Boris Johnson .. Burkha wearers look like letterboxes

[Drummond]

Boris Johnson is the UK's former Foreign Secretary and London Mayor. He has a habit of being 'controversial' from time to time. He's a diehard Conservative (& actually born in New York ..).

He just made some comments that are causing a storm over here. What's true of political correctness in the UK, how far it's gone, can be judged from this current furore ....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45114368


Former foreign secretary Boris Johnson is facing growing criticism over his remark that Muslim women wearing the burka "look like letter boxes".

Dominic Grieve, the ex-attorney general, said he would quit the party if Mr Johnson became leader.

Ex-Tory chairwoman Baroness Warsi said his remarks could trigger a rise in hate crime.

Senior Tories have urged him to apologise but Mr Johnson has not done so, and has stood by his comments.

In a Daily Telegraph article, he said full-face veils should not be banned, but it was "absolutely ridiculous" women chose to "go around looking like letter boxes". He also compared them to looking like "bank robbers".

A source close to the former London mayor has said: "We must not fall into the trap of shutting down the debate on difficult issues.

"We have to call it out. If we fail to speak up for liberal values then we are simply yielding ground to reactionaries and extremists."

But, speaking on BBC Radio 4's The World at One, Mr Grieve - a former Remain campaigner who has previously clashed with Mr Johnson over Brexit - said his behaviour was "very embarrassing".

Mr Grieve said he would "without the slightest doubt", quit the Tories if Mr Johnson became leader, "because I don't regard him as a fit and proper person to lead a political party".

Earlier Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright said there was no reason not to have a "robust conversation" about the subject, but added: "We're not talking to our friends in the pub. We are public figures and we have an additional obligation to be careful."

A former Tory chairman, Lord Pickles, said Mr Johnson, who was foreign secretary until resigning last month over Brexit, risked "closing down" the debate with his "illiberal language".

Supporters of Mr Johnson say the row is politically-motivated and that other senior Tories have made similar remarks without such criticism.

Writing in the Guardian, Baroness Warsi said Mr Johnson's remarks were "indefensible" and "have no place in the modern Conservative Party".

She said, although he was setting out a liberal position on the burka, he was doing it in an "alt-right" way, and using Muslim women as "political fodder… to stake out a leadership bid".

"Johnson's words… send out a message that Muslim women are fair game," she wrote.

Baroness Warsi was the first Muslim woman to sit in a British cabinet.

But mother-of-seven Tahira Noor, who has been wearing a burka for 20 years, said it was "100% my choice" and Mr Johnson's comments showed a "lack of knowledge".

She told BBC Radio 5 Live: "In today's day and age, the majority of the women who wear the burka are born and brought up in this country, are educated in this country, they've been to colleges, universities, and have understood why they want to do what they're doing.

"They're under no oppression, they're not doing it because their husbands want them to or their fathers want them to."

Ms Noor has four daughters and none of them wear a burka.

"I haven't forced my daughters into it because I don't have to," she said. "It's not a must, it's not an obligation."

Boris Johnson 'has caused offence', PM says ...

Mr Johnson's former adviser Munira Mirza said Mr Johnson's views on the burka had been "entirely consistent" and other Conservative politicians had expressed the same view, without being called Islamophobic.

In 2013 former Justice Secretary Ken Clarke - who also opposed a ban on the public wearing of burkas - said they should not be worn while giving evidence in court. He referred to burkas as a "peculiar costume" and a "kind of bag".

Ms Mirza said: "The reality is there is a political fight here.

"People who frankly couldn't care less about the issues that Muslim women face are piling into Boris because Boris said it."

Last year, Zaynab Hussein, a mother from Leicester, was left fighting for her life after a man she didn't know smashed into her with his car - and then ran over her again. She was attacked because she was a Muslim.

Tell Mama, the national organisation that collects anti-Muslim attack statistics, says that the majority of street victims of such abuse and violence are women, for the same reason that Mrs Hussein was singled out: some Muslim women are easily identifiable by their mode of dress - and therefore easy to target.

Seven years ago Baroness Warsi said prejudice against Muslims had passed the "dinner table test".

