Made with Love
Toronto Passions
Toronto Girlfriends

London's new mayor, Sadiq KhanIs Banning Ads With 'Unrealistic' Bodies On Public Transit

  • Welcome to the new CAERF.
    New management and more commited than ever! Have a look at some of the new features HERE.
    If you experience any issue please let us know in the proper forum.
W

Wanker

Guest
HmmmmmmHmmmmmm

The Mayor, a father of two teenage daughters, warned the ads could “demean” women and encourage them to conform to unrealistic or unhealthy body shapes.

Come on, this cannot be true if a woman has even just a little bit of intelligence. Let me know if I am wrong.



[h=1]Sadiq Khan: There will be no more 'body shaming' adverts on the Tube[/h]






https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...ody-shaming-adverts-on-the-tube-a3269951.html

 
Joined Sep 10, 2015
Messages 1,482
This policy is influenced by Islam, not because of a desire to protect women from body image thoughts.

Londonistan is done.

I am somewhat embarassed to be of British ancestry. Well, my Mother is 1/4 Chinese, so technicallly I am not fully British. But still, I am embarassed. I would never go back to London. Cost of NYC with culture of Afghanistan.
 

Ms.MelodyMerlot

Well-known member
Advertiser
Joined Jun 7, 2016
Messages 107
[h=1]Sadiq Khan says there is 'question to be asked' about use of hijabs in London[/h]


Mayoral candidate says Muslim women should consider whether to remain veiled when interacting with public service providers








A woman wearing a niqab at a market in east London. Photograph: John D Mchugh/AFP/Getty ImagesNicholas Watt Chief political correspondent
Thursday 14 April 2016 20.08 BSTLast modified on Saturday Share on Share on Google+

Sadiq Khan, the Labour candidate for London mayor, has said there is “a question to be asked” about why some Muslim women in the capital wear hijabs and niqabs.
Khan, who became the first Muslim cabinet minister in Gordon Brown’s government in 2009, warned of an “insidious” development if people thought it was right to treat women differently to men.
In an interview with the London Evening Standard, the frontrunner in next month’s mayoral contest contrasted the way Muslim women dressed when he was growing up in London in the 1970s and 80s with the way many women dressed today.
“There is a question to be asked about what is going on in those homes. What’s insidious is if people are starting to think it is appropriate to treat women differently or that it has been forced on them. What worries me is children being forced to adopt a lifestyle.”Khan, 45, said: “When I was younger you didn’t see people in hijabs and niqabs, not even in Pakistan when I visited my family. In London we got on. People dressed the same. What you see now are people born and raised here who are choosing to wear the jilbab [a loose gown] or niqab.
Khan suggested Muslim women should think about whether to wear the niqab, which covers the face, when they interacted with providers of public services. Asked whether women should be allowed to cover their faces, he said: “It’s not for me to tell women what to wear. But I do think that in public service we should be able to see each other’s faces. Eye contact matters. You should be able to see the face.”
He added: “There is no other city in the world where I would want to raise my daughters than London. They have rights, they have protection, the right to wear what they like, think what they like, to meet who they like, to study what they like, more than they would in any other country.”
During the interview Khan sought to answer critics who say that his record as a human rights lawyer means he would be soft on terrorism.
Zac Goldsmith, Khan’s Tory opponent, has been criticised after his campaign distributed leaflets describing the Labour candidate as “radical and divisive”. Khan tweeted this week: “Hey @ZacGoldsmith. There’s no need to keep pointing at me & shouting ‘he’s a Muslim’. I put it on my own leaflets.”
Khan said he would never apologise for his work as a human rights lawyer. But he pledged to place London on a “war footing” to tackle terrorist threats. “On day one I am going to put us on a war footing with these terrorists,” he said. “That will mean having a major review of our capabilities to deal with this.”
Khan said he was the best-qualified candidate to deal with terrorism because he was the only one with security clearance as a privy councillor. “Do you think I’d have been invited to weekly security meetings where there were MI5 and MI6, representatives from the police service and chaired by the home secretary if there were any concerns about me?”
Goldsmith told the Evening Standard this week that Khan had been “giving platform, oxygen and cover” to extremists, and highlighted Khan’s decision to share a platform with Suliman Gani, an imam whom he described as “repellent”. His attack backfired when it emerged that Goldsmith had posed for a photo with Gani.He said he had been singled out by extremists – and been given police advice on protection – because of his liberal views, particularly on same-sex marriage. “There are people in Tooting who no longer talk to me because of it. When I was first elected I had all sorts of problems from these extremists. There was a fatwa put out against me. I’m the person with the plan in relation to fighting extremism.”



