What the **** is Boris thinking?

[Monty92]

Diverting attention away from an issue that genuinely could bring down Corbyn and even split the Labour Party, while giving them the chance to play whataboutery with the Tories and Islamophobia?

Why? Why would he do that?

[Pokster]

Diverting attention away from an issue that genuinely could bring down Corbyn and even split the Labour Party, while giving them the chance to play whataboutery with the Tories and Islamophobia?

Why? Why would he do that?

Because he is a bumbling idiot who couldn't give a **** who he upsets

[Monty92]

That’s almost certainly the least likely explanation.

He would have written those words very deliberately, in the sure knolwedge of the reaction that would follow.

QUOTE=Pokster;4217999]Because he is a bumbling idiot who couldn't give a **** who he upsets[/QUOTE]

[Burney]

Diverting attention away from an issue that genuinely could bring down Corbyn and even split the Labour Party, while giving them the chance to play whataboutery with the Tories and Islamophobia?

Why? Why would he do that?

It'll play well with the members. Like your mum.

He's basically dog-whistling to the membership that at the end of the day, Sajid Javid (who he regards as his most serious rival) is a fúcking Allan and can fúck off.

[Sir C]

Because he is a bumbling idiot who couldn't give a **** who he upsets

Many things he may be. A bumbling idiot he is not.

You appear to have fallen for his schtick.

[Pokster]

Many things he may be. A bumbling idiot he is not.

You appear to have fallen for his schtick.

The couldn't give a **** who he upsets seems to be true though..... he plainly isn't an idiot but does seem (might be deliberate) to put his foot in his mouth at every opportunity

[Pokster]

That’s almost certainly the least likely explanation.

He would have written those words very deliberately, in the sure knolwedge of the reaction that would follow.

QUOTE=Pokster;4217999]Because he is a bumbling idiot who couldn't give a **** who he upsets[/QUOTE]

If he deliberatley used language like that to get a recation then he is just a ****

[WES]

Diverting attention away from an issue that genuinely could bring down Corbyn and even split the Labour Party, while giving them the chance to play whataboutery with the Tories and Islamophobia?

Why? Why would he do that?

Eh? Woz he done then? :rubchin:

[Burney]

If he deliberatley used language like that to get a recation then he is just a ****[/QUOTE]

Language like what? Pointing out that women draped head to toe in cloth look absurd and sinister? They do. He's right. And the tolerance and normalisation of such oppressive modes of behaviour is damaging and wrong.

[Sir C]

The couldn't give a **** who he upsets seems to be true though..... he plainly isn't an idiot but does seem (might be deliberate) to put his foot in his mouth at every opportunity

He knows exactly who he's going to upset and does so quite deliberately.

[Monty92]

Eh? Woz he done then? :rubchin:

He indelicately (by comparing them to letter boxes) pointed out that face coverings are a symbol of patriarchal oppression, while also declaring that he opposes them being banned.

[Burney]

He knows exactly who he's going to upset and does so quite deliberately.

Exactly. As someone said earlier, if you've upset Jess Philips, Stella Creasy, Sayeeda Warsi and the Muslim Council of Britain, you're doing something right.

[Monty92]

Exactly. As someone said earlier, if you've upset Jess Philips, Stella Creasy, Sayeeda Warsi and the Muslim Council of Britain, you're doing something right.

Weirdly, none of those proud feminists had nothing to say about the "face coverings are a symbol of patriarchal oppression" bit of his article, nor that he doesn't want them banned due to his commitment to religious freedom.

[Burney]

Weirdly, none of that lot had nothing to say about the "face coverings are a symbol of patriarchal oppression" bit of his article, nor that he doesn't want them banned due to his respect for religious freedom.

Hmmm. Noted 'feminists' Jess Phillips (MP for Birmingham Yardley with its 33.6% muslim population) and Stella Creasy (MP for Walthamstow with its 25% muslim population) turning a blind eye to the obvious patriarchal oppression inherent to the Burqa?

What could possibly explain this apparent hypocrisy? :rubchin:

[WES]

He indelicately (by comparing them to letter boxes) pointed out that face coverings are a symbol of patriarchal oppression, while also declaring that he opposes them being banned.

Ah, that. Yes, I would -unusually - agree with you that it was very stupid.

Mostly because women covering their heads in any form just isn't worth the fight, not at this point. Let them wear what they want regardless of the motivation and focus on improving integration. If we win that battle, with time, the head covering will disappear.

All it does now is create conflict and get the Islamophobia cretins like Mehdi Hassan in an uproar.

