Racist POS Just Deserts

[taxme]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Make Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg PM?

Tommy Robinson or Nigel Farage for PM of Britain and get rid of traitors like May and her Islam supporting political hacks and ilk. Time to make Britain great again. Works for me. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

Make Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg PM?

Boris is probably funnier...

[Argus]

28 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Boris is probably funnier...

Yeah, but Jacob is probably smarter. I don't see him letting things get out of hand to the point you need to start taking up arms.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

Yeah, but Jacob is probably smarter. I don't see him letting things get out of hand to the point you need to start taking up arms.

I'm sure he is, which is probably why BoJo is desperately trying to court the populist vote.  Still, either way there's gonna be bloodshed.  Saw it coming years ago.

[Argus]

57 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm sure he is, which is probably why BoJo is desperately trying to court the populist vote.

If he'd wanted to court the populist vote he'd have called for banning the burqua. The majority of the British want it banned, and most of those who disagree are probably labour supporters anyway.

57 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

  Still, either way there's gonna be bloodshed.  Saw it coming years ago.

So did Enoch Powell. He was denounced as mad, of course.

Edited August 13, 2018 by Argus

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

If he'd wanted to court the populist vote he'd have called for banning the burqua. The majority of the British want it banned, and most of those who disagree are probably labour supporters anyway.

So did Enoch Powell. He was denounced as mad, of course.

I don't agree with a ban myself.  I don't mind the mocking though.  It's sure pissed a lot of people off.  All the right people.

[Argus]

11 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I don't agree with a ban myself.  I don't mind the mocking though.  It's sure pissed a lot of people off.  All the right people.

But disagreeing with the ban wasn't sufficient. He also mocked burkas! Oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth among British elites! Everyone from the PM to the first minister of bloody wales has had to express their horror! There seems to be a groupthink mentality among the political, media and academic elites that anyone who stands up for western values and expresses the view they are superior to the backward, misogynistic, homophobic and violently intolerant social values of other places is somehow being 'racist'. They routinely express disdain and contempt for deeply religious western Christians and their views and values, while expressing unreserved respect and reverence for the religious values and social views of Muslims.

Edited August 13, 2018 by Argus

[dialamah]

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

expresses the view they are superior to the backward, misogynistic, homophobic and violently intolerant social values of other places 

If Government dictating to women what they can or cannot wear is an indication of backward and misogynistic values in other places, how can Government dictating what women can or cannot wear be considered a superior and female-empowering value in Western nations?

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Argus said:

But disagreeing with the ban wasn't sufficient. He also mocked burkas! Oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth among British elites! Everyone from the PM to the first minister of bloody wales has had to express their horror! There seems to be a groupthink mentality among the political, media and academic elites that anyone who stands up for western values and expresses the view they are superior to the backward, misogynistic, homophobic and violently intolerant social values of other places is somehow being 'racist'. They routinely express disdain and contempt for deeply religious western Christians and their views and values, while expressing unreserved respect and reverence for the religious values and social views of Muslims.

Yep.  I hope he doesn't apologize.  There's nothing wrong with an offensive joke.  Most jokes are offensive to someone. 

That said, it is puzzling why a joke about burkas offends some people more then the article itself.

[dialamah]

12 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I don't agree with a ban myself.  I don't mind the mocking though.  It's sure pissed a lot of people off.  All the right people.

Also resulted in an increase in sales of burkas and niqabs.  People just seem to double down when their ideology, religious or political, is mocked.

So I guess this is really just a political football to kick back and forth, enabling both sides to "virtue signal" to their followers.  Nothing to do with the women themselves, who stand to loose the right and freedom to wear what they want - as they have in Iran and France, as well as many other countries, Islamic and Western.  Funny how both restricting or imposing apparel is claimed to be "for the woman's benefit".

[turningrite]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

If Government dictating to women what they can or cannot wear is an indication of backward and misogynistic values in other places, how can Government dictating what women can or cannot wear be considered a superior and female-empowering value in Western nations?

