# Right here goes - Jack Straw, Muslim women and veils.....



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Perhaps what he really meant, was could the attractive and foxy ones lift their veils for meetings, whilst the ugly munters keep covered up. :lol:

It must be a soft news week, what with the Muslim Diplomatic Police Officer who didn't want duty outside the Israeli embassy for 'personal safety' reasons, also making headlines. F**K me they are better armed than our soldiers in Iraq!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5409638.stm

BUT, aren't we just getting a tad pissed off with oversensitivity from CERTAIN parts of the British Muslim population and the pandering that they seem to require to live in our country?

1. Veil wearers - No one is telling you that you have to remove veils - Jack Straw (ineffective vacuuous twat that he his) is merely saying that he would _prefer_ if women showed the face in 1 2 1 meetings. Perhaps he should wear bag on his head to identify more with those who insist on the veil.

Jack Straw prepares for his days meetings:









2. For the Muslim copper - didn't anyone consider his beliefs may cause an internal conflict for the poor repressed chap, when recruiting him into diplomatic duty?

Expect a Jewish copper to request to not have duty in front of an Arab embassy next.

BUT woe betide the white Christian who doesn't want to guard Arab or Israeli Embassys - because that would be racism.

Likely scenario: the minorities will be pandered to with political correctness- and the best way is by not recruiting them in the first place, since their beliefs cause a clear conflict of duty and therefore could put public at risk. Next thing the very same minorities are bitching about lack of cultural diversity within the Police diplomatic recruiting policies and processes.

Good job the women aren't scared:









You are coppers. Public servants. Do as you are bloody well ordered to without question, or leave.

:wink:


----------



## GoingTTooFast (Apr 4, 2006)

A quote from someone on the Talksport website this morning..

"Got to agree with Jack, the Veils just build a bigger boundry. Lets be fair if you're sat next to someone wearing one on a bus your hardly gonna turn round and say eh up luv are ya"

Quality. The voice of the people.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Religion.... yet again.... BORING!!!! We are supposed to be a modern society yet people are still classed by their religious beliefs. PC has forced us into this - we can't class people as black. whites, browns, yellows, or by their country of origins without a fuss so we've got to class them by religion.

Am going to setup up my own minority group and probably get on better in life.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

GoingTTooFast said:


> A quote from someone on the Talksport website this morning..
> 
> "Got to agree with Jack, the Veils just build a bigger boundry. Lets be fair if you're sat next to someone wearing one on a bus your hardly gonna turn round and say eh up luv are ya"
> 
> Quality. The voice of the people.


lol


----------



## NaughTTy (Jul 9, 2003)

What really got me this morning was the Muslim woman on GMTV argueing 'til she was blue in the face that Straw was wrong....when she wasn't wearing a veil herself :? And some Muslim scholars are questioning whether the veil even has a religious link in history.

Also, just caught a quick glance when they went through the papers last week, Fiona Bruce may be forced to remove the cross she wears on her necklace in case it upsets other religions. WTF :x


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

NaughTTy said:


> ....... Fiona Bruce may be forced to remove the cross she wears on her necklace in case it upsets other religions. WTF :x


But forced by who ............. people of other religions ............. or some Christian 'do gooding' twat who is actually doing bnothing of the sort :evil:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

garvin said:


> NaughTTy said:
> 
> 
> > ....... Fiona Bruce may be forced to remove the cross she wears on her necklace in case it upsets other religions. WTF :x
> ...


Perhaps she should instead wear a veil and mutter in poor English - for the benefit of the minority... :wink:


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2006)

i have a feeling Mr Straw will need extra security from now on.. :?

Muslims always take things too far everytime other people comment on their religion.... Im sure it doesnt teach "HATE ALL NON-BELIEVERS!" or does it?

religion - FFS! some people have no life!!!!!!!!!! Why waste the time you have on this planet wondering where your going after you die!?

what makes me laugh is that you see "them" in shopping centres going into clothes shops looking for clothes - WHATS THE POINT?! - all they wear is their ninja dresses, and they dont sell those in Next!!! (well, maybe in the Kids costume dept!) :lol:


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2006)

garyc said:


> garvin said:
> 
> 
> > NaughTTy said:
> ...


 :lol: :lol:


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

saint said:


> Am going to setup up my own minority group and probably get on better in life.


You're White. Middle Class. Respectable. Law Abiding, Speak English. Pay Taxes. You already have your own minority group.

