ITV This Morning "Ban the burka?" poll

[djdest]

fesuvious said:

It is difficult to throw the term bigot, racist or simply 'intolerant' monikers around when the critics of Islam (or just plain haters) will quite happily host dinner with people of any skin colour, sexuality or any other faith.

Like I said, at some point we're going to need to accept 'islamaphobia' for what it actually is.

NOT racist for starters and not 'intolerant' in the modern (wide) meaning, and not bigoted either.

Just a singular concern amongst many about a religion into culture that isn't widely welcomed in Western society.

'Ban the Burka' is NOT a face covering issue, it is an Islam issue.

Heads in sand to say otherwise.

I think that sums it up very well. People are far too quick these days to throw around the racist card, when they are clearly not.
The race is irrelevant, its the beliefs and actions that cause others to get blown up or whatever that is what people have a problem with

[gruffalo]

chrispmartha said:

Flip side, forcing people to conform will not aid integration either.

I completely agree.

If you were in a queue for example with two people next to you, one in a burka and one dressed in a more western style which are you more likely to strike up a conversation with, the person who appears on the surface to be most like you or the person who is in the burka.

Human nature drives us towards those we can identify with.

[Foliage]

Smollet said:

simoid said:

Cant imagine daytime tv watchers have much experience with other cultures sitting on their sofas all day so the intolerant results aren't surprising.

That's a pretty sweeping generalisation. Plenty of retired people watch daytime TV and I'd hazard a guess in the 50 odd years they've worked they've experienced quite a bit of other cultures.

Your both right and wrong, the way the media works isn't that complex but is lost on most people. If they didn't enjoy watching it why are they watching it? why is the program being made if people disagree so much with it?

The current mass media 'thing' is to stage manage us, to tell us everything and nothing, to force us to only socialise with those that are of a similar mind set to us. To keep us bamboozled.

What has been said on mums net about this? what has been said on other social media about this? What do the women who wear the burka have to say? what do the senior Iman's have to say?

'This Mornings' only aim is to be self sustaining, to bring in viewer's and make the channel money via advertising, you are no longer the customer, you are the product where social media and the news media are concerned.

[simoid]

C.A.R. said:

simoid said:

C.A.R. said:

I know I'll get shot down for pointing this out but one of the 7/7 bombers did evade CCTV by wearing a Burka. It was only when footage was reviewed that he was picked up.

Just to give the whole 'mistrust' thing a bit of traction. It is justified.

I bet he used an Oyster Card as well. I'd take a wild stab and say a similar proportion of Oyster Card and Burka users are terrorists.

Well that's totally up to you if you want to do a statistical analysis of those who are and are not terrorists. I merely pointed out an example of why there might be a preception amongst the general public not to trust a religious garment which effectively conceals your identity - successfully in the example cited.

I thought you were saying distrusting someone because they are wearing a burka is justified. Have you mistyped or have I misunderstood?

[djdest]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Exactly. If a group of English, French, Chinese or where ever they came from started to do similar things, there would be hatred towards those too, nothing to do with race.

[Cotty]

I don't think anyone should be walking around with their face covered, imagine if our own police force started wearing masks or helmets (and refused to remove them) there would be uproar.

[Northern Munkee]

Being able to see the face is part of communication, window on the soul, verifying identity and truthfulness (slightly problematic I know), but it is part of western culture (indeed all culture) face coverings from the KKK to old Holborn V masks protests have a sinister undercurrent, it also reminds me of the origin of the handshake, which was of course a way of 2 strangers to be confident that you were not concealing a weapon in your strong hand as you approach each other.

Coincidentally Nicky Campbell had a caller on Monday (iro Casey report)relate story of her elderly father confused when he wanted to shake the hand of the doctor who treated and cured a serious condition he was suffering with. The doctor refused, for cultural reasons, much to the old boy's consternation. When in Rome and all that.

That's the essence of integration. Compromise. You don't remain exactly who you are, when you leave your old country, when you become part of a new community, you change slightly and to be fair the existing community changes slightly with you over time. And that's what's happened in this country over time, when the change has been at a rate the existing community can accommodate and is comfortable with. This is a symptom of that not happening.

[Terminator X]

djdest said:

I didn't say there was a problem did I?
I simply posted that there was a pole and how the current vote was going.
If you're trying to imply something, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

Calm down not directed at you.

TX.

[StottyEvo]

Discourage and persuade, do not ban.

[C.A.R.]

simoid said:

C.A.R. said:

simoid said:

C.A.R. said:

I know I'll get shot down for pointing this out but one of the 7/7 bombers did evade CCTV by wearing a Burka. It was only when footage was reviewed that he was picked up.

Just to give the whole 'mistrust' thing a bit of traction. It is justified.

I bet he used an Oyster Card as well. I'd take a wild stab and say a similar proportion of Oyster Card and Burka users are terrorists.

Well that's totally up to you if you want to do a statistical analysis of those who are and are not terrorists. I merely pointed out an example of why there might be a preception amongst the general public not to trust a religious garment which effectively conceals your identity - successfully in the example cited.

I thought you were saying distrusting someone because they are wearing a burka is justified. Have you mistyped or have I misunderstood?

[s1962a]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38219841

For those that oppose the burka, are headscarves acceptable in your book?

[anonymous-user]

C.A.R. said:

Well that's totally up to you if you want to do a statistical analysis of those who are and are not terrorists. I merely pointed out an example of why there might be a preception amongst the general public not to trust a religious garment which effectively conceals your identity - successfully in the example cited.

