Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
18 January 2010
22:0038202I have now had a good look at it all now,it is far to deep for me to understand it all.I have the Dover A.G.M. of U.K.I.P. in the morning i will see what they all say about it and get back to you then.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
18 January 2010
22:1338209There should be only one kind of Burka, and that`s the Mcdonald`s quarter pounder.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
18 January 2010
22:4138211Ah, so the UKIP candidate finds the policy on banning the burka to complicated for him to understand. I see.......
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
18 January 2010
22:4538213now now barry, just because they are stealing votes from you!!
i feel sure that you are getting edgy about them in marginal seats, they are saying things that the blues are too pc to utter.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
18 January 2010
23:4438224Barry All I am saying is That I have no wish to jump in at this till i understand and know what I am talking about,i think alot of todays M.P. red and blue should have done the same about alot of things.I did not know about this till I came home tonight.It does go on to say that in the Koran it does not say women have to wear the Burka,I have never read the Koran so I have to take the word of somone who has.
It also goes on to say"Saira Khan,formery of the APPRENTICE,has campaigned against the Burka in numerous press articles,she argues that and demands that you should see peoples faces in public,so that we are not scared or frightened.i must say after working in london for years I have never been frightened by them,do not like to see the face cover on but that is all.she goes on to say "and the burka is a sign of growing radicalisation within the Muslim community.
I will have a talk with a member of my family who is a Muslim and I get on very well with him to he has been in Dover well over 30years and is very well liked.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
19 January 2010
08:4038226Howard - there is little polling evidence for what you say. A UKIP vote is simply wasted, a sideshow because a UKIP government will not happen.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
19 January 2010
11:0038240I'm sure that Barry would never be reticent in seizing the opportunity to shoot a political dart into an opponent's heart, but essentially he's right. Any party candidate for a general election should be up to speed on that party's policies; I think Vic may have scored an own goal here!
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
19 January 2010
12:2838246I have not scored a own goal head office only put this out at the weekend at a meeting I could not get to, if I had gone I would have done aposting about it on the same day,as it was I did one after I had look at the email. It was not in the partys policies but was add on to them that is why I did not know about it. But again thank you all for your imput into this.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
20 January 2010
08:4638332Part of the reason for the rise of the small parties and their power to take votes off of the major ones, is because in lots of areas that concern a lot of the people, the 2 (or 3) main parties ignore or disregard them.
That's why the BNP have gained seats in local authorities and Europe.
Roger
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
30 January 2010
11:5239134I now have the proposed U.K.I.P.policy on face coverings in public.The policy Spokesman Gerard Batten M.E.P.
First just to tell you the burka is not an Islamic requirement.
(1)All public employees shall carry out their duties with their faces uncovered.,unlesstheir particular profession requires them to cover their faces for a specific tasks.
(2)People will be required to have uncovered faces in all public buildings and premises.
For example,in national and local goverment buildings,post offices,hospitals,doctorssurgeries,schools,colleges,universities,libraries,etc.
This will also appy to all transportsystems, their buildings and conveyances.
(3)Private organisations, businesses,and institutions,will be given the optionof imposing the same rule,the face must be uncovered in their buildings, premises and conveyances.
For example, in offices,banks, shops,cinemas,theatres,coaches,buses and taxis etc.
(4)Those who refuse to remove face coveringsin the appropriate circumstances will be refused entry.The responsibility will be on the custodiansof the premises to enforce the law,with possible penalties for non-enforcememt.
(5)If private organizations decide not to adopt the uncovered rule then they cannot impose discriminatory partial restrictions on face coverings,i,e,they cannot require a visitor to remove a crash helmet or balaclava while allowing another visitor to wear a veil or burka.
(6)Discretion and sensitivity will be displayed to those who may wish to cover their faces because of severe physical deformity or injury.
Weddings and religious ceremonies are excluded.
(7)The police will have the right to askeanyone to uncover their face on the public highway if they feel it is necessary to carry out identification in the course of their duties.
These laws should be introduced in the interests of national security, and equality before the law.
I also agree with the above. Vic Matcham
30 January 2010
12:2239135It seems to me that the bad thing about the burka and niqab is that they are worn because men think that other men will be so inflamed by seeing their women's features or form that they will be unable to control themselves; or that a woman is somehow a shameful thing, to be hidden away from view. Have I got this right? Should we be encouraging such things in this day and age? At the very least, no woman in Britain should be forced to wear them.
30 January 2010
13:4439141In that those garments are not religious requirements and therefore not needed for reasons of faith, and that they offend many people and preclude women who wear them from communicating effectively with the people in their environment in a way that is accepted in this culture, they are inflammatory and provocative. I would not dream if wearing a bikini, or even shorts, in another country whose inhabitants would find it offensive, despite my belief that we should, as women, have freedoms that include apparel!!! My respect for those cultures would mean that I modified my dress accordingly. We, in this culture, deserve that same respect. Job done.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
30 January 2010
15:1839145Thank you both for your imput into this.
30 January 2010
19:5539164I agree with the very sensinle view of Bern on this one. As an aliebn living in foreign country I most definitely am sensitive to the issue of how I dress and I don't think it too much to expect the same of others here.
As for those wishing to wear their cultural garb leaving and going to where it is accepted, I wholly disagree.
The sad thing about all this is we find the world is not a tolerant place and too many folks in the UK, in places that matter, don't realise or choose to ignore this. That leads to the current situation where the UK populace generally feel their Government always caves in to the minority, any minority.
Here in Nigeria there is absolute tolerance and acceptance of different faiths despite what the press would have you believe. There are extremists here as there are elsewhere, but the vast majority of Nigerians are God/Allah fearing and show kindness and tolerance to their fellow human beings. Indeed, I start important meetings with both a Muslim and a Christian prayer, or start with one and end with the other.
Maybe we could learn something from darkest Africa, even if it is only respect and tolerance for each other. It seems to be working in Northern Ireland now both sides are giving it a chance.
Vic, I have no idea what you are supposed to be writing for me mate.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
30 January 2010
20:5639171Sid, Years ago you gave me a light to try and repair at is all.
Guest 650- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 542
31 January 2010
11:0939203I commend Vic here on his honesty, his understandable and straightforward answer, and his attempts to discover and clarify when it was something he didn't know. (This does beg the question, though, of how far our Vic will be a successful politician!
)
Reading thorugh Vic's explanation, it seems to me that the stance is based on "security", not religion, culture, etc. If this is so, I wonder whether in the shadows then, even if unintentionally, an erosion of freedom. It also seems to me that this policy would affect disproportionately particular groups, namely of a certain religion and of a certain sex. I wonder whether then, again maybe unintentionally, this policy could be sexist and culturist, if not racist.
Anyway, I have my suspicions that in our own culture women's clothing is fundamentally male-informed and centred. Otherwise, why have decolletage, mini-skirts, etc (and especially on these really cold nights!). Oh, and to answer Diana, I quote Dr Russell of Dover, sadly deceased, whose view was:- that if men really can't control themselves when they see female flesh, then why can't men wear blindfolds?
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
31 January 2010
12:5839211THe UKIP policy seems very close to the policy adopted by the French Government, and it's a policy I am uncomfortable with in as much as it seems intolerant of other people's beliefs. I appreciate that it's nothing to do with Islamic faith, but since we live in a supposedly multicultural society, then surely we have to permit immigrant cultures to wear the clothes of their culture. I do agree that in Government buildings and on the request of Police Officers to do so, there should be a requirement to remove the veil, but by and large are we not saying to people who live here that you are welcome in Great Britain providing we choose what you can wear? This seems a fundamentally flawed line of thinking that may be, as Maggie says, racist.
I have to say, though, that it works both ways. I am mindful of the British Airways employee who was sacked for wearing a crucifix whilst wearing her uniform, and that strikes me as equally wrong. Racial equality means tolerance of people of ALL creeds, colours and sex, not just for immigrants; I am bound to say that I believe this has been forgotten in this country, and the worst offenders for forgetting this are the Equal Rights Commission themselves who seem to regard themselves as merely guardians of ethnicity.....not the case at all.
A couple of points from Maggie's post that need raising:
1. Dr Russell - dead??? I hope not, I have an appointment with her next week!
2. The thing about mini skirts.........surely it depends on who the wearer is. If it's Angelina Jolie, then your point about why can't men wear blindfolds is valid; if it's Jo Brand, then why hasn't legislation banning them been introduced?
True friends stab you in the front.
31 January 2010
16:3439236Andy - you are close to a slapped leg............
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
31 January 2010
17:0239238I disagree Andy; we shouldn't have a multi-cultural society, people should intregrate/assimilate more; even Trevor Philips has said that and he's a black guy.
Young (English) girls can't go to an islamist state and wear a mini-skirt or other inappropriate clothing; if it is a culture thing, then where ever people are or where ever they go, it should always be the same principle - "When in Rome".
Roger
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
31 January 2010
18:0939242rOGER
Who says mini skirts or any other clother is inappropriate>? surely its up to the individual?
We are playing to the gallery here, and in real danger of hyping up racial tension.
Like even our barryw says, we are becoming a nanny state.
we need to be careful where we go with this one