Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[lifted*fox]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

I wouldn’t want women being forced into wearing clothing. 

 

Well, none of us want that. 

[Guest MattP]

The state of British politics in a nutshell here

 

[Strokes]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

The state of British politics in a nutshell here

 

It’s a shambles matt, you can’t blink without a scandal or blunder from either sides these days.

 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

How many women wearing burkas, are doing so out of free will? That would be something worth finding out surely, I mean they don’t exactly look comfortable. 

If it’s deemed oppressive shouldn’t we be looking at how best to approach and free them from it? I wouldn’t want a ban but equally I wouldn’t want women being forced into wearing clothing. 

 

Good question - or two good questions.

 

I've never known any Muslim women who wore the burqa or niqab (only the hijab/headscarf) so my impressions are based purely on media reporting/interviews. My impression is that women in the UK wear the burqa/niqab for a mixture of reasons. Some do it due to pressure from their family, community or menfolk, giving in to a conservative or oppressive interpretation of their religion. For others (mainly younger women or non-immigrants), it is a personal choice, not one they're pressured into.That could be because they want to avoid being ogled by men, because they want to assert their cultural identity as Muslims - or even, bizarrely, in some cases to immaturely draw attention to themselves (the opposite of the "modesty" doctrine).

 

So it probably is oppressive in some cases, but not in many others. But then lots of things can be deemed oppressive. Only a couple of generations ago, most white British women were expected to give up paid work when they got married, so as to look after the kids and the home - a minority still have such beliefs. Likewise, lots of white and black Christian parents insist on their kids going to church. As a society, don't we take the view that state or society should only intervene in extreme cases of pressure: kids being beaten for not going to Church, women being bullied into leaving paid jobs etc. If a Muslim woman leads a broadly free life and doesn't complain about being persuaded to wear a burqa, what can society do?

 

Part of the answer is through education, openness and integration. That's partly why I'm so opposed to faith schools. As a society, why should we facilitate the indoctrination of kids in Islam, Christianity or any other belief?! There's not much we can do about beliefs instilled at home, but schools can ensure that kids are exposed to a wide range of views on religion, politics, ethics, whatever, so that they grow into adults better able to think for themselves. Likewise, state/society can do things to ensure that immigrant women have wider opportunities: by encouraging contact with other communities, employment, language classes etc. If some choose an ultra-traditional role in the home, is there much more that can/should be done?

 

Some people are being disingenuous about Boris's faux pas: are his clumsy jokes to be forgiven because women in burqas are oppressed or because it should be OK to laugh at anyone? It cannot be both, surely? To the extent that they are oppressed, there's nothing to laugh at. We don't laugh at women with black eyes looking silly because they're the victims of wife-beating. Oppression argues for ridicule of reactionary Muslim preachers, not burqa-clad women.

 

Yes, we should be allowed to take the piss out of anyone and anything, including Islamic clothing. But any need for gratuitous rudeness and bullying - particularly of people already facing some hostility and in a weak position....such as some Muslim women in burqas? I can also only imagine the furore if Corbyn had made some equivalent faux pas: comparing Jewish skullcaps to pancakes, nuns to penguins or whatever.

 

Was Boris just trying to be funny in his clumsy way, always looking for attention or laughs? Or was it subtle dog-whistle politics, seeking to boost his leadership chances by pandering to prejudice against Muslims that is growing in a volatile climate over Islam and immigration? After reading his article, I'm really not sure. To some extent, his controversial comments were in line with the overall tone of the article: flippantly humorous. But he's bright enough to know that, in the current climate, his comments would be controversial and would be picked up and repeated, encouraging scorn or hostility towards Muslims among nastier elements. At the least, he was crassly reckless in his search for laughs and approval. More likely, I'm afraid, it was indeed subtle dog-whistle stuff put out there to boost his public profile in the run-up to a leadership challenge....because absolutely nothing matters to him as much as himself, his career and his self-promotion. 

 

Oh, yeah, don't ban the burqa....or the skinhead look....or the Eton/Bullingdon look...or the faces covered in tattoos and piercings look. I don't like any of them, but no reason for the state to intervene unless someone's clearly being forced against their will (hard to prove, except in extreme cases). They'll limit their social/career opportunities (apart from the Etonians), but if that's their choice....

Edited 8 August 2018 by Alf Bentley

[urban.spaceman]

I honestly loathe the state of politics in this country.

