Muslim women refused bus services because of the veil


by Sunny
24th July, 2010 at 10:29 am    

The BBC reports (via Left Outside)

Two Muslim women have claimed they were refused a bus ride because one had her face covered by a veil.

The students, both 22 and from Slough, Berkshire, boarded a Metroline bus from Russell Square to Paddington, London.

But they said when they presented their tickets on Tuesday, the driver told them they were a “threat” to passengers and ordered them off the bus.

If this were the other way around the Daily Mail etc would be supremely outraged. But if the victim in question is a Muslim woman they just carry on.

Not surprisingly either, most of the comments under the ES article blame the women themselves for wearing it.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Culture






108 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blog post:: Muslim women refused bus services because of the veil http://bit.ly/cBHgvY


  2. smileandsubvert

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: Muslim women refused bus services because of the veil http://bit.ly/cBHgvY


  3. heather leith

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: Muslim women refused bus services because of the veil http://bit.ly/cBHgvY


  4. Islamic Soc Britain

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: Muslim women refused bus services because of the veil http://bit.ly/cBHgvY


  5. Javeriah

    RT @sunny_hundal Blog post:: Muslim women refused bus services because of the veil http://bit.ly/cBHgvY


  6. earwicga

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog Post: Muslim women refused bus services because of the veil http://bit.ly/cBHgvY


  7. John O'Dwyer

    RT @earwicga RT @sunny_hundal: Blog Post: Muslim women refused bus services because of the veil http://bit.ly/cBHgvY


  8. Hannah M

    RT @sunny_hundal: Muslim women refused bus services because of the veil http://bit.ly/cBHgvY


  9. MasterPM

    Pickled Politics » Muslim women refused bus services because of … http://bit.ly/9iw18t


  10. A week in links « Earwicga

    [...] week in links July 24, 2010 by earwicga Sunny Hundal writes about how two Muslim women were denied entry onto a London bus, and also notes that most of the comments [...]


  11. Nadia

    Some interesting comments on @sunny_hundal's blog post: Muslim women refused bus services because of veil http://bit.ly/cBHgvY




  1. damon — on 24th July, 2010 at 11:13 am  

    If they were looking for a reaction then they got one.
    From hearing women who wear the niqab talk about it on TV, it does seem like a silly game the are playing with the general public.
    Maybe like guys standing on a street corner kissing, and then being offended if people stared at them or said anything.

    If they are from a country where it’s a custom then that’s one thing, but if it’s 22 year old students from England, then it’s just attention seeking.
    Especiially as they were ready to film the driver on their phones and make a complaint.

    I suspect the driver might have just have been their patsy. It’s a possibility surely.

    I thought this comment was telling – since the ES is a free newpaper picked up by anyone and everyone.

    Not surprisingly either, most of the comments under the ES article blame the women themselves for wearing it.

    Looks like most Londoners thought so too.

  2. earwicga — on 24th July, 2010 at 11:50 am  

    FFS Damon, you are so full of shit! They just wanted to get a bus!

  3. john — on 24th July, 2010 at 12:58 pm  

    “If they were looking for a reaction then they got one”

    what a clueless retard!

  4. persephone — on 24th July, 2010 at 2:07 pm  

    “If they were looking for a reaction then they got one”

    The whole point of veiling is to prevent a reaction

  5. Sunny — on 24th July, 2010 at 2:09 pm  

    If they were looking for a reaction then they got one.

    I bet if a woman got sexually harassed after wearing revealing clothes you’d say that too.

  6. joe90 — on 24th July, 2010 at 2:10 pm  

    Damon your comments are not even worth refuting they are that stupid.

    Well done for the woman to film the idiot bus driver, if he was so cocky to tell them to get off the bus and call them a threat why did he become all shy when the phone camera started rolling. I guess he was in reality a wimp who likes to pick on women.

  7. damon — on 24th July, 2010 at 2:28 pm  

    Has anyone heard that muslim convert Na’ima B Robert in the media talking about why she wears the niqab?
    She was on that programme ‘Sunday Norning Live’ last week with a rather appalled Bea Campbell sitting beside her.
    Here it is @24 minutes.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00t6qq6/Sunday_Morning_Live_Episode_2/

    I’m not really convinced by her.
    She was on the radio last night with an also somewhat exasperated Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.

    I know that earwicga doesn’t read articles like this below, because they ‘wind her up’. But that’s about the heart of it IMO.

    British women who wear the niqab have more in common with hoodies than with Islamic tradition.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/printable/1804/

    Na’ima’s book looks quite interesting, but she seems to be making it her career.
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/My-Sisters-Lips-Naima-Robert/dp/0593054415

    She was on radio 4′s woman’s hour too.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2005_19_fri_01.shtml

    And btw, like Spiked, I certainly do not support any bans.
    I was in Dubai last year and the niqab is qute normal there. But most people in Britain don’t like it – so chosing to wear it is a bit attention seeking for young British women to adopt it.

  8. john — on 24th July, 2010 at 3:43 pm  

    damon
    “But most people in Britain don’t like it – so chosing to wear it is a bit attention seeking for young British women to adopt it.”

    You really dont comprehend why women wear it, do you?

  9. jookymundo — on 24th July, 2010 at 5:04 pm  

    It’s a surprising the bus driver stopped these ladies getting on the bus.

    Normally bus drivers don’t have much backbone, I remember when I was younger I would board the bus (valid ticket or not), sit at the back of the top deck, often smoking a spliff and the bus driver wouldn’t have made a peep.

