I actually think it's pretty offensive to moderate Muslims to claim attacking the niqab is attacking Islam. The face veil is a cultural custom not used by the vast majority of Muslim women.
If you or anyone have an issue with the niqab because women are "forced to wear it" your issue is not with the niqab, but the forcing bit. Just as you should be offended if women from evangelical Christian communities are forced to cover themselves, or if orthodox Jewish women are forced to cover themselves. The issue is not the piece of clothing: we live in a liberal democracy where people can wear what they like, the issue is anyone, specifically historically oppressed groups like women, being forced to do things they don't want to do.
If your issue is women are wearing clothes of their own free will you dislike, well, tough.
I have an issue with the niqab or any other piece of clothing that has been a historical symbol of oppression, whether it is Nazi arm bands or Confederate flag gear. Just because people have a right to wear it doesn't mean it isn't odious.
Ironically it grew in popularity originally - in Egypt in the 1880s(?) - as a symbol of resistance to British rule.
That's because the Brits decided it was demeaning to women and banned its use.
Are you actually highlighting a story with a view to pointing out that people shouldn't care about it? That's a little... odd.
That Opposition MPs will object to the NHS trying to recover costs from people not entitled to free treatment and Bercow will likely grant an UQ on it tomorrow.....
don't pretend you know the female anatomy Scotty. Though I'm not surprised you've got behind a handful of folk frothing outrage on twitter. That's your bread and butter.
Possibly touched a thigh 20 years ago and we've just been told of it now. Blokes up and down the country will be bricking it!
Women are entitled to follow careers in journalism without being groped. The sort of men who don't understand how you can flirt without crossing boundaries are pretty inept in holding down relationships in general.
Like Scott
In all seriousness the permanently ourtaged twitter brigade probably wish they were top shaggers but ultimately spend their free time chasing outrage rather than the opposite sex. Obviously the journo has brought this up now to try and get maximum attention and no one knows for sure if it happened but it's the immediate faux outrage when something is unproven from the twittersphere that I think most Brits dislike.
In all seriousness those defending sexual harassment end up as sad middle class divorcees detested by their ex-wives.
Wouldn't know as I'm happily married. Sorry to go all Sean T but I had a wonderful naked 23 year old Belgian girl throwing herself at me over the weekend. I wasn't offended, just found it amusing and told her I wasn't interested but appreciated her time! I doubt I'll be running to the papers to slag her off in 20 years!
It doesn't count if they are doing it to get paid.
In the historical child abuse cases there is an argument, especially where the alleged perpetrator was deceased, there was little purpose to a public investigation where there could be no reasonable debate. While the language is "colourful" I don't see the grounds for apology.
Similar, with the Cox comments, her husband explicitly criticised Corbyn. I would argue that to best honour Cox's memory you need to resolve Brexit and then you can begin the healing process. If you retread the old arguments then you can't move to the next stage.
I cannot begin to comprehend the logic leads someone to believe that the best way to honour the memory of someone who vigorously campaigned against something is to do that thing.
As a politician she fought for what she believed in.
She was a victim of the fractious debate and the impact that it had on the mindset of a mentally ill individual.
To honour her memory is to end the fractious debate. That could be either via Brexiting or via revoking.
That's the logic.
We don’t know what view she would have on Brexit now because she was killed by someone stirred up by the incendiary language of the Leave campaign. We do know that she opposed Brexit vigorously in her life. There are more fitting ways for Leavers to honour her memory. They could start by apologising for the way in which they have debased public debate.
Why? So you can invent a law that makes it illegal?
Pesky laws, eh?
When parliament starts trying to act as the executive it's time to peg them back.
You can’t. The executive is subordinate to Parliament, which is sovereign, and can make whatever laws it likes (theoretically).
I'm referring to the sovereign electorate pegging them back
I’ve heard the phrase a lot but so far as I am aware the electorate isn’t sovereign. Parliament can, after all, decide who is an elector. If you mean there should be a GE, just say so, but unfortunately the executive agreed to surrender the timing of the same to Parliament.
When parliament is dissolved sovereignty is placed back to the electorate who then determine the composition of the following sovereign parliament.
Parliament's authority comes from the people
In an election individuals are asking for an appointment as representatives
But if Parliament requests specific instruction from the source of their authority then that over-rides their freedom of action
I am interested by those saying "we had a referendum we can't have a second one just because some don't like the result" are making the same argument about a GE, despite the fact that the rules about how long between each GE is written in law and was passed by Parliament. I know the FTPA is a load of crock, but it is the law, and the premise of it is followed in many other countries. Our PM used to have the power to call a GE if governing wasn't possible. They no longer have that power. So instead the PM should work with the Parliament he has. He is refusing. If that means 5 years of gridlock, so be it. But a GE is not necessarily a remedy.