(PS) Enjoy:

http://www.prohijab.net/english/main.htm


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

AndyRoo_TT said:


> i
> Muslims always take things too far everytime other people comment on their religion.... Ihey dont sell those in Next!!! (well, maybe in the Kids costume dept!) :lol:


I just love the irony.

Pope digs out a 14th century quotation that Islam is spread at the point of the sword.

Muslims protest with banners saying "Islan will conquer Rome".

You couldn't make it up. ...


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

Unusual for a politician though ... saying something that he must know will piss off about 50% of his voters. A brave play for the BNP vote perhaps :?

Personally, I agree with him - even though he is/was/will be a polician.


----------



## Johnwx (Oct 31, 2004)

Our political leaders are usually to scared to speak out unlike down under politics 
http://www.freedom.org/news/200608/25/tenney.phtml?p=1


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

Johnwx said:


> Our political leaders are usually to scared to speak out unlike down under politics
> http://www.freedom.org/news/200608/25/tenney.phtml?p=1


That article is brilliant ... quote below ... OK, it's a long quote, but that's because most of the article is worth quoting :wink:

IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.

However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled, when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia.

However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.

This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle.

This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials, and victories, by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

We speak mainly English, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language.

Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

We will accept your beliefs and will not question why, all we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.

If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go," then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture - but do not force it on others.

This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, "THE RIGHT TO LEAVE".

If you aren't happy here - then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted and that accepted YOU.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

TTonyTT said:


> Unusual for a politician though ... saying something that he must know will piss off about 50% of his voters. A brave play for the BNP vote perhaps :?
> 
> Personally, I agree with him - even though he is/was/will be a polician.


I think JS is doing this quite deliberately, and is being pushed from within the Party to do it. Why? Well his political career has peaked so he has little to lose by opening Pandoras Box.

And, there seems to be a growing feeling around that the non muslim voters may just have had about enough of the constant Kid Glove pandering to a vocal minority of Islam fans, who seem hell bent on alienating themselves within this country. If the Govt does not start to give out some subtle 'Enough! If you don't like it Mecca is that way' type signals, they are worried that middle class, voters will dessert them (labour). And they cannot afford that.

Some may indeed move towards the far right like BNP, but probably most are not that stupid and would just like to see some line drawn and the boundries outlined to the vocal minroity. Align this to the Tories repositioning to the right of centre in the political spectrum, and only Labour stand to lose here unless they start making right noises.

Step forward some berk who will take the initial heat - Jack Straw.

I think this is just the beginning.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2006)

Johnwx said:


> Our political leaders are usually to scared to speak out unlike down under politics
> http://www.freedom.org/news/200608/25/tenney.phtml?p=1


 [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## GoingTTooFast (Apr 4, 2006)

Johnwx said:


> Our political leaders are usually to scared to speak out unlike down under politics
> http://www.freedom.org/news/200608/25/tenney.phtml?p=1


A brilliant article! [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

AndyRoo_TT said:


> Johnwx said:
> 
> 
> > Our political leaders are usually to scared to speak out unlike down under politics
> ...


   

Tell it like it is.


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

Johnwx said:


> Our political leaders are usually to scared to speak out unlike down under politics
> http://www.freedom.org/news/200608/25/tenney.phtml?p=1


I think its time I moved down under :!:


----------



## Hilly10 (Feb 4, 2004)

If somebody in this country were to write an article like the Aussie one he would be bull whipped here. When will these people understand if you choose to live in a alien country intergrate its simple These religious scholars fookin nutters the lot of them. This govenment bend over back wards to please these people.


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

TTonyTT said:


> We will accept your beliefs and will not question why, all we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.


That is the most profound statement in all of this......

and if you agree you'd understand why JS is completely wrong!

he's pretty much asked for a religious fashion item to be withdrawn...

absolutely missed any point of any value and stirred up a hornets nest for himself.

I'm sure if you wished to take it to another extreme perhaps he would ask Naked women to cover themselves up.

I may be simplistic in my view on this but picking on clothing of this nature allbeit a religious fashion is not going to do him any favours.

this request has nothing to do with anything of any political value and is dealing with a minority of muslim women in this country anyway so what benefit can it have. 
Just a step towards the French banning headscarfs in schools....

Stop fecking about with nonsense like this and start working on the issues that really effect us all....What a waste of time , credibility and public funds..... although as a publicity stunt he scores 100%! nutter!

