General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

...ah, wow...Johnson is a socialist?

Is that what I'm now expected to believe?

Furthermore, he said that in the context of the Brexit referendum, when clearly business was going to "speak its voice" on the matter.

85% of UK businesses do not trade with the EU, but are levelled with EU regulation at every level. So yes, to a certain extent, in that limited context - and in a somewhat tactless, undiplomatic manner - he was right.

You didn't know he said that?

---

They're levelled with regulation? What do you mean exactly? Where's the problem?

Essentially you want a free-for-all is it?

Is there a particular regulation that is causing such untold hardship for a British company that means they are up against it and not fulfilling their Great British potential?

And if that's the case I'm sure this particular regulation is causing the same stresses in Spain and Denmark, in fact throughout the EU?

This regulation must be stopped

Which ones exactly? Just so I know what you're on about.

---

Just in case this was missed, because no doubtt he has the answers to my questions.

@Eskimohunt?

liamtech

Looks like the new spin against the Labour Party - i.e. Antisemitism, is now in full swing

Sky News currently covering it prominently with every party attacking Labour specifically on this issue

and now

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/26/justin-welby-chief-rabbi-labour-antisemitism

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45030552

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50552068

https://news.sky.com/story/chief-rabbi-accuses-corbyn-of-failure-of-leadership-over-antisemitism-response-11870412

My own opinion is that this prominent attack on Labour, triggered by the Rabbi's comments, is aimed at spinning the debate against Labour this week - i predict that the Debate on Sky News this week will be aimed primarily at Labour in relation to this current debate - and the reason for this, in my opinion is obvious

https://www.icmunlimited.com/our-work/icm-voting-intentions-general-election-2019-poll-4/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/uk-politics-poll-tracker-general-20070947

Labour had begun to narrow the gap with the Conservatives -

I am not trying to drag this thread into Israel V Palestine - but Antisemitism is now a major issue for the election - or at least it is being framed as such. The argument on Antisemitism in Labour has been ongoing for years, and in my view has always been exagerated

But the Rabbi's comments, coupled with the Front page warning from the Jewish Chronicle



https://i0.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/PRI_95186709.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=540%2C673&ssl=1

this is now in full swing

Letwin_Larry

personally i think you would be foolish to trust the polls. at best they are indicative, but there are so many undecided voters who are unable or unwilling to express an opinion, that anything could happen.

this is a huge election for the UK, not just because of Brexit but for so many other reasons, and the choice they are being offered is truly lousy. there is a complete lack of leadership. i mean just look at this pic and as an Irishperson it's hard not to laugh.

https://www.straitstimes.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_pictrure_780x520_/public/articles/2019/10/30/nz_britain_301019.jpg?itok=ek6Xo7Ct&timestamp=1572391699

a large chunk of UK voters must be asking themselves which of this lot is less likely to destroy the place?

CelticRambler

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Is there a particular regulation that is causing such untold hardship for a British company that means they are up against it and not fulfilling their Great British potential?

And if that's the case I'm sure this particular regulation is causing the same stresses in Spain and Denmark, in fact throughout the EU?

This regulation must be stopped

Which ones exactly? Just so I know what you're on about.

On the Brexit thread, eskimo stated that there is no current law or regulation that he objects to: it's just the principle of the thing that bothers him. Everyone should be allowed make their own laws; any alignment of common interest is a Bad Thing and should be resisted as an undemocratic attack on the sovereignty of individuals. :cool:

sid waddell

liamtech wrote: »

Looks like the new spin against he Labour Party - i.e. Antisemitism, is now in full swing

Sky News currently covering it prominently with every party attacking Labour specifically on this issue

and now

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/26/justin-welby-chief-rabbi-labour-antisemitism

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45030552

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50552068

https://news.sky.com/story/chief-rabbi-accuses-corbyn-of-failure-of-leadership-over-antisemitism-response-11870412

My own opinion is that this prominent attack on Labour, triggered by the Rabbi's comments, is aimed at spinning the debate against Labour this week - i predict that the Debate on Sky News this week will be aimed primarily at Labour in relation to this current debate - and the reason for this, in my opinion is obvious

https://www.icmunlimited.com/our-work/icm-voting-intentions-general-election-2019-poll-4/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/uk-politics-poll-tracker-general-20070947

Labour had begun to narrow the gap with the Conservatives -

I am not trying to drag this thread into Israel V Palestine - but Antisemitism is now a major issue for the election - or at least it is being framed as such. The argument on Antisemitism in Labour has been ongoing for years, and in my view has always been exagerated

But the Rabbi's comments, coupled with the Front page warning from the Jewish Chronicle



https://i0.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/PRI_95186709.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=540%2C673&ssl=1

this is now in full swing

The anti-Semitism smears are wheeled out any time the Tories get scared Labour might be about to overhaul them electorally.