[Burney]

Ah, that. Yes, I would -unusually - agree with you that it was very stupid.

Mostly because women covering their heads in any form just isn't worth the fight, not at this point. Let them wear what they want regardless of the motivation and focus on improving integration. If we win that battle, with time, the head covering will disappear.

All it does now is create conflict and get the Islamophobia cretins like Mehdi Hassan in an uproar.

Hilarious that you imagine we can 'integrate' with a culture that sets out quite deliberately to ensure that its womenfolk can't even be seen by anyone, let alone 'integrate' with them. The whole notion of integration with Islam is ridiculously stupid, since it grandly assumes that Islamic society actually wants to integrate with ours despite the fact that pretty much everything it has done over the last 30-40 years has made it abundantly clear that it does not.

Integration, ffs! :rolleyes:

And Boris's comments are very deliberate. They are designed to mark him out in the leadership campaign as not just another bland, corporate placeholder, toeing the politically-correct line and parroting the PC orthodoxies (like May), but someone who is prepared to say the controversial thing and will confront the uncomfortable truths.

[WES]

Hilarious that you imagine we can 'integrate' with a culture that sets out quite deliberately to ensure that its womenfolk can't even be seen by anyone, let alone 'integrate' with them. The whole notion of integration with Islam is ridiculously stupid, since it grandly assumes that Islamic society actually wants to integrate with ours despite the fact that pretty much everything it has done over the last 30-40 years has made it abundantly clear that it does not.

Integration, ffs! :rolleyes:

And Boris's comments are very deliberate. They are designed to mark him out in the leadership campaign as not just another bland, corporate placeholder, toeing the politically-correct line and parroting the PC orthodoxies (like May), but someone who is prepared to say the controversial thing and will confront the uncomfortable truths.

You don't think that Muslims who were born in this country are anymore integrated than their parents who came here from Pakistan or Bangladesh, as examples? Seriously?

Of course they are. And the people in our Muslim communities who don't want to integrate are in the minority and almost overwhelmingly immigrants. You're taking a small segment of these communities and elevating their views as though it was some sort of standard for all Muslims.

It isn't.

[Burney]

You don't think that Muslims who were born in this country are anymore integrated than their parents who came here from Pakistan or Bangladesh, as examples? Seriously?

Of course they are. And the people in our Muslim communities who don't want to integrate are in the minority and almost overwhelmingly immigrants. You're taking a small segment of these communities and elevating their views as though it was some sort of standard for all Muslims.

It isn't.


No. In fact, in many cases, second and third-generation muslims are proving MORE conservative and LESS integrated into our societies than their parents as they seek an identity in more and more extreme types of Islam. This is a demonstrable social phenomenon. Look at most of our home-grown islamic terrorists - born and bred here, but far more extreme than their parents' generation.

Muslims marry outside their communities less than any other ethnic group in this country - indeed they marry within their families more than any other ethnic group. They deliberately ghettoise themselves in distinct areas and set up separate schools, while their religious and cultural traditions - quite deliberately - reinforce division and make their social integration with other ethnic groups incredibly difficult.

Basically, every aspect of UK islamic culture is explicitly telling the rest of us to fvck off. Which part of the hint aren't you getting?

[WES]

No. In fact, in many cases, second and third-generation muslims are proving MORE conservative and LESS integrated into our societies than their parents as they seek an identity in more and more extreme types of Islam. This is a demonstrable social phenomenon. Look at most of our home-grown islamic terrorists - born and bred here, but far more extreme than their parents' generation.

Muslims marry outside their communities less than any other ethnic group in this country - indeed they marry within their families more than any other ethnic group. They deliberately ghettoise themselves in distinct areas and set up separate schools, while their religious and cultural traditions - quite deliberately - reinforce division and make their social integration with other ethnic groups incredibly difficult.

Basically, every aspect of UK islamic culture is explicitly telling the rest of us to fvck off. Which part of the hint aren't you getting?

The bit where you grossly exaggerate the issue to the point that you sound ridiculous.

'Basically, every aspect of UK islamic culture is explicitly telling the rest of us to fvck off.'

:hehe:

[Sir C]

You don't think that Muslims who were born in this country are anymore integrated than their parents who came here from Pakistan or Bangladesh, as examples? Seriously?

Of course they are. And the people in our Muslim communities who don't want to integrate are in the minority and almost overwhelmingly immigrants. You're taking a small segment of these communities and elevating their views as though it was some sort of standard for all Muslims.

It isn't.