 

Everyone has lost their ****ing minds.

 

Public debate doesn't go anywhere because we're all busy screaming and throwing shit at each other. 

 

And if you don't agree you're literally a ****ing Nazi. 

 

Get me the **** out of here as soon as possible.

[Dr The Singh]

10 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

I honestly loathe the state of politics in this country.

 

Everyone has lost their ****ing minds.

 

Public debate doesn't go anywhere because we're all busy screaming and throwing shit at each other. 

 

And if you don't agree you're literally a ****ing Nazi. 

 

Get me the **** out of here as soon as possible.

Were one of the better nations my friend, atleast we have some sort of transparency.

[purpleronnie]

8 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

I honestly loathe the state of politics in this country.

 

Everyone has lost their ****ing minds.

 

Public debate doesn't go anywhere because we're all busy screaming and throwing shit at each other. 

 

And if you don't agree you're literally a ****ing Nazi. 

 

Get me the **** out of here as soon as possible.

It's pretty much the same everywhere atm.

 

If it winds you up so much you should distance yourself from reading about it, I did a similar thing, in fact I look at most of these things as quite humorous these types of stories have been going on for decades, politicians always fight amongst themselves and the opposition, the older you get the more you realise that its always happened and will always happen, round and round they go...its quite funny really.

Edited 8 August 2018 by purpleronnie

[yorkie1999]

Burkas shouldn't be banned, but people should be allowed to take the piss out of women wearing them. If i started dressing like this, i'd get ripped apart.

 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

The Burka thing is interesting as SJWs don't know who they want to be seen rescuing more, women or Muslims. It's funny to see their victim/oppressor/rescuer model fall flat on it's face. 

[Strokes]

8 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Good question - or two good questions.

 

I've never known any Muslim women who wore the burqa or niqab (only the hijab/headscarf) so my impressions are based purely on media reporting/interviews. My impression is that women in the UK wear the burqa/niqab for a mixture of reasons. Some do it due to pressure from their family, community or menfolk, giving in to a conservative or oppressive interpretation of their religion. For others (mainly younger women or non-immigrants), it is a personal choice, not one they're pressured into.That could be because they want to avoid being ogled by men, because they want to assert their cultural identity as Muslims - or even, bizarrely, in some cases to immaturely draw attention to themselves (the opposite of the "modesty" doctrine).

 

So it probably is oppressive in some cases, but not in many others. But then lots of things can be deemed oppressive. Only a couple of generations ago, most white British women were expected to give up paid work when they got married, so as to look after the kids and the home - a minority still have such beliefs. Likewise, lots of white and black Christian parents insist on their kids going to church. As a society, don't we take the view that state or society should only intervene in extreme cases of pressure: kids being beaten for not going to Church, women being bullied into leaving paid jobs etc. If a Muslim woman leads a broadly free life and doesn't complain about being persuaded to wear a burqa, what can society do?

 

Part of the answer is through education, openness and integration. That's partly why I'm so opposed to faith schools. As a society, why should we facilitate the indoctrination of kids in Islam, Christianity or any other belief?! There's not much we can do about beliefs instilled at home, but schools can ensure that kids are exposed to a wide range of views on religion, politics, ethics, whatever, so that they grow into adults better able to think for themselves. Likewise, state/society can do things to ensure that immigrant women have wider opportunities: by encouraging contact with other communities, employment, language classes etc. If some choose an ultra-traditional role in the home, is there much more that can/should be done?

 

Some people are being disingenuous about Boris's faux pas: are his clumsy jokes to be forgiven because women in burqas are oppressed or because it should be OK to laugh at anyone? It cannot be both, surely? To the extent that they are oppressed, there's nothing to laugh at. We don't laugh at women with black eyes looking silly because they're the victims of wife-beating. Oppression argues for ridicule of reactionary Muslim preachers, not burqa-clad women.

 

Yes, we should be allowed to take the piss out of anyone and anything, including Islamic clothing. But any need for gratuitous rudeness and bullying - particularly of people already facing some hostility and in a weak position....such as some Muslim women in burqas? I can also only imagine the furore if Corbyn had made some equivalent faux pas: comparing Jewish skullcaps to pancakes, nuns to penguins or whatever.

