All things Labour Party

Well, well, well. It is interesting. And you have completely misunderstood it.

 

Stern's point, even in the selected quotes, is that the IHRA definition was never intended to chill free speech. He was NOT advocating amending the definition but rather protesting against the way some University campuses in the US and the UK have used it to ban certain ideas. The example he gives - equating the Israeli state with apartheid ideology - is indeed not 'banned' by the definition, even though it's been interpreted that way by a few.

 

To get the full sense of what Stern is saying, in a very nuanced and well argued submission, you need to read it in full. Here it is:

 

https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Stern-Testimony-11.07.17.pdf

 

But the essence of it is this:

 

 

 

You also seem to be a little lost on what the IHRA definition actually is. Here it is:

 

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism

 

And yes, the Corbynista 'redefinition' makes adjustments to get the most common form of Corbynist anti-Semitism off the hook - especially the accusation that Jews have a greater loyalty to Israel than to their own country.

I think it could have been drafted better in a couple of places to avoid some of the conflict.

1. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Its perfectly possible that some Jewish citizens are more loyal to the Sate of Israel than the country of their birth. If that wasn't the case you wouldn't see the large numbers of immigration to Israel from places like Russia. So whilst you cannot and should not accuse 'The Jewish people' of such tendencies it should be acceptable to accuse individuals of it where their behaviour warrants it.

2. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Drawing comparison with the Nazis for almost anything is normally a sure sign of a weak argument. But you cannot agree never to do that unless you know what all the policies of the Israeli Government will be in the future.

I think it could have been drafted better in a couple of places to avoid some of the conflict.

 

1. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Its perfectly possible that some Jewish citizens are more loyal to the Sate of Israel than the country of their birth. If that wasn't the case you wouldn't see the large numbers of immigration to Israel from places like Russia. So whilst you cannot and should not accuse 'The Jewish people' of such tendencies it should be acceptable to accuse individuals of it where their behaviour warrants it.

 

2. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Drawing comparison with the Nazis for almost anything is normally a sure sign of a weak argument. But you cannot agree never to do that unless you know what all the policies of the Israeli Government will be in the future.

No definitions are perfect but you're in some danger of Jewsplaining with this. It's become accepted practice - and with good reason - to allow the victims of racism to say what that racism is and how it impacts them.

Besides, both your points relate to Israel, which is where Labour gets mostly into its tangles (although some Corbynistas are just out-and-out Jew-haters in the Hitler mould). And it's weird because criticising Israel without being anti-Semitic is incredibly easy. You just don't make lazy comments about the 'Zionists' doing this and that, for the simple reason that 'the Zionists' encompasses about 99% of all Jews.

As for 1. Please see my earlier post on where this accusation comes from: it is a classic anti-Semitic trope with a murderous past, espeically on the Left. Clearly, if someone declares they are more 'loyal' to Israel than to the UK then to say they are is not an accusation. But to accuse him/her/them of it is anti-Semitic. You can't generalise this to 'the Jewish people' without giving a free pass for actual Jew-haters to make individual accusations (as many Corbynistas do). Also, talking of loose drafting, what is a 'Jewish' citizen' - there's some place called Jewville?

And 2. The Nazi comparison thing has a blatantly obvious subtext, and I'm surprised you don't see that. As awful as Israeli government policy currently is, I don't think anyone is claiming with any evidence that there are gas chambers in Hebron busily wiping out all Palestinians. The Nazi comparison is designed to wound Jews - hence it's anti-Semitic. In any case, nothing about Netanyahu's behaviour requires comparison - it is singularly and uniquely awful. Even from the tactical point of view, the Nazi comparison conceals far more than it reveals - it's terrible politics, and has only one benefit, which is to allow the accuser to vent virtuously and impotently.

I'm more surprised that for all the virtue signalling among Corbynistas - all those declaring their 'solidarity' - that no one has offered the technical (legal drafting) assistance to Palestinians so that they have their own codified definition of racism against them as an ethnic and religious group.

Reading through the controversy as it's gone on all these months, it's striking how little Corbynistas seem to know of the Middle East itself. If you've never been there, I can tell you it's TINY. (You can stand on a rather nice beach in Aqaba and take in the view of four countries with less than a 180-degree turn - Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel). If you know how small it is, you can more easily imagine why land is so ferociously fought over.

