Leftists think calling something racist, even when it isn't, is enough to act as a veto over any opposing viewpoint. We see it right here in this thread where points of view and arguments can be dismissed without further comment as soon as it is deemed racist. Racism now covers everything, even criticism of religions. Everything is racist. This line of reasoning has now been extended to serve as government policy in the UK. It is a betrayal of democratic values and it is intellectual cowardice.
What I've taken away from this thread is that if I ever attend a speaking event with someone who criticizes Islam or if I ever deign to criticize Islam, I could legally be barred entry into the UK for a holiday based on grounds of being a racist agitator. I hope my successful 2013 Visa application to the UK will be enough to clench it for me.
Last edited by Pontifex Maximus; March 21, 2018 at 03:11 PM.
Leftists think calling something racist, even when it isn't, is enough to act as a veto over any opposing viewpoint. We see it right here in this thread where points of view and arguments can be dismissed without further comment as soon as it is deemed racist. Racism now covers everything, even criticism of religions. Everything is racist. This line of reasoning has now been extended to serve as government policy in the UK. It is a betrayal of democratic values and it is intellectual cowardice.
So, is it acceptable to label a black african immigrant racist and kick him out if he openly criticize Islam?
So, is it acceptable to label a black african immigrant racist and kick him out if he openly criticize Islam?
I don't know. Most likely that would open up a tear in the space-time-racism continuum and lead to a paradox loop which would threaten to consume the entire island nation. We'll have to consult Lord Vishnu.
Accusations of Islamophobia is exactly the thing that harms Muslim communities most. If the real radicals have a social justice safety net, this propagates their activities, and reflects badly on the Muslim communities in the UK in the eyes of many who never had to grow up with this. This in turn helps lead to events like the Finsbury Park attacker, as the idiots like him are more likely to turn to violence if verbal criticism of Islam is effectually banned. Facts aren't racist, facts don't care about your feelings, and we need to face them if we're going to stop Western countries socially falling apart. Yes, there are some bad anti-Muslim activists, but being anti-Islam is not a right wing, alt-right, Nazi position, it's a humanitarian one. People see a problem-->they become activists-->people join their movement-->mainstream media labels them racist. Congrats, you've just politically marginalised an entire political movement that is now going to get more radical, while completely failing to solve the root problem.
Taking the the position that Islam is perfect and can't be criticised, and has no inherent problems, such as the ability to inspire violence among certain radicals, is the same position as a fundamentalist cleric. Moderate and radical Muslims both take their life goals from exactly the same book, let's remember that.
As Britons, do you notice any difference in this "political correctness" situation since the Brexit? Is it getting any better, any worse, or is it the same? From here, it seems that things are getting worse, but it just might be that issues that would otherwise not surface at all, are now actually surfacing.
Edit.
I kind of disagree with her "if all muslims were like that we'd all be dead". If all muslims were like that, they simply wouldn't make it to any western country, they would merely be stopped by the West's quite capable, professional armies. How would they reach the UK, for example? (not saying that they all are like that, just saying that the result would be different).
I REALLY wonder what Anita would do if she heard someone in a mall shouting Allahu Akbar. Would she continue as usual, or would she try to run away?
Would she try to run away if she heard the same guy shouting "praise the Lord" and holding a Bible, or would she continue as usual, just making sure to pay him no notice?
Last edited by ioannis76; March 21, 2018 at 03:58 PM.
As Britons, do you notice any difference in this "political correctness" situation since the Brexit? Is it getting any better, any worse, or is it the same? From here, it seems that things are getting worse, but it just might be that issues that would otherwise not surface at all, are now actually surfacing.
Hmmm not really, in the Nazi pug case Mark Meecham was arrested in April 2016 before the Brexit vote. But there again, Brexit voters were frequently labelled as racist by the establishment, during the run-up and aftermath to Brexit. So in other words, 'politically incorrect' was used as just another word for 'political wrongthink'. It's often used as a tool to enforce approved political thought. I've heard it said many times 'borders are racist', to booing Lord Pearson for saying 'Can we at least talk about Islam without making a hate crime'. Apparently not. And then there's the antifa people accusing pro-Brexit Jacob Reese Mogg of being a racist fascist too...
Edit.
I kind of disagree with her "if all muslims were like that we'd all be dead". If all muslims were like that, they simply wouldn't make it to any western country, they would merely be stopped by the West's quite capable, professional armies. How would they reach the UK, for example?
I REALLY wonder what Anita would do if she heard someone in a mall shouting Allahu Akbar. Would she continue as usual, or would she try to run away?
I understand your point, but I think what she was saying was that the fact that with millions of Islamic followers in America, if they were all terrorists, it'd be pretty bad. But that's obviously not the case, radical Muslims are still the minority, BUT certain Islamic texts are still the root cause of radicalisation for this minority. This brings me back to my earlier point, other Muslims who understand the Koran are the ones best placed to counter this. However, this doesn't happen because reformist Muslims are almost always the subject of abuse and death threats. And so, if the authorities ignore it, then it only gets worse, and worse.
I will not stand for this. How DARE you post such an offensive cartoon against Scottish people. The incident did not happen in London, and Scottish police definitely do not talk like that!
I apologise, though it appears the comic portrays London cops and typical bobbies instead in cartoony fashion considering Big Ben is there in background. I hope this will make up for my offense even little bit, latest EU 4 DLC Rule Britannia, released yesterday, first game at it i chose scots and achieved this in first war earlier today:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by mongrel
Crap cartoon for one reason, that bearded man is in jail and for a lot longer time than the pug chap. Any reason why again you wish to lie to the forum?
I also lied through posting that cartoon about the looks of Big Ben, it does not yet have minaret style musulman-onion top on it, unlike in the cartoon. I am sorry for spreading this heinous misinformation in form of a cartoon about your beloved landmark and tourist attraction.
ps. about the whole hypocrisy of this saluting dog deal:
As Britons, do you notice any difference in this "political correctness" situation since the Brexit? Is it getting any better, any worse, or is it the same? From here, it seems that things are getting worse, but it just might be that issues that would otherwise not surface at all, are now actually surfacing.
In line with my post a few pages back now- Brexit under this government (Not necessarily the concept itself) has been a disaster thus far, in ten years time i will probably be writing it up alongside other historians as Britain's 'modern Suez'. The downsides are it has polarized the population on both sides. Aexodus's point is half right, but it also ignores the whole stupidity of Moggs and co attempting to paint various institutions as 'Traitors' to Britain- undermining public trust on all sides in different key cornerstones of what keeps social cohesion together. Basically as brexit flounders, those carrying it out start looking at people to blame who are not them to scapegoat. Hence 'remoainers' as for some reason a vocal minority of brexiteers decided that democratic discourse on the subject was treason- that criticism of brexit, or the way its being carried out was to be met by insult- which on the other side hardened stances towards them- thus public discourse in the UK 2017- onwards is divisive to say the least. Both sides are behaving terribly towards the other- exacerbated by a government whose example has been to make brexit a 'Tory' issue- the epitome of stupidity from a political angle, and then proceed to create a 'us vs them' discourse, making any kind of unity on a parliamentary basis impossible. This political bashing filters through to the greater social debate (Egged on by a polarized media) and compounded by politicians actively undermining public trust in the UK's democratic institutions (Independent judiciary and now the Civil Service)- and thus causing both sides to polarize into 'us' vs 'them'- Its made worse by the failures of the current government in domestic issues- and their reliance on brexit as seemingly their 'get out of jail' freecard- as for some reason early on, they truly believed their was political capital to be made, and thus made it a party-political issue (arguably too of course due to internal factional splits)- now that's coming down their ears their looking to further scapegoat other groups and parties, unsuccessfully, but its again contributed to the political parties acting as ideologically factions whose supporters behave like its a 'new religion'. the 'extreme' Liberals hunkering down on identity politics, the Far-Left going down the class divide route, The Far-right Tories playing a 'generational' card to divide and blame and instead of addressing issues in debate, and doing a 'anyone left of Thatcher is a communist' rhetoric, made worse at a time when austerity has economically be discredited and yet the fallout would now be worse (Because of the left-wing triumph) if the Tories did the smart thing and ditched it for an investment led plan (Bearing in mind the one economic report advocating austerity at the time was flawed and only the parts wanted taken from it, Osbourne admitting he would have gone with Gordon's still rather poor, but at least investment - led plan that was working, but saw an ideological opportunity to fulfill a Conservative ideal, that's turned out to be quite frankly insane as its coincided with the failure of the big flagship privatizations- seriously it couldn't be a worse time)- anyway the point being- the Conservatives have got themselves into a 'rock and hard' place situation and thus lash out, response from across the political spectrum is to 'base up'. And we end up with the end of one of the cornerstones of democracy- that is the building of consensus (Though arguably May, Moggs and Boris's push for a 'hard' brexit saw to that when it discounted the opinions of half the voters interested in brexit and indeed the idiocy of the 'will of the people' statement- which has been misused and abused to try give the impression the Conservative party the mandate, which they lost at the 2017 election to shape the UK on several issues the way they want it- The brexit mandate being shared by any and all parties who have said they'll follow the result of the referendum).
