Active Now

Slartibartfast
Discussion » Questions » Politics » Is this the thin edge of the wedge? Is this the start of the implementation of 'Sharia Law' in London?
myonemaster

Is this the thin edge of the wedge? Is this the start of the implementation of 'Sharia Law' in London?

London (UK) now has a Muslim Mayor named Sadiq Khan, Mr. Khan has banned this ad from London transport. I wonder just how you are supposed to advertise ladies hose in a full burqa?



 

Posted - October 12, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • 5354
    I don feel a big loss here.
    What reason did he give for banning it ?

    1) impossible to tell what was being advertized.
    2) picture of a nearly naked woman.
    3) Conflicting with the 5 pillars.
    4) Other
      October 12, 2017 3:56 PM MDT
    0

  • 591
    1) A person must have zero imagination if they cannot figure out that the only thing in the pic to advertise is what she is wearing.
    2) The only part of her naked is her back and it is still naked in the approved version except for a black band across it.
    3) I suspect that he is trying to push his 5 pillars onto others.
    4) Other. 'Sadiq Khan announced last year that he would be banning adverts on the Tube which cause body confidence issues'. I hardly think that the addition of a black band across the back would counter any 'body confidence issues' a person may have.

    So after that, IMO number 3 seems the most likely.
      October 12, 2017 4:21 PM MDT
    1

  • 5354
    Frankly I think you main objection is that he is a muslim. Notice below where people mention the strong feminist objections to such advertisments. I see no reason why he should not agree with them. This post was edited by JakobA the unAmerican. at October 13, 2017 4:19 AM MDT
      October 13, 2017 2:48 AM MDT
    1

  • 591
    I have no more of a problem with him being a Muslim than I would have if he were of any other religion, my problem is that I do not like the thought of anyone trying to impose their religious beliefs on others who do not hold the same beliefs, please read my reply to two cents below. the full article can be found at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/12/tfl-criticised-banning-picture-dancers-bare-back/  there is a poll there that shows that over 700 people do not agree that the ad should be banned with only 10 saying it should be banned, there may well be strong feminist objections but they are few and far between, either that or they do not feel strongly enough about it to vote.

    Ps If you wish to view the link, because of the way AM is set up, you may need to copy and past the link into your browser.     This post was edited by myonemaster at October 13, 2017 6:48 PM MDT
      October 13, 2017 3:55 AM MDT
    2

  • 5354
    I wonder, did you read the article you gave a link to? London Transport already had a rule against advertsising pictures of topless women in the subway It must have been made by a previous administration, The article also say it was made in response to objections about such advertisments objectifying Women. that is a feminist argument and not an Islamic one. Still, with the rule there, the current mayor enforced it.
      October 13, 2017 5:14 AM MDT
    0

  • 591
    Yes I did read the article enough to see where the ban originated, the current Mayor did not enforce the rule. he wrote the bloody rule, as in 'Sadiq Khan announced last year that he would be banning adverts on the Tube which cause body confidence issues'. I do not know if you are reading the same article as me but I do not see the word 'objectify(ing)' it the article, what I do see is,

    According to emails revealed by the Evening Standard, Exterion Media, which holds the £1.1 billion advertising contract for the Tube, said one of TfL’s "stipulations is we cannot run topless models on the Underground".

    The email explained: "Whilst I know this is only showing a bare back, it still depicts a ‘topless’ model. If we could add a boob tube around the back I think this would be passed."

     

    TfL's rules stipulate that adverts which depict "men, women or children in a sexual manner or display nude or semi-nude figures in an overtly sexual context" are not allowed.

    The guidelines go on to say: "For example, while the use of underdressed people in most underwear advertising may be seen as an appropriate context, gratuitous use of an overtly sexual nature will be unacceptable".

    Ellie Howard, the head of community at Heist, told the Standard: “We were told to cover up the offending area — her back. It’s bonkers.

      October 13, 2017 6:24 AM MDT
    0

  • 22891
    i would hope not
      October 12, 2017 5:31 PM MDT
    1

  • 591
    My thoughts also.
      October 12, 2017 5:41 PM MDT
    0

  • 34284
    The article I read said people complained about that ad and others  "body shaming" women. No mention of violation of Sharia law.  
      October 12, 2017 5:57 PM MDT
    2

  • 591
    Could you please send me a link to the article you read? I would not expect anyone if they were trying to impose sharia law to come out and say they were objecting because of sharia law as it has no standing in the UK, exactly the same way creationists are using the wedge to try and get creation into the science class via the back door.
      October 13, 2017 3:38 AM MDT
    0

  • 34284
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/topless-dancer-advert-censored-on-tube-even-though-you-can-only-see-her-back-a3656731.html
      October 13, 2017 4:43 AM MDT
    1