And if you can more easily imagine that, then it's also easier to understand why there will be no lasting peace that doesn't involve the Israelis. So what political supporters of the Palestinians need to do - and have signally failed to do - is to enlist Israeli popular opinion, at least of the very substantial minority of Israelis who do seek a lasting peaceful settlement with the Palestinians and are appalled by the Netanyahu gang.

Can you see Corbyn ever doing that? He couldn't even write a simple letter to the Israeli Labour party - long affiliated with the Labour party in the UK - when they invited him over. Can you see Corbynistas doing it? They are the quickest to condemn and vilify the minute anyone departs from the holy vow that Jews/Israel are merely the enemy. Just look at the furore over the preposterously bewigged gerontocrat Peter Willsman.

No definitions are perfect but you're in some danger of Jewsplaining with this. It's become accepted practice - and with good reason - to allow the victims of racism to say what that racism is and how it impacts them.

 

Besides, both your points relate to Israel, which is where Labour gets mostly into its tangles (although some Corbynistas are just out-and-out Jew-haters in the Hitler mould). And it's weird because criticising Israel without being anti-Semitic is incredibly easy. You just don't make lazy comments about the 'Zionists' doing this and that, for the simple reason that 'the Zionists' encompasses about 99% of all Jews.

 

As for 1. Please see my earlier post on where this accusation comes from: it is a classic anti-Semitic trope with a murderous past, espeically on the Left. Clearly, if someone declares they are more 'loyal' to Israel than to the UK then to say they are is not an accusation. But to accuse him/her/them of it is anti-Semitic. You can't generalise this to 'the Jewish people' without giving a free pass for actual Jew-haters to make individual accusations (as many Corbynistas do). Also, talking of loose drafting, what is a 'Jewish' citizen' - there's some place called Jewville?

 

And 2. The Nazi comparison thing has a blatantly obvious subtext, and I'm surprised you don't see that. As awful as Israeli government policy currently is, I don't think anyone is claiming with any evidence that there are gas chambers in Hebron busily wiping out all Palestinians. The Nazi comparison is designed to wound Jews - hence it's anti-Semitic. In any case, nothing about Netanyahu's behaviour requires comparison - it is singularly and uniquely awful. Even from the tactical point of view, the Nazi comparison conceals far more than it reveals - it's terrible politics, and has only one benefit, which is to allow the accuser to vent virtuously and impotently.

 

I'm more surprised that for all the virtue signalling among Corbynistas - all those declaring their 'solidarity' - that no one has offered the technical (legal drafting) assistance to Palestinians so that they have their own codified definition of racism against them as an ethnic and religious group.

 

Reading through the controversy as it's gone on all these months, it's striking how little Corbynistas seem to know of the Middle East itself. If you've never been there, I can tell you it's TINY. (You can stand on a rather nice beach in Aqaba and take in the view of four countries with less than a 180-degree turn - Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel). If you know how small it is, you can more easily imagine why land is so ferociously fought over.

 

And if you can more easily imagine that, then it's also easier to understand why there will be no lasting peace that doesn't involve the Israelis. So what political supporters of the Palestinians need to do - and have signally failed to do - is to enlist Israeli popular opinion, at least of the very substantial minority of Israelis who do seek a lasting peaceful settlement with the Palestinians and are appalled by the Netanyahu gang.

 

Can you see Corbyn ever doing that? He couldn't even write a simple letter to the Israeli Labour party - long affiliated with the Labour party in the UK - when they invited him over. Can you see Corbynistas doing it? They are the quickest to condemn and vilify the minute anyone departs from the holy vow that Jews/Israel are merely the enemy. Just look at the furore over the preposterously bewigged gerontocrat Peter Willsman.

How big is a ‘very substantial minority’? The success of Avi Gabbay says everything about the current state of the country and the left.

Anecdotal as it is, I don’t know one Jewish friend or acquaintance over here who is critical of the Israeli government. I hear expressions that the situation is unfortunate (though often because the optics aren’t good) but that usually is the prologue to a far longer and more impassioned justification of the government’s actions. I even have friends who have swallowed every trope about Iran as the bogeyman -and these are otherwise educated and politically moderate people.

Oh chortle, my sides are splitting.

What about those letterboxes and bank robbers then.