    As a muslim this story sounds like total bullshit to me. From what I know Slough has quite a large muslim population, so I find it hard to believe that this bus driver chose just to stop these two girls from getting on.

    Is it just these two girls who are claiming that this is what happened or are there other people who can back this story up?

    Because if not, these two students who are obviously religious have probably made this shit up for political reasons.

  10. gladiolys — on 24th July, 2010 at 5:30 pm  

    “The whole point of veiling is to prevent a reaction”. That would only hold true in a culture where the veil is ubiquitous.

    I have no problem with people who choose to make a statement with their clothes, whether it’s a statement of cultural or religious affiliation. I did it as a young man, when wearing punk clothes to express my dissatisfaction with what was going on around me. I got beaten up for that, but I learned that if you express strong opinions, you can expect a strong reaction. (And no, I’m not saying I deserved to get beaten up and NOBODY deserves to be assaulted because of what they wear, and all public services should be accessible to you no matter what you’re wearing – even if you take the opposite extremes and go to Jobcentre Plus in a bikini.)

    The veil is a way of expressing a strong counter-cultural opinion and those who choose to wear it may expect people to react, just as if they were getting on the bus in a bikini.

  11. MaidMarian — on 24th July, 2010 at 5:36 pm  

    Persephone – ‘The whole point of veiling is to prevent a reaction.’

    You don’t really believe that do you? This was an expectation that people would be forced to bend the collective knee to a cultural taboo.

    One can only hazard a guess how a bus driver in Riyadh would have reacted to an unveiled woman.

  12. Trofim — on 24th July, 2010 at 6:00 pm  

    From the BBC article “she hoped the driver would be educated about why women wear the traditional Islamic dress, rather than face the sack”.

    Has the writer sneaked in a pun there? I mean, he was facing it – that’s the point.

  13. Trofim — on 24th July, 2010 at 6:04 pm  

    If Sunny was doing the weather forecast, he’d still have to mention the Daily Mail somehow.

  14. June — on 24th July, 2010 at 6:15 pm  
  15. persephone — on 24th July, 2010 at 6:21 pm  

    MM: “You don’t really believe that do you?”

    Little point in asking me – its not my belief.

  16. The Cackling Chestnut Roaster — on 24th July, 2010 at 6:53 pm  

    Trofim

    From the BBC article “she hoped the driver would be educated about why women wear the traditional Islamic dress, rather than face the sack”.

    Has the writer sneaked in a pun there? I mean, he was facing it – that’s the point.

    I expect the Tories will be unveiling a proposal for a public ban any moment. Labour will accuse them as using this as a cover up for their spending cut proposals, no doubt.

  17. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells — on 24th July, 2010 at 9:03 pm  

    If this were the other way around the Daily Mail etc would be supremely outraged. But if the victim in question is a Muslim woman they just carry on.

    In fairness if it were the other way around you’d be a lot more sceptical.

  18. Busman — on 24th July, 2010 at 9:57 pm  

    What kind of tickets did they have? Some tickets are only valid if their owner also has a photocard showing a picture of their face. Obviously someone wearing a veil presents a problem in such circumstances.

  19. earwicga — on 24th July, 2010 at 10:16 pm  

    Telegraph report states: ‘One was wearing a hijab and the other was dressed in a niqab – both of which cover the face’ http://bit.ly/diyj2S An innocent mistake?

  20. john — on 24th July, 2010 at 10:23 pm  

    “An innocent mistake?”

    This is the Telegraph we are talking about .Publishers of “Muslims are a threat to our way of life” and other such pieces.

  21. earwicga — on 24th July, 2010 at 10:24 pm  

    I’ve found the definitive answer dwelling within the shit of the ES comments:

    ‘Are these the same buses that carry the message that “God doesn’t exist”? It seems to me that Satan has clearly taken control of the London buses. This would explain why they are red.’

    Nothing to do with photocards for women wearing hijabs which don’t cover the face Busman. Nothing to do with your sky fairy notions of knee bending Maid Marian. Nothing to do with any person living – it’s all Satan :)

  22. Busman — on 24th July, 2010 at 10:32 pm  

    You mean His Infernal Highness Lucifer, Prince of Darkness and Duke of Hell. I suggest you join his side. The wages of sin is death. but the hours are very good and the work is wonderful.

    In fact: “Two Muslim women have claimed they were refused a bus ride because one had her face covered by a veil.”

  23. Trofim — on 24th July, 2010 at 10:54 pm  

    Something puzzles me: in my book they eyes and the surrounding area of skin, are part of the face. If women feel the need to hide their faces for reasons of modesty, why, then, do they show their eyes, particularly if they are attractive? If you’re going to hide your face, then you should do so completely.

  24. Refresh — on 25th July, 2010 at 12:10 am  

    Damon,

    I am curious. Are you modelling yourself on Forrest Gump?

  25. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells — on 25th July, 2010 at 12:26 am  

    If Forrest Gump had modelled himself on Genrikh Yagoda, perhaps.

  26. damon — on 25th July, 2010 at 12:45 am  

    You’ve lightened up a bit earwicga from your post @2.

    Plenty of feminists in Britain don’t have time for young women here adopting the niqab.