In the last US election, the Russians timed their releases of the hacked DNC e-mails to coincide with times when Trump was under serious pressure, like when the Access Hollywood tape came out.

This is from the exact same playbook.

It's almost laughable in its complete and utter cynicism, and it's a tragedy that anti-Semitism is so trivialised and weaponised to try and discredit a particular politician in this manner because it's a genuine cancer in society - and this sort of transparent nonsense only helps actual anti-Semites.

Bannasidhe

liamtech wrote: »

Looks like the new spin against he Labour Party - i.e. Antisemitism, is now in full swing

Sky News currently covering it prominently with every party attacking Labour specifically on this issue


Labour had begun to narrow the gap with the Conservatives -

I am not trying to drag this thread into Israel V Palestine - but Antisemitism is now a major issue for the election - or at least it is being framed as such. The argument on Antisemitism in Labour has been ongoing for years, and in my view has always been exagerated



this is now in full swing

BBC are doing the same.
Strikes me as a hatchet job.
Can't argue against Labour's policies so scream Antisemitism.

Sadly, I think this is an ill judged tactic for other reasons. I honestly don't think most British people give a flying about antisemitism. The Jewish population is relatively small and apart from Orthodox enclaves like Stamford Hill (in Diane Abbot's constituency) not particularly visible.
Most people will shrug their shoulders as it's not an issue that affects them personally. In the meantime actual real antisemitism is on the rise across Europe being fed by the same nationalist, right-wing base the Tories are courting.
My fear is that all this crying wolf about the LP is playing right into the hands of the actual antisemites.

And in other news the lack of dealing with Islamophobia within the Conservative party continues to be unremarked

liamtech

sid waddell wrote: »

The anti-Semitism smears are wheeled out any time the Tories get scared Labour might be about to overhaul them electorally.

In the last US election, the Russians timed their releases of the hacked DNC e-mails to coincide with times when Trump was under serious pressure, like when the Access Hollywood tape came out.

This is from the exact same playbook.

It's almost laughable in its complete and utter cynicism, and it's a tragedy that anti-Semitism is so trivialised and weaponised to try and discredit a particular politician in this manner because it's a genuine cancer in society - and this sort of transparent nonsense only helps actual anti-Semites.

i agree - and again the narrative completely omits the obvious truth of this situation

Labour has had issues with Antisemitic comments, many of which were anti israeli foreign policy - Corbyn acknowledges this and Labour is working to deal with the issue

Result: Labour now being attacked from all direction with a prominent Religious leader urging his congregation not to support Labour

Boris Johnson PM and Tory Leader has EXPLICITLY insulted both Muslims, and the LGBTQ communities - directly and personally - AND REFUSED to apologise

https://www.joe.ie/news/boris-johnson-went-full-boris-johnson-comparing-women-burkas-letter-boxes-bank-robbers-635807

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/11/22/boris-johnson-refuses-apologise-tank-topped-bum-boys-jibe-again/

Result: Dont worry about that - he didnt mean it - Get Brexit Done!

The double standard is insane

sid waddell

There's a litany of incidents here - I'd have to dig into all of them to verify each and every one - for instance Alan Duncan is mentioned and to the best of my knowledge he has never made any anti-Semitic comments - but there's certainly enough stuff here to suggest the actual Tory parliamentary party is institutionally anti-Semitic.

http://brockley.blogspot.com/2019/11/dont-let-tories-use-jews-as-political.html

Joe_ Public

Not getting into the rights or wrongs of the issue, just i dont think these latest attacks on labour will have a significant bearing on their vote. I think any voter prioritising antisemitism as an election issue will have already made up their minds one way or the other. There doesn't seem to be that much new to be said.

