UKH

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-burqa-muslim-...

He could have guessed this was going to happen. 

Not just guessed; planned. Maybe not to incite attacks themselves but certainly to incite dilsike

Exactly. There is a world of difference between the imperative to criticise and the responsibility of the critic to modulate his language so as not to encourage and legitimise, in the eyes of scumbags, outward expressions of hatred toward the subjects. But Johnson knew this full well, likely egged on by Bannon's advice. It works in the 30s, but they didn't have the benefit of hindsight. No excuses now.

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/the_pub/letter_boxes-691009

"At least four women have been called “letterboxes” in public since ..."

Four?

"In the previous week, no incidents targeting women who wear face veils were reported to Tell Mama – although there were several involving those wearing headscarves."

Several?  So if we've gone from "several" in a week to "four" in a week, is that really an "increase"?

It's also worth bearing in mind that people might be more likely to report such things in the aftermath of letterbox-gate, than in a "normal" week, so increased reporting is not necessarily increased occurrence.

Also, TellMAMA are a pressure group who have an interest in gathering statistics that show such rises.

“Over the weekend, I went on a trip with a group of women and a male passenger allowed us to board the train first,” she wrote in The Independent. “One of the women was wearing a niqab and she was the last one to get on the train. The man laughed and said: ‘Hold on, you forgot the letterbox.’ "

Well, if that's the worst of it . . .

I share your antipathy to religious-based edicts having any currency in our secular society but there are better and more effective ways of confronting it. 

Probably the most shameful comment I've ever seen on UKC.

Great empathy from our top poster this week! 

Classy. 

I beg to differ: I once saw somebody admit to voting Tory.

And you've got an interest in pretending that the sort of "religious criticism" that you like to engage in on here isn't helping to legitimize far-right thugs. So we'll call that one a draw.

Do you think they'd feel undermind as an organisation if there was a fall? 

That's easy to say if it doesn't happen to you. Imagine for a moment being the subject of a joke for a carriage full of strangers to hear, with 'the joke' being related to something written in a national paper.  :-/

To me there seems to be a degree of 'othering' coming across in the above sentiments, and potentially scepticism stemming from that. If your child or relative was the subject of a joke from a stranger (stemming from something written in a national paper) for a train carriage full of strangers to hear, I wonder if you'd take it more seriously. 

I'm glad it's not just me who was taken aback. 

If you don't also think Stonewall being a pressure group undermines what they come out with, like you seem to for TellMAMA, you possibly might want to double check your subjectivity?

Well I'm not particularly approving of the man's joke, but if it's the worst incident that tellMAMA were able to come up with then the damage from letterbox-gate is not that great. 

I'm sure that if people went around dressed, e.g., like this https://www.fancydress.com/costumes/Chicken-Costume/0~43238 then they'd attract jokes from strangers.

Or, if someone went around in a balaclava they'd raise eyebrows.

(As you can tell, I am indeed somewhat lacking in empathy for niqab wearing.)

I think it would be sensible to ask the question about all reports from pressure groups.

And TellMAMA has "form" in this matter, consisting of searching twitter for certain words, and then adding up every occurrence as a "hate crime", then putting out a press release claiming a massive incidence of "hate crime" (which was then taken at face value by some in the media).

What a hoo-ha. An over educated idiot makes an inappropriate joke and we have to dissect it for weeks, further bolstering his influence.

I suppose it means there's nothing more pressing to talk about, we can be thankful for that at least.

For info, some context about TellMAMA:

"A controversial project claiming to measure anti-Muslim attacks will not have its government grant renewed after police and civil servants raised concerns about its methods.

"The project, called Tell Mama, claimed that there had been a “sustained wave of attacks and intimidation” against British Muslims after the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby, with 193 “Islamophobic incidents” reported to it, rising to 212 by last weekend.

"The group’s founder, Fiyaz Mughal, said he saw “no end to this cycle of violence”, describing it as “unprecedented”. The claims were unquestioningly repeated in the media.

