Cookie Notice

This site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Wednesday, 8 August 2018

Boris is just telling a simple truth

Boris Johnson is neither a Muslim-hating bigot, a Corbynst-type passive-aggressive racist nor, as the smaller and more hysterical of the Guardian's hacks would have it, a fascist. As the cartoon below says so clearly, our culture finds sinister those who hide their faces. Women who wear the Niqab or Burqa are seen as hostile, threatening, to be feared. Sadly, many Muslim women know this and use their silly costumes like cultural weapons - the reason they are now banned in so many European countries. 

There you have it. Boris was just telling a simple truth. There will be those desperate for confirmation and endorsement of their own delusions who will seek to interpret his words as a condemnation of the whole of Islam - but rest easy, it isn't. 

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

What is there to fear from Muslims? Yes they do subscribe to a doctrine that divides the world into the house of submission and the house of war, but dammit, I knew one of those chappies at Eaton and he tossed a good ball! Or was he Taoist? I can't remember.

DeeDee99 said...

The idiotic Treason May wants Boris to apologise because he has OFFENDED people.

So what?

That's the whole point of FREE SPEECH, which seems to be increasingly forbidden in the UK.

Whatever happened to "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" (Voltaire). Treason May and the virtue-signallers in the left-wing media obviously don't understand that FREE SPEECH means the freedom to offend.

I'm offended by elements of this middle eastern, misogynistic niche culture imposing itself on the British people.

right-writes said...

It was nice to hear Mrs. May defending the Burqua, no woman she be told what she can and can't wear... my arse.

Apart from the fact that Boris was not advocating the banning of this sack, there is a good reason for many of these women to wear it. Mrs. May for instance, would be helped by wearing one.

In a similar vein, would it not be interesting for someone like Tommy Robinson and his followers to appear on the streets in IRA style gear, with the full face balaclava. It certainly has equal validity... The burqua and niqab are meant for desert wear as protection.

As such very practical apparel in that context, more of a statement in Leytonstone though, no deserts there.

DiscoveredJoys said...

So far as I know Boris has declined to apologise via a spokesman. Good.

As long as he chooses not to engage with the hysterical it leaves then flapping in the wind looking impotent and daft. Double good.

John M said...

The delighted glee in which both the BBC and C4 news descended on this story has been ridiculous, and more to the point has failed to address the real issue.

Last night we had Baroness Warsi all over the press squealing her familiar Islamophobia everywhere mantra. Why is nobody asking why it is that in a supposedly multicultural society certain sections of the Muslim community continue to absolutely refuse to integrate in any kind of way; preferring instead to create localised ghettos for themselves, attempting to enforce Sharia law and wearing these demeaning and segregating head dresses?

There is no doubt that Johnson has been provocative with his comments by why is the media by default refusing to even open a more sensible debate on integration?

Pat said...

Boris has played a blinder.
He points out that the burqa looks ridiculous. Since the majority of women , even the majority of Muslim women don't wear one it's a fair bet that the vast majority agree.
He points out that there is no scriptural reason for wearing one.
He still doesn't advocate a ban.
So an awful lot of people get their knickers in a twist trying to describe this as racist or anti-islamic and make themselves look foolish in the process.
If he can keep this up he'll be PM soon.

Sobers said...

I think (or hope) that Boris has learned the lessons of Trump - never never apologise. Ride the wave of 'outrage' from the usual suspects (BBC/Guardian - incidentally, notice the way the BBC has stoked this episode vs how it has downplayed the Corbyn antisemitism issue as much as possible), and the public at large will notice your stance, and silently get behind you. And suddenly you'll be far more popular than the media can fathom. How is Boris so popular? He's a joke! He says all these awful things!

Boris is a clever man, he should have worked all this out by now.

Anonymous said...

We need more designs of Burqa.

The ‘Soubry’ - with integrated tongue restraint.

The ‘Miller’ - with concealed money bags.