Oh wrong thread - that thread doesn’t exist

Doh!...

https://order-order.com/2018/08/07/corbyn-bbc-biased-on-israels-right-to-exist/

The UK Delegation to the IHRA have made a statement on the Working Definition of Antisemitism, in response to “events in the uk “

“Any ‘modified’ version of the IHRA definition that does not include all of its 11 examples is no longer the IHRA definition. Adding or removing language undermines the months of international diplomacy and academic rigour that enabled this definition to exist. If one organisation or institution can amend the wording to suit its own needs, then logically anyone else could do the same. We would once again revert to a world where antisemitism goes unaddressed simply because different entities cannot agree on what it is.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Both major parties have got problems with bigotry in different forms. With the Momentum Trots arrival and infiltration, things have become worse but a friend of mine in the national media used to cover the party conferences and even in Blair’s time there were apparently regular motions raised in protest at the leadership at the party not pursuing ‘sufficiently pro Palestinian policies’. During the Blair and Brown years these were comfortably voted down but were always there and not just a few idiots. When the unions got their claws aback in under Miliband it started to rise and then Momentum has really embedded it to the point of members of their NEC being openly anti Semitic in a way that would get you arrested on the street.

The Torres are unable to make any advantage though as their obese village idiot has started banging the bigotry drum again, this time on Islamaphobia. It’s a serious issue, so don’t mind him raising it but to talk of bank robbers and pillar boxes is just f ucking offensive and he knows it. He’s playing to the far right again. Somebody had him right and called him a one dollar Donald Trump. I hope May grows a pair and expels him from the party. If he ever makes Tory leader, or Corbyn makes PM, that’s an insult to everyone who fought Hitler. Both scenarios make me want to emigrate.

The UK Delegation to the IHRA have made a statement on the Working Definition of Antisemitism, in response to “events in the uk “

 

“Any ‘modified’ version of the IHRA definition that does not include all of its 11 examples is no longer the IHRA definition. Adding or removing language undermines the months of international diplomacy and academic rigour that enabled this definition to exist. If one organisation or institution can amend the wording to suit its own needs, then logically anyone else could do the same. We would once again revert to a world where antisemitism goes unaddressed simply because different entities cannot agree on what it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well well well. How interesting.

Is it really? Delegation involved in the drafting and/or dissemination of definition keen to protect said definition. What a shocker.

The UK Delegation to the IHRA have made a statement on the Working Definition of Antisemitism, in response to “events in the uk “

 

“Any ‘modified’ version of the IHRA definition that does not include all of its 11 examples is no longer the IHRA definition. Adding or removing language undermines the months of international diplomacy and academic rigour that enabled this definition to exist. If one organisation or institution can amend the wording to suit its own needs, then logically anyone else could do the same. We would once again revert to a world where antisemitism goes unaddressed simply because different entities cannot agree on what it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Or they just don’t like Israel being criticised.

Well well well. How interesting.

How true

Of course there are so many problems with this tactic (for tactic it is) that it is hard to know where to begin. How about with the basics? Such as the fact that anti-Semitism is a centuries (indeed millennia) old disease, rooted not in facts but in conspiracy-theories, and which in living memory led to the physical annihilation of a third of the world’s Jewish population. Whereas ‘Islamophobia’ is a concept invented by Islamists in the 1990s in order to try to prevent any and all criticism of the religion of Islam.

How true

The far-right's cynical tactic is to play the Anti-semitism card as a cover for their own Anti-semitism and white supremacy. You know, the kind of stuff that lead to the holocaust?

How true

 

Of course there are so many problems with this tactic (for tactic it is) that it is hard to know where to begin. How about with the basics? Such as the fact that anti-Semitism is a centuries (indeed millennia) old disease, rooted not in facts but in conspiracy-theories, and which in living memory led to the physical annihilation of a third of the world’s Jewish population. Whereas ‘Islamophobia’ is a concept invented by Islamists in the 1990s in order to try to prevent any and all criticism of the religion of Islam.

So anti-Muslim prejudice which flies under the Islamophobia banner is opportunism then. So when Tory councillors (among others) happily share and cite articles referring to Muslims as parasites, calls of Islamophobia are just a ruse to deflect criticism from the religion. And I thought it was good old-fashioned racism. Thanks for clearing things up.

