- Joined
- Sep 16, 2009
- Messages
- 2,922
- Reaction score
- 343
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Perhaps still vividly recalling the mauling he received when he last hit the headlines for talking about the burka, Jack Straw toes the line this time around:
Jack Straw: No ban on burkas in Britain - UPI.com
And who says people in Labour are incapable of learning? After Home Secretary John Reid's 'disciplinary' when calling for Muslim families to be vigilant against extremists in their own families, amongst other tellings-off for people in NuLab, it's probably best for government ministers not to dabble in things which they think should concern them.
If the wearers want to look like burks (hence the garment's name), it's up to them:
YouTube- Muslims - So.. This is how they eat?
...Though I don't know why they'd want to, other than by feeling compelled to by religion or their husbands, seeing as the burka would be so constricting:
LIZ JONES: My week wearing a burka... Just a few yards of black fabric, but it felt like a prison | Mail Online
‘As I was once strolling through the inner city, I suddenly happened upon an apparition in a long caftan with black hair locks. Is this a Jew? was my first thought ... but the longer I stared ... the more my first question was transformed into a new conception: is this a German?”
That is the passage from Mein Kampf in which Adolf Hitler describes how, walking as a student through the less salubrious streets of Vienna, he had suddenly understood the true threat that the Jews presented to the Germanic way of life. I hadn’t read those words since I was a student, but somehow they returned to my mind last week, prompted by the UK Independence party’s announcement that it would campaign to “ban the burqa
Perhaps still vividly recalling the mauling he received when he last hit the headlines for talking about the burka, Jack Straw toes the line this time around:
Jack Straw: No ban on burkas in Britain - UPI.com
And who says people in Labour are incapable of learning? After Home Secretary John Reid's 'disciplinary' when calling for Muslim families to be vigilant against extremists in their own families, amongst other tellings-off for people in NuLab, it's probably best for government ministers not to dabble in things which they think should concern them.
If the wearers want to look like burks (hence the garment's name), it's up to them:
YouTube- Muslims - So.. This is how they eat?
...Though I don't know why they'd want to, other than by feeling compelled to by religion or their husbands, seeing as the burka would be so constricting:
LIZ JONES: My week wearing a burka... Just a few yards of black fabric, but it felt like a prison | Mail Online
Jack Straw said that he would like women to remove their veils when they came to talk to him. He gave his reasons. This was a perfectly legitimate request stating his opinion.
Other than spamming the board, have you got a reason why you seem in favour of proscribing a dress code for women of a certain faith?
I ask because it seems to me that there is very little difference between those abhorring a burka and those abhorring western dress based on "principals".
I'm referring to repeated postings from Youtube.Once again I note that dissent is labelled as 'spam'. It's amusing to remember that when I derided some Leftist debating opponent with the same 'tactic' some time back he hit the roof. I appreciate the teasing value though.
Mind, I never encountered attacks on Western dress on the back of complaints from headmasters! I think you mean to use the world principles.
__________________________________
As at the very least indicated by the above, not all Muslim women, even in the West, are free to choose. They're either scared of annoying their control-freak god or enraging their even more fearsome menfolk or religious institution.
Remember the series of reformations which Christianity either suffers or enjoys? Christians are far more liberated than even 100 years back but Muslims still have their own chains to break. As with many reforms of Christianity, a good few need to be brought from on high, so that ONLY women who want to should wear them. (Though they should indeed be banned outright in places like schools, workplaces and other areas where you need open body language to communicate and not cut yourself off.)
Where the hell is the New Labour nanny state when you truly need it? It's poked its nose in too many times with the Christians, now let's see some backbone on this one...
We need not to forget but to learn from the past.
I'm referring to repeated postings from Youtube.
I'd rather hear what you have to say. Or at least from sources that are somewhat verifiable.
My point regarding the subject is that one can't prevent an enforced dress code on a minority by defacto enforcing another and especially based on principals.
It's called supplementary backup evidence! Or perhaps, for example, you don't think the good people at Channel Four are very reliable at researching and presenting their evidence?
(And as for my own stance, they can indeed be seen further in the videos PROPHET MUHAMMAD SAYS... and LABOUR 4 SHARIA.)
You mention the headmasters again. I think principles are a very good thing when not used for evil and carefully applied. And if Christians can be banned from wearing their devotional regalia in government buildings, or planes bound for Saudi Arabia, then there's no practical, commonsense reason why wearing burka can't be limited to circumstances here.
So you base your objection on "Choice"? That's nice. Except of course if you wish to wear such an article. In which case you are against that.Because even in the West it ain't necessarily a truly free choice, plus the fact you need to see peoples' body language most of teh time.
Try answering the question I ask and I won't repeat it. Until then if I want clarification, I'll ask.Read the bloody 'spam' then so as not to keep asking the same question!
Spam is using a dozen link to videos when one would suffice. We have a limited time on this earth, yoou wasted your own by repeatinng the same thing in a dozen ways. I would rather not waste mine by watching them all.(Incidentally, perhaps it's time to compile a glossary of Leftist Newspeak. 'Spam' is any kind of evidence or commentary you don't like,
Ok, is this relevant to anything in this thread, or is it a chip on your shoulder I'm unaware of?'Tolerance' is why you ban some religious things but defend others and 'militancy' is either terrorism or violent picketting.)
Ok, is this relevant to anything in this thread?
And I've heard terrorists and insurgents being called 'militants' on the news many times, despite militancy being less than the ability to blow up airports, aim bazookas or blow up US army jeeps.
Erm...Yes?Girls have been known to have been banned form wearing Christian regalia to school and air hostesses banned from flying to certain states with them. We're supposed to tolerate the religious intolerance of others, but stamp down on what's perceived as our own.
Militancy is any kind of physical action up to and including terrorism.And I've heard terrorists and insurgents being called 'militants' on the news many times, despite militancy being less than the ability to blow up airports, aim bazookas or blow up US army jeeps.
There's a classic 'cup is half full' attitude for you.
I understand your point, but the resurgent supremacist, totalitarian super-strain of Islam is totally corrosive to democracy and British identity, whilst the assimilatable and small Jewish communities are not.
Indeed, this new menace is just as dangerous as the Nazism you reference, sharing many similarities.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?