So yeah- essentially things have got worse i would argue in certain respects to the general political discourse- mainly because of the aforementioned politicization of all sides. I mean in a way though this was also unavoidable once a referendum had been called, as immediately you are tying the electorate who voted into it, into camps- and no one likes to be wrong. Remainers early on, who then were 'narked' by jubliant 'we win, your treasonous vocal minority', and now brexiteers as the Conservative led brexit flounders, and the dangers of a one-party brexit begin to surface, and the factions of 'types' of brexit all make their power plays. The lesson i think the UK political establishment will take away from this, and in regards to helping rebuild social stability- is never invite the electorate to have a 'direct' say, when your political culture is one of 'representative democracy' that is of course built to contain and restrain public opinion within a broad two-party system and actively strangle any kind of 'direct democracy'. We lack a continental culture of political 'maturity' arguably (In terms of referendums do not fit into typical UK politics at all, as we saw during and after the result)- who can take a referendum result less, personally- though the counter to this is that something like brexit which involved identity politics for both sides, was always going to be 'personal'.
EDIT: Apologies if i haven't been quite clear re-reading this, but i've had a wee dram...and for a Scot am rather the lightweight
Last edited by Dante Von Hespburg; March 21, 2018 at 05:02 PM.
House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable
Heh, thanks for your answers. It's quite intriguing, that "indirect democracy" has no place for "direct democracy". This seems to be the way that all "representative democracies" are going, which makes one wonder if they really are democracies or not. The majority of voters won't be bothered to read all the political parties' pre-election schedules, and even if they tried, there would be many things that people wouldn't be able to understand (particularly with regard to financial issues).
What I make of this, is that Brexiteers have every interest in bringing to the fore "nazi pugs" (LOL), since they are sensational (I mean the concept is making a mockery of political correctness, I don't find pugs sensational ), easy to understand, and would naturally rally people to the politically incorrect banner (kind of like the straight banana concept rallied people to Brexit, as it made a mockery of the EU with its idiotic regulations). Perhaps if the PC crowd had somehow kept some common sense rather than go on a ridiculous witch hunt, they wouldn't have given the Brexiteers such "ammunition", but I guess when one feels all powerful (as the pro-EU group apparently did, before the whole thing collapsed on them), one overstretches.
My take on the issue, correct me if I'm wrong.
Heh, thanks for your answers. It's quite intriguing, that "indirect democracy" has no place for "direct democracy". This seems to be the way that all "representative democracies" are going, which makes one wonder if they really are democracies or not. The majority of voters won't be bothered to read all the political parties' pre-election schedules, and even if they tried, there would be many things that people wouldn't be able to understand (particularly with regard to financial issues).
What I make of this, is that Brexiteers have every interest in bringing to the fore "nazi pugs" (LOL), since they are sensational (I mean the concept is making a mockery of political correctness, I don't find pugs sensational ), easy to understand, and would naturally rally people to the politically incorrect banner (kind of like the straight banana concept rallied people to Brexit, as it made a mockery of the EU with its idiotic regulations). Perhaps if the PC crowd had somehow kept some common sense rather than go on a ridiculous witch hunt, they wouldn't have given the Brexiteers such "ammunition", but I guess when one feels all powerful (as the pro-EU group apparently did, before the whole thing collapsed on them), one overstretches.
My take on the issue, correct me if I'm wrong.
I wouldn't say that's wrong, depending on perspective of course but i'd put things simpler- political polarization in the UK, started by Thatchers destruction of the social consensus and economic reforms, caused from the fallout of the financial crash and exacerbated by brexit and its subsequent (and arguably inevitable) politicization has from top to bottom divided the UK's political and social fabric into groups, whose stark differences over primarily their attitudes to the financial crash and brexit has factionated the 'umbrella' politics that the Two-party system enforces to keep social and political stability in the UK, to essentially breaking-point, or as near to it as it ever has been- not even Thatcher polarized the country to this extent i would argue as contemporarily at least she successfully played a 'divide and conquer' game with the Unions.
In this context, differences are magnified, core 'traits' enforced as every faction feels that they particularly are 'under attack'- you might even go so far as to say there is a 'victim' complex among brexiteers, remainers, far-left and hard-right and the centrist ground which again is something the two-party system has always sought to pull towards has been discreditied by the failure of neoliberalism in the eyes of many, the failure to deal with the negative consequences of globalization sufficiently to make the case for the positives (and the wider issue that globalization is not something you 'opt-out' of, despite those on the right and left falsely painting it as if you can- its too late, too much of a 'rooted' process (1490 is its 'start')- thus consensus is under the current climate impossible as long as the battle-lines remain drawn, which they will as the polarized factions (perhaps rightly from their view indeed) feel constantly under attack from the 'other'.
The debate on indirect and direct democracy is indeed a fascinating one, and really allows the question of what a 'democracy' is- and to what extent a democracy can properly function at its lowest common denominator (be that MP or voter)- I think the UK is a democracy, but it is not as 'democratic' as our continental neighbors and makes no pretensions i think of being thus. The UK too doesn't have a political tradition of direct democracy, nor particularly for a long time a 'will' for it- the class system and a lack of a 'revolution from below' have given legitimacy to the idea that its better that 'theoretical' professionals are elected to 'lead' not 'serve'- its interesting too that many in the UK get annoyed that their constituency MP doesn't essentially 'do what they want'- a big point in regard to brexit, where remain MP's didn't do what brexit majority constituencies wanted and leave MP's have ignored their remain constituency- and that is because the UK actively promotes MP's to 'follow their conscience' when voting...the reality of course is their party dictates things, but alas that is why party politics are allowed over actually proper representative service- is because MP's are elected for their character and abilities to represent, and not serve- we essentially write them a blank cheque for five years once they are in, particularly as their is no legal requirement to do anything they said they will to get elected. The theory being of course is if they don't represent, they'll be voted out- but the two-party system basically means that voters are split between 'person' and 'party' - and that they'll carry on voting Conservative or Labour, even if they hate the candidate- giving the MP license to be the parties toad or do as they please. Though in fairness this is changing as the political-scape of the UK changes- the 2017 election saw the Conservatives lose or have 'safe' majorities overturned in seats they've held for decades, and in some cases a hundred years or more- again arguably to do with brexit too, but others put it down to frustration at lack of domestic agenda, and indeed because certain 'socialist' policies now have cross-party electoral support- such as the nationalization of services seemingly.
To elaborate too, these 'groups' do not necessarily have to have had a 'stake' in brexit or the economic changes i've descirbed, but such as LGBT rights, left-wing class-war orientated activists, right wing 'social conservatives' or fundamentalists are all made part of this fabric through the narrative that is being spun politically about say 'brexit = racism' or 'socialists = murderers and idiots' or 'brexit a victory over feminists' etc etc- there has been a lot of weird things tied into other things- it naturally puts those groups on guard and includes them in the subsequent discourse, they too become polarized.
Now going back to the thread point...this links nicely (to totally try and sell my original post on the first page only £1 guys per view ) to what i said earlier about then the government coming in and mindful of the factionated nature of politics, also being mindful as to its political legacy and the need to recreate stability in the UK- and thus does things like this to try and recreate some kind of stability...when actually it won't help as its the wrong think their addressing (economic structural issues would be a good start), but its the 'easiest' thing to do, that allows very little political capital to be expended, while sending a public statement that of strength/trying to garner support.
Last edited by Dante Von Hespburg; March 21, 2018 at 06:39 PM.
House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable
Leftists think calling something racist, even when it isn't, is enough to act as a veto over any opposing viewpoint. We see it right here in this thread where points of view and arguments can be dismissed without further comment as soon as it is deemed racist. Racism now covers everything, even criticism of religions. Everything is racist. This line of reasoning has now been extended to serve as government policy in the UK. It is a betrayal of democratic values and it is intellectual cowardice.
What I've taken away from this thread is that if I ever attend a speaking event with someone who criticizes Islam or if I ever deign to criticize Islam, I could legally be barred entry into the UK for a holiday based on grounds of being a racist agitator. I hope my successful 2013 Visa application to the UK will be enough to clench it for me.
The predicament the United Kingdom finds itself in cannot be properly defined by the left-right dichotomy. The country has been governed by the Conservative Party for the last eight years: during that time they have done absolutely nothing to strengthen speech principles or encourage conversations between various communities. The issue isn't even on their political radar.
The "intellectual cowardice" you refer to stems from the inactivity of the liberal-minded moderates over the past 10-15 years. They appear to have assumed that complaining on niche corners of the internet was sufficient to protect their inherited freedoms. Clearly it is not. There is virtually no credible leadership on the liberal side of the debate: the moderates have effectively surrendered, ceding their responsibilities over to fringe online provocateurs who spend the majority of their time preaching to the choir. Relying on controversial intellectual light-weights like Tommy Robinson, Milo Yiannopoulos, Lauren Southern or Carl Benjamin to defend the principles of free speech via Youtube simply isn't a workable strategy.
It is evidently not good enough to sit around blaming "leftists" or "political correctness" and hoping that it will have a meaningful impact on the debate, much less society at large. The people who value traditional understandings of free speech only have themselves to blame for this. There have been endless opportunities over the past decade for them to take meaningful action, but they've opted out. Endlessly predicting the imminent arrival of "1984" isn't the same as taking steps to prevent it.
They key surrounding this is the UK has no written constitution, nor permanent precedent (Kept intentionally so) in regards to the parameters of our 'free speech'. Thus allowing it supposedly to be a 'flexible' tool for maintaining stability and unity in the country and one that can accommodate a 'changing world' (Is how its defendants would argue- i would say more its a huge flaw and part of a larger problem in the UK's current political structures) I know I've banged on about it for quite some time now on these forums, but the Conservative government's 'snoopers charter' (deemed illegal by the EU in its current form) which was implemented under the guise of anti-terrorism...and yet contributed nothing towards actual security (Being disparaged by SIS and the Police for creating 'needle in a haystack' syndrome- as well as their current moves to regulate the internet should be incredibly worrying to liberals (in the traditional sense) of both left and right.