How true

 

Of course there are so many problems with this tactic (for tactic it is) that it is hard to know where to begin. How about with the basics? Such as the fact that anti-Semitism is a centuries (indeed millennia) old disease, rooted not in facts but in conspiracy-theories, and which in living memory led to the physical annihilation of a third of the world’s Jewish population. Whereas ‘Islamophobia’ is a concept invented by Islamists in the 1990s in order to try to prevent any and all criticism of the religion of Islam.

So our former Foreign secretary is openly mocking muslim women about the way they dress and you are still p!ssing your pants over the fact that 10 years ago Corbyn hosted an event where a holocaust surviver had the nerve to criticise Israel!

So our former Foreign secretary is openly mocking muslim women about the way they dress and you are still p!ssing your pants over the fact that 10 years ago Corbyn hosted an event where a holocaust surviver had the nerve to criticise Israel!

...

Today there is an effort by various people to distract from the Labour leader’s shame by portraying Britain’s former Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, as an especially hideous ‘Islamophobe’. This is because in a newspaper article on Monday which was largely dedicated to criticising countries which have banned full-face coverings) Johnson mentioned in passing that women who wear the burka resemble ‘letter boxes’ and look ‘absolutely ridiculous’. Obviously Boris Johnson didn’t get the memo which says that in diverse, Islamophilic, equality-obsessed Britain the only thing to say about a woman in a full-face covering is that she looks absolutely beautiful, couldn’t be prettier, amazing more people haven’t thought of doing it, etc etc.

Meantime the Labour party’s Naz Shah – along with Jess Phillips and others – has decided to try to escalate the ‘letter box’ comment. Ms Shah has even written to the Conservative Party Chairman, Brandon Lewis, insisting that the party put Boris Johnson into mandatory ‘diversity training’. I presume that this training is now so perfected that anyone who goes into it is guaranteed to come out saying that far from looking ridiculous, women in burkas are in fact mega-hot and total babes. We’ll see. In any case it would be easier to listen to talk of mandatory diversity training for ‘Islamophobia’ if it was not pushed by Naz Shah, who has a recent history of anti-Semitism so extreme that the modern Labour party suspended her for her anti-Semitism a couple of years ago. Which is quite a feat.

Anyway, they all know what they are doing, these people. Some of them are simply trying to defend their religion (including, surprisingly, the most regressive versions of their religion) from any and all criticism. The far-left, meantime, are simply trying to cover for the fact that on an average Sunday it is no longer especially newsworthy that their leader should be exposed as having yet another affiliation with yet another Holocaust denier. A Holocaust denier, incidentally, who chose in adulthood to convert to Islam. Who knows why he might have done that? Or who would dare to speculate?

So our former Foreign secretary is openly mocking muslim women about the way they dress and you are still p!ssing your pants over the fact that 10 years ago Corbyn hosted an event where a holocaust surviver had the nerve to criticise Israel!

If the international recognised definition of Islamophobia includes not wanting to ban the burka, but ripping the **** out of women who do, than Boris is guilty. What would you say if the tories refused to accept the recognised definition purely to let Boris off the hook.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If the international recognised definition of Islamophobia includes not wanting to ban the burka, but ripping the **** out of women who do, than Boris is guilty. What would you say if the tories refused to accept the recognised definition purely to let Boris off the hook.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

http://newsthump.com/2018/08/06/muslim-women-advised-on-correct-form-of-dress-by-man-totally-unable-to-dress-himself/

How true

 

Of course there are so many problems with this tactic (for tactic it is) that it is hard to know where to begin. How about with the basics? Such as the fact that anti-Semitism is a centuries (indeed millennia) old disease, rooted not in facts but in conspiracy-theories, and which in living memory led to the physical annihilation of a third of the world’s Jewish population. Whereas ‘Islamophobia’ is a concept invented by Islamists in the 1990s in order to try to prevent any and all criticism of the religion of Islam.

I would argue that the Crusades were pretty 'Islamophobic' as was the Spanish Inquisition (as well as being obviously Anti-semitic too) and the Reconquista. Again I am not defending Corbyn or Labour here, but to suggest that Islamophobia is a modern invention is not correct. I will admit that in the UK it has been a fairly recent phenomenon, mainly because the antipathy against people who were Muslim was mainly centered around them not being white - rather than their specific religion. (see the reaction to immigration in the 1960's/70's)

Boris also didn't simply mention in passing either - this was written down as part of his Telegraph column.