Drive down Whitechapel Road on a Friday afternoon and note all the cheerful young muslim gentlemen, all smiling and happy to be integrated into the local community...

[Ash]

You don't think that Muslims who were born in this country are anymore integrated than their parents who came here from Pakistan or Bangladesh, as examples? Seriously?

Of course they are. And the people in our Muslim communities who don't want to integrate are in the minority and almost overwhelmingly immigrants. You're taking a small segment of these communities and elevating their views as though it was some sort of standard for all Muslims.

It isn't.

Where's the integration coming from? The prevailing belief in multi-culturalism is the opposite of integration. It seeks to emphasise and 'celebrate' the difference, rather than the similarity.

[WES]

Drive down Whitechapel Road on a Friday afternoon and note all the cheerful young muslim gentlemen, all smiling and happy to be integrated into the local community...

So if you drove down Whitechapel Road and met some members of the Muslim community there who held conservative Muslim views that included no desire to integrate into a secular, democratic society you would therefore conclude that all Muslims in Britain felt that way?

:rolleyes:

[Sir C]

So if you drove down Whitechapel Road and met some members of the Muslim community there who held conservative Muslim views that included no desire to integrate into a secular, democratic society you would therefore conclude that all Muslims in Britain felt that way?

:rolleyes:

Well, no one would suggest that all Canadians are dull moosefúckers, would they? There are always exceptions, But one can generalise about Canadians, can't one?

[Burney]

So if you drove down Whitechapel Road and met some members of the Muslim community there who held conservative Muslim views that included no desire to integrate into a secular, democratic society you would therefore conclude that all Muslims in Britain felt that way?

:rolleyes:

No. I'm suggesting that you are mistaking the majority for the minority.

[WES]

Where's the integration coming from? The prevailing belief in multi-culturalism is the opposite of integration. It seeks to emphasise and 'celebrate' the difference, rather than the similarity.

No, I don't agree about multi-culturalism. You can celebrate many cultures while at the same defining mutually consistent beliefs and values that unite you. Canada is the poster child for this.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims in the UK practice a form of Islam which is not at odds with a secular, democratic society. Religion is like that, mostly, the extremists of any particular form of religion are always in the small minority.

By all means we should discuss the issues within our Muslim communities including how best to continue and accelerate the integration. But let's not try and demonise the entire community the way Burney has. That way madness lies.

[Ash]

The overwhelming majority of Muslims in the UK practice a form of Islam which is not at odds with a secular, democratic society. Religion is like that, mostly, the extremists of any particular form of religion are always in the small minority.


Let's hope so. I doubt either of us have the numbers.

Out of interest, are there many niqab-wearers in your Surrey village?

[WES]

Let's hope so. I doubt either of us have the numbers.

Out of interest, are there many niqab-wearers in your Surrey village?

No, none at all. Although Guildford has no shortage of Muslim women with some form of head covering.

Why is that relevant, exactly?

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

Muslims marry outside their communities less than any other ethnic group in this country

With the exception of Orthodox Jews.

According to the religion.... Muslim women are not allowed to marry non-Muslim men while Muslim men are allowed to marry non-Muslim women, providing those women convert to Islam. It is assimilation at its clearest.

[Ash]

No, none at all. Although Guildford has no shortage of Muslim women with some form of head covering.

Why is that relevant, exactly?

It might affect our perception in some way. Maybe not. I see dozens of women clad in this garb every day and I find it a bit disconcerting. I've no idea whether they want to look like blobs, or letter boxes, but it seems dehumanising. If it's their choice then fine, but I don't have to like it any more than they have to like western 'slùts' walking around with exposed skin.

When I lived in Balsall Heath in Birmingham, with a high population of muslims, in the late eighties / early nineties there were no niqabs, as I recall. Perhaps not even many hijabs. In fact my only recollection of conservative religious expression was when gangs of men with clubs went around beating up prostitutes. I don't think there has been a process of integration, other than with basically secular lots like yer Turks.

[Sir C]

It might affect our perception in some way. Maybe not. I see dozens of women clad in this garb every day and I find it a bit disconcerting. I've no idea whether they want to look like blobs, or letter boxes, but it seems dehumanising. If it's their choice then fine, but I don't have to like it any more than they have to like western 'slùts' walking around with exposed skin.

When I lived in Balsall Heath in Birmingham, with a high population of muslims, in the late eighties / early nineties there were no niqabs, as I recall. Perhaps not even many hijabs. In fact my only recollection of conservative religious expression was when gangs of men with clubs went around beating up prostitutes. I don't think there has been a process of integration, other than with basically secular lots like yer Turks.