This latest spate is exactly in this same tradition, in regards to the clamp-down on 'radical'/far/Conservative/whatever your interpretation of the political spectrum right-wing speakers coming into the country, i could make a tentative proposal that might be a bit dull. But as i'm sure we've all noticed, the UK is incredibly divided currently, brexit having ripped open a fair few divides, which have effectively 'overturned' the traditional mechanism of British stability- the Two-Party block (Parliaments two main parties being channels for blocking smaller 'radical' groups or indeed subsuming them within their broader church- the interwar period is a good case study as it saw this with how Labour blocked any real communist growth, and the Conservatives essentially squeezed out any potential fascists upsurge) is fracturing as those groups within that umbrella are at each others throats publicly- something that when it happens is usually done in private, which is exacerbating the existing and arguably what was growing social dissatisfaction, which is also based on issues surrounding the economy, growing wealth divides, stagnating wages, underemployment et al- the usual UK systemic structural issues, all already exacerbated by austerity. This is quite frankly a toxic mix for stability. The so-called 'student riots' showed a taste of how close things were bubbling, the died down, but that has set the potential tone now. There have been Islamic terrorist attacks, but also 'far-right' terrorist attacks in recent years- while not of course being the norm, i think the potential for a wider-spread 'student riot' from such a group isn't something that can be discarded if things get much worse- and lets be honest- things are going to get much worse, even if everything else is someone frozen, the way the Conservatives handled brexit and moronically made it a 'one party' issue- taking sole ownership of it, and thus all the attendant consequences not only further divided things, but has pretty much guaranteed the next few years will be incredibly unstable politically- feeding the social issue side of things.
UKIP in a way did a rather good job of channeling a potentially violent situation into something 'legal' by taking the traditional rights backlash against the 'modern' rights/centers neoliberalism and funneling it into parliamentary channels, and at the same time did a terrible job- because it highlighted publicly once again the issues with FPTP (supposed to give stability above all) as being undemocratic. Its subsequent very public death shifted its voters back to the Conservative and Labour parties, but its unsure of if it'll 'stay that way'- and for a government who currently was heavily betting that it would benefit from UKIP's death, needs to, to break its minority status, and also is in fear of another more effective UKIP coming in on the scene which will splits its voting core again back to the 'Coalition days'- Where remember that Coalition could have gone to Labour or the Conservatives (Labour iirc actually had 'more' seats individually) and furthermore the Conservative party looks very likely it will collapse over brexit- a 'new right' party would be a disaster- both for its party-politic aspirations, but also in the wider frame for the UK's 'Two-Party' stability system and subsequently for social stability.
A quick summary of the current issues i know- but when you take that into account, particularly with i assume the reason being the growth of both Islamic AND radical-right terrorism as legitimization for such a crack down/switch to a stricter interpretation of the UK's 'Freedom of Speech' you can rather see why this has happened.
Do i feel its the right-way to go? No. Because i feel there is an element of the party-political in this (Much as there is in the attempted re-drawing of Parliamentary constituencies currently), but also because i'm a firm believer that idiots across the political spectrum should be given a platform to be laughed off of. Then again from a state perspective, having radical speakers come in from abroad (when your struggling to deal with your own 'home' versions) to such a charged social environment is the 'better safe than sorry step' if you are worried about stability.
And lets face it, that is what the British states primary concern has been throughout its history- Parliament was not as seen in its European or US peers the result of a 'revolution from below', but a 'switch from the top'- designed to curtail, bloc, stem or if all else fails, control radical changes to the established order by acting as said funnel- stability and continuity being seen as key over democratic representation/voicing. And i'm not yet sure enough of which side i fall on this 'stability' vs 'democracy' to voice if this is a bad thing or not, its worked thus far (Wars of the Coalition, the Post-Napoleonic instability, Industrial revolution, Interwar period, Cold War) to allow the UK to function- but its the age old adage, and indeed what my post is technically about thats key- is the 'security' worth the cost to freedoms? I'll get back to you on that .
Originally Posted by athanaric
It's actually a pretty big issue for us Europeans, including UK citizens, because a) we're used to travelling freely and without ideologically-based restrictions between European countries, and b) because it's one of many symptoms of the authoritarianism inherent in European and British bureaucracy and the general suppression of criticism of Islam under the guise of keeping the peace.
Honestly brexit and the current right-wing interpretation of what that means and will be, which May has been forced into thus far, would have meant the end of Europeans travelling freely without ideologically-based restrictions anyway- so in that term, this was always going to happen. You have a vocal minority on the right in the UK who alas do see 'European' culture as being very different from 'British' the two not being similar beyond a superficial level. Go figure how that works though, but a key argument is surrounding political and social culture (and arguably an ignorance of history).
Regarding a lack of a constitution, how would the UK go about getting some kind of its own '1st amendment?'. There has to be some kind of freedom of speech act enacted at some point, lest we descend further into Orwellianism.
Originally Posted by ep1c_fail
The predicament the United Kingdom finds itself in cannot be properly defined by the left-right dichotomy. The country has been governed by the Conservative Party for the last eight years: during that time they have done absolutely nothing to strengthen speech principles or encourage conversations between various communities. The issue isn't even on their political radar.
The "intellectual cowardice" you refer to stems from the inactivity of the liberal-minded moderates over the past 10-15 years. They appear to have assumed that complaining on niche corners of the internet was sufficient to protect their inherited freedoms. Clearly it is not. There is virtually no credible leadership on the liberal side of the debate: the moderates have effectively surrendered, ceding their responsibilities over to fringe online provocateurs who spend the majority of their time preaching to the choir. Relying on controversial intellectual light-weights like Tommy Robinson, Milo Yiannopoulos, Lauren Southern or Carl Benjamin to defend the principles of free speech via Youtube simply isn't a workable strategy.
It is evidently not good enough to sit around blaming "leftists" or "political correctness" and hoping that it will have a meaningful impact on the debate, much less society at large. The people who value traditional understandings of free speech only have themselves to blame for this. There have been endless opportunities over the past decade for them to take meaningful action, but they've opted out. Endlessly predicting the imminent arrival of "1984" isn't the same as taking steps to prevent it.
It's a bit of a sad state of affairs really, even the Lib Dems want to make wolf whistling a hate crime. A self described, 'Liberal' party. There simply isn't a pro-free speech option open to the British voter. Even the SNP are very hard left in many of their policies.
Regarding a lack of a constitution, how would the UK go about getting some kind of its own '1st amendment?'. There has to be some kind of freedom of speech act enacted at some point, lest we descend further into Orwellianism.
A real good queston- In all honesty, i cannot see under the current climate how it ever could. In terms of technicalities, a written constitution would under the current political system and 'mood' of the times for want of a better word- become a party-political issue- only the government could bring it about with a working chance of it going through, and then naturally it would be the 'type' of constitution they favored- which would be unacceptable to the other parties, and the 'constitution' would become a political football to kick back and forth and get bogged down. There was perhaps hope when the Lib-dems essentially 'broke' the two-party system and became king-makers, but since then going on the 2015 and 2017 results the trend has been going back to the 'big two' solidifying their basis once again. An example of this would perhaps been seen with the so-called proposed 'British bill of rights' that was intended to replace the human rights act and the EU's working rights directives- the issue, it was drawn up by a hard-right faction of the Conservative party and actually 'took away' current rights in the draft that was seen- it became toxic and was shelved...ish- i get the feeling the same would happen to a British constitution.
Moreover though a constitution that was written would meet massive resistance from the big-two as it would undermine their parliamentary prerogatives and 'cake', it would also probably have to be tied in to get it to work without the party-political mush, electoral reform on a more direct model- perhaps PR. And here the British public have been historically resistant- they rejected Blair's 'regional parliaments'- which were the first steps to a federal UK with a written constitution- instead wanting a centralized Westminster (I wonder how many people regret that now?) and also they rejected the Lib-dems' AV system and choose to effectively back the 'two-party' umbrella structure.
Add to this further the relatively little outcry there has been that governments have been invading private spheres. There has been effective opposition- but this is from small vocal groups and small numbers of lawmakers- its once again a 'top-down' initiative, where the majority seem to not care too much that snoopers charters police their Internets, collecting data on them and giving it to various different agencies with no oversight, or that hate speech is being slowly expanded with the potential to start getting quite bad in terms of politics- heck it too thek EU to effectively 'halt' snoopers Charter by deeming it illegal under EU law...the very organization that was lambasted (with some accuracy) for its anti-democratic nature. Its indeed been the EU who provided until now an actual port of call for those worried about the Conservative or indeed governments of any colour, expansion of government into the private sphere, and now of course that's gone (tbc). So i can't see even how we'd get the political will for it. Which is worrying and a damn shame for those of us wanting serious reform to the current political system and a federal UK.
The 'best-case' and perhaps only way of doing this- would be to hijack one of the big two parties (As creating your own- everything is stacked against you, FPTP is designed to limit their influences) and impose your own radical agenda- this can be done- Thatcher did it, sort of. Blair definitely did it with huge success, no matter what you think of him afterwards, but removing Labour's 'Clause 4' was a big deal and Corbyn with momentum are effectively doing that again- with a lot of success arguably. The next step though is to make it 'appealing' to the public- which can be done, but i think unless somehow made the 'be all and end all issue'- most people won't give two either way- and the 'Monarchy and traditionalist' card will no doubt factor against any written constitution- it'll be spun as 'too un-british' or 'republican' etc- so you'd need to have a fully fledged platform for something else- and then rather 'slip it under the radar' of 'oh here's another progressive thing we'll do- reform! Yay! *and remember to force your activists to clap really hard, really fast to make up for the typical unenthusiastic British response to political announcements- 'oh Jeremy Corbyn' being the exception that proves the rule*And then fingers crossed that the public will bite.
