Let's have another referendum

[sooey]

Apologies to johndumb but I don't mean on brexit (dry those eyes john), rather on those hideous tents that poor muslim women are forced to wear.
2 to 1 majority in favour of banning them in this country according to one poll. What are we waiting for? Let's liberate those poor girls from subjugation, at least as far as the burqa is concerned, you never know, once they get a taste of freedom they might grow to like it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-burkini-poll-uk-britain-france-a7218386.html

 

[Roger928]

I agree.
Only downside is rapes will go up ten fold as muslim men will think its open season.

 

[Himaginn]

Racism is not an aberration of feelings alone, it engenders a hatred that seeks to manifest itself in actions.

What does racism lead to, if not violence?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Banning face coverings is not racism.

What does racism lead to, if not violence?

Racism does not a priori lead to violence. It can do, but usually doesn't.

 

[Himaginn]

Banning face coverings is not racism.

... rather on those hideous tents that poor muslim women are forced to wear.
Let's liberate those poor girls from subjugation, at least as far as the burqa is concerned, you never know, once they get a taste of freedom they might grow to like it.

Only downside is rapes will go up ten fold as muslim men will think its open season.

True banning face coverings is not racism. But neither comment makes any mention of face coverings. The first mention of face coverings was your comment after my comment about racism.
Moreover, this type of irrational frenzied attacks against Muslims is exactly in line with what daesh have been trying to achieve with their terrorism. It supports and enhances terrorism by radicalising gullible people against Muslims, which is precisely what daesh want in order to provide them with evidence of racism against Muslims.

Racism does not a priori lead to violence. It can do, but usually doesn't.

It can and often does. Where did racism lead to in USA, in South Africa, in Harlow, in the other 93 deaths caused by racism in the UK (only those covered 1996 -2013), and that does not include all the other violence.

How can you say "I support racism but I don't want to incite violence"? It's nonsense. All racism, however minor, however phrased, however delivered, potentially leads to violence!
It's like telling a joke and then saying that laughter is not allowed! Or building and stocking a library but then saying reading is not allowed!

 

[Gerrydelasel]

It can and often does.

I never never said it couldn't or didn't.

Where did racism lead to in USA, in South Africa, in Harlow, in the other 93 deaths caused by racism in the UK (only those covered 1996 -2013), and that does not include all the other violence.

But compare those numbers to the far higher number of racists who are not comitting violence. Individual cases does not mean always. What exactly does 'racial element' even mean?

How can you say "I support racism but I don't want to incite violence"? It's nonsense.

The key word in your message was 'potentially' (almost anything can 'potentially' lead to violence). Apartheid, for example, is ouvertly racist but does not require or encourage violence. People can want segregation, separation, deportation, special treatment etc. without wanting or inciting violence. I would have though this was obvious.

 

[Himaginn]

I never never said it couldn't or didn't.

Sadly, it's probably the older generation that 'incite' violence, but the younger, more gullible generation that actually inflicts that violence.
Also the support and promotion of racism perpetuates it. The older, supposedly more intelligent, racist parents are teaching their children to be racist. Hence the gullible age of the recent racist incident in Harlow.

But compare those numbers to the far higher number of racists who are not committing violence. Individual cases does not mean always.

Isn't one death caused by racism sufficient for you? Any and all support for racism is potentially inciting violence. There are sufficient deaths and other violence, caused by racism, to make t a disturbing motivation. All the more disturbing because it is based solely on taught prejudices.

What exactly does 'racial element' even mean?

Caused by a racist motivation!
Don't resort to minutia to evade the problem. That's a typical 'sweep it under the carpet' sleight of hand.

The key word in your message was 'potentially' (almost anything can 'potentially' lead to violence).

Like drinking potentially leads to being merry/drunk, taking medicine potentially leads to a cure, sex potentially leads to pregnancy, installing lights and sockets potentially leads to consuming electricity, owning a car potentially leads to driving. The second effect is the whole inherent motivation for the former action.

Apartheid, for example, is ouvertly racist but does not require or encourage violence. People can want segregation, separation, deportation, special treatment etc. without wanting or inciting violence. I would have though this was obvious.

And exactly how would these policies of separation, segregation be enforced, which were enshrined in an imperfect, racist, prejudiced law? By violence of course, as we witnessed in USA and SA.

I noticed you slipped in a few perfectly legal actions there: deportation and special treatment are perfectly legal. Indeed deportation is a manifestation of the law in action. Special treatment like private medical treatment is perfectly legal and acceptable.

In supporting and promoting racism (not anti-immigration which is where you're trying to escape to by using such words as deportation) what do you think is the ultimate objective?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Isn't one death caused by racism sufficient for you?

