A consistent narrative seems to be emerging from Remain advocates, now, which is that they respect the result, and we are leaving the EU, but leaving the single market would be a disaster, so should stay in the EEA, but this would be worse than staying in the EU because we wouldn't take back any control and might even be worse, so we should really leave the whole thing, which would be a disaster. Shame a 2nd referendum is off the cards for now.
The line of attack of that argument is pretty clear to me.
And what's your counterargument?
I don't agree leaving the single market would be a disaster and am increasingly relaxed about it.
Many who voted leave did so on the assumption that we could stay in the single market, so what would be the harm in putting it to a second vote once it's clear what kind of Brexit would be on the table?
Mr. B2, actually, a planned future book (stand-alone, note to aspiring writers: trilogies are a bugger to write) might revolve around the impact of a plague. I think there's lots of interesting stuff that could be written on that sort of topic.
A consistent narrative seems to be emerging from Remain advocates, now, which is that they respect the result, and we are leaving the EU, but leaving the single market would be a disaster, so should stay in the EEA, but this would be worse than staying in the EU because we wouldn't take back any control and might even be worse, so we should really leave the whole thing, which would be a disaster. Shame a 2nd referendum is off the cards for now.
The line of attack of that argument is pretty clear to me.
And what's your counterargument?
I don't agree leaving the single market would be a disaster and am increasingly relaxed about it.
Quite so, Mr. Royale. We don't have a single market with most of the world and yet we seem to buy and sell with them quite adequately. This fixation that some people have with the single market within the EU seems increasingly bizarre.
FPT: Is being murdered by a terrorist worse than being murdered by a regular murderer ?
No. Is the same principle as if someone kicks me in the head to steal my phone or if someone kicks me in the head because I look like a Muslim.
Both are going to hurt me the same, though I do love my phone and would struggle without it.
The result may be the same, but the motivation is different. Petty theft and religious hatred have a different set of motivations and origins. One comes from poverty, the other from poor education plus radicalisation. In order to combat both we cannot apply the same solutions. That's what the solution is, prevention.
The scarier form of religious hatred is that which comes from good education plus fanatical belief. How do you combat that?
The Anjem Choudary problem. Nothing that would be politically viable can be done. The solution has always been to make it difficult to be a fundamentalist in the UK. Ban halal slaughter and importation of halal meat, close any mosque receiving funds from overseas or linked to radical preachers, close all Islamic schools and even the equivalent of Sunday school, ban the burka etc... It's not an easy path, but eventually enough people who want to live a fundamentalist lifestyle which is incompatible with our secular values would choose to leave the country and move to one where it is acceptable to live in the manner they want.
As I said, the political will to do it doesn't exist and in the short to medium term it would create a lot of animosity and probably increase terrorist attacks.
Good luck getting any of that past the paracitical 'human rights' courts, that seem to thrive on tolerating the intolerant these days.
The problem is this: if I choose to cover my head going down the street - just as if I wish to ban breastfeeding in my restaurant - surely that is my concern.
And do you really want to give the government the power to choose which religious meetings it considers appropriate?
Paul_Bedfordshire made the point more articulately than me a few days ago: these powers that you give the government when it's your guys in control look scary when it's Jeremy Corbyn in power.
It's always important to consider the ways in which your legislation can be used against you, should your opponents come to power.
Paul_Bedfordshire made the point more articulately than me a few days ago: these powers that you give the government when it's your guys in control look scary when it's Jeremy Corbyn in power.
That applies strongly to leaving the EU. A Corbyn in power with no hindrances to his nationalisation agenda would do untold damage.
FPT: Is being murdered by a terrorist worse than being murdered by a regular murderer ?
No. Is the same principle as if someone kicks me in the head to steal my phone or if someone kicks me in the head because I look like a Muslim.
Both are going to hurt me the same, though I do love my phone and would struggle without it.
The result may be the same, but the motivation is different. Petty theft and religious hatred have a different set of motivations and origins. One comes from poverty, the other from poor education plus radicalisation. In order to combat both we cannot apply the same solutions. That's what the solution is, prevention.
The scarier form of religious hatred is that which comes from good education plus fanatical belief. How do you combat that?
The Anjem Choudary problem. Nothing that would be politically viable can be done. The solution has always been to make it difficult to be a fundamentalist in the UK. Ban halal slaughter and importation of halal meat, close any mosque receiving funds from overseas or linked to radical preachers, close all Islamic schools and even the equivalent of Sunday school, ban the burka etc... It's not an easy path, but eventually enough people who want to live a fundamentalist lifestyle which is incompatible with our secular values would choose to leave the country and move to one where it is acceptable to live in the manner they want.
As I said, the political will to do it doesn't exist and in the short to medium term it would create a lot of animosity and probably increase terrorist attacks.
Good luck getting any of that past the paracitical 'human rights' courts, that seem to thrive on tolerating the intolerant these days.
The problem is this: if I choose to cover my head going down the street - just as if I wish to ban breastfeeding in my restaurant - surely that is my concern.
And do you really want to give the government the power to choose which religious meetings it considers appropriate?
Paul_Bedfordshire made the point more articulately than me a few days ago: these powers that you give the government when it's your guys in control look scary when it's Jeremy Corbyn in power.
It's always important to consider the ways in which your legislation can be used against you, should your opponents come to power.
Indeed. But not to the point where we refuse to do anything at all. Fear resulting in paralysis is not a sensible option.
Mr. B2, actually, a planned future book (stand-alone, note to aspiring writers: trilogies are a bugger to write) might revolve around the impact of a plague. I think there's lots of interesting stuff that could be written on that sort of topic.
Kim Robinson's "Days of Rice and Salt" is a good read on that topic, if you have time.
Paul_Bedfordshire made the point more articulately than me a few days ago: these powers that you give the government when it's your guys in control look scary when it's Jeremy Corbyn in power.
That applies strongly to leaving the EU. A Corbyn in power with no hindrances to his nationalisation agenda would do untold damage.
The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia wrote a long detailed report in 2014 on the rise in attacks on Jews across countries in the EU. There were a variety of perpetrators but the single biggest group responsible for attacks was Muslims. There have been similar reports since then in Germany and France and elsewhere. An uncomfortable fact for all those thinking that one can lump together all minority groups as oppressed victims. Or that being a victim somehow makes it impossible for one also to be a perpetrator.
This may not be terrorism in the conventional sense but for those who are the victims of it it is certainly terror, a sort of low level terror, worrying about being out in public while wearing items denoting their religion or worrying about security at schools or places of worship etc.
I never saw guards outside Jewish schools or places of culture or synagogues when I was growing up in North London. I do now. This is not a development for the better. The virus of anti-Semitism was never eliminated from Europe, even after the end of the war when all could see what such hatred could lead to. It has, I'm afraid, been given rocket boosters by the increase in the Muslim population in Western Europe and our craven refusal to confront and call out what Mehdi Hasan called in 2013 "our dirty little secret. You could call it the banality of Muslim anti-Semitism."
Given Medhi's views - he's not my voice of reason. I see this video no longer pops up via YouTube
Paul_Bedfordshire made the point more articulately than me a few days ago: these powers that you give the government when it's your guys in control look scary when it's Jeremy Corbyn in power.
That applies strongly to leaving the EU. A Corbyn in power with no hindrances to his nationalisation agenda would do untold damage.
"Corbyn in power"
Yeah. Not gonna happen.
That's why I added the indefinite article. Can you rule out someone with his views ever leading a government?
Paul_Bedfordshire made the point more articulately than me a few days ago: these powers that you give the government when it's your guys in control look scary when it's Jeremy Corbyn in power.
That applies strongly to leaving the EU. A Corbyn in power with no hindrances to his nationalisation agenda would do untold damage.
In this respect, I'm a sovereignista. If the British electorate, God bless 'em, vote to nationalise the railways and beyond, then they can do so, even if I disagree.
''Covering the face, on the other hand, is a different matter because as well as frequently being a tool of oppression.''
After (presumably muslim?) women in Syria burned their face veils when ISIS left, its quite clear that this is an extremist political garment and should be banned in public.
If women are being forced to wear it, that's an issue.
If it's a women's free choice to wear it, and they are always choosing to do so in our society, then that's also an issue.
The burqa is simply not an item of clothing. It is freighted with meaning, religious and cultural meaning. So wearing it is not like someone choosing to wear a shell suit or hat.