And Mr Johnson's critics regard his "letter box" and "bank robber" comments as part of the problem the peer defined: normalising prejudice and dehumanising women, rather than calmly debating the complexities of the veil in an open society.

Since Baroness Warsi's warning, there has been the launch of a cross-departmental working group to tackle anti-Muslim hate.

But it has been criticised as toothless, not least because the government can't agree a definition for Islamophobia.

What Boris Johnson said:

In his Daily Telegraph column, Mr Johnson - who last month quit the government in protest at Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit policy - was commenting on the introduction of a burka ban in Denmark.

He said he felt "fully entitled" to expect women to remove face coverings when talking to him at his MP surgery - and schools and universities should be able to take the same approach if a student "turns up ... looking like a bank robber".

"If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you," he said.

"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."

He said businesses and government agencies should be able to "enforce a dress code" that allowed them to see customers' faces.

But he said: "Such 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."

He said a total ban on face-covering veils would give a boost to radicals who said there was a "clash of civilisations" between Islam and the West, and could lead to "a general crackdown on any public symbols of religious affiliation".

[High_Plains_Drifter]

There's more PROBLEMS on the planet from small social problems to all out killing that stem directly from the stone age cult we know as islam, than any other sort of thing ever.

islam should be banned from all nations except known moslem sand pits. islam never has been nor will it ever be compatible with western culture and society. moslems don't assimilate where ever they go, they build up their numbers until they can impose their cult of death and subjugation on everyone else. This is not my opinion, this a fact, and no one should be told they can't speak the facts about islam. It needs to be said, it needs to be heard.

https://image.ibb.co/neSKRw/fuck_islam.jpg

https://image.ibb.co/e53R6w/evil.jpg

https://image.ibb.co/mAbiac/want_sharia.jpg

[Abbey Marie]

Like this?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11616&stc=1

[Drummond]

Like this?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11616&stc=1

... Yep !!

[Noir]

How surprising that Boris has chosen his words poorly.

“Women chose to”
Is really all that matters from the OP, if a woman freely choses to dress as she does. And sure people are free to pass comment -as they always will- about others appearance, but at the end of the day it comes down to your character as to what type of comment you will pass. I think the comments by Boris reflect poorly on his character.

[Drummond]

How surprising that Boris has chosen his words poorly.

“Women chose to”
Is really all that matters from the OP, if a woman freely choses to dress as she does. And sure people are free to pass comment -as they always will- about others appearance, but at the end of the day it comes down to your character as to what type of comment you will pass. I think the comments by Boris reflect poorly on his character.

Yes ... you would. Then again, your political bias might tempt you to call him 'racist' if he bought an ice cream cone with a colour of ice cream not to your liking.

You say he chose his words 'poorly' .. so, imagine yourself to be Boris J for a moment. You want to make a point, and you want to choose your words WELL. So. What words would YOU have used ?

But in any case, ARE we free to walk around exactly as we want ? Women wearing burkhas hide their identity. Yes, they DO look like bank robbers ! If I wanted to rob a bank, wearing a burkha would be an excellent precaution against getting caught.

That's aside from the cultural issue ... insisting that one's beliefs and persuasions are shoved down everyone's throats, in total disrespect of the culture you live in !!

Nobody has total freedom to wear what they want. Try walking in the street, naked from the waist down. Or, try wearing a Nazi uniform outside a synagogue. See ?

Fact is that you're choosing to oppose Boris, because you're specifically favouring the particular headdress he referred to, and all it represents. How very 'PC' of you.

There are times, Noir, when a stand MUST be made. Sheer decency demands it.

[Noir]

You say he chose his words 'poorly' .. so, imagine yourself to be Boris J for a moment. You want to make a point, and you want to choose your words WELL. So. What words would YOU have used ?

I’m giving Boris the benefit of the doubt that he chose his words poorly, under the understanding that he did not articulate well what he was thinking. If he did articulate his thoughts accurately, and so chose his words ‘well’ then that’s another matter


But in any case, ARE we free to walk around exactly as we want ? Women wearing burkhas hide their identity. Yes, they DO look like bank robbers ! If I wanted to rob a bank, wearing a burkha would be an excellent precaution against getting caught.

