PDA

View Full Version : Nationalism, immigration and racism in the EU



Pages : [1] 2

crackerjack
26-05-2014, 02:54 PM
I'll kick things off with a couple of things worth reading:

first everyone's favourite Channel 4 journalist
http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/price-eu-awash-nazis/851

and a rejoinder of sorts from my favourite unrepentant Blairite
http://hopisen.com/2014/immigration-and-england-a-metropolitan-liberal-elitist-writes/

Apologies if we already have one of these threads somewhere, but I couldn't see it.

droid
26-05-2014, 03:40 PM
The culmantive reaction of the (mainly) centre-right 'establishment' parties is ridiculous. They've spent the last 5 years selling their populations down the river in one of the sharpest right turns in global economic history, managed primarily by arrogant unelected bureaucrats and betraying most of the perceived fundamental principles of the EU along the way, and now they're wringing their hands at the entirely predictable consequences.

You want to stop the rise of the far right in Europe? Print some fucking money.

hucks
26-05-2014, 03:58 PM
I'll kick things off with a couple of things worth reading:

first everyone's favourite Channel 4 journalist
http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/price-eu-awash-nazis/851

and a rejoinder of sorts from my favourite unrepentant Blairite
http://hopisen.com/2014/immigration-and-england-a-metropolitan-liberal-elitist-writes/

Apologies if we already have one of these threads somewhere, but I couldn't see it.

I think your second commentator there has pointed out on twitter that the first seems to be ignoring what happened in Italy but I've no idea about Italian politics so I'll stop there.

The whole "metropolitan elite" eg cities v the rest thing is definitely interesting in the UK - I dunno how far it's true in other countries. Initial reaction was that London had somehow withstood UKIP but it was actually Manchester, Brum, Sheffield, Liverpool - anywhere big and busy, basically.

Clearly it's the cities which have the biggest immigrant populations - both international and domestic - so it looks like places with the most immigrants were the most likely to reject UKIP. But there's economics too.

It was the major cities that saw all the regeneration money under New Labour - Manchester is unrecognisable now compared to eg 20 years ago, ditto Leeds, London obviously a special case but the same trajectory - and the small towns that did worst in the recession.

Great Yarmouth, for instance, is on UKIP's target list and its collapse in the last decade plus has been fucking massive. It now has one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the country. Whereas Norwich, just down the road, is delightful, has lots of cafes and votes Green and Labour.

Paul Mason's great isn't he? For about 500 words. Then you're like - get an editor, man.

craner
26-05-2014, 08:28 PM
So much to say about this frightening few days.

One is that, in this country at least, people generally seem to confuse or conflate EEA migration with non-EEA immigration. That's why is comes down to a question of racism and xenophobia and their various (shady) shades.

Another is that they don't undertstand immigration, its variety of categories or the reasons for it. Many of which are sound, and important. And that does reduce to racism, not of a virulent kind, but of a miasmic kind. This has infected the "Baby Boomer" generation as much as their elders.

Another thing is that the actual problem, which is the combination of ghettoisation and immigration, which is an argument about integration not immigration, is a minority problem which is massively inflated in the media and poisons the minds and opinions of large numbers of people who do not live in the small number of large cities that have to deal with this problem (or prefer to ignore or normalise it), and therefore does not effect them at all. In the ghettos themselves (I work in one, Butetown in Cardiff Bay, formerly 'Tiger Bay') the assimilation argument happens within the communities and quite often between generations. This is a more interesting and aposite place for it to happen, and it is the younger generations who are the more radical, and recent immigrants, from say Somalia and Yemen, are dealing with some of the same shit they dealt with where they came from.

Another is that the promotion of "multiculturalism" in such contexts (Middle or Little England or North Wales, say) where they have no relevance has had the opposite effect than intended, and has mestastised with a distorted political argument. So people are voting against foreigners in places where foreigners don't exist or do and aren't a problem.

Another is jobs, and that is an argument about the expectations of school-leavers and graduates and the nature of the work actually available in service economies, among many other more complex issues.

In terms of these elections, they are different from when, say, the National Front got a councillor in the Isle of Dogs in 1993 or Le Pen had to be trounced by Chirac in 2002 to save France from fascism because:

1) This vote could well be replicated in general elections across Europe.

2) The number of countries in which people voted for these parties at the same time, which suggests a continent-wide pattern.

3) The fact that people are registering their protest votes for far-right parties and not (in general) far-left or socialist parties, and therefore the thrust is reactionary, racist, isolationist.

4) The fact that many of these parties are pro-Putin and for the tenor and tactics of the Russian nationalist strain of his extended political milieu, which I think many people in Europe do currently admire (anti-EU, anti-NATO, anti-American, anti-gay, pro-narrow national interest, etc.)

Some random panic-striken thoughts, apologies for any mistakes or distortions.

droid
26-05-2014, 09:20 PM
UKip have never won a seat in Westminster, AFAIK, they don't hold a single council even after this swing. The LSE analysed their voting patterns in Europe and even when they had only 3 candidates they had no party discipline and each voted differently - when they showed up to vote that is.

Im not trying to downplay the significance of this election but, I think, in the UK at least, the threat has been largely overstated. UKip are an undisciplined, disorganised pseudo-party run by a dimwitted racist who owe their success to circumstance more than anything else. It would take a miracle for them to make serious gains in the next GE.