These two quotes sum up the issues, I think:-
"For many Muslim women religious dress is mandatory, not voluntary. The French, including many French Muslims and ex-Muslims, acknowledge this kind of religious intolerance and give it importance. If we concede that religious dress codes are sometimes involuntarily adopted by British citizens, then the state is justified in interfering with the practice, since the purpose of the interference is to prevent harm to others and to widen individual liberty where it is threatened."
And
"While the state ban on public religious veiling denies those Muslims who do choose to adopt it one means of symbolic religious expression in public spaces, this particular form of religious freedom of expression in turn conflicts with the freedom of expression of other Muslims not to adopt religious dress. There is nothing controversial about limiting the freedom of expression of individuals to those behaviours that do not deny it to others."
There is something magnificently fatuous in trying to outlaw an emotion, and especially one as productive, on occasion, as hatred. If they are determined to go down this route I would much rather they outlawed simpering or self-righteousness — but that would mean banging up half the capital, including the mayor himself.
And then there is the issue of the aforementioned trolls. Khan’s henchmen are not referring to hirsute ogres from Norse legend, sadly — that would have been a slightly more entertaining use of police time — but to people who, properly speaking, do not exist at all. ‘Troll’ is simply a word appended to someone who has said something with which you vigorously disagree.
Should people be allowed wear headphones as they interfere with social interaction?
Which religion or cult is it that forces its members to wear headphones whenever they leave the house so that others cannot talk to them?
Or are you just desperately trying to be clever by confusing two completely separate things?
If a whole load of immigrants from lets say, Republican parts of America became the majority in large numbers of English towns, and the men forbid the women among them from leaving the house without wearing headphones (specifically to stop them hearing non Republican American views) I would see that as a big problem, yes. Weird, rude, sinister, and I would wish they had never come at all
I've had two emails from journalist friends in the past half hour saying that US evangelicals are jumping up and down with resolve when they learn what Donald Trump has got on his coat of arms at Mar-a-Lago:
There is something magnificently fatuous in trying to outlaw an emotion, and especially one as productive, on occasion, as hatred. If they are determined to go down this route I would much rather they outlawed simpering or self-righteousness — but that would mean banging up half the capital, including the mayor himself.
And then there is the issue of the aforementioned trolls. Khan’s henchmen are not referring to hirsute ogres from Norse legend, sadly — that would have been a slightly more entertaining use of police time — but to people who, properly speaking, do not exist at all. ‘Troll’ is simply a word appended to someone who has said something with which you vigorously disagree.
There is something magnificently fatuous in trying to outlaw an emotion, and especially one as productive, on occasion, as hatred. If they are determined to go down this route I would much rather they outlawed simpering or self-righteousness — but that would mean banging up half the capital, including the mayor himself.
And then there is the issue of the aforementioned trolls. Khan’s henchmen are not referring to hirsute ogres from Norse legend, sadly — that would have been a slightly more entertaining use of police time — but to people who, properly speaking, do not exist at all. ‘Troll’ is simply a word appended to someone who has said something with which you vigorously disagree.
The word “hatred” is banded around just as often as racist or xenophobe nowadays, rarely is that the actual case imho, just another means to label someone with a differing opinion and to stifle legitimate debate.
FPT: Is being murdered by a terrorist worse than being murdered by a regular murderer ?
No. Is the same principle as if someone kicks me in the head to steal my phone or if someone kicks me in the head because I look like a Muslim.
Both are going to hurt me the same, though I do love my phone and would struggle without it.
The result may be the same, but the motivation is different. Petty theft and religious hatred have a different set of motivations and origins. One comes from poverty, the other from poor education plus radicalisation. In order to combat both we cannot apply the same solutions. That's what the solution is, prevention.
The scarier form of religious hatred is that which comes from good education plus fanatical belief. How do you combat
As I said, the political will to do it doesn't exist and in the short to medium term it would create a lot of animosity and probably increase terrorist attacks.
Good luck getting any of that past the paracitical 'human rights' courts, that seem to thrive on tolerating the intolerant these days.
The problem is this: if I choose to cover my head going down the street - just as if I wish to ban breastfeeding in my restaurant - surely that is my concern.
And do you really want to give the government the power to choose which religious meetings it considers appropriate?
Paul_Bedfordshire made the point more articulately than me a few days ago: these powers that you give the government when it's your guys in control look scary when it's Jeremy Corbyn in power.
It's always important to consider the ways in which your legislation can be used against you, should your opponents come to power.
Indeed. But not to the point where we refuse to do anything at all. Fear resulting in paralysis is not a sensible option.
I'd do a lot about electoral fraud, FGM, child abuse, without worrying about "cultural matters"; I'd scrap rubbish like the Met Police's twitter squad; I'd scrap the Religious and Racial Hatred Act; I'd end immigration from failed States, and make first cousins ineligible to come here as spouses (or indeed, any spouse under 24 years).
There are plenty of circumstances in which banning burkhas is reasonable (eg, giving evidence, teaching, any job which requires the employee to communicate with the public) but I wouldn't stop Muslim women from wearing burkhas in Wardown Park, for example.
A consistent narrative seems to be emerging from Remain advocates, now, which is that they respect the result, and we are leaving the EU, but leaving the single market would be a disaster, so should stay in the EEA, but this would be worse than staying in the EU because we wouldn't take back any control and might even be worse, so we should really leave the whole thing, which would be a disaster. Shame a 2nd referendum is off the cards for now.
The line of attack of that argument is pretty clear to me.
And what's your counterargument?
I don't agree leaving the single market would be a disaster and am increasingly relaxed about it.
Many who voted leave did so on the assumption that we could stay in the single market, so what would be the harm in putting it to a second vote once it's clear what kind of Brexit would be on the table?
A consistent narrative seems to be emerging from Remain advocates, now, which is that they respect the result, and we are leaving the EU, but leaving the single market would be a disaster, so should stay in the EEA, but this would be worse than staying in the EU because we wouldn't take back any control and might even be worse, so we should really leave the whole thing, which would be a disaster. Shame a 2nd referendum is off the cards for now.
The line of attack of that argument is pretty clear to me.
And what's your counterargument?
I don't agree leaving the single market would be a disaster and am increasingly relaxed about it.
Many who voted leave did so on the assumption that we could stay in the single market, so what would be the harm in putting it to a second vote once it's clear what kind of Brexit would be on the table?
Actually, the official Vote Leave campaign made it quite clear they wanted to leave the single market.
But people like rcs1000 and Richard Tyndall voted Leave in spite of this, not because of it.
Should people be allowed wear headphones as they interfere with social interaction?
Which religion or cult is it that forces its members to wear headphones whenever they leave the house so that others cannot talk to them?
Or are you just desperately trying to be clever by confusing two completely separate things?
If a whole load of immigrants from lets say, Republican parts of America started become the majority in large numbers of English towns, and the men forbid the women among them from leaving the house without wearing headphones, specifically to stop them hearing non Republican American views I would see that as a big problem, yes
You can talk to whoever you like whatever they are wearing.
Should people be allowed wear headphones as they interfere with social interaction?
Which religion or cult is it that forces its members to wear headphones whenever they leave the house so that others cannot talk to them?
Or are you just desperately trying to be clever by confusing two completely separate things?
If a whole load of immigrants from lets say, Republican parts of America started become the majority in large numbers of English towns, and the men forbid the women among them from leaving the house without wearing headphones, specifically to stop them hearing non Republican American views I would see that as a big problem, yes
You can talk to whoever you like whatever they are wearing.
Yes but the strange, creepy ritual of the new immigrant would prevent them from interacting on pain of... who knows?
A consistent narrative seems to be emerging from Remain advocates, now, which is that they respect the result, and we are leaving the EU, but leaving the single market would be a disaster, so should stay in the EEA, but this would be worse than staying in the EU because we wouldn't take back any control and might even be worse, so we should really leave the whole thing, which would be a disaster. Shame a 2nd referendum is off the cards for now.
The line of attack of that argument is pretty clear to me.
And what's your counterargument?
I don't agree leaving the single market would be a disaster and am increasingly relaxed about it.
Many who voted leave did so on the assumption that we could stay in the single market, so what would be the harm in putting it to a second vote once it's clear what kind of Brexit would be on the table?