Oh come on. I suspect you understand the difference.

[dialamah]

44 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Oh come on. I suspect you understand the difference.

Not really.  I personally think burkas and niqabs are horrible things, they give me the creeps.  But I just don't see how that gives me the right (through my government) to tell women they can't wear them.  Its not that I don't understand that some women are forced to wear them by husbands and parents, just as some women are forced to do lots of things by husbands and parents.  I still don't think that justifies telling women who want to wear those things that they can't. 

If the government passed a law that made it illegal for girls under 16 to wear, I could support something like that because I suspect there are actual health issues associated with them.  But I don't think its my business or government's business to dictate what an adult woman can or cannot wear.  

Edited August 13, 2018 by dialamah

[DogOnPorch]

18 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Not really.  I personally think burkas and niqabs are horrible things, they give me the creeps.  But I just don't see how that gives me the right (through my government) to tell women they can't wear them.  Its not that I don't understand that some women are forced to wear them by husbands and parents, just as some women are forced to do lots of things by husbands and parents.  I still don't think that justifies telling women who want to wear those things that they can't. 

If the government passed a law that made it illegal for girls under 16 to wear, I could support something like that because I suspect there are actual health issues associated with them.  But I don't think its my business or government's business to dictate what an adult woman can or cannot wear.  

 

I will be arrested if I turn-up in a bank line-up wearing a ski mask and refusing to show my face.

[turningrite]

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Not really.  I personally think burkas and niqabs are horrible things, they give me the creeps.  But I just don't see how that gives me the right (through my government) to tell women they can't wear them.  Its not that I don't understand that some women are forced to wear them by husbands and parents, just as some women are forced to do lots of things by husbands and parents.  I still don't think that justifies telling women who want to wear those things that they can't. 

If the government passed a law that made it illegal for girls under 16 to wear, I could support something like that because I suspect there are actual health issues associated with them.  But I don't think its my business or government's business to dictate what an adult woman can or cannot wear.  

I think you're kidding yourself. There are norms in any society, and in ours as much as anywhere else. I'm glad to see you oppose the burka and the niqab, which are simply contrary to the Western ethos of individual dignity and the promotion of gender equality. But I think you have an overreaching view of personal freedom regarding attire when in actual fact we're often told mainly what we can't wear. Try walking up to a bank teller wearing a balaclava. My guess is that the police will be called. To cite a more mundane example, most workplaces restrict what employees can wear based on an assessment of common standards that are acceptable both to co-workers and clients. When I was still in the workforce, I recall that the dress code  explicitly forbade attire that could be construed as conveying any kind of political and/or ideological message or messaging. The evaluation of acceptability, then, is not held to rest in the eye of the wearer but, rather, in the eye of the beholder. In a diverse society, I believe adherence to common standards and expectations is the basis for general civility and amounts to appropriate social etiquette.

[dialamah]

10 minutes ago, turningrite said:

I think you're kidding yourself. There are norms in any society, and in ours as much as anywhere else. I'm glad to see you oppose the burka and the niqab, which are simply contrary to the Western ethos of individual dignity and the promotion of gender equality. But I think you have an overreaching view of personal freedom regarding attire when in actual fact we're often told mainly what we can't wear. Try walking up to a bank teller wearing a balaclava. My guess is that the police will be called. To cite a more mundane example, most workplaces restrict what employees can wear based on an assessment of common standards that are acceptable both to co-workers and clients. When I was still in the workforce, I recall that the dress code  explicitly forbade attire that could be construed as conveying any kind of political and/or ideological message or messaging. The evaluation of acceptability, then, is not held to rest in the eye of the wearer but, rather, in the eye of the beholder. In a diverse society, I believe adherence to common standards and expectations is the basis for general civility and amounts to appropriate social etiquette.

The law of the land tells us we must keep our genitals covered.  Some places may also require female breasts to be covered.  Beyond that we're pretty free to wear what we want, even if some of us are put off by what others of us wear.

