3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 8, 2018 13:56:16 GMT
Though Yeats' fear here was the rise of socialism, the Left and the modern world in general. He was a fascist fanboy in the 1930s and I suspect had he lived a bit longer like his friend Pound his reputation would not be what it is today. He died just in the nick in 1939. Orwell's essay on him is well worth a look. Regarding Johnson, I can't see him forming a new party because he's such a snug as a bug in a rug Establishment figure and to go out on a limb would likely remove him from his uber-posh comfort zone. He doesn't appear to have any strongly-held beliefs other than - like many (most?) politicians - a scout badge collecting desire to hold all the big offices of state including PM. He doesn't seem to have that believer's/zealot's gleam to risk the wilderness. |
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Aug 8, 2018 14:41:45 GMT
Unlike others I fear Boris CAN get elected. He was voted in as Mayor of London and despite doing sweet FA for anyone but himself, came out with his support intact. He recently said "F+++ Business" thus turning his back on the traditional Conservative support. What a time to be creating havoc! May could control him when in the Cabinet but now he's just after the popular vote. Although what's interesting is that voters in London consistently rate Johnson lower than voters in England at large (he has never had much support in Scotland or Wales). I do think that his vanity projects like Boris buses, the cablecar and the Garden Bridge have shown Londoners a side of him that the rest of the country may not have yet grasped. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2018 16:09:33 GMT
Unlike others I fear Boris CAN get elected. He was voted in as Mayor of London and despite doing sweet FA for anyone but himself, came out with his support intact. He recently said "F+++ Business" thus turning his back on the traditional Conservative support. What a time to be creating havoc! May could control him when in the Cabinet but now he's just after the popular vote. Although what's interesting is that voters in London consistently rate Johnson lower than voters in England at large (he has never had much support in Scotland or Wales). I do think that his vanity projects like Boris buses, the cablecar and the Garden Bridge have shown Londoners a side of him that the rest of the country may not have yet grasped. So the same people who voted Leave then? God help us all. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 8, 2018 17:09:09 GMT
Unlike others I fear Boris CAN get elected. He was voted in as Mayor of London and despite doing sweet FA for anyone but himself, came out with his support intact. He recently said "F+++ Business" thus turning his back on the traditional Conservative support. What a time to be creating havoc! May could control him when in the Cabinet but now he's just after the popular vote. Although what's interesting is that voters in London consistently rate Johnson lower than voters in England at large (he has never had much support in Scotland or Wales). I do think that his vanity projects like Boris buses, the cablecar and the Garden Bridge have shown Londoners a side of him that the rest of the country may not have yet grasped. People took Ken Livingston, who - whether you agreed with his policies or not - was a genuinely effective politician who got things done, for granted. It took a fair few years of BJ’s incompetence for his lack of effectiveness to become apparent because the lead-time on major projects meant that he could claim credit for Livingston’s achievements in his first term. Hopefully the rest of the country will catch on before too long, because god help us all if he ever did get to be PM. The man is all bluster and no implementation, and worse than that, the blustering is disastrously expensive with public money somehow ending up in his mates’ pockets at the end of it. |
|
|
|
Post by apubleed on Aug 8, 2018 19:22:05 GMT
I always find it interesting that it is conservatives, not so called progressives, that stand up to homophobic, sexist, false right-wing belief systems.
|
|
951 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Aug 8, 2018 20:59:32 GMT
I always find it interesting that it is conservatives, not so called progressives, that stand up to homophobic, sexist, false right-wing belief systems. You could say exactly the same thing about Christian beliefs but Conservatives never stand up against those. It's almost like something else is going on. |
|
|
|
Post by apubleed on Aug 8, 2018 21:02:14 GMT
I always find it interesting that it is conservatives, not so called progressives, that stand up to homophobic, sexist, false right-wing belief systems. You could say exactly the same thing about Christian beliefs but Conservatives never stand up against those. It's almost like something else is going on. You make a good point. |
|
1,250 posts
|
Post by joem on Aug 8, 2018 21:08:50 GMT
I am not going to comment on UK politics or the reasons Boris Johnson may have had to make the remarks he did. That's his business. I would only point out that the burkha is an instrument of oppression forced on women (you should not be able to consent to oppression any more than you should be allowed to accept slavery) and it should not be taken as a given that Muslims agree it should be allowed because the fact of the matter is most Muslim women do not wear it.