Actually, the official Vote Leave campaign made it quite clear they wanted to leave the single market.
The official vote leave campaign said lots of things, but nothing at all since June 23rd. Their pronouncements surely count for nothing.
FPT: Is being murdered by a terrorist worse than being murdered by a regular murderer ?
The result may be the same, but the motivation is different. Petty theft and religious hatred have a different set of motivations and origins. One comes from poverty, the other from poor education plus radicalisation. In order to combat both we cannot apply the same solutions. That's what the solution is, prevention.
The scarier form of religious hatred is that which comes from good education plus fanatical belief. How do you combat
As I said, the political will to do it doesn't exist and in the short to medium term it would create a lot of animosity and probably increase terrorist attacks.
Good luck getting any of that past the paracitical 'human rights' courts, that seem to thrive on tolerating the intolerant these days.
The problem is this: if I choose to cover my head going down the street - just as if I wish to ban breastfeeding in my restaurant - surely that is my concern.
And do you really want to give the government the power to choose which religious meetings it considers appropriate?
Paul_Bedfordshire made the point more articulately than me a few days ago: these powers that you give the government when it's your guys in control look scary when it's Jeremy Corbyn in power.
It's always important to consider the ways in which your legislation can be used against you, should your opponents come to power.
Indeed. But not to the point where we refuse to do anything at all. Fear resulting in paralysis is not a sensible option.
I'd do a lot about electoral fraud, FGM, child abuse, without worrying about "cultural matters"; I'd scrap rubbish like the Met Police's twitter squad; I'd scrap the Religious and Racial Hatred Act; I'd end immigration from failed States, and make first cousins ineligible to come here as spouses (or indeed, any spouse under 24 years).
There are plenty of circumstances in which banning burkhas is reasonable (eg, giving evidence, teaching, any job which requires the employee to communicate with the public) but I wouldn't stop Muslim women from wearing burkhas in Wardown Park, for example.
I would ban anything that covers the face in all public places (with exceptions like for riding a motorbike and in extreme temperature).
However what that French Beach are doing is ridiculous.
A consistent narrative seems to be emerging from Remain advocates, now, which is that they respect the result, and we are leaving the EU, but leaving the single market would be a disaster, so should stay in the EEA, but this would be worse than staying in the EU because we wouldn't take back any control and might even be worse, so we should really leave the whole thing, which would be a disaster. Shame a 2nd referendum is off the cards for now.
The line of attack of that argument is pretty clear to me.
And what's your counterargument?
I don't agree leaving the single market would be a disaster and am increasingly relaxed about it.
Many who voted leave did so on the assumption that we could stay in the single market, so what would be the harm in putting it to a second vote once it's clear what kind of Brexit would be on the table?
Actually, the official Vote Leave campaign made it quite clear they wanted to leave the single market.
The official vote leave campaign said lots of things, but nothing at all since June 23rd. Their pronouncements surely count for nothing.
I'm afraid they count for rather a lot if your argument is that a 2nd referendum should be held to obtain a mandate to leave the single market.
That mandate has already been secured from the first referendum. There's a better case to argue for one if the Government proposes to stay *in* the single market, but not much.
There is something magnificently fatuous in trying to outlaw an emotion, and especially one as productive, on occasion, as hatred. If they are determined to go down this route I would much rather they outlawed simpering or self-righteousness — but that would mean banging up half the capital, including the mayor himself.
And then there is the issue of the aforementioned trolls. Khan’s henchmen are not referring to hirsute ogres from Norse legend, sadly — that would have been a slightly more entertaining use of police time — but to people who, properly speaking, do not exist at all. ‘Troll’ is simply a word appended to someone who has said something with which you vigorously disagree.
The word “hatred” is banded around just as often as racist or xenophobe nowadays, rarely is that the actual case imho, just another means to label someone with a differing opinion and to stifle legitimate debate.
Agreed.
In most cases they are grossly exaggerate and describe 'dislike' as 'hatred'.
Phobias are similarly abused to cover people who dislike.
A consistent narrative seems to be emerging from Remain advocates, now, which is that they respect the result, and we are leaving the EU, but leaving the single market would be a disaster, so should stay in the EEA, but this would be worse than staying in the EU because we wouldn't take back any control and might even be worse, so we should really leave the whole thing, which would be a disaster. Shame a 2nd referendum is off the cards for now.
The line of attack of that argument is pretty clear to me.
And what's your counterargument?
I don't agree leaving the single market would be a disaster and am increasingly relaxed about it.
Many who voted leave did so on the assumption that we could stay in the single market, so what would be the harm in putting it to a second vote once it's clear what kind of Brexit would be on the table?
Actually, the official Vote Leave campaign made it quite clear they wanted to leave the single market.
The official vote leave campaign said lots of things, but nothing at all since June 23rd.
Because the official referendum campaign is, er, over?
''Covering the face, on the other hand, is a different matter because as well as frequently being a tool of oppression.''
After (presumably muslim?) women in Syria burned their face veils when ISIS left, its quite clear that this is an extremist political garment and should be banned in public.
If women are being forced to wear it, that's an issue.
If it's a women's free choice to wear it, and they are always choosing to do so in our society, then that's also an issue.
The burqa is simply not an item of clothing. It is freighted with meaning, religious and cultural meaning. So wearing it is not like someone choosing to wear a shell suit or hat.
These two quotes sum up the issues, I think:-
"For many Muslim women religious dress is mandatory, not voluntary. The French, including many French Muslims and ex-Muslims, acknowledge this kind of religious intolerance and give it importance. If we concede that religious dress codes are sometimes involuntarily adopted by British citizens, then the state is justified in interfering with the practice, since the purpose of the interference is to prevent harm to others and to widen individual liberty where it is threatened."
And
"While the state ban on public religious veiling denies those Muslims who do choose to adopt it one means of symbolic religious expression in public spaces, this particular form of religious freedom of expression in turn conflicts with the freedom of expression of other Muslims not to adopt religious dress. There is nothing controversial about limiting the freedom of expression of individuals to those behaviours that do not deny it to others."
It's so easy to criticise other people's cultures from the viewpoint of the "religion" of individual "freedom". That last sentence is totally specious. A hijab is basically a wimple - it covers the hair and the neck and sternum. Someone feels their "freedom" is threatened? Really?
What kind of argument needs to use a foreign word for an item? Those who want to ban the wimple should say so.
That Prospect article is eloquent and ominous, but might be overdoing it (and it is published in a Blairite magazine which has been slavish in its europhilia).
It presumes that London gains nothing from leaving the EU. This is wildly pessimistic.
''Covering the face, on the other hand, is a different matter because as well as frequently being a tool of oppression.''
After (presumably muslim?) women in Syria burned their face veils when ISIS left, its quite clear that this is an extremist political garment and should be banned in public.
If women are being forced to wear it, that's an issue.
If it's a women's free choice to wear it, and they are always choosing to do so in our society, then that's also an issue.
The burqa is simply not an item of clothing. It is freighted with meaning, religious and cultural meaning. So wearing it is not like someone choosing to wear a shell suit or hat.
These two quotes sum up the issues, I think:-
"For many Muslim women religious dress is mandatory, not voluntary. The French, including many French Muslims and ex-Muslims, acknowledge this kind of religious intolerance and give it importance. If we concede that religious dress codes are sometimes involuntarily adopted by British citizens, then the state is justified in interfering with the practice, since the purpose of the interference is to prevent harm to others and to widen individual liberty where it is threatened."
And
"While the state ban on public religious veiling denies those Muslims who do choose to adopt it one means of symbolic religious expression in public spaces, this particular form of religious freedom of expression in turn conflicts with the freedom of expression of other Muslims not to adopt religious dress. There is nothing controversial about limiting the freedom of expression of individuals to those behaviours that do not deny it to others."
It's so easy to criticise other people's cultures from the viewpoint of the "religion" of individual "freedom". That last sentence is totally specious. A hijab is basically a wimple - it covers the hair and the neck and sternum. Someone feels threatened? Really?
FPT: Is being murdered by a terrorist worse than being murdered by a regular murderer ?
No. Is the same principle as if someone kicks me in the head to steal my phone or if someone kicks me in the head because I look like a Muslim.
Both are going to hurt me the same, though I do love my phone and would struggle without it.