There's also the issue of the chief rabbi's friendship with boris johnson and a lot of people think he went too far in his statements. Not sure the archbishop's comments help either, an old etonian who called out remainers as "whingers" a while back. How much actual clout he carries with voters is subject to question.

CelticRambler

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I honestly don't think most British people give a flying about antisemitism. The Jewish population is relatively small and apart from Orthodox enclaves like Stamford Hill (in Diane Abbot's constituency) not particularly visible.
Most people will shrug their shoulders as it's not an issue that affects them personally. In the meantime actual real antisemitism is on the rise across Europe being fed by the same nationalist, right-wing base the Tories are courting.
My fear is that all this crying wolf about the LP is playing right into the hands of the actual antisemites.

Was just about to post the same. Corbyn and the Labour Party have no influence in France, but we're seeing the same anti-Jewish attacks here, and the same conflation of criticism of the Netanyahu Government/State of Israel with anti-Jewishness under the label of "anti-semitism" (bearing in mind that the Palestinians are also Semitic)

But if you're the type of Europhilic racist bigot who cares about these things, the Chief Rabbi's intervention has just given you the green light to vote Labour if you had any reason for not wanting to vote Tory or Brexit Party.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

So your standards are laughably inconsistent - Johnson can ridicule gay men for being gay and get away scot free with it, while to the very best of my knowledge nobody has actually ever brought up any actual evidence of Corbyn being an anti-Semite, yet you see no problem in smearing him as one anyway.

Never mind Johnson's racist remarks and his complete failure, complete refusal in fact, to deal with Islamophobia and indeed racism in general in the Conservative party, which you haven't dealt with.

What Johnson said wasn't homophobic, it was, at most, a crass remark.

He said "tank-topped bumboys". If we're honest, many gay men do wear tank-tops, and "bumboys" is a phrase bandied about within gay circles. In fact, I've heard much worse phrases used within the LGBT community in a comedic manner.

Just because it's a straight person saying it shouldn't make it any different.

Johnson has appeared at the London gay pride parade and, in 2012, he banned London buses from displaying the adverts of Core Issues Trust, a Christian group, which compared being gay to a disease. In his manifesto speech on Sunday, he made reference to "loving whomsoever you wish".

So, whilst we can comb over his comments and assign some malicious intent, I think his record suggests otherwise. Furthermore, it's possible to make an ill-judged comment without being homophobic. The same is true of his other crass remarks. They are just that - crass.

In addition, most people are getting tired of having "morally perfect" leaders, where you cannot say something that is not within the bounds of being PC.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

What Johnson said wasn't homophobic, it was, at most, a crass remark.

He said "tank-topped bumboys". If we're honest, many gay men do wear tank-tops, and "bumboys" is a phrase bandied about within gay circles. In fact, I've heard much worse phrases used within the LGBT community in a comedic manner.

Just because it's a straight person saying it shouldn't make it any different.

Johnson has appeared at the London gay pride parade and, in 2012, he banned London buses from displaying the adverts of Core Issues Trust, a Christian group, which compared being gay to a disease. In his manifesto speech on Sunday, he made reference to "loving whomsoever you wish".

So, whilst we can comb over his comments and assign some malicious intent, I think his record suggests otherwise. Furthermore, it's possible to make an ill-judged comment without being homophobic.

In addition, most people are getting tired of having "morally perfect" leaders, where you cannot say something that is not within the bounds of being PC.

Many Black people call each other N*****. If fact I have heard the phrase used by African-American actors in many films to comedic effect.

Just because it's a White person saying it shouldn't make it any different.

Are you listening to yourself? Are you so in thrall that you cannot see how a straight man writing in a right-wing tabloid is indeed 'different'?


As for combing over his comments and anyone can make an ill judged remark this may have actually broken every irony meter here.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Many Black people call each other N*****. If fact I have heard the phrase used by African-American actors in many films to comedic effect.

Just because it's a White person saying it shouldn't make it any different.

Are you listening to yourself? Are you so in thrall that you cannot see how a straight man writing in a right-wing tabloid is indeed 'different'?


