Current Affairs 2017 General Election

[Tubey]

Discussion is NOT accepted. Maybe this board is more tolerant to it than most but when have you ever seen a discussion on the BBC or anywhere else.

Neil you may not like anecdotal evidence but I deliberately posted what I have personally witnessed for that reason. I could add more about what I have personally witnessed but it is of little consequence

For me people can do what they want AS LONG AS NO ONE ELSE IS HARMED BY THAT OR COERCED.

As I am very little directly affected and don't have kids that might be affected by this (don't laugh but my first girlfriend was Muslim so if we had had any kids they could have been) I am not that bothered and don't spend all my time going mad about it.

Why am I posting all this then?

It's because some of you who are rightly very quick to stand up for women's and other peoples rights seem to be too scared to do so when rights might be infringed in or by one of our minority communities.

In other words I'm more annoyed at some of you lot who should know better than the Muslim's themselves.

It is political correctness gone mad or out of peoples fears of their own predudices.

This is what drives people to Le Pen etc. People are not fooled. They see liberal hipocrisy for what it is

Yes mate, but when some/most people want to 'Ban the Burqa', they don't want to do so for women's rights (and, by the way, I fail to see how telling women they can't wear an item of clothing is somehow pro-women's rights) - no, they want to do it because they are racist and loathe anything and everything Muslim.

So you can't have a discussion when doing so legitimises these people.

So, again, don't blame liberalism for the poor discussion - blame a racist agenda hijacking what could be a genuine sociological discussion, about how patriarchy is driving the burqa, how it limits socio-economic opportunities for Muslim women and so on.

 

[neil999]

Discussion is NOT accepted. Maybe this board is more tolerant to it than most but when have you ever seen a discussion on the BBC or anywhere else.

Neil you may not like anecdotal evidence but I deliberately posted what I have personally witnessed for that reason. I could add more about what I have personally witnessed but it is of little consequence

For me people can do what they want AS LONG AS NO ONE ELSE IS HARMED BY THAT OR COERCED.

As I am very little directly affected and don't have kids that might be affected by this (don't laugh but my first girlfriend was Muslim so if we had had any kids they could have been) I am not that bothered and don't spend all my time going mad about it.

Why am I posting all this then?

It's because some of you who are rightly very quick to stand up for women's and other peoples rights seem to be too scared to do so when rights might be infringed in or by one of our minority communities.

In other words I'm more annoyed at some of you lot who should know better than the Muslim's themselves.

It is political correctness gone mad or out of peoples fears of their own predudices.

This is what drives people to Le Pen etc. People are not fooled. They see liberal hipocrisy for what it is

Sorry mate, but there is loads of discussion..i have seen plenty on newsnight and channel 4 news

 

[JonS]

Sorry mate, but there is loads of discussion..i have seen plenty on newsnight and channel 4 news

I have never seen any detailed discussion on the direction of Islam at the moment. Id like to see extensive discussion of this involving both Muslim's and non muslims.

Id like to see coercion an offense and kids taught in school to make up their minds for themselves.

About the only serious thing I can remember was channel 4s undercover investigation of hate preaching and terrorist sympathising carried out by women wearing the burka.

This was good important journalism but not the debate that I believe we should be having

 

[Sarnia Kevin]

How the myth cropped up that the Tories make better use of our money I'll never know. .

They don't, but they do it better than Labour. Government in general is very wasteful of money because it isn't theirs so they don't worry.

 

[JonS]

Yes mate, but when some/most people want to 'Ban the Burqa', they don't want to do so for women's rights (and, by the way, I fail to see how telling women they can't wear an item of clothing is somehow pro-women's rights) - no, they want to do it because they are racist and loathe anything and everything Muslim.

So you can't have a discussion when doing so legitimises these people.

So, again, don't blame liberalism for the poor discussion - blame a racist agenda hijacking what could be a genuine sociological discussion, about how patriarchy is driving the burqa, how it limits socio-economic opportunities for Muslim women and so on.

You can have the discussion. That is exactly what we should be doing. It is not having the discussion that leads to the rise of the groups you mention

 

[JonS]

They don't, but they do it better than Labour. Government in general is very wasteful of money because it isn't theirs so they don't worry.

Sometimes, but not always IMO.

From my time in local government I'd generalise that Labour administrations tended to offer better services but didn't have the interest they could or should have of ensuring value for money, while the Tories were the opposite - good at avoiding waste and making cost savings but worse at providing services.

Things are a lot closer together now though and Labour is just as likely to save money and cut as the Tories

 

[abelard]

For me people can do what they want AS LONG AS NO ONE ELSE IS HARMED BY THAT OR COERCED.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/com...-wear-a-niqab-at-my-citizenship-ceremony.html
I am Zunera Ishaq. I am a mother. I am university educated. I believe that the environment needs saving and I try to do my part by joining campaigns to plant trees. Chasing my boys in the snow is one of the things I love most about winter. I believe we should strive to give back to others, and for me that means volunteering: at women’s shelters, for political candidates or at schools.

I also wear a niqab. And according to my prime minister, that is all you need to know about me to know that I am oppressed.

It’s precisely because I won’t listen to how other people want me to live my life that I wear a niqab. Some of my own family members have asked me to remove it. I have told them that I prefer to think for myself.

My desire to live on my own terms is also why I have chosen to challenge the government’s decision to deny me citizenship unless I take off my niqab at my oath ceremony. I have taken my niqab off for security and identity reasons in every case where that’s been required of me, such as when I have taken a driver’s license photo or gone through airport security. I will take my niqab off again before the oath ceremony without protest so I can be properly identified. I will not take my niqab off at that same ceremony for the sole reason that someone else doesn’t like it, even if that person happens to be Stephen Harper.