The issue being i think that brexit has put normal people off 'big sweeping changes' because of the fatigue of it- which is a disaster as that is exactly what the UK needs right now, and moreover the hostility around it has probably killed off the idea of another political football, that a written constitution would entail for a generation or so.
I mean not to rant (too much ) on this point, but i find it amazing that literally most people with Snoopers Charter and the Investigatory Powers Act (Pretty sure that's the right one...) were so relaxed and uncaring about it- beyond a 'bloody government' they were totally fine on this- so beyond your academics and your (dwindling) politically clued up people who are willing to form alliances with those from other political ideologies, i just can't see how we'd do it with not just the opposition, but the lack of actual care.... and now i'm depressed .
Sorry thinking that through was probably not the answer you wanted...or me actually. I mean its compounded by the issue that the brexit vote for many was a big 'stuff you' to the establishment status quo and the social, political and economic structural issues that have plagued the UK- they hoped something at least would come of it that was different and thus far what's actually happened is due to its one could argue, hijacking by the 'establishment' like Boris, May, Moggs, Davis etc- who are traditionalists we'll merely see brexit entrench all of this further. I say that as someone who voted remain in full-disclosure, but then my parents voted to leave- so effectively we cancelled each other out is the way we see it (I can count, promise- my brother voted the same way as me). Just to wrap up though, the 'anti-establishment' reaction we've seen channeled into Corbyn- is something sure- but on the issue of a constitution- its again not a factor, not really is UK political reform (As Labour benefit too much from the current system)- and more to the point, even if Corbyn was a radical federal kinda fellow- the way the system works, he would be forced to 'tone down' by his party as of course leaders have limited control and influence at the end of the day if they cannot build a majority consensus within their own party- and even that usually involves compromise.
Saying all that, do you see a way of doing it that might offer me hope for the future in this regard?
Last edited by Dante Von Hespburg; March 21, 2018 at 07:34 PM.
House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable
The predicament the United Kingdom finds itself in cannot be properly defined by the left-right dichotomy. The country has been governed by the Conservative Party for the last eight years: during that time they have done absolutely nothing to strengthen speech principles or encourage conversations between various communities. The issue isn't even on their political radar.
The "intellectual cowardice" you refer to stems from the inactivity of the liberal-minded moderates over the past 10-15 years. They appear to have assumed that complaining on niche corners of the internet was sufficient to protect their inherited freedoms. Clearly it is not. There is virtually no credible leadership on the liberal side of the debate: the moderates have effectively surrendered, ceding their responsibilities over to fringe online provocateurs who spend the majority of their time preaching to the choir. Relying on controversial intellectual light-weights like Tommy Robinson, Milo Yiannopoulos, Lauren Southern or Carl Benjamin to defend the principles of free speech via Youtube simply isn't a workable strategy.
It is evidently not good enough to sit around blaming "leftists" or "political correctness" and hoping that it will have a meaningful impact on the debate, much less society at large. The people who value traditional understandings of free speech only have themselves to blame for this. There have been endless opportunities over the past decade for them to take meaningful action, but they've opted out. Endlessly predicting the imminent arrival of "1984" isn't the same as taking steps to prevent it.
Thanks for your well thought out post. I can certainly benefit from some analysis on the British political situation, since as an American it is often a blind spot for me and I often view the British situation through the lens of American laws (which are invariably more inclined toward individual freedom). Obviously this is not ideal for an objective analysis, but I never claimed to be unbiased.
I don't consider Milo a very effective political commentator, so if he is the vanguard defending speech rights in the UK then I understand why the current states of things is in such a shambles. I feel there is very legitimate power and influence in the fringe conservative media sources, I subscribe to many of them and for the most part their ideas are worth sharing. However... The surrender of the moderates seems to be the ground zero of the dissection of speech rights then, based on your post. How can it be solved? You are absolutely correct that playing the blame game will not solve problems, beyond showing the electorate that if they value speech rights they should not vote for a particular party. I'm absolutely more in favor of pursuing concrete steps to solve a problem than engaging in meaningless blame games or something of the sort. As an American I feel (rightly) powerless in this discussion however.
Accusations of Islamophobia is exactly the thing that harms Muslim communities most. If the real radicals have a social justice safety net, this propagates their activities, and reflects badly on the Muslim communities in the UK in the eyes of many who never had to grow up with this. This in turn helps lead to events like the Finsbury Park attacker, as the idiots like him are more likely to turn to violence if verbal criticism of Islam is effectually banned.
That argument goes both ways. Silencing of criticism of Islam might fuel an atmosphere where a minority of Muslims feel they can get away with more stuff thus making Muslims as a group come under greater animosity. But allowing vocal criticism of the religion alienates Muslims who are not radical by painting all Muslims as being problematic just because of their religion even if they've done nothing wrong, and it also emboldens racists by creating an 'open season' on Muslims which in turn makes Muslims feel under attack and more hostile to non-Muslims due to an 'us vs them' mentality forming. I don't think criticism of Islam as a religion is useful, unless it's criticising individual subgroups of Muslims and invidual interpretations of Islam rather than Islam as a whole. I think therefore that in the interests of public order it can be justified to suppress speech which is likely to increase tensions rather than decrease them.
Facts aren't racist, facts don't care about your feelings, and we need to face them if we're going to stop Western countries socially falling apart.
And you're going to need to stop claiming that Western countries are 'socially falling apart' if you want liberals to take your position seriously. Over the past couple of decades we've seen long term crime rates decrease to record lows, we've seen terrorist fatalities reduce to record lows (Islamist terrorism in Europe is nothing compared to Separatist terrorism in the '70s and '80s), we've seen ethnic minority students surpass white working class students in levels of educational attainment, we've seen LGBT rights improve leaps and bounds and women's rights slowly progressing. This correlates EXACTLY with the rising levels of Muslims in the country.
I'm obviously not claiming that correlation = causation, what I'm saying is that you are accusing Muslims of creating problems which simply don't make a major dent in the overall trends. The main problems in Britain today are not related to Muslims, they are due to the policies of the Right: Brexit, the consequences of following US Republicans into foreign wars, the Great Recession and its aftermath which was caused by the collapse of the Reagan/Thatcher economic legacy, and Conservative austerity politics which is largely responsible for the spike in crime since 2015 or so, due to defunding of police and mental health services. Socially conservative people, when they are not talking about Muslims, would also add things like the saturation of the political agenda with LGBT and Feminist activism at the expense of other problems, the dissolution of family values, and increase in divorce rates etc, in which Muslims are your affirmed allies. So why are you focusing exclusively on the two niche issues of terrorism and grooming gangs, as if everything would be going swimmingly in the UK without those things? Incidentally, I've noticed grooming gangs are getting special attention at the moment in alt-right circles, since we haven't had a major Islamist terror attack in Europe since last Summer.
Originally Posted by Séverus Sñape
Racism now covers everything, even criticism of religions. Everything is racist. This line of reasoning has now been extended to serve as government policy in the UK. It is a betrayal of democratic values and it is intellectual cowardice.
I was about to say that that was just silly nitpicking over semantics, and that you know perfectly well that when people say 'racism' they are referring to any kind of persecution of minorities, just read 'ethno-religious bigotry' when you see 'racism' and stop being distracted from the main issue. And then I realised that from your perspective, you actually do think the main issue with Muslims is their religion and not their ethnicity per se. That's a very hard thing to accept for most liberals and it made me think. So here comes a very long post but bear with me, it's directly relevant to this topic and it will end up with a continuation of the discussion we were already having, although it will take a while to get there. Here goes:
I think exploring the "Islamophobia = Racism" perspective takes us right to the heart of what the 21st century liberal ideology is, and how they came to define what is and what is not acceptable. The liberal ideology stems ultimately from two strong influences exerted on Europe over the past few decades: history, and the USA.
Europe has a long history of hatred of minority communities. Gypsies, Jews, Irish people in Britain, Catholics in Northern Ireland, Hungarians and Germans in Eastern Europe, etc. Most of these hatreds were not based on religion or appearance so much as economic/historical grievances. After WW2, some major things began to change.
Firstly, the Holocaust shocked people into really taking these prejudices seriously and vowing never to let ethnic grievances cause such a tragedy again, so there was always a hugely negative reaction to anything that seemed to demonise a particular minority community.
Secondly, Communism after the '50s became increasingly less relevant and was abandoned by most of the Far Left in the US, being replaced by the new Far Left we see today which is based around issues of gender and race rather than class. The US is an incredibly racialised society and the Civil Rights movement placed racism right at the centre of all the problems with American foreign policy and domestic issues, in the minds of many. They extended their protests at racism against Black people to racism against East Asians in the Vietnam war, and racism against the Native Americans, and finally between the Americans and the Europeans, liberals graduated to generally dividing the world into evil 'white' imperialists and their 'non-white' victims as the replacement narrative for Karl Marx's assertion that the history of humanity was the history of class strugle. In the eyes of liberals, the history of humanity has been the history of race struggle.