Company policy and the law of the land are two separate issues.   Restaurants can put up a sign saying "No shirt, no shoes, no service" and if a customer fails to heed the sign and requests to leave, the cops could be called.  If we tried arresting shirtless or shoeless people as they walked down the street, that would be a different thing.

Banks may have a "visible face" policy and if a customer fails to comply and fails to leave, cops may be called.  I assume this applies equally to balaclava-covered and burqa-covered faces.  (Has anyone ever seen a Muslim woman in a bank with face covered?  I never have, but I rarely go into a bank.)

Our culture recognizes balaclavas in banks as a potential danger so we wouldn't be surprised at a robbery.  We also recognize religious dress and would be surprised at a robbery by a niqab-clad woman.  I suppose if we are suddenly presented with a rash of Muslim women robbing banks and convenience stores while wearing burkas and niqabs, balaclavas and religious wear would be comparable. 

[bush_cheney2004]

11 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The law of the land tells us we must keep our genitals covered.  Some places may also require female breasts to be covered.  Beyond that we're pretty free to wear what we want, even if some of us are put off by what others of us wear.

 

Really ?   So one can wear complete KKK garb in public without fear of putting someone off ?   

[dialamah]

26 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Really ?   So one can wear complete KKK garb in public without fear of putting someone off ?   

What did I say exactly ... Let's see:

Beyond that we're pretty free to wear what we want, even if some of us are put off by what others of us wear.

[turningrite]

44 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The law of the land tells us we must keep our genitals covered.  Some places may also require female breasts to be covered.  Beyond that we're pretty free to wear what we want, even if some of us are put off by what others of us wear.

Company policy and the law of the land are two separate issues.   Restaurants can put up a sign saying "No shirt, no shoes, no service" and if a customer fails to heed the sign and requests to leave, the cops could be called.  If we tried arresting shirtless or shoeless people as they walked down the street, that would be a different thing.

Banks may have a "visible face" policy and if a customer fails to comply and fails to leave, cops may be called.  I assume this applies equally to balaclava-covered and burqa-covered faces.  (Has anyone ever seen a Muslim woman in a bank with face covered?  I never have, but I rarely go into a bank.)

Our culture recognizes balaclavas in banks as a potential danger so we wouldn't be surprised at a robbery.  We also recognize religious dress and would be surprised at a robbery by a niqab-clad woman.  I suppose if we are suddenly presented with a rash of Muslim women robbing banks and convenience stores while wearing burkas and niqabs, balaclavas and religious wear would be comparable. 

You're backpedaling here. In many settings and contexts we restrict fundamental rights that are included in the Charter. Further, you set the parameters in this discussion where you state without apparent restriction "I still don't think that justifies telling women who want to wear those things that they can't." Now you appear to acknowledge that fundamental rights aren't always the relevant determinant of appropriate or acceptable personal conduct in many setting. As I said, appropriate attire is in many contexts determined in the eye of the beholder and not the wearer. Governments generally don't in this country generally set these restrictions, although M-103 illustrates that the current government seems open to limiting freedom of expression. 

One of the points I was trying to convey in my most recent post is that we constantly place restrictions on other fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of association (i.e. political affiliation) and freedom of thought (i.e. ideology). While these rights are accorded identical importance to freedom of religion, we know they're they're not treated as unrestricted rights. When I was still working, neither I nor my coworkers could wear a political party T-shirt or even a button. We accepted that this was a reasonable restriction premised on avoiding offense to co-workers and clients. So why should freedom of religion be afforded special treatment? It isn't and shouldn't be accorded any special treatment in comparison to other fundamental rights. There's a time and a place for these things. I think those on the freedom of religion bandwagon need to acknowledge this.

[Michael Hardner]

More M103 horseshit thrown in, in case anyone thought a serious debate was taking place.

I am going to start supporting people who just scream racism at any idea, if we're going to be stupid.