    Maybe the bus driver took offence for some reason, and might have thought they were ‘jerking his chain’ so to speak. He wouldn’t be any so different to the excellent Deborah Orr who a couple of years ago said:

    Why the sight of veiled women offends me.
    I’ve been more and more troubled lately by the sight of veiled women swathed in heavy black, getting on with their everyday business in Britain. A woman on the bus the other day looked like she was auditioning for an Islamic version of the Blues Brothers, with the only part of her body uncovered by her drapes, hidden behind very black sunglasses. A little dressmaker’s pin carefully threaded at her temple held the cloth very securely over her face.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/deborah-orr/deborah-orr-why-the-sight-of-veiled-women-offends-me-407100.html

    This isn’t about whether ”the burka” should be banned … of course it shouldn’t. And it’s not something to get too worked up over either – there’s plenty of people coming over from the Gulf for visits who wear it, or might be from traditional conservative families like you see in the East End of London and places like Bradford.
    But like that woman convert who loves going on about it in the media and making an issue about it, there’s some games going on there too I think.

    John @3. You call me a clueless retard … but have said absolutely nothing youself. I see the link in your name goes back to the Harry’s Place website.

    It made the newspapers in Pakistan.
    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C07%5C24%5Cstory_24-7-2010_pg7_4

  27. damon — on 25th July, 2010 at 1:24 am  

    Refresh @23, that might be funny if you had anything to say yourself.
    What was the point of the thread then?

    To highlight the islamophobia and racism in ordinary Londoners (again)? or just a jokey contrast the other bus stories about England shirts from earlier in the year?

    If I got that wrong and it was only a bit of a joke thread, it was the words ”not surprisingly” about London commuters (who are the bulk of Evening Standard readers) in Sunny’s OP that got me going.

  28. Sunny — on 25th July, 2010 at 3:25 am  

    Plenty of feminists in Britain don’t have time for young women here adopting the niqab.

    If you read a bit of feminism, rather than simply using it as a rhetorical device – you’d realise those feminists would also not dare want to legislate on how people should dress.

    You either support their right to dress how they want, or you don’t. It’s that simple damon – now stop flaffing about.

  29. Golam Murtaza — on 25th July, 2010 at 7:53 am  

    I think people need to calm down a bit until this incident is investigated and the results of that investigation made public. None of us actually know what happened on that bus do we? Of course the national media will speculate and prejudge, but that doesn’t mean we have to tag along.

    On a related note, it is disturbing to read earwicga’s note about the blurring of the niqab/hijab definition. I hope that WAS just an error.

  30. boyo — on 25th July, 2010 at 8:32 am  

    @15 “The whole point of veiling is to prevent a reaction”

    Ha-ha-ha.

    It’s funny reading this when I’m about to embark on my hols to Jordan where the LP and Rough Guide are at pains to point out the importance of abiding by the local dress codes. Men wearing shorts is akin to “walking around in your underpants” apparently, and women should cover up thoroughly. In some parts you can risk having abuse hurled at you, apparently…

    I was in Jericho once, walking down the street when a niqab wearing woman came the other way and another arab man deliberately blocked her path, then let her go and swore in Arabic. My companion explained – “We don’t want Al-Qaida here”.

    Traditional Muslim dress my arse.

  31. Trofim — on 25th July, 2010 at 9:31 am  

    The whole point of veiling is to prevent a reaction?

    !!!!!!!!!
    Try walking in a niqab in Worcestershire, or even, for that matter, in my part of Birmingham. I’ve seen one here once, and didn’t she get back in the car sharpish when she sensed not only that everybody was stopping to look, but she was provoking hostility.

    You want a reaction? Wear a black bag.

  32. damon — on 25th July, 2010 at 10:39 am  

    You either support their right to dress how they want, or you don’t. It’s that simple damon – now stop flaffing about.

    It is as simple as that as far as that particular issue goes yes. But that’s not the end of discussion on the niqab is it? They have the right to wear what they like, even if a majority of the country are hostile too it, and the reasons that young English women chose to adopt it are many and complex – like is the case with Na’ima B Robert.

    But I see this thread was not meant for that kind of discussion.

  33. john — on 25th July, 2010 at 11:36 am  

    Trofim
    “Try walking in a niqab in Worcestershire, or even, for that matter, in my part of Birmingham. I’ve seen one here once, and didn’t she get back in the car sharpish when she sensed not only that everybody was stopping to look, but she was provoking hostility.”

    Likewise someone dressed as an Orthodox Jew in certain places or a turbanned Sikh

    You want a reaction? Wear a black bag.

  34. Notfromroundhere — on 25th July, 2010 at 11:52 am  

    Where were their male escorts? They seem to be cherry-picking the “fun”, “harmless” bits of Islam and leaving the more onerous restrictions alone. Will they be allowed to do that for ever I wonder? And if not, who will they blame for enabling that?

  35. DF — on 26th July, 2010 at 12:01 am  

    john — on 24th July, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    “You really dont comprehend why women wear it, do you?”

    Why do women wear it?

  36. DF — on 26th July, 2010 at 12:01 am  

    Trofim — on 25th July, 2010 at 9:31 am

    “Try walking in a niqab in Worcestershire, or even, for that matter, in my part of Birmingham. I’ve seen one here once, and didn’t she get back in the car sharpish when she sensed not only that everybody was stopping to look, but she was provoking hostility.”

    What part of Birmingham is that?

  37. Trofim — on 26th July, 2010 at 9:22 am  

    36 What part of Birmingham?

    B30-B31

    But can no-one tell me – do the eyes count as part of the face or don’t they, in the Muslim scheme of things. After all, even a woman in a niqab can have alluring eyes, and they do. Eyes are much more erotically loaded than hair, in my book. So if you expose your attractive eyes, does that not defeat the whole purpose of the exercise?

  38. damon — on 26th July, 2010 at 12:28 pm  

    Do you mean like this Trofim?

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/10/azmiPA_228x327.jpg

    That was the Bradford school teacher Aishah Azmi who was sacked from wearing the niqab in class in 2006.
    I still remember those eyes.

