"Sharia taxi driver told me i was disgustingly dressed" says actress.

[HelenaDove]

It apparently happened after an awards ceremony.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3331164/Sharia-taxi-driver-told-disgustingly-dressed-BBC-star-Frances-Barber-tells-accosted-Uber-employee-showbusiness-awards-ceremony.html

It doesn't have to shut it down. And indeed didn't. I do believe posters expressed themselves much more sensitively after that. Which is surely a good thing?

For me this isn't about the guys race or religion - it's about a company employing people who have the audacity to comment on a woman's dress. ( & this is by no means the first 'bad press' regarding uber )
Uber are now a major player in London's taxi trade. because they're cheap ( for now ) - I think boycotts are in order.

Great post Manatee

& yes, absolutely fantastic posts Manatee

I agree. Good post.

I am sure most of us share the OTheHuge's views. That is exactly as it is.

Now for those who believe their religions is the one true religion and that it is right and right for everyone else too that is the huge conflict between Western liberal democracy which allows people to live amongst us with views we detest because we respect their right to be different (as long as the relevant sexism etc does not breach English law and affect the rest of us) and those who would like an Islamic caliphate across the globe.

So it rather depends on whether groups can control their members or not. Eg in the UK we have rarely if ever had any problems at all with the ultra orthodox Jewish community in Stamford Hill. They keep to themselves. They are well behaved. They have cohesive family lives as do many other groups who choose not to integrate in the UK. It is only where people start interfering in women's rights to dress and have sex where they please or generate terrorists who will blow us up we have a problem with them.

Well exactly Deo - that's the issue here.
It's one thing holding derogatory views in private, but it's another when you're subjected to this crap just going about your daily life by a cab driver ( who you've paid money to! )

No amount of feminism will ever change certain men, but they should learn to keep their vile opinions to themselves. [unlikely]

Superb posts as usual, Manatee

Fully agree about the importance of these matters being discussed, no matter how determined the attempts to stifle debate. FWIW, I also believe that far from helping community relations, such attempted censorship actually makes things worse. I doubt anyone would dispute that outright bigotry should be challenged, but when even moderate, considered remarks are met with rancour, for me that's going too far

Some muslims are not alone in the capability to take offence

(As an aside do watch "Capital" on iplayer. Good series about London inculding a muslim family www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06qrqlf/capital-episode-1. It's also quite funny and well acted)

My friend has a cab drive hit on her quite forcefully. She was dressed in her sainsbury's uniform at the time.

Have to come along and shamelessly fist bump Manatee with others

I think it's a regressive left conundrum, that is stifling debate IMO

Yes pigeonhole me.

Or maybe I was concerned for actual Muslim posters on here who were upset by the generalisations.

It's perfectly possible to have the debate without generalising.

Asking people not to generalise is not and did not stifle the debate. People were just more careful in how they worded things.

I see there were a few deletions as well. So hardly just me nitpicking and being a woolly leftie or whatever name you want to patronise me with.

BOOYaka

As far as Rotherham Muslim women's organisations go, the Jay report said that their attitude was 'we knew, but nobody asked us about it so we just didn't say anything'.

Maybe some^ did, maybe lots of women did.

I just want to point out on the documentary I saw, a support group for Muslim women said - if a man was being abusive and horrid to the white girl, it was highly likely he was also being abusive at home to his wife.

Both the women, being abused by the man here were victims of PC. neither woman was listened too or helped or able to speak out.

I find this more shockingTBH

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/12014081/Female-governor-forced-to-sit-in-separate-room-to-male-colleagues.html

The only female governor at a hardline Islamic school in Birmingham was force to sit in a room next door out of sight of her male colleagues, according to a damning letter on faith schools by the education watchdog, Ofsted.

As a result, the governor at Darul Uloom Islamic High School was unable to fully engage in meetings but authorities were told this was the "usual arrangement", according to Sir Michael Wilshaw.

Issues raised include a lack of meeting standards in the curriculum, teaching, safeguarding of young children and the teaching of fundamental British values.

Darul Uloom, which had already been exposed for teaching children as young as 11 intolerance, was shamed for its "inadequate promotion in promoting fundamental British values".

^ What is going to happen to these schools> How are they still open> What will happen to redress the twisted teaching already taken place to 2,000 young pupils!

People scoffing at British Values.

I would say here a very basic one would be, that no one would blink an eye or even give a nano thought to women and men governors sitting at the same table or being in the same room.

