In general I just find the whole "free speech" angle of it all absolutely laughable.
Of course he's got free speech and he has a right to say what he thinks. Doesn't mean he's free from criticism though, because that is ALSO free speech. That seems to be lost on all his advocates.
I agree with the sentiments of what Boris Johsnon said entirely, its just as usual he has said it in such a ham fisted way to provoke reaction. He had to get the headlines with Brexit, and now that he isn't a minister, he has to get it any way possible.
The burka is a direct block to integration, and is without a doubt suppressing freedoms of women. Without wanting to seem ignorant, I don't give a shit if some women say they want to wear it, they are brainwashed by religion and a terrible patriarchal society and culture. Something most on here would be arguing against, in white British culture for example, with the damn patriarchy stepping on women at every turn.
It's the Guardian reader's dilemma though. Stand up for the rights of religious minorities, or stand up for the oppression of women. Then again, a Tory said it, so that should tip the balance.
Johnson knows what he is doing, and you are falling for it. You have to understand that post the Brexit vote, the people that he appeals to like a) what he actually said, but b) and possibly more importantly, revelling in the reactions of those who dislike it.
The "cognitive dissonance" (I am having to learn a whole new load of phrases brought in by faux intellectuals) is unbelievable, and genuinely entertaining to watch. The burka is probably the biggest example of this we have at the moment.
don't see much wrong with what boris said - as many islam followers have stated including imans it has no religous meaning and i find it intimidating and offensive, a woman on itv last night who wears the niqab - which is the "letterbox" where as a burqa is a veil with a mesh like viewing part - stating that you people don't need to understand it you just need to respect it, what an arrogant individual.
That's arrogant ? How about people saying it should be banned as it's forced on women.... and women that say they wear it by choice are lieing
I've read that in the white British media... to me that's arrogant
I have not said it should be banned because it’s forced on women - it should be banned because it covers a whole face and doesn’t have a place in modern society.
What’s white British media?
Arrogance is stating that this, that or any other apparel "...doesn’t have a place in modern society..."
wearing your trousers hanging halfway round your ass and a bandana over your face also has no place in modern society- but people do it.
Any politician who comments on clothing ordinary people wear is a piece of shit, specifically commenting and mocking clothes women choose to wear.
There is a debate to be had about the burka, mocking people and calling them letter boxes is not it.
"yeah but what about Isreal?"
Oh, sorry wrong party with racists in it leadership
but there are rich muslims around so that must mean that they're controlling the narrative on this. This definitely has the "hand of saud" over it.
it's a SMEAR (TM)
The similarities in how Johnson and Corbyn are being defended and the racism used to attack those speaking out are scary.
Could you elaborate on that as I don't see it.
Johnson defenders: you’re stifling legitimate criticism of Islam
Corbyn/labour defenders: you’re stifling legitimate criticism of Israel.
Both are downplaying and so encouraging racism.
I could see how some people would see that but...
One is criticising the actions of an elected government, not an entire religion. The other is using dog whistle slogans to poke fun at the softest underbelly of Islam.
Just so you know whilst three of my four grandparents are Jewish I consider myself an atheist and therefore believe that all religions should be held up to close examination and if warranted criticism. As others have said if Johnson had written a serious piece criticising the actions of some elements of Islam then I would be on here (whilst holding my nose) defending his right to say it.
Johnson defenders: it’s not anti Islam cos look at all these Muslims that say a burka isn’t required
Labour anti semitism defenders: it’s not anti Semitic to say you’re anti zionist, look at all these Jews that say Zionism isn’t a requirement for their faith
That is badly thought out on your behalf.
You have said on here that Jewish does not equal Zionist or indeed Israel and have pressed me and others not to make that comparison (which I never have).
Whether you agree with it or not Corbyn has been criticising the actions of Israel and defending the plight of Palestinians (and I accept that that contains numerous nuances). Johnson on the other hand has not been criticising the actions of Islam and neither has he been defending anybodies plight.
