Hi Lefty,

Yes, I fear that Cockneys may be an endangered species.

On the burkini: of course, with what one might call a lower limit, people should be allowed to wear whatever they like at a beach. From a melanoma point of view, the more the better. Of course, from the view of an old perve like me, the less the better.

As for " .... the more people who think a certain way, makes the belief more credible. .... ", absolutely not. I don't know where you got that idea from. I don't make a point of disagreeing with people (at least I don't think I do) but I do lose friends faster than I can make them, over contrasting viewpoints. Since I started putting together old documents in Aboriginal affairs here in SA (now on a web-site: www.firstsources.info ) I've lost the friendship of many people, but looking back much further, I can't say that I've ever been good at kissing arse, so I wouldn't have it any other way. But it's finding out who your friends are the hard way.

Did I write something which you may have misinterpreted ?

Cheers,

Joe

Too loudmouth
I apologies if my flowery language makes you think I am extracting the urine, it is not the case.
The people who make laws that say wearing more clothes on the beach than other is against the law are in my mind, the ones who are being PC, by not allowing people to decide what they want to wear.

I am afraid you had to be born within the sound of bow bells to be classified as a Cockney. Of course, these days you have to be rich to live where my father was born.

I seem to recall that you believe that the more people who think a certain way, makes the belief more credible.

Chris

oops a double post
Chris

You managed to get my message all screwed up again, Lefty One.

My point was that the trendy lefty, Chardonnay socialist set has a history of supporting the wrong causes. In the late 19th century/early 20th century, they were all for nationalism and war. That got shot out of them on the western front. Then they went the opposite way and became totally pacifist. Then came the idea of supporting a classless society. Which was pretty funny, really, because trendy lefties are the biggest snobs around. They were "angry young men" anti Imperialists in the 1950's, with the result that much of this world is now reverting to barbarism. There were plenty of university caste traitors around in the 50", Philby, McLean, Blunt, Cairncross, Fuchs, Burgess, the Rosenburgs, etc) but even trendy lefties in those days were smart enough to revile them.

Today, treason against ones own people and civilisation has become the new social fashion. People like John Walker Lindt, David Hicks, Edward Snowden, and Julian Assange are trendy lefty superstars.

The point which I am making, is that trendy lefties like yourself support causes which you have never really thought about. Most of you simply parrot whatever shallow arguments which your peers have inculcated into you. You have a deep compulsive need to think that you are very intelligent and morally upright, the sort of people who can solve the world's problems. This makes you easy meat for every charlatan and Elmer Gantry figure with a self serving Trojan Horse agenda to enlist you in their fight.

In Asian and Muslim countries, where being intensely loyal to either the State of to Allah is taken for granted, the sight of the educated left in the West doing their utmost to destroy their own civilisation must be one of complete amazement to them. Not that they mind, of course. Both of these civilisations are waiting for the west to collapse so that they can be the top dogs. Lenin called western lefties like yourself "useful fools."

Joe, some great posts on this thread.

I've been pondering the issue of the range of tolerance within societies in relation to the burkini issue.

How well do societies do at tolerating the full range of approach in almost anything? My impression is generally not well.

Will the adoption of very conservative garb on the beach by some lead to a shift where the freedoms of others to dress far less modestly be undermined and how do western societies combat that.

I don't have enough background to understand the drivers but from what I can see part of the issue was stirred up by a planned Burkini only day at a French water park http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36973212. What I can't tell is if this was the brainchild of "well meaning" non-muslims or by muslims.

Either way it's easy to picture pushes for sections of beaches set aside for covered up attire and other measures designed to make the cover up group more comfortable at the expense of others.

R0bert

Hi RObert,

On 'conservative' garb: if my late mum had gone to the beach, I'm sure she would have worn a cardigan and a hat, as well as long trousers. The wonderful scholar Henry Ergas has suggested, citing Erving Goffmann, that some phenomena don't need to have attention drawn to them, that this quite unnecessarily can exaggerate them into political issues, when they don't need to be.

If bikinis are quite acceptable, as I fervently hope will be the case as long as I live, then what does it matter if people, women, wear more clothing ? Even fully-garbed nuns should have the right to go to the beach, after all.

If misogynist husbands won't allow their wives to go to the beach unless they are fully covered, even with a nikab, that may be the only way for those poor women to be able to get out and see the world, and importantly to see that even scantily-clad young women are free to go to the beach without being harassed: the West is not necessarily the hotbed of depravity, as they may have been incessantly taught by ignorant imams.

And fter all, Islam is not a 'race': there are many fair-skinned Muslims who may need to cover up to avoid getting skin cancer later. And if they can cover up, why not anybody else ?

It shouldn't be an issue. Let's move on.

Cheers,

Joe