 

Was Boris just trying to be funny in his clumsy way, always looking for attention or laughs? Or was it subtle dog-whistle politics, seeking to boost his leadership chances by pandering to prejudice against Muslims that is growing in a volatile climate over Islam and immigration? After reading his article, I'm really not sure. To some extent, his controversial comments were in line with the overall tone of the article: flippantly humorous. But he's bright enough to know that, in the current climate, his comments would be controversial and would be picked up and repeated, encouraging scorn or hostility towards Muslims among nastier elements. At the least, he was crassly reckless in his search for laughs and approval. More likely, I'm afraid, it was indeed subtle dog-whistle stuff put out there to boost his public profile in the run-up to a leadership challenge....because absolutely nothing matters to him as much as himself, his career and his self-promotion. 

 

Oh, yeah, don't ban the burqa....or the skinhead look....or the Eton/Bullingdon look...or the faces covered in tattoos and piercings look. I don't like any of them, but no reason for the state to intervene unless someone's clearly being forced against their will (hard to prove, except in extreme cases). They'll limit their social/career opportunities (apart from the Etonians), but if that's their choice....

 

I can’t disagree with any of that, I appreciate the detailed reply. It would be nice if we could get some rough numbers on motives for the clothing, so we know what we are up against and then hopefully provide a way free from any oppressive elements.

I am too dubious about Boris’ motives although I’m not quite as cynical as some but I think you’ve summed my feelings up very well here.

[Buce]

9 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Good question - or two good questions.

 

I've never known any Muslim women who wore the burqa or niqab (only the hijab/headscarf) so my impressions are based purely on media reporting/interviews. My impression is that women in the UK wear the burqa/niqab for a mixture of reasons. Some do it due to pressure from their family, community or menfolk, giving in to a conservative or oppressive interpretation of their religion. For others (mainly younger women or non-immigrants), it is a personal choice, not one they're pressured into.That could be because they want to avoid being ogled by men, because they want to assert their cultural identity as Muslims - or even, bizarrely, in some cases to immaturely draw attention to themselves (the opposite of the "modesty" doctrine).

 

So it probably is oppressive in some cases, but not in many others. But then lots of things can be deemed oppressive. Only a couple of generations ago, most white British women were expected to give up paid work when they got married, so as to look after the kids and the home - a minority still have such beliefs. Likewise, lots of white and black Christian parents insist on their kids going to church. As a society, don't we take the view that state or society should only intervene in extreme cases of pressure: kids being beaten for not going to Church, women being bullied into leaving paid jobs etc. If a Muslim woman leads a broadly free life and doesn't complain about being persuaded to wear a burqa, what can society do?

 

Part of the answer is through education, openness and integration. That's partly why I'm so opposed to faith schools. As a society, why should we facilitate the indoctrination of kids in Islam, Christianity or any other belief?! There's not much we can do about beliefs instilled at home, but schools can ensure that kids are exposed to a wide range of views on religion, politics, ethics, whatever, so that they grow into adults better able to think for themselves. Likewise, state/society can do things to ensure that immigrant women have wider opportunities: by encouraging contact with other communities, employment, language classes etc. If some choose an ultra-traditional role in the home, is there much more that can/should be done?

 

Some people are being disingenuous about Boris's faux pas: are his clumsy jokes to be forgiven because women in burqas are oppressed or because it should be OK to laugh at anyone? It cannot be both, surely? To the extent that they are oppressed, there's nothing to laugh at. We don't laugh at women with black eyes looking silly because they're the victims of wife-beating. Oppression argues for ridicule of reactionary Muslim preachers, not burqa-clad women.

 

Yes, we should be allowed to take the piss out of anyone and anything, including Islamic clothing. But any need for gratuitous rudeness and bullying - particularly of people already facing some hostility and in a weak position....such as some Muslim women in burqas? I can also only imagine the furore if Corbyn had made some equivalent faux pas: comparing Jewish skullcaps to pancakes, nuns to penguins or whatever.

 

Was Boris just trying to be funny in his clumsy way, always looking for attention or laughs? Or was it subtle dog-whistle politics, seeking to boost his leadership chances by pandering to prejudice against Muslims that is growing in a volatile climate over Islam and immigration? After reading his article, I'm really not sure. To some extent, his controversial comments were in line with the overall tone of the article: flippantly humorous. But he's bright enough to know that, in the current climate, his comments would be controversial and would be picked up and repeated, encouraging scorn or hostility towards Muslims among nastier elements. At the least, he was crassly reckless in his search for laughs and approval. More likely, I'm afraid, it was indeed subtle dog-whistle stuff put out there to boost his public profile in the run-up to a leadership challenge....because absolutely nothing matters to him as much as himself, his career and his self-promotion. 