Europe is a different story of course, but the real story, is, I think, the failure of the left.

craner
26-05-2014, 10:20 PM
I have to say, until this week, I would have agreed with you. I am really not the type to over-play the significance of these type of votes, and never have, as I think I indicated by my reference to past aberations. I have always dismissed them. I think it is different now for two reasons: 1) the scale of the vote, or swing, or whatever you want to call it and 2) the determination of UKIP voters who say WHY they voted UKIP and WILL do at the next election. This is really not the same thing I have ever noticed or experienced.

I will concede that the Europe-wide pattern is a more alarming fact, and if this was an isolated UK vote I would be less concerned, but not much less.

If I was feeling generous, I might say that the voters were objecting to the EU and its migration rules, but most people I have heard talking have been talking about immigration generally, by which they mean Romanians and Arabs. It's a big knee-jerk reaction and (even more importantly) conflation. And my parents "hippy" generation are thinking and voting the same, for the first time in their lives. And it's not quite the same thing as "secretly" voting Tory in 1992. It's something deeper and deadlier, I sense.

The point is, a protest vote never trasnlates to Westminster except a rogue bi-election, say, but on these figures it is likely to. It is no longer the nature of UKIP and their general platform, which is incoherent right-Tory trash. It is something larger. I feel a bit unsettled by this mass impulse, it is not a liberal or left-wing phenomenon.

It's a failure of the left. I agree with that. They cannot even formulate the arguments, because the arguments involve capitalism, and they are still scrapping about 1989. The pro-immigration arguments are pro-globalisation, internationalist arguments.

craner
26-05-2014, 10:30 PM
Nor do I consider UKIP to be in any way "fascist". I am a student of George Mosse and Renzo De Felice, and Fascism is a specfic phenomena. We don't even conisder Franco's Spain to be Fascist as such, though we despise their reactionary, Nationlist politics. UKIP are in the same vein: a monarchist, reactionary, nationalist, isolationist sect. What is worrying is that they are becoming a potent and popular vessel for mass opinion. I think the media have a large part to play in this, even though they abhor it.

Leo
27-05-2014, 01:14 AM
obviously i know next to nothing about the situation but a friend posted this on FB, thought i'd share:

A different look at the 2014 local election results

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/local-election-results-2014-aav.html?m=0

Sectionfive
27-05-2014, 04:45 AM
I think there are quite a few different things going on and while Golden Dawn, UKIP, FN etc are all tapping into & feeding a similar kind of bitterness, the far-right is a big space. One group could be very much wedded to (and perhaps even funded by) big business interest, others are not so keen on the free movement of goods, capital and people keeping the whole thing going. It's a right lunge for sure but not clear if it is in any one dominant direction yet. Not all of the nationalism is xenophobic and not all of the xenophobia is nationalist etc. At least not in the same ways.

We are, don't forget in the first post-911 recession. The ground was well prepared before Lehman Brothers happened but the crash, or more precisely the official response, has removed a certain set of assumptions people had about themselves and their place in the world.


the determination of UKIP voters who say WHY they voted UKIP and WILL do at the next election.

I don't think it is coincidence that so much of the 'stranger in my own country' thing mirrors what you hear from GOP/Fox/Christian Right. That siege mentality. White people, religion, former imperial powers, gender roles or conceptions of the family are all moving from a place of absolute authority to a point where default is a sense of victimisation. It's an erosion of certainty, perceived, inflated or otherwise and almost all these parties are promising a return to some sort of traditional way it was before. The shift in material terms post 2008 is driving so much of it to the surface.

Take the UK as one example, some may have bought into the New Labour social mobility thing and have swiftly found they haven't moved very far at all. Whatever gains made could be gone if they ever really existed or more likely, it's people who were left behind when times were good and are doubly so now. The huge widening of inequality is central almost all of this, ie. people know they are paying for the crisis so the appeal is Le Pen offering to make those people pay instead.

I am not hugely surprised by UKIP but am fairly taken aback with FN, contrary to stereotypes I thought the French had more fight in them than this tbh. What's more is you don't have to peak too far into the EPP sailing back into the Strasbourg to find all sorts of characters in their ranks. And while they and the Commission are pushing integration and more integration I wonder just how far apart they would be from Ukip on attitudes to the welfare state etc. Europe, even at this stage, still likes to maintain a posture of love for migration but that is within. Policy doesn't look too different from Le Pen once you leave the Union. The problem goes much higher than this recent election.

craner
27-05-2014, 11:41 AM
I'm feeling a bit calmer about it all this morning. I got in a froth yesterday.

craner
27-05-2014, 11:49 AM
The revelation that my mother voted "for Farage" tipped me slightly over the edge.

droid
27-05-2014, 12:04 PM
Have you disowned her... or worse?

Mr. Tea
27-05-2014, 12:19 PM
The revelation that my mother voted "for Farage" tipped me slightly over the edge.

Crikey, sorry to hear that Ollie. :(

Mr. Tea
27-05-2014, 12:48 PM
Im not trying to downplay the significance of this election but, I think, in the UK at least, the threat has been largely overstated.

I think it would be fair to replace "largely" with "massively" there, droid. Sure, it's worrying that UKIP (just about) scored a plurality with the European elections but it's worth remembering they did so with votes from about 9% of the overall electorate. Domestically, they don't control a single council and don't have a single MP in the Commons. But from the coverage they've received in the media you'd think Farage stood a good chance of becoming the next PM - and that's not just from the right-wing press but from the very same BBC that UKIP and the more bonkers sort of Tories never tire of lambasting as "Marxist".

droid
27-05-2014, 12:52 PM
Pretty much everyone has an interest in talking up UKip. Farage for obvious reasons, Labour and Tories to scaremonger, and the media plays ball as usual.