Although I guess you could argue that the target of his attack may also be the group of people he is trying to defend (Muslim women).
Johnson defenders: it’s not anti Islam cos look at all these Muslims that say a burka isn’t required
Labour anti semitism defenders: it’s not anti Semitic to say you’re anti zionist, look at all these Jews that say Zionism isn’t a requirement for their faith
That is badly thought out on your behalf.
You have said on here that Jewish does not equal Zionist or indeed Israel and have pressed me and others not to make that comparison (which I never have).
Whether you agree with it or not Corbyn has been criticising the actions of Israel and defending the plight of Palestinians (and I accept that that contains numerous nuances). Johnson on the other hand has not been criticising the actions of Islam and neither has he been defending anybodies plight.
Although I guess you could argue that the target of his attack may also be the group of people he is trying to defend (Muslim women).
Where did you get the bizarre notion that Boris was trying to defend muslim women? He was trying to belittle immigrants in this country in an insulting way, and playing the prejudice card so favoured by proponents of Brexit.
I agree with the sentiments of what Boris Johsnon said entirely, its just as usual he has said it in such a ham fisted way to provoke reaction. He had to get the headlines with Brexit, and now that he isn't a minister, he has to get it any way possible.
The burka is a direct block to integration, and is without a doubt suppressing freedoms of women. Without wanting to seem ignorant, I don't give a shit if some women say they want to wear it, they are brainwashed by religion and a terrible patriarchal society and culture. Something most on here would be arguing against, in white British culture for example, with the damn patriarchy stepping on women at every turn.
It's the Guardian reader's dilemma though. Stand up for the rights of religious minorities, or stand up for the oppression of women. Then again, a Tory said it, so that should tip the balance.
Johnson knows what he is doing, and you are falling for it. You have to understand that post the Brexit vote, the people that he appeals to like a) what he actually said, but b) and possibly more importantly, revelling in the reactions of those who dislike it.
The "cognitive dissonance" (I am having to learn a whole new load of phrases brought in by faux intellectuals) is unbelievable, and genuinely entertaining to watch. The burka is probably the biggest example of this we have at the moment.
I am going to have to break your cherished belief on this. I think it is fairly common knowledge that I sit on the left of CL, that I read The Guardian, work in the Third Sector and am an all round bleeding heart liberal and snowflake.
I think there is no place for covering up women or hiding people away for whatever reason and I would like to see anything that does so banned. Be it religious, cultural, convention or custom and practice.
It is however perfectly legal to wear what you like or what you are told to wear and therefore along with any number of other laws, I suck it up or campaign to get things changed.
You are spot on with your reasoning for why Johnson has said what he has said, it is all about his leadership bid and for that more than anything he deserves to be criticised.
Johnson defenders: it’s not anti Islam cos look at all these Muslims that say a burka isn’t required
Labour anti semitism defenders: it’s not anti Semitic to say you’re anti zionist, look at all these Jews that say Zionism isn’t a requirement for their faith
That is badly thought out on your behalf.
You have said on here that Jewish does not equal Zionist or indeed Israel and have pressed me and others not to make that comparison (which I never have).
Whether you agree with it or not Corbyn has been criticising the actions of Israel and defending the plight of Palestinians (and I accept that that contains numerous nuances). Johnson on the other hand has not been criticising the actions of Islam and neither has he been defending anybodies plight.
Although I guess you could argue that the target of his attack may also be the group of people he is trying to defend (Muslim women).
Where did you get the bizarre notion that Boris was trying to defend muslim women? He was trying to belittle immigrants in this country in an insulting way, and playing the prejudice card so favoured by proponents of Brexit.
I'll stick me neck on the line here and say the vast majority of burqa or nuqab wearers are gonna British and not "immigrants".
I agree with the sentiments of what Boris Johsnon said entirely, its just as usual he has said it in such a ham fisted way to provoke reaction. He had to get the headlines with Brexit, and now that he isn't a minister, he has to get it any way possible.