Plenty of people on my social media channels (Facebook, Twitter) agree with him though, highlighting the bind Corbyn is in. This will undoubtedly play for a bit in the media - but the Corbynista's won't be able to help themselves/the likes of Guido and the Conservative friendly press will make sure they find some more anti-semitic stuff.

I would argue that the Crusades were pretty 'Islamophobic' as was the Spanish Inquisition (as well as being obviously Anti-semitic too) and the Reconquista. Again I am not defending Corbyn or Labour here, but to suggest that Islamophobia is a modern invention is not correct. I will admit that in the UK it has been a fairly recent phenomenon, mainly because the antipathy against people who were Muslim was mainly centered around them not being white - rather than their specific religion. (see the reaction to immigration in the 1960's/70's)

 

Boris also didn't simply mention in passing either - this was written down as part of his Telegraph column.

 

Plenty of people on my social media channels (Facebook, Twitter) agree with him though, highlighting the bind Corbyn is in. This will undoubtedly play for a bit in the media - but the Corbynista's won't be able to help themselves/the likes of Guido and the Conservative friendly press will make sure they find some more anti-semitic stuff.

Oh and islamaphobia is clearly an invention from the last few years.

He mentioned it in passing as part of his column. Muslims were saying he spent half he article discussing it which is untrue.

 

Oh and islamaphobia is clearly an invention from the last few years.

Utter garbage, even by your low standards. Islamophobia is clearly not just "an invention from the last few years."

He mentioned it in passing as part of his column. Muslims were saying he spent half he article discussing it which is untrue.

 

Oh and islamaphobia is clearly an invention from the last few years.

The term itself may well be, but the sentiment behind it most certainly isn't and you know that full well.

Anyway, isn't this going a little bit too off-topic for you?

Utter garbage, even by your low standards. Islamophobia is clearly not just "an invention from the last few years."

The term itself may well be, but the sentiment behind it most certainly isn't and you know that full well.

 

Anyway, isn't this going a little bit too off-topic for you?

And another very interesting article from the Spectator:

Very interesting that Johnson is accused of a nonsense word like Islamaphobia when the niqab has nothing do with Islam:

When Boris Johnson mocks the niqab, he is emphatically not mocking Muslim women because – and this is a point that we Muslims seem to be unable to get across to non-Muslims – there is no basis in Islam for the niqab. Claiming otherwise is a profound distortion of Islamic belief. That’s why*Muslim nations are themselves regulating and banning the niqab and burqa*– as in both Morocco and Turkey where these coverings are seen as an invasion of Salafist affinities and a risk to national security and societal integrity

He mentioned it in passing as part of his column. Muslims were saying he spent half he article discussing it which is untrue.

 

Oh and islamaphobia is clearly an invention from the last few years.

Sorry Hypo, the facts are that you have got this one very wrong I’m afraid and I’m sure you’ll look back at the thread and put your hands up. We all get things wrong sometimes.

Corbyn, Momentum, Boris and his plastic Steve Bannon alt right chums on the far right - anti-semitism and islamaphobia, they are as abhorrent as each other and I want them all out of British politics asap and out of the UK if possible. I won’t accept anyone making excuses for any of them. Anyone who does is just condoning extremists.

Communism v Fascism, if Boris’s stormtroopers get hold of the Tories and infect them with a lethal virus like Momentum have with Labour. What a pathetic choice to offer the electorate. Ashamed of all of them. The memberships are infected too, no chance of either party kicking out the scum like Kinnock did with Militant. Time for a new Centre party to rule the country.

Sorry Hypo, the facts are that you have got this one very wrong I’m afraid and I’m sure you’ll look back at the thread and put your hands up. We all get things wrong sometimes.

 

Corbyn, Momentum, Boris and his plastic Steve Bannon alt right chums on the far right - anti-semitism and islamaphobia, they are as abhorrent as each other and I want them all out of British politics asap and out of the UK if possible. I won’t accept anyone making excuses for any of them. Anyone who does is just condoning extremists.