Interesting to see the tabloids go on an all out attack as well - is there any paper that supports them?

crackerjack
27-05-2014, 01:43 PM
Pretty much everyone has an interest in talking up UKip. Farage for obvious reasons, Labour and Tories to scaremonger, and the media plays ball as usual.

Interesting to see the tabloids go on an all out attack as well - is there any paper that supports them?

Mail and Express both said vote Tory or Ukip.

I don't understand what you mean but Labour and Tories having an interest in talking up Ukip. The votes Ukip took off them pose a direct threat to their electoral chances (esp Tories) and have helped to underline the Ed's-a-loser narrative so beloved of the media.

edit: Oh hang on, you mean to motivate their supporters to the polls? They'd rather this were a problem that just went away.


Domestically, they don't control a single council and don't have a single MP in the Commons.


Sky News crunched the numbers of the local elections to see what it might mean for Westminster election. Even with this supposed "earthquake" and the Euro elections to draw their support to the polls, it still meant just one seat in 2015 – Castle Point in Essex.

The worrying part is that the notion of a 4-party system is now so well established they'll continue to get way more airtime than their likely Westminster vote share merits.

droid
27-05-2014, 02:01 PM
edit: Oh hang on, you mean to motivate their supporters to the polls? They'd rather this were a problem that just went away.


Of course they wish it would go away- but the hysterical tone and content of the media coverage and statements from all parties point to an attempt to demonise UKip - in fact this has been going on for ages, and, I think, it has backfired quite spectacularly.

droid
27-05-2014, 02:02 PM
And RE papers - Ive seen the Sun and the Telegraph really stick the boot in. Could've sworn I saw something in the mail as well.

crackerjack
27-05-2014, 02:08 PM
Of course they wish it would go away- but the hysterical tone and content of the media coverage and statements from all parties point to an attempt to demonise UKip - in fact this has been going on for ages, and, I think, it has backfired quite spectacularly.

Agreed.


And RE papers - Ive seen the Sun and the Telegraph really stick the boot in. Could've sworn I saw something in the mail as well.


Just repeating what I read on Twitter, can't remember the source. But it was a rundown of the paper's leader recommendations on the day, not balance of coverage or individual columnists.

droid
27-05-2014, 02:24 PM
Yeah - I dont really know, but was looking for ammo recently and was surprised at the line some of the rags were taking. Anti-EU and Immigration - what's not to like?

Maybe Craner could fill us in once he's finished hiding the body in the root cellar.

Mr. Tea
27-05-2014, 03:13 PM
If right-wing papers are having a dig at UKIP, surely it's just because the party is going to be taking far more votes away from the Tories than from Labour? So they get to ostensibly distance themselves from a quite openly bigoted party while quietly welcoming its inevitable effect of pulling Tory policy (further) to the right to try and staunch the steady trickle of voters to UKIP.

droid
27-05-2014, 03:23 PM
Yes, absolutely. But still, it must be galling to be forced to rubbish a party that essentially embodies everything you stand for.

droid
27-05-2014, 03:25 PM
"What of Farage's suggestion that Ukip will hold the balance of power after next year's general election? "He's a fantasist. They always do well in Euro elections because they're the obvious party of protest, but the idea that they're going to come from nothing to be holding the balance of power is ridiculous. I don't expect them to get any seats."

Any vote for Ukip in the European poll, says Sked, was wasted. "If you elect a Ukip MEP, you're just going to elect another incompetent charlatan that you're going to turn into another millionaire. They go native in Brussels, take the expenses and the perks and do fuck all."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/26/ukip-founder-alan-sked-party-become-frankensteins-monster

Mr. Tea
27-05-2014, 04:10 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/26/ukip-founder-alan-sked-party-become-frankensteins-monster


"Behind that image is someone who isn't bright," says Sked, who recalls trying to give the public school-educated Farage remedial grammar lessons: "I spent two hours trying to explain to him the difference between 'it's' with an apostrophe and 'its' without and he just flounced out the office saying, 'I just don't understand words.'"

Haha! Thanks for that link, very informative (and amusing). This Sked guy sounds pretty reasonable, considering what his party's turned into.

zhao
29-05-2014, 01:27 AM
no doubt you've all seen this?

http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2014/05/16/nigel-farage-taken-apart-in-landmark-lbc-radio-interview-with-james-obrien/

hucks
29-05-2014, 03:43 PM
no doubt you've all seen this?

http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2014/05/16/nigel-farage-taken-apart-in-landmark-lbc-radio-interview-with-james-obrien/

Yup. But that was before the elections, as was the hilarious multi cultural festival UKIP threw in Croydon (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-stages-mini-carnival-in-croydon--including-steel-band--as-ukip-fights-racism-accusations-9404231.html)

People on twitter who would never vote UKIP anyway may have got very excited about both of them, but they seem not to have made any impact at the polls. I suspect what will matter more will be their utter incompetence as local councillors. People really don't like that.

crackerjack
29-05-2014, 03:49 PM
I suspect what will matter more will be their utter incompetence as local councillors. People really don't like that.

I read that every time they've had to defend a council seat in a by-election they've lost. Similar story as BNP in that respect – they tended to do better in places where they hadn't done well before.

crackerjack
29-05-2014, 05:15 PM
Would sir care for some hubris? (http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/is-fascism-dead-in-britain/2iwaug9t)

hucks
29-05-2014, 05:38 PM
Would sir care for some hubris? (http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/is-fascism-dead-in-britain/2iwaug9t)

What an odd thing to do. Sunder Katwala's one of those "don't call UKIP racist" guys, isn't he?

crackerjack
29-05-2014, 05:53 PM
What an odd thing to do. Sunder Katwala's one of those "don't call UKIP racist" guys, isn't he?