The burka is a direct block to integration, and is without a doubt suppressing freedoms of women. Without wanting to seem ignorant, I don't give a shit if some women say they want to wear it, they are brainwashed by religion and a terrible patriarchal society and culture. Something most on here would be arguing against, in white British culture for example, with the damn patriarchy stepping on women at every turn.
It's the Guardian reader's dilemma though. Stand up for the rights of religious minorities, or stand up for the oppression of women. Then again, a Tory said it, so that should tip the balance.
Johnson knows what he is doing, and you are falling for it. You have to understand that post the Brexit vote, the people that he appeals to like a) what he actually said, but b) and possibly more importantly, revelling in the reactions of those who dislike it.
The "cognitive dissonance" (I am having to learn a whole new load of phrases brought in by faux intellectuals) is unbelievable, and genuinely entertaining to watch. The burka is probably the biggest example of this we have at the moment.
I am going to have to break your cherished belief on this. I think it is fairly common knowledge that I sit on the left of CL, that I read The Guardian, work in the Third Sector and am an all round bleeding heart liberal and snowflake.
I think there is no place for covering up women or hiding people away for whatever reason and I would like to see anything that does so banned. Be it religious, cultural, convention or custom and practice.
It is however perfectly legal to wear what you like or what you are told to wear and therefore along with any number of other laws, I suck it up or campaign to get things changed.
You are spot on with your reasoning for why Johnson has said what he has said, it is all about his leadership bid and for that more than anything he deserves to be criticised.
I agree with what you have said. I think that basically what Johnson has done has been very clever in the whole "yes, but, so" things I have been droning about for ages on here.
Yes, they look like letterboxes and bank robbers and oppressed individuals (here I am appealing to everyone from people who believe in women's rights (good) to Muslim hating bigots (bad) and many others no doubt)
But, we live in a tolerant society so they should be allowed to wear them and it shouldn't be banned (appealing to libertarians) It seems everyone has forgotten that he wrote this article saying that it shouldn't be banned!!!
Johnson defenders: it’s not anti Islam cos look at all these Muslims that say a burka isn’t required
Labour anti semitism defenders: it’s not anti Semitic to say you’re anti zionist, look at all these Jews that say Zionism isn’t a requirement for their faith
That is badly thought out on your behalf.
You have said on here that Jewish does not equal Zionist or indeed Israel and have pressed me and others not to make that comparison (which I never have).
Whether you agree with it or not Corbyn has been criticising the actions of Israel and defending the plight of Palestinians (and I accept that that contains numerous nuances). Johnson on the other hand has not been criticising the actions of Islam and neither has he been defending anybodies plight.
Although I guess you could argue that the target of his attack may also be the group of people he is trying to defend (Muslim women).
Where did you get the bizarre notion that Boris was trying to defend muslim women? He was trying to belittle immigrants in this country in an insulting way, and playing the prejudice card so favoured by proponents of Brexit.
I think we have got our wires crossed. I was being playful with the notion and highlighting the ridiculousness of his comments.
I agree with the sentiments of what Boris Johsnon said entirely, its just as usual he has said it in such a ham fisted way to provoke reaction. He had to get the headlines with Brexit, and now that he isn't a minister, he has to get it any way possible.
The burka is a direct block to integration, and is without a doubt suppressing freedoms of women. Without wanting to seem ignorant, I don't give a shit if some women say they want to wear it, they are brainwashed by religion and a terrible patriarchal society and culture. Something most on here would be arguing against, in white British culture for example, with the damn patriarchy stepping on women at every turn.
It's the Guardian reader's dilemma though. Stand up for the rights of religious minorities, or stand up for the oppression of women. Then again, a Tory said it, so that should tip the balance.
Johnson knows what he is doing, and you are falling for it. You have to understand that post the Brexit vote, the people that he appeals to like a) what he actually said, but b) and possibly more importantly, revelling in the reactions of those who dislike it.
The "cognitive dissonance" (I am having to learn a whole new load of phrases brought in by faux intellectuals) is unbelievable, and genuinely entertaining to watch. The burka is probably the biggest example of this we have at the moment.