 

Oh, yeah, don't ban the burqa....or the skinhead look....or the Eton/Bullingdon look...or the faces covered in tattoos and piercings look. I don't like any of them, but no reason for the state to intervene unless someone's clearly being forced against their will (hard to prove, except in extreme cases). They'll limit their social/career opportunities (apart from the Etonians), but if that's their choice....

 

 

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I can’t disagree with any of that, I appreciate the detailed reply. It would be nice if we could get some rough numbers on motives for the clothing, so we know what we are up against and then hopefully provide a way free from any oppressive elements.

I am too dubious about Boris’ motives although I’m not quite as cynical as some but I think you’ve summed my feelings up very well here.

 

I think it's interesting that there is no doctrinal imperative for women to wholly cover themselves; from what I can make out, it's a case of historical, pre-Islamic Assyrian culture being melded with Islamic beliefs.

[leicsmac]

Alf has it right again.

 

TBH for me it's a pretty simple dichotomy: if women are wearing a burka/niqab of their own free will, then that choice should be respected. If they're being coerced into doing it, then it shouldn't. As has been discussed above, more research perhaps needs to be done on exactly how much coercion there is going on.

[Guest MattP]

23 minutes ago, Buce said:

I think it's interesting that there is no doctrinal imperative for women to wholly cover themselves; from what I can make out, it's a case of historical, pre-Islamic Assyrian culture being melded with Islamic beliefs.

It's the point that Nawaz and most of the reforming Muslims always make in the argument, it is nothing to do Islamic law and therefore should be treated as a womens rights issue rather than a religious one.

 

It's exactly the reason why our attitude shouldn't be "I don't care, it doesn't bother me".

 

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Alf has it right again.

 

TBH for me it's a pretty simple dichotomy: if women are wearing a burka/niqab of their own free will, then that choice should be respected. If they're being coerced into doing it, then it shouldn't. As has been discussed above, more research perhaps needs to be done on exactly how much coercion there is going on.

How on earth can you do that though?

And then even if the results you got weren't what you wanted (which is likely given I doubt many women seriously want to walk around dressed like this), how would implementation of trying to stop it be introduced, you can't go into houses and start telling women not to listen to their husbands, if they are wearing it in the first place due to pressure they are already long past the stage where a liberal preaching women's right is going to be listened to.

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's the point that Nawaz and most of the reforming Muslims always make in the argument, it is nothing to do Islamic law and therefore should be treated as a womens rights issue rather than a religious one.

 

It's exactly the reason why our attitude shouldn't be "I don't care, it doesn't bother me".

 

How on earth can you do that though?

And then even if the results you got weren't what you wanted (which is likely given I doubt many women seriously want to walk around dressed like this), how would implementation of trying to stop it be introduced, you can't go into houses and start telling women not to listen to their husbands, if they are wearing it in the first place due to pressure they are already long past the stage where a liberal preaching women's right is going to be listened to.

2

 

It's a woman's right to dress how she pleases, and you're basing your opinion on the assumption that they are being coerced. Fact is, you don't know that.

[purpleronnie]

So if some women are being coerced and some wear because they want to, what exactly do people want to happen?

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

It's a woman's right to dress how she pleases, and you're basing your opinion on the assumption that they are being coerced. Fact is, you don't know that.

Of course, fully agree.

I don't think there is any doubt some choose to wear it and some don't. How we help the latter is the key.
 

Just now, purpleronnie said:

So if some women are being coerced and some wear because they want to, what exactly do people want to happen?

This is the pertinant question.

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's the point that Nawaz and most of the reforming Muslims always make in the argument, it is nothing to do Islamic law and therefore should be treated as a womens rights issue rather than a religious one.

 

It's exactly the reason why our attitude shouldn't be "I don't care, it doesn't bother me".

 

How on earth can you do that though?

And then even if the results you got weren't what you wanted (which is likely given I doubt many women seriously want to walk around dressed like this), how would implementation of trying to stop it be introduced, you can't go into houses and start telling women not to listen to their husbands, if they are wearing it in the first place due to pressure they are already long past the stage where a liberal preaching women's right is going to be listened to.

 

11 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

It's a woman's right to dress how she pleases, and you're basing your opinion on the assumption that they are being coerced. Fact is, you don't know that.

This is it - we simply don't know.

 

However, as Matt says, it's also bloody difficult to find out too and as such it might have to come down to an educated guess.

 

It is a complex issue and doesn't need to be reduced to simplistic black/white concepts.

 

Edit: And I know it's likely too much to expect nuance from Boris but his lack of it doesn't do anyone any favours.

 

9 minutes ago, purpleronnie said:

So if some women are being coerced and some wear because they want to, what exactly do people want to happen?

It's a difficult one: you have to help those who are being coerced into wearing them by cultural pressure (and I'm sure there is plenty of that) while trying your damnedest to not inhibit the freedom of choice of the women who choose to wear it freely. When it's difficult to differentiate between the two and so know exactly how big the problem of coercion is compared to free choice it becomes even more difficult.

Edited 8 August 2018 by leicsmac

[Buce]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

Of course, fully agree.

I don't think there is any doubt some choose to wear it and some don't. How we help the latter is the key.
 

 

 

It's difficult.

 

Education may help - it's quite possible that they are unaware that it isn't un-Islamic not to be covered.

 

Possibly a change in the law to prohibit compulsion, and tangible and practical support for those that want it, in much the same way as the arranged marriage issue was addressed.

Edited 8 August 2018 by Buce

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

It's difficult.

 

Education may help - it's quite possible that they are unaware that it isn't un-Islamic not to be covered.

 

Possibly a change in the law to prohibit compulsion, and tangible and practical support, in much the same way as the arranged marriage issue was addressed.

Very difficult, almost impossible.

Even the creation of a law to prohibit compulsion isn't going to do anything, I mean we can't even get a single conviction on FGM despite an estimated 170,000 girls in the UK having undergone it so the chance of proving coercion to wear a burka and where the wife is prepared to testify? Just not going to happen.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37364079

[Buce]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Very difficult, almost impossible.

Even the creation of a law to prohibit compulsion isn't going to do anything, I mean we can't even get a single conviction on FGM despite an estimated 170,000 girls in the UK having undergone it so the chance of proving coercion to wear a burka and where the wife is prepared to testify? Just not going to happen.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37364079

 

Probably so, but it offers a way out for those who want to be helped, at least.

 

And there may be more who want to be helped if they know the support is there.

[leicsmac]

Also, I think there's a point here too:

 

Which is worse or are they equal: coercing a woman to wear a burka or hijab if they don't want to, or coercing them to not wear one if they do?

 

Edit: And does this depends on the numerical size of the problem either way?

Edited 8 August 2018 by leicsmac

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Buce said:

Probably so, but it offers a way out for those who want to be helped, at least.

 

And there may be more who want to be helped if they know the support is there.

That's if they would even know it's happening. Ayaan Hirsch Ali spoke about this a while back and said a lot of the women who live like this wouldn't even have access to television, newspapers etc - many don't even speak English. It's almost impossible to address.

 

It's also one of the reasons a ban could be even worse, as that would lead to this still going on but it being completely hidden from society.

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Probably so, but it offers a way out for those who want to be helped, at least.

 

And there may be more who want to be helped if they know the support is there.

I think, short of banning it, which is wholly the wrong path in my opinion. This is the best we can achieve. Give the women the chance to free themselves.

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

That's if they would even know it's happening. Ayaan Hirsch Ali spoke about this a while back and said a lot of the women who live like this wouldn't even have access to television, newspapers etc - many don't even speak English. It's almost impossible to address.

 

It's also one of the reasons a ban could be even worse, as that would lead to this still going on but it being completely hidden from society.

 

Which is why I suggested combining it with education - let the schools teach them what Mosque school won't.

[urban.spaceman]

The idea that we don't already tell people what they can and can't wear is absurd. How long has the 'naked rambler' been persecuted and jailed for his beliefs? How many venues have a strict dress code? How many pubs won't let you in if you're wearing the wrong football colours on matchday? If you were to walk down the high street with something offensive like "your mum's a cvnt" or a cartoon of Mohammed, you're likely to offend and could legitimately be prosecuted for it.