Thirdly, the great European empires ended and the stories of what had happened inside them very slowly began to filter out into public knowledge, meanwhile America gained cultural predominance over the Western world. The European sciences of racialism were demonstrated to be mere pseudosciences invented to justify horrific cruelty to and slavery of non-European peoples. This consciousness was amplified drastically by the Civil Rights movement in the USA which was very closely observed in Western Europe - thus there was a merging of the language of the Civil Rights movement into the European ethnic minority context. This trend has redoubled itself in recent years with the increasing penetration of American media and cross-Atlantic discourse, to the extent that many people in the UK now talk about 'Black Lives Matter' and the 'BAME' (Black and Minority Ethnic) community, and other language that makes even less sense in a European context.
And fourthly, demographies changed drastically in Europe - a lot of the minority communities which existed previous to WW2 no longer existed afterwards due to forced population shifts and border changes (and the creation of Israel) especially in Eastern Europe, and in Western Europe immigration from the old colonies began to occur. This meant that the old enmities were largely replaced by new ones. This final point started gathering steam in the '60s and '70s with the Afro-Caribbean race riots and the aforementioned civil rights movement, but of course from a UK perspective the big story is the arrival of South Asians, most of whom were Muslims.
Fast forward to the '90s and you have the second generation of Muslims (the ones who grew up in the UK and had no memory of how bad life had been in the old country) growing up often in relative poverty in a society that was already quite hostile to them, and then 9/11 happened. This led us to where we are now - massive increase in anti-Muslim sentiment, terror attacks, and ironically, the very War on Terror which led to the destablisation of the Middle East and the refugee crisis bringing millions more Muslims into Europe, as well as the creation of ISIS.
TL;DR
Liberals in Western Europe:
1. See recent European history through the lens of the Holocaust, and thus see European/White Nationalism as their biggest ideological foe.
2. See the whole of world history as being largely the persecution of ethnic minorities by Europeans.
3. Have developed a lexis for this centred around the American Civil Rights context of Blacks vs Whites.
4. All of which is in the context of a drastically new demographic situation, in which not Jews and not Blacks, but Muslims, are now the primary threat as seen by those on the Right, and thus the victims in need of protection from another Holocaust and the new heroes of Civil Rights, as seen by Liberals.
And so from the liberal perspective, Islamophobia is simply the newest form of racism, in the sense that it is down to the general tendency of white people to persecute non-white people and nothing to do with Muslims or the Islamic religion - to extreme liberals, problems in the Muslim community either don't exist or they are the fault of white people, just the same as in the black community in the US. Thus the liberal mindset (which is still the dominant one in the British elite, just about) sees criticism of Muslims as identical to criticism of Jews by the Nazis, with a similar slippery slope trajectory.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
My personal views, which I insert for reference rather than as part of my argument:
I'm not really a liberal or a conservative and so I think both sides are wrong on this. In my opinion you need a good understanding of religion in order to see why that is, and I won't go into that too deeply - suffice to say that religion does not have a major effect on human behaviour in itself, so religion cannot be the main problem here. It seems to me that problems in the Muslim community and in the Islamic scriptures do exist, albeit they are often grossly distorted and blown out of all proportion by the Right. I think the problems which do exist within Muslim communities in the UK actually go far beyond the Muslim world and afflict poorly educated and narrow-minded people across the globe (albeit especially those in developing countries).
Thus it's not religion which is the problem, nor is it racism, it's social and economic development and education levels. That is something which can be defined in terms of ethnicity, but ethnicity in terms of national culture as created by development and education within a given community, rather than in terms of biology or appearance. In other words, ethnicity and culture are not something which are set in stone or fixed, ethnicities are changing and evolving all the time and can be actively changed for the better with the right resources.
By the way, the genesis of the new generation of Leftists has resulted in one of the strangest subversions of allegiances in the history of political ideologies: the marriage of pro-gay, pro-Choice, antifascist, aggressively feminist liberals with anti-gay, pro-Life, Hitler-apologist, aggressively anti-female Muslim fundamentalists, over the issue of Palestine vs Israel. Although it should be noted that this was preempted by the American neocon allegiance between conservatives and Jews, on the same Palestine-Israel issue, which began ever since America helped create Israel, and the Zionist Jewish corporate leaders began to gravitate around the Republicans as the main recipient of their funding due to their fondness for miltary adventurism in the Middle East being to the benefit of Israel.
Things are currently reaching levels of political polarisation not seen since the height of the Cold War, maybe even since the 19th century. This has the effect of forcing disparate groups to choose one of the sides, thus hiding the reality of the multipolarity along all the different vectors involved, a multipolarity which is starting to make the Right/Left dichotomy look obsolete. Nevertheless, some serious fault lines are emerging within both the Left and the Right. The alt-Right of course arose largely due to the perceived betrayal of socially conservative whites by the Neocons. And we are very slowly seeing the emergence of an 'alt-left', socially liberal Europeans and to a lesser extent Americans, who are in opposition to socially conservative strains of all religions including Islam. They tend to be atheists and they don't really have any political representation: in the UK their vote is split between the Green party, Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems - unfortunately they tend to be highly educated and pragmatic and thus skeptical of blind allegiance to a political party. There's also a bizarre few such as Count Dankula himself who have essentially sided with the alt-Right despite sharing none of their views - I put this down to sheer exasperation at the depths of liberal hysteria since the election of Trump which is alienating a lot of people.
Last edited by Copperknickers II; March 21, 2018 at 09:46 PM.
A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.
A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."
Thanks for your well thought out post. I can certainly benefit from some analysis on the British political situation, since as an American it is often a blind spot for me and I often view the British situation through the lens of American laws (which are invariably more inclined toward individual freedom). Obviously this is not ideal for an objective analysis, but I never claimed to be unbiased.
I don't consider Milo a very effective political commentator, so if he is the vanguard defending speech rights in the UK then I understand why the current states of things is in such a shambles. I feel there is very legitimate power and influence in the fringe conservative media sources, I subscribe to many of them and for the most part their ideas are worth sharing. However... The surrender of the moderates seems to be the ground zero of the dissection of speech rights then, based on your post. How can it be solved? You are absolutely correct that playing the blame game will not solve problems, beyond showing the electorate that if they value speech rights they should not vote for a particular party. I'm absolutely more in favor of pursuing concrete steps to solve a problem than engaging in meaningless blame games or something of the sort. As an American I feel (rightly) powerless in this discussion however.
In my view, free speech advocates in the United Kingdom need first to properly educate themselves on the legal, ethical and historical arguments associated with the concept. This is the only way they're ever going to be able to figure out what precisely it is that they want, let alone how it can be legally and democratically attained. They're also going to need to prepare themselves on the subject so they're capable of fending off criticism.
Secondly, they need to approach the issue from an entirely different angle. The extraordinarily powerful ethical arguments which underpin the notion of free speech (which are already intuitively understood in the Western world) are not being capitalized on. Far too many people (including "fringe conservative media sources") appeal to free speech to act as a front for the proliferation of views that are viewed as extremist by the mainstream. This is causes their moral case to immediately collapse. It is absolutely unnecessary and counter-productive to be associating the principles of free speech with unsavory topics and/or individuals that the general public are uncomfortable with.
Finally, they need to organize themselves properly. Complaining on the internet is an insufficient response. Relying on conservative media (which for the most part is morally bankrupt and cares only about exploiting outrage for profits) will be similarly fruitless. At the very least, the construction of a well-funded, well-lead, knowledgeable and focused pressure group which knows exactly what it wants and can appeal to a wide variety of voters would be needed. This is the one of the only ways that Parliament will be moved to action. And that means setting aside party political differences for this one issue. Its irrelevant whether free speech advocates vote Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat; it doesn't matter if they voted Brexit or Remain; its not even relevant if they're anarchists or members of the Communist Party.
All in all, I cannot imagine it will be a process which is anything other than arduous. But frankly, if no one can be bothered to take the necessary steps to defend their God given rights, then the British citizenry don't deserve to have them.
I was about to say that that was just silly nitpicking over semantics, and that you know perfectly well that when people say 'racism' they are referring to any kind of persecution of minorities, just read 'ethno-religious bigotry' when you see 'racism' and stop being distracted from the main issue. And then I realised that from your perspective, you actually do think the main issue with Muslims is their religion and not their ethnicity per se. That's a very hard thing to accept for most liberals and it made me think. So here comes a very long post but bear with me, it's directly relevant to this topic and it will end up with a continuation of the discussion we were already having, although it will take a while to get there. Here goes:
I think exploring the "Islamophobia = Racism" perspective takes us right to the heart of what the 21st century liberal ideology is, and how they came to define what is and what is not acceptable. The liberal ideology stems ultimately from two strong influences exerted on Europe over the past few decades: history, and the USA.
Europe has a long history of hatred of minority communities. Gypsies, Jews, Irish people in Britain, Catholics in Northern Ireland, Hungarians and Germans in Eastern Europe, etc. Most of these hatreds were not based on religion or appearance so much as economic/historical grievances. After WW2, some major things began to change.
Firstly, the Holocaust shocked people into really taking these prejudices seriously and vowing never to let ethnic grievances cause such a tragedy again, so there was always a hugely negative reaction to anything that seemed to demonise a particular minority community.
Secondly, Communism after the '50s became increasingly less relevant and was abandoned by most of the Far Left in the US, being replaced by the new Far Left we see today which is based around issues of gender and race rather than class. The US is an incredibly racialised society and the Civil Rights movement placed racism right at the centre of all the problems with American foreign policy and domestic issues, in the minds of many. They extended their protests at racism against Black people to racism against East Asians in the Vietnam war, and racism against the Native Americans, and finally between the Americans and the Europeans, liberals graduated to generally dividing the world into evil 'white' imperialists and their 'non-white' victims as the replacement narrative for Karl Marx's assertion that the history of humanity was the history of class strugle. In the eyes of liberals, the history of humanity has been the history of race struggle.