The ‘Toynbee’ - PVC lined to prevent contamination from spilled bile.

The ‘May’ - completely reversible chequered pattern.

............and the non-binary, gender fluid choice, the ‘Robbins’ - hand made in SW1 by elite tailors R Emain & Sons. 17.4 stitches (or ‘stitched up’) as they like to sneer.



Sackerson said...

I imagine May has made an issue of it in order to put her pretender Johnson on the back foot. Unfortunately for her, the news media (who seem to hate her worse than they do BJ - or at least, want to knock that skittle down first) are skewering her for some kind of ruling.

right-writes said...

anon@10:26

Brilliant...

Coffee... Meet keyboard.

Mark The Skint Sailor said...

I’ve blogged about it here: https://delphiusdebate.blogspot.com/2018/08/boris-and-burkha.html

Basically my premise is if the state upholds the freedom of people to be able to wear the veil the veil wearer must also as part of that “contract” with the state meet half way and show their face when required, to prove their identity or when the establishment they are using requires ALL people to remoove face coverings and allow identification (such as petrol stations or banks).

For instance when using Photo ID. Be it a passport or a driving licence or a bus pass. The person presenting or using the ID should be prepared to show their face to validate their ID as a consequence of using that ID.

It’s not an attack on the Muslim religion, it’s common sense.

The thing is that some Muslims use the veil as a political statement, a statement that they subscrice to Sharia rather than UK law. Wearing the veil here should be classed as offensive as unmarried couples sharing a room or drinking alcohol is in a Muslim country.

The "offence" being bandied about especially by Muslim groups is just the latest in a number of steps to try and give Sharia law legitimacy.

My conclusion is that a law is necessary, not to ban the veil, but to enforce the removal of any face covering to validate the identity of the wearer when required.

Including removing the covering when driving, so that the driver can be identified if for instance photographed speeding. It's not discriminatory as would ban ALL people from driving while wearing a face covering that hides their identity.

It's. Just. Common. Sense.

Anonymous said...

DeeDee

Jordon Peterson addresses why free speech should be free in a manner that confuses the interviewer to the extent that formulating a reply becomes difficult.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

DP111

Anonymous said...

From days long gone, when one could even think that a possibility did exist.

August 04, 2005

The Freedom of the Burqa

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2005/08/freedom-of-burqa.html

Anonymous said...

The burqa can be seen as the visible public manifestation of the submission of women, and thus enslavement of women. It is thus symbolic of hidden FGM. Neither of these, one the hidden, and the other public is acceptable in the Western cultural milieu.

DP111

Dave_G said...


All the 'offence' seems to be taken by the Islamists and those that support them but since THEY are GUESTS in OUR country and we have a duty to see that INTEGRATION is an acceptable condition of their entry, why the fcuk are WE apologising?

The only people who should be offended at this behaviour are the indigenous population of this country whose good will and welcome is being taken advantage of.

Mark Wadsworth said...

I like the juxtaposition with the Ku Lux Klansman.

Budgie said...

As I understand it Boris has said that he is opposed to a burqa ban but finds such apparel a hostile statement in our culture. I have seen Pakistani immigrants in the past try to fit in, but their children born here seem to do their best to be hostile and contemptuous of us and our culture.

So Boris is right about the hostility, but wrong about the ban. If we don't be resolutely secular, other immigrant groups will feel betrayed and undefended in the face of our apparent appeasement of Islam, and will start to fight back. Jews are already talking about leaving, for example.

G. Tingey said...

Correct - BUT
Boris is also a pillock
Because he's poisoned the well.

I'm a card-carrying atheist, with no time for islam.
But, even if you are stupid & gullible enough to belioeve in a BigSkyFairy & )ditto) the muslim version fo the same ...
The "recital" merely says that: "Women shall be modestly dressed"
It says NOTHING AT ALL about head=to-toe black sacks with eye-slits.
The best attack obn the Borqua is to declare it un-islamic.
What a prat