Did you mean, look at me?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] People you'd rather see as Foreign Secretary than Boris Johnson
- Thread starter Tooting Gull
- Start date
Did you mean, look at me?
Indeed. Infinitely more dangerous than Corbyn and his acolytes - unlike the latter he knows exactly what he's doing.
90% of the country didn't vote for Brexit.
Not for the first time, as a moderator, you should be ashamed of yourself.
I’d ignore him. Either he’s an attention seeker or stuck in the dark ages or both. I still remember that huge hole he dug himself over women and their business acumen.
- Aug 8, 2005
- 26,546
I just think there is a lot of hypocrisy on this board.
I struggle to see how you can quite rightly defend women's rights and homosexuals rights whilst also defending how Muslims treat both groups. It is remarkable. Boris is not suggesting a ban as they have in several countries, he is just saying that it is crazy. If you're a woman why would you want to wear it? There is nothing in the Koran to say you should, so it is just men asserting their dominance over their women. I fail to see how else you can justify it.
I struggle to see how you can quite rightly defend women's rights and homosexuals rights whilst also defending how Muslims treat both groups. It is remarkable. Boris is not suggesting a ban as they have in several countries, he is just saying that it is crazy. If you're a woman why would you want to wear it? There is nothing in the Koran to say you should, so it is just men asserting their dominance over their women. I fail to see how else you can justify it.
Yeah London has barely got anyone in it so how could it possibly reflect the country's opinion?
I am not defending muslims. Ludicrous comment.
Had he left it at saying there should not be a ban then it would have probably been fine. But he didn’t did he? He went further and in a very ethically sensitive climate made some very disparaging remarks. I expect better of MPs
Giraffe didn`t say 90 % voted for Brexit.... He said he believes 90 % of the country agree with Boris. My guess would be 65% agree with Boris. He also said Brighton no longer reflects the country's opinion, as Brexit showed .
Would you disagree ??
A very confused comment. Not sure how he got from a to b there?
Withdean11
Well-known member
This.
- Aug 8, 2005
- 26,546
Personally I would rather my politicians said what they think rather than just come out with the normal political correct nonsense. That's why Trump is so popular in the US. Says what he thinks, does what he thinks, which is in marked contrast to most politicians. Our political system is crying out for that.
Exactly, and yes on reflection my 90% is high, but I suspect it is a very high proportion. At least two thirds, probably more.
In case reading the Grauniad disgusts you, here is what the former chair of the conservative party has to say:
On Monday, in a column in the Daily Telegraph, Boris Johnson compared fully veiled Muslim women to “letter boxes” and “bank robbers”. Thankfully, both the prime minister Theresa May and the Conservative party chair Brandon Lewis have asked Johnson to apologise. Others in my party and in the media have seen fit to defend him. I’d like to set out precisely why his remarks are indefensible, and have no place in the modern Conservative party – and the action I think needs to follow.
I do not underestimate the issues around integration that we as a country face. In fact, it is precisely because I take them seriously that I find Johnson’s words so reprehensible. I’ve spent decades speaking and writing about what it is that drives integration, and what contributes to alienation.
People identify with the country they live in when they feel a sense of belonging, and when they feel they matter. When they can take part in the national conversation and national life as individuals with equal worth and value.
And that’s why language is so crucial. Politicians and policymakers particularly have a responsibility to help make the space of belonging bigger, to ease that path towards integration. To send a signal to certain groups of people that they don’t matter, that the way they choose to dress is “ridiculous”, others and excludes them.
In his Telegraph piece, Johnson was making a liberal argument. He was saying that we shouldn’t ban the burqa, as Denmark has done. But his words signalled something else. He said – not only to those Muslim women who veil, but to many more who associate with a faith in which some women do – that you don’t belong here.
I refuse to accept that these phrases were some kind of mistake, and the offence inadvertent - Johnson is too intelligent and too calculating for that. No, this was all quite deliberate. His refusal to apologise supports that.
And the purpose was to mask the argument he was making. He set out a liberal position, but he did it in a very “alt-right” way. This allowed him to dog-whistle: to say to particular elements of the party that he’s tough on Muslims. Yet again, he’s trying to have his cake and eat it.