"Tell Mama and Mr Mughal did not mention, however, that 57 per cent of the 212 reports referred to activity that took place only online, mainly offensive postings on Twitter and Facebook, or that a further 16 per cent of the 212 reports had not been verified. Not all the online abuse even originated in Britain."

"Contrary to the group’s claim of a “cycle of violence” and a “sustained wave of attacks”, only 17 of the 212 incidents, 8 per cent, involved the physical targeting of people and there were no attacks on anyone serious enough to require medical treatment."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/andrew-gilligan/10108098/Muslim-hat...

(Nothing above implies that 17 such incidents is therefore ok.) 

Have you posted as much on here about Stonewall, or just TellMAMA - (them being a pressure group and havnig an interest in reporting a rise hate crime incidents)? Your answer, even if not posted, could be (self) enlightening. So as to not cast aspertions just I'll leave it at that (I'm as subjective as every other human). 

I think that something insulting said at a minority, can be equally valid as a hate crime whether or twitter or in the street (a gay person being called a faggot on twitter is still being subjected to homophobia for example). In this case, they are talking about incidents in the street. 

It 'should' be just a hoohar - something not so serious in the scheme of things, but you get idiots on train carriages calling women with their faces covered 'letter boxes' as a result, which (due to human nature having unpleasant traits as well as good ones) makes it more than just a hoohar - unfortunately. :-/

I don't recall having participated in any thread about Stonewall.   I'd assess a report of theirs on its merits.

Well I don't, to me a crime has to actually pass some sensible threshold of being a crime.

Ah, thanks, that's interesting. I'll look at TellMAMA in a different light now. Scratch the above a little bit about subjectivity then - but not entirely.

We probably all need to point our fingers at one another here and there for a better world to happen I think, and I accept the same happening to me.

Fair enough, Assuming you see somebody being called a faggot in the street as an example of homophobic abuse (or similar directed at a Muslim), which is a crime, why shouldn't the same thing happening on twitter also qualify (albeit with less emotional effect plausibly)? 

It's clear enough you don't have a lot of empathy of niqab wearers, but I'd personally see dismay* at a minority being the subject of jokes or verbal abuse from strangers as being a requisite for a civilised society. 

*and acting upon that where practicable.

If one is harassed like that on the street one can reasonably fear for ones physical safety.   (Consider, for example, the difference between being called a "faggot" by a lone 10-yr-old, versus being called it by a gang of 17-yr-old youths -- very different.)

On twitter there is no physical threat and one can simply block them or look away from Twitter.     It's hugely different.

This is why harassing someone on the street should be a crime, but merely saying something offensive should not be.

What about right wing shock-jock's and hate preachers. Should they be free to disseminate their hate, influencing others to commit crimes? They hide in plain sight, manipulating others using "merely" words.

Can we be clear that the minority is not "women", and nor is it "Asian-looking women", and nor it is "Muslim women" (the vast majority of whom don't wear a niqab), and nor is it about any innate, unchangeable characteristic such as sexuality -- the joke is about the extremist practice of going out in public wearing a ridiculous garb covering everything other than an eye slit. 

Incitement to crime and violence, no.    Promoting loony views?  Yes, sorry, we have to accept that.  That's what free speech in a free society is all about.

It's easy to be in favour of free speech for speech you approve of.  The test is allowing speech that you disapprove of and wish were not said. 

Yes. Incitement to violence is a crime and can be prosecuted. 'Influencing others' who go on to choose to commit crimes should not be. I wouldn't like to be held accountable for the actions of others and I wouldn't trust anyone to draw where the line should go, so have to hold my nose and accept free speech for all, short of incitement to violence. The law isn't there to make us be nice to each other, nor should it be. 

This is kind of my point. What you wear is an expression of your identity as much as what you say. Therefore diverse clothing is a healthy thing to see in society. Even if to you it's ridiculous garb. In your own words: "The test <of free speech> is allowing speech that you disapprove of and wish were not said." or worn, in this case.

Coercing a woman out of one is as bad as coercing a woman into one. So as long as it is voluntary for them and they want to wear it then its fine by me.