As for combing over his comments and anyone can make an ill judged remark this may have actually broken every irony meter here.

His actions as London Mayor, and his words since, are not the actions of an actively homophobic person who hates gay people.

The other week, in a standard bar, I heard one of the barmen say to another, "that's so gay...". Many people would find that homophobic or, at the very least inappropriate and stereotyping. But I don't personally find it offensive, and I don't believe the barman is a raging homophobe.

We need to get a sense of perspective here.

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

What Johnson said wasn't homophobic, it was, at most, a crass remark.

He said "tank-topped bumboys". If we're honest, many gay men do wear tank-tops, and "bumboys" is a phrase bandied about within gay circles. In fact, I've heard much worse phrases used within the LGBT community in a comedic manner.

Just because it's a straight person saying it shouldn't make it any different.

You're literally trying to twist reality on its head in a Trump/Putin style manner.

It was a deeply homophobic remark, you could barely get a more categorical example of homophobia.

And yes, the fact that it's a straight person saying something does make it different, it makes it very different. Members of minority communities get certain privileges about what sort of words they can use about other members of that community that non-members of that community do not have. ie. gay people, black people, Jews, Muslims, Travellers.

But neither should they be allowed to generalise about their own communities using ignorant and generalised stereotypes, in ways that are deeply harmful, without being strongly challenged on it.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

What Johnson said wasn't homophobic, it was, at most, a crass remark.

He said "tank-topped bumboys". If we're honest, many gay men do wear tank-tops, and "bumboys" is a phrase bandied about within gay circles. In fact, I've heard much worse phrases used within the LGBT community in a comedic manner.

Just because it's a straight person saying it shouldn't make it any different.

Johnson has appeared at the London gay pride parade and, in 2012, he banned London buses from displaying the adverts of Core Issues Trust, a Christian group, which compared being gay to a disease. In his manifesto speech on Sunday, he made reference to "loving whomsoever you wish".

So, whilst we can comb over his comments and assign some malicious intent, I think his record suggests otherwise. Furthermore, it's possible to make an ill-judged comment without being homophobic. The same is true of his other crass remarks. They are just that - crass.

In addition, most people are getting tired of having "morally perfect" leaders, where you cannot say something that is not within the bounds of being PC.

Eskimohunt - can you honestly see, and perhaps acknowledge the double standard in this situation - which you are absolutely happy to endorse

Johnson - explicitly uses offensive slurs in relation to LGBTQ+ and Muslims - so widely reported it can no longer be denied - and he refuses to apologize and dodges as per usual

- -Eskimohunt is fine with that - no offense taken at all- he was just being Crass

Corbyn - Leader of the Labour Party, which contains within its ranks many people who are VERY critical of Israel - and the line has been crossed by a minority, in having criticism of Israel, morph into Criticism against Jews - i.e. Mild Anitisemitism - Which Corbyn had acknowledged and is working to weed out - Corbyn Subsequently attacked by the UK's Chief Rabbi, Jewish Chronicle has front page editorial urging people not to vote Labour, as Jews would no longer feel safe in the UK - with the Issues now being center stage in the election debate

- -Eskimohunt - its shameful - no 'True Jew' (your words) could vote for Corbyn - Well done Jewish Chronicle + Chief Rabbi + EVERYONE attacking labour for what ever reason

Eskimohunt - you just want Brexit - and you just want the Tories to win - this is no longer a debate with you - you are not even pretending to be open to new evidence or dialogue, or mild debate - i wouldnt expect you to change your view, but you could ACKNOWLEDGE the valid criticism being made against Tory's, Brexit, and Johnson, But you wont! - you simply wont budge - Even when Johnsons comments are EXPLICITLY Bigoted - you justify them, or at the very least give him a pass - personally i view it as you siding against anyone even nominally critical of Brexit or Johnson

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

What Johnson said wasn't homophobic, it was, at most, a crass remark.

He said "tank-topped bumboys". If we're honest, many gay men do wear tank-tops, and "bumboys" is a phrase bandied about within gay circles. In fact, I've heard much worse phrases used within the LGBT community in a comedic manner.

Just because it's a straight person saying it shouldn't make it any different.

