Boris Johnson's letterbox

Sources: thenewdaily.com.au and lbsg.org/archives

The furore over Boris Johnson comparing veiled women with a letterbox shows no sign of abating.

Conservative Muslim Forum founder Lord Sheikh said demands from the PM for an apology were not enough. Boris Johnson should be kicked out of the Conservative Party for his remarks about the burka. He has called for Mr Johnson to have the whip removed - meaning the MP would no longer represent the Tory party. (BBC News)

Former co-chair of the Conservative party Sayeeda Warsi continues her attack on Johnson in the Guardian (here) in which she claims "Boris Johnson’s contempt for Muslim women is part of a dangerous pattern".

Political capital abounds regardless of the facts. From the Huffington Post: "Boris Johnson Branded 'Racist' For Saying Women Who Wear Burkas 'Look Like Letter Boxes'."

Other than for women living in Iran, the veil is not a requirement of Islam, neither is Islam a race. It is a political ideology which seeks to control all aspects of life by whatever means. Consequently, every opportunity is taken to condemn as Islamophobic any offence, real or imagined.

In Iran brave women are fighting for right to ditch their hijabs: "It's not just about the hijab, it's about equality under the law - that is what the Girls of Revolution Street are fighting for." Unlike British Muslims they are living at the sharp end in an Islamic state so fully understand what it means to be oppressed.

From Business Insider UK - In 2005, Johnson wrote in the Spectator that he believed it was only "natural" for the public to be scared of Islam. "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke," he wrote. "Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers."

To put all this into perspective, Boris Johnson made what he presumably thought was an amusing comparison as illustrated above. A political gaffe resulting in a predictable response. Making another comparison, in Islamic countries death can result merely for not being a Muslim or even the wrong sort of Muslim as numerous reports testify.

A veil is a mask behind which one hides oneself from others. It is not surprising, therefore, that many find it offensive. Boris did not and said so but he is pilloried for his choice of language.

People must be allowed to express their opinions, within the law, without fear of reprisal in what amounts to attempts at gagging for political gain by using ridiculous charges of Islamophobia.

Clowning around with marriage

David Cameron: "I'm a massive supporter of marriage and
 I don't want gay people to be excluded from a great institution.”

Many grassroots Tories are bewildered by what they see as David Cameron's betrayal over the government's plans to push through a redefinition of marriage but Tory warring against Tory is not a new phenomenon. In the Thatcher years the war was against the 'wets' and the question asked was "Is he one of us? Now it is, "Is he one of them?" There are suggestions that gay MPs secretly risk being outed for publicly opposing same-sex weddings and further suggestions that Tory waverers are being press-ganged to back Cameron on the gay marriage vote or their careers will be damaged. Today there is a warning that teachers and the Church of England could be sued if they don't accept the change.

It is a mystery why the government is so intent on this change when nobody has been given the opportunity to vote on such a fundamental issue. There are enough examples of the absurdity of this agenda when a man refers to another man as his wife and a woman refers to another woman as her husband. At least that is a matter of choice but the whole process turns to farce when children are involved and a child's 'mother' or 'father' who, for biological reasons, evidently cannot be the wife or the husband in the relationship since the biological mother will be a surrogate and the father a donor, unless of course the father, or mother, in a same-sex relationship is the biological father, etc, etc. The proposed solution of substituting 'parent' for mother and for father in same-sex relationships is far from convincing if one imagines a child crying 'Parent' during the night or trying to get his or her head around the situation and asking 'parent' ('mummy' or 'daddy') for an explanation.

The explanations given for the redefinition of marriage are based on false notions of love and equality. Some groups of people who love each other are rightly barred from marriage  for the well-being of society but as with all change, one step leads to another. Marriage as it stands has clear benefits for society. Couples in civil partnerships already have equality with the same rights as married couples. At the grassroots people of all persuasions are content with the status quo and simply do not understand why anyone would want to clown around with what has been regarded for centuries as a sacred institution. Clowns frequently make fools of themselves often falling flat on their face. Let's hope this is no exception.

Postscript
Three ministers holding the three great offices of state, have written a letter to The Telegraph saying that “attitudes to gay people have changed”. This has absolutely nothing to do with attitudes to gay people. It is the simple belief that marriage is the life-long union of one man and one woman. To suggest otherwise is pure deception. They claim that 'marriage has evolved over time and believe that opening it up to same-sex couples will strengthen, not weaken, the institution'. In fact marriage as an institution is declining with married couples now making up less than half the population, a position the Government were expected to address but instead of honouring their manifesto commitment on tax supporting marriage, they propose to give tax breaks to gay married couples! It is ministers' attitudes to heterosexual people that have changed.