|
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Aug 8, 2018 21:20:41 GMT
I am not going to comment on UK politics or the reasons Boris Johnson may have had to make the remarks he did. That's his business. I would only point out that the burkha is an instrument of oppression forced on women (you should not be able to consent to oppression any more than you should be allowed to accept slavery) and it should not be taken as a given that Muslims agree it should be allowed because the fact of the matter is most Muslim women do not wear it. There is a sensible discussion to be had about the wearing of the burkha, and whether it's appropriate in all circumstances, and whether the laws in other countries have a place in the UK. You don't start a sensible discussion by claiming that people look like letterboxes. In fact, in inhibits the possibility of a sensible discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by apubleed on Aug 8, 2018 21:33:07 GMT
I am not going to comment on UK politics or the reasons Boris Johnson may have had to make the remarks he did. That's his business. I would only point out that the burkha is an instrument of oppression forced on women (you should not be able to consent to oppression any more than you should be allowed to accept slavery) and it should not be taken as a given that Muslims agree it should be allowed because the fact of the matter is most Muslim women do not wear it. There is a sensible discussion to be had about the wearing of the burkha, and whether it's appropriate in all circumstances, and whether the laws in other countries have a place in the UK. You don't start a sensible discussion by claiming that people look like letterboxes. In fact, in inhibits the possibility of a sensible discussion. It’s the unfortunate thing that this issue has become so politicised in the way it has that it is preventing really serious and important discussion about probably the worst sexism and homophobia on earth. About the relationship between religious ideology and violence. About a culture clash between western values of secularism, free thought and democracy. Critical thinking and the reality of the world. It makes it very hard to progress when the discussion is being had the way it is being had. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 8, 2018 21:33:30 GMT
The burkha is not the same as the niqab.
The niqab has never been compulsory even in regions where it is culturally commonplace. The percentage of women who wear it in the West is tiny. The idea that banning it does anything to help oppressed women is risible - the actual effect of such bans is that women simply become more isolated, because any woman who is not allowed to go out unless she wears the niqab is then just not allowed out! The Women who wear it voluntarily have their religious freedom restricted, women who continue to wear it are criminalised and report an increase in harrasament.
The actual ‘benefit’ is that no-one has to look at a woman wearing a face veil and feel a bit uncomfortable. Oh, and when someone suggests banning the hijab for being ‘oppressive’, it’s seen as the logical next step...
|
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 8, 2018 22:09:15 GMT
It makes it very hard to progress when the discussion is being had the way it is being had. ...and that's absolutely intentional, because Boris Johnson's aim in raising the issue the way he did had nothing whatsoever with fostering any kind of positive progress, and everything to do with sucking up to racists in an attempt to position himself as the next leader of the Conservative Party. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 8, 2018 22:27:19 GMT
that women simply become more isolated, because any woman who is not allowed to go out unless she wears the niqab is then just not allowed out! But that is domestic abuse. It is imprisonment. There are laws against that kind of abuse in this country. Do we ignore those basic protections and laws and human rights because the victim is non-white, as is generally the case here? If a woman is being confined to her home - and there are women in Britain whose families lock them into flats and houses - it's a police and social services issue. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Aug 8, 2018 23:25:42 GMT
I’m not a fan of Boris but he didn’t say that women shouldn’t wear the burkha. He said what he thought it looked like but said that we should not in the U.K. ban it as they have done in Denmark. If you are worrying about protecting Muslims, then what he said is rude but not an attack. He would not as PM then advocate the banning of Muslim's women's clothes. As the Irishman said to the lost motorist, 'I wouldn’t, start from here' - there is plenty of other stuff to have a go at.
|
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 8, 2018 23:50:44 GMT
that women simply become more isolated, because any woman who is not allowed to go out unless she wears the niqab is then just not allowed out! But that is domestic abuse. It is imprisonment. There are laws against that kind of abuse in this country. Do we ignore those basic protections and laws and human rights because the victim is non-white, as is generally the case here? If a woman is being confined to her home - and there are women in Britain whose families lock them into flats and houses - it's a police and social services issue. May tie in with ‘arranged marriages’ and where British women are taken to Pakistan and Bangladesh married forcible to a cousin and have been raped in order to get pregnant, so that the ‘husband’ can claim British citizenship. So all forms of subjugation. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2018 23:55:28 GMT
I know many Muslim ladies to choose to wear a hijab or headscarf, so wear more traditional clothes others will wear skinny jeans etc. Some others may not wear a hijab but they choose to wear traditional clothes and often these ladies will all interpret their faith slightly differently.