Johnson has appeared at the London gay pride parade and, in 2012, he banned London buses from displaying the adverts of Core Issues Trust, a Christian group, which compared being gay to a disease. In his manifesto speech on Sunday, he made reference to "loving whomsoever you wish".

So, whilst we can comb over his comments and assign some malicious intent, I think his record suggests otherwise. Furthermore, it's possible to make an ill-judged comment without being homophobic. The same is true of his other crass remarks. They are just that - crass.

In addition, most people are getting tired of having "morally perfect" leaders, where you cannot say something that is not within the bounds of being PC.

The different standards you employ depending on the politician or party couldn't be more obvious.

You expect Corbyn to have been completely and utterly morally perfect in every way for his whole life, yet hold Johnson to a vastly lower standard.

This is yet another example of Trump-style politics where his supporters are willing to overlook vast criminality, corruption, racism, bigotry and sexual predation, yet vilify Democrats for even the merest hint of a minor indiscretion - in fact there doesn't even have to be the merest hint, they'll vilify them anyway.

Your arguments on this thread have been utterly ludicrous.

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

Eskimohunt - you just want Brexit - and you just want the Tories to win - this is no longer a debate with you - you are not even pretending to be open to new evidence or dialogue, or mild debate - i wouldnt expect you to change your view, but you could ACKNOWLEDGE the valid criticism being made against Tory's, Brexit, and Johnson, But you wont! - you simply wont budge - Even when Johnsons comments are EXPLICITLY Bigoted - you justify them, or at the very least give him a pass - personally i view it as you siding against anyone even nominally critical of Brexit or Johnson

Prime Minister Johnson used language that some members of the LGBT community find offensive. It's worth mentioning that, as a paid-up subscriber to that community, I have never found it offensive. If anything, humorous within the context with which it was written. Let's not assume that the LGBT community is a monolith, who search in uniformity for "offence" in comments.

Some have found it offensive. Similarly, some have found his comments against the burqa offensive. I personally don't care, because I find the burqa to be an anachronism and something that should be banned. Ridicule of religion is a positive thing - and I endorse Mr Johnson's comments in that regard.

What Jeremy Corbyn has failed to do is to root out anti-Semitism within the party, which has clearly crawled its way through over the past couple of years - which has led to and contributed toward violence against Jews.

That's very different to the "offense" that some LGBT people had about Johnson's crass remarks.

So no, my view is entirely consistent.

Also, I note that the same people condemning Johnson for his remarks, say precious little about Corbyn and anti-Semitism. Instead, most posters have either whitewashed it, or claimed it doesn't really even exist that much. Not acknowledging racism is far, far worse than any of my comments.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

Prime Minister Johnson used language that some members of the LGBT community find offensive. It's worth mentioning that, as a paid-up subscriber to that community, I have never found it offensive. If anything, humorous within the context with which it was written. Let's not assume that the LGBT community is a monolith, who search in uniformity for "offence" in comments.

You mean, let us not assume that said community, behaves as YOU do when dealing with Labour, and other Anti Brexit / Anti Tory groups - by searching for offense, and things to attack, which you can then amplify rhetorically and post on this thread?

Deleted User wrote: »

Some have found it offensive. Similarly, some have found his comments against the burqa offensive. I personally don't care, because I find the burqa to be an anachronism and something that should be banned. Ridicule of religion is a positive thing - and I endorse Mr Johnson's comments in that regard.

AH so there is no ambiguity here, as long as it is Criticism of the RIGHT religion. Therefore you are all in favor of ridiculing Muslims, you state that Ridicule of religion is a positive thing - and I endorse Mr Johnson's comments in that regard. - but when Criticism of Israel is morphed or accused of being Antisemitism - you are outraged, its shameful, and 'no true jew' could vote for Labour?

and this is NOT A DOUBLE STANDARD??

What Jeremy Corbyn has failed to do is to root out anti-Semitism within the party, which has clearly crawled its way through over the past couple of years - which has led to and contributed toward violence against Jews.

That's very different to the "offense" that some LGBT people had about Johnson's crass remarks.

So no, my view is entirely consistent.

Also, I note that the same people condemning Johnson for his remarks, say precious little about Corbyn and anti-Semitism. Instead, most posters have either whitewashed it, or claimed it doesn't really even exist that much. Not acknowledging racism is far, far worse than any of my comments.