Yup.

His think-tank British Futures is very consensualist, very feel-your-pain, whether it's people who don't like living next door to immigrants or those who think they should all be sent back... pardon, encouraged to leave.

Mr. Tea
29-05-2014, 09:36 PM
What exactly does anyone - who isn't a member of UKIP or openly a supporter - have to gain by saying "UKIP isn't racist" at this juncture? Farage is clearly a massive racist, and every time one of his crowd of cretins opens their mouth you start to wonder if he isn't in fact the least racist member of his whole party.

crackerjack
30-05-2014, 01:09 PM
What exactly does anyone - who isn't a member of UKIP or openly a supporter - have to gain by saying "UKIP isn't racist" at this juncture?

Because their immigration policies are aligned with anywhere from half to a quarter of the population and the "Fuck me, we're all just a massive bunch of racists" option isn't a popular one with certain think tanks and social scientists.

Slothrop
30-05-2014, 01:48 PM
Another angle:
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/news/inequality-will-be-big-issue-general-election-and-ukip-could-be-beneficiaries

craner
23-06-2014, 11:46 AM
In the ghettos themselves (I work in one, Butetown in Cardiff Bay, formerly 'Tiger Bay') the assimilation argument happens within the communities and quite often between generations. This is a more interesting and aposite place for it to happen, and it is the younger generations who are the more radical, and recent immigrants, from say Somalia and Yemen, are dealing with some of the same shit they dealt with where they came from.


Cardiff jihadis in Syria (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10919216/Banned-cleric-preached-at-mosque-where-jihadi-brothers-worshipped.html)

Patrick Swayze
10-10-2014, 11:47 AM
so UKIP have an MP now

their new policy on blocking HIV positive people from entering the UK reminds me of this clip from Children Of Men


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SIIoSQ2D0s

In fact it wouldn't surprise me if their party political broadcasts looked something like this, esp. given the fear of Ebola spreading and the picture painted by the media of the swathes of welfare leeches and NHS tourists massed at Calais.

baboon2004
11-10-2014, 03:37 PM
i thought i was just drunk when i read that after getting home this morning. But they really do have an MP. Jesus.

Broadly connected - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/10/michael-brown-jury-black-life-united-states the comments under here are dystopianly depressing. wtf is wrong with people?!

craner
12-10-2014, 11:34 PM
I was right, sadly. The Euro elections were not a one off, and I do think this will be reflected in a general election. And even if it is not quite I will add:

1) The idea that the SNP/Labour dominance in Scotland is a reflection of the death of Scottish conservatism is wrong: if you look at general election results in the last two decades, the Tories haven't won, but they've been second in many constituencies, and often not that far behind. So my contention was that in an indepedent Scotland, there is no reason to write off a Scottish Conservative (non-Tory) revival in a decade or two, and therefore the vote was not (ultimately) about party politics.

2) The idea that a UKIP defeat in a general election, that is if they got no MPs, would be irrelevant if they came second in safe Labour or Tory seats, smashing the traditional opposition. I think that would be very worrying.

Also, the other night, after finishing Charles Moore's Thatcher biography, the whole thing came to me in an early morning dream. What is UKIP (now)? Taking into account its libertarian, anti-European, anti-intervensionist stance? Ultra-Thatcherite? Well, Thatcher was not against welfare on principle, she had some sympathy for Beveridge. Also, UKIP seem to be anti-Atlantacist. Who was more pro-America and pro-NATO than Thatcher? (She would not have been pro-Putin, like Farage clearly is.) It didn't stack up...but then. Of course. They are Powell-ite. UKIP are the party of Enoch Powell, in every respect, from his early adoption of free-market ideas to his latent racism to his later incarnation in the Ulster Unionists.

This should be the way the Tories and Labour attack UKIP. Except that Powell popularised a trashy racism and jingoism in the British working class psyche. We are seeing the fruit of that now.

Sorry: forgot to add: Powell was deeply suspicious of America, even in his last ditch paranoia about American interests on Irish territory. Thatcher was less pro-Unionist than anti-IRA, which is a bit different.

Also: Powell was a soft anti-semite, which also chimes with UKIP's rogue troops, and divorces them from Thatcher's internationalist neoliberalism, and her adored Jewish Finchley constituency.

craner
13-10-2014, 10:17 AM
Oh, fucking hell, why did I write that?

Mr. Tea
13-10-2014, 12:01 PM
Oh, fucking hell, why did I write that?

Huh? Why the regret? It's an interesting and informative post. I know sod all about British political history and find these kinds of threads and these kinds of posts really useful, just as you do with CrowleyHead's potted socio-cultural history of rap.

trza
13-10-2014, 03:33 PM
I don't pay much attention to the flavor of the month political story, but anti-immigration in America is a movement. Its been around since the independence of the country, it never goes away, it only goes up and down in popularity. It changes shape with the economic uncertainty or cultural identity and partisan positions but its just always there.

luka
12-12-2014, 09:06 PM
I just remembered about my UKIP premonition this evening its from 2008. i picked it up in the aether with my psychic anttenae

