Crosswords4 mins ago
Should Ch4 Have Used This Woman In A Hijab
to front the news of the Nice massacre?
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by trt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
v_e> I think she shouldn't have worn the hijab, Ellipsis.
I'd say the arguments around her wearing / not wearing the hijab are exhausted several hundred posts ago. I can't add any more.
To recap, in not wearing it, she'd be showing that she agreed with you that it was a sign of being a terrorist or sympathiser, which clearly she doesn't. Nor does her employer C4 News, who branded thoughts like this "arguably tantamount to inciting religious hatred" - no doubt because it seeks to equate Moslem and terrorist.
I'd say the arguments around her wearing / not wearing the hijab are exhausted several hundred posts ago. I can't add any more.
To recap, in not wearing it, she'd be showing that she agreed with you that it was a sign of being a terrorist or sympathiser, which clearly she doesn't. Nor does her employer C4 News, who branded thoughts like this "arguably tantamount to inciting religious hatred" - no doubt because it seeks to equate Moslem and terrorist.
I take my wife regularly to a local health clinic, Ellipsis. There are several bulletin boards with useful information, but also some current propaganda pieces. One says "Some people are homosexual. Get over it!". I don't think I have any dislike, far less hatred for homosexuals, but this sanctimonious and bullying exhortation irritated me. And of course it would have the opposite effect of its pretended aims on those who do dislike gays.
I think the hijab was the same as the poster: "Some people are Muslim. Get over it!". "Poking in the eye" was MacKenzie's phrase, wasn't it?
I think the hijab was the same as the poster: "Some people are Muslim. Get over it!". "Poking in the eye" was MacKenzie's phrase, wasn't it?
Togo - //There are several bulletin boards with useful information, but also some current propaganda pieces. One says "Some people are homosexual. Get over it!"//
Oohh if I saw that, the temptation to add at the bottom of it, "But Some People aren't, Now You Get Over That", would have been overwhelming. //
Absolutely!
This is an example of a copywriter who thinks - mistakenly - that aggressive irony in print gets the message across - when clearly all it does is alienate the intended audience.
Most people object to being lectured, especially by a government poster.
This programme to encourage tolerance should be withdrawn, it has been badly misjudged in my view.
Oohh if I saw that, the temptation to add at the bottom of it, "But Some People aren't, Now You Get Over That", would have been overwhelming. //
Absolutely!
This is an example of a copywriter who thinks - mistakenly - that aggressive irony in print gets the message across - when clearly all it does is alienate the intended audience.
Most people object to being lectured, especially by a government poster.
This programme to encourage tolerance should be withdrawn, it has been badly misjudged in my view.
retrocop
Talbot
/// Site Rules and the report button are always a handy get out clause when you are backed up in a corner with no other way to get out. !!! ///
Did you mistakenly put a H in front of the word Andy?
Talbot
/// Site Rules and the report button are always a handy get out clause when you are backed up in a corner with no other way to get out. !!! ///
Did you mistakenly put a H in front of the word Andy?
AOG - //retrocop
Talbot
/// Site Rules and the report button are always a handy get out clause when you are backed up in a corner with no other way to get out. !!! ///
Did you mistakenly put a H in front of the word Andy? //
You and I are getting along famously - let's not spoil it shall we?
Talbot
/// Site Rules and the report button are always a handy get out clause when you are backed up in a corner with no other way to get out. !!! ///
Did you mistakenly put a H in front of the word Andy? //
You and I are getting along famously - let's not spoil it shall we?
AOG - //Thinking about her right to wear a particular garb, if I am ever invited (and that is most unlikely) to enter a Mosque, I will choose not to remove my shoes. //
Why would you wish to do that?
When my wife and I travel abroad on holiday, we like to look around inside historic churches. I am usually wearing a sun hat, and I always remove it as I enter the church.
I am not a Christian, I have no belief in God, but I do respect the wishes of those who do - so I am more than happy to comply with standard practice - to do so bothers me not at all, to fail to do so would be boorish and insensitive (if I dare use that word!)
Discarding shoes in a Mosque is far more important, because such etiquette is taken very seriously indeed, and failing to remove footwear would cause grave offence. Why would you wish to offend a house of worship in this way?
Why would you wish to do that?
When my wife and I travel abroad on holiday, we like to look around inside historic churches. I am usually wearing a sun hat, and I always remove it as I enter the church.
I am not a Christian, I have no belief in God, but I do respect the wishes of those who do - so I am more than happy to comply with standard practice - to do so bothers me not at all, to fail to do so would be boorish and insensitive (if I dare use that word!)
Discarding shoes in a Mosque is far more important, because such etiquette is taken very seriously indeed, and failing to remove footwear would cause grave offence. Why would you wish to offend a house of worship in this way?
andy-hughes
/// In that instance, I would entirely agree that using a Japanese presenter would be insensitive - based on very 'black and white' national views on colour and race - let's not forget that condoned racism in US states was a fact of life then, and not even questioned, much less resisted as it is now. ///
What has colour got to do with it, don't you think it would have also been inappropriate for a white German to announce the bombing of a British town on British radio, regardless of the racism that existed at that time in the USA?
Much as it is for a 'uniformed' Muslim announcing a Muslim backed atrocity in this age.