    Walking around the mall in Dubai, and the women’s eyes were a total distraction. You cant but help look, and really look. It’s such a temptation.
    Especially when they look back.

  39. DF — on 26th July, 2010 at 3:23 pm  

    So you say a woman in a niqab can not get out of a car in (or walk the streets of) Bournville, Stirchley, Cotteridge, Kings Norton, Northfield, Frankley, Barnt Green etc without receiving a response so intense in its hostility that they are forced to jump back in their car and flee for their own safety. What utter bolleaux.

    If someone came out with a similar generalisation about a woman in a mini skirt in B10-B11 they would be called a bigot and a Daily Mail reader.

    Do you read the Daily Mail?

  40. DF — on 26th July, 2010 at 3:52 pm  

    Or a more accurate comparison – If someone came out with a similar generalisation on a site like this about men wearing yarmulke in B10-B11 they would be called a bigot and a Daily Mail reader.

  41. Trofim — on 26th July, 2010 at 10:14 pm  

    DF @ 39

    I didn’t mention safety. I’m talking about attracting attention. Here are some demographic statistics for two areas of south-west Birmingham: Northfield B31 – 1.5% of the population are of Asian origin with roughly 1% from India and 0.5% from Pakistan. Kings Norton B30 – Approximately 1% of the population are of Asian origin with roughly 0.5% from India.

    Here are statistics for two areas from east Birmingham: Sparkbrook – 65% of the population are of Asian origin with roughly 45% from Pakistan, 9% from Bangladesh and 6.5% from India. Washwood Heath – 63% of the population are of Asian origin with roughly 56% from Pakistan, 5% from Bangladesh and 2% from India.
    How often might you see a woman in a niqab in an area where perhaps 1 person in 200 is a Muslim?

  42. DF — on 27th July, 2010 at 12:30 am  

    “The transport minister has intervened to stop guide dogs and their blind owners from being ordered off buses because Muslim drivers or passengers consider the animals unclean.

    The refusal, for religious reasons, to carry even guide dogs has become so widespread that it was raised in the House of Lords last week by Lord Monson, a crossbench peer.

    Last night Norman Baker, the transport minister, signalled to bus companies that a religious objection was not a reason to eject a passenger with a well-behaved dog.

    “If dogs are causing a nuisance, a driver has every right to ask the owner to leave,” he said. “It is much more questionable to be asked to remove a dog for religious reasons. One person’s freedom is someone else’s restriction.”

    The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association said that, although refusing to take a blind person with a dog in a bus or taxi was illegal under disability discrimination law, it received constant complaints from members.”

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Society/article348172.ece

    If this were the other way around Pickled Politics would be supremely outraged. But if the victim in question is a disabled woman they just carry on.

  43. DF — on 27th July, 2010 at 2:54 pm  

    Trofim – You said:

    “Try walking in a niqab… in my part of Birmingham. I’ve seen one here once, and didn’t she get back in the car sharpish when she sensed not only that everybody was stopping to look, but she was provoking hostility.”

    Indicating that the likely reaction to a niqab in B30-B31 was hostility of sufficent intensity to force the wearer to bugger off sharpish; suggesting anyone wearing a niqab in B30-B31 would have reason to fear for her safety.

    However I wasn’t commenting on demographics I was responding to your generalisation about the reaction to women wearing niquab in 98.5% non Muslim areas and the likely reaction by members of sites like this to a similar generalisation claiming Jews walking about wearing a yarmulke in predominantly Muslim areas would have good reason to fear for their safety. In my experience anyone who claimed the latter (regardless of statistical accuracy) would almost certainly be accused of Islamophobia/racism/bigotry.

  44. Don — on 27th July, 2010 at 3:24 pm  

    DF,

    Times is subscription now, and I have better uses for a quid.

    But if this is true then consider me outraged.

  45. Jan — on 27th July, 2010 at 4:57 pm  

    I see Muslim women with their faces covered every day in London, and so must this driver. Why would he suddenly pick on these two for no reason?

    What’s claimed to be his side of the story is quoted at Digital Spy, http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1304732&page=9.

    In case the link doesn’t work, he says they first tried to get on the bus in the wrong place, then tried to buy a ticket on the bus although the instructions are clearly displayed at the bus stop – you have buy a ticket at the machine before getting on. They then started abusing him.

    I’ve often seen kids winding up bus drivers, but rarely seen a driver retaliating, so his story rings true to me. Looks as if they picked on a bus driver for a laugh, because they knew they would get away with it.

  46. damon — on 27th July, 2010 at 11:34 pm  

    From Jan’s link above, this is supposedly the statement of the bus driver. Does anyone really care one way or the other? It did make news in Pakistan afterall.

    ”i was parked up on the stand and the girls walked on the back door and said when are you going. i said in 15 mins from stop e and pointed to were it is. 1 of them said her friend has a bad foot and cant walk i said that im not allwed to let passengars on here and that she didnt have any trouble walking across the fourcourt from the bus stop to get on. they both sat down and started saying that they wont get off calling me racist and that im stupid i had a problem with them because of there scarfs. i just got out and told the ntc. he came on and explained that they had to get off and get on at the bus stop. they kept moning and got off. he walked with them to the stop. when i drove round to the top to pick up they got on and 1 of them wanted to pay cash. i told her that you cant pay cash in zone 1 and you have to get ticket from the machine. the one that was mouthy befoer started calling me a racist again and started filming me asking my name and why i hate her. the ntc from before saw what was going on and he came on and asked her to come off to buy a ticket. i told him i was not taking her as i thought she was going to start again when i left. he said ok they both got off so i drove off.”