I am going to have to break your cherished belief on this. I think it is fairly common knowledge that I sit on the left of CL, that I read The Guardian, work in the Third Sector and am an all round bleeding heart liberal and snowflake.
I think there is no place for covering up women or hiding people away for whatever reason and I would like to see anything that does so banned. Be it religious, cultural, convention or custom and practice.
It is however perfectly legal to wear what you like or what you are told to wear and therefore along with any number of other laws, I suck it up or campaign to get things changed.
You are spot on with your reasoning for why Johnson has said what he has said, it is all about his leadership bid and for that more than anything he deserves to be criticised.
I agree with what you have said. I think that basically what Johnson has done has been very clever in the whole "yes, but, so" things I have been droning about for ages on here.
Yes, they look like letterboxes and bank robbers and oppressed individuals (here I am appealing to everyone from people who believe in women's rights (good) to Muslim hating bigots (bad) and many others no doubt)
But, we live in a tolerant society so they should be allowed to wear them and it shouldn't be banned (appealing to libertarians) It seems everyone has forgotten that he wrote this article saying that it shouldn't be banned!!!
I agree with the sentiments of what Boris Johsnon said entirely, its just as usual he has said it in such a ham fisted way to provoke reaction. He had to get the headlines with Brexit, and now that he isn't a minister, he has to get it any way possible.
The burka is a direct block to integration, and is without a doubt suppressing freedoms of women. Without wanting to seem ignorant, I don't give a shit if some women say they want to wear it, they are brainwashed by religion and a terrible patriarchal society and culture. Something most on here would be arguing against, in white British culture for example, with the damn patriarchy stepping on women at every turn.
It's the Guardian reader's dilemma though. Stand up for the rights of religious minorities, or stand up for the oppression of women. Then again, a Tory said it, so that should tip the balance.
Johnson knows what he is doing, and you are falling for it. You have to understand that post the Brexit vote, the people that he appeals to like a) what he actually said, but b) and possibly more importantly, revelling in the reactions of those who dislike it.
The "cognitive dissonance" (I am having to learn a whole new load of phrases brought in by faux intellectuals) is unbelievable, and genuinely entertaining to watch. The burka is probably the biggest example of this we have at the moment.
I am going to have to break your cherished belief on this. I think it is fairly common knowledge that I sit on the left of CL, that I read The Guardian, work in the Third Sector and am an all round bleeding heart liberal and snowflake.
I think there is no place for covering up women or hiding people away for whatever reason and I would like to see anything that does so banned. Be it religious, cultural, convention or custom and practice.
It is however perfectly legal to wear what you like or what you are told to wear and therefore along with any number of other laws, I suck it up or campaign to get things changed.
You are spot on with your reasoning for why Johnson has said what he has said, it is all about his leadership bid and for that more than anything he deserves to be criticised.
I agree with what you have said. I think that basically what Johnson has done has been very clever in the whole "yes, but, so" things I have been droning about for ages on here.
Yes, they look like letterboxes and bank robbers and oppressed individuals (here I am appealing to everyone from people who believe in women's rights (good) to Muslim hating bigots (bad) and many others no doubt)
But, we live in a tolerant society so they should be allowed to wear them and it shouldn't be banned (appealing to libertarians) It seems everyone has forgotten that he wrote this article saying that it shouldn't be banned!!!
So, can I be Prime Minister, please?
Actually I pointed this out much higher up this thread, so I'd like first crack at PM. Ta.
I agree with the sentiments of what Boris Johsnon said entirely, its just as usual he has said it in such a ham fisted way to provoke reaction. He had to get the headlines with Brexit, and now that he isn't a minister, he has to get it any way possible.
The burka is a direct block to integration, and is without a doubt suppressing freedoms of women. Without wanting to seem ignorant, I don't give a shit if some women say they want to wear it, they are brainwashed by religion and a terrible patriarchal society and culture. Something most on here would be arguing against, in white British culture for example, with the damn patriarchy stepping on women at every turn.
