And?

August 6, 2018 Longrider Civil Liberties, General News, misanthropy, Political 16

Fury? Really?

Boris Johnson has sparked fury after saying that women who wear burkas and niqabs look like ‘bank robbers’ and ‘letterboxes’.

The former Foreign Secretary mocked the Muslim head veils in his weekly newspaper column – and branded the coverings ‘oppressive’.

He said he thinks it is ‘absolutely ridiculous’ that women ‘should choose to go around looking like letter boxes’.

I see nothing wrong with his statements. They are coverings that evolved in the desert. They have no place in a modern, civilised world. And, yes, they do look ridiculous. You have to be very thin-skinned or a professional offendatron to be upset by his statements. I suspect that most rational people will be nodding their heads in agreement, with only the shrieking SJWs getting their knickers in a knot.

But he also said he does not agree with Denmark’s decision to ban the coverings, warning this risks backfiring and fanning the flames of radicalism.

I agree. If someone chooses of their own volition to wear a bin bag, then they should have the freedom to do so and we should have the freedom to point, snigger, ridicule and ultimately shun those who do.

His remarks have sparked fury – with Labour MP David Lammy branding the ex cabinet minister a ‘pound-shop Donald Trump’ and warned he is fanning the flames of Islamophobia.

There’s no such thing. Dislike of Islam is not a mental illness. It is a perfectly rational response to a medieval, misogynistic cult.

16 Comments

  2. For my part I am waiting to see the Cylon within activate that red scanner and utter “By Your Command” in that robotic voice. I fear that this type of attire is to emphasise the differences and deliberately not to integrate in our society. Certainly, the burqua has been used to aid in the escape of terror suspects so I can see why many people are concerned about this matter. Evidently the sjw’s will throw their toys out of the pram claiming we are all fascists and islamophobes but I can live with that. As P J O’Rourke said “No red blooded woman ever fantasised about being ravaged by a man dressed as a liberal”

  3. I would prefer a law to ban concealment of the face in the public domain. That’s from the eyebrows to the chin. It is how you make yourself identifiable, and therefore answerable, for any crime or anti-social behaviour you commit. The face should be visible, and no exceptions should be allowed.

    • In general I agree. But:

      I wear an eye-holes only balaclava when on motorbike to seal gaps* and keep helmet lining clean.

      Should that be banned? Safety-gear exemption?

      * not pleasant when a wasp hits neck and falls down under shirt.

      • Once astride a motor cycle the usual safety gear should be worn Pcar, but once you park it, the usual petrol station rules should apply- you take your headgear off. The despatch riders who take vital supplies to our hospitals already abide by that. I know that because I had to help one of them take his helmet and visor off, and hand it to the reception ladies while he held on to a coolbox in each hand, and charged into the nearest lift.

        • I wear a flip-front helmet. Consequently no one has ever asked me to remove it and I don’t expect them to. I ignore signs telling me to take my helmet off and no one has complained. I’m not going to put my nice clean helmet that is going to be on my head on their dirty, diesel covered forecourt.

      • I don’t wear a balaclava. Haven’t for years. I resorted to a neck tube last winter when I bought a cheap MT helmet for training. I gave up on that one… I’ve found that the high end helmets have a chin protector that not only comes down lower, they have a soft wind protection element directly under the chin. I don’t get a draft around my face, so don’t need the neck tube, which I dislike anyway as I find them constrictive. Likewise the balaclava. The other problem is with fit. A snug helmet in summer becomes tight in winter and vice versa.

        The clean inner point is valid, but again, modern helmets have pop-out linings that can be washed.

        • Agree on helmet too tight/loose. First Balaclava was an iirc Damart one – way to thick.

          Bought a yard of thinnest cotton jersey I could find and DIY. Fine for year round use – it’s for gap seal & clean, not warmth.

          On helmet draught – first helmet was a Stadium Achilles which had a nifty face mask to prevent draught & visor fogging and a very large opening so could be used off-road with goggles too.

          Stadium Achilles:
          https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/graham-budd-auctions-ltd/catalogue-id-srgrah10013/lot-4c67be25-44eb-4b60-8ecc-a69f00c6b6d0

          • I only ever used John Brown Wheels once. I bought an oversuit. It leaked like the proverbial sieve. When I complained they fobbed me off telling me that it was weatherproof, not waterproof. These days I wouldn’t accept such bullshit. Anyway, I never bought anything from them again.

            I wear Alt Berg boots through the winter. I have a pair of BMW sneaker boots for the summer. Comfortable and waterproof.

          • Once: me too, the boots leaked like a sieve. However, they were protection first.

            JBW went bust soon after and took down a lot of suppliers inc iirc Stadium helmets.

            I guess credit insurance wasn’t common in early 80s

            Waterproof overs: I continued with what I used in Scouts – Peter Storm

            btw thread book plug on rew review?

  5. Perfectly understandable that David Lammy should take issue with this.

    Labour, having thoroughly alienated the Jewish community with all their anti-semitic comments are making every effort to appear to be very keen on Muslim rights – and to hell with tiresome little issues like grooming and forced marriages.

    Having spent several years in Arabia – and coming from a very traditional Scottish household, I have to say that I see distinct similarities with the garb many older Scottish widows wore in my youth.

    When her husband died, Granny wore nothing but black outer clothing and her blouses, while slightly less drab, always had some form of black in the design. She always wore a hat outdoors and very frequently pulled down her veil when she felt the need.

    Inside the house she shed the coat and jacket and was my usual Granny (the only person in the world who could keep Mum under control).

    Because of that I have no issue whatsoever with older Muslim ladies wearing coverings. I never know if they do it because they also are widowed, or they simply do not want to draw attention to themselves, given that some of their faith consider a woman who shows any skin to be fair game for touching, feeling and unwanted lewd advances.

    I emphasise the older / married women aspect. With the the kids I suspect it’ more a fashion / rebellion thing. In some cases, given the size of some, maybe better they keep their face hidden!

Comments are closed.