So Jeremy Corbyn's perceived (by you) inaction in tackling Antisemitism, which i state again is actually just a warping of criticism of Israel - is entirely wrong, and has contributed to violence against jews.

But you do not see this in the same light as 'ridiculing' Muslims?

The only person who is whitewashing on this thread is you Eskimohunt - and to say that your view is 'entirely consistent' - when you have just clearly demonstrated a bias, and arguably have done so for over a week - it is a total falsity

Sam Russell

sid waddell wrote: »

It's almost laughable in its complete and utter cynicism, and it's a tragedy that anti-Semitism is so trivialised and weaponised to try and discredit a particular politician in this manner because it's a genuine cancer in society - and this sort of transparent nonsense only helps actual anti-Semites.

Look what happened to Ronan Tynon in 2010 when he referred to two Jewish ladies as 'two Jewish ladies'.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/06/nyregion/06tenor.html

beggars_bush

Deleted User wrote: »

Prime Minister Johnson used language that some members of the LGBT community find offensive. It's worth mentioning that, as a paid-up subscriber to that community, I have never found it offensive. If anything, humorous within the context with which it was written. Let's not assume that the LGBT community is a monolith, who search in uniformity for "offence" in comments.

Some have found it offensive. Similarly, some have found his comments against the burqa offensive. I personally don't care, because I find the burqa to be an anachronism and something that should be banned. Ridicule of religion is a positive thing - and I endorse Mr Johnson's comments in that regard.

What Jeremy Corbyn has failed to do is to root out anti-Semitism within the party, which has clearly crawled its way through over the past couple of years - which has led to and contributed toward violence against Jews.

That's very different to the "offense" that some LGBT people had about Johnson's crass remarks.

So no, my view is entirely consistent.

Also, I note that the same people condemning Johnson for his remarks, say precious little about Corbyn and anti-Semitism. Instead, most posters have either whitewashed it, or claimed it doesn't really even exist that much. Not acknowledging racism is far, far worse than any of my comments.

show us your membership card

Zubeneschamali

liamtech wrote: »

you just want Brexit - and you just want the Tories to win - this is no longer a debate with you

On the contrary, I think this is simply and purely a debate for many posters - a debate of the university debating society type - say anything and everything to score points on a random topic which no-one present cares about one way or the other.

"This house would say no to dunking biscuits in tea".

There is no point in engaging such posters as if they actually believe the points they make, they are entirely insincere, constructed without any emotional content simply to score points.

In this case, people are simply arguing for the motion "This house would Get Brexit Done". Standard debating society tactics apply - overload the opposing team with walls of points (no matter how good or bad). Provoke them into getting emotional. Distract and derail. Exaggerate their position and attack that. Contradict facts confidently. Do not address winning points, move on to new ones.

It's a game.

sid waddell

@eskimohunt

Has Boris Johnson rooted out anti-Semitism in the Conservative Party?

Has he rooted out Islamophobia?

Has he rooted out any form of racism?

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

Some have found it offensive. Similarly, some have found his comments against the burqa offensive. I personally don't care, because I find the burqa to be an anachronism and something that should be banned. Ridicule of religion is a positive thing - and I endorse Mr Johnson's comments in that regard.

You came onto this thread to try and claim Corbyn is an anti-Semite, and then pivot to saying "ridicule of religion is a positive thing".

Wow, just wow.

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

AH so there is no ambiguity here, as long as it is Criticism of the RIGHT religion. Therefore you are all in favor of ridiculing Muslims, you state that Ridicule of religion is a positive thing - and I endorse Mr Johnson's comments in that regard. - but when Criticism of Israel is morphed or accused of being Antisemitism - you are outraged, its shameful, and 'no true jew' could vote for Labour?

and this is NOT A DOUBLE STANDARD??

No, there is no double standard.

Lampooning any religion - be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism or Scientology - is fully on the cards. No religion should be free from ridicule. Once you accept that premise, one can sympathise with Mr Johnson's comments.

Furthermore, there is a sharp distinction between criticism of religion, and discrimination against adherents of those faiths. For example: conspiracy theories about Jews are anti-Semitic; not wanting Muslims to enter your country is Islamophobic; violence against any minority is unacceptable and part of the above.