Anyone who believes this serves any purpose is mad, I want my kids to be safe on the streets, have a good education, be good citizens and park my hard earned car without some cock damaging it, and ride a train or plane without the fear of it going BOOM...

work on that stuff you numpty!

This


TTonyTT said:


> We will accept your beliefs and will not question why, all we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.


is exactly what it should all be about... In my humble opinion.....

trouble is history has taught us that wars have been fought over religions for as long as time!

If I started a cult of TT worshippers we'd only end up fighting the 350z clan or the Scooby-Doos!


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

Wak said:


> TTonyTT said:
> 
> 
> > We will accept your beliefs and will not question why, all we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.
> ...


Sorry, have to disagree with you on that Wak. It is something far more than a 'fashion item' to the fundamentalists.

Jack Straw has quite reasonably IMO said that in face to face meetings he would prefer to see the persons face.

You and your family, are what I would call thoroughly integrated into the UK culture.

Others would prefer, it seems, not to be, and would rather the UK were turned into a Sharia governed Muslim state. That's the problem.


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

Wak said:


> Stop fecking about with nonsense like this and start working on the issues that really effect us all....What a waste of time , credibility and public funds..... although as a publicity stunt he scores 100%! nutter!


I worry / believe that - unfortunately perhaps, this "nonsense" is affecting us all already. We have compromised and given away our own national identity, culture and whatever shared beliefs we ever had. Some we have given away to incoming new religons - which is the current high profile effect - but many others we have given away to imported consumerism and legal precendents. Some we have abdicated consciously to Brussels, some have been taken by smiling conmen from former colonies.



Wak said:


> trouble is history has taught us that wars have been fought over religions for as long as time!


I disagree (read the following carefully :wink: ).

If history had indeed "taught" us, then we would have learned some much needed lessons, and not be in the situation we are in today. And as many generations, races and cultures before us, we have failed to learn from the many examples available to us in history ... it's almost as if the human race is cursed to make the same mistake over and over and over. Presumably there is an end game though. BANG.



Wak said:


> If I started a cult of TT worshippers we'd only end up fighting the 350z clan or the Scooby-Doos!


Unfortunately, the cult is already fragmented ... we have the sensible 3.2 wing of the party, and then those radical, stop-at-nothing eejits calling themselves the "shopping trolleys". :?


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

R6B TT said:


> Sorry, have to disagree with you on that Wak. It is something far more than a 'fashion item' to the fundamentalists.
> 
> Jack Straw has quite reasonably IMO said that in face to face meetings he would prefer to see the persons face.


Dont get me wrong there is no implication its purely a fashion item, it is a religious type of clothing and the women wearing it are either in highly traditional muslim families or are wearing it out of choice and strong belief in the religion. Its there to restrict temptation essentially.

Thats where your argument falls flat on its face, if you knew enough about the religion, the fundamentalists.... in that situation would never allow their women to be face to face with a man, the traditional Muslim will have his women away from men.

Traditional extreme muslims will keep their women seperate, even in their own homes where the women and men are kept seperate to follow the books advice to remove temptation.

JS's comments are a crock, most of the active women in Islam, are educated brought up here and will either not wear anything or go to headscarves, the old arab full face Hijab is rare as anything, How many Hijab women is JS meeting on a regular basis to have raised this issue.... come on smell the bullshit here.

I have to admit to not having heard the truth of what kicked it off but if this is true


R6B TT said:


> Jack Straw has quite reasonably IMO said that in face to face meetings he would prefer to see the persons face.


The tabloid press has reported it typically in a manner that has escalated it beyond its initial meaning and word of mouth has exaggerated it.

And I am sorry to go against the nutcases that advocate freedom of speech.... but I have enough sense to realise what potential reaction would occur from a comment like that during the current era of islamic tension.... and I have enough sense to not to say it for it represents a raindrop in the ocean of other muslim issues to be dealt with, its hardly a cutting issues that needs focus. Its petty.

Sorry I am a coward that doesnt want to rock the boat and it aint Noahs Ark he's rocking, its an already tense and dangerous situation he's chosen to light the touch paper on.

The publicity has worked, the fundamentalists are pissed, the British are given more reason to be anti muslim even though the majority are happy to manage their beliefs in harmony along side the other religions.

you just need to look at the reactions in this thread.... its planned and exactly the reactions JS is trying to fuel.

Its the British public that are being manipulated here because if it isnt planned and expected then he truly is stupid!

