I have to say this links to my comments on Corbyn, this idea that all prejudices are equal causes this situation where well meaning people actually start creating the problems they were trying to fix.
Without going into Trans specifically, essentially ANY problem that effects men will get ten times the coverage, emotional response and ultimately investment than a problem affecting women. Let’s focus our efforts proportionate to the problems, eh?
There’s a lot of media noise re anti-semitism in Labour but from there are a lot of scenarios where people are falsely labelled antisemitic purely because they are critical of the current Israeli government.
We seem to be living in times where people accept that the government is deceitful and dodgy. People say “they’re all the same” - well in the current crop it’s evident that they’re not! I would much rather vote for hope, peace, and positivity than deceit, smokes and mirrors and privatisation.
“the standard technique of privatisation: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital.” Noam Chomsky
I would have much more respect for the Tory party is they were honest and said that they were looking into privatising the NHS because of reasons x, y and z. Yet constantly try to bluff and divert the attention back onto something else - often what the Labour party is doing rather than what the Tory party has achieved in the last x years.
Adam Curtis’ HyperNormalisation is a good documentary on chaos, fake news and control: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04b183c/adam-curtis-hypernormalisation
O/T an incident on London Bridge in the last hour. Sounds like someone attacking others with a knife, subdued by passers-by and then police on the scene & shot perpetrator (dead).
Friend in London, said she’d heard it was political but no idea how or where that came from.
It’s possible that the two are conflated but that’s why the disciplinary process needs to be sufficiently resourced and independent to do it’s job properly. That its not is one of the key issues I have with Corbyn and his office.
The IHRA definition of anti-semitism is very clear as to what is legitimate criticism of Israel and what is not - Labour very reluctantly accepted the definition at the xth debate on the issue. It quashes pseudo criticism of Israel (anti-semitism in disguise).
Yes - I do think we need to make sure that the Tories are also sufficiently held to account for Islamophobic, homophobic, anti-semitic etc. speach/offenses. From what I’ve seen, the party are very quick to act in response to complaints. I’m conflicted on BoJo’s history of publications e.g. burqua/letterbox comparison and I’d like to know more about both what was said and the mainstream Muslim position on him.
But no noise when you read or hear his own words:
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/11/full-transcript-jeremy-corbyn-grilled-by-andrew-neil/
He repeatedly refuses to make very simple statements, and I can’t think of any reason he would refuse to other than he does not want to. In fact, by refusing to answer his position is that;
I wish I was wrong, but I can see no defence for his own words or deliberate lack of them.
he claimed to be a friend of Hezbollah - that’s a pretty good good definition of a C i suppose although it’s a word i don’t often assign to anyone or anything…
why should you be ejected from anything for holocaust denial?
So, Orwell was only a few years out…
That’s your opinion and your welcome to it, but if you want an answer you’ll need to do the research yourself.
It was a question, not an opinion…
It looked rhetorical. If you don’t want your party to be associated with antisemitism, then you might not want it to be populated by people who hold antisemitic views. That’s why you might suspend or exclude them from you party.
Why is holocaust denial antisemitic you might ask? It’s not like denying the moon landings or that the Earth is a globe - those are just signs of ignorance and faulty thinking. Holocaust denial is much more than that:
Jo Swinson has alienated her CND chums:
i clicked on the link and got as far as the second sentence…interesting that it reached a conclusion about motive before declaring any facts to support the case.
Pre determining motive is pretty scary stuff…very authoritarian…
and the problem lies here: should only one version of WW2 exist? Should we only discuss this subject if we hold the ‘official’ narrative? What have we to be scared of if someone holds an opposing view? Do we not know enough to be able to competently debate the subject?
Of course we can always just ban anyone who thinks differently. But that would just push the subject underground…and we all know how successful that strategy usually is. It results in people holding extreme views keeping their mouths shut whilst permeating the establishment.
Bring on the thought police…
Questioning the merits of Gulf War 2 would be a safer wicket.
Like I said, your welcome to your opinion and are best off researching it yourself.
However my point is that Corbyn, by his own party’s definition of antisemitism, does not think it warrants being asked to politely fuck off:
“The worst cases of antisemitism in our party have included Holocaust denial” - https://labour.org.uk/no-place-for-antisemitism/
This is blatant whataboutery and strawman arguing - pointless.
not if you research the subject, but i suppose pre determining motives does save people from thinking for themselves…
What exactly is the strawman?
were there any?
i suppose some, but it was poorly executed…