I am not looking for Mr. Harper to approve my life choices or dress. I am certainly not looking for him to speak on my behalf and “save” me from oppression, without even ever having bothered to reach out to me and speak with me.


In light of what you posted above, how would you respond to someone like this? (since women who cover their faces in public is one of two reasons you give for criticizing Islam)

I think what people find troubling is a willingness to speak in sweeping terms about "Islam," a religion with over one billion followers practiced in very different ways across the globe, based on narrowly-selected self-serving personal anecdotes (one of which doesn't even necessarily go against the notion that 'people can do what they want AS LONG AS NO ONE ELSE IS HARMED BY THAT OR COERCED')

look no further than Kelvin MacKenzie for examples of why broad, anecdotally-based generalizations about entire communities are so toxic and dangerous

 

[tsubaki]

I'm happy to criticise Islam. In my lifetime (much of which I have spent living in multicultural areas with high Islamic populations) I've seen it change to become a more severe and fundamentalist form with mass covering up of women and children (two muslim women I work with have changed from not covering up to covering up in the last few years. An Indian woman of hindu descent I know got shouted at in the East End of London for not wearing a hijab). And reported importing of a Saudi form of Islam called Wahaabiism via Saudi funding of our Mosques and Imans.

Then there was the Channel 4 undercover doc on the women in burkas and the fundementalist support for terrorism that they showed behind closed doors.

To me people are scared to talk about it out of misguided political correctness.

This is what helps drive ordinary people away from mainstream parties

This is what comes of the British state (and the West generally) allying itself so closely with the Saudis, though. We have spent the last fifty years literally destroying any possible alternative to them having the dominant position in the Arab / wider Muslim world, and we are still doing it.

 

[JonS]

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/com...-wear-a-niqab-at-my-citizenship-ceremony.html
I am Zunera Ishaq. I am a mother. I am university educated. I believe that the environment needs saving and I try to do my part by joining campaigns to plant trees. Chasing my boys in the snow is one of the things I love most about winter. I believe we should strive to give back to others, and for me that means volunteering: at women’s shelters, for political candidates or at schools.

I also wear a niqab. And according to my prime minister, that is all you need to know about me to know that I am oppressed.

It’s precisely because I won’t listen to how other people want me to live my life that I wear a niqab. Some of my own family members have asked me to remove it. I have told them that I prefer to think for myself.

My desire to live on my own terms is also why I have chosen to challenge the government’s decision to deny me citizenship unless I take off my niqab at my oath ceremony. I have taken my niqab off for security and identity reasons in every case where that’s been required of me, such as when I have taken a driver’s license photo or gone through airport security. I will take my niqab off again before the oath ceremony without protest so I can be properly identified. I will not take my niqab off at that same ceremony for the sole reason that someone else doesn’t like it, even if that person happens to be Stephen Harper.

I am not looking for Mr. Harper to approve my life choices or dress. I am certainly not looking for him to speak on my behalf and “save” me from oppression, without even ever having bothered to reach out to me and speak with me.


In light of what you posted above, how would you respond to someone like this? (since women who cover their faces in public is one of two reasons you give for criticizing Islam)

I think what people find troubling is a willingness to speak in general terms about "Islam," a religion with over one billion followers practiced in very different ways across the globe, based on narrowly-selected self-serving personal anecdotes (one of which doesn't even necessarily go against the notion that 'people can do what they want AS LONG AS NO ONE ELSE IS HARMED BY THAT OR COERCED')

look no further than Kelvin MacKenzie for examples of why broad, anecdotally-based generalizations about entire communities are so toxic and dangerous

I have tried not to make generalisations about the whole religion and in my posts in here have repeatedly referred to the direction Islam has gone in in this country Wahaabi (Saudi style) Islam.

People should be free to dress how they want and if that woman wants to cover her head then fine.

 

[JonS]

This is what comes of the British state (and the West generally) allying itself so closely with the Saudis, though. We have spent the last fifty years literally destroying any possible alternative to them having the dominant position in the Arab / wider Muslim world, and we are still doing it.

Agreed

 

[tsubaki]

Meanwhile, in other strong and stable news:

Government plans to opt out of international human rights agreements in future conflicts would be dangerous and prevent British soldiers from obtaining justice, according to evidence submitted to a parliamentary inquiry by the Law Society and Liberty.

The proposal to temporarily suspend enforcement of the European convention on human rights (ECHR) in the next war would only protect the Ministry of Defence from scrutiny in the courts and damage the UK’s international reputation, the two organisations have told the joint committee on human rights (JCHR).

The president of the Law Society, Robert Bourns, said: “The proposal to opt out of an international human rights agreement to prevent false legal claims is not only disproportionate, it is dangerous.

“This could stop genuine claims ever being heard and would undermine hard-won international accords that protect our most fundamental shared values. Even claims for negligence brought by our own armed forces against the Ministry of Defence, for instance for providing inadequate equipment, could be blocked.

“In no other area of law would it even be considered that all cases be shut down in order to prevent false claims or save money. It is the role of the justice system to determine the merit of each case, a function that is and must remain separate from government.”

 

[JonS]

Meanwhile, in other strong and stable news:

Just don't go to war

 

[Chewbacca]

Id like to see coercion an offense and kids taught in school to make up their minds for themselves.

No religion or state sponsored religion will all ow this. As soon as people are educated and allowed to make up their own minds they overwhelmingly become atheists.

 

[neil999]

tories now predicted to win more seats than labour in wales, for goodness sake!

 

[WycombeToffee]

tories now predicted to win more seats than labour in wales, for goodness sake!

By a distance too...



These are odd times.