The Student Room Group

Labour hold gender segregated meeting yet again in Oldham

http://order-order.com/2015/11/30/labour-hold-another-segregated-rally/

Is it acceptable for Labour to treat women as 2nd class citizens and should we be telling muslims to integrate with UK society where women are treated equally with men

Scroll to see replies

At least there's no Burqas....
I wonder which side Corbyn would sit on
Original post by the rad daddy
I wonder which side Corbyn would sit on


Maybe he'd go down the manhole?
Revolting. I'd sit on the "wrong" side if such a stupid idea was carried out at something I attended.
Reply 5
Haha it's so easy to wind up British people.
Original post by Ace123
http://order-order.com/2015/11/30/labour-hold-another-segregated-rally/

Is it acceptable for Labour to treat women as 2nd class citizens and should we be telling muslims to integrate with UK society where women are treated equally with men


no it isnt.
It isn't, but this is the same party that elected Corbyn as their leader. I think this says a lot about how divorced from reality Labour has become.
In Mosques men and women are separate, it was respectful to Islam and to Muslims to address the meeting in this manner. Imagine the fury and outrage from the Muslim community if Labour had insisted on not allowing them to sit this way. Instead we have a bunch of people screaming fowl for actually respecting other religions and cultures. It's almost as if we don't live in a multicultural society during a time of heightened Islamophobia due to the actions of a loud minority, with Islamic Fundamentalist groups being an extremely tiny minority of Islam, less than 0.01% (with that being a very conservative figure)
Maybe people sit where they wanted? In which case it's voluntary rather than forced segregation?

Original post by Skip_Snip
Revolting. I'd sit on the "wrong" side if such a stupid idea was carried out at something I attended.


Yeah, me too!
Original post by Kay_Winters
In Mosques men and women are separate, it was respectful to Islam and to Muslims to address the meeting in this manner. Imagine the fury and outrage from the Muslim community if Labour had insisted on not allowing them to sit this way. Instead we have a bunch of people screaming fowl for actually respecting other religions and cultures. It's almost as if we don't live in a multicultural society during a time of heightened Islamophobia due to the actions of a loud minority, with Islamic Fundamentalist groups being an extremely tiny minority of Islam, less than 0.01% (with that being a very conservative figure)


They weren't in a mosque, there is no call to respect 'religious diversity' - it was a political event. Why are you supporting religious conservatism? Nay, you are appeasing conservatism. Women are equal. Appeasing this is genuine, actual misogyny.
Reply 11
Original post by Kay_Winters
In Mosques men and women are separate, it was respectful to Islam and to Muslims to address the meeting in this manner. Imagine the fury and outrage from the Muslim community if Labour had insisted on not allowing them to sit this way. Instead we have a bunch of people screaming fowl for actually respecting other religions and cultures. It's almost as if we don't live in a multicultural society during a time of heightened Islamophobia due to the actions of a loud minority, with Islamic Fundamentalist groups being an extremely tiny minority of Islam, less than 0.01% (with that being a very conservative figure)

I suppose that you would also have supported them if they had prevented homosexuals from attending the rally, in order to "respect other religions and cultures".

The Left used to fight religious backwardness.
Original post by chazwomaq
Maybe people sit where they wanted? In which case it's voluntary rather than forced segregation?



Yeah, me too!


Is it right if a woman stays with a man who is beating the crap out of her?

She has chosen to stay so, on that basis, I presume you wouldn't suggest we intervene? She's clearly not facing any subjugation, right? Free choice, right?

Seriously, why do so-called 'progressives' continually appease religious and social conservatism? You belong on the right. Nay, you belong in the 1960's.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Kay_Winters
In Mosques men and women are separate, it was respectful to Islam and to Muslims to address the meeting in this manner. Imagine the fury and outrage from the Muslim community if Labour had insisted on not allowing them to sit this way. Instead we have a bunch of people screaming fowl for actually respecting other religions and cultures. It's almost as if we don't live in a multicultural society during a time of heightened Islamophobia due to the actions of a loud minority, with Islamic Fundamentalist groups being an extremely tiny minority of Islam, less than 0.01% (with that being a very conservative figure)


1. Backwards religions and cultures like that should not to be tolerated. This supine acceptance of medieval practices in order to not offend anyone is revolting.
2. Multiculturalism assumes all cultures are of equal worth. They are not, and backwards practices like this have no place in an enlightened culture
3. Islamophobia is a nonsense term. There is nothing bigoted or objectionable about criticising or mocking Islam. No ideology is sacrosanct
4. The number of terrorists may be small, but the percentage of Muslims who hold anti-semitic views, who hold blasphemy above freedom of speech and who condone the punishment of apostates is disturbingly high.


It never ceases to amaze me how people on the left continue to defend Islam, a belief system which is the antithesis of progressivism and tolerance. Cognitive dissonance at its finest
Reply 14
Reminds me of my secondary school sometimes gender segregating us in assemblies; it was so weird.
...I don't have anything to add really, generally in agreement with TheCitizenAct and tengentopaa
Is this another instance where people chose to sit separately of their own free will? Dash it all, I guess we will have to deliberately force people to sit together despite their religious convictions just to make a point as obnoxiously as possible. We can't have people making decisions according to what they believe! Think of the chaos that would ensue if their betters weren't there to guide them.