:?


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

TTonyTT said:


> If history had indeed "taught" us, then we would have learned some much needed lessons,
> 
> Unfortunately, the cult is already fragmented ... we have the sensible 3.2 wing of the party, and then those radical, stop-at-nothing eejits calling themselves the "shopping trolleys". :?


I never said we had learnt lessons to revise our actions  just that I'm in agreement, the mistakes are indeed repeated... sadly.

and are you saying me turbo TT is a shopping trolley? :roll: :lol:


----------



## zedman (Jan 31, 2005)

well got to say as a muslim dude i think Jack Straw is totally out of order simply because it is of no consequence whether a woman wears a veil or not when talking to him - if thats his personal preferance then thats fine, but if he can have an opinion that a women shoudn't wear a veil then surely a woman can here have her preferance/opinion and right to wear one. the only reason there's an outcry is cos the media know damn well that the majority of our muslim brothers are very easy to get a reaction out of!


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

zedman said:


> well got to say as a muslim dude i think Jack Straw is totally out of order simply because it is of no consequence whether a woman wears a veil or not when talking to him - if thats his personal preferance then thats fine, but if he can have an opinion that a women shoudn't wear a veil then surely a woman can here have her preferance/opinion and right to wear one. the only reason there's an outcry is cos the media know damn well that the majority of our muslim brothers are very easy to get a reaction out of!


If it's of no consequence, then removing it should not be an issue. And as you rightly say, it's personal preference both ways.

JS has done this quite deliberately to give a clear signal that no special treatment or sensitivity be given to muslims in our society that would not be extended to anyone else , but that it is preferable if people can try and fit in. If folk don't want to integrate, then that too is their choice, as is anyone elses in subsequently expressing a view that those who don't make an effort to integrate in society, can leave to live elsewhere anytime they want.

In our society the face is a key non verbal communication tool.

But I am still all for keeping the ugly ones covered up. :wink:


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

zedman said:


> well got to say as a muslim dude i think Jack Straw is totally out of order simply because it is of no consequence whether a woman wears a veil or not when talking to him - if thats his personal preferance then thats fine, but if he can have an opinion that a women shoudn't wear a veil then surely a woman can here have her preferance/opinion and right to wear one. the only reason there's an outcry is cos the media know damn well that the majority of our muslim brothers are very easy to get a reaction out of!


Why is he out of order to request that the veil be removed - he doesn't insist on it he just makes a simple request? Do Muslim women consider themselves so 'special' that simple requests can't be made of them? I, for one, would find it discourteous of someone to come and discuss things with me and keep a veil over their face, especially as it is, quite frankly, just a fashion item. I have the same opinion of people who wear sunglasses indoors (totally irrespective of their religious beliefs, race, creed or colour). If they want to speak to me I ask them to take them off, if they don't that is their prerogative ............. just as it is mine to decline to talk to them.

JS also stated that the wearing of a veil acts as a 'barrier'. If you are used to it then fine but in Britain it is not common and, therefore, most will, IMHO, find that it sets Muslim women apart and does act as a sort of barrier. In this respect I believe that some Muslims are not helping 'integration' - they insist that all the 'give' must come from the 'other side'.


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

zedman said:


> well got to say as a muslim dude i think Jack Straw is totally out of order simply because it is of no consequence whether a woman wears a veil or not when talking to him - if thats his personal preferance then thats fine, but if he can have an opinion that a women shoudn't wear a veil then surely a woman can here have her preferance/opinion and right to wear one. the only reason there's an outcry is cos the media know damn well that the majority of our muslim brothers are very easy to get a reaction out of!


Unless I have been misinformed, wearing of the veil is not an edict of the Koran. Also, I recall that Turkey - a predominantly Muslim country - has barred Turkish women from wearing a veil in public institutions. So it is hardly depriving Muslin women of their religious and human rights to ask them to conform to the Western protocol of keeping eyes and face unobstructed in conversation. I think there is a climate of opinion that certain factions of the Muslim community are doing their best to exclude themselves from the integrated culture of the country they are living in and insisting that they live by a separate set of allowances and protocols not extended to the rest of the population. All the while, benefiting from the freedoms that would not be extended to them in Muslim states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.


----------



## TuTTiFruTTi (Jun 24, 2005)

> You are coppers. Public servants. Do as you are bloody well ordered to without question, or leave.