I haven't really discussed women wearing a burka with them or with Muslim males I know, there are more interesting things to talk about. The only time religion may be discussed might be during the Holy Month when I try to make sure I don't accidentally offer them a sweet or chocolate etc. I also try to find out when the EIDs are as it is useful to plan ahead and sometimes I'll send and EID card or at least make sure I wish my Muslim friends a happy EID etc.
I'd in now way say this is being politically correct or trying to cosy up to anyone but just being pleasant and respectful to colleagues and this is often reciprocated as they appreciate that I understand the basics of their faith without getting too deep into it.
|
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 8, 2018 23:55:35 GMT
I’m not a fan of Boris but he didn’t say that women shouldn’t wear the burkha. He said what he thought it looked like but said that we should not in the U.K. ban it as they have done in Denmark. If you are worrying about protecting Muslims, then what he said is rude but not an attack. He would not as PM then advocate the banning of Muslim's women's clothes. As the Irishman said to the lost motorist, 'I wouldn’t, start from here' - there is plenty of other stuff to have a go at.
He phrased what he said very carefully to give himself plausible deniability while making sure everybody who is even slightly racist would hear the dog-whistle loud and clear. And actually, as far as I'm concerned, that makes it worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 0:02:27 GMT
Am I being cynical or is he trying to get a debate going and draw Sajid Javid into the debate who he may see as one of his key rivals to the top job?
|
|
|
|
Post by apubleed on Aug 9, 2018 6:10:01 GMT
that women simply become more isolated, because any woman who is not allowed to go out unless she wears the niqab is then just not allowed out! But that is domestic abuse. It is imprisonment. There are laws against that kind of abuse in this country. Do we ignore those basic protections and laws and human rights because the victim is non-white, as is generally the case here? If a woman is being confined to her home - and there are women in Britain whose families lock them into flats and houses - it's a police and social services issue. I don’t think we should ignore it. But realistically can legislation really achieve the intended goals without creating a whole raft of unintended consequences that might make things even worse? What I personally would wish we could start doing is at least have honest conversations about this issue. In fear of being accused of racist (which makes no sense given you can convert into this belief system regardless of race) people just wont speak truthfully and deny any relationship between this far right belief system and far right values/behaviours/attitudes that we have been trying successfully to change in western societies for such s long time. If we don’t acknowledge a problem how can it ever be fixed? Of course, if you don’t really care about women, or gay people, liberal values or the truth - I understand why people wouldn’t be phased. But if you care about human rights and progressive values we can’t ignore this issue any longer. Yes, conservative agendas seem to be a bit hypocritical in which religion they criticise. But progressive agendas are also hypocritical in the opposite way. There is no way they’d give Christianity a free pass. |
|
19,793 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 9, 2018 7:18:02 GMT
“I wouldn’t want my four year old looked after by somebody wearing a burka – I wouldn’t want my elderly mum looked after by somebody wearing a burka."
