They're not refugees, we're being invaded

[goonthenflameme]

I admit, the Syrians have got it bad. There is a war and those boys who haven't been shot by ISIL are being conscripted by the President.

But if life is that bad, why do they only want to go to Germany and if they can't go then then they'll go back to Syria.

Why are we now seeing people from Kazakstan joining the throngs?

I agree that people from Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria need help. But the thougsands and thousands of people coming through can't all be refugees in dire need of help if they are so picky as to where they will live.

They're invading Europe. And we are letting them. What's going to happen in 20 years? Will Christianity and western ways be swept under the carpet?

Olive, I understand. But in that case I'd have refused to attend.

But, it depends on what the meeting was for, in my opinion.

Personally, I'd be in favour of women ditching the Catholic Religion, as a unit, until women could be ordained.

I cannot believe poster has asked "Wtf wouldn't refugees be picky? I am picky about the fucking fruit I buy, the clothes I wear, the car I drive. Wtf wouldn't other humans be picky about where they live."

People do understand the difference between consumerism and fleeing danger, don't they?

This makes me think of the Mormon Church in the USA and it's policy towards black members. I am not a Mormon, and do not understand the ins and outs of it, but basically, black people could join, but as second class members (not sure they could even get into full heaven!) until 1978.

They faced a lot of social pressure to change. And they changed.

What actually goes through someone's mind, that they can't even look at another person's shape? I mean, what did he think was going to happen?It really is beyond my understanding.

Presumably the reasoning is something like if they disempower women and lock them away, it will make it easier for them control them and less likely to leave when they treat them badly. Perhaps it also gives them a bit of a thrill?

Lweji I'm beginning to wonder if you are actually a bit racist, in that you support differential treatment of racial minority women.

I wonder what would happen if I walked into that mosque and refused to cover myself up or sit behind a screen. What if I am an Afro-Carribean woman, and a member of a racial minority in the UK? Would I be protected by the current law in a way in which Muslim women are not?

It illustrates the gap in the law that has been created and which is widening with demographic changes to the UK in recent years. But no-one does anything about it, because its only women who suffer, and some of them might be happy not to work and just get married and stuff. So lets just ignore it.

Heighhogh always comes back to the same thing though. People won't condemn sexism in the same way they condemn racism.
And that's even touching on homophobia. One of my favourite forums is a gay man's forum and well, let's just say they're not generally big fans of religion (need I say which is their least favourite right now?)

Lweji I'm beginning to wonder if you are actually a bit racist, in that you support differential treatment of racial minority women.

WTAF?

I don't at all. What I'm saying is that the differential treatment happens widely. If it was going to be criminalised, then we'd have many more criminals to deal with.
Including in religions other than Islam.

In fact, I'd be stricter.

But, it's my choice to attend a church where I can't be a minister. Or to cover up.

But in that case I'd have refused to attend. But, it depends on what the meeting was for, in my opinion

We don't know, it was an interview with the producer, but I think it's on BBC 2 tonight.

Whatever the meeting was for, she presumably thought it important to attend. I go to meetings to discuss local issues that affect my neighbourhood, sometimes held in religious venues.

It could have been about school, radicalisation, traffic or litter problems or a PR exercise that seems to have backfired.

It's irrelevant what the meeting was for.

She was hidden away out of view because of her gender.

Lweji not everyone has that choice though, do they?

Yes, and it's bad that it happened. The issue I'm discussing is criminalisation of that behaviour.

But, it's my choice to attend a church where I can't be a minister. Or to cover up

Given your vigilante policing of racism, how would you feel if I were to post that I was hosting a meeting about vandalism tonight and that if black people chose to attend, they may do so but must sit behind a screen because the white people attending believe they should be segregated.

Would you shrug and say 'yeah, but it's their choice whether to attend or not. I wouldn't but hey, their choice.'

So you were wrong in your initial statement then. For some people, attending a religious meeting or belonging to a religious group isn't a free choice, any more than Rosa Parks choice to sit where she wanted to on the bus. It's not a completely free choice and it isn't equal to the choice that others have.

If you are going to be strict, then accuse me of sexism, not racism.