[bush_cheney2004]

34 minutes ago, dialamah said:

What did I say exactly ... Let's see:

 

 

So Canadians are free to celebrate their KKK history and culture by wearing hoods and robes in all public places, including schools and universities without government interference ?

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

More M103 horseshit thrown in, in case anyone thought a serious debate was taking place.

I am going to start supporting people who just scream racism at any idea, if we're going to be stupid.

Well why not, eh?  I know it's the UK, and not Canada, but people are actually accusing Boris Johnson of Islamophobia for the letterbox joke!

Edited August 13, 2018 by bcsapper

[Guest]

7 hours ago, dialamah said:

Also resulted in an increase in sales of burkas and niqabs.  People just seem to double down when their ideology, religious or political, is mocked.

So I guess this is really just a political football to kick back and forth, enabling both sides to "virtue signal" to their followers.  Nothing to do with the women themselves, who stand to loose the right and freedom to wear what they want - as they have in Iran and France, as well as many other countries, Islamic and Western.  Funny how both restricting or imposing apparel is claimed to be "for the woman's benefit".

I guess it depends on who you are talking about.  Certainly politicians do not deserve to be trusted, regardless of stripe, but I would just like to see religious people restrict their behaviour modification attempts to their own behaviour only.  Like I said, I don't believe in a ban, but I believe even less that any more than a tiny minority of Islamic women go into that darkness willingly.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Our culture recognizes balaclavas in banks as a potential danger so we wouldn't be surprised at a robbery.  We also recognize religious dress and would be surprised at a robbery by a niqab-clad woman.  I suppose if we are suddenly presented with a rash of Muslim women robbing banks and convenience stores while wearing burkas and niqabs, balaclavas and religious wear would be comparable. 

If I was a balaclava wearing bank robber I'd just wear a burka instead.

Edited August 13, 2018 by bcsapper

[dialamah]

41 minutes ago, turningrite said:

You're backpedaling here

Yeah, I don't think so.

Let me simplify.

I don't like niqabs.  I also don't like pants that hang halfway between knees and butt cheeks, showing off hairy butt cracks and dirty underwear.

But neither are illegal.  And in a free country, neither of them should be illegal.  No matter how offensive they are to some portion of the population. 

If a business should choose to disallow niqabs and underwear-exposing pants for their employees or customers, they are free to implement such policies. If an individual refuses to abide by those policies, the business can ask them to leave and call the cops to enforce that request if needed. 

Both people can claim discrimination, though I expect the niqab wearer would be more likely to win a court case due to that Canadian value known generally as "freedom of religion".

The police cannot stop by a public park or street and arrest someone wearing a niqab or low-slung pants.  In that case, both people would win court cases against the police.

You are trying to tell me that company policy about acceptable wear for employees or customers is the same as legislation directing what people can or cannot wear and its not. 

The problem for you, I am guessing, is that people's right to practice their religion as they see fit (within the law) is more important than pandering to people who don't like niqabs, at least so far.  Things may change; Canada has never shrunk from pandering to xenophobia, from the Chinese head tax, to interring Japanese, to turning away Jews.  No reason Muslim women shouldn't be next on that list. 

 

 

[dialamah]

36 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I guess it depends on who you are talking about.  Certainly politicians do not deserve to be trusted, regardless of stripe, but I would just like to see religious people restrict their behaviour modification attempts to their own behaviour only.  Like I said, I don't believe in a ban, but I believe even less that any more than a tiny minority of Islamic women go into that darkness willingly.

Its a tiny minority of women in Canada, the States, the UK who wear it.  Who knows how many do so willingly?  

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/i-wear-a-niqab-it-is-my-choice-thats-the/video45e41ef8-9032-4520-868b-4677b1024c0f-2/

https://torontolife.com/culture/art/sisters-project-muslim-women-alia-youssef/

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-survey-of-women-who-wear-the-niqab-reveals-choice-may-be-a-bit-of-a-youth-movement