaming racism whenever someone does criticise it, that's dangerous.

But it inevitably is racist.

It's not screaming. It's a factual description.

Understand that.

What sort of argument is that, "computer says no....".

So your view is that criticising religion, in this case Islam, inevitably that is racist?

All about the context of the criticism.

In this context and indeed in yours, yes it is.

So is it "inevitably racist" or is it "racist dependent on the context of the criticism"? Surely it can't be both? Do you have examples of racist and non racist contexts? (I think in this case we are still talking about Bojos remarks which made fun of an item of clothing which, by Western standards, can rationally be argued to look slightly ridiculous (albeit no more so than the clobber of nuns, high fashion etc)).

rick_chasey

Rolf F wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

people are asked to remove helmets and balaclavas because there is a history of people using them to hide their identity when robbing the premises. He clearly stated that he wanted to stop muslim women covering up in his shop for the safety and security of his staff.

er

Yes the point is religious belief and religious based culture shouldn't be put on a pedastal above other beliefs and cultures. As with the Boris Johnson jokes, they were flippant but the furore they've caused is because he's made a little fun of Islamic dress, if it were just some new youth fashion nobody would have batted an eyelid. When you make an ideology above criticism, by stuff like screaming racism whenever someone does criticise it, that's dangerous.

But it inevitably is racist.

It's not screaming. It's a factual description.

Understand that.

What sort of argument is that, "computer says no....".

So your view is that criticising religion, in this case Islam, inevitably that is racist?

All about the context of the criticism.

In this context and indeed in yours, yes it is.

So is it "inevitably racist" or is it "racist dependent on the context of the criticism"? Surely it can't be both? Do you have examples of racist and non racist contexts? (I think in this case we are still talking about Bojos remarks which made fun of an item of clothing which, by Western standards, can rationally be argued to look slightly ridiculous (albeit no more so than the clobber of nuns, high fashion etc)).

No, jokes at minorities which can be considered racially and or culturally different, expense are going to be racist. It;s up to people to decide how acceptable or not that is.

You can have a legit criticism of specific aspects of anything, if it's drawn in a wider, non-racist, context.

So for example, if you're examining all types of religious anxieties about showing different parts of their body or shape in the context of male hegemony, that's fairly cool. Inevitably there will be variants in the conclusions, and they may well end up being drawn along racial or cultural lines. But as long as there's a decent attempt to show that it's not setting it up to be drawn on cultural differences per se, then what's wrong with that?

But just focusing on one type which, not coincidentally, has become a vehicle for racists to attack certain minority, plainly is.

Vino'sGhost

Rick, I think you’re misunderstanding what racism is.

rick_chasey

I did specialise the study into it, so I'll back my knowledge on the matter.

rick_chasey

https://research.gold.ac.uk/14844/1/MED ... L_2015.pdf

I mean, have a read if you want.


Edit: not mine.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

I did specialise the study into it, so I'll back my knowledge on the matter.

Do you think that calling someone or something racist aids reasoned debate? I really don't think it does as evidenced by the recent pages of this thread.

Jez mon

I cant help but feel that if a small portion of academia want to review what a word means, then by all means good luck, but it's unlikely to gain much traction.

Does it not come back to the golden rule of comedy, that you should broadly punch up, not down, and an Eton and Oxbridge educated MP picking on potentially oppressed women who are denied most opportunities, isn't exactly punching anywhere but down?

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I did specialise the study into it, so I'll back my knowledge on the matter.

Do you think that calling someone or something racist aids reasoned debate? I really don't think it does as evidenced by the recent pages of this thread.

So if they are I should pretend they are not?

I think people generally are often unaware of their own racism.

We all are to a bigger or lesser degree. It’s importsnt that we understand when we are, where possible.

I think it’s absolutely vital to know so that we don’t blindly tolerate what ought to be intolerable opinions.