Politicians like Johnson should not go round making stupid jokes which cause offense.After all the joke is really on him from his days in the Bullingdon Club and the outfits they wore which look just as pathetic.

There are probably more nuns in the UK wearing head to foot blackrobes than there are Muslim women wearing  niqab's

Comedians - if they want to make a joke- then fine.

I don't think it should be legally banned, but if you're concerned with a decent and civil society that isn't slipping into fascism then the the normalisation of mainstream politicians and media personalities picking on minorities is the sort of thing that should ring a lot of alarm bells.

So why not be OK with incitement in that case?  After all it's someone else being violent so why should the speaker be held accountable? It seems to me you are in fact happy with someone deciding where to draw the line. 

The argument for free speech isn't really about personal freedom to say shitty things, but about finding the "truth".  The idea being that even statements that may appear stupid and wrong may have some merit and the only way to find out is to allow them to be fully examined.  Things like incitement and libel tend to be off limits because they cause more harm than any potential benefit.

Have I asked for a niqab ban?    All I've asked for is the right to compare it to a letter box. 

Exactly.  Boris' utterances aren't about free speech at all, no matter how much the hard rigth pretend they are.

It's also about not giving way too much power to whoever it is who gets to decide what is a "shitty thing" to say. 

For example, is "Allah is Gay" a shitty thing to say, or a fair enough slogan for gay people from an Islamic background to promote at a Pride rally? 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/muslim-leaders-make-formal-complaint...

I find Johnson, his politics and his self pubicism abhorrent. His statement was straight out of the Bannon/Trump play book.

I also find religion ridiculous in the true sense of the word, it invites ridicule, and should be challenged just as any power should. 

It may be dismissed as diversionary but no one bats an eye when a nun is referred to as a penguin. A woman from a minority religious extreme in unusual dress. 

youtube.com/watch?v=mYXenjpefNU&

Very good. 

I meant to add to my post that ridiculing religion is better done by comedians than possible future PMs, Boris really should know this. 

Or indeed when a stag party heads out dressed as the Christian ladies. Imagine they did as Muslim women in niqabs? 

Not always.  Some people have very large (millions of people) followings on Tw*tter, some of whom habitually pile in to the fray including threats and actions beyond twitter.  

If a sufficiently famous tw*tterer goes on the offensive, they know full well they’re dragging some unhinged internet trolls in with then, and I think they should accept a degree of responsibility for that.  

The larger ones soapbox, the more considered one needs to be.

Whatever terms you couch it in, it's still women, and the weaker sex within a minority in our society, can I take it that you think it's justifiable - then?

Tory-party members are a minority in our society, so, by your argument, you're against any jokes against Tory women, such as Theresa May? 

Newspaper cartoonists are going to be sad!

Yes, the laws governing what's written in magazines and newspapers (which can mirror what applies to verbal exchanges in the street) are starting to be found to need to apply to online communication too. 

Hands up who's actually read the original article?

You're asking me whether jokes that are about women from minority groups are justifiable? 

Well, the answer is that it depends a lot on context.  Sometimes they are fine; sometimes they can be very rude.

Is this both hilarious and acceptable:?

youtube.com/watch?v=fKL9b5-DL4A&

Yes!! 

What I intended to come across as asking you was: 'Do you think Muslim women with their faces covered being the subject of jokes from strangers while out in public is justifiable?'

Thanks.

I think it's somewhat rude. 

And unsurprisingly, indignant outrage for daring to point out that the 4 nationwide reported acts of being called "Letterboxes" might not be significant at all.  You heartless cad!

Perhaps these four cases were certain to happen anyway and, rather than being called a "raghead" or "paki scum", the more fashionable (and apparently equally offensive) term "Letterbox" was used instead.  I'd consider that a bit of a win for naqib wearers to be fair.

Or perhaps even, the "increase" is a response to the faux outrage, and apparent expectation of special protection from ridicule?

But never mind, you are literally a nazi for questioning the outrage.

In other news, 10 people were shot at a festival at the weekend...  

You have a mouth like a sewage outlet pipe.