But criticising the tenets/practice of any faith should never be beyond reproach.

You keep mentioning "criticism of Israel". Nobody is saying that is a bad thing. I myself don't always agree with Israel's policies. I do, however, believe that Israel has a right to exist as an independent nation-state.

What has infiltrated Jeremy Corbyn's party is not legitimate criticism of the state of Israel, but also it's right to exist, as well as the aforementioned racist stereotypes that many of these people hold.

That's the key difference.

Mr Johnson is on the criticism of religion side, whereas what has infiltrated Corbyn's Labour is an overt dislike, hatred or anti-Semitic conspiracies about Jewish people themselves - tarring people by virtue of their faith.

Johnson criticised the Burqa and I welcome that. More people should vocalise his view.

beggars_bush wrote: »

show us your membership card

I'll think about it.

Stop moaning ffs

Beyond cynical that anti semitism is now a convenient hatchet for the Tories to go at Corbyn and Labour.

There wasn’t a peep from them caring about it to any degree up til Corbyn appeared and now especially during this election.

And it’s a shame to see a Rabbi being used to directly stir it up against Labour. It would be horrible if it was happening in reverse too.

But stepping back it just looks like the Tories are really desperate and resorting to last gasp attempts to sway people. It’s having the opposite effect from where I’m sitting.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

No, there is no double standard.

Lampooning any religion - be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism or Scientology - is fully on the cards. No religion should be free from ridicule. Once you accept that premise, one can sympathise with Mr Johnson's comments.

Furthermore, there is a sharp distinction between criticism of religion, and discrimination against adherents of those faiths. For example: conspiracy theories about Jews are anti-Semitic; not wanting Muslims to enter your country is Islamophobic; violence against any minority is unacceptable and part of the above.

But criticising the tenets/practice of any faith should never be beyond reproach.

You keep mentioning "criticism of Israel". Nobody is saying that is a bad thing. I myself don't always agree with Israel's policies. I do, however, believe that Israel has a right to exist as an independent nation-state.

What has infiltrated Jeremy Corbyn's party is not legitimate criticism of the state of Israel, but also it's right to exist, as well as the aforementioned racist stereotypes that many of these people hold.

That's the key difference.

Mr Johnson is on the criticism of religion side, whereas what has infiltrated Corbyn's Labour is an overt dislike, hatred or anti-Semitic conspiracies about Jewish people themselves - tarring people by virtue of their faith.

Johnson criticised the Burqa and I welcome that. More people should vocalise his view.

This is frankly, in my view, the most Glib, and internally inconsistent post, i have ever seen on this thread.

You ask that we accept lampooning Religion - ok as an Atheist and a secularist- il accept that, as i often highlight inconsistencies in the various Holy Books of the 3 main Abrahamic Religions - what i would not, and never would consider doing, is name calling Muslim ladies as 'Letter Boxes' - that is not lampooning - that is Bigoted and insulting

Furthermore, there is a sharp distinction between criticism of religion, and discrimination against adherents of those faiths. For example: conspiracy theories about Jews are anti-Semitic;

Please demonstrate clear cut cases where the Labour Party under Corbyn is guilty of this

I do, however, believe that Israel has a right to exist as an independent nation-state.

What has infiltrated Jeremy Corbyn's party is not legitimate criticism of the state of Israel, but also it's right to exist, as well as the aforementioned racist stereotypes that many of these people hold.

Please demonstrate where I, or anyone else has condoned such tactics - please further provide substantial evidence where this has happened within the UK Labour Party, and it has been condoned by Corbyn

Mr Johnson is on the criticism of religion side, whereas what has infiltrated Corbyn's Labour is an overt dislike, hatred or anti-Semitic conspiracies about Jewish people themselves - tarring people by virtue of their faith.

Johnson criticised the Burqa and I welcome that. More people should vocalise his view.

