Boris and Trump

A dozen former US intelligence leaders have backed ex-CIA chief John Brennan after his security clearance was revoked by President Donald Trump. The former CIA and national intelligence bosses called Mr Trump's move "an attempt to stifle free speech" in a joint statement on Thursday.

Mr Trump is keen to strip other high-ranking officials of access to classified information, US media say. The nine people currently on a review list have all criticised the president. Many have also been involved in the investigation into whether anyone on the Trump 2016 election campaign colluded with Russia.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45219405

One year after Charlottesville, the alt-right is gathering again — in Washington

Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right are rallying outside the White House.

www.vox.com/2018/8/6/17644776/unite-the-right-2-explained

These people and their vile politics have been allowed to become mainstream under the Trump regime. The Overton window has been pulled violently towards the extreme right.

The combination of Bannon, Banks and Boris is chilling. We need to stop twittering on about whether or not Muslim women are/are not being oppressed by the wearing of the Burkha and look at what is really going on. Do not underestimate Boris Johnson.

I think Bannon is a lot more clever and a lot more sinister than that.

"Boris Johnson has won the support of hard-right Steve Bannon over his burqa comments
Presumably Bannon is another who just reads the headlines and not the full speech.

The twitter generation of politicians.

Don't confuse the messenger with the message. Boris just highlighted an issue that needs to be discussed.
This Muslim fundamentalist practice is banned in some Muslim countries and has been decried by Muslim clerics. The multitude of reasons why we Europeans don't like it have all been stated and restated in this thread.
Mealy mouthed liberalism is what allowed the abuse of those poor girls in Rotherham and other places to proliferate.

I can’t see Boris becoming PM . He hasn’t achieved anything. Except Boris bikes. He’s all talk and no do. He chickened out the last time. Might have to eat my words though !

Just in case you might think that this report doesn't count because it's from the Labour-supporting Mirror, here's another from the Daily Mail, which refers to another key figure of the alt-right, Arron Banks-

"The attempt by Arron Banks to flood the Tory Party with Boris supporters ahead of the next leadership contest will increase concerns in Downing Street that Mr Johnson is becoming the focus of a Trump-style campaign."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/brexit/article-6051043/Plot-oust-Theresa-David-Davis-interim-PM-Boris-Johnson-urged-delay-bid.html

If BJ was just a harmless buffoon do you think he would be so strongly supported by Steve Bannon ?

"Boris Johnson has won the support of hard-right Steve Bannon over his burqa comments as a senior Tory accused him of "courting fascism". The former Donald Trump aide waded in as an internal Conservative Party battle over his comments exploded into what one MP dubbed "World War Three".

Bannon - an 'alt-right' provocateur who claims EDL founder Tommy Robinson is Britain's "backbone" and being called racist should be a "badge of honour" - is setting up a foundation to boost far-right populist parties across Europe. He has also been in contact with the Tory MP. Today he demanded Mr Johnson, who flew home from his Italian villa yesterday after a week of controversy, not “bow at the altar of political correctness” by apologising for comparing burqas to letterboxes and bank robbers."

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-praised-hard-right-13070355

Nothing, but nothing that Boris says is a mistake. It is all deliberate, done to fan the flames, to get himself discussed on Newsnight ( and GN), as far as he is concerned there is no such thing as bad publicity. His resignation speech wasn't the Churchillian epic he hoped it would be so surprise, surprise, he comes out with a comment guaranteed to (a) get the twittersphere and 'lefties' all of a flutter and (b) pander to the UKIP branch of the Tory voters and the public. Going by what I have read on here, he certainly has succeeded in (b) at least. He even went so far as to risk the life of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe by describing her visit in terms guaranteed to make things even more difficult for her and her family. There is no way that he is stupid or ill-informed enough to not have known the situation in Iran and to have stooped so low as to have put the life of a British citizen at risk just to get himself talked about is reprehensible. This man is not funny, not a buffoon, he is very dangerous and will stop at nothing to get what he wants.

I am amazed at the number of people on here who actually support this man's racist comments.

He already has a track record of using derogatory language to describe black or Asian people and of making clumsy and offensive remarks about their cultures.
His motivation for making these remarks appear not to be connected to a concern as to the unequal treatment of women, as an extract from one of his articles demonstrates:

"Almost every dollar of Western aid seems tied to some programme of female emancipation — stamping out clitorectomy, polygamy, bride-price, or whatever. And while some readers may feel vaguely that the African male should not be stampeded into abandoning his ancient prerogatives, one cannot doubt the care — bordering on obsession — with which Western workers pursue their ends.”

However, he is well aware of people's propensity for prejudice and is happy to indulge it, in the hope of raising his political profile.

About Libya he said: ""The only thing they've got to do [in Libya] is clear the dead bodies away and then we'll be there."