The result may be the same, but the motivation is different. Petty theft and religious hatred have a different set of motivations and origins. One comes from poverty, the other from poor education plus radicalisation. In order to combat both we cannot apply the same solutions. That's what the solution is, prevention.
The scarier form of religious hatred is that which comes from good education plus fanatical belief. How do you combat that?
The Anjem Choudary problem. Nothing that would be politically viable can be done. The solution has always been to make it difficult to be a fundamentalist in the UK. Ban halal slaughter and importation of halal meat, close any mosque receiving funds from overseas or linked to radical preachers, close all Islamic schools and even the equivalent of Sunday school, ban the burka etc... It's not an easy path, but eventually enough people who want to live a fundamentalist lifestyle which is incompatible with our secular values would choose to leave the country and move to one where it is acceptable to live in the manner they want.
As I said, the political will to do it doesn't exist and in the short to medium term it would create a lot of animosity and probably increase terrorist attacks.
Good luck getting any of that past the paracitical 'human rights' courts, that seem to thrive on tolerating the intolerant these days.
The problem is this: if I choose to cover my head going down the street - just as if I wish to ban breastfeeding in my restaurant - surely that is my concern.
And do you really want to give the government the power to choose which religious meetings it considers appropriate?
Paul_Bedfordshire made the point more articulately than me a few days ago: these powers that you give the government when it's your guys in control look scary when it's Jeremy Corbyn in power.
Personally I agree completely with the liberal point of view. Rather than banning burkas and mosques, we have to teach that tolerance is part of British culture, and that if you don't have tolerance then you're not welcome here. That means procecutions for FGM, for harassing people running off licences, obviously for sexual offences, English tests for immigrant wives etc etc.
I've had two emails from journalist friends in the past half hour saying that US evangelicals are jumping up and down with resolve when they learn what Donald Trump has got on his coat of arms at Mar-a-Lago:
Three Lions on a shield.
Clearly he is an MI6 infiltrator who will abolish the role of president and make HM Queen head of state?
A consistent narrative seems to be emerging from Remain advocates, now, which is that they respect the result, and we are leaving the EU, but leaving the single market would be a disaster, so should stay in the EEA, but this would be worse than staying in the EU because we wouldn't take back any control and might even be worse, so we should really leave the whole thing, which would be a disaster. Shame a 2nd referendum is off the cards for now.
The line of attack of that argument is pretty clear to me.
And what's your counterargument?
I don't agree leaving the single market would be a disaster and am increasingly relaxed about it.
Many who voted leave did so on the assumption that we could stay in the single market, so what would be the harm in putting it to a second vote once it's clear what kind of Brexit would be on the table?
Actually, the official Vote Leave campaign made it quite clear they wanted to leave the single market.
The official vote leave campaign said lots of things, but nothing at all since June 23rd. Their pronouncements surely count for nothing.
I'm afraid they count for rather a lot if your argument is that a 2nd referendum should be held to obtain a mandate to leave the single market.
That mandate has already been secured from the first referendum. There's a better case to argue for one if the Government proposes to stay *in* the single market, but not much.
Quiz: Who wrote on 26 June that "There will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market"?
''Covering the face, on the other hand, is a different matter because as well as frequently being a tool of oppression.''
After (presumably muslim?) women in Syria burned their face veils when ISIS left, its quite clear that this is an extremist political garment and should be banned in public.
If women are being forced to wear it, that's an issue.
If it's a women's free choice to wear it, and they are always choosing to do so in our society, then that's also an issue.
The burqa is simply not an item of clothing. It is freighted with meaning, religious and cultural meaning. So wearing it is not like someone choosing to wear a shell suit or hat.
These two quotes sum up the issues, I think:-
"For many Muslim women religious dress is mandatory, not voluntary. The French, including many French Muslims and ex-Muslims, acknowledge this kind of religious intolerance and give it importance. If we concede that religious dress codes are sometimes involuntarily adopted by British citizens, then the state is justified in interfering with the practice, since the purpose of the interference is to prevent harm to others and to widen individual liberty where it is threatened."
And
"While the state ban on public religious veiling denies those Muslims who do choose to adopt it one means of symbolic religious expression in public spaces, this particular form of religious freedom of expression in turn conflicts with the freedom of expression of other Muslims not to adopt religious dress. There is nothing controversial about limiting the freedom of expression of individuals to those behaviours that do not deny it to others."
It's so easy to criticise other people's cultures from the viewpoint of the "religion" of individual "freedom". That last sentence is totally specious. A hijab is basically a wimple - it covers the hair and the neck and sternum. Someone feels threatened? Really?
Islam is a sexist religion isn't it?
Most religions are sexist. Ever read the story of Adam and Eve?
''Covering the face, on the other hand, is a different matter because as well as frequently being a tool of oppression.''
After (presumably muslim?) women in Syria burned their face veils when ISIS left, its quite clear that this is an extremist political garment and should be banned in public.
If women are being forced to wear it, that's an issue.
If it's a women's free choice to wear it, and they are always choosing to do so in our society, then that's also an issue.
The burqa is simply not an item of clothing. It is freighted with meaning, religious and cultural meaning. So wearing it is not like someone choosing to wear a shell suit or hat.
These two quotes sum up the issues, I think:-
"For many Muslim women religious dress is mandatory, not voluntary. The French, including many French Muslims and ex-Muslims, acknowledge this kind of religious intolerance and give it importance. If we concede that religious dress codes are sometimes involuntarily adopted by British citizens, then the state is justified in interfering with the practice, since the purpose of the interference is to prevent harm to others and to widen individual liberty where it is threatened."
And
"While the state ban on public religious veiling denies those Muslims who do choose to adopt it one means of symbolic religious expression in public spaces, this particular form of religious freedom of expression in turn conflicts with the freedom of expression of other Muslims not to adopt religious dress. There is nothing controversial about limiting the freedom of expression of individuals to those behaviours that do not deny it to others."
It's so easy to criticise other people's cultures from the viewpoint of the "religion" of individual "freedom". That last sentence is totally specious. A hijab is basically a wimple - it covers the hair and the neck and sternum. Someone feels threatened? Really?
Islam is a sexist religion isn't it?
Most religions are sexist. Ever read the story of Adam and Eve?
I didn't got to Sunday School, but did Eve have to wear a Burqa?
Should people be allowed wear headphones as they interfere with social interaction?
Which religion or cult is it that forces its members to wear headphones whenever they leave the house so that others cannot talk to them?
Or are you just desperately trying to be clever by confusing two completely separate things?
If a whole load of immigrants from lets say, Republican parts of America started become the majority in large numbers of English towns, and the men forbid the women among them from leaving the house without wearing headphones (specifically to stop them hearing non Republican American views) I would see that as a big problem, yes. Weird, rude, sinister, and I would wish they had never come at all
I drove through Tower Hamlets a week or so ago, around 7pm (taking the slow road back from Kent)
It was astonishing. I've seen a lot burqas in London, but I saw hundreds in the space of minutes. These hurrying, masked, shrouded figures, cut off from me, from everyone, from the world. Like something from the Middle Ages.
The burqa is vile. We have become habituated to it in our cities, which is wrong. I don't want my daughter to grow up in a city where these horrible hoods and sacks are regarded as acceptable streetwear because some people think "women mustn't be seen".
Ban it. Tomorrow.
I was with some American tourists in that part of London at the time of our Olympics and they were staggered at what they saw.
It's completely sickening and the road we are on, and where it leads to, is horrifying
''Covering the face, on the other hand, is a different matter because as well as frequently being a tool of oppression.''
After (presumably muslim?) women in Syria burned their face veils when ISIS left, its quite clear that this is an extremist political garment and should be banned in public.
If women are being forced to wear it, that's an issue.
If it's a women's free choice to wear it, and they are always choosing to do so in our society, then that's also an issue.
The burqa is simply not an item of clothing. It is freighted with meaning, religious and cultural meaning. So wearing it is not like someone choosing to wear a shell suit or hat.
These two quotes sum up the issues, I think:-
"For many Muslim women religious dress is mandatory, not voluntary. The French, including many French Muslims and ex-Muslims, acknowledge this kind of religious intolerance and give it importance. If we concede that religious dress codes are sometimes involuntarily adopted by British citizens, then the state is justified in interfering with the practice, since the purpose of the interference is to prevent harm to others and to widen individual liberty where it is threatened."