It's the Guardian reader's dilemma though. Stand up for the rights of religious minorities, or stand up for the oppression of women. Then again, a Tory said it, so that should tip the balance.
Johnson knows what he is doing, and you are falling for it. You have to understand that post the Brexit vote, the people that he appeals to like a) what he actually said, but b) and possibly more importantly, revelling in the reactions of those who dislike it.
The "cognitive dissonance" (I am having to learn a whole new load of phrases brought in by faux intellectuals) is unbelievable, and genuinely entertaining to watch. The burka is probably the biggest example of this we have at the moment.
I am going to have to break your cherished belief on this. I think it is fairly common knowledge that I sit on the left of CL, that I read The Guardian, work in the Third Sector and am an all round bleeding heart liberal and snowflake.
I think there is no place for covering up women or hiding people away for whatever reason and I would like to see anything that does so banned. Be it religious, cultural, convention or custom and practice.
It is however perfectly legal to wear what you like or what you are told to wear and therefore along with any number of other laws, I suck it up or campaign to get things changed.
You are spot on with your reasoning for why Johnson has said what he has said, it is all about his leadership bid and for that more than anything he deserves to be criticised.
I agree with what you have said. I think that basically what Johnson has done has been very clever in the whole "yes, but, so" things I have been droning about for ages on here.
Yes, they look like letterboxes and bank robbers and oppressed individuals (here I am appealing to everyone from people who believe in women's rights (good) to Muslim hating bigots (bad) and many others no doubt)
But, we live in a tolerant society so they should be allowed to wear them and it shouldn't be banned (appealing to libertarians) It seems everyone has forgotten that he wrote this article saying that it shouldn't be banned!!!
So, can I be Prime Minister, please?
Actually I pointed this out much higher up this thread, so I'd like first crack at PM. Ta.
Only on my say so sunshine.
Oh the power. I will change my name to John of Gaunt.
I think the Burqa is a problematic issue. I will defend a woman's right to wear it if they feel their religion requires it. I am against women being pressured into wearing it and religion removing the rights of women. The rights of women should always be prioritised over the rights of religions. The issue here is to bring other unhelpful factors into the debate - often from the standpoint of ignorance - are we at risk from women wearing them? - no so why create that myth, Should we try to use respectful language, even if we are challenging aspects of a religion. - yes of course. Now I would expect that senior politicians of all persuasions would adhere to these basic standards.
I think the Burqa is a problematic issue. I will defend a woman's right to wear it if they feel their religion requires it. I am against women being pressured into wearing it and religion removing the rights of women. The rights of women should always be prioritised over the rights of religions. The issue here is to bring other unhelpful factors into the debate - often from the standpoint of ignorance - are we at risk from women wearing them? - no so why create that myth, Should we try to use respectful language, even if we are challenging aspects of a religion. - yes of course. Now I would expect that senior politicians of all persuasions would adhere to these basic standards.
Imo the burqa / niqab is divisive and they also raise security issues. A biker MUST remove their crash helmet to pay for their fuel, but it's okay to wear a burka or niqab to enter the petrol station shop? See how long you can walk around in a public place with a full face baklava on, you'd be asked to remove immediately and rightly so. With the burqa, it even covers the wearers eyes ffs, how is that conjusive to living in a multi cultural, inclusive Country?
Muttley is a 100% right. Perverse minorities within Islam also practise forced marriages, child rape, grooming and FGM. Important issues that need discussing in language far beyond letterboxes. But this buffoon is putting his own profile infront of more crucial issues like Brexit and austerity, which will adversely affect 99.9% of the population. Excluding JRM and Hunt obviously.
I think the Burqa is a problematic issue. I will defend a woman's right to wear it if they feel their religion requires it. I am against women being pressured into wearing it and religion removing the rights of women. The rights of women should always be prioritised over the rights of religions. The issue here is to bring other unhelpful factors into the debate - often from the standpoint of ignorance - are we at risk from women wearing them? - no so why create that myth, Should we try to use respectful language, even if we are challenging aspects of a religion. - yes of course. Now I would expect that senior politicians of all persuasions would adhere to these basic standards.