The issue is that Parliament has taken it upon itself to ignore the results of the referendum (their delegated authority is only to represent the interests of the voters, not to ignore specific instructions from them).
They have also usurped the rights of the executive to try and secure this objective.
An overreaching parliament is the root cause of the constitutional disputes that we are having.
don't pretend you know the female anatomy Scotty. Though I'm not surprised you've got behind a handful of folk frothing outrage on twitter. That's your bread and butter.
Possibly touched a thigh 20 years ago and we've just been told of it now. Blokes up and down the country will be bricking it!
Women are entitled to follow careers in journalism without being groped. The sort of men who don't understand how you can flirt without crossing boundaries are pretty inept in holding down relationships in general.
Like Scott
In all seriousness the permanently ourtaged twitter brigade probably wish they were top shaggers but ultimately spend their free time chasing outrage rather than the opposite sex. Obviously the journo has brought this up now to try and get maximum attention and no one knows for sure if it happened but it's the immediate faux outrage when something is unproven from the twittersphere that I think most Brits dislike.
In all seriousness those defending sexual harassment end up as sad middle class divorcees detested by their ex-wives.
Wouldn't know as I'm happily married. Sorry to go all Sean T but I had a wonderful naked 23 year old Belgian girl throwing herself at me over the weekend. I wasn't offended, just found it amusing and told her I wasn't interested but appreciated her time! I doubt I'll be running to the papers to slag her off in 20 years!
It doesn't count if they are doing it to get paid.
Do you pay for prostitutes to not shag you? strange pastime!
But in all seriousness some people are just a bit frigid and boring. Take rape allegations seriously but touching a leg 20 years ago at a dinner? Do me a favour. But each to their own Gabs, I can't stop you being outraged, you'll have to get used to it on PB!
I actually think it's pretty offensive to moderate Muslims to claim attacking the niqab is attacking Islam. The face veil is a cultural custom not used by the vast majority of Muslim women.
If you or anyone have an issue with the niqab because women are "forced to wear it" your issue is not with the niqab, but the forcing bit. Just as you should be offended if women from evangelical Christian communities are forced to cover themselves, or if orthodox Jewish women are forced to cover themselves. The issue is not the piece of clothing: we live in a liberal democracy where people can wear what they like, the issue is anyone, specifically historically oppressed groups like women, being forced to do things they don't want to do.
If your issue is women are wearing clothes of their own free will you dislike, well, tough.
I have an issue with the niqab or any other piece of clothing that has been a historical symbol of oppression, whether it is Nazi arm bands or Confederate flag gear. Just because people have a right to wear it doesn't mean it isn't odious.
So are nuns habits (considering many women were forced into nunneries for misbehaving) also considered historically oppressive? All denominations of the Christian church have a pretty long history of oppressing people; can we ban the cross? Where does this end?
Whilst personally an atheist I consider there is a difference between religion, which has a tendency to reform when confronted with modernity even if it takes a while, to literal fascist garb, which is inherently a disregard and reaction to modernity and cannot be reformed.
I don't really think laws should come into the realm of what people wear (other than regulation surround materials used to make clothes). That is policed by social norms.
These things exist on a spectrum. I have a lot of problems with those signing up for a church that has abused and raped the innocent right up to the modern day. But the habit is still several steps behind the niqab, which states that it is inappropriate for women to even show their faces in public. It also goes in conjunction with a whole lot of other subjugation. How many of the world's niqab wearers haven't had their genitals shredded to pieces? 1%? 0.1?
don't pretend you know the female anatomy Scotty. Though I'm not surprised you've got behind a handful of folk frothing outrage on twitter. That's your bread and butter.
Possibly touched a thigh 20 years ago and we've just been told of it now. Blokes up and down the country will be bricking it!
Women are entitled to follow careers in journalism without being groped. The sort of men who don't understand how you can flirt without crossing boundaries are pretty inept in holding down relationships in general.
Like Scott
In all seriousness the permanently ourtaged twitter brigade probably wish they were top shaggers but ultimately spend their free time chasing outrage rather than the opposite sex. Obviously the journo has brought this up now to try and get maximum attention and no one knows for sure if it happened but it's the immediate faux outrage when something is unproven from the twittersphere that I think most Brits dislike.
In all seriousness those defending sexual harassment end up as sad middle class divorcees detested by their ex-wives.
