Boris.
Posted by: Mike1951 on 06 August 2018
Personally, I think that anyone who wants to walk around looking like a bottle of Guiness is perfectly entitled to do so.
What next? Complaining about Halloween costumes?
Presumably he now faces ejection as the Conservatives root out Islamophobia within the party...
If I had to walk round looking like a beer, I think it would be a Brewdog Punk IPA.
If the Conservative party ousted all the racists, sexists and plain old boors there would be hardly anyone left. People look on Johnson as a kindly buffoon when in fact he is a dangerous regressive, just like Rees Mogg. Labour battles with antisemitism while the Tories don’t battle with any ism, merely themselves. Politicians are becoming more of a laughing stock than they have been for a long time. It’s very sad.
Back in the day, we had proper toffs, like Harold MacMillan! 
Mike1951 posted:Personally, I think that anyone who wants to walk around looking like a bottle of Guiness is perfectly entitled to do so.
Presumably he now faces ejection as the Conservatives root out Islamophobia within the party...
There's another bloke that looks like a worn out loo brush, some say thats all he's good for, but he seems to be having trouble removing some of the Hamas & Hezbollah stains he deposited in the past
Mike1951 posted:Personally, I think that anyone who wants to walk around looking like a bottle of Guiness is perfectly entitled to do so.
What next? Complaining about Halloween costumes?
Presumably he now faces ejection as the Conservatives root out Islamophobia within the party...
Indeed, anyone is entitled to wear whatever they want.
But similarly, anyone is free to laugh at what they wear; to say it makes the wearer look ridiculous; or to wonder out loud whether or not such garb is symbolic of an awful and oppressive religion whose barbaric dark age customs and attitudes (particularly towards women) have any place in a modern society.
Charges of 'islamophobia - which doesn't really exist (in the same way that an irrational fear of any other political or religious ideology doesn't really exist and is merely a tool of belligerantly self-pitying followers of religion and their useful idiots and fellow travellers) - are cmpletely irrelevant.
Johnson should (but won't) be ejected from the Tory party - and, if I had my way, the country - for being a vacuous, self-serving fraud and a cynical liar, not for being an 'islamophobe'; there is no such thing.
As the late great Christopher Hitchens never said (but Andrew Cummins did): islamophobia is "a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.”
He's positioning himself as the bullish dog whistler who isn't afraid. Despite all logic and evidence to the contrary, it has worked for nearly 2 years across the pond. With any luck, that mess will be halfway round the U bend of history before BJ gains enough popular traction. But complacency won't get it done. Dismissing it is dangerous. Couldn't happen here? Look over there!
I am one of the majority in this country who agrees with Boris and thinks he has nothing to apologise for. Some People on there are a lot more offensive than he is to be quite honest.
Mike-B posted:Mike1951 posted:Personally, I think that anyone who wants to walk around looking like a bottle of Guiness is perfectly entitled to do so.
Presumably he now faces ejection as the Conservatives root out Islamophobia within the party...
There's another bloke that looks like a worn out loo brush, some say thats all he's good for, but he seems to be having trouble removing some of the Hamas & Hezbollah stains he deposited in the past
There is a major difference between Corbyn and Boris.
Corbyn’s actions with regards to Hamas & Hezbollah are based on his beliefs, he is trying help the palastinians. They are not intended to win him votes, on the contrary, they probably lose him votes.
On the other hand Boris’s unsublte Machiavellian endevours are aimed at furthering his own prospects and nothing else.
hungryhalibut posted:If the Conservative party ousted all the racists, sexists and plain old boors there would be hardly anyone left. People look on Johnson as a kindly buffoon when in fact he is a dangerous regressive, just like Rees Mogg. Labour battles with antisemitism while the Tories don’t battle with any ism, merely themselves. Politicians are becoming more of a laughing stock than they have been for a long time. It’s very sad.
A few months ago I heard this and it really brought home some of the divides in our society:
Eddie Mare read the full article from Johnson's column in the Times on R4 on his Monday show.