 

Kelsey

Well-known member
Advertiser
Joined Nov 12, 2014
Messages 157
Sadiq Khan says there is 'question to be asked' about use of hijabs in London




Mayoral candidate says Muslim women should consider whether to remain veiled when interacting with public service providers








A woman wearing a niqab at a market in east London. Photograph: John D Mchugh/AFP/Getty ImagesNicholas Watt Chief political correspondent
Thursday 14 April 2016 20.08 BSTLast modified on Saturday Share on Share on Google+

Sadiq Khan, the Labour candidate for London mayor, has said there is “a question to be asked” about why some Muslim women in the capital wear hijabs and niqabs.
Khan, who became the first Muslim cabinet minister in Gordon Brown’s government in 2009, warned of an “insidious” development if people thought it was right to treat women differently to men.
In an interview with the London Evening Standard, the frontrunner in next month’s mayoral contest contrasted the way Muslim women dressed when he was growing up in London in the 1970s and 80s with the way many women dressed today.
“There is a question to be asked about what is going on in those homes. What’s insidious is if people are starting to think it is appropriate to treat women differently or that it has been forced on them. What worries me is children being forced to adopt a lifestyle.”Khan, 45, said: “When I was younger you didn’t see people in hijabs and niqabs, not even in Pakistan when I visited my family. In London we got on. People dressed the same. What you see now are people born and raised here who are choosing to wear the jilbab [a loose gown] or niqab.
Khan suggested Muslim women should think about whether to wear the niqab, which covers the face, when they interacted with providers of public services. Asked whether women should be allowed to cover their faces, he said: “It’s not for me to tell women what to wear. But I do think that in public service we should be able to see each other’s faces. Eye contact matters. You should be able to see the face.”
He added: “There is no other city in the world where I would want to raise my daughters than London. They have rights, they have protection, the right to wear what they like, think what they like, to meet who they like, to study what they like, more than they would in any other country.”
During the interview Khan sought to answer critics who say that his record as a human rights lawyer means he would be soft on terrorism.
Zac Goldsmith, Khan’s Tory opponent, has been criticised after his campaign distributed leaflets describing the Labour candidate as “radical and divisive”. Khan tweeted this week: “Hey @ZacGoldsmith. There’s no need to keep pointing at me & shouting ‘he’s a Muslim’. I put it on my own leaflets.”
Khan said he would never apologise for his work as a human rights lawyer. But he pledged to place London on a “war footing” to tackle terrorist threats. “On day one I am going to put us on a war footing with these terrorists,” he said. “That will mean having a major review of our capabilities to deal with this.”
Khan said he was the best-qualified candidate to deal with terrorism because he was the only one with security clearance as a privy councillor. “Do you think I’d have been invited to weekly security meetings where there were MI5 and MI6, representatives from the police service and chaired by the home secretary if there were any concerns about me?”
Goldsmith told the Evening Standard this week that Khan had been “giving platform, oxygen and cover” to extremists, and highlighted Khan’s decision to share a platform with Suliman Gani, an imam whom he described as “repellent”. His attack backfired when it emerged that Goldsmith had posed for a photo with Gani.He said he had been singled out by extremists – and been given police advice on protection – because of his liberal views, particularly on same-sex marriage. “There are people in Tooting who no longer talk to me because of it. When I was first elected I had all sorts of problems from these extremists. There was a fatwa put out against me. I’m the person with the plan in relation to fighting extremism.”





It sounds to me that he is totally realistic with his opinion!
and in no way is he trying to tell ladies how they should dress or look, just that they should respect their bodies and enjoy themselves for who they are, not try to be something their not. I don't agree with those unsafe dieting pill ads ether, & I don't think children should be subjected to see them on tv or billboard ads.
the fact that he doesn't agree with his religion to cover up a woman's face sure says a lot about his personality as well.
 
C

cristycurves

Guest
I think he sounds like a progressive and realistic and rational gentleman. Good for him for taking a stance on some controversial topics. As far as advertising....Time to make Normal the new Normal:)
 

Prim0

Senior Member
Joined Jun 29, 2010
Messages 10,859
I think he sounds like a progressive and realistic and rational gentleman. Good for him for taking a stance on some controversial topics. As far as advertising....Time to make Normal the new Normal:)


But Chisty....who get's to decide what is "Normal"?


I think one of the problems I see with political discussion these days is that people will agree with a specific instance but miss how that instance can be used in another circumstance against them (or what they believe in).

The principle should be "Freedom of Speech". That doesn't mean some speech is okay and not others. (Safety issues like "FIRE" excluded). Body shaming? What the hell is that anyway. Showing someone with a nice body is somehow insulting to those without such a nice body? Is showing a beautiful face insulting to those who don't have a beautiful face? Is showing a tall person somehow insulting to Danny?