When someone you disagree with is outraged it's "faux" but when you yourself are a bit put out you think that gives you free reign to spout filth?

Quite.

How is that related to this topic?

Entirely gratuitous humour:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkFgIxOW4AAv6-u.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkfLsb7W0AI7Hq5.jpg

And a thoughtful and more serious piece:

https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/articles/9551

Haha.  C'mon, I'm sure you can squeeze out a bit more outrage if you really try. 

"Paki scum" is too offensive, even when used in the context of discussing offensive terms?  Perhaps a few skilfully inserted "*" characters are in order to prevent the pain?  Or maybe we need a euphemism, such as "the P-word" to make it less so?  Be sure to let me know.

I imagine you were buoyed immensely when the Netflix exec lost his job recently, for saying "nigger" in a meeting about offensive words.  

Nah, I just refuse to be outraged over something that is false.  And pity those who feel the need to exhibit outrage because the likely fear not doing so would imply they aren't on board with the programme.  Mass hysteria 

In this case, it is connecting Boris' comments to an increase in "hate crime" that doesn't actually exist.  It is using this as a reason to express more outrage at Boris. 

It's as reactionary as the Daily Mail comments section, but obviously great for moral preening - well done, you expressed outrage and pointed out a bigot, therefore you aren't one yourself.   

Yeah.  Probably so in your opinion.  

It was actually more connected to David Lammy's tweet about the same article.  Predictably outraged he was.  Incandescent about Boris' "racism".  Being the bigot I am, I felt if he really cared about ethnic communities his energies might be better spent condemning a mass shooting of 10 blacks at the weekend - rather than having aneurisms about the word "letterbox". 

At first I assumed you were an arsehole but I've reevaluated and think your just very lonely. I hope that by provoking a response out of strangers on the internet that you find some kind of fulfilment. But I'm not the one to provide that. Good luck.

Ok, I'm trying to be reasonable.  Where is the provocation?  Have I genuinely offended you, and if so, how?  Do you think I am a racist?

From where I am sitting it honestly looks like you just don't like having your views challenged and having to justify them.

Some people genuinely seem to think a word in isolation, bereft of any context or indeed in a necessary context, is highly offensive and that only awful people use the word and that by banning the word the problem is solved.

They couldn’t be further from the truth in my book.  People make descriptive words, and then some people take them and use them in a derogatory sense.  Ban the word and another one is hijacked.  The problem is not the word, but a subset of people who want to label, marginalise and denigrate others.   

I’m a great believer in equality of opportunity and of treatment.  Nothing pisses me off quite like me using a word only to have some do gooder - themselves in no way related to the word - jump down my throat to tell me it’s highly offensive.  Nobody gives me a weekly update on what words are now considered offensive to whom, and as far as I can see words are going round this euphemism treadmill ever faster.  I think sometimes these do good types do more harm than good.

Although in retrospect, perhaps I should be more careful about picking up language from South Park...

Am I a do gooder? I called Pan Ron an arsehole! Is this the language of a holier than thou type?

Call me an arsehole all you like, I'm good with that. 

What offends me is that you fail to put forth a decent argument for why I'm an arsehole.

At least Boris had the decency to back his argument.

By bribing journalists with tea whilst saying "no comment"?

I think you're avoiding the question.

Just watched the video with the article.  

"....what I take most exception to, is that they have said vile things, horrible things, obscene things, about prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, this I think is totally, totally unacceptable, [INTERVIEWER: "...and islamophobic..."], Islamophobic undoubtedly!  And I hope that Boris Johnson realises that he has let the genie out of the bottle."

Well, well, well.

How would you know that they were a male 'stag party', and not just women in niqabs on a 'hen night' ? 

I agree, there are some religious groups that are more likely to take offence than others . Not necessarily, because the other religious groups get less ridicule than the others. 

At least the woman knows who is making the 'insulting'  comments, but  the people insulting ,her clearly are not targetting her personally , as they do not see her, so  they can't get to know her , they are insulting her choice not to be an individual,  and she is seen only as part of a group that also make that choice.