Ah, it was in a mosque. Well, when in Rome. If I went into a mosque with a woman I would segregate myself according to their customs. It has nothing to do with "appeasement of Islam" or even religious toleration. It's just basic politeness.

But the right are obnoxious, noisy and self-righteous bullies. Their way or the highway. Aggressive and needless troll baiting of Muslims by forcing them to flout their customs in their own place of worship.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by HAnwar
Haha it's so easy to wind up British people.


These are people who I don’t doubt vote UKIP, the most regressive party out there for women. They're not wound up, they're just pretending; they don't really care about women or even Muslims.

It's all just a reason to have a cynical pop at the Labour Party. To gang up on those in a weak position is in their nature. It makes them feel powerful.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by TheCitizenAct
They weren't in a mosque, there is no call to respect 'religious diversity' - it was a political event. Why are you supporting religious conservatism? Nay, you are appeasing conservatism. Women are equal. Appeasing this is genuine, actual misogyny.


I had been told by others earlier it was in a mosque, I found it hard to tell otherwise by the article, so apologies on that, although I do believe it was a discussion to an all Muslim group, which would make it both religious and political. It is their religious practice to sit separate as I understand, and as I said originally, if the Labour candidate had then refused to talk to them there would have been outrage in the Muslim community about Labour being Islamophobic, and refusing to respect their practices.

And if one wanted to be cynical about this, then that is hardly the reaction you want when you know the 20% of constituents who are ethnic minorities are traditionally Labour voting, and it would be bad to piss them off days before the by-election.


Original post by Josb
I suppose that you would also have supported them if they had prevented homosexuals from attending the rally, in order to "respect other religions and cultures".

The Left used to fight religious backwardness.


To exclude lgbt people would be contradictory to the Equality Act 2010, passed by a Labour Government. I would of course fight against any and all discrimination of all kinds, but their religion is their religion, and I can't make them change that, and we can't outlaw Islam as that'd make us as bad as them, if not worse.

However I do support the movements led by people such as Asra Nomani who fight to say that the Qu'ran actually doesn't support gender segregation, and it is only by supporting Islamic movements that we'll ever see any change. 'The Left' can't impose their will on a global Religion which numbers in the billions.

Original post by tengentoppa
1. Backwards religions and cultures like that should not to be tolerated. This supine acceptance of medieval practices in order to not offend anyone is revolting.
2. Multiculturalism assumes all cultures are of equal worth. They are not, and backwards practices like this have no place in an enlightened culture
3. Islamophobia is a nonsense term. There is nothing bigoted or objectionable about criticising or mocking Islam. No ideology is sacrosanct
4. The number of terrorists may be small, but the percentage of Muslims who hold anti-semitic views, who hold blasphemy above freedom of speech and who condone the punishment of apostates is disturbingly high.


It never ceases to amaze me how people on the left continue to defend Islam, a belief system which is the antithesis of progressivism and tolerance. Cognitive dissonance at its finest


1&2) Every culture and person is of equal wealth, and if it wasn't for Islamic Countries and cultures we would not have much of what we enjoy today, ranging from inventions/tools to food. Those of Islamic faith fought and died against Fascism just as those of Christian faith did, those of Jewish faith, no faith, Sikhism ect. To try and devalue 23% of the World's population is ridiculous.

3) Islamophobia happens, and it is literally, on the extreme end of it, killing people who are completely innocent. To ignore the harmful impact hate and hate speech against Islam has on completely innocent people, people who are so young in some cases that they can't even go to the cinema to see the new James Bond movie, which is rated 15. People are being bullied, harmed and as I said in extreme cases killed, that is a little more than making critical analysis of Islam.

4) I'd like to see your evidence on how many Muslims hold those views then. To back up your argument, if you like I can also provide evidence about how few are fundamentalist terrorists who likely wouldn't even know a Qu'ran if it hit them on the head
Reply 18
Original post by Kay_Winters

To exclude lgbt people would be contradictory to the Equality Act 2010, passed by a Labour Government. I would of course fight against any and all discrimination of all kinds, but their religion is their religion, and I can't make them change that, and we can't outlaw Islam as that'd make us as bad as them, if not worse.

However I do support the movements led by people such as Asra Nomani who fight to say that the Qu'ran actually doesn't support gender segregation, and it is only by supporting Islamic movements that we'll ever see any change. 'The Left' can't impose their will on a global Religion which numbers in the billions.

I say it again, but if early feminists had fought Christianity with the same strength as you, homosexuality, abortion and contraception would still be illegal. You wouldn't have wanted to hurt Christians' backward beliefs, right?
Original post by Kay_Winters
I had been told by others earlier it was in a mosque, I found it hard to tell otherwise by the article, so apologies on that, although I do believe it was a discussion to an all Muslim group, which would make it both religious and political. It is their religious practice to sit separate as I understand, and as I said originally, if the Labour candidate had then refused to talk to them there would have been outrage in the Muslim community about Labour being Islamophobic, and refusing to respect their practices.

And if one wanted to be cynical about this, then that is hardly the reaction you want when you know the 20% of constituents who are ethnic minorities are traditionally Labour voting, and it would be bad to piss them off days before the by-election.


No, it would make it a political event. We live in a secular democracy.

What other aspects of religious conservatism and misogyny are progressives willing to tolerate in the name of accruing votes?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending