Laws of foreign lands

[Notch7]

Diddums. Your opinion is as valid as any other.

The shambles government IS Tory, by the way. Have a look yourself.

Yup poor old Noseall is a desperate Labour voter.

Probably trying to deflect from Corbyns latest scandal.

Yet another nosedive for Labour in the polls

 

[Brigadier]

Diddums. Your opinion is as valid as any other.

The shambles government IS Tory, by the way. Have a look yourself.

And the "opposition" is laughable. They haven't got to do anything, and they still can't make a decent fist of that.

I'm not defending the Tories, but they're in part as bad as Labour are allowing them to be.

Not good from anyone's viewpoint.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

What an utterly awful comparison. Burning the bra v burning the burka after being oppressed

It is symbolic. I bet the bra burners went straight back to wearing their bras afterwards.

Be careful your need to defend the burka doesn't trivialise what people went through and are still going through.

Typical misrepresentation as usual.
I do not defend the Burka. I defend anyone's right to wear it! If you cannot see the difference you should not be participating in sensible discussion.
Similarly, you attach my defense of anyone's right to wear a Burka with my trivialising severe oppression, torture, etc. That is pure and total misrepresentation of my position. But it is expected of you, eeyore, a**e end and the other RWR:

Wannabe approves of women accepting oppression, he says they should 'accept it as normal'

Isis & the Talban insisted & made woman wear the burka . Yep R bee "Isis " & the "Taliban"

That's not oppressive it's just the way they are. No one is forced to wear the Burka
Walla

Where is this thing you talk about animal slaughter being the cause of racism? Are you confusing people not liking certain practices of religions as racism? I think you are.

The adopting of an excuse, any excuse, to criticise foreigners is racism. It was the slaughter of animals until it was pointed out that it is not only Muslims. It is minarets in other places. It is now the form of dress for Muslims, yet there has been no debate about other unusual forms of religious apparel. What will it be next as an excuse?
I am old enough to remember the slurs against immigrants such as their eating habits, their facial adornments, etc.
Even now, regularly in this forum, there is reference to the habits and lifestyles of foreigners not wanted in this country. The usual argument is that UK is British and they do not want their culture diluted. Then in another breath they claim that being British means tolerance, freedom of expression, etc (some of the very reasons why migrants choose to come here).

Not liking the burka isn't racist.

True, if it is singularly the point that one makes, as in Noseall's case, and they do not exploit other excuses. But when it is in a long list of excuses to criticise, or ridicule in BJ's case, it is racist.
Even more so when you make supposed case to support the choice to wear it, but intentionally include expressions meant to offend.

Finally:

Security think tank Quilliam director of policy David Toube said: "The purpose of terrorism is to sow division within our society. It should be a matter of concern to everybody when a large minority within any ethnic group feels that some in this country are against them.

"A vital part of fighting Islamist terrorism and extremism is ensuring that far-right reciprocal radicalisation also fails."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45171354
To succumb to reciprocal far-right radicalised extremism is to succumb to the desires and objectives of terrorism!

 

[motorbiking]

True, if it is singularly the point that one makes, as in Noseall's case, and they do not exploit other excuses. But when it is in a long list of excuses to criticise, or ridicule in BJ's case, it is racist.

Its not racism at all - its religious hatred.. dislike etc.. please learn the difference:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance

Nothing in law stops anyone criticising or disliking the practices of a religion be it wearing a cross, burka, sacrificing chickens or chopping people limbs off. lets be really clear: the vast majority of Muslims do not support the Burka, the vast majority of Muslim women will shake your hand if you offer it and the majority will greet with a kiss when in France or any other place where it is the social norm.

 

[sodthisforfun]

It is symbolic. I bet the bra burners went straight back to wearing their bras afterwards.


Typical misrepresentation as usual.

So are now you're trying to tell me that because the bra burners went back to wearing bras, then the burka burners probably went back to wearing those? If not, why write such an flippant thing?
You trivialised such an heart-breaking to witness and symbolic event of those poor souls who'd been living under a vicious and ridiculously oppressive regime.

Let me remind you of the video.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ving-beards-terrorism-terrorist-a7854431.html
Yeah, sure, I'm the one who is misrepresenting it

 

[Notch7]

True, if it is singularly the point that one makes, as in Noseall's case, and they do not exploit other excuses. But when it is in a long list of excuses to criticise, or ridicule in BJ's case, it is racist.