Gary Mutt is in the Star and Garter sitting in front of a pint of warm bitter, picking at his pack of pork scratchings. He gazes idly at the pictures behind the bar; Barbara Windsor, the Two Ronnies, Clive of India, Princess Diana, Bomber Harris, Paul Gascoigne, a grim faced Geoffery Boycott, Terry Butcher with bloody bandages wrapped tight around his head like a casualty of war, Cliff Richard in tennis whites. Icons of Englishness. He takes a sip of his bitter and feels proud.
"England will never die you horrible cunts" he bellows. The barman coughs softly and polishes a pint glass with a grubby beer towel.
A 14 inch television screen splutters on a wall bracket in a corner of the room. Only Albion City still has television. John Bull, in one of his more celebrated speeches, declared that if Englishness means anything it means hanging on to your traditions. The BBC broadcast John Bull's addressess to the nation and repeats of Coronation Street, Emerdale Farm, old episodes of The Goodies, Hale and Pace and classic sitcoms such as Are You Being Served, Upstairs, Downstairs, Love Thy Neighbour and Men Behaving Badly.
The television screen is showing footage of the 1966 world cup final.
Gary mouths the words alongside the commentator, words seared onto the heart of every true Englishman
"they think it's all over"
he rises to his feet, mimes kicking a football into the corner of the net
"IT IS NOW YOU FUCKING KRAUTY CUNTS"
raises his arms aloft in triumph and embarks in a victory lap around the pub, arms spread outwards in imitation of a Spitfire flying over the Channel.
"you can take away our red phone boxes, you can decomission our double-decker buses and auction off our manor houses but youll never take our pride
In-Ger-Lund, In-Ger-Lund, In-Ger-Lund
In-Ger-Lund, In-Ger-Lund, In-Ger-Lund
In-Ger-Lund, In-Ger-Lund, In-Ger-Lund
In-Ger-Lund, IN--GER--LUUND"

Mr. Tea
08-01-2015, 02:01 PM
Well that's gonna do wonders for race relations in La Belle France. Fucksake.

baboon2004
08-01-2015, 10:24 PM
I don't think the killers are/were particularly concerned about good race relations in France (quite the opposite, probably).

The whole reaction to such a horrific tragedy (and one as equally horrific as any act of terrorism, no more or no less) is so depressingly predictable, from the explosion of racism from every corner, to repainting the dubious cartoons Charlie Hebdo published as heroic free speech, rather than a game of brinksmanship that went tragically wrong. What were they saying that was so important that it was worth getting killed for, ffs (and they knew that was a possibility from previous events)?

Mr. Tea
08-01-2015, 11:02 PM
You don't say. I was employing the specific form of verbal irony known as sarcasm.

Mr. Tea
08-01-2015, 11:10 PM
(and they knew that was a possibility from previous events)

Hmm. I've seen a number of responses that focus on the inevitability, sooner or later, of some sort of violent repercussion to this sort of satire. Which may be factually true, of course, but there's a danger here of making it sound like "Well if you put your hand in a fire, what do you expect to happen?". By concentrating on the "inevitable" nature of an attack like this, you in a sense exculpate the culprits. The moral onus is shifted to non-Muslims not to give offence, rather than on Islamists not to react with murder.

It is also, in an very subtle, bien-pensant kind of way, racist, because it denigrates the moral agency of Muslims.

baboon2004
08-01-2015, 11:14 PM
You don't say. I was employing the specific form of verbal irony known as sarcasm.

Yeah, I got that, thanks.

craner
08-01-2015, 11:22 PM
Ugh. Yes and no.

The killers weren't concerned with race relations in France, if they are who they seem to be, they were advancing their own theocratic war ideology.

What was so important that the journalists should get killed for? The right to say what the fuck they like without being killed for it. As far as I know, nobody has yet even tried to assassinate David Irving.

This is not a "tragedy" like a small child being run over on a street.

To add more fuel to the fire here, and before this happened, some of us were impressed with Sisi last week, after his amazing speech (http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/the-significance-of-sisis-speech/) on New Years Day and his following visit to a Coptic Church.

baboon2004
08-01-2015, 11:27 PM
Hmm. I've seen a number of responses that focus on the inevitability, sooner or later, of some sort of violent repercussion to this sort of satire. Which may be factually true, of course, but there's a danger here of making it sound like "Well if you put your hand in a fire, what do you expect to happen?". By concentrating on the "inevitable" nature of an attack like this, you in a sense exculpate the culprits. The moral onus is shifted to non-Muslims not to give offence, rather than on Islamists not to react with murder.

It is also, in an very subtle, bien-pensant kind of way, racist, because it denigrates the moral agency of Muslims.

Yes, there is that danger, true. But there's an opposite danger of glorifying recklessly provocative behaviour. Just as any of us should be able to say anything offensive to anyone if we like, but we choose my moments wisely.

Oh for goodness' sake! :rolleyes: How does it say anything at all about Muslims? The same would be true of further baiting anyone who had previously shown violent intent towards you. It denigrates the moral agency of psychos.

baboon2004
08-01-2015, 11:34 PM
Ugh. Yes and no.

The killers weren't concerned with race relations in France, if they are who they seem to be, they were advancing their own theocratic war ideology.

What was so important that the journalists should get killed for? The right to say what the fuck they like without being killed for it. As far as I know, nobody has yet even tried to assassinate David Irving.

This is not a "tragedy" like a small child being run over on a street.

To add more fuel to the fire here, and before this happened, some of us were impressed with Sisi last week, after his amazing speech (http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/the-significance-of-sisis-speech/) on New Years Day and his following visit to a Coptic Church.

The second point was the point I was trying to make in seemingly missing Tea's sarcasm.

"What was so important that the journalists should get killed for? The right to say what the fuck they like without being killed for it." Only if what you have to say is important. Yes, no-one should ever get killed for saying anything; no, some things are not worth risking being killed over. The guys at Charlie Hebdo were killed over some playground slurs, basically, not over some noble defence of human rights.

