-
" also believe that the burka is oppressive and ridiculous and more importantly a garment whose very design was created to subjugate women: burkas were created to hide women from the eyes of men lest they dishonour themselves."
Totally.
But what is he going to do about faith schools or women (it is always women) being attacked for wearing niqabs/burqas? It is actually WOMEN again that get attacked by the "defenders of British culture" not the men.
The burka is the symbol and easy to attack, but so far the Tories have done nothing for social cohesion to the extent that one of their own lords a few years back said policies have failed.
A English friend of mine said that in her home town a lot of women are now covered up and some wear the burka. If those women would want to "escape" I can bet they are going to be discriminated against by the majority. He is really not helping I think by turning is into a simple issue.
-
PM read out most of it to give it context. So yes. My issue is with the intention.
To start the very discussion is unnecessary. It's reviving an issue which was discussed at length when various other countries where banning it. It's use is not that wide speed either.
Every element of the article is calculated to strike a chord with a different audience.
What if the tl;Dr of the article was; "I don't think being a gay man is right or normal but I still think they should have equal rights"?
You are reading a single comment by @Fox and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
JWestland
hugo7
@Fox
I wonder how many of the people outraged by Johnson's remarks have actually read what he wrote in full. It's behind a Telegraph pay/registration wall and you have to at least register to read it.
I suspect many haven't, partly because if they had they'd have realised that it was actually an argument against banning burkas and his comments were actually quite thoughtful.
I do think saying that burka wearers look like letter boxes is ill considered, but the wider context of the article seems to have got lost in everyone's keeness to bash Boris (which is something I enjoy as much as the next person).
Here's the paragraph with the postbox reference:
If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you. If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree – and I would add that I can find no scriptural authority for the practice in the Koran. I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes; and I thoroughly dislike any attempt by any – invariably male – government to encourage such demonstrations of “modesty”, notably the extraordinary exhortations of President Ramzan Kadyrov of Chechnya, who has told the men of his country to splat their women with paintballs if they fail to cover their heads.
It's also worth reading the following paragraph:
If a constituent came to my MP’s surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled – like Jack Straw – to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly. If a female student turned up at school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber then ditto: those in authority should be allowed to converse openly with those that they are being asked to instruct. As for individual businesses or branches of government – they should of course be able to enforce a dress code that enables their employees to interact with customers; and that means human beings must be able to see each other’s faces and read their expressions. It’s how we work.
I also believe that the burka is oppressive and ridiculous and more importantly a garment whose very design was created to subjugate women: burkas were created to hide women from the eyes of men lest they dishonour themselves. So I find this liberal outcry in support of them quite strange.