Would the image of thousands of white men, women and children lying dead and mutilated on the streets of a European country be thought a suitable subject for humour?

This man is a disgrace and I am very sorry to see that the vast majority of Gransnetters support if not his exact words then his sentiments. From what I've read on Mumsnet, they appear to take a very different view, thank goodness.

How can Boris's comments be anti-Islam when the Niquab is not actually part of the religion? His use of the word letterbox is at worst childish and to compare the costume to a bank robber inflammatory but I expect he knew that when he wrote it. I treat it with the same level of distaste as someone who call Nuns penguins (which was quite a lot when they used to wear full attire). However, some of the arguments by Kate Burley yesterday dragging Simon Weston into the argument offended me far, far more. It was cheap, crass and offensive to a brave veteran who no doubt has met a lot of people who might have felt slightly uncomfortable by his injuries in the way a lot of people are out of the their comfort zone when people look or behave differently. You can't help how you feel, you can help if you show it or don't deal with it. When the MP was talking about the Niquab covering up evolutionary signs expressed by their faces that humans have learned to evaluate he was talking about the covering of the face, not a disfigured face. Neither did he compare a crash helmet to the Niquab only as much as it covers the face. Such hysterical interviewing lost that lady a lot of credibility.
I say we should be dealing with the real issues of racism/inequality rather than giving Boris publicity and selling the Telegraph.

That is absolutely correct cherrytree59 - he was simply using humour to point up that while he may criticise the anti-women bias of the Niquab, he fully supports the right of any Muslim woman in Britain who wishes to wear one. A position I fully support and which is EXACTLY in line with normal British practice - tease the stupid idea but uphold the right if anyone to hold a different opinion to ones own.

Jane 10. Couldn’t agree more.

We live in dangerous times so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that anyone who is out in public can be identified by their facial features. If we want to treat everyone equally and motorcyclists are expected to remove their helmets before paying at the petrol station or entering a business of any description then it is right that rule applies to everyone before they can be served.

Boris does not care a fig for Muslim women being oppressed or hot, he has got what he wants, his name up front, being discussed.

Some people may sat that they have a point

The Koran was written in the 7th century and, like the Old and New Testaments, it embodies the mores of society at that time. It is therefore unlikely to chime with 21st century western secular culture. Culture and religion are inextricably linked if you take the fundamentalist view that the word of god cannot be changed or the meaning revised.

The burka is a cultural not religious convention. I was told this both by an Imam and a Muslim friend. The only specification in the Koran is that women should dress modestly, which does not mean they have to cover up. I only wish that everyone who comments on this matter understands that we are talking about culture not religion.

I find anything that covers the whole face sinister. I also feel that this is something imposed on women by men. I totally agree with the French that they should be banned. No woman wants to have to cover her face unless it is being imposed upon her & she is too intimidated to refuse
Having said that I think women in Hijabs look wonderful & they all seem to be very good with their eye makeup. I understand they want to keep their beautiful hair for their loved ones only but no-one want to walk around in a hot black tent.
I hope we ban niquabs but we won't as we are all too scared of being called racist.

Woman have fought so hard and still are for equality. I feel, they want our freedoms and a better life but not our culture.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful right of ours.

With his postbox remark BoJo is testing to see if he is arrested.

And please remove your helmet before visiting your bank.

Hear hear Lilyflower.

It's not my business to tell other women how to dress (and plenty of western women dress to please their husbands).
It varies from family to family (possibly influenced by their mosque) at what age a young woman covers her hair or her face, if they are going to. As a teacher, I think ten is the youngest I remember.

The situation in Denmark is that we have a law forbidding people to wear masks, ski-masks or the like in public to minimise the risk of armed robberies or acts of terrorism. We have also had to demand that girls did not sit public exams wearing burkas with a face veil or the like, unless they were willing to unveil in the presence of a female member of the school or college staff. This came about because girls were identifying themselves by means of their national health card and in some, admittedly few cases, the card belonged to the girl who had enrolled for the exam, but the girl actually sitting the exam was not her, but her cousin or sister.

A much publicised case was the refusal of a bus driver to transport a woman who refused to unveil - he quoted the anti-terrorist laws and the courts found his contention valid.

After all as far back as the Partition riots, men in burkas were fairly common, as they more recently have been throwing bombs in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Israel.

In principle I agree people should be allowed to dress as they please. However, we have always had laws about public decency and public safety and some forms of clothing can be said to contravene these.

Most religions adapt to the society they are practised in - here most Muslims dress like everyone else, and have had, as has the Jewish community, to accept that the law in Denmark insists that bodies must be buried in coffins and not just in shrouds as both Jewish and Muslim religious ruling fine quite acceptable.