This, is the definition of the Glib Double Standard of your tactics throughout this Thread Eskimohunt - When they are on your side they can do and say as they please, even when it is explicitly Vile and Bigoted

When there is a suggestion of impropriety on Labour et al side - 'No True Jew, should vote for them'

Glib, internally inconsistent, rhetorical - nonsense

respectfully

BonnieSituation

Deleted User wrote: »

Prime Minister Johnson used language that some members of the LGBT community find offensive. It's worth mentioning that, as a paid-up subscriber to that community, I have never found it offensive. If anything, humorous within the context with which it was written. Let's not assume that the LGBT community is a monolith, who search in uniformity for "offence" in comments.

Some have found it offensive. Similarly, some have found his comments against the burqa offensive. I personally don't care, because I find the burqa to be an anachronism and something that should be banned. Ridicule of religion is a positive thing - and I endorse Mr Johnson's comments in that regard.

What Jeremy Corbyn has failed to do is to root out anti-Semitism within the party, which has clearly crawled its way through over the past couple of years - which has led to and contributed toward violence against Jews.

That's very different to the "offense" that some LGBT people had about Johnson's crass remarks.

So no, my view is entirely consistent.

Also, I note that the same people condemning Johnson for his remarks, say precious little about Corbyn and anti-Semitism. Instead, most posters have either whitewashed it, or claimed it doesn't really even exist that much. Not acknowledging racism is far, far worse than any of my comments.

Are you for real?

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

This is frankly, in my view, the most Glib, and internally inconsistent post, i have ever seen on this thread.

You ask that we accept lampooning Religion - ok as an Atheist and a secularist- il accept that, as i often highlight inconsistencies in the various Holy Books of the 3 main Abrahamic Religions - what i would not, and never would consider doing, is name calling Muslim ladies as 'Letter Boxes' - that is not lampooning - that is Bigoted and insulting

Please demonstrate clear cut cases where the Labour Party under Corbyn is guilty of this

Jeremy Corbyn has himself stated that action has/is being taken to root out cases of anti-Semitism within the party. Some reports suggest there is 130 active cases of anti-Semitism. Why defy Corbyn and his own words? If he claims there is a problem and he's "working on it", then we should accept his word on the matter.

Second, yes, dressing up in the full burqa/niqab does resemble a black letterbox. It's ridiculing clothing and furthering the wider argument that we cannot have people in society who are not facially visible. You cannot integrate into society if you do not know what somebody looks like. It's antithetical to our values and it should be ridiculed and outright banned.

Similarly, we call the Catholic band a "dog collar"; again, ridiculing language that focuses on the clothing item, not on the character of the person wearing it.

Johnson was right.

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

Johnson criticised the Burqa and I welcome that. More people should vocalise his view.

Can't get the actual text of the article as it's behind a paywall, but the bits that are quoted in other articles clearly cross the line.

Saying that the wearing of the burqua is oppressive is something that can be debated with the people who wear it, demanding that people visiting him in his MP surgery adhere to what he thinks is acceptable dress is him trying to block access to certain parts of his constituency. Seeing someones face isn't going to make a whole lot of difference to his safety though.

Then there is a line which he leaps across and the quotes referring to people wearing a burqua as looking like bank robbers or letterboxes is not acceptable and is offensive language.

If he'd stopped at the point where he was saying that it was oppressive, and merely suggested that as a point to be debated, then it would be fine. Once he got into the letter boxes and bank robber comments it most definitely wasn't OK.



Separately, with the use of his language against LGBT people, just because they may use terms amongst themselves to refer to themselves does not mean that it is OK language for a politician/ journalist/ MP/ PM to be using. Try reading up a bit about use of the N word.

This was what Johnson said, in context:

If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you. If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree – and I would add that I can find no scriptural authority for the practice in the Koran. I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes; and I thoroughly dislike any attempt by any – invariably male – government to encourage such demonstrations of “modesty”, notably the extraordinary exhortations of President Ramzan Kadyrov of Chechnya, who has told the men of his country to splat their women with paintballs if they fail to cover their heads.

You can clearly see this is an argument in favour of feminism and women's rights. The burqa/niqab may be chosen by some women, but the device was created by men for control over women's "modesty" in public. So, even if some women do "choose" it, they are "choosing misogyny" - and, for this reason, Johnson is right and we should be welcoming his comments in favour of women, not condemning him and giving the burqa/niqab a free pass.

Let's also not forget that columnists often deploy provocative language to hoover up more traffic / discussion about the topic at hand.