But as a feminist what really disgusts me in this whole episode is that Muslim women are simply political fodder, their lives a convenient battleground on which to stake out a leadership bid. This is not the first time an Old Etonian has used “Muslim women” to make a political headline or set out his agenda. Many will recall the distorted and offensive way in which David Cameron collectively defined Muslim women as exhibiting “traditional submissiveness”. It triggered a meme that went global from doctors, lawyers, politicians, athletes and other highly successful Muslim women who thought laughter was the best response.
And in 2016 once again my party sold a perfectly reasonable policy of increasing funding for English language classes as “English classes for Muslim women to stop terrorism”. It was yet another announcement ridiculed by Muslim women.
There is a pattern here – Muslim women are a quick, easy way to make a point that furthers your interests with certain sections of the media and my party – a useful political football. Where’s the harm in that, you might ask – it’s just politics. Well, this approach is not just offensive, it is dangerous.
Johnson’s words have once again validated the view of those that other Muslims. They send out a message that Muslim women are fair game. What starts as useful targets for “colourful political language” and the odd bit of toxic campaigning ends up in attacks on our streets. In 2017 there was a 26% rise in recorded hate crimes against Muslims, compared to the previous year. The figures are at their highest since records began. Those hate crimes are predominantly aimed at Muslim women. Of Muslim women, the small minority who wear a full veil are particularly at risk. So, as much as Johnson thinks he’s being his usual clever self, he’s helping to create an environment in which hate crime is more likely.
An apology is now due. But what happens if, as looks likely, it doesn’t come? Every time incidents like this occur in the party and there are no consequences, it sends out a clear message that you can get away with Islamophobia. It means that ugly comments can actually enhance reputations, rather than ruin them. If my party follows up on a demand for an apology with real action then these comments would eventually become rare.
This past weekend I’ve had two more people contact me about issues in their local party. One was called “my Paki friend” by a fellow member. The second said they had heard concerns being raised about electing Muslim councillors because they would “collaborate” with their Labour co-religionists, “because these people put their religion first”. This disgusting stereotyping and peddling of tropes is not unusual – I’ve been on the receiving end of it for years.
As far as Boris Johnson is concerned, this is surely time for the promised diversity training scheme to kick in. I’m more than happy to educate the man myself if he wants to come and meet members of the British Muslim community, although you would think that a couple of years as foreign secretary would mean that wasn’t necessary. Evidently not.
Yesterday, the imam of the Finsbury Park mosque, who is a national hero for protecting worshippers from a racist attack, said that “despite the rising scale and severity of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred, the response from the government has been lacklustre, or worse, in denial”. His assessment reflects my experience – the party’s response has been lacklustre too. The very organisation that Brandon Lewis has said he’s engaging with, Tell Mama, told BBC Radio 4 that there had been little follow-up from him after a meeting earlier this summer. This looks very much like the party saying “we’ll make the right noises and hopefully it will go away”.
It won’t. Which is why I stand by my calls for an inquiry into the issue – now more than ever.
• Sayeeda Warsi is the former co-chair of the Conservative party
Giraffe said he agrees with Boris (about his ludicrous comments about muslim women) and then backed it up with a load of spurious statistics bollocks. My view about Brighton reflecting the country's opinion is neither here nor there. I am staying focused on the devious self promoting ******* Boris for the time being.
- Aug 8, 2005
- 26,546
Perfect example of what I am saying. Which side is she on? It would appear she is homophobic which is no surprise to me at all:
"In 2005 Warsi came under intense controversy after campaigning to ban teachings about homosexuality in schools fearing it might "promote same-sex relationships." She also claimed that Labour lowering the age of consent from 18 to 16 left teenagers vulnerable to being "propositioned for homosexual relations.These comments led Britain's leading gay rights group, Stonewall, to denounce her as being homophobic.
So you deduce from her homophobic comments (not untypical in the conservative party) that her allegiance (by which I infer her allegiance to Islam versus the UK) can be questioned? That, my friend, is Islamophobic. If you dispute this would you care to elaborate on the two sides to which you refer? This may help you:
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
Why do people still refer to Johnson as 'Boris' like some term of endearment?
Normal Rob
Well-known member
Odd that, what with Johnson being slang for cock.