You need to consider what an instance can mean across the board. If the government can ban attractive people from advertisements then what else might they ban in the future? What about a day when the government isn't made up of people who generally agree with you? Would accept a ban on adverts derived from strong right-wing christian beliefs? Would you accept a ban on adverts derived from a misogynistic government majority?



What I like about the US Constitution is that it is supposed to restrict government in situations like this. Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative or Satan Worshipping majority and leadership is restricted from putting to much of it's perspective on how things work in the country. They might try to ban something but there's that piece of paper that they took an oath to uphold and defend that tells them that they cannot take a way people's liberty.


Yet again let's put this in perspective of the sex industry. Should the government be allowed to ban SP adverts because they offend enough or even a majority of people? Should it ban the activity itself?






People need to quit cherry picking arguments and try to see the big picture.
 

Beached

Reviewer
Joined Dec 6, 2015
Messages 1,424
It sounds to me that he is totally realistic with his opinion!
and in no way is he trying to tell ladies how they should dress or look, just that they should respect their bodies and enjoy themselves for who they are, not try to be something their not. I don't agree with those unsafe dieting pill ads ether, & I don't think children should be subjected to see them on tv or billboard ads.
the fact that he doesn't agree with his religion to cover up a woman's face sure says a lot about his personality as well.
He is right not to allow promotion of potentially unsafe products in public spaces. Promoting unrealistic ideal bodies to the public can be harmful too. I know that I can not watch porn without feeling inadequate. :)
 

Chongqing

Reviewer
Joined Aug 26, 2015
Messages 32
Some women won't be happy until fat/chubby becomes the new normal.
Both those women standing beside the poster are out of shape sloths.
Neither one has a thigh gap. The time they waste protesting would be better spent in the gym.
These chicks are just bitter and jealous that they weren't asked to the prom like the slim hot girls were...
 

Beached

Reviewer
Joined Dec 6, 2015
Messages 1,424
Some women won't be happy until fat/chubby becomes the new normal.
Both thos7e women standing beside the poster are out of shape sloths.
Neither one has a thigh gap. The time they waste protesting would be better spent in the gym.
These chicks are just bitter and jealous that they weren't asked to the prom like the slim hot girls were...
No gap you say? And yet I would bet that you could comfortably squeeze your mind between their thighs.
 

Ms.MelodyMerlot

Well-known member
Advertiser
Joined Jun 7, 2016
Messages 107
normal is just a setting on the dryer, everyone has a different sense of what normal is to them.
what is normal in canada may not be normal else where and vice versa



But Chisty....who get's to decide what is "Normal"?


I think one of the problems I see with political discussion these days is that people will agree with a specific instance but miss how that instance can be used in another circumstance against them (or what they believe in).

The principle should be "Freedom of Speech". That doesn't mean some speech is okay and not others. (Safety issues like "FIRE" excluded). Body shaming? What the hell is that anyway. Showing someone with a nice body is somehow insulting to those without such a nice body? Is showing a beautiful face insulting to those who don't have a beautiful face? Is showing a tall person somehow insulting to Danny?

You need to consider what an instance can mean across the board. If the government can ban attractive people from advertisements then what else might they ban in the future? What about a day when the government isn't made up of people who generally agree with you? Would accept a ban on adverts derived from strong right-wing christian beliefs? Would you accept a ban on adverts derived from a misogynistic government majority?



What I like about the US Constitution is that it is supposed to restrict government in situations like this. Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative or Satan Worshipping majority and leadership is restricted from putting to much of it's perspective on how things work in the country. They might try to ban something but there's that piece of paper that they took an oath to uphold and defend that tells them that they cannot take a way people's liberty.


Yet again let's put this in perspective of the sex industry. Should the government be allowed to ban SP adverts because they offend enough or even a majority of people? Should it ban the activity itself?






People need to quit cherry picking arguments and try to see the big picture.
 
C

cristycurves

Guest
Perhaps I should have used another term instead of normal, since some can't relate. In Canada the average/normal/most common/ the majority size of a woman is 5ft3.4 inches and weighing 153lbs. So by those measurements what we see daily in ads isn't a reflection of most women. Lets face it, ads don't depict reality. Most models are over 5ft9inches and a size 0 to 2. Many are like myself and have had breast enhancements, some other enhancements, tans, pro makeup, pro hair, photo retouching, and most are very young. So the point of calling some ads body shaming, isn't wrong, especially when the ads promotes those images as normal. Those images cause a lot of women, young and old to question themselves and their physiques. We should all want more realistic images promoted to spur healthier body images, especially in younger girls. Most girls in ads don't even look like themselves off set, they'd admit that themselves. Of course we all have our own ideals of beauty, but promoting the minority, the very small amount of women who are genetically lucky and who get to work with a pro team of beauticians and others as the norm, isn't truthful, fair or realistic. Nor is it the norm:)
 
Joined Sep 10, 2015
Messages 1,482
5'3" and 153 pounds is overweight. My wife is almost 5'8" and weighs 140 pounds.

