BCWFC Chairman Resigns in 'Ban the Burka' row

He is entitled to his opinion and free speech is absolutely integral to a democratic society. But surely he must realise that comments like that only serve to isolate those who maybe thinking of taking up, attending girls/womens football or even sponsoring the womens club he is in charge of?

 

Hurrah for the voice of reason...

 

He is entitled to it just as the club are entitled to terminate the relationship

 

Bad idea posting stuff like that in a public forum when he has the position he does in the city he does, so. He may have thought he was sharing it to represent modern women, but he got it a bit wrong.

I agree with him though, it should be banned it’s something from the dark ages, oppressive, and has no place in a modern world. God damn bloody awful , but hey if someone wants to wear one in this day and age more fool them.

Religion does have a lot to answer for.

 

Yet they’ve employed known criminals in the past? Selective morals methinks.

 

Within the past few months

 

Under the current management?

 

It's easy to infer that he's a bigoted stereotype. And he may well be - I'm not defending him.

But, playing devils advocate, wanting to 'ban burkhas' in itself isn't necessarily prejudicial. Depends on your motive and your thinking. And Muslims should adhere to 'our' laws. Everyone should. And anyone not wanting to live by UK law should leave. To where, I don't care.

My bug bears are more around the difficulty in having grown up conversations about sensitive topics without being branded prejudiced. And people losing their jobs because of their beliefs rather than their actions in the workplace.

It also seems that whilst airing anything like a right-wing political/social view is chastised, more left wing and liberal views are not only tolerated but embraced. If he'd promoted the need to increase the representation of Muslim (or other minority groups) players in the game, or posted an article criticising 'white privilege' or 'male privilege' and how it needs removing from the game, would he have been sacked? I'm maybe going off on a tangent slightly, but when you start to police speech and remove people from their jobs for legally expressed political views, things can go very bad, very quickly.

 

If people do not wish to abide by the laws of the UK, there is no absolute reason they must stay here against their wishes, irrespective of their religion. That extends to Muslims who do not wish to adhere to our laws.

 

I may live to regret this, but...yes, it is clear.

I shall assume you have given accurately the gist, even if not the actual words, of what has been said. In that case, we have three points to discuss, two of which I'd argue are unobjectionable, whilst the third is at least debatable.

1) the burka: this is the debatable one. Is it a religious requirement, sanctified by the authority of Mohammed, or is it a social-cultural construct? It's been a few years since I last read the Koran, and honestly can't remember anything about it in there. There's been a big debate over here, in Quebec, about banning public officials from wearing religious symbols at work; the law passed the other day but is being challenged on various grounds. This falls into somewhat the same area.

Personally, I don't agree with it, and wouldn't mind if it were banned. It strikes me as a very visible way of showing power over another person, as well as being a very visible way of turning a person into a non-person, invisible, nothing. THere is also, as another poster has pointed out, real problems with identification of individuals and security of the whole.

2) Muslims should adhere to our laws: Yes, they should. So should Jews, and Christians, and Rastafarians, and agnostics, and atheists, and so on. Or to put it another way, so should Pakistanis, or Russians, or Canadians, or English, and so on. Whether you are a recent immigrant, or from a family that came over with William, the country's laws and customs should help form your behaviour. Especially if you are an immigrant, it is your duty to fit in. This doesn't mean forgetting your heritage, or nationality, or home country, however. You have to find a way to blend them all together and make it work. I am an immigrant here myself. And I do fit in. Eh!

3) leave if you don't like it: Given there are no exit controls, given that people are free to move out of the UK if they do not like it, then why not leave if UK laws, customs, people, society, are so objectionable? There's a rather large range of countries out there; surely a better fit could be found? Why stay somewhere that is distasteful to you? Yes, I know that finances, family, work etc. may limit movement, but simply taken as a general point, one is free to leave -- unlike in some other countries of the recent past (e.g. Soviet Union).

RCB

 

I really don't know but is Islam the only religion to treat women as second class citizens?

 

Just watch the cricket then people will see where loyalties lie

 

Who's your pal, mate?

 

Probably depends on what you class as treating as second class? If it includes not having the same role in the religion eg positions of power and authority then no

 

No I was more referring to women walking a few paces behind men or sitting in back seat when a male is driving or having to wear a face veil. All of which I saw today whilst working in Great Horton area.

 

That is why I asked how you were defining it.

 

Thanks for your response.

Firstly, I don't buy into the "well everyone should follow the laws of this country argument" because his posts clearly aren't aimed at 'everyone'. If his intentions were good and he genuinely wanted to make a stance against criminals, why limit his views to just lawbreaking Muslims? Generally, if you single out an entire group of people and limit the associated negative connotation to just them there's a very good reason for it and your comments will rightly be taken as *insert group* being targeted.I mean if If this man is genuinely innocent you could sack him for stupidity alone.

2) His posts, according to the article anyway, don't extent to "Muslims who do not wish to adhere to our laws", but just Muslims. HUGE difference. If the possible alternative you've given is true then paraphrasing second hand information isn't the issue here- it's inaccurate reporting. In that instance, I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

 

How on earth is saying ban the burka isolting anybody?

 

!

Im not arguing for or against the post, I'm giving an example of how paraphrasology and second hand info is duff.

 

Aswell as generally dressing modestly, the head scarf is the only piece of clothing that's mandatory for a Muslim women. The Burka isn't, although many women do wear it for religious reasons.