We are not free to walk around as we want, but we should be.


That's aside from the cultural issue ... insisting that one's beliefs and persuasions are shoved down everyone's throats, in total disrespect of the culture you live in !!

If you think that’s an issue, fair enough, I don’t, as a matter of free speech the government should not be restricting what you wear.


Nobody has total freedom to wear what they want. Try walking in the street, naked from the waist down. Or, try wearing a Nazi uniform outside a synagogue. See ?

IMO the nazi and the nudist should be free to wear what they please (or indeed not wear in the case of the nudist). If you want the government to place restrictions on clothing, fair enough, but I don’t see the justification.

[Drummond]

I’m giving Boris the benefit of the doubt that he chose his words poorly, under the understanding that he did not articulate well what he was thinking. If he did articulate his thoughts accurately, and so chose his words ‘well’ then that’s another matter

... yet, you offer no alternative wording. Surprise surprise.

Be honest. You object to his commenting, AT ALL.


We are not free to walk around as we want, but we should be.

Then, make your 'principled stand' ... try the alternatives I listed previously. And, 'why not' ... if you literally mean what you say ?

See where it gets you -- and, why.


If you think that’s an issue, fair enough, I don’t, as a matter of free speech the government should not be restricting what you wear.

Regardless of what it symbolises ? How it may offend ? Regardless of the abusive statement intended ? Tell me. Why do we 'not' have the right to be offended by burkhas ... but, we do, if a bunch of Nazis paraded down a city centre, complete with the wearing of full uniforms ?

How DARE Jewish people mind that !!


IMO the nazi and the nudist should be free to wear what they please (or indeed not wear in the case of the nudist). If you want the government to place restrictions on clothing, fair enough, but I don’t see the justification.

I'd make this point. Our culture should mean SOMETHING. Burkhas are examples of people wearing clothing designed to be an 'in your face' statement of utter contempt for the different culture within which they are being worn.

And, we did fight the Nazis. What they were. What they stood for. We recognised them as an enemy. Because, they WERE.

Perhaps we should forget the lessons of the past, eh ? In the name of political correctness, let's all insult everyone else ...

[Noir]

... yet, you offer no alternative wording. Surprise surprise.

Be honest. You object to his commenting, AT ALL.

I can not offer alternative wording without his motivations behind the statement. As I said I would rather offer him the benefit of poor wording rather than poor motivates.


Then, make your 'principled stand' ... try the alternatives I listed previously. And, 'why not' ... if you literally mean what you say ?

See where it gets you -- and, why.

I do not believe that you believe the statement ‘if I don’t think something should be illegal, then I want to do it’ and if you do think that, I definitely do not.


Regardless of what it symbolises ? How it may offend ? Regardless of the abusive statement intended ? Tell me. Why do we 'not' have the right to be offended by burkhas ... but, we do, if a bunch of Nazis paraded down a city centre, complete with the wearing of full uniforms ?

How DARE Jewish people mind that !!

Sure, be offended by both, but don’t let (or wish for) your government pass laws to try and prevent you being offended.

[Drummond]

I can not offer alternative wording without his motivations behind the statement. As I said I would rather offer him the benefit of poor wording rather than poor motivates.

... no, that won't do. You accused him of poor wording. Now, you've shifted to suddenly question his 'poor' motivation, and your second sentence suggests that poor wording is less of an issue than poor motivation.

You hadn't made such a point until now. Sure you're not attacking Boris because his politics fails to be your own ?


I do not believe that you believe the statement ‘if I don’t think something should be illegal, then I want to do it’ and if you do think that, I definitely do not.

Indeed ?

As an example: have I argued - AT ALL - for the questioning of laws in our debate ? It comes down to what we do, or do not, think acceptable clothing practice should be, out on the street, in public.

Boris has actually NOT come out in favour of outlawing the Burkha. All he's done is criticise it. For that, he's being pilloried and attacked.

You are one figure content to criticise him yourself.

Interestingly, previously, you tried to make a 'freedom' argument. Well, how about Boris being free to criticise, but MINUS attacks on him, for daring to ?