Surely some law has been broken here?

I hope your not addressing me fanjo, I may have directed one of my responses at you and I apologise if you think I was specifically targeting you with my latest post, however I will point out the hypocrisy in you being 'pigeon holed' as you are a prominent poster that does just that to dissenting voices, if you see a bit of yourself, that is for your reflection not mine. The 'generalisation' argument is becoming a meme, there are many differing opinions that specifically point out the caveat that they are not generalising yet they generally seem to be ignored?

I was trying to rationalise the overall argument in my head as to why discussions within this area always turn into a shit show.

From my memory whilst a lot of the deletions in this thread have been because of the right wing fuckwits(and deservedly so), there have been deletions from the within the 'left sphere' as well.

Of course mail girls
I have seen your wise and intelligent posts tonight

The voice of reason you are !

I read this thread this morning, and have been pondering it all day.

I think accurate definitions are important here, because a lot of important debate is being smothered in accusations of race and religious hatred. All these accusations do is waste time and confuse the issue.

To my mind, we have a serious problem in Britain with puritanical theocrats. It doesn't really matter what religion they are from, what matters is what they are : a kind of 21st century version of fanatical "precisemen", many of whom endorse, or will even commit, violence in accordance with their theocratic ideology.

Barber's verbal aggressor appears to have been one of these theocrats. And, as is common with fanatical theocrats, the exchange constituted intimidation, a form of violence, a nuanced threat.

This cannot stand. England has been here before. It ends in disaster after a lot of meaningless deaths. The vast majority of people in Britain do not want to live in a puritanical theocracy. They never have and they never will. They don't even want to be anywhere near theocrats, which is why it is so alarming when they pop up out of nowhere to castigate you about your clothing choices.

Talking about what is and what isn't Islam in this situation is somewhat like regurgitating arguments over whether or not Oliver Cromwell was a "real Christian". You can bet your last button that Innocent X thought he wasn't, but, likewise, Oliver Cromwell thought the Pope was the devil himself.

Honestly, some of the debates over the status of these theocrats in Islam remind me of endless harrowing hours of discussion over whether or not Stalin was a "real communist". There is no point in engaging with these arguments; we will just go round and round until everyone gets dizzy or someone bonks someone else on the head. We won't get anywhere or solve anything.

The real question is ... what do we do about these extreme theocrats in our midst? It's not like they keep their thoughts to themselves, is it? They aren't exactly restrained in their actions. Two of them even cut off a bloke's head in broad daylight.

I suspect a lot of people will balk at some suggested solutions to our theocrat crisis, but seeing them as puritanical theocrats and not Muslims makes the situation a lot clearer -- it takes the emotional heat out of the issue, and removes the identity politics.

Well to be fair they are always referred to as islamic extremists rather than 'muslims'

Well thanks Dr Freud

That was to justanother for her bit of personal psychoanalysis there

Brioche, why not take the "islamic" out of it as well? Totally neutralise the language to avoid identity politics?

I mean, as an identifier, how useful is "islamic" anyway in this context? I know this sounds a bit bizarre, but the term "islamic" is used to describe a vast array of ideas, notions, concepts, and times that have bugger all to do with this particular brand of fundamentalist religious thinking. The adjective "Islamic" pulls a puritanistic phenomenon into the same descriptive sphere as 19th century Persian tiles.

"Islamic" is just too broad and because it is too broad, it over-generalises. And that is where the problem starts. We end up fueling the narrative of Islam vs the West.

No, DrasticAction, that's completely wrong. There seem to have been a lot of claims that these men were abusing their families too, but these seem to be pretty unsubstantiated. None of the people who have been charged in Rotherham have been charged with similar familial abuse. And in the vast majority of other cases eg Rochdale, Oxford, the same is true. I only know of one person of about 18 in the Leeds ring who has been convicted of offences against their family. Although it could be some offences had gone unreported.

But no claim has ever been made in any of the cases that Asian women experiencing the same abuse by members of their own community had been denied the support of public services like the police or SS. Nor was there ever any claim that the authorities had engaged in a large scale denial and cover of offences against Asians by Asians. Sometimes offences might not have been reported, but when they were they would have been dealt with in the way that any other offence would have been dealt with. It was just when the perpetrators were from the subcontinent and around and the victims weren't that they turned a blind eye. I say it that way because the victim I know is neither white nor of British origin; but her claims were ignored because her racial grouping was lower in the pecking order to her attackers.