 

Communism v Fascism, if Boris’s stormtroopers get hold of the Tories and infect them with a lethal virus like Momentum have with Labour. What a pathetic choice to offer the electorate. Ashamed of all of them. The memberships are infected too, no chance of either party kicking out the scum like Kinnock did with Militant. Time for a new Centre party to rule the country.

And another very interesting article from the Spectator:

 

As the Times columnist Janice Turner notes “How is legitimising insulting Bangladeshi women in the street helping them escape the tyranny of conservative Islam?”.

Or as Hugo Rifkind puts it “It's a very well-pitched dog whistle. Plenty of liberals are uncomfortable defending religious dress. So he exploits that while adding a little jovial racist barb for the actual dogs he's after“.

Anyone who can’t see Johnson’s cynical ruse for what it is is either dim or something else.

I think any circumstance where a make believe person requires you to cover your face on occasions where the general public are not permitted to do so, is rather bizarre and wrong.

I think any circumstance where a make believe person requires you to cover your face on occasions where the general public are not permitted to do so, is rather bizarre and wrong.

Very interesting that Johnson is accused of a nonsense word like Islamaphobia when the niqab has nothing do with Islam:

 

When Boris Johnson mocks the niqab, he is emphatically not mocking Muslim women because – and this is a point that we Muslims seem to be unable to get across to non-Muslims – there is no basis in Islam for the niqab. Claiming otherwise is a profound distortion of Islamic belief. That’s why*Muslim nations are themselves regulating and banning the niqab and burqa*– as in both Morocco and Turkey where these coverings are seen as an invasion of Salafist affinities and a risk to national security and societal integrity

You’re right the clothing is a cultural thing but to say it has nothing to do with Islam is nonsense because Islam is a big part of their culture. Whatever the origins of niqab it doesn’t make what he said any less offensive.

If Corbyn had made insulting comments about the way Jewish peopled dressed you lot would be p!ssing your pants.

You’re right the clothing is a cultural thing but to say it has nothing to do with Islam is nonsense because Islam is a big part of their culture. Whatever the origins of niqab it doesn’t make what he said any less offensive.

 

If Corbyn had made insulting comments about the way Jewish peopled dressed you lot would be p!ssing your pants.

Also absolute lol at offensive. If anyone actually found a couple of Un pc comments from a buffoon like Johnson offensive- the kind he has made throughout his career- then they really need to rethink some things about their life.

Sorry I should have made it clear that that was a quote from the article. It wasn't me saying it was nothing to do with Islam, it was the Muslim woman. I think as a Muslim her opinion on the matter is going to hold a bit more weight...

 

Also absolute lol at offensive. If anyone actually found a couple of Un pc comments from a buffoon like Johnson offensive- the kind he has made throughout his career- then they really need to rethink some things about their life.

Sayeeda Warsi Doesn’t seem to agree, and she’s a Muslim.

Well, this approach is not just offensive, it’s dangerous. Johnson’s words have once again validated the view of those that ‘other’ Muslims. They send out a message that Muslim women are fair game.

“What starts as useful targets for ‘colourful political language’ and the odd bit of toxic campaigning ends up in attacks on our streets.”

The peer wrote that she was setting out “precisely why his remarks are indefensible” and said the phrases he used signalled something else.”

But hey, keep on defending him and p!ssing your pants because Corbyn hosted a holocaust survivor who criticised Israel.

Sayeeda Warsi Doesn’t seem to agree, and she’s a Muslim.

 

Well, this approach is not just offensive, it’s dangerous. Johnson’s words have once again validated the view of those that ‘other’ Muslims. They send out a message that Muslim women are fair game.

 

 

 

“What starts as useful targets for ‘colourful political language’ and the odd bit of toxic campaigning ends up in attacks on our streets.”

 

The peer wrote that she was setting out “precisely why his remarks are indefensible” and said the phrases he used signalled something else.”

 

But hey, keep on defending him and p!ssing your pants because Corbyn hosted a holocaust survivor who criticised Israel.

I think the niqab and burqa do a very effective job of 'othering' all by themselves. It's one of many reasons why they should be discouraged. I think Johnson is a buffoon as I already said but I think all the screeching from the left because he said they look ridiculous is pathetic quite frankly.

They do look ridiculous and I oppose any system that requires people to cover their entire face up in public simply because they are female, even more so when many Muslims say it has nothing to do with Islam and is in fact a relatively recent phenomenon. You realise that you're on the side of Salafists that use their hard line system to subjugate women?