But the bombers were all killed - how did they evade anything?

[Cotty]

s1962a said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38219841

For those that oppose the burka, are headscarves acceptable in your book?

They are fine

[rxe]

I'm not fussy, I have a problem with all religions. If you start from the premise that it is all about control (there is no bloke sitting on a cloud), then it is pretty easy to approach this from a rational point of view.

I have something of a problem with Islam today, but I would have an identical problem with Christianity if it was as virulent as it was, say in the 1600s. Back then you were executed for believing in the wrong version of god, despite both of the main options being functionally equivalent. Thankfully today., Christianity is, for most people, a set of decent moral codes that you sort of adhere to, rather than a belief system that makes you wear strange things and want to kill people who disagree with you. I've no problem with people going to church if they want to, as long as they don't make me do the same thing.

Islam is still in the full "power and control" phase. Its adherents are marked out by clothing and habit. This is isolating - if adherents are in a minorty, then they are isolated. If they are in the majority, then non-adherents are isolated. If 50% of the adherents are unable to engage with wider society because they either wear a mask or aren't allowed out on their own, is it a surprise that isolation happens.

I struggle with banning things. But, I do think at key contact points with society they need to be made unacceptable. All religious clothing should be banned from schools, no exception. I don't think faith schools are a good idea either. If religions want to pay for schools, then pay for them via central government, don't use them as a vehicle for evangelism.

[Oakey]

Smollet said:

That's a pretty sweeping generalisation. Plenty of retired people watch daytime TV and I'd hazard a guess in the 50 odd years they've worked they've experienced quite a bit of other cultures.

Don'the forget all those bored housewives of powerfully built PH company directors who need something to do in between getting railed by the gardener and ladies that lunch

[Liokault]

Bring back foot binding for all Chinese women! Is their right to choose!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

All the Muslims I know are moderate and westernised. Born in the UK. When this subject comes up, they all want it banned too. Their general feeling is that it does them no favours.

[Goaty Bill 2]

Northern Munkee said:

Being able to see the face is part of communication, window on the soul, verifying identity and truthfulness (slightly problematic I know), but it is part of western culture (indeed all culture) face coverings from the KKK to old Holborn V masks protests have a sinister undercurrent, it also reminds me of the origin of the handshake, which was of course a way of 2 strangers to be confident that you were not concealing a weapon in your strong hand as you approach each other.

There is a substantial body of work on this subject, including discussions as to why we so easily 'find' faces in abstract patterns and clouds.
It goes to our earliest roots as humans, and probably earlier.

As for "identity and truthfulness" you are absolutely correct, but the 'problem' is that we each have varying skills in that regard, often based upon our own ability to be open and truthful, and therefore our willingness to trust others to be the same.

I have a number of Muslim friends/acquaintances/colleagues and I have never been overly shy, once a reasonable bond of mutual trust has been established, about asking their positions on these kinds things.

Responses have varied from "fkem, they should dress like everyone else", "if they don't like then leave", through "it would be upsetting for many to have to stop [wearing the burka]" to "I have friends who's wives that will continue to do so regardless".

Wasn't it hoodies a few years back that came under fire?

I have to admit, I have never struck up a conversation with anyone wearing a burka (or a hoodie for that matter). As said elsewhere, it's not exactly inviting me to do so, and the lack of a face to read makes it impossible to judge whether the 'intrusion' is welcome.
It also places one in an entirely unequal position in that conversation; they can read your face, you can not read theirs.

[Dog Star]

fesuvious said:

It is difficult to throw the term bigot, racist or simply 'intolerant' monikers around when the critics of Islam (or just plain haters) will quite happily host dinner with people of any skin colour, sexuality or any other faith.

Like I said, at some point we're going to need to accept 'islamaphobia' for what it actually is.

NOT racist for starters and not 'intolerant' in the modern (wide) meaning, and not bigoted either.

Just a singular concern amongst many about a religion into culture that isn't widely welcomed in Western society.

'Ban the Burka' is NOT a face covering issue, it is an Islam issue.

Heads in sand to say otherwise.

I agree absolutely.

I come from Rochdale - a place that is well known for having a lot of Muslims (and for some of their activities). When I was a youngster in the 70s and 80s I *never* ever saw a burqa. The girls wore obviously cultural looking clothing (which often was very attractive). The first time I saw total face veils or just those eye slit jobbies was in Bradford in the mid 90s and I was quite surprised to see it. However it wasn't common.

Fast forward and they're everywhere in these black, sack-like garments. I believe that the proliferation of them is down to the fact that they now feel empowered and it's a symbol of a more aggressive role for Islam - someone made the observation that this seems to have coincided with 9/11 and I find that interesting.

Personally I'd have them banned. We are an open society and being dressed like a ninja isn't conducive to trust.

As an aside - what kind of religion does this kind of stuff? It's proper stone-age stuff.

[Oakey]

I actually witnessed something relevant to this in the supermarket this weekend. A woman in front of me was pushing her trolley down the main aisle and about to round the corner up one of the freezer aisles, and a woman in a burka was coming out of said aisle and they crossed paths. They didn't collide but it was close. The woman in front was all cheery and apologetic, the woman in the burka? No idea, could only see her eyes. Maybe she was all smiles too, maybe she was absolutely raging, who knows!