Thirdly, the great European empires ended and the stories of what had happened inside them very slowly began to filter out into public knowledge, meanwhile America gained cultural predominance over the Western world. The European sciences of racialism were demonstrated to be mere pseudosciences invented to justify horrific cruelty to and slavery of non-European peoples. This consciousness was amplified drastically by the Civil Rights movement in the USA which was very closely observed in Western Europe - thus there was a merging of the language of the Civil Rights movement into the European ethnic minority context. This trend has redoubled itself in recent years with the increasing penetration of American media and cross-Atlantic discourse, to the extent that many people in the UK now talk about 'Black Lives Matter' and the 'BAME' (Black and Minority Ethnic) community, and other language that makes even less sense in a European context.
And fourthly, demographies changed drastically in Europe - a lot of the minority communities which existed previous to WW2 no longer existed afterwards due to forced population shifts and border changes (and the creation of Israel) especially in Eastern Europe, and in Western Europe immigration from the old colonies began to occur. This meant that the old enmities were largely replaced by new ones. This final point started gathering steam in the '60s and '70s with the Afro-Caribbean race riots and the aforementioned civil rights movement, but of course from a UK perspective the big story is the arrival of South Asians, most of whom were Muslims.
Fast forward to the '90s and you have the second generation of Muslims (the ones who grew up in the UK and had no memory of how bad life had been in the old country) growing up often in relative poverty in a society that was already quite hostile to them, and then 9/11 happened. This led us to where we are now - massive increase in anti-Muslim sentiment, terror attacks, and ironically, the very War on Terror which led to the destablisation of the Middle East and the refugee crisis bringing millions more Muslims into Europe, as well as the creation of ISIS.
TL;DR Liberals in Western Europe:
1. See recent European history through the lens of the Holocaust, and thus see European/White Nationalism as their biggest ideological foe.
2. See the whole of world history as being largely the persecution of ethnic minorities by Europeans.
3. Have developed a lexis for this centred around the American Civil Rights context of Blacks vs Whites.
4. All of which is in the context of a drastically new demographic situation, in which not Jews and not Blacks, but Muslims, are now the primary threat as seen by those on the Right, and thus the victims in need of protection from another Holocaust and the new heroes of Civil Rights, as seen by Liberals.
And so from the liberal perspective, Islamophobia is simply the newest form of racism, in the sense that it is down to the general tendency of white people to persecute non-white people and nothing to do with Muslims or the Islamic religion - to extreme liberals, problems in the Muslim community either don't exist or they are the fault of white people, just the same as in the black community in the US. Thus the liberal mindset (which is still the dominant one in the British elite, just about) sees criticism of Muslims as identical to criticism of Jews by the Nazis, with a similar slippery slope trajectory.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I'm not really a liberal or a conservative and so I think both sides are wrong on this. In my opinion you need a good understanding of religion in order to see why that is, and I won't go into that too deeply - suffice to say that religion does not have a major effect on human behaviour in itself, so religion cannot be the main problem here. It seems to me that problems in the Muslim community and in the Islamic scriptures do exist, albeit they are often grossly distorted and blown out of all proportion by the Right. I think the problems which do exist within Muslim communities in the UK actually go far beyond the Muslim world and afflict poorly educated and narrow-minded people across the globe (albeit especially those in developing countries).
Thus it's not religion which is the problem, nor is it racism, it's social and economic development and education levels. That is something which can be defined in terms of ethnicity, but ethnicity in terms of national culture as created by development and education within a given community, rather than in terms of biology or appearance. In other words, ethnicity and culture are not something which are set in stone or fixed, ethnicities are changing and evolving all the time and can be actively changed for the better with the right resources.
By the way, the genesis of the new generation of Leftists has resulted in one of the strangest subversions of allegiances in the history of political ideologies: the marriage of pro-gay, pro-Choice, antifascist, aggressively feminist liberals with anti-gay, pro-Life, Hitler-apologist, aggressively anti-female Muslim fundamentalists, over the issue of Palestine vs Israel. Although it should be noted that this was preempted by the American neocon allegiance between conservatives and Jews, on the same Palestine-Israel issue, which began ever since America helped create Israel, and the Zionist Jewish corporate leaders began to gravitate around the Republicans as the main recipient of their funding due to their fondness for miltary adventurism in the Middle East being to the benefit of Israel.
This is causing some serious fault lines to emerge within both the Left and the Right. The alt-Right of course arose largely due to the perceived betrayal of socially conservative whites by the Neocons. And we are very slowly seeing the emergence of an 'alt-left', socially liberal Europeans and to a lesser extent Americans, who are in opposition to socially conservative strains of all religions including Islam. They tend to be atheists and they don't really have any political representation: in the UK their vote is split between the Green party, Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems - unfortunately they tend to be highly educated and pragmatic and thus skeptical of blind allegiance to a political party. There's also a bizarre few such as Count Dankula himself who have essentially sided with the alt-Right despite sharing none of their views - I put this down to sheer exasperation at the depths of liberal hysteria since the election of Trump which is alienating a lot of people.
Thank you very much for this post, I found it extremely informative. As an American no doubt I lack some perspective on the European situation and I am always happy to hear things explained to me from that perspective. For me this is invaluable since I find the ultimate arguments completely unpersuasive but the reasons for it may make more sense if explained. Very well done.
Initially I have to challenge the idea that the neo-marxist view of race, as you might put it, as legitimate. I consider it very reductionist and it fails to consider other social factors for why minorities might not prosper in western societies beyond the existence of discrimination which purport to describe why 'systematic' disadvantages exist. This general development of shame in Europe over colonialism and disgraces over past views of race seem to have led to a race to the left (correct me if I'm wrong) where Europeans believe they should do what needs to be done to correct past wrongs. This analysis would explain why so many choose to disregard some certain facts when it comes to issues of immigration and general social discrepancies with regards to success and acceptance in society.
I would counter by explaining my own views. The resistance to Islam has nothing to do with the people who profess that faith based upon their race or ethnicity, it has everything to do with their willful decision not to integrate with western values which include, among other things, a freedom to practice religion, a freedom of speech, and basic laws related to criminal conduct. As a conservative American (though ironically one who would most accurately refer to himself as an atheist) I adhere to the absolute right of the individual to practice his or her religion without molestation. In short, we cannot tolerate a transformation of our political values based upon the religious values of an immigrant group and we should not tolerate those who refuse to comport to these absolute constitutional (In the US) views to remain here. As long as you believe gays can engage in their own lifestyle or that Buddhists can have their own faith tradition in the US, you will be welcome in the United States. I'm afraid that these migrants from Syria, for example, simply do not share these basic Liberal and Democratic values and therefore I cannot support their emigration to this country.
I find it very strange that Europeans skipped two steps in repairing historical harms against Jews and blacks in favor of protecting new marginalized groups (like Muslims) right off the bat. Am I misstating things here? Maybe? I'm not an expert in European race/ethnic relations beyond what I have perceived but I would say your description strikes close to home. It would certainly explain the European obsession with protecting Muslim migrants beyond anything I would consider legitimate or necessary.
I maintain that any policy promulgated solely on the basis of skin tone/ethnicity is the height of injudiciousness. So while I might understand why they support these policies now, I cannot give them a blank pass for having done so. Society is not made any better by turning a blind eye to the sins and malfeasance of a particular ethnic group. We can be fairly critical without being racist.
Originally Posted by ep1c_fail
In my view, free speech advocates in the United Kingdom need first to properly educate themselves on the legal, ethical and historical arguments associated with the concept. This is the only way they're ever going to be able to figure out what precisely it is that they want, let alone how it can be legally and democratically attained. They're also going to need to prepare themselves on the subject so they're capable of fending off criticism.
First of all, thank you very much for your post!
I agree. This, embarrassingly for them, will require a deep dive into the well developed jurisprudence of the 1st Amendment in the United States. I am unaware what weight US law is given in Europe, if any. I doubt it is given much weight. (In the US we would consider authorities not within the United States as 'persuasive' as opposed to 'mandatory' authorities.)
Secondly, they need to approach the issue from an entirely different angle. The extraordinarily powerful ethical arguments which underpin the notion of free speech (which are already intuitively understood in the Western world) are not being capitalized on. Far too many people (including "fringe conservative media sources") appeal to free speech to act as a front for the proliferation of views that are viewed as extremist by the mainstream. This is causes their moral case to immediately collapse. It is absolutely unnecessary and counter-productive to be associating the principles of free speech with unsavory topics and/or individuals that the general public are uncomfortable with.
Again it continues to stagger me what the European audience considers radically conservative, but I think you are on the right track here. There are many reasons why the Right to Free Speech is considered so central to a series of rights in the American system. Justice White once wrote that the First Amendment right to Free Speech ought to be absolute. He later recanted after being confronted with examples where absolute free speech might not be a great idea, but he never recanted from a position that speech with regards to political/religious topics ought to be restricted. This is to say that even our most radical American justices in construing the law of this land have left unadulterated our ability to comment freely on the religion or any opinions held of other citizens. We developed a rather common sense system in determining when this speech crossed the line into "true threat" of violence. The example at question here would not reach that level as to substantiate any possibility of violence being perpetuated against Muslims...