And
"While the state ban on public religious veiling denies those Muslims who do choose to adopt it one means of symbolic religious expression in public spaces, this particular form of religious freedom of expression in turn conflicts with the freedom of expression of other Muslims not to adopt religious dress. There is nothing controversial about limiting the freedom of expression of individuals to those behaviours that do not deny it to others."
It's so easy to criticise other people's cultures from the viewpoint of the "religion" of individual "freedom". That last sentence is totally specious. A hijab is basically a wimple - it covers the hair and the neck and sternum. Someone feels threatened? Really?
Islam is a sexist religion isn't it?
And Judaism is racist.
Clothing bans aren't the way.
The cult of individual freedom is just as socially harmful as sexism. We all know men and women are psychologically essentially different. How many textbooks on psychology even recognise that fact? How many university degrees in psychology offer courses on men's psychology and courses on women's psychology? Those who buy into western individualism should consider getting their own house in order.
I've had two emails from journalist friends in the past half hour saying that US evangelicals are jumping up and down with resolve when they learn what Donald Trump has got on his coat of arms at Mar-a-Lago:
Three Lions on a shield.
Clearly he is an MI6 infiltrator who will abolish the role of president and make HM Queen head of state?
Should people be allowed wear headphones as they interfere with social interaction?
Which religion or cult is it that forces its members to wear headphones whenever they leave the house so that others cannot talk to them?
Or are you just desperately trying to be clever by confusing two completely separate things?
If a whole load of immigrants from lets say, Republican parts of America started become the majority in large numbers of English towns, and the men forbid the women among them from leaving the house without wearing headphones (specifically to stop them hearing non Republican American views) I would see that as a big problem, yes. Weird, rude, sinister, and I would wish they had never come at all
I drove through Tower Hamlets a week or so ago, around 7pm (taking the slow road back from Kent)
It was astonishing. I've seen a lot burqas in London, but I saw hundreds in the space of minutes. These hurrying, masked, shrouded figures, cut off from me, from everyone, from the world. Like something from the Middle Ages.
The burqa is vile. We have become habituated to it in our cities, which is wrong. I don't want my daughter to grow up in a city where these horrible hoods and sacks are regarded as acceptable streetwear because some people think "women mustn't be seen".
Ban it. Tomorrow.
They would probably think that someone who writes about British Muslims being forced into deportation trains or internment camps is "vile", though more redolent of 1940-45 than the Middle Ages.
Should people be allowed wear headphones as they interfere with social interaction?
Which religion or cult is it that forces its members to wear headphones whenever they leave the house so that others cannot talk to them?
Or are you just desperately trying to be clever by confusing two completely separate things?
If a whole load of immigrants from lets say, Republican parts of America started become the majority in large numbers of English towns, and the men forbid the women among them from leaving the house without wearing headphones (specifically to stop them hearing non Republican American views) I would see that as a big problem, yes. Weird, rude, sinister, and I would wish they had never come at all
I drove through Tower Hamlets a week or so ago, around 7pm (taking the slow road back from Kent)
It was astonishing. I've seen a lot burqas in London, but I saw hundreds in the space of minutes. These hurrying, masked, shrouded figures, cut off from me, from everyone, from the world. Like something from the Middle Ages.
The burqa is vile. We have become habituated to it in our cities, which is wrong. I don't want my daughter to grow up in a city where these horrible hoods and sacks are regarded as acceptable streetwear because some people think "women mustn't be seen".
Ban it. Tomorrow.
They would probably think that someone who writes about British Muslims being forced into deportation trains or internment camps is "vile", though more redolent of 1940-45 than the Middle Ages.
Why are you sympathetic to a sexist religion like Islam? Is it a Freudian thing regarding your own sexism?
I tried to get through it but failed. It read like the longest ever way of saying, "it's not fair, the beastly northerners were mean to us".
London, 22 matches; Britain 2 matches, England 2 matches.
Probably a good indication of why brexit occurred...
Addendum: Why is it that our gdp per cap is a fair chunk lower than Netherlands, Germany, Denmark - even though we have 'London'.
Perhaps the economy will be rebalanced with Brexit, it is my big hope - even though it is a net loss overall.
Indeed.
I'd guess that it is because we lack a middle manufacturing sector. We're decent at the lower end and excellent at the top, but do very little in between. People who have better skills than basic manufacturing but are not properly qualified to work on building fighter jets or luxury sports cars have very little to move up to which causes wages to stagnate. Indeed, we import a lot of our semi-manufactured goods from the nations you mention. Its something that needs addressing, and soon IMO.
And we can't ignore our education system. That's been shitty too. We turn out too many people with A Levels in Media Studies, and two two few people with the skills needed to work in manufacturing businesses.
I think that's beginning to change now that fees are so high. I know a couple of my distant relatives are eschewing university, one had an apprenticeship with McLaren automotive in their production division. He's Indian as well so you can imagine the reaction from the extended family!
And with the university fees he's saved, he'll be able to put down a deposit on one of the excellent cars he's making!
''Covering the face, on the other hand, is a different matter because as well as frequently being a tool of oppression.''
After (presumably muslim?) women in Syria burned their face veils when ISIS left, its quite clear that this is an extremist political garment and should be banned in public.
If women are being forced to wear it, that's an issue.
If it's a women's free choice to wear it, and they are always choosing to do so in our society, then that's also an issue.
The burqa is simply not an item of clothing. It is freighted with meaning, religious and cultural meaning. So wearing it is not like someone choosing to wear a shell suit or hat.
These two quotes sum up the issues, I think:-
"For many Muslim women religious dress is mandatory, not voluntary. The French, including many French Muslims and ex-Muslims, acknowledge this kind of religious intolerance and give it importance. If we concede that religious dress codes are sometimes involuntarily adopted by British citizens, then the state is justified in interfering with the practice, since the purpose of the interference is to prevent harm to others and to widen individual liberty where it is threatened."
And
"While the state ban on public religious veiling denies those Muslims who do choose to adopt it one means of symbolic religious expression in public spaces, this particular form of religious freedom of expression in turn conflicts with the freedom of expression of other Muslims not to adopt religious dress. There is nothing controversial about limiting the freedom of expression of individuals to those behaviours that do not deny it to others."
It's so easy to criticise other people's cultures from the viewpoint of the "religion" of individual "freedom". That last sentence is totally specious. A hijab is basically a wimple - it covers the hair and the neck and sternum. Someone feels their "freedom" is threatened? Really?
What kind of argument needs to use a foreign word for an item? Those who want to ban the wimple should say so.
Straw man. We're not talking about the hijab, as you know. I've never heard anyone worry about a headscarf. My granny used to wear one. They're fine: BECAUSE THEY DON'T COVER THE FACE
If you can find an equivalent item of street clothing - covering everything - in the history of western dress, then I will be impressed. Because no such equivalent exists.
Wolf whistle at them in front of their husbands, it confuses them
I don't want my daughter to grow up in a city where these horrible hoods and sacks are regarded as acceptable streetwear because some people think "women mustn't be seen".
I drove through the centre of Birmingham late one Friday night and saw many drunken young women dressed like sluts. Many people don't want their children to grow up in a city where such dress is regarded as acceptable streetwear because they uphold "the right to dress like a drunken slut in public".
What parts of her body do you think it should be mandatory for a woman going about in public to show? Hair and neck? Or will one or the other be OK?
A consistent narrative seems to be emerging from Remain advocates, now, which is that they respect the result, and we are leaving the EU, but leaving the single market would be a disaster, so should stay in the EEA, but this would be worse than staying in the EU because we wouldn't take back any control and might even be worse, so we should really leave the whole thing, which would be a disaster. Shame a 2nd referendum is off the cards for now.
The line of attack of that argument is pretty clear to me.
And what's your counterargument?
I don't agree leaving the single market would be a disaster and am increasingly relaxed about it.
Many who voted leave did so on the assumption that we could stay in the single market, so what would be the harm in putting it to a second vote once it's clear what kind of Brexit would be on the table?
Actually, the official Vote Leave campaign made it quite clear they wanted to leave the single market.
The official vote leave campaign said lots of things, but nothing at all since June 23rd. Their pronouncements surely count for nothing.
I'm afraid they count for rather a lot if your argument is that a 2nd referendum should be held to obtain a mandate to leave the single market.
