Boris Johnson's Latest 'Gaff'

Johnson (and Trump too for that matter) have made it easier for people to be openly racist.
PS Many of the niqab wearing women are British

I agree it would not be so ubiquitous - but it is certainly a discussion that has been had in our family. My brother lives in a place where the burka is prevalent and these subjugated women walk behind their husbands or other menfolk. He gets very cross about it!

Oh dear Annie that’s the second time I find I agree with you! What’s happening? ?

If Boris hadn’t said it we wouldn’t be talking about it, by ‘we’ I mean the media and the people

I should have added 'in public' by an influential etc.

Another point (not sure if it has been mentioned) is that many of us could make remarks like this, as private citizens. But when it's made by an influential politician it has many more repercussions.
As usual I'm sitting on the fence with this one.

their needs matter - that's what it was meant to say!

I am all for tolerance; but we have to have some standards which guide our behaviour in order for society to function; and the corollary to that is that we have to have some lines that we draw as to what is and is not acceptable. If we hold dear the principle that babies should not be mutilated, then that should be a line. If we hold dear the principle that women should be treated as equals, then that is another line etc.

Tolerance is wonderful - but not at any cost.

We have become too frightened to criticise those actions that are not acceptable, for fear of giving offence. That is a dangerous situation to be in. Anyone and everyone can claim that the are being discriminated against and there are no lines drawn anywhere.

I know it is hard and there are nuances in where the lines should be drawn; but some societies have not been afraid to say that women's equality and their needs and have banned those things which are not acceptable to their society. These are not intolerant societies, but ones that recognise that tolerance cannot be entirely open-ended.

Those who, like me, see some parallels between Boris's action and Trump's, might like to read this:

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/adolf-hitler-donald-trump-mein-kampf-bluffed-way-to-power-nazi-leader-germany-fuhrer-us-president-a7568506.html

There are some very pertinent observations re Hitler and Trump that could just as easily be applied to Boris:

“Hitler used the tactics of bluff masterfully, at times giving the impression of being a feckless Chaplinesque clown, at other times a sleeping serpent, at others yet a trustworthy statesman," Mr Rosenbaum said.

"The Weimar establishment didn’t know what to do, so they pretended this was normal. They 'normalised' him.”

“Hitler’s method was to lie until he got what he wanted, by which point it was too late," Mr Rosenbaum said, adding there is no comparison between Hitler and Mr Trump in terms of scale. But, he said, it was important to see that, like Hitler, Mr Trump is "defining mendacity down" by normalising lies and lowering expectations of truthfulness.

The author continued with a caution: "Trump’s outrageous conduct and shamelessly lying mouth seemed so ridiculous we wouldn’t have to take him seriously. Until we did.”

Citing a conversation with Hitler biographer Alan Bullock, Mr Rosenbaum suggested the Nazi might not even have believed in his own anti-Semitism, and could have "just used the Jew-hatred to advance his cause with the nitwit thug segment of the German people".

Mr Rosenbaum continued: “He saw that this tactic of playing the fool, the Chaplinesque clown, had worked over and over again, worked like a charm. It kept the West off balance. They consistently underestimated him and were divided over his plans”

PECS your comment regarding Hitler "it was all bollocks, but people allowed themselves to be sucked in and millions died" whilst I think that about The Great War at times, I think there was little choice in 1939 once Hitler had walked into Poland, it was clear he had his sights set on over running and subjugating the whole Europe and implementing a nightmare "Master Race" scenario, which Allygran set out in her post and which I agree. The alternative would have been to surrender our liberty and freedoms. For all we know if that had happened we might still be living under such a dictatorship now.

PECS:Dyffryn many of us have been pointing out that Johnson made his carefully crafted remarks about women wearing certain clothes as a deliberate attempt to whip up a bit of Islamaphobia.

Johnsons remarks were about people in Hijabs looking like postboxes. In context his article was in support of not banning the Hijab, however as an MP in his surgery he would wish a veil wearing constituent to remove their face covering.

You then add:
I see today a young woman with a tiny baby was attacked and humiliated on a bus. It will be a direct result of some bigoted racist feeling empowered by Johnson's words

Well as other posters have pointed out this statement is not quite correct is it PECS! As for 'bigoted racist feeling empowered", you give far too much credence and power to the media than they deserve. A racist bigot will act as a racist bigot without the words of Boris Johnson on the appearance of Hijab wearing people looking like letterboxes.

You then go on to make the most astonishing comparison to Hitler's treatment of the as you describe the Jews "a religious minority" about whom you say he "started on" and "blamed them for all society ills". I have to take issue with you on this downgrading of Genocide and even describing Hitler benignly as "funny looking man" when he was far from benign and in fact a fascist extremist. In your attempt to compare genocide of the Jews, to Johnson remarks about the wearing of the Hijab is a deliberate attempt to either downplay Genocide or imply persecution of the Hijab wearing population, which is a non religious requirement, therefore a matter of choice, or subjugation of women by their family members. This is truly appalling, misleading and deliberately intended to try to escalate Johnson comment to imply an intention that was clearly not in evidence in his article.