The day the police obey orders without question is the day that I am leaving this country or arming myself.
There is far too much deliberately misinformed ranting going on about this - the cop in question highlighted that he was concerned that if he was filmed then members of his family in Lebanon may be at risk - it is routine for police officers with connections to cases to be unable to work on them and for security of family and friends to be a consideration, why should this case be any different?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

TuTTiFruTTi said:


> > You are coppers. Public servants. Do as you are bloody well ordered to without question, or leave.
> 
> 
> The day the police obey orders without question is the day that I am leaving this country or arming myself.
> There is far too much deliberately misinformed ranting going on about this - the cop in question highlighted that he was concerned that if he was filmed then members of his family in Lebanon may be at risk - it is routine for police officers with connections to cases to be unable to work on them and for security of family and friends to be a consideration, why should this case be any different?


Well it's a tenuous risk at best - assuming that he may be filmed and that technology be deployed to trace back to his rellies in Lebanon. Hmmm.

But if it is a real risk the question is, why was this man recruited into diplomatic guard unit, knowing that the Isreali Embassy is one of the embassies regularly covered by duties, _in the first place_. With such a connection to the case (in your terms - though od course ther is no case as such), he should have been excluded. And also he was rather stupid to not voice his concerns at that early point, rather than piping up a with sudden realisation on being assigned to guard the Israeli faculty.


----------



## Guy (May 13, 2002)

> Quote:
> You are coppers. Public servants. Do as you are bloody well ordered to without question, or leave.
> 
> The day the police obey orders without question is the day that I am leaving this country or arming myself.
> There is far too much deliberately misinformed ranting going on about this - the cop in question highlighted that he was concerned that if he was filmed then members of his family in Lebanon may be at risk - it is routine for police officers with connections to cases to be unable to work on them and for security of family and friends to be a consideration, why should this case be any different?Quote:


This cop applied to work for the department where he knew he would be placed in that position. He knew full well that part of his duties would involve the work he later asked to avoid. That is not right. If he has to keep a low profile for the sake of his family, then why did he choose to take a higher profile path? He should not have asked to be in that squad in the first place. 
The cop was totally wrong in putting his bosses in the position where they should have to consider his request and as this situation could easily arise again he should consider leaving the job or, at the very least the squad he is in.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2006)

Wak said:


> JS's comments are a crock, *most of the active women in Islam, are educated*


I thought women were'nt allowed to get an education according to the 'quoran' (sp)? (pre US/UK invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan IIRC).... :?:


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Genuine different approach here; why would anybody want to cover themselves up to that extent? I know some have said it's a religious thing, but no one has explained why it is necessary or what function it performs. What is wrong with men mixing with women and seeing women. Someone said temptation. What's that about? What's wrong with a Muslim woman wearing a smart business suit, chatting openly with male colleagues and sharing the joy of a good day at the office. I think asking a woman to hide herself to that extent is very demeaning. Why don't Muslim men cover themselves up to that extent? If you were to extract the religious aspect of the situation I would say that someone has a dangerous problem to overcome.

Joe


----------



## mac's TT (May 13, 2006)

This may be a little off track, how do you get a UK passport if you are not allowed to hide any part of your face for the photograph ? :?


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

mac's TT said:


> This may be a little off track, how do you get a UK passport if you are not allowed to hide any part of your face for the photograph ? :?


Assuming the passport was for a woman, and it was in one of those photo booths, then I suppose no man would be looking at you while the photo was being taken.

Joe


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

TTCool said:


> mac's TT said:
> 
> 
> > This may be a little off track, how do you get a UK passport if you are not allowed to hide any part of your face for the photograph ? :?
> ...


but then how do customs check the passport photo against the person under the veil?


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Is this all a case of Live, and let live?


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

Wak said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > mac's TT said:
> ...


Well I'm Iris Scanned now at Heathrow so would be ok if I chose to wear a veil. You are supposed to be a frequent business traveller to do it altho there wasn't exactly a queue when I went to get it done.


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Where there's a will there's a way.  Very philosophical tonight, don't you think?

Joe


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

How about we start with a level playing field and say everyone's equal. 

Now lets make a UK dress code that prohibits the hiding of your face for reasons of security - This is to include items such as hoodies, bike helmets (when not on a bike) veils etc etc.

Lets also make all uniforms - uniform, not customisable to a religious belief or trend and without an opt out clause for anyone. ie the uniform make everyone equal be it for schools or the police.

