BoxRec

Tony1244 wrote: ↑20 Jun 2026, 13:43

Jaguar wrote: ↑20 Jun 2026, 13:32

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑20 Jun 2026, 12:08 The best thing for a modern civilised society like the UK would be to not allow any sort of religious symbol or dress in public. No hijabs, no kirpan, no crucifixes. Do want you want at home or in your place of worship, but in public we shouldn’t be accepting any of this nonsense. It’s 2026, not the dark ages.

If you don’t like it, please leave

I don't agree. The UK is a Christian nation and the country is built upon Christian tradition, so Christian symbols are valid.

I'm not religious myself by the way.

What about the Star of David, or that red dot Indian thing?

I'm not really a fan of banning things if it can be avoided and, to be honest, I don't see a problem with either of those symbols - although it must be said that you are putting yourself at risk in the UK now if you display a Star of David.

I also don't see a problem with a hijab, although I draw the line at the burka. On one hand, it's a security thing. We need to be able to identify people. But, also I do find it offensive. In my culture (Western European) we try to communicate openly as equals and the burka goes against that and prevents integration. Effectively, it's putting two finges up at the rest of society.

Jaguar wrote: ↑20 Jun 2026, 14:36

Tony1244 wrote: ↑20 Jun 2026, 13:43

Jaguar wrote: ↑20 Jun 2026, 13:32

I don't agree. The UK is a Christian nation and the country is built upon Christian tradition, so Christian symbols are valid.

I'm not religious myself by the way.

What about the Star of David, or that red dot Indian thing?

I'm not really a fan of banning things if it can be avoided and, to be honest, I don't see a problem with either of those symbols - although it must be said that you are putting yourself at risk in the UK now if you display a Star of David.

I also don't see a problem with a hijab, although I draw the line at the burka. On one hand, it's a security thing. We need to be able to identify people. But, also I do find it offensive. In my culture (Western European) we try to communicate openly as equals and the burka goes against that and prevents integration. Effectively, it's putting two finges up at the rest of society.

Yeah it would be pretty difficult to outlaw hijabs while allowing other kind of head coverings. Burkas are draconian and ridiculous.

Two things: First, "the West" does not have a single view of the hijab, so I'm not really aware of any widespread celebration of it. Second, supporting a woman's right to wear a hijab is not necessarily the same as celebrating the hijab itself.

Ricky you still with us Bro?


Edinburgh: Man charged over series of 'anti-Muslim' attacks | UK News | Sky News https://share.google/CeG55KtVCL7vZFGdG

Nightmare Roy wrote: ↑21 Jun 2026, 03:45 Ricky you still with us Bro?


Edinburgh: Man charged over series of 'anti-Muslim' attacks | UK News | Sky News https://share.google/CeG55KtVCL7vZFGdG

mental health issue, don't point score, time for coming together, can't say rage, only thoughts and prayers, etc

greg wrote: ↑21 Jun 2026, 03:06 Two things: First, "the West" does not have a single view of the hijab, so I'm not really aware of any widespread celebration of it. Second, supporting a woman's right to wear a hijab is not necessarily the same as celebrating the hijab itself.

Surely you can see the irony in your 2nd sentence, not only does it undermine your first, it's a terrible excuse for getting on board with stockholm syndrome.

Ricky wrote: ↑21 Jun 2026, 03:56

greg wrote: ↑21 Jun 2026, 03:06 Two things: First, "the West" does not have a single view of the hijab, so I'm not really aware of any widespread celebration of it. Second, supporting a woman's right to wear a hijab is not necessarily the same as celebrating the hijab itself.

Surely you can see the irony in your 2nd sentence, not only does it undermine your first, it's a terrible excuse for getting on board with stockholm syndrome.

Ricky, pal, you don't have to turn almost everything into some lefties-versus-righties, Stockholm syndrome, or some such shit. It's much simpler than that, and there's no irony here. My second point doesn't undermine the first, it distinguishes between two different ideas. Defending someone's right to make a choice - like, in this case, wearing a fucking headscarf while leaving the face uncovered - is not the same as endorsing that choice, let alone celebrating it.

Wearing the hijab is obligatory.