/// In that instance, I would entirely agree that using a Japanese presenter would be insensitive - based on very 'black and white' national views on colour and race - let's not forget that condoned racism in US states was a fact of life then, and not even questioned, much less resisted as it is now. ///
What has colour got to do with it, don't you think it would have also been inappropriate for a white German to announce the bombing of a British town on British radio, regardless of the racism that existed at that time in the USA?
Much as it is for a 'uniformed' Muslim announcing a Muslim backed atrocity in this age.
AOG - //andy-hughes
/// In that instance, I would entirely agree that using a Japanese presenter would be insensitive - based on very 'black and white' national views on colour and race - let's not forget that condoned racism in US states was a fact of life then, and not even questioned, much less resisted as it is now. ///
What has colour got to do with it, don't you think it would have also been inappropriate for a white German to announce the bombing of a British town on British radio, regardless of the racism that existed at that time in the USA?
Much as it is for a 'uniformed' Muslim announcing a Muslim backed atrocity in this age. //
For some reason, posters are finding ever more elaborate - and further from the actual circumstances - scenarios in order to justify their viewpoint.
Imagining a scenario removed in terms of content, race, time, and overall circumstances in order to shoehorn in an objection to another scenario simply does not work - so we should cease furrowing our brows for ever more fanciful situations, and remain with the issue from the OP.
So I will regretfully decline your offer to consider your notion - along with any following from anyone about imagining invaders from Mars that happen to wear garish ties, so should John Snow be talking about them on Channel 4!!!
/// In that instance, I would entirely agree that using a Japanese presenter would be insensitive - based on very 'black and white' national views on colour and race - let's not forget that condoned racism in US states was a fact of life then, and not even questioned, much less resisted as it is now. ///
What has colour got to do with it, don't you think it would have also been inappropriate for a white German to announce the bombing of a British town on British radio, regardless of the racism that existed at that time in the USA?
Much as it is for a 'uniformed' Muslim announcing a Muslim backed atrocity in this age. //
For some reason, posters are finding ever more elaborate - and further from the actual circumstances - scenarios in order to justify their viewpoint.
Imagining a scenario removed in terms of content, race, time, and overall circumstances in order to shoehorn in an objection to another scenario simply does not work - so we should cease furrowing our brows for ever more fanciful situations, and remain with the issue from the OP.
So I will regretfully decline your offer to consider your notion - along with any following from anyone about imagining invaders from Mars that happen to wear garish ties, so should John Snow be talking about them on Channel 4!!!
-- answer removed --
andy-hughes
'Insensitive' (you dared to use it) is what this thread is all about, or at least insensitivity is.
But this has to work for everyone, not just a particular faith.
/// Why would you wish to offend a house of worship in this way? ///
Bricks/stones and mortar cannot become offended, only certain religions and Islam is top of the class in 'being offended'.
'Insensitive' (you dared to use it) is what this thread is all about, or at least insensitivity is.
But this has to work for everyone, not just a particular faith.
/// Why would you wish to offend a house of worship in this way? ///
Bricks/stones and mortar cannot become offended, only certain religions and Islam is top of the class in 'being offended'.
AOG - //andy-hughes
'Insensitive' (you dared to use it) is what this thread is all about, or at least insensitivity is.
But this has to work for everyone, not just a particular faith. //
Absolutely - no argument there.
/// Why would you wish to offend a house of worship in this way? ///
Bricks/stones and mortar cannot become offended, only certain religions and Islam is top of the class in 'being offended'. //
A fair point - my post was carelessly worded.
Ok - why would you wish to offend another faith, which is surely giving grist to the extremist mill that the west tramples all over Muslim values, and deserves jihad as a result.
Surely we should lead by example, and accept the cultural practises involved in entering a mosque, in the expectation that western cultural practices can similarly be understood.
I return to the point I made earlier on the thread with regard to the journalist removing (or not) her hijab - there is only ever a point in making a statement if the recipients are absolutely clear what the statement is, and why it is being made.
For that reason, I would bracket the journalist not removing her hijab with the thought that your retaining your shoes would not be appropriate - neither gesture would be understood by its audience, rendering the action meaningless.
'Insensitive' (you dared to use it) is what this thread is all about, or at least insensitivity is.
But this has to work for everyone, not just a particular faith. //
Absolutely - no argument there.
/// Why would you wish to offend a house of worship in this way? ///
Bricks/stones and mortar cannot become offended, only certain religions and Islam is top of the class in 'being offended'. //
A fair point - my post was carelessly worded.
Ok - why would you wish to offend another faith, which is surely giving grist to the extremist mill that the west tramples all over Muslim values, and deserves jihad as a result.
Surely we should lead by example, and accept the cultural practises involved in entering a mosque, in the expectation that western cultural practices can similarly be understood.
I return to the point I made earlier on the thread with regard to the journalist removing (or not) her hijab - there is only ever a point in making a statement if the recipients are absolutely clear what the statement is, and why it is being made.
For that reason, I would bracket the journalist not removing her hijab with the thought that your retaining your shoes would not be appropriate - neither gesture would be understood by its audience, rendering the action meaningless.
Latest Posts
News5 mins ago
Crosswords24 mins ago
Is This The Worst Ever Conservative...
News26 mins ago
Crosswords42 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.