Imo the burqa / niqab is divisive and they also raise security issues. A biker MUST remove their crash helmet to pay for their fuel, but it's okay to wear a burka or niqab to enter the petrol station shop? See how long you can walk around in a public place with a full face baklava on, you'd be asked to remove immediately and rightly so. With the burqa, it even covers the wearers eyes ffs, how is that conjusive to living in a multi cultural, inclusive Country?
The thing is - it isn't a religious/cultural requirement to wear a crash helmet whilst walking about in a public place or a balaclava (a Baklava is a bread like pastry ). Now if banks were being robbed or terrorists were hiding by using burqas, we have a legitimate reason for banning them in an instant. But to my knowledge, these things are not happening, so why do they become issues for some people? This is a very important question to test if you are being manipulated! The argument that I believe can be made against their use is around women's rights. As HG mentioned, we rightfully have decided FGM is unacceptable and those that practise it in this country face the full force of the law. It is important to do these things properly and respectfully and it isn't always easy to negotiate the contradictions - but don't make up ignorant reasons that have racist undertones. That helps nobody!
I think the Burqa is a problematic issue. I will defend a woman's right to wear it if they feel their religion requires it. I am against women being pressured into wearing it and religion removing the rights of women. The rights of women should always be prioritised over the rights of religions. The issue here is to bring other unhelpful factors into the debate - often from the standpoint of ignorance - are we at risk from women wearing them? - no so why create that myth, Should we try to use respectful language, even if we are challenging aspects of a religion. - yes of course. Now I would expect that senior politicians of all persuasions would adhere to these basic standards.
Imo the burqa / niqab is divisive and they also raise security issues. A biker MUST remove their crash helmet to pay for their fuel, but it's okay to wear a burka or niqab to enter the petrol station shop? See how long you can walk around in a public place with a full face baklava on, you'd be asked to remove immediately and rightly so. With the burqa, it even covers the wearers eyes ffs, how is that conjusive to living in a multi cultural, inclusive Country?
The thing is - it isn't a religious/cultural requirement to wear a crash helmet whilst walking about in a public place or a balaclava (a Baklava is a bread like pastry ). Now if banks were being robbed or terrorists were hiding by using burqas, we have a legitimate reason for banning them in an instant. But to my knowledge, these things are not happening, so why do they become issues for some people? This is a very important question to test if you are being manipulated! The argument that I believe can be made against their use is around women's rights. As HG mentioned, we rightfully have decided FGM is unacceptable and those that practise it in this country face the full force of the law. It is important to do these things properly and respectfully and it isn't always easy to negotiate the contradictions - but don't make up ignorant reasons that have racist undertones. That helps nobody!
How can it be racist? Ive seen White women wear them too!
I'd really prefer if people didn't keep calling me racist, specially when they're ignorantly profiling people who wear the burqa or niqab
Not calling you racist, implying that there are reasons which have racist undertones - which is what the whole row with Johnson is about. I'm not saying you made some of these ridiculous issues up, just suggesting you review them. How much risk does a woman wearing a burqa pose to you? What evidence do you have of any risk? The answers should be real and not invented!
So because a very small number of white people wear burqa's it is ok to get a free pass on taking the piss out of something different mainly worn by a minority? It wouldn't be racist to call a black person a cannibal either as white people have practised it! My point is that it isn't about opposing it, but make sure the reasons are proper reasons. Where is this issue with women wearing them holding up banks? Where is it? It seems to be a big issue for you and it doesn't bloody exist! Think about it!
As a woman, I see the burka as a symbol of oppression of women.
Which is a good point. Johnson wasn't speaking out against Burqa's but somebody can do and be more respectful than he was. That is a valid reason, not that they can hold up a bank! There will be instances when cultures and religions clash with our values and our values, such as equality, should always take precedence. We shouldn't accept religion's rights to oppress women or people by their sexuality for instance. But we can oppose burqas for these reasons because they are genuine ones - and whilst doing so, we don't have to refer to post boxes, terrorists or bank robbers!