    Anyone bothered? I can’t be fussed to find out if it’s really him, but would be interested to hear of any developments in the case.

  47. DF — on 28th July, 2010 at 3:43 pm  

    You don’t live in the posh part of Moseley do you Done/Don?

  48. damon — on 28th July, 2010 at 3:56 pm  

    Done? Is that Don? Never mind that someone used a stupid user name, it’s the information in the link that’s important.
    There was this on the BBC London website also:

    The bus firm, which operates the service on behalf of Transport for London (TfL), told the BBC it rejected the allegations.

    A spokesman said CCTV footage had been reviewed from the bus and the driver had been interviewed.

    He said the women were denied entry to the bus due to “abusive behaviour” towards the driver and other passengers.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-10763227

    So I’d like to hear what Sunny, earwicga, ”FFS Damon, you are so full of shit! They just wanted to get a bus!”, John @3, Joe90, Refresh, and others have to say.

    And no,this is not crowing or point scoring, I just have a generally sceptical nature.

    But if this other side to the story is ignored on PP, after aspersions were cast on the general public in the OP (Evening Standard readers I mean – it is a free paper after all and read across class and race lines), then I do wonder if PP has too much of a chip on its shoulder.

    Maybe this is what Refresh means by my modelling myself on Forest Gump.

    Btw, there was a provocative article in the Independent today called ‘The limits of multi-culturalism’
    In it, Christina Patterson said this about niqab wearers:

    It makes me sad to see young women in the niqab. I accept that some of them choose to wear it because they, too, have absorbed the message that they are a walking sexual provocation, and that this way they can shield themselves, and preserve themselves “as a precious jewel” for their husband, and maybe reclaim an identity that they don’t want to lose, and maybe even stick two fingers up at a country which is, according to new leaks this week, bombing quite a lot of their innocent brothers and sisters, and maybe even, get some (secretly enjoyable) attention. I accept all this, but it still makes me sad.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/christina-patterson/christina-patterson-the-limits-of-multiculturalism-2036861.html

  49. Kismet Hardy — on 28th July, 2010 at 4:03 pm  

    “Telegraph report states: ‘One was wearing a hijab and the other was dressed in a niqab – both of which cover the face’

    Did the telegraph really say that? Because the hijab does not cover the face.

    Could it be true journalists are actually ignorant?

    Just as well I get all my opinions from genuine peeple like pg3 girls and the white van man.

  50. Kismet Hardy — on 28th July, 2010 at 4:07 pm  

    “Next time check your choice of dysphemism,it’s scumbag, no hyphen.”

    Wrong usage of dysphemism. That would be a substitute for an insult. Scumbag is an insult.

  51. Kismet Hardy — on 28th July, 2010 at 4:22 pm  

    Scumbag doesn’t offend you? It should.

    But then s’pose it must hurt having a Muslim immigrant correct your english though, huh?

  52. Kismet Hardy — on 28th July, 2010 at 4:26 pm  

    Aw bless you. I’m sure your mother loves you really x

  53. Ross — on 28th July, 2010 at 4:27 pm  

    I hope you have read page 13 of today’s evening standard review of the CCTV footage that was being examined as driver faced dismissal has shown they were clearly kicked off because they were abusive to the driver, I trust being the balanced blogger that you are you’ll update you view on this.

  54. Ross — on 28th July, 2010 at 4:39 pm  

    You think the Evening Standard has made up that he has been cleared so you ? Or maybe you think Metroline who cleared him is unbalanced and racist too?

  55. Don — on 28th July, 2010 at 4:45 pm  

    It’s some dick-head using my name.

    How’s my hyphen?

  56. damon — on 28th July, 2010 at 11:05 pm  

    So I’d like to hear what Sunny, earwicga, ”FFS Damon, you are so full of shit! They just wanted to get a bus!”, John @3, Joe90, Refresh, and others have to say.

    Quoting myself is pretty sad. I really must be a Forest Gump character like Refresh says.

    Anyway, here is the Evening Standard story that says that these women’s story is not like they said at all, and might be closer to what I said at post 1.
    I presume that the froum has just moved on from this story.

    A bus driver accused by two students of banning them because of their Islamic dress has been cleared after CCTV showed he had actually barred them for their abusive behaviour.

    An investigation by Metroline – which operates the No7 bus – found the driver, who could have faced the sack over the allegation, was justified in not allowing the women on his vehicle.

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23860807-claim-of-islamic-veil-bus-ban-thrown-out.do

    And there’s a whole slew of negative comments from the ‘backward’ readership of that free newspaper.

  57. joe90 — on 29th July, 2010 at 1:12 am  

    This case is heading for the courts by the looks of things, so unless the cctv footage is accompanied with sound it is not much use in regards to proving one way or another if the bus driver is innocent of the charges that he is a bigot.

  58. damon — on 29th July, 2010 at 2:51 am  

    Of course it’s not heading for the courts. Unless these women can come up with something that we have yet to hear about.
    It’s their case to prove, not his to disprove.

    Is that all you’ve got to say for yourself after your daft post @6 Joe90?

    Damon your comments are not even worth refuting they are that stupid.

  59. DF — on 29th July, 2010 at 3:06 am  

    Hey Joe – so the bus driver is guilty until proven innocent.

    BTW Why did the admin delete this link – http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2010/07/truth-about-muslim-students-forced-off-bus-for-wearing-veil.html

  60. Lamia — on 29th July, 2010 at 10:33 am  

    Sunny and co started off by assuming the guilt of the bus driver. They were sure the women just wanted to get on the bus and were the victim of a bigot.