Lets go way-out on a limb and say anyone who does not want to integrate to a UK way of life should seek their fortunes else where. I like our (the UKs) history and customs and don't want to have it changed or compromised to please any other groups. Join us or leave us.

If i was to visit another country i would follow the rules of that country. Ie when I'm in the US i drive on other side of the road, I'd not drink if i was under 21, nor would i expect to take a four pack of bud and a playboy mag into Dubai - even though under my countries rules i can indulge myself in these activities as much as i like.

I get really fed up of all these compromises and changes - it simply leads to more and more. Enough is enough!


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

Fiona Bruce has been banned from wearing a cross because it might offend some people living here. What a load of PC bullshit. This is Great Britain and as far as I remember we don't live under Shia law. If you don't like it move to country that does, then you won't get offended will you :wink:

We have never felt the need to walk around covered from head to toe in a black robe with just a cutout for the eyes. We are a civilised society and most of us are able to resist temptation to immediately enter into sexual relations when meeting a member of the opposite sex. We also find it useful to watch someones facial expressions during a conversation - it helps with communication :wink:

So by all means wear a burkha if you want but don't get offended if someone asks you to take it off in order to have a conversation.

What on earth is the point of wearing a burkha today? (other than to show devotion to your chosen religion) Would you still wear it during a job interview for example? It's 2006 isn't it, not the dark ages!

http://www.freedom.org/news/200608/25/tenney.phtml?p=1

100% spot on.


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

PaulS said:


> http://www.freedom.org/news/200608/25/tenney.phtml?p=1
> 
> 100% spot on.


Already posted on this thread but worth reading a second time


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

Without wanting to lower the tone of this very serious thread, ahem, I do always have the suspicion when passing a lady wearing a veil that under the shield she is an absolute munter. I also wonder if her husband would be so keen for her to wear the veil if she didn't have a beard.

As an aside, when a marriage is being arranged, does the groom get to see what is under the veil, or is it lucky dip? Is there a tendency for a father to insist on the veil if he knows his poor daughter has no chance of marriage without it? If a young man is marrying "blind", does he get a larger dowry? Risk/reward ratio and all that...?

Excuse my ignorance.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

The thng for me about this whole debacle is that you an't have it both ways.

If Jack Straw is wrong for 'asking' (not demanding) women if they wouldn't mind removing their veils in meetings, then it's equally wrong for anyone to ask Fiona Bruce to remove her cross.

It's very difficult to make comments about a religion that very few of us understand. But if women choose to (or are forced to) wear full veils for religious reasons, then who are we to ask them to remove them? You wouldn't ask a Seikh to remove his turban or a Jew to remove his Skull cap.

I know it's different in this instance as the comment was about having a 'face to face' meeting when you can't see the other person's face. But as said before, if the women he meets are wearing this veil then it's reasonable to assume that they're not high-profile negotiators where the slightest facial tics could give away their strategy.

It's more likely that they were representatives of a particular group meeting him to discuss particular issues.

It's very easy to suggest that 'they' should fit in, but religious beliefs do tend to hold sway when normal rules don't apply.


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

Lets have a test

Scary man?
http://www.********.co.uk/gallery/kell/tractor.jpg

Not so scary man?









I dont know about you but I'm feeling the eyes..... in both pics! :roll: :twisted:

I'd marry him! :wink:


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Wak said:


> I'd marry him! :wink:


I wouldn't.

But I would spend a night happily abusing him.

Maybe tonight, in fact. Get ya dress off pet, you've pulled.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> How about we start with a level playing field and say everyone's equal.
> 
> Now lets make a UK dress code that prohibits the hiding of your face for reasons of security - This is to include items such as hoodies, bike helmets (when not on a bike) veils etc etc.
> 
> ...


Ah, back to the days of Attila the Hun - believe in what you like, speak what language you like, but either you're with us or you're dead. Simple and very effective.


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

Karcsi said:


> Ah, back to the days of Attila the Hun - believe in what you like, speak what language you like, but either you're with us or you're dead. Simple and very effective.


He must have got a few things right, 'cos we still talk about him. And he was even BT wasn't he? (before Thatcher).

Can we also bring back hanging if Attila's on his way back?


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Never bother with the formalities of hanging - he just cut people's heads off.


----------



## scott28tt (Jul 30, 2002)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6046992.stm

Keeping the debate going, I applaud the school wholeheartedly.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2006)

Isnt that school a Church of England school and therefore only allow Christian's into the school? Thats what it was like at my Catholic school - I didnt see any muslims there!