Just pointing out that FGM is a problem in parts of Africa that are largely Christian. To me the barbaric practice is a cultural issue not a religious one.
The cultural and religious links can get blurred. We can never accept FGM because it damages young girls and contradicts our values. There are other things we may not understand, or think are silly that we can be more understanding about because they don't impact negatively on us or others. That is part of our liberal value system too. I think these values are as important to the Conservative party as the Labour party! I think a case can be made against burqas, but you can't invent issues, they ought to be real ones. And you shouldn't take the piss out of people wearing them by calling them letter boxes!
Just pointing out that FGM is a problem in parts of Africa that are largely Christian. To me the barbaric practice is a cultural issue not a religious one.
I was about to say the same and add that until recently girls were given/forced into FGM in Harley Street (amongst other places). I would imagine that it is still going on in the UK despite being illegal.
Johnson defenders: it’s not anti Islam cos look at all these Muslims that say a burka isn’t required
Labour anti semitism defenders: it’s not anti Semitic to say you’re anti zionist, look at all these Jews that say Zionism isn’t a requirement for their faith
That is badly thought out on your behalf.
You have said on here that Jewish does not equal Zionist or indeed Israel and have pressed me and others not to make that comparison (which I never have).
Whether you agree with it or not Corbyn has been criticising the actions of Israel and defending the plight of Palestinians (and I accept that that contains numerous nuances). Johnson on the other hand has not been criticising the actions of Islam and neither has he been defending anybodies plight.
Although I guess you could argue that the target of his attack may also be the group of people he is trying to defend (Muslim women).
saying you're "anti zionist" is imo saying youre anti semitic. What does it mean? That you think the state of israel shouldnt exist? Why? Surely you should support the left wing parties in israel that have always encouraged open dialogue with the palestinians. Are you also anti hamas that also blast bombs at israel? Sure the israeli government has done more than the fair share of crimes, but to wittle it down to "we should just get rid of the state of israel" is incredibly ignorant of a complex situation and like letting off a nuclear bomb to open a ketchup bottle.
But you can be accused of being anti-zionist and believe the state of Israel has a right to exist. That is if you criticise Isreali expansion for example. Who decides? Some people have a more liberal definition than you and some a much harder one! There are many jews that are critical of Isreal - is it not anti-semitic to consider these people as not important Jews?
It is a difficult point that you are not allowed to criticise Israel unless you also criticise the Palestinians in the same breath. There are wrongs and rights on all sides and subtleties, but you are not allowed to make your mind up on something that is ultimately anti Israeli government expansion, when you weigh everything up, even if you have never believed Israel shouldn't exist. Who writes the rules? And I know you haven't said that, but people are saying it.
But you can be accused of being anti-zionist and believe the state of Israel has a right to exist. That is if you criticise Isreali expansion for example. Who decides? Some people have a more liberal definition than you and some a much harder one! There are many jews that are critical of Isreal - is it not anti-semitic to consider these people as not important Jews?
It is a difficult point that you are not allowed to criticise Israel unless you also criticise the Palestinians in the same breath. There are wrongs and rights on all sides and subtleties, but you are not allowed to make your mind up on something that is ultimately anti Israeli government expansion, when you weigh everything up, even if you have never believed Israel shouldn't exist. Who writes the rules? And I know you haven't said that, but people are saying it.
well, surely find out what a zionist is and then whatever that is, the anti zionist is "anti". Lets take a look;
a supporter of Zionism; a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. "the artist's parents were committed Zionists"
So an anti zionist is against the development and protection of a jewish nation that is now in israel? Sounds pretty anti semitic to me, imagine being anti african nation or arab nation - it would be racist. I'm not saying dont criticise the government of israel, they've done more crimes than many. But saying you're an anti zionist is basically saying you're an anti semite.