    Now the CCTV evidence has comprehensively cleared him and indicated it was the women responsible, Sunny and co just scuttle away or, in the case of joe 90, dimly refuse to register that the outcome is not what they had hoped it would be.

    Oh well, there will be another white non-Muslim to call a bigot coming along soon. It doesn’t matter if they are innocent, they are white and non-Muslim so that means they are asking for it, doesn’t it Sunny?

    What else are we to make of your lapse into silence on this matter?

  61. DavidMWW — on 29th July, 2010 at 10:35 am  

    No update on the OP?

  62. Lamia — on 29th July, 2010 at 6:02 pm  

    *an old rusted metal sign clangs softly against a pole*

    *tumbleweed*

    * an old man snoozes on a chair outside the gas station*

    * the kiosk blinds are down and a sign says CLOSED *

  63. Leynos — on 29th July, 2010 at 6:56 pm  

    I see women in niqab on the buses in Edinburgh all the time. No one here sees it as a threat. The Daily Mail et al need to grow up and get a life.

  64. Lamia — on 29th July, 2010 at 7:04 pm  

    A clumsy attempt at a side-step of the issue in this case, which wasn’t the wearing of the niqab but the abusive behaviour of the women. It is the women themselves who lied about it being about the niqab.

    Re the women in the niqb in Edinburgh, I’ve seen such too. Do those women engage in abusive behaviour towards the staff and other passengers? I know for a fact buses in Edinburgh have signs saying they won’t tolerate verbal or physical abuse of their staff and will prosecute. Do you think they should ‘grow up and get a life’ too?

  65. ray — on 29th July, 2010 at 7:47 pm  

    joe90
    “Damon your comments are not even worth refuting they are that stupid.”

    Leave Damon alone. He is this site’s resident mentally slow child. People visit the site just to marvel at his stupidity and laugh at him and his posts, much as the victorians used to visit insane asylums.

  66. damon — on 29th July, 2010 at 9:30 pm  

    *an old rusted metal sign clangs softly against a pole*

    *tumbleweed*

    That’s funny Lamia, earlier this afternoon I had been trying to embed this picture, but couldn’t do it.
    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/tumbleweed_004.jpg

    Ray, you’re not that idiot ‘me’ or blah again are you?

    I was just writing about people like you on Liberal Conspiracy. Here @29
    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/07/28/having-a-better-immigration-system-also-means-returning-immigrants/

  67. ray — on 29th July, 2010 at 9:47 pm  

    Ah.. Nick would be so proud of you damon

  68. ray — on 29th July, 2010 at 9:53 pm  

    “I was just writing about people like you on Liberal Conspiracy. Here @29
    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/07/28/having-a-better-immigration-system-also-means-returning-immigrants/

    like the comment about you no 28 by Mcduff

    “There really isn’t anything like an article on immigration to bring out the racist fucknuts brigade, is there?”

    lol

  69. Leynos — on 29th July, 2010 at 11:30 pm  

    Lamia,

    What do you mean clumsy? Of course abusive behaviour towards bus drivers and other members of staff should not be tolerated. Where did I ever suggest otherwise?

    I just think that this current hysteria about Islamic dress is rather childish.

  70. Lamia — on 30th July, 2010 at 1:12 am  

    “Of course abusive behaviour towards bus drivers and other members of staff should not be tolerated.”

    And that is why the bus driver ordered them off his bus, as cctv footage has borne out. He didn’t order them off for wearing the niqab. They falsely claimed that he did and have been shown up as liars.

    I am against banning the niqb also and agree there is hysteria against it. It doesn’t mean that niqb wearers are always the victim of prejudice against niqab wearers if they are simply doing something wrong, as in this case. Dishonestly playing the racism card is as bad as racism itself, because it means that someone is unjustly vilified.

    Sunny and others automatically and credulously took their side, which is just as dim as assuming someone in a niqab is up to no good simply and solely because of what they are wearing. Since in doing so they also smeared the bus driver as a bigot, I think they have a case to answer. It looks as if they think it simply doesn’t matter if a charge of bigotry is unfounded, as in this case. You too appear to be ignoring that, trying to change it into a gneral discussion about niqabs and hysteria.

    This article thread was actually about bigoted bus drivers and poor victims of Islamophobia – until that turned out to be a big lie. How convenient to try and subsequently turn it into a general discussion about hysteria, rather than addressing Sunny and co’s unfounded accusations.

  71. Leynos — on 30th July, 2010 at 10:23 am  

    Sunny really should add a correction to this article. I commented on the original article before reading the comments, which in retrospect seems to have been a mistake.

    The women were behaving in an inappropriate manner, and the driver was right to kick them off the bus. TiL seem to have been a little premature in the stance of their reporting too.

  72. DF — on 30th July, 2010 at 3:22 pm  

    71. Leynos — on 30th July, 2010 at 10:23 am
    “Sunny really should add a correction to this article.”

    But that would mean admiting that Pickled Politics is little diffrent to The Daily Mail – publishing poorly researched scare stories to outrage Muslims and gullible people.

  73. Shakeelgotlaid — on 30th July, 2010 at 3:56 pm  

    You will never ever get Sunny to admit he was wrong, his narcissistic personality disorder prevents this.

  74. Sarah AB — on 30th July, 2010 at 4:37 pm  

    I had no problem with the original article – which I found easy to believe given how many tabloid headlines seem bent on whipping up anti Muslim bigotry. But an update would seem in order, and only fair to the driver, even if the full picture still isn’t clear.

