British Politics

Current Affairs
922

Alan Duncan is a Tory MP, and is a Foreign Office minister with responsibility for Europe and the Americas.

Yet unusually for a Tory, he has a balanced, nuanced position on the Israel-Palestine situation.

For which he was the target of an attempted “take down” (their words) by Israel.

Sir Alan, who has described expanding Israeli settlements as a “stain on the face of the globe”, was seen as more of a problem than Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson - who was “basically good”, according to Mr Masot in a transcript of the conversation.

Sir Alan launched a scathing attack on Israel in 2014, when MPs backed Palestinian statehood, deeming Israeli settlements as an “act of theft”.

“Occupation, annexation, illegality, negligence, complicity - this is a wicked cocktail which brings shame on Israel,” he told BBC Radio 4’s World At One programme.

Sir Alan, who was special envoy to Yemen and Oman at the time, said “international law must be upheld” to prevent further settlements.

Now, if Alan Duncan was the target of a take down by Israel, one can pretty reasonably guess what sort of tactics Israel would be willing to engage in to take down Jeremy Corbyn.

And still some people here deny that such smear campaigns go on.

This is the sort of utterly blinkered, ultra-propagandist mentality you’re dealing with when you engage with a few select posters on this forum.

923

Shush, this won’t suit the “narrative”.

924

Cleverly is some gobshite

COMPILATION
OF ECRI’S GENERAL
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 75: https://rm.coe.int/compilation-of-ecri-s-general-policy-recommendations-march-2018/16808b7945

Key elements of national legislation
against racism and racial discrimination
I. Definitions

  1. For the purposes of this Recommendation, the following definitions
    shall apply :
    a) “racism” shall mean the belief that a ground such as race, colour, language, religion, nationality or national or ethnic origin
    justifies contempt for a person or a group of persons, or the
    notion of superiority of a person or a group of persons.
    b) “direct racial discrimination” shall mean any differential
    treatment based on a ground such as race, colour, language,
    religion, nationality or national or ethnic origin, which has no
    objective and reasonable justification. Differential treatment has
    no objective and reasonable justification if it does not pursue a
    legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of
    proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought
    to be realised.
925

Isn’t that @anon7035031’s line, contending that a group is “not a race” and so can’t be subject to racism? Nice to see other people getting to have a good laugh at that too.

926

What does the phrase "a group is not a race " mean?

927

He’s changed his definition of racism numerous times to suit whatever crazed far right agenda he’s been spewing at the time.

If you criticise Israel, for instance, apparently that’s anti-Semitic, which is anti-Judaism, which is racism.

Never mind that he frequently spews out genuinely anti-Semitic shit which deliberately conflates Jews with Israel. That’s an actual neo-Nazi “talking point”.

But if you absolutely vilify Muslims and call for all Islam to be banned, it can’t be racism, because Islam is not a race. Or something.

Shambolic, dishonest and fraudulent doesn’t even begin to cover it.

928

Is “rooted in racism” a good enough catch all phrase? What if a Sikh gets attacked because someone thinks he’s a Buddhist? What then?

929

You’re using words but I can’t tell if you’re trying to say something.

930

That’s ok. You’ve enough to deal with trying to start imaginary chainsaws

931

That’s more of it now.

932

Just go and listen to the discussion. You’re capable of understanding it, I have faith in you!

933

No, these are simple concepts to understand, even for a dullard like @glasagusban and an ideological headcase like yourself.

A race is a group of humans with biological features viewed as distinct by society. Racism is treating people differently because of these differences, and should always be condemned. There should be no prejudice against people based on this skin color or other physical features. In the above context how could you, or anyone else, distinguish a white Muslim from a white Christian? Or a black Christian from a black Muslim for that matter? The answer is of course you have no idea. Muslims only share one characteristic, which is Islam.

Ideology is something to be worried about though, you see alt-right views as the greatest danger to the human race, and are clearly prejudiced against anyone you see as supporting such opinion (even when they don’t, your prejudice seems to be based on race as in hate for white men, self loathing in other words). Fundamentalist Islam appears less of a threat for you, even though it is responsible for most terrorist attacks globally, and responsible for the worst abuses of human rights, especially towards women.

Nobody should be discriminated against because of their race, dangerous ideology such as fundamentalist Islam or any other ideology that calls for discrimination based on race should be condemned for what it is, racism.

934

You’re completely wrong, you dope.

935

Why are you incapable of more than a trivial sentence?

936

Why do you write reams of gibberish?

937

It’s not my responsibility that you are incapable of critical thinking.

Religion is a set of beliefs. Do you hold the position that nobody should be discriminated against because of what they believe?

938

You don’t get to define what racism is - I’ve given you the European Commision Against Racism and Inequality’s definitions above - you’ve simply ignored them because they don’t suit you - you’ve also ignored the blatant contradiction between your classification of criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism aka anti-Judaism aka hatred of Jews (anti-Semitism is racism) as racist and your classification of Muslim hatred as non-racism. You also haven’t addressed the fact that your regular conflation of Jews with Israel is anti-Semitic racism. Again - conflating Jews with Israel is an actual neo-Nazi talking point!

Yes, I am prejudiced against people who hold such opinions because they are fascist and potentially murderous opinions - we know these opinions incite terror against minorities and yet you seem to have no problem with such opinions and cannot comprehend how they could possibly incite terror

What do you base that on? Like, please give me some actual evidence - and I don’t mean throwaway one line jokes like “never trust white goalkeepers” which are deliberately poking fun at stereotypical racist attitudes

Really? Flesh that out, go on there - show me where I ever said Islamist ideology was not highly dangerous

Yet you continually refuse to acknowledge what racism is - for instance you’ve had numerous chances to acknowledge that Trump is a bona fide racist and anti-Semite - and have continually refused to do so and still do so, despite him and other Republicans engaging in numerous examples of categorical racism and anti-Semitism

939

This is from the article about Joe Rogan thaat @Tank posted last night. It’s @anon7035031 in a nutshell, or a few nutshells.

Or take his recent re-evaluation of two-time podcast guest Gavin McInnes, for instance, whose openly violent Proud Boys serve as a vanguard of the far right in the United States and have been connected to white-nationalist violence. To Rogan, McInnes is just a larking, misunderstood provocateur. “He’s not a perfect person, but no one is. What he is is an interesting guy who’s weird, says funny shit,” said Rogan last November, at the end of a segment in which he decried what the Proud Boys have become but speculated that McInnes is basically just doing an extended, unfunny bit. “Didn’t he take a shit on the air once on his show? He stuck his finger up his ass and shit in a box or something? He’s a maniac.”

The common thread is the privileging of “common sense” over all other inputs in the struggle to forge a life philosophy, and the idealization of one’s own life experience over that of other people. Because Rogan knows McInnes, it seems obvious to him that the man is just a trollish weirdo “maniac,” not an actual racist. To Rogan, who is not personally menaced by Pepe-flaunting MAGA wankers, it’s obvious that cartoon frogs and ugly hats are not actually the hateful avatars that so many think them to be, and that the people who take offense to them are either overreacting or insincere. Because Rogan and his guests do not take identitarian critiques seriously, they just naturally assume that no one should take them seriously.

940

It’s not my responsibility to engage with your gibberish. I just informed you that you are wrong.

941

You simply don’t understand the difference between grouping humans based on biological race and grouping them based on what they believe. Answer the question I asked glas, as he is incapable of answering.

Religion is an ideology, a set of beliefs held by humans. Do you hold he position that nobody should be discriminated against because of what they believe?