Wouldn't know as I'm happily married. Sorry to go all Sean T but I had a wonderful naked 23 year old Belgian girl throwing herself at me over the weekend. I wasn't offended, just found it amusing and told her I wasn't interested but appreciated her time! I doubt I'll be running to the papers to slag her off in 20 years!
Not going to belittle actually sexual assault but there's far too many puritanical folk IMO who won't even get the chance to be divorced because they'd be ringing up the Guardian and The Police if someone brushed past them at the bar.
It might be a different story if your boss, whom you don't find to be "wonderful" but perhaps you find to be disgusting, is touching you in the workplace. Perhaps you feel able to say no firmly, or perhaps you are struggling to make ends meet and you're terrified of losing your job. Perhaps you feel obliged to pretend you enjoy the attention, when the truth is you feel sick to your stomach whenever you have to share a room, or a lift, with that person. Perhaps you can't talk to anyone about this, because your boyfriend will think you must have lead him on, or your friends don't believe you, or your colleagues think you're just seeking attention. Perhaps you are all alone, trapped in a cycle of turning up, being groped, and crying yourself to sleep at night because you don't know a way out.
In the historical child abuse cases there is an argument, especially where the alleged perpetrator was deceased, there was little purpose to a public investigation where there could be no reasonable debate. While the language is "colourful" I don't see the grounds for apology.
Similar, with the Cox comments, her husband explicitly criticised Corbyn. I would argue that to best honour Cox's memory you need to resolve Brexit and then you can begin the healing process. If you retread the old arguments then you can't move to the next stage.
I cannot begin to comprehend the logic leads someone to believe that the best way to honour the memory of someone who vigorously campaigned against something is to do that thing.
As a politician she fought for what she believed in.
She was a victim of the fractious debate and the impact that it had on the mindset of a mentally ill individual.
To honour her memory is to end the fractious debate. That could be either via Brexiting or via revoking.
That's the logic.
She was the victim of a murderer who put his extreme political view above her life.
I think he was a disturbed individual who latched onto a public theme, rather than someone who killed because she was opposed to his political vision.
That's very nice Noo but I think we're talking about a powerful former model and ex journalist for the Spectator who is from a wealthy background and dates Baron Peston who has waited 20 years to make a politically motivated point. It's easy to separate the 2.
In the historical child abuse cases there is an argument, especially where the alleged perpetrator was deceased, there was little purpose to a public investigation where there could be no reasonable debate. While the language is "colourful" I don't see the grounds for apology.
Similar, with the Cox comments, her husband explicitly criticised Corbyn. I would argue that to best honour Cox's memory you need to resolve Brexit and then you can begin the healing process. If you retread the old arguments then you can't move to the next stage.
I cannot begin to comprehend the logic leads someone to believe that the best way to honour the memory of someone who vigorously campaigned against something is to do that thing.
As a politician she fought for what she believed in.
She was a victim of the fractious debate and the impact that it had on the mindset of a mentally ill individual.
To honour her memory is to end the fractious debate. That could be either via Brexiting or via revoking.
That's the logic.
She was the victim of a murderer who put his extreme political view above her life.
I think he was a disturbed individual who latched onto a public theme, rather than someone who killed because she was opposed to his political vision.
You are totally wrong.
Mr Justice Wilkie said in his sentencing remarks: "I have to consider schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. There is no doubt that this murder was done for the purpose of advancing a political, racial and ideological cause namely that of violent white supremacism and exclusive nationalism most associated with Nazism and its modern forms. That is one of the indices of an offence of exceptionally high seriousness for which the appropriate starting point is a whole life term."
She was being rumored as the 'other woman' in the story, shes clarifying she isn't and that in her time at the Spectator and since, Charlotte had never brought this up in their convos. Her husband is as relevant as Edwardes partner being the well known Boris hater Robert Peston
Assiduous and on-point. You ought to be on his PR team!
And back our ongoing 'no brains or no standards?' debate, I'm going to definitely rule out the first.
In the historical child abuse cases there is an argument, especially where the alleged perpetrator was deceased, there was little purpose to a public investigation where there could be no reasonable debate. While the language is "colourful" I don't see the grounds for apology.
Similar, with the Cox comments, her husband explicitly criticised Corbyn. I would argue that to best honour Cox's memory you need to resolve Brexit and then you can begin the healing process. If you retread the old arguments then you can't move to the next stage.
I cannot begin to comprehend the logic leads someone to believe that the best way to honour the memory of someone who vigorously campaigned against something is to do that thing.
As a politician she fought for what she believed in.