'PC' behaviour is undoubtedly one-sided, used to prop up a preferred status quo, and to instill the 'standard' insisted upon.


Sure, be offended by both, but don’t let (or wish for) your government pass laws to try and prevent you being offended.

Good. Boris is offended by the Burkha, and its 'letterbox' design. Let nobody push any legal imperative which tries to stop HIM being offended, and - in the name of free speech - expressing himself, as he sees fit.

..... AH .... BUT .... is that suddenly 'different', in Boris's case, because he's defied the inbuilt agenda of the 'PC' imperative he's expected to respect ? H'mmm ???

One law, one accepted standard, for burkha-wearers ... another entirely for those daring to be openly critical of them .. ??

'Funny' how this invariably works out, eh, Noir ?

[Drummond]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45130532


Boris Johnson is facing a possible investigation into breaches of the Conservative Party code of conduct.

The party has received dozens of complaints about the ex-foreign secretary's comments about Muslim women wearing burkas.

The complaints will be looked at by an independent panel which could refer Mr Johnson to the party's board, which has the power to expel him.

The party declined to comment on the details of the investigation.

A Conservative Party spokesman said: "The code of conduct process is strictly confidential." A source close to Mr Johnson offered no comment.

Mr Johnson has rejected calls to apologise for saying people wearing burkas looked like "letter boxes" or "bank robbers", in a Daily Telegraph column in which he also argued against a ban on full-face veils.

Critics have accused him of stoking Islamophobia to boost his Tory leadership ambitions but his supporters have said he was speaking up for "liberal values".

The Conservative Party has been accused of not doing enough to tackle anti-Muslim prejudice in its ranks, despite an initiative to boost tolerance and diversity.

The party's code of conduct states that Tory officials and elected representatives must "lead by example to encourage and foster respect and tolerance" and not "use their position to bully, abuse, victimise, harass or unlawfully discriminate against others".

The independent panel will decide whether to refer Mr Johnson to the party's board. Possible action includes suspension of membership or expulsion from the party among other, lesser sanctions.

... and ALL THIS, because he DARED to publicly offer criticism of the burkha, this in BRITISH society !!!

You approve, don't you, Noir, of where this is leading.

[jimnyc]

More like bags of garbage instead of the boxes. :rolleyes:

A shame, and perhaps this is the way they want it, especially in the States and other non-muslim countries - but they will rarely meet people and have the same "touch" with the world as a result. One can still be MORE than modest without wearing a garbage bag. But hey, if that's their choice, that's their choice.

I just don't think they should ever expect others to follow suit. And I think they should be prepared to have them banned in further non-muslim places. And deservedly do.

[Drummond]

More like bags of garbage instead of the boxes. :rolleyes:

A shame, and perhaps this is the way they want it, especially in the States and other non-muslim countries - but they will rarely meet people and have the same "touch" with the world as a result. One can still be MORE than modest without wearing a garbage bag. But hey, if that's their choice, that's their choice.

I just don't think they should ever expect others to follow suit. And I think they should be prepared to have them banned in further non-muslim places. And deservedly do.

The problem, of course, is that Muslims DEMAND total tolerance. Over here, the issue is one of why they're not getting it, and, if they're not, how this can or 'should' be spun. A Muslim woman wears a burkha ... so, there's an expectation of intolerance towards anyone critical of it.

Boris Johnson was, until recently, a major politician here. Someone of his relative stature, though, isn't immune to dire personal consequences, should he break from the PC line of daring to be critical instead of following the total tolerance line.

Be silent. 'Or else'.

[Gunny]

The problem, of course, is that Muslims DEMAND total tolerance. Over here, the issue is one of why they're not getting it, and, if they're not, how this can or 'should' be spun. A Muslim woman wears a burkha ... so, there's an expectation of intolerance towards anyone critical of it.

Boris Johnson was, until recently, a major politician here. Someone of his relative stature, though, isn't immune to dire personal consequences, should he break from the PC line of daring to be critical instead of following the total tolerance line.

Be silent. 'Or else'.I'll tell you right now ... a burkha is a PERFECT disguise to rob a bank. Especially in a Muslim community. Can you imagine the police lineup?