I doubt they'd let your (for example) Christian children go to a School of Islam? Why do we let them in?

Overall even though I did go to a Catholic school, I dont think ANY school (Islam or Catholic) should follow a religion - it has no place in this day an age and only promotes segregation (look at N.Ireland for example!)

Religion should be a private thing you do in your own time IMHO


----------



## JuJu (Jul 31, 2005)

The best one was the Muslim woman who said that integration to society was the issue and that Musilim children should have the option of attending a Muslim only school or a mixed one!

Pardon me, but should that not be a mixed school or none at all?

Religion is the reson may wars are started, most of which have connection to religion at all, oh yes "Thoust must not kill".......


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2006)

JuJu said:


> Religion is the reson may wars are started, most of which have connection to religion at all, oh yes "Thoust must not kill".......


 and i also thought that we learned from our mistakes, so it wouldnt happen again.....nothing will change so long as people are following barmy, outdated religions 100's and maybe thousands of years from now!


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

saint said:


> Religion.... yet again.... BORING!!!! We are supposed to be a modern society yet people are still classed by their religious beliefs. PC has forced us into this - we can't class people as black. whites, browns, yellows, or by their country of origins without a fuss so we've got to class them by religion.
> 
> Am going to setup up my own minority group and probably get on better in life.


Saint,

If you don't like 'religious threads', then don't fuckin' read 'em.


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

In the news today:

British Airways have banned a member of staff from visibiy displaying a cross because it contravenes their uniform policy- but exceptions can be made for turban wearers because it's not practical to cover them up :roll: Another load of PC bullshit! Why should we bend over backwards to accomodate every race and religion from around the world, whilst we ban our own indigenous population from displaying the christian cross. I take it as it's no longer British Airways, they should rename it Muslim Airways.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6051486.stm

And on the subject of veils - the teacher who refuses to take off her veil whilst teaching - turns out she _took it off_ for the job interview. :roll: I wonder why :wink:

I lay the blame with BA for trying to be so so PC, and with that daft teacher for taking her religious beliefs way to far and putting them before basic common sense. And for conning her employer. Take the thing off or go and teach in a muslim School.

What on earth is going on lately? You couldn't make it up :x


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2006)

PaulS said:


> What on earth is going on lately? You couldn't make it up :x


getting out of hand more and more! :? That BA think is ridiculous! Punish the majority in favour of the miority!

hopefully people will finally speak up as more MP's are sticking up for the Jack Straw comment


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

I'm not - in any way - a practising Christian. But, I live in an accepted (or it used to be anyways) Christian society. I don't feel uneasy when I see "churches" along the roadside. I don't break out in a sweat when I hear hymns on the TV or radio. Blood does not start to seek from every orifice when I see, touch, or come within 5 feet of the sign of the cross. I don't cross the road to avoid those strange vicars (et al) in dog collars. (Well, actually, I do, but that's not the point).

This is my country, my culture. It's a Christian consumerist (thanks America) culture. It's where I've chosen to live (from the age of 18ish - before that it wasn't really my choice), in the knowledge that those are its values and "norms". It's a deal, between me and the UK.

If someone else wants to come live here, so be it. The deal is open to all. But the deal is non-negotiable. You live here, these are the rules.

Like it, live here. Don't like it. WELL PISS OFF, AND LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

And whilst I'm on the subject.

So Muslim women wear veils to protect themselves. To ensure that Muslim men don't fall prey to the temptation that will be opened to them by seeing a woman's face. :?

So what does this tell us?

It suggests to me (logically, I think) that Muslim women live in fear of their menfolk, because their religon and faith teaches them that Muslim men can't control themselves. Mmmm. That's good then. I'd like to live in a country with such people. I'd like my wife / mother / sister / daughter to live in a country will a bunch of uncontrolled sex-started, Muslim rapists-in-waiting.

Well, no, actually I'd prefer not to be sharing my country with people - WHOSE OWN RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS SAY - can't control themselves, and will be out a-raping and a-pillaging at the sight of a womanly nose.

So, do I leave. Or do they?


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

I've just re-read my posting above.

Does this make me a "racist". Well, with all the negative connotations around that term, I hope not. I went on the Rock-Against-Racism marches in the late 70s, when racism WAS a real problem. But I think I'm reasonable in saying that today racism is more commited AGAINST white anglo-saxons, than perpetrated BY white anglo-saxons.