Women are not allowed to officiate at Mass in the Catholic church. Surely that's also sexism.
They are not allowed in certain men only convents. Not sure what's the policy, but I suspect to get there they'd be asked to be separated.
And vice versa. Surely, this should also be criminalised and is a blatant case of sexism.

What I'd support in that case in the mosque is that the meeting, if for a general topic, then should be held somewhere else.

We know the Catholic church is sexist, Lweji. Even the good old C of E is sexist.

Yes, it should be criminalised if people don't have a real choice to attend.
I don't know about the catholic church, but I was able to leave the anglican church with no pressure at all.

Just seen your last point Lweji. You would suggest the meeting was held outside the mosque. So you don't see any problem with the lady having to sit behind a screen as long as it's in the mosque, then?

The problem is that we cannot at the moment regulate what happens in private groups. We can't force men or women groups to accept other people.

I wouldn't want to be in that position, as I stated. Not sure why this woman did go. I can condemn it, but, again, the initial proposition was that sexism was criminalised, and in particular this instance. I am just pointing out the reach of such criminalisation.

Actually I don't want our country to be one size fits all. I like the fact one parent can leave chidlren alone at home and another drives 18 year olds everywhere. One has chidlren in bed by 7 and others at 10. One can educate at home and another sent to boarding school at 6 etc etc. These are the differences of a liberal society.

I don't have a problem with different religious groups having their own rules but the issues arise when we have public funding involved - I woudl remove all religion from state schools for example and when sexist men of whatever religion or none discriminate against women.

I don't have a problem with different religious groups having their own rules but the issues arise when we have public funding involved

I've never understood why there should be a distinction between public and private & exemptions for the latter when it comes to schooling ?

We don't allow private organisations to operate under different rules and treat their employees differently to state employees, so why should private schools be allowed to peddle whatever they want to the detriment of their students.

Agree completely that state funded schools should be run on a secular basis. I think the history of how education developed in Britain makes that really difficult to do though.

Omar, a young man on the BBC tv programme about the London mosque, has just explained why he thinks speaking to women, or in fact the female pupils at his school, is wrong. Its in case they become his girlfriend and then sinful things might happen. It seems that women only have the purpose of being wives, and this seems to be some Muslims reasoning behind not segregating women. Because obviously if you speak to a woman, you run the chance of having sex with them, and this is a reason for not doing so.

Having seen the programme about the revolutionary Syrian woman Raghda ("A Syrian Love Story"), who impressed me with her focus and revolutionary fervour (although I don't agree with her cause), I simply can't reconcile the two. How on earth would a Syrian woman like Raghda, who left her husband and children in France to go back to Turkey to fight her revolutionary cause and who met her husband in prison as a political prisoner, cope with segregation?

Lweji The problem is that we cannot at the moment regulate what happens in private groups. We can't force men or women groups to accept other people.

Well, e can if they're behaving in a racially aggravated manner. But they are free to be as unpleasantly sexist as they like. Maybe if the sexism reaches the realms of a threat of violence, then occasionally the authorities might get involved, if they can be bothered. But the slightest bit of racism is cracked down upon. And people like you constantly try to extend the laws on racism to matters it doesn't even cover and was never intended to.

I wouldn't want to be in that position, as I stated. Not sure why this woman did go. I can condemn it, but, again, the initial proposition was that sexism was criminalised, and in particular this instance. I am just pointing out the reach of such criminalisation.

I'm surprised you think that anyone would have an objection to this. Of course any new laws against sexism must cover all religions and all races and not just Muslims! Even better if we can rid the Catholic church of some of its appallingly sexist practices.

Unfortunately, no such legislation is proposed. But imagine if it were. No doubt it would be unpopular amongst certain sectors initially, as racially aggravated offences were. But then people will get used to it, and women will benefit.

Omar, a young man on the BBC tv programme about the London mosque, has just explained why he thinks speaking to women, or in fact the female pupils at his school, is wrong. Its in case they become his girlfriend and then sinful things might happen.
Its like he thinks he's got no control over what will happen if he speaks to a female pupil.

But those were not Omar's original thoughts were they? Did you see the dynamic between him and the slightly older man (the media chap) as he spoke? He was looking for confirmation approval.

These are taught attitudes and 'community' enforced behaviours. It is anti-integration, anti-feminism.

And anti-egalitarian.