She was a victim of the fractious debate and the impact that it had on the mindset of a mentally ill individual.
To honour her memory is to end the fractious debate. That could be either via Brexiting or via revoking.
That's the logic.
We don’t know what view she would have on Brexit now because she was killed by someone stirred up by the incendiary language of the Leave campaign. We do know that she opposed Brexit vigorously in her life. There are more fitting ways for Leavers to honour her memory. They could start by apologising for the way in which they have debased public debate.
Every second you fail to apologise you are failing her memory by your own curious standards.
I actually think it's pretty offensive to moderate Muslims to claim attacking the niqab is attacking Islam. The face veil is a cultural custom not used by the vast majority of Muslim women.
If you or anyone have an issue with the niqab because women are "forced to wear it" your issue is not with the niqab, but the forcing bit. Just as you should be offended if women from evangelical Christian communities are forced to cover themselves, or if orthodox Jewish women are forced to cover themselves. The issue is not the piece of clothing: we live in a liberal democracy where people can wear what they like, the issue is anyone, specifically historically oppressed groups like women, being forced to do things they don't want to do.
If your issue is women are wearing clothes of their own free will you dislike, well, tough.
I have an issue with the niqab or any other piece of clothing that has been a historical symbol of oppression, whether it is Nazi arm bands or Confederate flag gear. Just because people have a right to wear it doesn't mean it isn't odious.
So are nuns habits (considering many women were forced into nunneries for misbehaving) also considered historically oppressive? All denominations of the Christian church have a pretty long history of oppressing people; can we ban the cross? Where does this end?
Whilst personally an atheist I consider there is a difference between religion, which has a tendency to reform when confronted with modernity even if it takes a while, to literal fascist garb, which is inherently a disregard and reaction to modernity and cannot be reformed.
I don't really think laws should come into the realm of what people wear (other than regulation surround materials used to make clothes). That is policed by social norms.
These things exist on a spectrum. I have a lot of problems with those signing up for a church that has abused and raped the innocent right up to the modern day. But the habit is still several steps behind the niqab, which states that it is inappropriate for women to even show their faces in public. It also goes in conjunction with a whole lot of other subjugation. How many of the world's niqab wearers haven't had their genitals shredded to pieces? 1%? 0.1?
FGM is absolutely nothing to do with Islam as Islam. It's an East African custom, which as far as can be ascertained long predates Islam. Indeed many Moslems regard it with as much horror as Westerners do. If any 'blame' attaches Islam for it, it's that when the religion spread into East Africa it didn't ban it.
Comments
That's because the Brits decided it was demeaning to women and banned its use.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1178658975459487745?s=20
Where's the VoNC? Oh, that's right. The government may be incompetent, but its nothing in comparison to the opposition parties.
They have also usurped the rights of the executive to try and secure this objective.
An overreaching parliament is the root cause of the constitutional disputes that we are having.
But in all seriousness some people are just a bit frigid and boring. Take rape allegations seriously but touching a leg 20 years ago at a dinner? Do me a favour. But each to their own Gabs, I can't stop you being outraged, you'll have to get used to it on PB!
Perhaps you feel able to say no firmly, or perhaps you are struggling to make ends meet and you're terrified of losing your job. Perhaps you feel obliged to pretend you enjoy the attention, when the truth is you feel sick to your stomach whenever you have to share a room, or a lift, with that person.
Perhaps you can't talk to anyone about this, because your boyfriend will think you must have lead him on, or your friends don't believe you, or your colleagues think you're just seeking attention.
Perhaps you are all alone, trapped in a cycle of turning up, being groped, and crying yourself to sleep at night because you don't know a way out.
He's on my 'ideal dinner party' list (you know the game).
Muhammad Ali
Jane Austen
Leon Trotsky
Michelle Obama
Sylvia Plath
Toby Young
What an evening that would be.
That's very nice Noo but I think we're talking about a powerful former model and ex journalist for the Spectator who is from a wealthy background and dates Baron Peston who has waited 20 years to make a politically motivated point. It's easy to separate the 2.
Mr Justice Wilkie said in his sentencing remarks:
"I have to consider schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. There is no doubt that this murder was done for the purpose of advancing a political, racial and ideological cause namely that of violent white supremacism and exclusive nationalism most associated with Nazism and its modern forms. That is one of the indices of an offence of exceptionally high seriousness for which the appropriate starting point is a whole life term."
And back our ongoing 'no brains or no standards?' debate, I'm going to definitely rule out the first.
If any 'blame' attaches Islam for it, it's that when the religion spread into East Africa it didn't ban it.