That mandate has already been secured from the first referendum. There's a better case to argue for one if the Government proposes to stay *in* the single market, but not much.
Quiz: Who wrote on 26 June that "There will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market"?
FPT: Is being murdered by a terrorist worse than being murdered by a regular murderer ?
The Anjem Choudary problem. Nothing that would be politically viable can be done. The solution has always been to make it difficult to be a fundamentalist in the UK. Ban halal slaughter and importation of halal meat, close any mosque receiving funds from overseas or linked to radical preachers, close all Islamic schools and even the equivalent of Sunday school, ban the burka etc... It's not an easy path, but eventually enough people who want to live a fundamentalist lifestyle which is incompatible with our secular values would choose to leave the country and move to one where it is acceptable to live in the manner they want.
As I said, the political will to do it doesn't exist and in the short to medium term it would create a lot of animosity and probably increase terrorist attacks.
Good luck getting any of that past the paracitical 'human rights' courts, that seem to thrive on tolerating the intolerant these days.
The problem is this: if I choose to cover my head going down the street - just as if I wish to ban breastfeeding in my restaurant - surely that is my concern.
And do you really want to give the government the power to choose which religious meetings it considers appropriate?
Paul_Bedfordshire made the point more articulately than me a few days ago: these powers that you give the government when it's your guys in control look scary when it's Jeremy Corbyn in power.
It's always important to consider the ways in which your legislation can be used against you, should your opponents come to power.
It was something that New Labour were particularly naive about.
A good example is hate crimes. Thanks to that law if a hard right government got in they could virtually instigate a pogrom without even needing secondary legislation. All that is needed is direction from the home secretary that as budgets are tight the police should concentrate on hate crimes against ethnic britons carried out by ethnic minorities or by homosexuals against heterosexuals and you could, especially with the ludicrous McPherson definition that if you think you are a victim then you are, persecute ethnic minorities and homosexuals viciously.
''As far as I'm concerned, if you want to wear Nazi uniforms in the street, or "Mohammed is a cock sucker" or whatever, that's up to you. It's not for the government to choose what forms of dress are acceptable. ''
Well OK if you're going to allow all forms of political dress then fine. But in our current regime some forms of political dress are clearly more equal than others.
That T shirt gives you a criminal record.
I've often wondered what would happen if I paraded round the Tower of London with a placard stating "Behead Those Who Offend King Henry".....
Hmm, just got an email from the Conservatives boasting that "Over the last month Conservatives have announced policies to deal with modern day slavery; to keep families safe and secure by introducing a ban on ‘zombie knives’; and launched a new ‘Dementia Atlas’ to improve prevention, diagnosis and support for people living with dementia."
All worthy stuff, no doubt, but I can't help feeling that, as a list to gee up supporters, it's not entirely commensurate with the challenges facing the government.
''As far as I'm concerned, if you want to wear Nazi uniforms in the street, or "Mohammed is a cock sucker" or whatever, that's up to you. It's not for the government to choose what forms of dress are acceptable. ''
Well OK if you're going to allow all forms of political dress then fine. But in our current regime some forms of political dress are clearly more equal than others.
That T shirt gives you a criminal record.
I've often wondered what would happen if I paraded round the Tower of London with a placard stating "Behead Those Who Offend King Henry".....
The last execution at the Tower was in 1941 - by firing squad.
''However you cut it, wearing full face veils is an issue. ''
Its like wearing a brownshirt. Yes, its just a brown shirt. But it isn't.
As far as I'm concerned, if you want to wear Nazi uniforms in the street, or "Mohammed is a cock sucker" or whatever, that's up to you. It's not for the government to choose what forms of dress are acceptable.
If you chose to, as an exercise of free will, that's one thing. But I suspect there is a huge amount of coercion that goes on.
Moreover, given the importance of facial expressions in communication and identification, I think that it should be legal to refuse service to people who won't uncover their face
I don't want my daughter to grow up in a city where these horrible hoods and sacks are regarded as acceptable streetwear because some people think "women mustn't be seen".
I drove through the centre of Birmingham late one Friday night and saw many drunken young women dressed like sluts. Many people don't want their children to grow up in a city where such dress is regarded as acceptable streetwear because they uphold "the right to dress like a drunken slut in public".
What parts of her body do you think it should be mandatory for a woman going about in public to show? Hair and neck? Or will one or the other be OK?
I love the way you edited this three minutes later in an attempt to 'strengthen' your 'point'.
These are not 'fundamentalist' aberrations, death penalties 'committed by fanatics who don't represent their religion'. This is the basic law of many 'moderate' Muslim states. Fuck the lot of them say I.
Personally I agree completely with the liberal point of view. Rather than banning burkas and mosques, we have to teach that tolerance is part of British culture, and that if you don't have tolerance then you're not welcome here. That means procecutions for FGM, for harassing people running off licences, obviously for sexual offences, English tests for immigrant wives etc etc.
Tolerance only works IMO when you have basic shared assumptions. Within those you can tolerate eccentricity, those who live in what others might think of as a peculiar way, a live and let live approach, usually because such people / groups don't cause harm to others and because tolerating them does not cause harm to the social cohesion necessary for any society to work without an unacceptable degree of state interference/authoritarianism. But when you have groups who behave in ways which does harm others e.g. girls denied an education or women pressured into dressing/behaving in a certain way, when such exclusion from mainstream society risks providing a breeding ground for the sorts of attitudes and behaviours which lead to "honour" killings, attacks on others and terrorism then toleration of that is not a British value. It is craven fear and appeasement; it is a form of moral cowardice - not tolerance. It is giving space to the challenges to equality and liberty presented by regressive religious and cultural practices and to the crimes that those practices lead to. There is nothing British about that.
Britain used to stand up to bullies. We should do so again. Not tolerate them just because they come dressed in religious garb.
''However you cut it, wearing full face veils is an issue. ''
Its like wearing a brownshirt. Yes, its just a brown shirt. But it isn't.
As far as I'm concerned, if you want to wear Nazi uniforms in the street, or "Mohammed is a cock sucker" or whatever, that's up to you. It's not for the government to choose what forms of dress are acceptable.
If you chose to, as an exercise of free will, that's one thing. But I suspect there is a huge amount of coercion that goes on.
Moreover, given the importance of facial expressions in communication and identification, I think that it should be legal to refuse service to people who won't uncover their face
Or, as a gesture of peaceful non-cooperation, you can turn your back on them. After all, they don't want their faces to be seen, right?
''As far as I'm concerned, if you want to wear Nazi uniforms in the street, or "Mohammed is a cock sucker" or whatever, that's up to you. It's not for the government to choose what forms of dress are acceptable. ''
Well OK if you're going to allow all forms of political dress then fine. But in our current regime some forms of political dress are clearly more equal than others.
That T shirt gives you a criminal record.
I've often wondered what would happen if I paraded round the Tower of London with a placard stating "Behead Those Who Offend King Henry".....
You’d probably get a very polite Yeoman explain that there were in fact eight Henrys, then he'd proceed to lecture you on the subject of who was the best having first asked to see your ticket.
These are not 'fundamentalist' aberrations, death penalties 'committed by fanatics who don't represent their religion'. This is the basic law of many 'moderate' Muslim states. Fuck the lot of them say I.
Hmm, just got an email from the Conservatives boasting that "Over the last month Conservatives have announced policies to deal with modern day slavery; to keep families safe and secure by introducing a ban on ‘zombie knives’; and launched a new ‘Dementia Atlas’ to improve prevention, diagnosis and support for people living with dementia."
All worthy stuff, no doubt, but I can't help feeling that, as a list to gee up supporters, it's not entirely commensurate with the challenges facing the government.
Banning breastfeeding in your restaurant isn't just your concern; it's a matter of potential discrimination against customers.
An establishment should have the right to ban such activities if it wishes to.
'Such activities'? A baby who needs feeding? No, it shouldn't.
Indeed, the idea of banning a baby from eating in a restaurant is particularly absurd. Thankfully we have laws preventing such idiocy.
I agree.
That said, I do dislike the sense of entitlement: I want to feed my baby, right here, right now and I don't care if it makes you - at the neighbouring table - uncomfortable.