Emily Thornberry
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 9, 2018 7:52:46 GMT
I wouldn’t want my four year old looked after by somebody wearing a burka What's your point? Do you disagree with this, and you would? How would you explain it to your child? "Why is she dressed like that, Mummy?" "Well, in her religion women are not treated as equals and they believe that men cannot control their sexual urges and that an uncovered woman is like meat left out for cats which you can't blame the cat for eating, and it is her responsibility to stop tempting men to screw her - even her face and fingertips are regarded as just way too alluring for these men. There's a cleric who even thinks showing two eyes is too alluring and they should only be allowed to show one. And if she does succumb to their attentions and have sex outside marriage in some of the countries where this garment was invented (by men) and is rigidly enforced (by men), she can be stoned to death for it. You can watch the videos on your iphone. Though if you are a princess they are more lenient and you just get shot." There are around 43 muscles in the human face. It is one of the most amazing tools for communication. Even other non-human animals can read it. Even birds can read it, as you'll know if you've kept them. We have evolved as gregarious, communal animals with this astonishing thing. For women - who in a human tribal group would have been the main rearers of children - they also evolved hairless faces to make that communication bond even better and stronger. And do you REALLY HONESTLY think that blanking all that out, erasing it, having your child brought up or your parent in their dying days cared for by someone whose religion or family has made her obliterate herself and cannot even smile at you is a good thing? Really? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 7:58:44 GMT
The burkha is not the same as the niqab. The niqab has never been compulsory even in regions where it is culturally commonplace. The percentage of women who wear it in the West is tiny. The idea that banning it does anything to help oppressed women is risible - the actual effect of such bans is that women simply become more isolated, because any woman who is not allowed to go out unless she wears the niqab is then just not allowed out! The Women who wear it voluntarily have their religious freedom restricted, women who continue to wear it are criminalised and report an increase in harrasament. The actual ‘benefit’ is that no-one has to look at a woman wearing a face veil and feel a bit uncomfortable. Oh, and when someone suggests banning the hijab for being ‘oppressive’, it’s seen as the logical next step... Exactly this. I hate to break it to the bigots, but women who don't wear any kind of veil are forced into marriages, suffer domestic abuse and/or are oppressed by religion. And actually, if we give people (in this case mostly Men) a reason to hide behind closed doors even more, then we are part of the problem. |
|
19,793 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 9, 2018 8:01:33 GMT
I wouldn’t want my four year old looked after by somebody wearing a burka What's your point? Do you disagree with this, and you would? How would you explain it to your child? "Why is she dressed like that, Mummy?" "Well, in her religion women are not treated as equals and they believe that men cannot control their sexual urges and that an uncovered woman is like meat left out for cats which you can't blame the cat for eating, and it is her responsibility to stop tempting men to screw her - even her face and fingertips are regarded as just way too alluring for these men. There's a cleric who even thinks showing two eyes is too alluring and they should only be allowed to show one. And if she does succumb to their attentions and have sex outside marriage in some of the countries where this garment was invented (by men) and is rigidly enforced (by men), she can be stoned to death for it. You can watch the videos on your iphone. Though if you are a princess they are more lenient and you just get shot." There are around 43 muscles in the human face. It is one of the most amazing tools for communication. Even other non-human animals can read it. Even birds can read it, as you'll know if you've kept them. We have evolved as gregarious, communal animals with this astonishing thing. For women - who in a human tribal group would have been the main rearers of children - they also evolved hairless faces to make that communication bond even better and stronger. And do you REALLY HONESTLY think that blanking all that out, erasing it, having your child brought up or your parent in their dying days cared for by someone whose religion or family has made her obliterate herself and cannot even smile at you is a good thing? Really? They were Emily Thorberry’s words, not mine. She appears to have the same view as Boris, which was my point. Personally I couldn’t give a toss what anyone wears. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 9, 2018 8:11:55 GMT
The answer is to not give them the chance - not merely allow a slightly looser form of manacles. 'Political correctness" in this case has ironically become one of the most amazing tools to maintain the patriarchal status quo. I have a friend who was a teacher. Several years ago one of her pupils told her she was scared of being taken out of the country for a forced marriage when she got to 16. The teacher - impeccable Guardian reading liberal - didn't know what to do. She didn't want to appear racist or culturally insensitive so she didn't act and the girl was taken out of school at 16 and married off against her will. How many times has this been allowed to happen by people who know something has been going on but are terrified of saying anything because it might seem un-PC? We've even reached the stage where Germaine Greer of all people - a woman whose career is based around her clitoris - employed whataboutery to defend FGM (yes, really), which she said was just like a punk girl having a piercing. And it is always women and girls who are thrown under the bus. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 8:19:22 GMT
I had friends in school who were forced into marriage. Don't try and play this game with me. And don't try and frame bigotry with feminism.
It's not about being 'politically correct' it's about having some sensible perspective. And not ending up on a slippery slope of 'anyone who doesn't conform to my particular cultural and political view of the world is 'wrong'.
Anyway I've better things to do with my day than get trapped in a circular argument with someone who will never shift their stance. Have a good one, try not to get yourself too wound up by us nasty liberals!
|
|