I have a rich jewish heritage and i'm critical of israel. But saying that "some jews find it okay" when people are complaining about anti semitic behaviour is like going "hey my friend is black and he said its okay so it cant be racist" - which as we both know is bullshit.
Comments
Of course he's got free speech and he has a right to say what he thinks. Doesn't mean he's free from criticism though, because that is ALSO free speech. That seems to be lost on all his advocates.
The burka is a direct block to integration, and is without a doubt suppressing freedoms of women. Without wanting to seem ignorant, I don't give a shit if some women say they want to wear it, they are brainwashed by religion and a terrible patriarchal society and culture. Something most on here would be arguing against, in white British culture for example, with the damn patriarchy stepping on women at every turn.
It's the Guardian reader's dilemma though. Stand up for the rights of religious minorities, or stand up for the oppression of women. Then again, a Tory said it, so that should tip the balance.
Johnson knows what he is doing, and you are falling for it. You have to understand that post the Brexit vote, the people that he appeals to like a) what he actually said, but b) and possibly more importantly, revelling in the reactions of those who dislike it.
The "cognitive dissonance" (I am having to learn a whole new load of phrases brought in by faux intellectuals) is unbelievable, and genuinely entertaining to watch. The burka is probably the biggest example of this we have at the moment.
One is criticising the actions of an elected government, not an entire religion. The other is using dog whistle slogans to poke fun at the softest underbelly of Islam.
Just so you know whilst three of my four grandparents are Jewish I consider myself an atheist and therefore believe that all religions should be held up to close examination and if warranted criticism. As others have said if Johnson had written a serious piece criticising the actions of some elements of Islam then I would be on here (whilst holding my nose) defending his right to say it.
You have said on here that Jewish does not equal Zionist or indeed Israel and have pressed me and others not to make that comparison (which I never have).
Whether you agree with it or not Corbyn has been criticising the actions of Israel and defending the plight of Palestinians (and I accept that that contains numerous nuances). Johnson on the other hand has not been criticising the actions of Islam and neither has he been defending anybodies plight.
Although I guess you could argue that the target of his attack may also be the group of people he is trying to defend (Muslim women).
I think there is no place for covering up women or hiding people away for whatever reason and I would like to see anything that does so banned. Be it religious, cultural, convention or custom and practice.
It is however perfectly legal to wear what you like or what you are told to wear and therefore along with any number of other laws, I suck it up or campaign to get things changed.
You are spot on with your reasoning for why Johnson has said what he has said, it is all about his leadership bid and for that more than anything he deserves to be criticised.
Yes, they look like letterboxes and bank robbers and oppressed individuals (here I am appealing to everyone from people who believe in women's rights (good) to Muslim hating bigots (bad) and many others no doubt)
But, we live in a tolerant society so they should be allowed to wear them and it shouldn't be banned (appealing to libertarians) It seems everyone has forgotten that he wrote this article saying that it shouldn't be banned!!!
So, can I be Prime Minister, please?
Oh the power. I will change my name to John of Gaunt.
I'd really prefer if people didn't keep calling me racist, specially when they're ignorantly profiling people who wear the burqa or niqab
It is a difficult point that you are not allowed to criticise Israel unless you also criticise the Palestinians in the same breath. There are wrongs and rights on all sides and subtleties, but you are not allowed to make your mind up on something that is ultimately anti Israeli government expansion, when you weigh everything up, even if you have never believed Israel shouldn't exist. Who writes the rules? And I know you haven't said that, but people are saying it.
a supporter of Zionism; a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.
"the artist's parents were committed Zionists"
So an anti zionist is against the development and protection of a jewish nation that is now in israel? Sounds pretty anti semitic to me, imagine being anti african nation or arab nation - it would be racist. I'm not saying dont criticise the government of israel, they've done more crimes than many. But saying you're an anti zionist is basically saying you're an anti semite.
I have a rich jewish heritage and i'm critical of israel. But saying that "some jews find it okay" when people are complaining about anti semitic behaviour is like going "hey my friend is black and he said its okay so it cant be racist" - which as we both know is bullshit.