In fact, the treatment of the Jews, was exactly the opposite to what you imply Boris Johnson was saying. Boris Johnson does not approve of banning the Hijab, Burka or veil, no legal imposition from what I read. Whilst Hitler's Germany wanted Jews to be identified as different. History tells us that 400 laws were brought in to discriminate and exclude the Jews from German society. Then once excluded by Law, they were required to identify in public by wearing as Star of David pinned to their garments. So no comparison whatsoever, between those in this Country who would prefer the Hijab, Burka veiled population not to stand out, but to integrate by choice by not wearing the black full covered clothing.

Nor do we want wearing of the Hijab or Burka or veil to be enforced by law, unlike the 400 laws brought in by that "funny looking man" as you call him, to exclude. We want to include, we do not want people in our society to stand out as different, we want them to integrate, be part of.

PECS your attempt to make comparison between Hitlers fascist treatment and eventual genocide of the Jews and Johnson's comments about the Hijab is frankly obscene.

Nor is there any comparison between the way that this Country has treated the Hijab wearing population, and the treatment of the Jews by Hitlers Germany. The Uk has not brought in a Law to ban the Burka or any other clothing even though it might offend. By choice the Hijab, Burka or veil discriminates the wearer from the rest of the population and it seem's that that is by choice or female subjugation, neither of which are justifiable.

You say:
^I am not ashamed of being Brtish just sad so many people in Britain have forgotten why the allies fought WW2"

Well were do I start with this one! Your sadness is I hope for the loss of life and the destruction of thousands of people's lives who survived and coped with the loss of loved ones, destruction of home and family that changed their lives forever.

The purpose of WW11 I feel you have misunderstood. The purpose of that war was to preserve our way of life. To free those who had been occupied by "funny looking man", and his powerful army, to impose fascism across Europe.

That word Freedom is so easily banded around in this Century, no one born in freedom actually know's what it is like to fear that it could be taken away forceable by Soldiers marching across your front lawn, through the Street, taking over control of every aspect of your life, and imposing their view's way of life without a vote, no Brexit style discussion no matter how heated they get, can compare to invasion by a fore that will kill, maime, and enforce by murder their politics, their way of life and their beliefs on other Nations. That's what that "funny looking man" did. The UK and Commonwealth Country's and the allies stopped him, at great cost, financially and much more importantly with the loss of life on a scale that is unimaginable in this Century.

You say:
...^it was all bollocks but people allowed themselves to be sucked in and as a result millions died^.

"People allowed themselves to be sucked in" you cannot imagine how much I am trying to control what I say to you PECS. Deep breath and stay calm, that is what I am saying to myself.

Do you actually think that we could see Hitler, to use a term from the past, Jackbooting it through Europe, imposing fascism on other people, their Country's and societies, murdering and pillaging, threatening to invade our Country and stand by and do nothing? You are speaking as a product of a peaceful, free democratic society, that I don't think you even value what you have PECS from what I read from you. You are man or woman born into a freedom, that our ancestors, people that were our great grandfather, grandfather, fathers, brother's, son's, Husband, lovers fought and many died for.

^You make it sound like there was a choice. "sucked into" indeed. You have no idea, none what so ever. Would you have preferred that we had not gone to the aid of Europe? Would you have preferred that we had capitulated to the Fascist Germany and they would be running things now instead of the other fascist group the EU. At least the EU don't shoot us for descent. Fascism comes in many forms and starts with taking over a Country's law's then imposing regulations, and directives and then when you want to leave it's impossible to get out? People have been sucked into that! Does that sound familiar.

You make these comments without any real understanding of just what you are saying. They are neither comparative to the situation, nor can they be regarded as with Johnson's comments harmless. Your comments show a lack of historical fact, as well as a lack of sensitivity or even accuracy of analysis or conclusion therefore in my view they are fallacious.

You might find these facts useful. Cut and Paste:

Antisemitism and the persecution of Jews represented a central tenet of Nazi ideology. In their 25-point Party Program, published in 1920, Nazi party members publicly declared their intention to segregate Jews from "Aryan" society and to abrogate Jews' political, legal, and civil rights.
Nazi leaders began to make good on their pledge to persecute German Jews soon after their assumption of power. During the first six years of Hitler's dictatorship, from 1933 until the outbreak of war in 1939, Jews felt the effects of more than 400 decrees and regulations that restricted all aspects of their public and private lives.
In 1937 and 1938, German authorities again stepped up legislative persecution of German Jews. The government set out to impoverish Jews and remove them from the German economy by requiring them to register their property. Even before the Olympics, the Nazi government had initiated the practice of "Aryanizing" Jewish businesses. "Aryanization" meant the dismissal of Jewish workers and managers of a company and/or the takeover of Jewish-owned businesses by non-Jewish Germans who bought them at bargain prices fixed by government or Nazi party officials. In 1937 and 1938, the government forbade Jewish doctors to treat non-Jews, and revoked the licenses of Jewish lawyers to practice law.
The government required Jews to identify themselves in ways that would permanently separate them from the rest of the population. In August 1938, German authorities decreed that by January 1, 1939, Jewish men and women bearing first names of "non-Jewish" origin had to add "Israel" and "Sara," respectively, to their given names. All Jews were obliged to carry identity cards that indicated their Jewish heritage, and, in the autumn of 1938, all Jewish passports were stamped with an identifying letter "J". As the Nazi leaders quickened their preparations for the European war of conquest that they intended to unleash, antisemitic legislation in Germany and Austria paved the way for more radical persecution of Jews^.