Over and out on this conversation anyways. I don't think I'm saying anything especially contentious.

craner
08-01-2015, 11:44 PM
The guys at Charlie Hebdo were killed over some playground slurs, basically, not over some noble defence of human rights.

Bollocks, the principle is absolute or it is nothing.

trza
09-01-2015, 03:45 AM
Obligatory Chérif Don't Like It post.

luka
10-01-2015, 11:03 AM
Bollocks, the principle is absolute or it is nothing.
jejune. inaccurate. and coming from you, baldly hyprocritical.

Mr. Tea
10-01-2015, 06:34 PM
Yes, there is that danger, true. But there's an opposite danger of glorifying recklessly provocative behaviour. Just as any of us should be able to say anything offensive to anyone if we like, but we choose my moments wisely.

To be clear, I think there's nothing clever or really worthwhile in any way at this point about publishing cartoons of Mohamed drinking a Bud with his finger up his arse, or whatever. And it's only "brave" in the very limited sense that kicking a wolf in the bollocks is "brave": just ballsy and gratuitously reckless. What I think tempts a certain kind of soi-disant edgy or badass person - who probably does not, in all honesty, harbour a burning hatred of all Muslims - to engage in this kind of Islam-baiting "satire" is the very fact that in liberal secular democracies, Islam is the only ideology, and Muslims the only demographic, that cannot be insulted or mocked with more or less guaranteed impunity. By which I don't mean impunity from criticism, censure or even prosecution, but from being stabbed, shot or blown up.


Oh for goodness' sake! :rolleyes: How does it say anything at all about Muslims? The same would be true of further baiting anyone who had previously shown violent intent towards you. It denigrates the moral agency of psychos.

Sigh, all right then, if I have to spell it out: some Muslims. But Muslims nonetheless. As I've said above, what other cultural or ideological group is so quick to react with violence to a perceived slight? Christians may have protested at Jerry Springer but he doesn't live in daily fear of assassination as Rushdie does, does he?

My point was that taking the line that murder as a repercussion for "blasphemy" is a given, a fact of life, denigrates the moral agency of a group of people by accepting that they can't be expected to know any better.

droid
10-01-2015, 10:24 PM
Not true. Calls to abolish the monarchy are illegal. French rappers get prosecuted for their lyrics. Writers get fired from magazines for perceived anti-semitism. Activists get arrested and 'pre-bailed' for facebook posts about protests.

Free speech is censured constantly, difference is we are not 'je suis Irving'.

you
10-01-2015, 11:30 PM
Some interesting clicks here re Houellebecq's appearance on Hebdo in context of the content of his latest novel; Soumission.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/09/soumission-michel-houellebecq-review-charlie-hebdo

"Some in France have already complained that the novel fans right-wing fears of the Muslim population, but that is to miss Houellebecq’s deeply mischievous point. Islamists and anti-immigration demagogues, the novel gleefully points out, really ought to be on the same side, because they share a suspicion of pluralist liberalism and a desire to return to “traditional” or pre-feminist values, where a woman submits to her husband – just as “Islam” means that a Muslim submits to God."

also, although I disagree with any use of the word evil (for obvious reasons) - Self has some good points amongst the hand-wringing here:
http://www.channel4.com/news/will-self-martin-rowson-cartoon-charlie-hebdo-satire-video

Mr. Tea
11-01-2015, 12:07 AM
Not true. Calls to abolish the monarchy are illegal. French rappers get prosecuted for their lyrics. Writers get fired from magazines for perceived anti-semitism. Activists get arrested and 'pre-bailed' for facebook posts about protests.

Free speech is censured constantly, difference is we are not 'je suis Irving'.

Did you even bother to read my whole post? I specifically defined "impunity" as "impunity from murder attempts" - not state censure, prosecution or whatever.

droid
11-01-2015, 12:23 AM
Yes, so you did. Sorry.

But still also not true. ETA, for example have made numerous assassination attempts against journalists. Greek journalists have been killed by ultra left extremists. Alan Berg shot dead by white power nuts. IRA killed quite a few too IIRC. The list goes on.

So Islam is not the only anything. In the minority probably. The problem is that fanatics dont like being criticised or seeing their symbols attacked.

droid
11-01-2015, 12:33 AM
And personally, I consider the fact that you can be fired, jailed, prosecuted & ASBO'd by the state for attending (or even planning) a protest is far more worrying and damaging to society than the minuscule chance of being a potential victim of a tiny minority of murdering fanatics.

Mr. Tea
11-01-2015, 02:54 PM
OK, fine, clearly Islamism does not have a monopoly on the use of political terror. But then I never said it did.

None of the types of terrorism you've mentioned is exactly analogous to what I'm talking about. For instance, when the IRA was carrying out political assassinations in the '70s and '80s its targets were generally high-profile members of the British establishment (MPs, royals) or symbols of state power (police stations, army barracks). Whereas Charlie Hebdo is clearly no more a part of the French establishment than Private Eye is of the British. And in any case, I'm talking about the present day, and with the exception of a couple of atrocities committed against members of the general public, the IRA has been virtually inactive the last 20-odd years.

As far as white far-right or Christian fundamentalist terror goes, the analogy to the CH killings (or the Jyllands-Posten murders and attempted murders, Theo van Gogh's murder, Hirsi Ali's death threats, the Rushdie fatwa, the scores of people killed in protests at The Innocence of Muslims...) would be someone trying to kill the remaining Monty Python team, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Jerry Springer, anyone involved in the making of Father Ted, Andres Serrano, Chris Ofili...