And neither am I a card-carrying BNP bigot.

But I AM British. Reasonably proud of being British (though not the football team, obviously). And I've chosen to live, work and stay in the country. And I see no reason to apologise for being white and British. And I see no reason why the values of the white, British society should be obliterated by a bunch of extremist zealots.

Of any colour or creed.

Should I stand as an independent? :wink:


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

AndyRoo_TT said:


> hopefully people will finally speak up as more MP's are sticking up for the Jack Straw comment


Some people say his comment is just a political stunt. May be it is, maybe it isn't, I don't care, but I agree with it, and it seems a lot of people do. Some common sense at last.



TTonyTT said:


> I'm not - in any way - a practising Christian. But, I live in an accepted (or it used to be anyways) Christian society. I don't feel uneasy when I see "churches" along the roadside. I don't break out in a sweat when I hear hymns on the TV or radio. Blood does not start to seek from every orifice when I see, touch, or come within 5 feet of the sign of the cross. I don't cross the road to avoid those strange vicars (et al) in dog collars. (Well, actually, I do, but that's not the point).
> 
> This is my country, my culture. It's a Christian consumerist (thanks America) culture. It's where I've chosen to live (from the age of 18ish - before that it wasn't really my choice), in the knowledge that those are its values and "norms". It's a deal, between me and the UK.
> 
> ...


Well put.



TTonyTT said:


> So, do I leave. Or do they?


They can leave, or PISS OFF as you put it. "They" being the religious fanatics (currently in a minority?) who are using the freedom of speech that we enjoy in our country, to try and convert it to an Islamic state. Those who integrate and abide by our customs are welcome. Those who don't are not. We're not changing the rules to suit you.

This BA ruling has really annoyed me. I might send an e-mail to them.


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

Its all getting abit:










Tom


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Isn't it ironic that low cast Indians are having to resort to converting to Christianity (albiet from Hinduism) to get any kind of respect, whereas it seems here the Christians will soon have to convert to Islam?


----------



## scott28tt (Jul 30, 2002)

TTonyTT said:


> I'm not - in any way - a practising Christian. But, I live in an accepted (or it used to be anyways) Christian society. I don't feel uneasy when I see "churches" along the roadside. I don't break out in a sweat when I hear hymns on the TV or radio. Blood does not start to seek from every orifice when I see, touch, or come within 5 feet of the sign of the cross. I don't cross the road to avoid those strange vicars (et al) in dog collars. (Well, actually, I do, but that's not the point).
> 
> This is my country, my culture. It's a Christian consumerist (thanks America) culture. It's where I've chosen to live (from the age of 18ish - before that it wasn't really my choice), in the knowledge that those are its values and "norms". It's a deal, between me and the UK.
> 
> ...


Spot on. Well said.


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

scott28tt said:


> TTonyTT said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not - in any way - a practising Christian. But, I live in an accepted (or it used to be anyways) Christian society. I don't feel uneasy when I see "churches" along the roadside. I don't break out in a sweat when I hear hymns on the TV or radio. Blood does not start to seek from every orifice when I see, touch, or come within 5 feet of the sign of the cross. I don't cross the road to avoid those strange vicars (et al) in dog collars. (Well, actually, I do, but that's not the point).
> ...


Very much so. If "we" go anywhere else, "we" have to obide by the rules, and so should "they" if "they" come here!

Please nobody take offence to the use of we and they.

Tom


----------



## thejepster (Mar 29, 2005)

PaulS said:


> This BA ruling has really annoyed me. I might send an e-mail to them.


Sorry mate, just can't help thinking about the below when I read your post... :lol:











Hans Blix said:


> Kim Jong Il: Hans Brix? Oh no! Oh, herro. Great to see you again, Hans!
> Hans Blix: Mr. Il, I was supposed to be allowed to inspect your palace today, but your guards won't let me enter certain areas.
> Kim Jong Il: Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Hans?
> Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind. I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else.
> ...












I do agree it is all going Pete Tong and things are definitely getting out of hand....


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Is this a good point to interject that recent fatherhood has caused me to soften my view and now find a very good use for muslins? And that is for wiping up baby puke?

I now go evreywhere around the house with one on my shoulder. But I probably would take it off for a job interview with a Lefty right-on LEA, that is before asserting my beliefs.

Makes sense you know. :wink:


----------