Good timez with Father Murphy and the other altar boys, a. :cloud9:

[Burney]

With the exception of Orthodox Jews.

According to the religion.... Muslim women are not allowed to marry non-Muslim men while Muslim men are allowed to marry non-Muslim women, providing those women convert to Islam. It is assimilation at its clearest.

Yes, but Orthodox Jews are a minority of a minority rather than an ethnicity per se. As an ethnicity, Jews marry out far, far more than muslims. Or, as in Monty's case, they simply impregnate decent Christian women with their foul Hebrew seed and then refuse to marry them.

But more seriously, it is assimilation, but crucially, it's not assimilation of the minority by the majority. And, whichever way you look at it, it sure as hell ain't integration.

[Burney]

No, I don't agree about multi-culturalism. You can celebrate many cultures while at the same defining mutually consistent beliefs and values that unite you. Canada is the poster child for this.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims in the UK practice a form of Islam which is not at odds with a secular, democratic society. Religion is like that, mostly, the extremists of any particular form of religion are always in the small minority.

By all means we should discuss the issues within our Muslim communities including how best to continue and accelerate the integration. But let's not try and demonise the entire community the way Burney has. That way madness lies.

This represents a fundamental (no pun intended) failure to understand the difference between Islam and Christianity. There is no 'moderate' Islam. There's only Islam. In our post-enlightenment society, Christianity has had to adapt to the increasing secularity of society by toning down the whole 'religion' thing so as not to frighten us all off. Islam has gone through no such process of adaptation.

A quick look at Islam should tell you that its tenets are at odds with post-enlightenment western society - indeed, the fact that we're having this conversation is proof of the fact. If you look at our society, it is we who are adapting to accommodate Islam, not the other way around. Islam is staying exactly the same while we tacitly assimilate Sharia courts into our legal systems; accept things like the Burqa, accept the innate sexism and homophobia of Islam; accept first cousin marriage and its deleterious effects on the children; turn a blind eye to forced marriage and FGM and generally spend huge amounts of time worrying about whether muslims will be offended by our norms while never stopping to ask whether we ought to be offended by theirs.

If you think this is integration, you're out of your mind. We're abandoning fundamental principles of our way of life while they are doing precisely fvck all to meet us half way.

[WES]

This represents a fundamental (no pun intended) failure to understand the difference between Islam and Christianity. There is no 'moderate' Islam. There's only Islam. In our post-enlightenment society, Christianity has had to adapt to the increasing secularity of society by toning down the whole 'religion' thing so as not to frighten us all off. Islam has gone through no such process of adaptation.

A quick look at Islam should tell you that its tenets are at odds with post-enlightenment western society - indeed, the fact that we're having this conversation is proof of the fact. If you look at our society, it is we who are adapting to accommodate Islam, not the other way around. Islam is staying exactly the same while we tacitly assimilate Sharia courts into our legal systems; accept things like the Burqa, accept the innate sexism and homophobia of Islam; accept first cousin marriage and its deleterious effects on the children; turn a blind eye to forced marriage and FGM and generally spend huge amounts of time worrying about whether muslims will be offended by our norms while never stopping to ask whether we ought to be offended by theirs.

If you think this is integration, you're out of your mind. We're abandoning fundamental principles of our way of life while they are doing precisely fvck all to meet us half way.

And there was me thinking that there was a difference between the democratic republic of Indonesia where 87% of the population is Muslim and Saudi Arabia whose Salafism disallows democracy entirely.

You better tell the Indonesians that there is only one Islam. That or the Saudis because it seems one of them is wrong.

[Burney]

And there was me thinking that there was a difference between the democratic republic of Indonesia where 87% of the population is Muslim and Saudi Arabia whose Salafism disallows democracy entirely.

You better tell the Indonesians that there is only one Islam. That or the Saudis because it seems one of them is wrong.


If you're arguing that there are more or less draconian Islamic states, you are of course correct. However, that is a question of how much the religion is allowed to dominate in the society, not a question of the religion and its doctrines. The fundamentals of the religion and the Sharia remain as inimical to western values as ever.

Also, because of the Dutch colonial influence, Indonesia retains some western forms of law and government. However, those are increasingly being replaced by Sharia as the influence of Islam grows and secularism retreats. In other words, Islam (as opposed to the structures put there by the west) is coming to dominate, which will mean an inevitable reduction in the rights of women and an increasingly theocratic state. Because that's how Islam works - it does not integrate, it dominates, conquers and assimilates.