  • 591
    Thanks, I will check that out.
      October 13, 2017 5:01 AM MDT
    0

  • 591
    I see no complaints from people about the ad I mentioned in the article you sent the link for, granted there are complaints about other ads but not this one. I hardly think that the addition of a black band across the back would counter any 'body shaming' issues a person may have.
      October 13, 2017 5:12 AM MDT
    0

  • 34284
    The rules about the ads were put into place because of people complaining about "body shaming" ads. 
    This ad was flagged because it violated those rules.
      October 13, 2017 5:28 AM MDT
    0

  • 591
    Those rules consist of,

    TfL's rules stipulate that adverts which depict "men, women or children in a sexual manner or display nude or semi-nude figures in an overtly sexual context" are not allowed.

    The guidelines go on to say: "For example, while the use of underdressed people in most underwear advertising may be seen as an appropriate context, gratuitous use of an overtly sexual nature will be unacceptable".

    Ellie Howard, the head of community at Heist, told the Standard: “We were told to cover up the offending area — her back. It’s bonkers.

    So how anyone can say that putting a black band across the back alters 'gratuitous use of an overtly sexual nature or a sexual manner' or 'display nude or semi-nude figures in an overtly sexual context' is totally beyond me.
      October 13, 2017 6:37 AM MDT
    0

  • 34284

    TfL’s “stipulations is we cannot run topless models on the Underground”.

    The model is topless. It does not pass the rules. She is semi-nude. I also believe that it the article were to post the entire email explaining what needed correcting, they also had to fix the transparency of the butttocks as well. As that was also fixed in the approved ad.

      October 13, 2017 9:18 AM MDT
    1

  • 591
    What you 'believe' bears no relation to what was stated, you are also missing the elephant in the room, that being, 'Sadiq Khan announced last year that he would be banning adverts on the Tube which cause body confidence issues' this is not TfL banning the ad, this is TfL obeying Mr Khan, there is one hell of a difference.
      October 13, 2017 5:21 PM MDT
    0

  • 34284
    Yes, he campaigned on removing such ads.  Whatever his reason may be, there was an online petition with over 70,000 signatures complains just on particular ad. He campaigned saying he would remove the ads. Now you can say that is the TfL obeying Khan or you can say it is Khan listening to his constituents.  But in either case he won that election and it is a fulfilled campaign promise.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/13/sadiq-khan-moves-to-ban-body-shaming-ads-from-london-transport
      October 13, 2017 6:24 PM MDT
    0

  • 591
    I fully understand the reasons behind why the ruling was made, it was made over an ad that was specifically about body shaming, the ad in question has nothing to do with body shaming and if someone thinks it has then adding a black band over the back is not going to change their thinking on body shape and it is for this reason that I suspect it is about more than following 'rules'.
      October 13, 2017 6:55 PM MDT
    0

  • 34284
    The weight loss ad caused the rules to change. Rules apply to all the ads fairly. 
    I agree the black stripe across the back looks dumb. If it had been my ad, I would have made it look like a cammy shirt. 
    But cammy shirt or boob tube neither would be compliant to sharia law clothing for women.  So no, I don't believe it is sharia law. Now, does Khan think any woman dressed like that is going to hell....most likely. 
    Again  the voters elected him at least in part to get rid of inappropriate ads...if it is not what they wanted they will not reelect him next time.
      October 14, 2017 7:01 PM MDT
    0

  • 34284
    They were indeed asked to darken the buttocks as well. As I said earlier...if we would be able to see the full email.  The only reason it is not being mentioned is because Hiest is no whining about that they just did it. 

    https://m.europebreakingnews.net/tag/advertising-campaign/

    This post was edited by my2cents at October 13, 2017 6:42 PM MDT
      October 13, 2017 6:41 PM MDT
    0

  • 591
    Fine, I now accept that they were asked to darken the butt, unfortunately that does nothing justify the main grounds for the ban and how the new ad now meets those conditions. Your obsession with the butt crack would appear to say more about you than it does about the ad if you think a butt crack is either sexual or sexist, sure there are folks that are into anal but there are folks who are into oral, there are folks that get turned on by feet, there is even some who appear to get off on garbage bags, should we ban images of mouths, feet and garbage bags also and a butt crack cannot be considered sexist as both sexes have one.
      October 13, 2017 8:07 PM MDT
    0

  • 17599
    Showing a butt crack just is not necessary to advertise hosiery.
      October 12, 2017 6:18 PM MDT
    2

  • 591
    It was not the butt crack that had to be altered in order for the ad to be accepted.
      October 13, 2017 3:33 AM MDT
    0