"#3, step forward, please ...." :rolleyes:

[Drummond]

I'll tell you right now ... a burkha is a PERFECT disguise to rob a bank. Especially in a Muslim community. Can you imagine the police lineup?

"#3, step forward, please ...." :rolleyes:

Yes, I know. It's completely ridiculous.

Boris himself, despite being as critical as he was, did NOT call for an outright ban on its being worn in public. But consider what he's enduring, for even speaking out as he has !!

We're so 'PC-stupid' over here that we'd rather destroy reputable careers than ban a perfect bank-robber's garb !!

[Drummond]

A bizarre development ...

Kay Burley is a Sky News presenter. She's caused upset by comparing the burkha issue with that of a decorated war hero, Simon Weston, who can't readily show his facial expressions as a result of severe facial burns he received during the Falklands Conflict (1982 ... Argentina invaded our territory, so we sent military forces to liberate the Islanders).

Hopefully the video on this page will play (check the link for it), but if not, it carries a transcript ..

https://thebritishjournal.net/skys-kay-burley-offends-falklands-hero-by-comparing-him-with-burka-wearing-women/


Sky’s Kay Burley has caused outrage as she has compared Falkland’s veteran and hero, Simon Weston with women who where burqas. Kay’s explanation was that Simon West, who suffered severe facial burns and women who wear burqas can’t show facial expressions, therefore, are one in the same according to Kay.

This is to illustrate her 'equivalence' argument ... including an image of Mr Weston as he now is ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11628&stc=1



Kay Burley said: “So what about, I don’t know, something like Simon Weston, who can’t necessarily show his facial expressions given what happened to him at the Falklands and he was so hideously burned?” she asked the MP.

The Sky presenter fails to see that she has caused upset and has so far refused to apologise for making the remark. Many on social media have called for the ‘biased’ and ‘crap presenter’ to resign. It comes as she was clearly biased and one sided during an interview with an MP, it has many wondering where impartial and fair news has went.

I think her intended point was that if we can accept Mr Weston's appearance, and his comparative inability to express himself through facial expression, so we should be equally accepting of burkhas.

[Drummond]

A bizarre development ...

Kay Burley is a Sky News presenter. She's caused upset by comparing the burkha issue with that of a decorated war hero, Simon Weston, who can't readily show his facial expressions as a result of severe facial burns he received during the Falklands Conflict (1982 ... Argentina invaded our territory, so we sent military forces to liberate the Islanders).

Hopefully the video on this page will play (check the link for it), but if not, it carries a transcript ..

https://thebritishjournal.net/skys-kay-burley-offends-falklands-hero-by-comparing-him-with-burka-wearing-women/



This is to illustrate her 'equivalence' argument ... including an image of Mr Weston as he now is ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11628&stc=1




I think her intended point was that if we can accept Mr Weston's appearance, and his comparative inability to express himself through facial expression, so we should be equally accepting of burkhas.

The Daily Mail has waded in ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6036125/Sky-News-presenter-Kay-Burley-BBC-DJ-Liz-Kershaw-Twitter-spat-women-wearing-burqa.html


Sky News presenter Kay Burley has been slammed on social media for dragging burned veteran Simon Weston into the burqa row during an interview with Tory MP Andrew Bridgen.

Comparing the Falklands War hero with a woman who obscures her face by wearing a burqa, she asked Bridgen whether he would be 'offended' if he could not read the veteran's facial expression.

The MP replied: ‘That’s an absolutely ridiculous comparison. He’s a decorated war hero, who’s been terribly, terribly wounded, in the service of his country, I mean, who would look at Simon Weston as anything other than in absolute esteem?’

Her line of questioning prompted scorn from the likes of UKIP which described it as 'crass and idiotic journalism'. But the presenter rejected the criticism, saying she was merely being 'ironic'.

Burley's interview following Boris Johnson’s controversial description of women wearing burqas looking like 'letter boxes and bank robbers' resulted in a Twitter row today between her and BBC broadcaster Liz Kershaw.

The social media spat started after Burley interviewed Bridgen, who defended Johnson’s article in the Telegraph which said that ‘it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes’.