A healthy body weight for 5'3" would be 125 to 130 pounds.
 
Joined Sep 10, 2015
Messages 1,482
Guys don't like fat chicks, just as girls don't like skinny guys.

Nothing wrong with it as that is what we are naturally attracted to.

I don't like runway models however, as they are usually 5'11" tall and weigh about 115 pounds - too skinny. A girl that is too skinny has no boobs and a girl with no boobs is basically a man with a vagina.
 

Prim0

Senior Member
Joined Jun 29, 2010
Messages 10,859
Perhaps I should have used another term instead of normal, since some can't relate. In Canada the average/normal/most common/ the majority size of a woman is 5ft3.4 inches and weighing 153lbs. So by those measurements what we see daily in ads isn't a reflection of most women. Lets face it, ads don't depict reality. Most models are over 5ft9inches and a size 0 to 2. Many are like myself and have had breast enhancements, some other enhancements, tans, pro makeup, pro hair, photo retouching, and most are very young. So the point of calling some ads body shaming, isn't wrong, especially when the ads promotes those images as normal. Those images cause a lot of women, young and old to question themselves and their physiques. We should all want more realistic images promoted to spur healthier body images, especially in younger girls. Most girls in ads don't even look like themselves off set, they'd admit that themselves. Of course we all have our own ideals of beauty, but promoting the minority, the very small amount of women who are genetically lucky and who get to work with a pro team of beauticians and others as the norm, isn't truthful, fair or realistic. Nor is it the norm:)


Here's another option for you. Start a business and use what you consider "normal" people in the ads. If it's so important to people, they will flock to your business and stop going to places that use "pretty" people in their ads. Both of our countries are supposed to be free. You should be able to use the market to win with your ideas if so many people agree with them. Don't dictate what others do.....provide everyone with a better option.
 
Joined Sep 10, 2015
Messages 1,482
Here's another option for you. Start a business and use what you consider "normal" people in the ads. If it's so important to people, they will flock to your business and stop going to places that use "pretty" people in their ads. Both of our countries are supposed to be free. You should be able to use the market to win with your ideas if so many people agree with them. Don't dictate what others do.....provide everyone with a better option.

Christy wouldn't do that. She is the type of person who wants to control other people's actions, words and thoughts. She will use the force of government to get her own way if she can convince someone to agree with her.
 

Canada-Man

Reviewer
Joined Apr 16, 2015
Messages 2,226
https://historyoffeminism.com/

Feminism exists as a defender of the selfish sexual and reproductive interests of aging and/or unattractive women. This is its entire raison d’etre, the reason it first came into existence with the social purity movement reformers of the 19th century, led by their harridan battle cry – ‘armed with the ballot the mothers of America will legislate morality’.








 
Joined Sep 10, 2015
Messages 1,482
I don't think feminists are ugly and conservatives are pretty, but I do believe that feminists are more dishonest than most people.
 
C

cristycurves

Guest
MisterAsianLover said:
Christy wouldn't do that. She is the type of person who wants to control other people's actions, words and thoughts. She will use the force of government to get her own way if she can convince someone to agree with her.


Really and what type of person are you? Why is it Mal that you seem to THINK you know everyone and everything? Why is it that only YOUR statistics, thoughts, opinions are the only ones that are ever right and...... you talk about someone else being controlling! LOL. You have belittled women in this business and outside of it, you name call, insight, degrade, lie and lie some more. You degrade this industry, you belittle it's importance and the importance of those involved. You are a bully, a bigot, a misogynist and a fake persona. Your opinions are only made to stir the pot not to help or improve anything, as they're incessantly full of whining and critiquing and of your "all knowing" attitude. So instead of your constant babble about this person is this and that person does that, fix your own flaws, god knows that list is long!!

@Primo, I don't take issue with ads, since they don't personally affect me, It's the obvious work of psychologists, psychiatrists and other professionals who've determined that certain types of advertising are having a negative affect on society.However I do understand and respect they're view point and I am pro anything that will help anyone become happier with themselves. So perhaps it is to them you should suggest opening businesses:)or open one yourself with only model type women, who again are the minority. Just as it's nice to see different skin colors, because white isn't the only one, it would be nice to see more of the body types that most of us see regularly. Ads should portray a mixture not a one size fits all, because diversity is nice in all aspects of humanity:)
 
Top Bottom