  75. Don — on 30th July, 2010 at 6:01 pm  

    Sarah AB,

    I agree. In the interests of basic fairness some follow-up seems called for.

  76. DF — on 30th July, 2010 at 6:19 pm  

    74. Sarah AB — on 30th July, 2010 at 4:37 pm
    “I had no problem with the original article – which I found easy to believe given how many tabloid headlines seem bent on whipping up anti Muslim bigotry.”

    This article is bent on whipping up anti white bigotry(they accused him of racism, an accusation used almost exclusively to discredit white people) and therefore there is no logic to your comment.

    Didn’t you mean to say ‘I had no problem with the original article – which I found easy to believe given that it was reported to the BBC by Muslim girls’?

  77. john — on 30th July, 2010 at 6:48 pm  

    DF
    “This article is bent on whipping up anti white bigotry(they accused him of racism, an accusation used almost exclusively to discredit white people) and therefore there is no logic to your comment.”

    So since when were “white” and “Muslim” mutually exclusive?. Your comment is bull anyway because no one in theire right minds thinks all white people are the same (eg when a white person commits a murder ALL white people arent considered to be murderers). This is not the case with disliked minorities such as Muslims.

    For example when a Muslim commits a terrorist attack other Muslims/mosques are attacked by bigots “in revenge”. When say Harold Shipman was arrested were loads of white males attacked “in revenge”?

  78. DF — on 30th July, 2010 at 7:32 pm  

    john — on 30th July, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    “This is not the case with disliked minorities such as Muslims.

    For example when a Muslim commits a terrorist attack other Muslims/mosques are attacked by bigots “in revenge”.”

    And you accused me of bull shit!

    Disliked by whom? You are by implication stating that Muslims are disliked by a majority of white people. I think you have been reading too many race baiting sites like this one.

    Pray tell, how many Muslims were killed in the UK in revenge for Brits murdered in the 9/11 7/7 terrorist attacks? How many Muslims in the UK have been killed in revenge for British soldiers murdered by the Taliban/Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan?

    Yours are the same bigoted generalisations white supremacists make about Muslims.

  79. Sarah AB — on 30th July, 2010 at 8:09 pm  

    DF – I simply meant that I initially accepted the story because it seemed perfectly plausible. I don’t see the ‘whiteness’ (if he is white) of the driver as a key issue. WRT your point at 78 – I think it’s possible to be relieved/pleased that anti Muslim bigotry is no worse than it is while recognising that it still exists. I don’t agree with everything I read on this site but I think describing it as a ‘race-baiting site’ seems grossly unfair.

  80. joe90 — on 30th July, 2010 at 11:15 pm  

    lamia post#60

    slow down before getting too excited this was metroline which found its own employee innocent not a court. cctv on the bus did not have audio from the information available, so how can you say without doubt which words where said by whom?

  81. Leynos — on 31st July, 2010 at 1:54 pm  

    Joe, entering the bus through the emergency exit constitutes a clear cut case of inappropriate behaviour in my view.

  82. DF — on 31st July, 2010 at 4:55 pm  

    joe90

    I think it’s possible to distinguish between antisocial behaviour and a driver simply refusing to allow passengers to board his bus because one was wearing a veil.

    Why do you find it so difficult to believe that the most likely truth is these girls were not allowed on the bus because of their atrocious behaviour and the driver was the victim of a nasty and vindictive smear.

  83. torch — on 31st July, 2010 at 5:01 pm  

    Well let them wear the veil but don’t give them special privileges.
    So no special treatment at hospital on the National Health, no use of buss passes that require ID, no Job Seekers allowance because they’ve made themselves unemployable to most employers, no special arrangements at public swimming pools etc.etc. etc.
    If they want special treatment then fund it themselves but don’t ask the rest of us to pay for it.

  84. douglas clark — on 31st July, 2010 at 10:29 pm  

    torch @ 83,

    What you say is quite contoversial.

    So no special treatment at hospital on the National Health

    . You have something specific in mind?

    no use of buss passes that require ID

    Sadly, I am quite old, and the frigging bus pass is my ID. Without it I’d have to pay, just like you. Are you assuming that there is a vast conspiracy amongst veiled women to use buss passes in a fraudulent manner?

    Do you have anything other than anecdote to support that?

    Just asking.

    no Job Seekers allowance because they’ve made themselves unemployable to most employers

    Perhaps they could get jobs in selling veils. More seriously, have you any idea of the number of women that refuse to show their face that are claiming this allowance?

    I think we should be told.

    And then we can judge.

    no special arrangements at public swimming pools

    Here I might have agreed with you, having had a nasty experience with trying to take my mixed sex children to a swimming pool that was having – wait for it – single sex, female, sessions. Not Muslim sessions, female sessions.

    I was fucking angry, let there be no doubt about that. The smug righteousness of the female on the door…

    Did I do anything about it? Did I fuck. Life is too short unless you can sell it to a newspaper.

    etc.etc. etc.

    Care to elucidate?

    _________________________

    Man, you’ve got nothing.

    Live and let live.

  85. joe90 — on 1st August, 2010 at 3:19 am  

    df post#82

    My point is there are two sides in this. I can see the case the women where anti social morons but you could also argue they where insulted by the driver, and reacted in this way so which one do we side with when we cannot hear the verbal exchange.

