Back on topic
Twitter Link
Back on topic
Twitter Link
Quote entirely out of context there re: Sadiq, Rand, he did not describe wearing of the burqa/niqab as insidious. What he did say is; "What’s insidious is if people are starting to think it is appropriate to treat women differently or that it has been forced on them." In which he is absolutely correct.
And if other MPs have used inappropriate/childish language it certainly does not excuse Boris doing so, either.
The Conservative Party Code of Conduct.
Anyway. The most frustrating thing about all this is that Boris will be loving it, and we've played completely into his strategy. No doubt he'll be on the phone to Bannon now asking "That worked a treat, Steve, what's next?"They should:
follow the Seven Principles of Public Life established by Lord Nolan and the Committee on Standards in Public Life:
Selflessness – Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
Integrity – Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
Objectivity – Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.
Accountability – Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
Openness – Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.
Honesty – Holders of public office should be truthful.
Leadership – Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour.
They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs;
> lead by example to encourage and foster respect and tolerance;
> treat others in a professional and straightforward manner;
> act with honesty and probity and in a manner which upholds the reputation and values of the Conservative Party. Such duty is fundamental. Conduct which the public may reasonably perceive as undermining a representative’s honesty and probity is likely to diminish trust and confidence placed in them, and the Party, by the public;
> not use their position to bully, abuse, victimise, harass or unlawfully discriminate against others (see further the interpretation annex);
> take reasonable steps to ensure that people who wish to raise concerns about bullying, discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation by others feel able to do so, and know how to follow the complaints procedure set out in this Code;
> co-operate fully with any process set down by the Party Board should a grievance process be instigated. This Code will be made publicly available on the Conservative Party website.
....
Discrimination includes victimising or harassing any other person because of race (including colour, ethnic or national origin, nationality, citizenship), sex, gender re-assignment, sexual orientation, marital or civil partnership status, disability, age, religion or belief [which should be interpreted as fully adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism], pregnancy and maternity status.
Harassment is any unwanted physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct that has the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive situation or environment for them. A single incident can amount to harassment. Harassment may involve conduct of a sexual nature (sexual harassment), or it may be related to age, disability, gender reassignment, marital or civil partner status, pregnancy or maternity, race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation. Harassment is unacceptable even if it does not fall within any of these categories. Victimisation provisions protect certain individuals who do (or might do) acts such as bringing discrimination claims, complaining about harassment, or getting involved in some way with another complaint (such as giving evidence).
Victimisation may therefore occur where a person subjects another person to a detriment because either that person has acted in such a way and/or is believed to have acted in such a way, or may act in such a way.
Bullying is offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour involving the misuse of power that can make a person feel vulnerable, upset, humiliated, undermined or threatened. Power does not always mean being in a position of authority, but can include both personal strength, influence and the power to coerce through fear or intimidation. Bullying can take the form of physical, verbal and non-verbal conduct.
Boris will be PM within 6 months
I don't see anything highlighted that is relevant.
Leading imam says Boris has "nothing to apologise for", simply "for speaking the truth": https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...b0530743c71456
This is the real thing that should be generating outrage, not Boris's speaking the truth.
Twitter Link
As has been mentioned multiple times in this thread, the issue is not with the point Boris is making nor the truth of it, it is the manner in which he made the point.
As such, he is now being investigated by the Conservative Party for breaches of the code of conduct.
Pathetic pandering decision. Doesn't mean he did anything wrong. Typical politics though, we must have difficult conversations then shoot anyone who puts their heads above the parapet.
How is what Boris wrote any different to what the long suffering woman I just quoted is writing in her thread? Click the Twitter post for a thread of comments by her. How is what Boris wrote any different from what Ken Clarke said?
Nobody is trying to shut the conversation down. Do stop ranting on about because we've said this many, many times.
Ken Clarke also used inappropriate language.
That poor long suffering woman isn't an MP - so I don't care what she thinks because we're talking about conduct of MPs.
Boris' is all the more worse because he has a history of this shit and met Bannon only a few days ago. I'm interested why you're so passionate about this. One is man you have no respect for, and another is one you described as a racist piece of shit. Given that we all support the discussion happening, why defend their use of language? Why are your standards and expectations for the leaders of our country so low?
Last edited by gogobongopop; 08-09-2018 at 02:07 PM.
I have respect for Ken Clarke, I don't think he did anything wrong. You may be prepared to say Ken Clarke did something wrong to get at Boris but I'm not. I think that woman I quoted is a victim of this sexist abuse and not saying anything wrong either. Boris, Ken Clarke, Safiya all spoke the truth and that's not a low standard. More politicians should speak the truth. It isn't wrong to call out abuse when you see it. See something, say something should be the slogan for anything related to abuse which is what covering women up basically is ... not say something, be compared to neo-nazis.
I'm passionate about this because I believe in equality and this is a visible and rather evil sign of inequality and oppression. I wrote what I had to say on this topic years ago long before Boris or Bannon came up on the subject. http://theworldforgotten.com/showthr...ighlight=burqa
I also think Bannon is utterly irrelevant. He [I assume] wants it banned so is seeking something different to Boris. EDIT: As you know I don't always agree with Hazir but nothing's changed in last couple of years to stop me fully agreeing with him here.
Well said. Agreed 100%.
This lady doesn't think it's the "truth".
Twitter Link
Just a different side to the story.
How would Boris' remarks persuade this lady, and others like her, to give it up? This is the point you keep missing/intentionally ignoring. He attacked this lady, instead of trying to persuade her through decency, respect and understanding that there is a different way.
You demonstrate no empathy for any other sides of the argument and see no consequences for using language like Boris did. If you can't see that then I assume you must really struggle in life/business negotiating, influencing and persuading people around you. Do you?
That lady has Stockholm Syndrome. We live in a gender equal society in this country. Does her husband have his face hidden all the time?
Boris attacked the garment the preposterous position you are taking is we can't ever criticise that which we oppose because that's insulting those who are doing what we oppose and won't win then over. That's a logical fallacy.
In fact I see zero effort or plan by yourself or anyone else opposing honesty to win people over by any other means.
No I don't struggle. I negotiate by being honest about where I stand and seeing if I can reach an agreement. I don't negotiate by avoiding being honest about what I believe. I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that.
You didn't answer my question. I'll ask again: how would Boris' remarks help persuade that lady, who chooses to wear what she does, to stop wearing it?
I didn't say we couldn't criticise what we oppose. You're literally making stuff up. It's perfectly possible to criticise something without insulting people; MPs should try it sometime.
How about this? Anyone who forces anybody to wear something they don't want to should be punished; but if somebody chooses to wear it in public then that's fine with us. Employers should have the freedom to decide based on the role. Body language is one of the most important tools of communication and being able to see somebody's face is beneficial in establishing and maintaining effective communication. It's not essential, but it is helpful. As a nation, we won't tolerate oppression of any kind, and whilst we recognise that some people choose to wear a Burka for their own personal reasons, others do not and suffer in silence. We encourage communities and neighbours to raise alarm where there are signs of oppression and abuse the law will intervene where necessary.
See - it's not that hard is it? No insults, no name calling. I'm just a lowly pleb who whipped this up in a minute (and it shows), but I think this is more along the lines of what I'd expect from leaders of our state. It's called decency.
Last edited by gogobongopop; 08-09-2018 at 06:43 PM.
Boris's remarks would help by denormalising it and making it clear to that lady that it is not right and making it clear to her oppressors that it's not acceptable to insist that she wears it. We need to be saying it frequently, making it basically taboo. That's how there's been such a successful decline in drink driving rates, not simply fear of a breathalyser but making it socially unacceptable causing peer pressure not to drink and drive. Don't let a friend drink and drive as a concept has worked. Don't let a friend suffer in a burka should be a similar message.
Your remarks are good too in the same way, if you can quote people saying it I'd appreciate it. I'd just change one thing, it's not "fine with us" if people want to wear it, we won't outlaw it but that doesn't make it fine. There's a lot that's not fine but isn't quite illegal.
Standing by in silence is not decent. Boris by standing up for her is more decent than those standing by. As John Stuart Mill said "Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing." J. S. Mill is one of the Liberal thinkers I have the most respect for and Boris isn't looking on and doing nothing and for that he should be commended. Our ire should be levied at those who both want and participate in a culture of silence.
Just out of interest, do you think 'gammon' is an acceptable term to describe angry, bitter, red faced, white old men?