The main purpose of the article was to show his opposition to the banning of Islamic head-dress which has been brought in by quite a few countries across Europe, such as Denmark and Belgium. In short, he was for religious freedom.
But he also made the point that he thought them oppressive and somewhat ridiculous which he characterised in his usual colourful terms - it was after all a newspaper column intended to increase circulation.
I don't like BJ but I think in this instance he is being maligned by the increasingly intolerant left, most of whom will not be aware or even care about the context in which his comments were made.
Ray
It is very easy to normalise such unpleasant comments as casual banter or colourful language and underestimate the damage that it does to the quality of social discourse. I think that rather than dismiss the likes of Rees Mogg and BJ as embarrassing eccentrics we should view them as calculating political opportunists, skilled at that art of manipulating populist opinion. In particular, we shouldn’t be seduced by Johnson’s “clown in a minefield” act into believing he is just an arrogant buffoon who as a child was never taught decent manners; although these are demonstrably aspects of his character that are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
Tog
100% BigFred, problem as I see it is his use of those colourful terms, did he really have to use the bank robber & letterbox words to make his point, wise thing to do or not, gaff or deliberate? The real question is his suitability for a future PM? Steady hand or another version of the orange one who has no name ???
Trumpf or Volderfarage?
Tog
Boris cares only about Boris, not about what’s best for his country or even his party. While the point of his article may have been about freedom to where whatever one likes, his childlike mockery of it more than offsets that.
Facilities for wheelchair users are very often appalling. Say he’d written an article about the need to improve access and understanding and then finished with a comment about how funny they look in their chairs. How would that be different? He should think before opening his mouth. Why doesn’t he? Because his game is dog whistle politics, pandering to the views of those he very likely despises. Those too dim or blinkered to see through him and who may sweep him to power unless he is stopped.
hungryhalibut posted:. Say he’d written an article about the need to improve access and understanding and then finished with a comment about how funny they look in their chairs. How would that be different?
It would be completely different.
Being a wheelchair user - or being black, female, disabled etc - is not a matter of choice. Wearing a burqa/niqab/binbag is (although there is a lurking suspicion that some women are forced into this ridiculous garb by their husbands/brothers/fathers) a choice or cultural trope.
I despise Johnson, and he was probably being calculatedly rude, but I fail to see what he's supposed to apologising for, unless it's for being a complete and utter cnut.
I am aware the article was actually stating his opposition to the policies of some nations banning the wearing of a niqab etc in public but choosing in the same article to ridicule the way some people dress is very poor in my view (and I'm sure entirely deliberate). This is more than just a way of dressing as it has clear cultural and religious connections. Would he laugh at an orthodox jew who chooses to wear ringlets and a black hat? Interestingly neither mode of dress is mandatory in these two examples but they form part of a cultural identity that is clearly identifiable and specific. it is not the same as laughing at people who choose to wear ripped jeans for example.
Boris knows this subtly racist and anti-Islamic comment is just enough to attract his supporters without actually being construed as racist. Still offensive in my book, not least for the fact it is so calculating.
Bruce
In the western world equality between men and women has advanced significantly over the past one hundred years, and it does seem a shame that some cultures want the freedom to continue existing to the standard norms of an oppressive biblical age. But we live at a time when some people request freedom of Religious expression [that often oppresses human rights], and the ongoing rights of freedom from religious oppression.
Personally i believe the best changes come from within, and here in the UK it's good we have the freedom to wear whatever silly costumes, uniforms, or outfits we like. The overwhelming majority of Islamic women in the UK do not wear a hijab or burka, and the small minority that do are quite capable of making their own minds how they want to go about their self expression.
Meanwhile the blond buffoon of Uxbridge has spoken:
His comments will give the green light to idiots who relish any opportunity to harass or attack islamic women in the street, and which is the main reason why Boris should never have said it. It's highly probably he knew his comments would result in more post-Brexit hate crime violence against muslims [especially women] but it's obvious that Boris, being an over-privileged alpha-male white racist and with an over bloated sense of entitlement, doesn't care a jot. Let's hope he gets thrown out of the Tory Party, and out of UK politics altogether.