Anders Breivik committed his outrage because he thought socialists were betraying his beloved Christian Norway to Islam, not because of a perceived blasphemy by an artist/humorist/writer. Not that that makes it any less bad, if I have to spell that out - but it is a different phenomenon.

Mr. Tea
11-01-2015, 03:01 PM
And personally, I consider the fact that you can be fired, jailed, prosecuted & ASBO'd by the state for attending (or even planning) a protest is far more worrying and damaging to society than the minuscule chance of being a potential victim of a tiny minority of murdering fanatics.

Pure whataboutery. Abuses of state power are bad and are to be resisted as well - so what? I'd rather be able to exercise my right to free speech without having to worry about being incarcerated by the state or murdered by ultra-reactionary religious shitheads. It's not compulsory to side with one of two antagonistic evils.

Mr. Tea
11-01-2015, 03:04 PM
two antagonistic evils

...which are, in any case, mutually interdependent. Symbiotic.

Mr. Tea
11-01-2015, 03:10 PM
"Some in France have already complained that the novel fans right-wing fears of the Muslim population, but that is to miss Houellebecq’s deeply mischievous point. Islamists and anti-immigration demagogues, the novel gleefully points out, really ought to be on the same side, because they share a suspicion of pluralist liberalism and a desire to return to “traditional” or pre-feminist values, where a woman submits to her husband – just as “Islam” means that a Muslim submits to God."


Have you read Self's The Book Of Dave? This is captured perfectly in the internal monologue of a xenophobic London cabbie: "Fucking muzzies, fucking filthy Pakis...tell you what though, they know how to keep their women in line..."

A similar thought occurred to me in the wake of the London riots a few years ago:

The Daily Mail, ca. 2008 - ISLAMIC COURTS "INTRODUCING SHARI'A BY STEALTH"

The Daily Mail, August 2011 - JOIN OUR CAMPAIGN FOR THIEVES TO BE SOUNDLY FLOGGED, THEN HAVE THEIR RIGHT HAND CUT OFF WITH A SWORD

you
11-01-2015, 05:37 PM
For instance, when the IRA was carrying out political assassinations in the '70s and '80s its targets were generally high-profile members of the British establishment (MPs, royals) or symbols of state power (police stations, army barracks).

Um, the Pub Bombings?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Northern_Ireland_Troub les_and_peace_process

you
11-01-2015, 05:49 PM
Anders Breivik committed his outrage because he thought socialists were betraying his beloved Christian Norway to Islam, not because of a perceived blasphemy by an artist/humorist/writer. Not that that makes it any less bad, if I have to spell that out - but it is a different phenomenon.

Tea, not sure what this distinction achieves tbh. He killed for an ideal and set of beliefs. Believing that blasphemy is worth killing for is another belief from another belief set.

Regardless of the nature of a belief I think the important thing to ask is what actions are warranted by beliefs and values full stop. (and this is where Self's remarks on satire vs absolute sanctity of free speech come in)

Regardless, it's too easy to point out, not that it matters much because the belief to action protocol is identical, is that Brevick was less discriminate in his violent actions than the Kouachi bros. Brevick killed 77, 69 of which were teenagers.

luka
11-01-2015, 06:51 PM
Mr tea is a tribalist. Tribal loyalties matter to him.

Mr. Tea
11-01-2015, 08:55 PM
Um, the Pub Bombings?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Northern_Ireland_Troub les_and_peace_process

You're still not getting it. An equivalent would be a comedian getting killed for telling Irish jokes, or a cartoonist for mocking the Catholic church.

Mr. Tea
11-01-2015, 09:00 PM
Mr tea is a tribalist. Tribal loyalties matter to him.

Thanks for the diagnosis doc, I was wondering just what it was.

droid
11-01-2015, 09:48 PM
OK, fine, clearly Islamism does not have a monopoly on the use of political terror. But then I never said it did.

None of the types of terrorism you've mentioned is exactly analogous to what I'm talking about. For instance, when the IRA was carrying out political assassinations in the '70s and '80s its targets were generally high-profile members of the British establishment (MPs, royals) or symbols of state power (police stations, army barracks). Whereas Charlie Hebdo is clearly no more a part of the French establishment than Private Eye is of the British. And in any case, I'm talking about the present day, and with the exception of a couple of atrocities committed against members of the general public, the IRA has been virtually inactive the last 20-odd years.

I specifically mentioned IRA attacks on journalists, not on the 'establishment'. Republicans are far from inactive sadly. CIRA are still involved in all kinds of shit.


As far as white far-right or Christian fundamentalist terror goes, the analogy to the CH killings (or the Jyllands-Posten murders and attempted murders, Theo van Gogh's murder, Hirsi Ali's death threats, the Rushdie fatwa, the scores of people killed in protests at The Innocence of Muslims...) would be someone trying to kill the remaining Monty Python team, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Jerry Springer, anyone involved in the making of Father Ted, Andres Serrano, Chris Ofili...

Anders Breivik committed his outrage because he thought socialists were betraying his beloved Christian Norway to Islam, not because of a perceived blasphemy by an artist/humorist/writer. Not that that makes it any less bad, if I have to spell that out - but it is a different phenomenon.

Yes, it is not exactly analogous. Almost nothing in history is, but the fact is that journalists and commentators are regularly killed for insulting nationalist, political and racist ideologies. This is not so very different.

droid
11-01-2015, 09:51 PM
Pure whataboutery. Abuses of state power are bad and are to be resisted as well - so what? I'd rather be able to exercise my right to free speech without having to worry about being incarcerated by the state or murdered by ultra-reactionary religious shitheads. It's not compulsory to side with one of two antagonistic evils.