You accuse Johnson of Islamaphobia, well take a look at what Jewishphobia looked like in Nazi Germany, then tell me that you think an article in a newspaper of the kind Johnson wrote is Islamaphobic, as you try to compare the two. Compare that one PECS.

Although we always have to be vigilant for persecution, I think this Johnson article reaction is political correctness gone mad, and certain political leanings will always take every opportunity to make something of nothing to support their cause.

I notice PECS you don't take up the antisemitic issue nor will you condemn that in the Labour Party. You and I have had this conversation regarding why that is on another thread, so we won't go into it again on this one.
If nothing else I hope this response has given you food for thought!

"He is afraid of repercussions"
That's at the root of it imo.
Some moderate Muslims are afraid of that too, if they speak out.

I too resent the double standards which we see all around us.

gillybob mentioned the other day about how the manager in her daughter's coffee shop is reluctant to ask a group of burka wearing women (or men, who knows?) who regularly sit there eating food bought at Greggs, He is afraid of repercussions.

Yesterday I was in a Costa. A group of about half a dozen children aged around 11 or 12, sat down but didn't buy anything. After about 20 minutes a man, possibly the manager came over an asked them to leave as they could only sit there if they were buying a drink. They left.

Now I couldn't help wondering - if it had been a burka clad group, also not buying a drink or food there, or indeed eating food bought elsewhere, would he have been as keen to shoo them off?

It's these 'rules for them and rules for us' which leads to resentment surely?

Jane10 - Malysia was one of the countries I meant in an earlier post. When I was there in the'60s the Malay women wore long pretty dresses and rarely covered their hair. Very relaxed.
Now it seems the fundamentalists are tightening up, as the Taliban have done in Afghanistan.

Totally agree easybea. I find the burka, niqab etc very offensive & insulting to this country. Wearing face covering garments implies unwillingness to integrate. Do not live in a Western country and presume to change it back to the one you left, a stated aim of Muslim fundamentalists.

Dyffryn - you are concerned about the lack of tolerance for other people's cultures. Where do you draw the line? - FGM OK is it?

Hear, hear!

However, it's not so long ago that Roman Catholic women and girls were expected (i.e. couldn't really opt out) to cover their hair in church. I was given a mantilla when I was only about eight!

Things were changing though. I'd left off wearing hats in church (unless I was cold) by the time I was ten.

In Malaysia once a Muslim woman once shouted at me in a mall and tried to insist that I cover at least my hair! No chance.

I hope one day, a clever lawyer will do a test case on an issue as r's used above. It is blatant discrimination against ordinary people, whilst giving a minority the right to fiver up completely. Why is it right that a Santa hat, flat cap or a motor cyclist helmet be deemed as threatening when you can see the face, yet acceptable for someone to be completely covered, that could be concealing anything to go anywhere. In time the criminal element will match on to this and the problem will be solved. You cannot make a measured and justified response to anything now for fear of the race card being paid, which is discrimination.

We cannot actually walk up to any Muslim lady and ask them to remove their burqa. That's fact - its unlawful.

But its perfectly acceptable to insist that a motorcyclist at a petrol station removes his helmet is it annep? Or a man to be thrown out of a pub because he wanted to wear a Santa hat? Or how about the man who wanted to wear his flat cap whilst shopping in Tesco? So why was it right that they were asked to remove items of head wear or be removed from premises if they didn’t do so? Why is telling one person to remove an item of head wear "unlawful", but these others are not? Sexism? Double standards? Fear of telling a muslim woman to remove a veil because of the furore that will inevitably ensue?

I don't like the burqa. For the obvious reason of womens subjugation. But it makes me feel unsafe. I think it is wrong that people can have their face covered while in public - anyone could be under the burqa. I think a case could be made for the "stop and search" policy to be applied for security reasons. But I dread to think of the outcome of this. However this man did not actually have the right to ask the lady on the bus to remove her face covering. We cannot actually walk up to any Muslim lady and ask them to remove their burqa. That's fact - its unlawful.

Or this man?

www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11847091.Man_thrown_out_of_Hampshire_pub_for__wearing_Santa_hat_/

Or this man?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-44317992

What do you think of this man's loss of humanity and decency PECS?

www.thesun.co.uk/news/6994230/motorbike-instructor-slams-shell-garage-for-racism-after-hes-told-to-remove-helmet-as-woman-in-burka-fills-up-next-to-him/

You're right, it doesn't matter who the perpetrator was PECS. But the reason I pointed out that the "perpetrator" was himself, not British, was to illustrate that their is little point in "being ashamed to be British" when people from many countries are clearly uncomfortable with being unable to see the faces of those they are trying to interact with. It isn't just Britain who feels uncomfortable with this subject, is it?
I don't think it adds to the balance of argument to embellish the facts of the incident either.