Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Boris and the burka
- Thread starter koolpc
- Start date
"untrustworthy Brexiteer fantasist" unrelated.
Should be allowed to ridicule? Yes, we are free to ridicule religions and religious practices, do you think we shouldn't be?
Should be allowed to encourage hatred? How has he done that?
The only 'hatred' I see here is from you towards Boris, by bringing up a load of other unrelated things which may or may not be true. You clearly aren't being objective about this. And you alongside a lot of the media are just using this as a stick to beat Boris and by proxy Brexiteers.
Technically speaking it would be an inquiry into whether of not he did it. Not if he should be allowed to do it.
The answer's no.
There you go, saved you a few million.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I was rather under the impression that the proposed "inquisition" would relate in some way to a man who is indeed untrustworthy, claims (today) to believe that Britain would be better off outside the EU (i.e. a Brexiteer) and fantasises about how much better off we all would be after we quit the EU (a fantasist).
It appears that the British (and probably the European) legal system doesn't agree with you.
You appear to need a little (actually, probably a lot of) intellectual stimulus, work that one out for yourself.
Thanks for confirming your lack of objectivity, because clearly a mans political views should be relevant to an inquiry into supposed 'encouragement of hatred'. Please never work in any fields that require objectivity, law etc.
I'm sorry what? Please show me the law that says I'm not allowed to ridicule a religion or religious practices? Has the cast of Monty Python been in jail for the last 30 years for The Life of Brain? What planet do you live on?
No, if you're going to assert something without evidence then I'm going to dismiss it without any too. You can't just say he's encouraging hatred and then not provide any evidence.
Oh and cheers for the backhanded insult implying I'm stupid.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
The evidence surely comes with peoples reaction. Which if anything.. the media have fuelled .
So then is it the media or him?
Unless there is direct incitement (and the laws are clear on this, incitement for hatred + violence, it is the prosecution who has to prove he actively wrote that with the intent to incite religious hatred, I suspect knowing Boris his intent was to provoke and to make people laugh) then he is not culpable for the interpretations other people choose to take.
And if you're going to go off 'peoples reaction' what about all the polls that show the majority either agree with him, support a ban, or don't think it's racist/punishable?
Last edited:
I'd say more than fuelled, hell they outright fabricated the claim that he referred to women in burkas as "looking like bank robbers" >.>
Absolutely, it is the reporting of snippets of it and focusing on the "offensive" things that have given completely the wrong impression, you get people saying, "I agree with him, it should be banned" etc.. assuming he's actually called for that just because they've seen that he's said something about it and there are lots of people angry at him. There is probably a similar effect on some others as a result of cries of "racism" "islamophobe" etc...
When did Boris's comments become a joke?
The only think I disagree with is his use of the terms bank robbers and letter boxes, both clearly derogatory and both clearly unnecessary, I'm not sure either would be funny in a piece of well done comedy by a professional comedian let alone in a political column by the ever self serving Boris. I have no problem with him expressing his opinion on the Danish ban or discussing the idea of a ban or restrictions in this country if he feel it necessary it is just the choice of language that needs a little more sensitivity. Yes I'm aware he does everything for a reason the sad part being these comments seem to boost his popularity with a certain demographic.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
No I agree with everything you have said so far Mason ... Particularly this comment -
As I said before, if we are allowed so called "rights" then he should be allowed free speech and to openly disclose his own "personal" opinion. But the media must be make an accurate representation of people in such positions for which peoples opinions form.
Well you see, a letterbox is uniformly coloured except for an opening, and a burqa is too. So he's using it as a metaphor to imply that they look similar, in doing so ridiculing it. Clearly they're not the same thing, but that's the joke. You know when you dissect a joke it loses it's humour. You can apply the above with bank robbers, they typically hide their face to avoid getting caught.
And that's the thing Alex about both comedy and offence. What you find funny, I might not, and what you find offensive, I might not. The point is: whether or not you find it funny or offensive is irrelevant. The law is about having the intent to incite religious hatred. If you want to prosecute him for it, you'll need to prove it. Intent to ridicule for comedic purposes (whether or not you find it funny) is not incitement of hatred.
Last edited:
/facepalm.
Is there any chance we could please get the Boris article amended to the OP in the vain hope that people might actually read it instead of just commenting based on having read third party opinions of it's content? This has been going on for days now
But that is how he speaks? He makes flippant comments about all sorts of things or says stuff that is potentially going to "offend", if anything it would be wrong for him to make an exception... the old bigotry of low expectations... I'll be flippant about everyone but I'll steer clear when it comes to making comments about something related to muslims, those muslims can't take a joke, are too thick to notice it is just clothing I'm talking about and I'll therefore treat them differently to everyone else.
Thankfully there have been various muslims speaking out in support of what Boris has said.
Boris's maner of speach and work is an entirely different debate, the fawning over him and likes of Mogg in certain circles saddens me.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
This is exactly how I feel about the whole situation.. Very well put.
It isn't an entirely different debate, it is fundamental to this in that his behaviour here isn't radically different to how he talks/writes in general. The main source of controversy is simply down to the old identity politics - it is a result of who he spoke about and not the manner in which he spoke.
Agreed. The thing with Boris though is he has a history of doing things like this and much worse. Some think he's funny/a bumbling idiot when he's incredibly dangerous and has no place as an MP or PM.
That's just his method of politics. It's semi successful. He's got to where he is now off of it, and being a conservative mayor of very labour London is no mean feat. It's conceited and contrived but it is what it is.
Also please don't mistake this for advocacy, it is observation.
It wasn't designed to be humorous, it was designed to imply that (in his opinion) nobody would choose to wear a burka (because of how ridiculous it looks) unless they felt they had to.
The bank robber analogy wasn't intended to be humorous simply analogical. Drawing parallels between a university lecturer asking a student wearing a bank robber fancy dress costume to remove their ski mask so they can converse face to face, and an MP in their own office asking a woman wearing a face mask in a one to one conversation to remove it so they could speak face to face.