So either it's very offensive as you claimed earlier or it's just some colourful political language that could potentially lead to violence in the streets. Which one are you going for?

I think the niqab and burqa do a very effective job of 'othering' all by themselves. It's one of many reasons why they should be discouraged. I think Johnson is a buffoon as I already said but I think all the screeching from the left because he said they look ridiculous is pathetic quite frankly.

 

They do look ridiculous and I oppose any system that requires people to cover their entire face up in public simply because they are female, even more so when many Muslims say it has nothing to do with Islam and is in fact a relatively recent phenomenon. You realise that you're on the side of Salafists that use their hard line system to subjugate women?

 

So either it's very offensive as you claimed earlier or it's just some colourful political language that could potentially lead to violence in the streets. Which one are you going for?

Do you have evidence that women who wear a niqab or burka in this country are forced to do so?

Do you have evidence that women who wear a niqab or burka in this country are forced to do so?

I don't like using personal experience because that can be unreliable but I am thankful that my Arabic father in law prioritised his children's happiness and was relatively liberal. Sadly that was not the case for my wife's cousins who have had to wear face coverings, are forbidden from conversing with males outside of their family on most occasions and one was forbidden from marrying who she wanted to by her family and she's now almost 40 and faces the prospect of being alone with no children. I expect if you asked her she would say it was her choice as well...

Are you saying you don't think there are cases in this country of women being pressured to wear them? Because I know you know that it exists and that I could easily find quotes to back that up. Let's also remember other countries around the world such as Iran and Saudi Arabia where it is a hated symbol of oppression and subjugation.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are red herrings and irrelevant to the conversation - we’re talking about the UK, a liberal democracy which protects individual self-determination.

Sure some women may feel pressure to wear them just as some choose to do so. Indeed for some wearing the burka and niqab has become an act of political expression, if not individual defiance.

And yes I know Muslims too.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are red herrings and irrelevant to the conversation - we’re talking about the UK, a liberal democracy which protects individual self-determination.

 

Sure some women may feel pressure to wear them just as some choose to do so. Indeed for some wearing the burka and niqab has become a political expression, if not act of individual defiance.

 

And yes I know Muslims too.

I never denied there were not some who choose to do so. I said there were many who face unreasonable pressures to wear them which is undoubtedly the case. This is what is unacceptable and combined with the very obvious barrier it creates for integration in a western society is why it is not something I want to see in a Liberal society.

Given that you repeatedly claim that many British Muslim women face unreasonable pressure to wear them and the whole system is oppressive, I simply asked for evidence that this is indeed the case. It’s not unreasonable to ask for evidence given it is so central to your argument.

All you’ve offered in the way of evidence is the same anecdote about your wife’s cousin and a dime-a-dozen talking head.

Given that you repeatedly claim that many British Muslim women are being subjugated insofar as they face unreasonable pressure to wear them, I simply asked for evidence that this is indeed the case.

 

All you’ve offered as evidence is the same hoary anecdote about your wife’s cousin and the odd, dime-a-dozen talking head.

Dr Qanta Ahmed, a British-American Muslim doctor who lives in New York, does not wear a face veil and supports a ban on them.

She said the number of women wearing them in the West is increasing in part because girls begin to wear them before they reach puberty and many were not given a choice.

Those who defend the right of women to wear the niqab under the banner of religious freedom gloss over the fact that this “freedom” is often dictated by social pressure

I was raised as an observant Muslim in a British family. Women, I was taught, determine their own conduct — including their ‘veiling’. We’d cover our hair only if we freely chose to do so. That’s why I’m baffled by the notion that all good Muslim women should cover their hair or face. My entire family are puzzled by it too, as are millions like us. Not until recent years has the idea taken root that Muslim women are obliged by their faith to wear a veil.

It’s a sign, I think, not of assertive Islam, but of what happens when Islamists are tolerated by a western culture that’s absurdly anxious to avoid offence. This strange, unwitting collaboration between liberals and extremists has been going on for years. But at last there are signs that it is ending.