Sufficient for what? You seem to be assuming some unspoken motive in my messages that is not intended.

Any and all support for racism is potentially inciting violence.

Again a meaningless statement. Potentially is not the same as necessarily. A peson can consider another person inferior without implying any form of violence towards them, indeed, it can engender the contrary (special care and attention) while still qualifiying, techincally, as racism.

Racism is merely a catch-all label for a host of diverse beliefs and actions. Everyone has the right to believe anything they like about anyone or anything they choose. Some beliefs may lead to violence/crime in which case they fall within the remit of the law, but otherwise they're just beliefs and actions, morally obnoxious or otherwise. Obviously we shouldn't teach derogatory racist views, but neither should we censor or ignore genuine racial differences, or jump to conclusions about a person's motivation.

And exactly how would these policies of separation, segregation be enforced

Examples off the top of my head: A natural barrier such as the sea; an unnatural barrier such as a fence; a mutual agreement such as two tribes who hate each other and agree to live separately; opposing cultural norms that are objectionable (but not violent) to each other, etc. (Please don't assume any unspoken implication about practicality or historical precedent into these examples)

deportation and special treatment are perfectly legal.

I was referring to deportation of people on the grounds of race, and to special treatment such as affirmative action or, conversely, refusing to employ a certain race, for example.

In supporting and promoting racism what do you think is the ultimate objective?

What has supporting and promiting racism have to do with this conversation? I was merely refuting your non sequitur implication that racism must necessarily lead to violence and violence alone.

 

[sooey]

As Dawkins said worm tongue. Anything you can convert to or convert from is not a race. Now I appreciate that muslins don't like people who convert from their religion, in fact in many muslim countries that is punishable by death and has been, but it is still possible.
So give all this cr*p about racism a rest and stop yourself from looking quite such a pr1ck.

 

[Brigadier]

....and do try to keep your posts brief.

 

[sooey]

rather on those hideous tents that poor muslim women are forced to wear.
2 to 1 majority in favour of banning them in this country according to one poll. What are we waiting for? Let's liberate those poor girls from subjugation, at least as far as the burqa is concerned, you never know, once they get a taste of freedom they might grow to like it.

You quote this post and say this...

True banning face coverings is not racism. But neither comment makes any mention of face coverings. The first mention of face coverings was your comment after my comment about racism.

All of the burqas I've ever seen do cover the face? Another example of your penchant for making false statements, based on your, deliberately??, false interpretations of people's meanings.

 

[Himaginn]

You quote this post and say this...

All of the burqas I've ever seen do cover the face? Another example of your penchant for making false statements, based on your, deliberately??, false interpretations of people's meanings.

There's a difference between "face coverings" such as balaclavas, crash helmets, Burkas, and those which the wearers refuse to remove.
Your OP intimated that the wearers were not allowed to remove, yet you have no evidence to this. It's pure supposition based on bigotry on your part.
In France there is a law that bans "face coverings" in sensitive places, such as banks, schools, etc.
Your complete thread is based on the banning of any form of Muslim dress anywhere, with the added assumption that Muslim women want to abandon the dress code.
You have no evidence, no support, no data, no indication that this is the case. The evidence, the data clearly indicates the contrary to your assumption.

That's unadulterated racism!

You've a mountain to climb to try to disprove your homophobic racism. The more you try, the more you prove your homophobic racism!
In trying to disprove your homophobic racism, you're committing more homophobic and racist comments to record. Think on it, and think long and hard!

 

[Himaginn]

....and do try to keep your posts brief.

Sorry if my comments stretch your attention span.
Is that brief enough?

 

[sooey]

There's a difference between "face coverings" such as balaclavas, crash helmets, Burkas, and those which the wearers refuse to remove.
Your OP intimated that the wearers were not allowed to remove, yet you have no evidence to this. It's pure supposition based on bigotry on your part.
In France there is a law that bans "face coverings" in sensitive places, such as banks, schools, etc.
Your complete thread is based on the banning of any form of Muslim dress anywhere, with the added assumption that Muslim women want to abandon the dress code.
You have no evidence, no support, no data, no indication that this is the case. The evidence, the data clearly indicates the contrary to your assumption.

That's unadulterated racism!

You've a mountain to climb to try to disprove your homophobic racism. The more you try, the more you prove your homophobic racism!
In trying to disprove your homophobic racism, you're committing more homophobic and racist comments to record. Think on it, and think long and hard!

****ker

 

[Himaginn]

****ker

I see you're resorting to the methods of andypandy and woolbin et al, when the logic and reason deserts you re-post a video from one of the other racist sites. And then add an expletive for effect!