Now not everyone Muslim woman in the UK wears one.

Does it mean they’re not religious? No. They probably still pray and when they do, they’ll wear a hijab. Then take it off.

Many women wear the hijab but couldn’t give a toss about the religion. They just wear it as an accessory.

It’s still deemed a choice. Many Muslims don’t follow the basic laws or what you need to be doing as a Muslim.

The full veil niqab, isn’t obligatory. Woman chose to wear that. I believe it’s just part of the forehead, hair, ears and neck needs to be covered and it needs to be draped over the chest area as well.

That’s my understanding of it anyway.

I think the word ‘celebrate’ is wrong, but I understand what you meant by it. You see plenty of posters with Muslim women NOT supporting the hijab.

greg wrote: ↑21 Jun 2026, 04:12

Ricky wrote: ↑21 Jun 2026, 03:56

greg wrote: ↑21 Jun 2026, 03:06 Two things: First, "the West" does not have a single view of the hijab, so I'm not really aware of any widespread celebration of it. Second, supporting a woman's right to wear a hijab is not necessarily the same as celebrating the hijab itself.

Surely you can see the irony in your 2nd sentence, not only does it undermine your first, it's a terrible excuse for getting on board with stockholm syndrome.

Ricky, pal, you don't have to turn almost everything into some lefties-versus-righties, Stockholm syndrome, or some such shit. It's much simpler than that, and there's no irony here. My second point doesn't undermine the first, it distinguishes between two different ideas. Defending someone's right to make a choice - like, in this case, wearing a fucking headscarf while leaving the face uncovered - is not the same as endorsing that choice, let alone celebrating it.

Defending someone's right to wear a head scarf? Jesus wept.

Seriously, that's the point your making? In at least 2000 years of the history of western civilization when has anyone been denied the right of wearing a scarf!?

Clutching at straws, we all know WHY Muslim women must wear them (and rather disturbing to see Muslim men them make pre-pubescent girls wear them too).

While millions of women in the Islamic world are getting lashes for protesting for the right NOT to cover their fvcking modesty, we think it's a good thing and seem to be filing it under the banner "Just the right to wear a scarf". Laughable. Do better. Stand up to evil.

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑21 Jun 2026, 04:57 Wearing the hijab is obligatory.

Now not everyone Muslim woman in the UK wears one.

Does it mean they’re not religious? No. They probably still pray and when they do, they’ll wear a hijab. Then take it off.

Many women wear the hijab but couldn’t give a toss about the religion. They just wear it as an accessory.

It’s still deemed a choice. Many Muslims don’t follow the basic laws or what you need to be doing as a Muslim.

The full veil niqab, isn’t obligatory. Woman chose to wear that. I believe it’s just part of the forehead, hair, ears and neck needs to be covered and it needs to be draped over the chest area as well.

That’s my understanding of it anyway.

I think the word ‘celebrate’ is wrong, but I understand what you meant by it. You see plenty of posters with Muslim women NOT supporting the hijab.

Don't be naive. Some are clearly forced to wear it.

Leaving that aside, the notion of choice is highly shaped by social context and expectations. In other words, people living under oppressive regimes are likely suffer consequences - sometimes very severe in nature - of choosing to go against the grain.

If a woman genuinely wants to wear a hijab, should she be allowed to? Or should this Stockholm syndrome victim be saved from herself?

If burkas are allowed inside certain public places, ski masks and other face coverings should be as well.

Seamus wrote: ↑21 Jun 2026, 08:07 If burkas are allowed inside certain public places, ski masks and other face coverings should be as well.

I've argued this for years, I have to remove my motorcycle helmet to go into a shop which is a bigger pain than removing a burkha.

You're wrong about atheist women being promiscuous though

I don't remember saying that ?

Seamus wrote: ↑21 Jun 2026, 08:23 I don't remember saying that ?

You changed your post

The last post ? I definitely don't remember doing that, unless i was hacked. Can't recall the last time I mentioned atheists.

Seamus wrote: ↑21 Jun 2026, 08:50 The last post ? I definitely don't remember doing that, unless i was hacked. Can't recall the last time I mentioned atheists.

Massive apologies Seamus it was Perkin Twathead