Finally, they need to organize themselves properly. Complaining on the internet is an insufficient response. Relying on conservative media (which for the most part is morally bankrupt and cares only about exploiting outrage for profits) will be similarly fruitless. At the very least, the construction of a well-funded, well-lead, knowledgeable and focused pressure group which knows exactly what it wants and can appeal to a wide variety of voters would be needed. This is the one of the only ways that Parliament will be moved to action. And that means setting aside party political differences for this one issue. Its irrelevant whether free speech advocates vote Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat; it doesn't matter if they voted Brexit or Remain; its not even relevant if they're anarchists or members of the Communist Party.
All in all, I cannot imagine it will be a process which is anything other than arduous. But frankly, if no one can be bothered to take the necessary steps to defend their God given rights, then the British citizenry don't deserve to have them.
Well I'm not sure which conservative media you've been processing but I've digested a lot and I have never experienced the same. Though this is very interesting. Are you implying here that no group would advocate for the exclusion of what seems to me unregulated refugee infiltration? If not why? What would lead them to advocate for stronger immigration policies?
I'll try to explain some things here from an American perspective as it relates to immigration: We have been experiencing immigration issues like this since the Reagan era. Forty years on, we have developed some sense of not wanting unlimited immigration and establishing some sort of strict standard. Does this mentality exist at all in Europe right now? I legitimately do not know how Europeans feel about their own status. Sure I've read stats about immigration crimes and whatnot, but I've never actually understood what or why immigration policies might be supported or opposed.
Last edited by Pontifex Maximus; March 21, 2018 at 09:18 PM.
Accusations of Islamophobia is exactly the thing that harms Muslim communities most.]
Actually it isn't its Islamophobes nailbombing mosques and Islamists nailbombing other public venues. They feed off eachother.
Originally Posted by Séverus Sñape
I don't know. Most likely that would open up a tear in the space-time-racism continuum and lead to a paradox loop which would threaten to consume the entire island nation. We'll have to consult Lord Vishnu.
I would have hoped that any prospective immigrant black or white would have better things to do than obsess over the drivel discussed on Gates of Vienna and in the Breivik Manisfesto.
One 'Islam critic' we should have barred was Pavlo Lapshyn.
Last edited by mongrel; March 22, 2018 at 02:55 AM.
Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.
I wouldn't say that's wrong, depending on perspective of course but i'd put things simpler- political polarization in the UK, started by Thatchers destruction of the social consensus and economic reforms, caused from the fallout of the financial crash and exacerbated by brexit and its subsequent (and arguably inevitable) politicization has from top to bottom divided the UK's political and social fabric into groups, whose stark differences over primarily their attitudes to the financial crash and brexit has factionated the 'umbrella' politics that the Two-party system enforces to keep social and political stability in the UK, to essentially breaking-point, or as near to it as it ever has been- not even Thatcher polarized the country to this extent i would argue as contemporarily at least she successfully played a 'divide and conquer' game with the Unions.
In this context, differences are magnified, core 'traits' enforced as every faction feels that they particularly are 'under attack'- you might even go so far as to say there is a 'victim' complex among brexiteers, remainers, far-left and hard-right and the centrist ground which again is something the two-party system has always sought to pull towards has been discreditied by the failure of neoliberalism in the eyes of many, the failure to deal with the negative consequences of globalization sufficiently to make the case for the positives (and the wider issue that globalization is not something you 'opt-out' of, despite those on the right and left falsely painting it as if you can- its too late, too much of a 'rooted' process (1490 is its 'start')- thus consensus is under the current climate impossible as long as the battle-lines remain drawn, which they will as the polarized factions (perhaps rightly from their view indeed) feel constantly under attack from the 'other'.
The debate on indirect and direct democracy is indeed a fascinating one, and really allows the question of what a 'democracy' is- and to what extent a democracy can properly function at its lowest common denominator (be that MP or voter)- I think the UK is a democracy, but it is not as 'democratic' as our continental neighbors and makes no pretensions i think of being thus. The UK too doesn't have a political tradition of direct democracy, nor particularly for a long time a 'will' for it- the class system and a lack of a 'revolution from below' have given legitimacy to the idea that its better that 'theoretical' professionals are elected to 'lead' not 'serve'- its interesting too that many in the UK get annoyed that their constituency MP doesn't essentially 'do what they want'- a big point in regard to brexit, where remain MP's didn't do what brexit majority constituencies wanted and leave MP's have ignored their remain constituency- and that is because the UK actively promotes MP's to 'follow their conscience' when voting...the reality of course is their party dictates things, but alas that is why party politics are allowed over actually proper representative service- is because MP's are elected for their character and abilities to represent, and not serve- we essentially write them a blank cheque for five years once they are in, particularly as their is no legal requirement to do anything they said they will to get elected. The theory being of course is if they don't represent, they'll be voted out- but the two-party system basically means that voters are split between 'person' and 'party' - and that they'll carry on voting Conservative or Labour, even if they hate the candidate- giving the MP license to be the parties toad or do as they please. Though in fairness this is changing as the political-scape of the UK changes- the 2017 election saw the Conservatives lose or have 'safe' majorities overturned in seats they've held for decades, and in some cases a hundred years or more- again arguably to do with brexit too, but others put it down to frustration at lack of domestic agenda, and indeed because certain 'socialist' policies now have cross-party electoral support- such as the nationalization of services seemingly.
To elaborate too, these 'groups' do not necessarily have to have had a 'stake' in brexit or the economic changes i've descirbed, but such as LGBT rights, left-wing class-war orientated activists, right wing 'social conservatives' or fundamentalists are all made part of this fabric through the narrative that is being spun politically about say 'brexit = racism' or 'socialists = murderers and idiots' or 'brexit a victory over feminists' etc etc- there has been a lot of weird things tied into other things- it naturally puts those groups on guard and includes them in the subsequent discourse, they too become polarized.
Now going back to the thread point...this links nicely (to totally try and sell my original post on the first page only £1 guys per view ) to what i said earlier about then the government coming in and mindful of the factionated nature of politics, also being mindful as to its political legacy and the need to recreate stability in the UK- and thus does things like this to try and recreate some kind of stability...when actually it won't help as its the wrong think their addressing (economic structural issues would be a good start), but its the 'easiest' thing to do, that allows very little political capital to be expended, while sending a public statement that of strength/trying to garner support.
Very interesting and educational post, I was completely unaware that the start of globalisation in the UK could be traced as far back as 1490. I was always under the impression that globalisation was a rather contemporary trend, facilitated by the ability to travel greater distances in shorter time periods, and the spread of information.
Very interesting bit about the Iron Lady, I had the impression that she was a good rather than a bad thing for the UK (particularly the economy). It's interesting that I had come to like Thatcher, mainly because of her enmity with Greek Socialists. There was even an exchange in an EEC meeting which went down in history. Apparently, Pangalos (a rather young man at the time) had been sent by Andreas Papandreou to negotiate with the EEC regarding our economy (even then it sucked). Nobody in Europe knew him at the time, so Thatcher asked him if he was authorised to negotiate. Pangalos replied something like "Of course. Will negotiate" (in his caveman English). Thatcher was still puzzled at this, so she asked one of her aides "who is this fat guy?" without noticing that the microphone was on and the phrase had been heard. Pangalos is known for his wrathful outbursts, so without pausing for thought, he replied (in Greek) "Have you ever been ed by a fat guy?", which was translated by the absent minded translator, freezing the whole room. The question "have you ever been ed by a fat/tall/short/skinny etc, depending on the physical property of the person being insulted" is a staple in Greek street exchange, as it leaves the "opponent" at an impasse. To answer "no" would be to indirectly invite the other person to do as he "threatened", to answer "yes" would be to admit that he has been on the receiving end of such sexual attentions.
Pangalos was lucky, however, because at the time, most European leaders were either Socialist, fat, or both, so he came out as their "champion" (add to that the fact that they weren't too fond of Thatcher).
Anyway, the representative democracy you are describing for the UK is like a mirror image of that in Greece, as well as, I assume, in any other Western country. It's really sad, that in 2018, the best thing we are offered politically, is a group of people who implement things other than what they were voted into power for. It's like we have somehow legalised being conned. As citizens, we can sue the hell out of a company if, say, the product in a package is not as promised in quality or quantity, but we can do nothing about tricked into voting for people who will make decisions that will alter our lives forever.
What is even more sad, is that we can say whatever we want about our rulers (for example nobody would arrest you for shouting Corbyn sucks, or me for shouting Tsipras sucks in a crowded street), but we still get to be legally penalised for thought crimes. Funny isn't it, that the only difference between a Western democracy and an Eastern-type totalitarian state, is that in the Western democracy you can say what you will for the PERSON who rules, but you get penalised for criticising the IDEAS the person forces upon you. In an Eastern-type totalitarian state, you can say nothing about either the person, nor the ideas.
Given that in the West those ideas are the ideas of globalisation (pro-immigration, pro-islam, anti-nationalist, etc), it's only natural that globalisation gets the blame, I think.
Very interesting and educational post, I was completely unaware that the start of globalisation in the UK could be traced as far back as 1490. I was always under the impression that globalisation was a rather contemporary trend, facilitated by the ability to travel greater distances in shorter time periods, and the spread of information.
Very interesting bit about the Iron Lady, I had the impression that she was a good rather than a bad thing for the UK (particularly the economy). It's interesting that I had come to like Thatcher, mainly because of her enmity with Greek Socialists. There was even an exchange in an EEC meeting which went down in history. Apparently, Pangalos (a rather young man at the time) had been sent by Andreas Papandreou to negotiate with the EEC regarding our economy (even then it sucked). Nobody in Europe knew him at the time, so Thatcher asked him if he was authorised to negotiate. Pangalos replied something like "Of course. Will negotiate" (in his caveman English). Thatcher was still puzzled at this, so she asked one of her aides "who is this fat guy?" without noticing that the microphone was on and the phrase had been heard. Pangalos is known for his wrathful outbursts, so without pausing for thought, he replied (in Greek) "Have you ever been ed by a fat guy?", which was translated by the absent minded translator, freezing the whole room. The question "have you ever been ed by a fat/tall/short/skinny etc, depending on the physical property of the person being insulted" is a staple in Greek street exchange, as it leaves the "opponent" at an impasse. To answer "no" would be to indirectly invite the other person to do as he "threatened", to answer "yes" would be to admit that he has been on the receiving end of such sexual attentions.