Debs
I’m no fan of Boris and I would prefer him to admit he’s been a bit of a twonk over the last couple of years and return to being a minor MP up for regular ridicule on HIGNFY, but to pick on him for this seems daft.
Perhaps the relatives of Dave Allen, anyone involved in the making of Father Ted and the entire crew behind Life of Brian should be forced to apologise, resign from their careers and go live on an Island somewhere for slightly mocking the accoutrements associated with Organised Religion, especially those which are designed to partition and potentially oppress half of humanity and look a bit silly.
Further, I am quite sure this would not have become a thing if a) Boris was referring to, say, Methodists and b) it was anyone but Boris.
Signed
Loretta
JamieWednesday posted:I’m no fan of Boris and I would prefer him to admit he’s been a bit of a twonk over the last couple of years and return to being a minor MP up for regular ridicule on HIGNFY, but to pick on him for this seems daft.
Perhaps the relatives of Dave Allen, anyone involved in the making of Father Ted and the entire crew behind Life of Brian should be forced to apologise, resign from their careers and go live on an Island somewhere for slightly mocking the accoutrements associated with Organised Religion, especially those which are designed to partition and potentially oppress half of humanity and look a bit silly.
Further, I am quite sure this would not have become a thing if a) Boris was referring to, say, Methodists and b) it was anyone but Boris.
Signed
Loretta
Comedians and entertainers are not Ministers of the HOC who are elected into serious power and influence.
It's a shame there are so many idiots around who are too dumb to tell the difference.
The Buffoon of Uxbridge has a duty to serve the people [not rule the people with a sense of over entitlement] which includes being reasonable and careful what he says, especially when it actively promotes violence against women.
How rude.
To resort to name calling when someone’s opinion differs from your own, even if slightly, reminds me how unpleasant and self righteous you can be.
Signed
PFJ
Comedians work in a specific role; you go to a comedic performance accepting the boundaries of acceptability are much wider. It is implicit in the act that it may be rude or offensive etc, and you accept that by viewing it in that context.
Boris is an MP. His comments were written in a serious article in a serious newspaper (well, The Telegraph). There are acceptable standards of behaviour and comment in that format.
If he wants to do stand up he should not conflate the roles.
Bruce
That’s much better.
But by the same argument, should comedians then stay out of politics?
I would argue that many have more influence than my MP when it comes to determining where some of my fellow constituents place their X. In fact, only a few weeks back when trying to make my point (!) it became apparent that only one other person in my office could name their MP, let alone what they stood for, but had been influenced by the broadcast opinions of (among others) Russell bloody Brand...
And if politicians didn’t say things that some feel are ill thought, be they Bug Boris or King Corbyn, then an awful lot of people would find work harder to come by...
I think it is a subtle and interesting argument, I know it was debated when the hate speech laws came in and various comedians campaigned against these restrictions (such as Rowan Atkinson) as a risk to their right to be freely insulting to all and everyone (not quite how it was put but you get my point!).
I think it comes down to intent. If the purpose of a statement is to directly insult, or to incite hatred etc then that statement is quite correctly seen as inappropriate. I also think (as per Boris) that the way it is presented matters. Statements that are clearly in an entertainment context have different 'rules' to those made in apparently serious debate.
Bruce
Thinking about Have I Got news for You is an good example (is that still running?). That is an entertainment show that has a political element. it seems Ok for me for people to poke fun in various ways in that format compared to appearing on Question Time.
Do you agree?
Bruce
naim_nymph posted:being reasonable and careful what he says, especially when it actively promotes violence against women.
Followers of 'The Religion of Peace'® and other organised dogmas are much more likely to promote (and enact) violence against women than self-aggrandising Tories like Johnson.