  86. torch — on 1st August, 2010 at 11:13 am  

    douglas clark

    The something in mind is insisting on treatment on women hospital staff to treat them, adds cost and diverts resources.
    The “friggin” bus pass that you use has your photograph on it to verify your ID otherwise it could fraudulently used (this really is basic stuff), so if they don’t reveal themselves to confirm their ID then they pay full fair just like everyone else.
    WRT the veil, it doesn’t matter how many women who wear it are claiming job seekers allowance, just that none should qualify because they are making themselves virtually unemployable.
    Mixed bathing in “public” (remember the word “public”) swimming pools should be the norm and if any special pressure group like the veil wearers, want to swim without outsiders being present then they should build their own veil only pool.
    Basically no special privileges for anyone simply because they feel they are a special case.

  87. Leynos — on 1st August, 2010 at 12:03 pm  

    Torch,

    “they are making themselves virtually unemployable”

    Why do you feel that that is the case? Are you suggesting that the majority of HR managers are going to treat them unfavourably because of religious dress that has become or or less accepted?

  88. damon — on 1st August, 2010 at 12:41 pm  

    I don’t agree with Torch’s points on swimming pools, but Leynos, wearing a niqab (or even a burka) wll make you unsuitable for most jobs outside of some family business or islamic setting.

    Certainly wearing a ‘burka’ on the supermarket checkout would look very odd, and I dont think HR managers would think that would work. Same with driving a bus, or working as a social worker, or even in an office, where after years of working there, your colleagues still wouldn’t have a clue what you looked like. It would hardly help foster good working relationships amongst the staff.

    And Joe90, your argument is so weak. Bus drivers come into conflict with passengers all the time. People get on with out paying and all sorts of anti-social behavior goes on. Throwing accusations about what the driver said are worthless unless there is some corroboration. It seems there wasn’t any in this case, so it was a non story from the very beginning.

    It reminds me of accusations that women in Yarl’s Wood detention center said about the staff there when the women were going on hunger strikes and fighting their deportations with everything they could.

    Remember? The charge from one African woman who was due for deportation was that ”They called us black monkeys”.

    And of course the left and sites like this one just ran with it and condemned Yarl’s Wood and it’s workers without really knowing if it was true or not.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/audio/2010/feb/19/yarls-wood-immigration-black-monkey

  89. torch — on 1st August, 2010 at 2:04 pm  

    Leynos
    If they’re that employable then they won’t need job seekers allowance but the reality is they’re not exactly welcomed with open arms by employers.
    The reality is that any business that employs someone interacting with the general public whilst wearing the veil would be committing financial suicide, which is probably why you never see them working in shops.
    And as for the generally “more or less accepted” bit, perhaps in Afghanistan or Saudi but not in the UK.

  90. joe90 — on 1st August, 2010 at 2:06 pm  

    damon #88

    What other bus drivers do with anti social customers has no link to this story, because every situation can be different.

  91. Bosnia's War Babies — on 1st August, 2010 at 4:52 pm  

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004t230

    One of the many charges faced by Radovan Karadži? at The Hague is that of organising the rape of 20,000 Bosnian Muslim women.
    Fourteen years after the conflict, many of these women remain traumatised, cast out from their communities, rejected by their husbands and families, and often ending up stigmatised and impoverished.
    Some had the additional humiliation of being raped in front of their parents or small children.
    Yet the psychological support that so many of them urgently need is inadequate and sporadic.
    Some women were kept for months and raped until they conceived.
    Those who became pregnant either abandoned their babies or had them adopted.
    Some decided to keep them, a constant reminder of their shame.
    These children – now in their teens – are beginning to ask questions about their fathers.
    The mothers now face a dilemma – should they tell the truth and risk damaging their child? Or keep their terrible secret?

  92. douglas clark — on 1st August, 2010 at 5:47 pm  

    torch @ 86,

    I imagine that for “womens’ issues” quite a lot of women would prefer to discuss it with another woman. Are you anti that choice, or summat?

    There have been things that have happened to me as a man that I am sort of relieved I could talk to a male consultant about.

    Would I have refused to discuss it with a woman? Well, obviously not.

    (But not everyone is as enlightened as what I am :-)

    Just testing the edit facility… )

  93. torch — on 2nd August, 2010 at 1:50 pm  

    douglas clark
    “Would I have refused to discuss it with a woman? Well, obviously not.”
    That’s the point, but these people aren’t talking about preferring to be seen by a female but insisting on being seen by a female, that’s the difference.

  94. Mel — on 3rd August, 2010 at 12:18 pm  

    Well it just shows you one thing, you cannot believe all allegations, the full story is this, the bus was on a bus stand, the women tried to get on there, they boarded the bus from the rear doors, the driver asked them to leave, they argued with him, but left, when they got on at the first stop a few minutes later, again they argued with him, CCTV images also show them banging on the doors and show the whole incident and not just the segment they recorded on their phones, he refused them because of the abuse he suffered from these fowl mouthed people. And so would I refuse them if they abused me, would not YOU ?

  95. sonia — on 3rd August, 2010 at 12:27 pm  

    28. well said Sunny, thanks.

  96. sonia — on 3rd August, 2010 at 12:31 pm  

    anyway this is foolish, if anything is going to entrench people into wearing niqabs, its all this hoo ha and the “burqa ban”. Why i feel like parading around in a ninja outfit now just to annoy people and bus drivers and the like. or to do a bit of filming and satire.

    just like when Boris banned booze on the tube and everyone turned up to have a party.

    who’s up for going to paris in sept. and having a ninja niqab fest ? ;-) teach the french a thing or two. I bet this idea will be well popular amongst english anarchists. go over and scare the french..ooh! we’re all niqabi’s now!

  97. sonia — on 3rd August, 2010 at 12:32 pm  

    I guess you don’t have many subversive types in France otherwise they’d have thought it up themselves already.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.