And Jack Straw?
For what? What is Islamaphobic?
Saying it looks ridiculous? It's regularly mocked in the west.
It's banned in some Muslim countries, and EU countries and he was attacking Denmark's policy. You don't agree with that? Now that's interesting.
They were worn a lot in Afghanistan. That's if they were out at all.
Believe it or not, it would be possible for Johnson to attack a policy without ridiculing individual people.
My point was, if May doesn't come out and publicly admonish Johnson for what many people are calling a targeted/racist/islamophobic attack in the Press, then is she therefore condoning it?I'm just asking the question.
Which part was interesting by the way?
A question predicated on this being IslamophobIa.
It's not.
I realise you've already posted in this thread and explained how you think nuns look ridiculous so you stating that wouldn't be prejudice. Whilst you're correct in the sense that freedom of speech essentially allows you to air your own opinion.Is there a difference when the position you are in means you have greater influence over large parts of a country (that's a question, not a statement)?
If Johnson wrote that people wearing a Jewish Kippah looked odd and, in his opinion, they shouldn't, would that be ok?Or, if he stated that Catholics clutching rosary beads is stupid, how about that?
Whilst a dictionary definition may state that Islamophobia is someone attacking someone because of their religion, someone in Johnson's position attacking what many people see as an item of clothing worn by those of a specific religion (whether completely true or not) is equally damaging in my opinion.
There's a difference between a) the freedom of individuals to choose and the b) the choices that they make.
In a liberal society then we should be respecting the former, but there's no obligation on us to respect the choices that people make.
He was writing an article that was going to be read by people who think it's ridiculous. As many do.
So the article was, "I know they look ridiculous, but.."
It's a way of writing at their level and getting them to agree with you. Conceding a minor point to make a larger one. You've never seen that? It seems like you didn't read the article and saw a passing bandwagon.
https://www.avforums.com/attachments/outrage-jpg.1047143/
Many? Left wingers like the BBC who focused on that? It seems to be mainly the left who have a problem with it. Given he's Conservative, not surprising.
On social media most tend to agree the niqab, burkha etc do look ridiculous. Early last century, pretty much everyone in Europe wore a hat. Now most don't, let alone cover their faces. So it does look ridiculous to many, to some a symbol of misogyny, or repression. Why should Theresa sack someone who's doesn't agree with Danish policy? Because of the way it's written? It's an opinion. At worst he could have couched the language different but again it comes back to who it was written for. The article itself is a criticism of Danish policy.
That you are focusing on one comment in an article. Did you read it? If not it's bad you'd want someone sacked over something you didn't even read.
Sacked from what? He's out the cabinet. You must have noticed.
It was about Danish policy. An EU country. Why aren't you concerned about their policy? Or do you agree with it? I think it's odd you haven't mentioned it as the thing you have an issue with. I mean Ukip wanted to ban it as well. So you could take the line, "How dare Denmark do this, this is just the thing Ukip wanted to do" or something.
Denmark veil ban: First woman charged for wearing niqab
So why isn't that your issue? You want him sacked for having a problem with it? As I said, it's interesting you do.
Blair and Jack Straw also have a problem. The fact Jack Straw was mentioned in the article, means you must have been aware of it.
If you'd read it.
Interesting no one mentioned that as well.
I am against a total ban because it is inevitably construed – rightly or wrongly – as being intended to make some point about Islam.
If you go for a total ban, you play into the hands of those who want to politicise and dramatise the so-called clash of civilisations; and you fan the flames of grievance.
You risk turning people into martyrs, and you risk a general crackdown on any public symbols of religious affiliation, and you may simply make the problem worse.
If Danish women really want to cover their faces, then it seems a bit extreme – all the caveats above understood – to stop them under all circumstances. I don’t propose we follow suit. A total ban is not the answer.
Restrictions are not quite the same as telling a free-born adult woman what she may or may not wear, in a public place, when she is simply minding her own business.
If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you. If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree – and I would add that I can find no scriptural authority for the practice in the Koran.
I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes; and I thoroughly dislike any attempt by any – invariably male – government to encourage such demonstrations of “modesty”.
If a constituent came to my MP’s surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled – like Jack Straw – to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly.
If a female student turned up at school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber then ditto: those in authority should be allowed to converse openly with those that they are being asked to instruct.
Mogg, Gove, and Boris met with Steve Bannon this week.It's clear that Boris intends to pivot and attempt to become a British Trump by courting the Xenophobic vote.
He will use the inevitable failure of May to negotiate a workable Brexit, adopt Bannon's campaign style, and make a move on the leadership.This comment puts him on the hard right's radar and will attrack the UKIP vote.
Not sure what the end game is though.At some point, somebody has to deliver Brexit and I certainly don't think Boris, Gove, or Mogg have any better chance than May.
All perfectly fair comments. And should not be taken to mean that making those comments means you have a phobia about their religion.