Pangalos was lucky, however, because at the time, most European leaders were either Socialist, fat, or both, so he came out as their "champion" (add to that the fact that they weren't too fond of Thatcher).
Anyway, the representative democracy you are describing for the UK is like a mirror image of that in Greece, as well as, I assume, in any other Western country. It's really sad, that in 2018, the best thing we are offered politically, is a group of people who implement things other than what they were voted into power for. It's like we have somehow legalised being conned. As citizens, we can sue the hell out of a company if, say, the product in a package is not as promised in quality or quantity, but we can do nothing about tricked into voting for people who will make decisions that will alter our lives forever.
What is even more sad, is that we can say whatever we want about our rulers (for example nobody would arrest you for shouting Corbyn sucks, or me for shouting Tsipras sucks in a crowded street), but we still get to be legally penalised for thought crimes. Funny isn't it, that the only difference between a Western democracy and an Eastern-type totalitarian state, is that in the Western democracy you can say what you will for the PERSON who rules, but you get penalised for criticising the IDEAS the person forces upon you. In an Eastern-type totalitarian state, you can say nothing about either the person, nor the ideas.
Given that in the West those ideas are the ideas of globalisation (pro-immigration, pro-islam, anti-nationalist, etc), it's only natural that globalisation gets the blame, I think.
I love that anecdote about Thatcher and Pangalos, i'd never heard of it before. I always find the 'human' side of political (especially diplomatic) encounters can be incredibly funny- and weird as its an area that usually politicians and civil servants do their best to 'hide' .
Indeed globalization as an overall process can be typically divided (thus far) into 'four phases'- some call it the 'First phase', others call it 'proto-globalization', but essentially it is the founding of the first European empires (Portugal, Spain and the Dutch) and their subsequent interactions with other key European states (Like Britain) and also 'native' civilizations and how these all impacted upon each other socially, economically, in terms of the development of ideas (La Casas was a Spainish priest, and probably the first ever 'human rights' advocate- attempting to convince the Spainish state of the common humanity of the South and central Americans and the barbarity with which the conquistadors were exploiting them) and of course the increase in transport and warfare (The Dutch managed to undercut the Portuguese Empire in the east, by their 'faster' ships essentially forcing global trade lanes to 'change'- from the traditional overland routes to the Cape- causing many issues with the Middle East as income from trade fell significantly) and of course the conception of a 'supranational' entity was developed around this time (Portugal particularly expanded its empire East not merely for the economic access to Spices and other such things, and to tax shipping lanes, but also as part of what the envisaged was a global conflict against Islam- They 'crusaded' to steal the rich trade that flowed into the Middle-East away from these states and into their own coffers- which they managed to a certain extent, before the Dutch Protestants did it to them- for partly the same religious- state conflict). At this point in time to we have the printing press alongside the global shipping lanes which made travel possible, and in some cases actually 'faster' than previous (The Dutch)- and this is where it gets interesting- from the Philippines and Spice Islands there are extensive British, Dutch and Portuguese printer literature from the 16th Century 'reporting' on atrocities committed by each other to the others tradesmen, outposts and sailors that is then being consumed at home- Global information is spreading (on the back of state rivalry)- there's a really interesting one (I'm sure someone can remember the name) i studied last year which was a printed pamphlet in England, outraged (Much as the modern Daily Mail would be ) at the Dutch treatment of an English outpost on the Spice Isles- where reportedly the English had been attacked, arrested, interrogated and horrifically tortured- some even being impaled- and the horror is magnified as they are meant to be 'fellow protestants' and that they expected this of the Portuguese and Spainish.
Then of course the real clincher to this very early period being one of 'globalization' is the Trade Companies- The Portuguese, Dutch and English- The Dutch in particular creating the first system of stock and shareholders and how they can sell on their shares actively as opposed to being tied into them- they created the basis for modern global markets also by their company starting 'free trade' essentially as a very basic principle through selling their products 'wherever it is most profitable' as opposed to taking it back to their own country as a mercantalist would (and what nearly all other empires at the time did until the British EIC copied them). So aye, its fascinating- but this globalization of international movements of capital, resources, people and information is something enabled very early by technological advancements, and that and its influence is something that humanity can just not escape- particularly as the 'counter' to globalization- Nationalism- is only a very recent advancement technically- the 19th Century is where most historians pin its appearance down to as a fully fledged ideology- and moreover the practices advocated to stem 'globalization' (Protectionism, isolationism etc) were tried out in both the early phases of globalization, and subsequently the later 19th century (Where Britain's 'Free trade' ideology collapsed in the face of rising imperial rivalry) and each time failed- it merely for a short time made the process of globalization 'slower'.
In terms of Thatcher- she is indeed a very divisive figure- her economic policies during the 90's were indeed applauded- but the issue is that for the UK they created the structural issues we have now- Of course Thatcher didn't know this at the time, how could she? So i don't 'blame' or 'hate' her particularly as some do- but the switch to finance and privatization for the UK economy (though in fairness finance has always been Britain's strong-point- even during Empire it helped make up for the trade deficit with the rise of the US and Germany) and the destruction of industry without a further industrial plan was very short-termed in effect- it was great for a while, but long term was a poor decision it turns out (Arguably directly causing the issues with the UK's financial crash and response) as her 'reforms' are unsustainable, particularly with the rampant issues now with those privatized services- we must remember that Thatcher originally intended privatization to not being 'company ownership' but actually saw it as a greater 'democratization' of public companies- It was essentially a rather socialist concept- but cloaked in capitalism (A controversial argument i would make)- this is because it was intended that the 'new' British middle class, and the working classes would buy up the shares of the energy, water, electric and rail companies- helping to mitigate theoretically the closing down of Industry and unemployment but an income being established through shareholding- Britain was to be a nation of 'financiers and shareholders'- this would also keep the welfare bill down. So effectively, people would use their service, pay to use it and get reimbursed for it...along with some profits. Great idea in theory.
What the Conservatives at the time did not foresee is that its a very special type of person who becomes a successful shareholder and 'makes it big'. It requires deep knowledge of the markets (or knowing someone who has that )- and most people, well their shares went up from point of purchase- they made a few hundred pounds- and instead of sticking, saving and reinvesting... they sold them on and used that money as anyone would- in real life. The trouble is those buying up the shares- were companies. It was taking it out of the public hands and into corporations, a lot of them eventually would be foreign owned- so you get the silly point now where British public services are privatized...but technically nationalized as the French or Spanish governments are taking the profits and instead of reinvesting- essentially using those back in their own countries- the French tax-payer is doing better from British water or electric than a British taxpayer.- Particularly as the British taxpayer is further subsidizing those companies to actually get them to do something- like build new infrastructure as they naturally do not want their profit margins effected.
Of course there is far more detail to it, but that essentially is a case for what happened generally (Deregulation was another key issue).
Your point about globalization is interesting- as indeed i would say it has become tied to a 'progressive' for want of a better word, neoliberal social and economic platform that for many has been found wanting since the financial crash. The difficulty for me is that globalization technically isn't anything to do specifically with that agenda- Its a process that as history goes on, has been used and blamed by varying shades of political factions and groups and its meaning has been warped and changed- For instance in the British Empire- the late 19th century saw extensive debates about 'Imperial preference' as 'globalization' was killing off industry in Britain who could not compete- thus Empire and the growth of global trade and transport was blamed and the public wanted tariffs slapped on things (Rather like the modern US and Trump). But this was not a 'progressive vs nationalist' discourse but a 'traditional liberal' (I.e. modern right, capitalist free marketeer) vs 'traditional conservative elites opposed to capitalism' (landownsers etc)- both of whom were nationalist (Empire vs Britain)- so i think in some ways 'globalization' needs to be removed from the internationalist vs nationalist debate as its a economic and social structure that is apolitical- but much like all these things has been used both now and historically as a political football against the 'other' side.
House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable
Re: Free Speech in the UK
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Séverus Sñape
the point being- the Conservatives have got themselves into a 'rock and hard' place situation and thus lash out, response from across the political spectrum is to 'base up'. And we end up with the end of one of the cornerstones of democracy- that is the building of consensus (Though arguably May, Moggs and Boris's push for a 'hard' brexit saw to that when it discounted the opinions of half the voters interested in brexit and indeed the idiocy of the 'will of the people' statement- which has been misused and abused to try give the impression the Conservative party the mandate, which they lost at the 2017 election to shape the UK on several issues the way they want it- The brexit mandate being shared by any and all parties who have said they'll follow the result of the referendum).
either way- and the 'Monarchy and traditionalist' card will no doubt factor against any written constitution- it'll be spun as 'too un-british' or 'republican' etc- so you'd need to have a fully fledged platform for something else- and then rather 'slip it under the radar' of 'oh here's another progressive thing we'll do- reform! Yay! *and remember to force your activists to clap really hard, really fast to make up for the typical unenthusiastic British response to political announcements- 'oh Jeremy Corbyn' being the exception that proves the rule*And then fingers crossed that the public will bite.