If the woman  then joined a group also wearing the same clothing choices, then those that made the comments to her would not then be able to tell who it was in that group that was feeling insulted,so it cannot ever be a personal insult. 

I have just looked at the likes/Dislikes, on Coel's posts and  the clear majority overall on this thread seem to favour Coel's view. 

Carried unanimously . 

youtube.com/watch?v=FunkVPrPj6U&

now that would not have happened if she had covered her face. 

Probably find out when they started flashing the bar staff at 4.30pm after a morning of pre-drinking!

Fine if you're not on the receiving end, and it's the start of a slippery slope. Why would you think this is acceptable?

I didn't quite say it's "acceptable", I consider it somewhat rude.  However, if that joke was the worst of it, then it's not that bad.

I do think that we should not treat face covering in public as normal.   I would predict that if gangs of White, British-origin teenagers started wearing balaclavas when hanging around street corners, there would also be a lot of adverse comment. 

I was watching a bunch of I think Chinese tourists at a museum in Denmark a few days ago. Many of them were wearing surgical masks as it seems many East Asian tourists now do. Considering Denmark has a face covering ban, because just banning niqabs would be racist obvs, it seemed odd that no one seemed interested in this flagrant law breaking by a bunch of foreigners bringing in their irrational ways.

Lots of Chinese/Japanese tourists wearing surgical masks here in Paris as well. But although they cover the mouth & nose, there's still much more of the face visible than with the niqab which I used to see from time to time (don't think I've ever seen a burqa in Paris/France)

That rather depends on the exact wording of the law.  On a quick google I couldn't find it (likely because it's in Danish!). 

Just what I was going to say. You can still tell the sex of the wearer, their ethnicity and read their emotions. It's a bit different from trying to communicate with someone with all the human attributes of a letterbox as Boris so provocatively put it.

By the way, suppose someone wandered around the high street on market day wearing a confederate flag or displaying a swastika.   

If that gave rise to comment (maybe jokes comparably mild as "letter box", or less-mild appellations such as "racist"), would your sympathies be with the wearer or with those commenting? 

Your two examples seem very odd ones to pick, because all three cases are completely different from each other.

I would expect a visible swastika to provoke some comments, not sure a confederate flag would generate much interest in the UK (although clearly a different story in the USA)

Are they? They seem to have a lot in common to me.  All three are membership symbols of oppressive ideologies.

Yes, indeed. But with vastly different consequences. Some of course would argue that Islam's merits overweigh its harmfulness (but I'm not qualified to speak about that ... as I find the meaning of the Koran obscure indeed); the Confederate Flag started off as quite respectable but over a long history became completely tarnished and eventually was adopted by the Klu Klux Klan, so caused quite a few lives to be lost ... but was contained within America; while the Swastika seems completely different again. Not really representing an ideology (apart from extreme nationalism) and all to do with military conquest, almost for its own sake. A kind of crazy blood lust, one might say ... and resulting in the loss of literally millions of innocent lives in many countries.

Awesome speech by Rowan Atkinson (from some time ago, and about the Section 5 law, but still relevant).

youtube.com/watch?v=h3UeUnRxE0E&

The law allows for functional face covering - crash helmets, balaclavas in winter etc. so the surgical masks would be acceptable on these grounds.

You see Confederate flags all the time in the Nordics - truck cabs, t-shirts etc. Sometimes people just associate with Americana but others definitely know what it means and aim to provoke in my experience.

So it is purely aimed at Muslim women then? Not sure what function those often half worn surgical masks actually serve though. Roskilde struck me as an unlikely place as any to catch bird flu...

They also do so (at least the Japanese do) if they have a cold/flu so as to stop passing their germs on.  Its not something to keep people at arms length but a courtesy for their fellow citizens.

Looks like it.

I don't really have a strong opinion on these laws, but are the burqa bans in north African countries equally objectionable? Morocco has banned production, but not wearing. Chad and Niger have banned them completely. And Turkey used to have bans for most government locations. These countries associate the burqa/niqab/hijab with terrorism and extremism.

Does that include gimp masks? Just asking.