Wrong.

BJ used what he said for political capital -that is wrong.

You cant say what he said is racist. He made a pejorative statement about the garment, not about the wearer. That is not racist.

And it is possible to say something that offends -people have a right not to be subjected to racist abuse. People do not however have the right to not be offended.

The adopting of an excuse, any excuse, to criticise foreigners is racism.

So, if I criticise the Muslim religion for FGM, that makes me racist and if you defend it, it makes you a saint.

You need to stop blaming anybody that wants to have a discussion about the burka and its oppression of women by men. It is perfectly acceptable to criticise a religion where this practice continues.

Also you need to stop using the argument that it is racist because we are discussing one particular religion. That is what the discussion about.

If you want to have a separate discussion about other forms of religious apparel then fine, take each one in turn on its merit, but the you cant introduce something in order to substantiate your point. In any case, your whataboutery hasnt yet shown another garment that is oppressive to women.

Not only that but BJ also said that he does not agree with a ban because we live in a liberal society, so he is not saying women cant have the free will to wear what they choose, but he is saying he doesnt like those garments.

Muslim women are at liberty to say they think BJ looks scruffy, his ties are awful and his hair is terrible -they can say things that offend.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Wrong.



You cant say what he said is racist. He made a pejorative statement about the garment, not about the wearer. That is not racist.

The police also said no crime had been committed by Boris. Trust Wannabe to know better. Sigh.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

.

 

[JimCrow]

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Its not racism at all - its religious hatred.. dislike etc.. please learn the difference:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance

Do not be obtuse, nor patronising. I am well aware of the difference.
If we recall the many conflicts, crusades, etc throughout recent history, the issue has not been a religious issue: NI, The Balkans, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Communism, etc. However the conflict has, frequently and coincidentally, been divided along religious differences, but the issue was not religion. The religious differences merely demonstrated loyalty, and often served as an excuse to pursue the conflict.

Nothing in law stops anyone criticising or disliking the practices of a religion be it wearing a cross, burka, sacrificing chickens or chopping people limbs off.

True. But when some exploit those religious symbols to ridicule a whole segment of society, it is tantamount to inciting racial hatred.
As I explained, the racists picked on Mosques, animal slaughter, and other issues to propagate division. Now they have chosen the typical garments worn by Muslim women as their object of derision, despite similar garments being worn for millennia by other religions without attracting the least bit of interest.
In the 50's and 60's it was Afro-Caribbean, then it was Romani, now it is Muslims. If we go back before that it was Irish.
There will always be a group for racists to target. It is what they do.

lets be really clear: the vast majority of Muslims do not support the Burka, the vast majority of Muslim women will shake your hand if you offer it and the majority will greet with a kiss when in France or any other place where it is the social norm.

Agreed. But that does not restrict the racists from pursuing their politics of division and hatred, despite the customary greetings, and the tiny proportion of UK Muslim women wearing the Burka.

 

[Notch7]

Now they have chosen the typical garments worn by Muslim women as their object of derision, despite similar garments being worn for millennia by other religions without attracting the least bit of interest.

Where are these similar garments?

You've not shown any other religions that have a full face veil for women only.

 

[JohnD]

Are you sure?

Where do you find the word "approve" and the word "should?"

Clearly the poor chap can't say

 

[motorbiking]

Am I being racist if I say I don’t like Goths or people who listen to Dubstep?

I’m disliking them (and I don’t btw) because of something they choose to do, which I dislike.

 

[Notch7]

Clearly the poor chap can't say

Ah bless JohnD is talking to himself once again

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Am I being racist if I say I don’t like Goths or people who listen to Dubstep?

I’m disliking them (and I don’t btw) because of something they choose to do, which I dislike.

Your analogies are poor examples and silly diversionary tactics.

We were discussing whether it is acceptable to ban some garments. Or is it acceptable to stir up hatred against a segment of society.
We were discussing the adoption, by racists, to focus on any excuse to propagate their racism by selecting certain characteristics of groups of migrants to ridicule them and inflame hatred against them.
If you said you dislike Goths because some of them choose to do something which you dislike, but you choose to dislike them all, that would be a sensible analogy.
Then you are without doubt displaying bigotry.
If you went further and tried to drum up support for ridiculing them and developed a habit of finding excuses to ridicule them for any of their other characteristics, then it would be tantamount to inciting hatred.