Public spaces need to be about compromise and understanding how rights (the right to feed your child vs the right to enjoy a quiet lunch) conflict. Asking for a little bit of discretion is entirely reasonable - I remember that case where someone tried to feed a baby in the middle of the restaurant at Claridges and then caused a scene when the waiter provided her with an extra napkin to cover her breast.
Hmm, just got an email from the Conservatives boasting that "Over the last month Conservatives have announced policies to deal with modern day slavery; to keep families safe and secure by introducing a ban on ‘zombie knives’; and launched a new ‘Dementia Atlas’ to improve prevention, diagnosis and support for people living with dementia."
All worthy stuff, no doubt, but I can't help feeling that, as a list to gee up supporters, it's not entirely commensurate with the challenges facing the government.
I've had two emails from journalist friends in the past half hour saying that US evangelicals are jumping up and down with resolve when they learn what Donald Trump has got on his coat of arms at Mar-a-Lago:
Three Lions on a shield.
Clearly he is an MI6 infiltrator who will abolish the role of president and make HM Queen head of state?
"You think the Millennium Dome was a scam? It's a spaceship for taking Elvis Presley to the moon, right?"
Hmm, just got an email from the Conservatives boasting that "Over the last month Conservatives have announced policies to deal with modern day slavery; to keep families safe and secure by introducing a ban on ‘zombie knives’; and launched a new ‘Dementia Atlas’ to improve prevention, diagnosis and support for people living with dementia."
All worthy stuff, no doubt, but I can't help feeling that, as a list to gee up supporters, it's not entirely commensurate with the challenges facing the government.
What on earth is a 'zombie knife' ?
Best google it, rather than have them explained – quite honestly I’d have thought they were already banned under Offensive Weapons, Knives, Bladed and Pointed Articles act.
Anna Turley MP @annaturley 4h4 hours ago Third behind Lib Dems & UKIP in Ormesby by-election. Vote share down 11% on last year. Corbyn is leading our party off a cliff.
Hmm, just got an email from the Conservatives boasting that "Over the last month Conservatives have announced policies to deal with modern day slavery; to keep families safe and secure by introducing a ban on ‘zombie knives’; and launched a new ‘Dementia Atlas’ to improve prevention, diagnosis and support for people living with dementia."
All worthy stuff, no doubt, but I can't help feeling that, as a list to gee up supporters, it's not entirely commensurate with the challenges facing the government.
Don't mention the Brexit?
A couple of government people said OTR that Article 50 was going to be triggered next spring. The pound fell. May's spokesperson then says she doesn't "recognise the report" (translation: you caught us out on that one). The government can't carry on for ever pretending nothing is happening
Hmm, just got an email from the Conservatives boasting that "Over the last month Conservatives have announced policies to deal with modern day slavery; to keep families safe and secure by introducing a ban on ‘zombie knives’; and launched a new ‘Dementia Atlas’ to improve prevention, diagnosis and support for people living with dementia."
All worthy stuff, no doubt, but I can't help feeling that, as a list to gee up supporters, it's not entirely commensurate with the challenges facing the government.
I hope they haven't conflated the two: I'd hate to see those with dementia reminded where they've put their zombie knives.
Hmm, just got an email from the Conservatives boasting that "Over the last month Conservatives have announced policies to deal with modern day slavery; to keep families safe and secure by introducing a ban on ‘zombie knives’; and launched a new ‘Dementia Atlas’ to improve prevention, diagnosis and support for people living with dementia."
All worthy stuff, no doubt, but I can't help feeling that, as a list to gee up supporters, it's not entirely commensurate with the challenges facing the government.
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
It's always important to consider the ways in which your legislation can be used against you, should your opponents come to power.
It was something that New Labour were particularly naive about.
A good example is hate crimes. Thanks to that law if a hard right government got in they could virtually instigate a pogrom without even needing secondary legislation. All that is needed is direction from the home secretary that as budgets are tight the police should concentrate on hate crimes against ethnic britons carried out by ethnic minorities or by homosexuals against heterosexuals and you could, especially with the ludicrous McPherson definition that if you think you are a victim then you are, persecute ethnic minorities and homosexuals viciously.
They weren't naïve. They did it to harness votes.
The other evening, when we were having a similar argument about the plight of girls in Asian communities, NickPalmer said (and I'm paraphrasing) that there was nothing we could or should do about changing attitudes which immigrants brought with them.
Horseshit on stilts.
The fact that the Serious Crime Act 2015 is designed precisely to tackle the sort of emotional and other abuse which occurs in these communities, though not just these, seemed to have passed him by.
Another example: New Labour was very keen on changing attitudes about homosexuality. The fact that their approach may have offended some in some minorities was of no concern to them. No problem with changing some attitudes. But when it comes to changing attitudes to women in certain other communities, then all of a sudden they come over all shy and reluctant to interfere. It's utter hypocrisy. The only reasons for the difference are fear and a desire to harness the votes of certain groups and who cares whether they're misogynists, homophobic, racist or anti-Semitic.
I don't want my daughter to grow up in a city where these horrible hoods and sacks are regarded as acceptable streetwear because some people think "women mustn't be seen".
I drove through the centre of Birmingham late one Friday night and saw many drunken young women dressed like sluts. Many people don't want their children to grow up in a city where such dress is regarded as acceptable streetwear because they uphold "the right to be a drunken slut in public".
Ah. You have accepted your hijab argument was ridiculous bollocks, and a stupid attempt at strawmanning. Well done.
Now we have the "slut" argument. Jesus.
These children shouldn't be in Birmingham city centre late at night. They should be in bed.
Look at what happened when the UK had a genuinely open door immigration policy.
Years of steady economic growth?
I think he means prior to 1914 when anyone could come to the UK,live or work, without let or hindrance.
The bit difference of course is that you were on your own and would not get a whit of benefits and if you could not support yourself you ended up in the workhouse.
You can have free migration or benefits but not both. This is the real idiocy of lefties on the matter.
.... I wold like to see burkas banned in public. Whilst most third generation migrant women who wear it do so out of devoutness I worry that if all you ever experience in communities such as Tower Hamelts are muslim schools, a community wear the majority are muslims and where most women cover their faces you are not experiencing a life that is line with your fellow citizens you are subject to a sepreatness that means generation after genration grow up in communities that become ever more detatched to from the rest of Britain, the affintity for your home country diminishes and their is no loyalty to the home country.
My brother didn't want to go to Queen Mary uni because he said "We don't live in not India" and many family members really don't like the way places like Bethnal green and Souhthall have become ghettos. We need to better intergrate our communities and we can start by forcing them to show their faces. and force people into work aswell this intergrates people quicker than most other things.
Paul_Bedfordshire made the point more articulately than me a few days ago: these powers that you give the government when it's your guys in control look scary when it's Jeremy Corbyn in power.
That applies strongly to leaving the EU. A Corbyn in power with no hindrances to his nationalisation agenda would do untold damage.
So would an EU that issued a nationalisation directive. At least we can evict Corbyn in an election after 5 years.
Anna Turley MP @annaturley 4h4 hours ago Third behind Lib Dems & UKIP in Ormesby by-election. Vote share down 11% on last year. Corbyn is leading our party off a cliff.
I used to love Lemmings, it was one of the very few games I’ve ever played on the PC.
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
While I think it is vile and rightly illegal in the UK, what F*** business of ours is it if other countries permit the practice. Or is the sovereignty of nations only valid when they act like good Guardian readers.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
They can decide what they want to do, but that doesn't mean we can't comment on it.
This is a referendum on constitutional reform that would increase the power of the lower house, and reduce the power of the upper one. It's simply not that exciting.
From this tweet, to God's ear. twitter.com/MossadNews/status/766667494153216000
This is a referendum on constitutional reform that would increase the power of the lower house, and reduce the power of the upper one. It's simply not that exciting.
And why hasn't there been a thread about it on PB?
On burkha bans and coercion: I heard, in vague terms, of a sexual violence case whilst at university. I'd guess it was late 80s/early 90s. Four gay men were into extreme sado-masochism. Given the admittedly vague description, I'd guess that involved permanent scars, bloodplay, burning (whether mild with cigarettes or more severe) and so on.
All four men said it was consensual. They [sadly I don't know if all or just some] were prosecuted anyway, on the basis it was impossible to ascertain whether they meant it, or were being so brutalised they felt compelled to deny anything involuntary had occurred.
Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, if I didn't correct Mr. Eagles' deranged rambling, some poor soul might think he actually knew some history, and be led astray.
Comments
Aerial photos have been released showing Islamic State (IS) militants using civilians as shields to escape the northern Syrian town of Manbij.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37129408
"Corbyn in power"
Yeah. Not gonna happen.
Refuse to serve people who are obviously intoxicated? Fine. Refuse to serve black people? Not fine.
As for breastfeeding, banning it would (rightly) be illegal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37132582
"Police arrested the suspected attacker who was heard shouting "Allahu Akbar" ("God is great"), according to French newspaper JDD (in French)."
But then!:
"Local police told BBC News the attack was "not terrorist-related"."
......
Look, if you want to lie, fine. But if you do it so obviously, then you're not going to fool anyone.
Edited extra bit: it also says Jews in France have been targeted by Islamist militants. No, they haven't. They've been targeted by terrorists.
Reading about 10 pages a day at the moment (second volume of Dodge's Napoleon biography).
These two quotes sum up the issues, I think:-
"For many Muslim women religious dress is mandatory, not voluntary. The French, including many French Muslims and ex-Muslims, acknowledge this kind of religious intolerance and give it importance. If we concede that religious dress codes are sometimes involuntarily adopted by British citizens, then the state is justified in interfering with the practice, since the purpose of the interference is to prevent harm to others and to widen individual liberty where it is threatened."
And
"While the state ban on public religious veiling denies those Muslims who do choose to adopt it one means of symbolic religious expression in public spaces, this particular form of religious freedom of expression in turn conflicts with the freedom of expression of other Muslims not to adopt religious dress. There is nothing controversial about limiting the freedom of expression of individuals to those behaviours that do not deny it to others."
And then there is the issue of the aforementioned trolls. Khan’s henchmen are not referring to hirsute ogres from Norse legend, sadly — that would have been a slightly more entertaining use of police time — but to people who, properly speaking, do not exist at all. ‘Troll’ is simply a word appended to someone who has said something with which you vigorously disagree.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/its-fatuous-to-outlaw-an-emotion-especially-hate/
Or are you just desperately trying to be clever by confusing two completely separate things?
If a whole load of immigrants from lets say, Republican parts of America became the majority in large numbers of English towns, and the men forbid the women among them from leaving the house without wearing headphones (specifically to stop them hearing non Republican American views) I would see that as a big problem, yes. Weird, rude, sinister, and I would wish they had never come at all
But people like rcs1000 and Richard Tyndall voted Leave in spite of this, not because of it.
Be intriguing to compare convictions for FGM to convictions for living up to Cameron's dictum on Twitter.
That mandate has already been secured from the first referendum. There's a better case to argue for one if the Government proposes to stay *in* the single market, but not much.
In most cases they are grossly exaggerate and describe 'dislike' as 'hatred'.
Phobias are similarly abused to cover people who dislike.
What kind of argument needs to use a foreign word for an item? Those who want to ban the wimple should say so.
Clearly he is an MI6 infiltrator who will abolish the role of president and make HM Queen head of state?
Mr. T, ha, won't happen. Likelier to ban pictures of bikini on the Tube.
[I'm aware this has happened. Can't have delicate flowers upset by the 'beach body ready' ads, can we?]
It's completely sickening and the road we are on, and where it leads to, is horrifying
Clothing bans aren't the way.
The cult of individual freedom is just as socially harmful as sexism. We all know men and women are psychologically essentially different. How many textbooks on psychology even recognise that fact? How many university degrees in psychology offer courses on men's psychology and courses on women's psychology? Those who buy into western individualism should consider getting their own house in order.
If he chooses to put up no blacks or irish signs then modern social media will soon do for his business.
Why get the state involved creating lots of non jobs for bureacrats and hangers on?
Things are going to get worse before they get better. Assuming they get better.
What parts of her body do you think it should be mandatory for a woman going about in public to show? Hair and neck? Or will one or the other be OK?
A good example is hate crimes. Thanks to that law if a hard right government got in they could virtually instigate a pogrom without even needing secondary legislation. All that is needed is direction from the home secretary that as budgets are tight the police should concentrate on hate crimes against ethnic britons carried out by ethnic minorities or by homosexuals against heterosexuals and you could, especially with the ludicrous McPherson definition that if you think you are a victim then you are, persecute ethnic minorities and homosexuals viciously.
All worthy stuff, no doubt, but I can't help feeling that, as a list to gee up supporters, it's not entirely commensurate with the challenges facing the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Jakobs
Moreover, given the importance of facial expressions in communication and identification, I think that it should be legal to refuse service to people who won't uncover their face
http://order-order.com/2016/08/19/top-libdem-donor-selling-dodgy-tickets-rio/
The Paralympic Games will take place as planned next month, but face major budget cuts, the International Paralympic Committee has announced.
The cuts will be made to venues, the workforce and transport.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/disability-sport/37135083
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/
These are not 'fundamentalist' aberrations, death penalties 'committed by fanatics who don't represent their religion'. This is the basic law of many 'moderate' Muslim states. Fuck the lot of them say I.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory
That said, I do dislike the sense of entitlement: I want to feed my baby, right here, right now and I don't care if it makes you - at the neighbouring table - uncomfortable.
Public spaces need to be about compromise and understanding how rights (the right to feed your child vs the right to enjoy a quiet lunch) conflict. Asking for a little bit of discretion is entirely reasonable - I remember that case where someone tried to feed a baby in the middle of the restaurant at Claridges and then caused a scene when the waiter provided her with an extra napkin to cover her breast.
https://twitter.com/MossadNews/status/766667494153216000
Third behind Lib Dems & UKIP in Ormesby by-election. Vote share down 11% on last year. Corbyn is leading our party off a cliff.
A couple of government people said OTR that Article 50 was going to be triggered next spring. The pound fell. May's spokesperson then says she doesn't "recognise the report" (translation: you caught us out on that one). The government can't carry on for ever pretending nothing is happening
And I'm a miserable Remainer.
A few million dollars to get all the Paralympians to the Games - and get a whole pile of free publicity.
Buy up the tickets and give them to local kids and supporters from poor countries.
Make a difference.
Let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was far more a moralising guardianista crusade to civilize primative people than a bunch of right wing thugs looting for their own gain.
The other evening, when we were having a similar argument about the plight of girls in Asian communities, NickPalmer said (and I'm paraphrasing) that there was nothing we could or should do about changing attitudes which immigrants brought with them.
Horseshit on stilts.
The fact that the Serious Crime Act 2015 is designed precisely to tackle the sort of emotional and other abuse which occurs in these communities, though not just these, seemed to have passed him by.
Another example: New Labour was very keen on changing attitudes about homosexuality. The fact that their approach may have offended some in some minorities was of no concern to them. No problem with changing some attitudes. But when it comes to changing attitudes to women in certain other communities, then all of a sudden they come over all shy and reluctant to interfere. It's utter hypocrisy. The only reasons for the difference are fear and a desire to harness the votes of certain groups and who cares whether they're misogynists, homophobic, racist or anti-Semitic.
The bit difference of course is that you were on your own and would not get a whit of benefits and if you could not support yourself you ended up in the workhouse.
You can have free migration or benefits but not both. This is the real idiocy of lefties on the matter.
.... I wold like to see burkas banned in public. Whilst most third generation migrant women who wear it do so out of devoutness I worry that if all you ever experience in communities such as Tower Hamelts are muslim schools, a community wear the majority are muslims and where most women cover their faces you are not experiencing a life that is line with your fellow citizens you are subject to a sepreatness that means generation after genration grow up in communities that become ever more detatched to from the rest of Britain, the affintity for your home country diminishes and their is no loyalty to the home country.
My brother didn't want to go to Queen Mary uni because he said "We don't live in not India" and many family members really don't like the way places like Bethnal green and Souhthall have become ghettos. We need to better intergrate our communities and we can start by forcing them to show their faces. and force people into work aswell this intergrates people quicker than most other things.
All four men said it was consensual. They [sadly I don't know if all or just some] were prosecuted anyway, on the basis it was impossible to ascertain whether they meant it, or were being so brutalised they felt compelled to deny anything involuntary had occurred.
Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, if I didn't correct Mr. Eagles' deranged rambling, some poor soul might think he actually knew some history, and be led astray.