Rigid interpretations of the veil are a recent invention. They’re derived not from the Quran or early Islamic tradition but from a misogyny which claims a false basis in the divine. So when the ECJ supports employers who ban the hijab, it is categorically not impinging on anyone’s religious freedom. The veil has more to do with a set of quite new cultural mores. The Islamists wish to say: we Muslims are different from the West. Increasingly, we don’t look like you, or act like you. For Muslim families who have lived in Europe for generations, this is a strange and ugly trend. The men and women agitating for the right to wear headscarves in Europe would do well to remember our own history in the Muslim world.

A MUSLIM who subjected his battered wife to a year of “hell” after he terrorised her into wearing a veil has been jailed.

Is that enough examples to satisfy you? I doubt it.

If we really have to go through this tiresome exercise of dredging up quotes that you know exist regarding this issue:

 

Dr Qanta Ahmed, a British-American Muslim doctor who lives in New York, does not wear a face veil and supports a ban on them.

She said the number of women wearing them in the West is increasing in part because girls begin to wear them before they reach puberty and many were not given a choice.

 

Those who defend the right of women to wear the niqab under the banner of religious freedom gloss over the fact that this “freedom” is often dictated by social pressure

 

I was raised as an observant Muslim in a British family. Women, I was taught, determine their own conduct — including their ‘veiling’. We’d cover our hair only if we freely chose to do so. That’s why I’m baffled by the notion that all good Muslim women should cover their hair or face. My entire family are puzzled by it too, as are millions like us. Not until recent years has the idea taken root that Muslim women are obliged by their faith to wear a veil.

It’s a sign, I think, not of assertive Islam, but of what happens when Islamists are tolerated by a western culture that’s absurdly anxious to avoid offence. This strange, unwitting collaboration between liberals and extremists has been going on for years. But at last there are signs that it is ending.

 

Rigid interpretations of the veil are a recent invention. They’re derived not from the Quran or early Islamic tradition but from a misogyny which claims a false basis in the divine. So when the ECJ supports employers who ban the hijab, it is categorically not impinging on anyone’s religious freedom. The veil has more to do with a set of quite new cultural mores. The Islamists wish to say: we Muslims are different from the West. Increasingly, we don’t look like you, or act like you. For Muslim families who have lived in Europe for generations, this is a strange and ugly trend. The men and women agitating for the right to wear headscarves in Europe would do well to remember our own history in the Muslim world.

 

A MUSLIM who subjected his battered wife to a year of “hell” after he terrorised her into wearing a veil has been jailed.

 

Is that enough examples to satisfy you? I doubt it.

Not really. It’s one woman’s perspective, unfortunate as it is. File under dime-a-dozen talking head per above.

I’ll give to you though. She sounds more credible than the last expert witness you inadvertently wheeled out: Imam Tawhidi aka the fake sheikh

Not really. It’s one woman’s perspective, unfortunate as it is. File under dime-a-dozen talking head per above.

I know it's terribly off topic to mention the people running the country into the ground so perhaps we could get back on track?

Where has Jeremy Corbyn ever made an anti-semitic remark that might warrant a headline or two in the papers?

Sadly not. From about five different sources so not just one perspective.

And I can point you to as many examples suggesting that women choose to wear such coverings.

Point is blanket statements that the whole system is oppressive and accomodating it puts you on the side of Salafists that use their hard line system to subjugate women is as simplistic as it is wrong. And I say as someone who is not particularly fond of religious dress of any kind in public.

And I can point you to as many examples suggesting that women choose to wear such coverings.

 

Point is blanket statements that the whole system is oppressive and accomodating it puts you on the side of Salafists that use their hard line system to subjugate women is as simplistic as it is wrong.

And I already told you that I accept that there are women who choose to wear the coverings so I don't understand what your point is. I told you there were women in the UK and elsewhere who are forced or pressured into wearing them, I knew you knew that to be the case. You goaded me into posting sources and when I found multiple sources showing that this was the case your response is that you can find sources that show that some women choose to wear them- a claim I never disagreed with.

And I already told you that I accept that there are women who choose to wear the coverings so I don't understand what your point is. I told you there were women in the UK and elsewhere who are forced or pressured into wearing them, I knew you knew that to be the case. You goaded me into posting sources and when I found multiple sources showing that this was the case your response is that you can find sources that show that some women choose to wear them- a claim I never disagreed with.

Glad then you’ve distanced yourself from your original statement.