Bridgen told Burley: ‘Some people are saying it’s racism… last time I looked Islam wasn’t a race.’

In the interview, Burley asked the politician whether he felt 'uncomfortable having a conversation with a woman who is wearing a burqa'.

She also compared Falklands War hero Simon Weston with a woman who obscures her face by wearing a burqa, by asking Bridgen whether he would be 'offended' if he could not read the veteran's facial expressions.

Weston is the Welsh Guardsman who suffered terrible burns when his ship was bombed by Argentine jets, receiving burns to 46 per cent of his body during the Falklands conflict in 1982.

Her interview prompted the BBC DJ to tweet: 'Oh come on @KayBurley Simon Weston was not able to make a choice about his facial features being erased. Women who wear burkas or Niqabs do. Don’t they? Or maybe not.’

Burley replied: ‘Bless you Liz, I would consider explaining irony to you, but that would just result in me being ironic. Have a great day.’

Kershaw shot back: 'Don't patronise me@KayBurley.'

Burley asked Bridgen to ‘clarify, you are comparing Muslim women wearing burqas to not being able to go into a bank wearing a crash helmet; is that right?’

The MP replied: ‘What I’m saying is that you are not allowed to go into a bank with your face covered, so the CCTV can’t see you. That is important... that’s the rules of going into the bank, you have to show your face, don’t you?’

Burley, laughing, replied: ‘What on earth has that got to do with suggesting that women in a burqa look like bank robbers?’

Bridgen said: ‘Well, there’s millions of years of human evolution that we look for affirmation for our own words and actions in the faces of others.

'And when people can’t see someone’s face, it makes them feel uncomfortable. They don’t get that behavioural feedback.

‘And it makes me uncomfortable, but someone wearing a burqa doesn’t make me feel any more uncomfortable than trying to have a conversation with someone wearing a crash helmet with the visor down. That makes me feel uncomfortable as well.

‘It’s just perfectly natural.’

Burley added: ‘So you feel uncomfortable having a conversation with a woman who is wearing a burqa?

The MP said: ‘I do, because when I’m speaking to someone, I want to see their reaction to my actions and my words, you look at their faces, millions of years of evolution in judging people’s reactions from their faces, and without that feedback, the conversation is very difficult, because that is what we are used to.’

Burley replied: ‘OK, I’ll have to ask you that again: you feel uncomfortable having a conversation with a woman, who is wearing a burqa?

Bridgen said: ‘With anyone with their face covered, yes, I do, if they were wearing a mask or a crash helmet, with the visor down, it’s very difficult to get that empathy and that behavioural feedback of whether they approve or disapprove, of what I’m saying, or how I’m saying it. It’s very difficult.’

She asked him: ‘So what about someone like Simon Weston, who can’t necessarily show his facial expressions, given what happened to him at the Falklands, when he was so hideously burned? Does that offend you?

He said: ‘No, not at all.’

She replied: ‘But he can’t show his facial expressions, the way that you’ve been illustrating, so just take that to its logical conclusion for me?’

The MP said: ‘That’s an absolutely ridiculous comparison. He’s a decorated war hero, who’s been terribly, terribly wounded, in the service of his country, I mean, who would look at Simon Weston as anything other than in absolute esteem?’

Her ‘ironic’ question also prompted criticism from Jack Montgomery, deputy editor at Breitbart London, who tweeted: ‘Right hand to God, @KayBurley is currently asking a Tory MP if he is offended by the face of a famous Falklands veteran with a horribly burned face because it’s hard to read his expressions, in the same way you can’t read the expressions of a woman in a burka. So out of touch.’

She replied: ‘Ask one of the grown-ups to explain irony to you, young man from @BreitbartNews.’

Her line of questioning attracted both criticism and applause, with UKIP labelling it as ‘crass and idiotic journalism’ on Twitter, while others defended her ‘humour’ and ‘ironic remarks’.

Kershaw also tweeted: ‘I’ll spell it out for you @KayBurley @SkyNews Burkas Niqabs full face crash helmets and indeed balaclavas all cover the face and disguise an individual’s identity. What’s to dispute?’

[Drummond]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11630&stc=1