Er... I didnt say it was, but the predominant narrative now, and the focus of the orgy of hypocrisy in Paris today is the idea that Western free speech must be courageously defended from the evils of Islam, when in fact Western free speech is under far more serious, sustained and effective attack by Western governments.

you
11-01-2015, 10:39 PM
You're still not getting it. An equivalent would be a comedian getting killed for telling Irish jokes, or a cartoonist for mocking the Catholic church.

Tea, I don't think making judgements based on the supposed reasons for terrorism is a worthwhile thing to do. The point I was trying to make in my other post is that the belief behind violence is arbitrary.

To explain, should I kill people because I believe:
1 - dropping H's in speech is morally wrong to me and I must make a violent and indiscriminate stand against it.
2 - my father was murdered and I must avenge him.
3 - my territory has been taken by a force with a different ideology to mine.

In each case I would say that killing is the wrong option, regardless of whatever reason is behind it. It is why capital punishment is still viewed, largely, as wrong. It is why war is so contentious and divisive even when the sole argument or belief behind it is to save many many more lives.

Mr. Tea
11-01-2015, 11:03 PM
Edit: @ droid

Agreed, there is a huge amount of hypocrisy and many "free" societies are not nearly as free as they purport to be. I read something today about a man in Glasgow being given a community service sentence for shouting "No public sector cuts" at the PM. I would call it unbelievable, except it's all too commonplace. Still, I don't see how it undermines the position I've taken here.


Tea, I don't think making judgements based on the supposed reasons for terrorism is a worthwhile thing to do.

I wasn't making moral judgements, if that's what you mean - in fact I should hope it was clear I wasn't trying to distinguish between "good terrorism" and "bad terrorism". It was more about the perception of what it's OK to publicly say (and draw etc.) and how that relates to your status as a legitimate target in the eyes of certain people who might not like what you're saying.

(Or who, if one were to exercise a little cynicism, might absolutely love what you're saying, because it gives them an excuse - as they see it - to prosecute their violent agenda.)

Mr. Tea
12-01-2015, 09:41 AM
I specifically mentioned IRA attacks on journalists, not on the 'establishment'. Republicans are far from inactive sadly. CIRA are still involved in all kinds of shit.


OK, I stand corrected.

Leo
12-01-2015, 06:03 PM
#foxnewsfacts: not that anyone doubted it previously, but they truly are either ignorant or intentionally misleading.

baboon2004
16-01-2015, 02:08 AM
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/12/7518349/charlie-hebdo-racist

A good piece.

baboon2004
16-01-2015, 02:56 AM
As I've said above, what other cultural or ideological group is so quick to react with violence to a perceived slight?

I know I was going to stay out of this, but this kind of statement is absurd (at best) and has been so often trotted out this past week that my head is beginning to hurt.

1/ The idea of a cultural or ideological group cannot be used to draw any conclusions regarding common behaviour between members of that group. The massacre in question was carried out by a handful of individual people, acting according to their own motivations. What does that automatically have to do with other Muslims, just because the killers say they're acting on behalf of Islam, or whatever their exact words were? If there's a causal link between being a Muslim and being more disposed to violence, then what is that link? Given that...

2/ ...if we are to play the game of 'my group is less violent than your group', (although *many* white Westerners seem to think that they couldn't possibly be seen as belonging to any kind of group, even though they view everyone else as belonging to clearly defined groups, and therefore are invulnerable to generalisations themselves) lots of other entities that could be dubbed 'cultural or ideological groups' have a long record of violence without much provocation at all, such as most Western nations (or maybe there are perceived slights, for example, in the temerity of other people elsewhere in the world to be different? I don't see how violence without provocation is better than violence in response to a perceived slight, anyhow).

Asserting that people who define themselves as Muslims have a greater propensity towards violence than people who don't is....well, y'know, prejudice.

baboon2004
16-01-2015, 03:04 AM
Bollocks, the principle is absolute or it is nothing.

Well, it's not absolute, is it? http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/14/days-after-free-speech-rally-france-arrests-54-people-offensive-speech

So it's nothing, then.

craner
16-01-2015, 09:56 AM
Oh, well, what a shame, then.

luka
16-01-2015, 10:07 AM
Baboon you expanded on my razor sharp sharp critique with aplomb. Craners statement was dopey and a bit rich coming from a torture and war crimes condoning psycho and Mr tea has always been a tribalist. Nothing riles him like an attack on his tribe.

vimothy
16-01-2015, 10:27 AM
There's a pertinent discussion of "freedom of speech" in Roger Scruton's half infamous, half forgotten, The Meaning of Conservatism, which describes both liberal and traditional conservative approaches to the matter:


[L]et us consider, in order to make the general issues [surrounding abstract conceptions of freedom commonly made use of during the Cold War and battles against totalitarianism] a little clearer, just one small example: the freedom of speech. It is obvious that there cannot be freedom of speech in any healthy society, if by freedom is meant the absolute untrammelled right to say what one wishes and utter one's views on anything, at any time, and anywhere. And it requires little knowledge of law to see that there is no absolute freedom of speech in the United Kingdom. Liberal thinkers have always recognized this fact. But they have seen the constraints on freedom as arising only negatively and in response to individual rights. Freedom should be qualified only by the possibility that someone might suffer through its exercise. For the conservative, constraint should be upheld, until it can be shown that society is not damaged by its removal. Thus the constraints on freedom arise through the law's attempt to embody (as for a conservative it must embody) the fundamental values of the society over which it rules. I shall argue that this vision of law is both more coherent and more true to the facts than its individualistic rival.

There is no freedom to abuse, to stir up hatred, to make or publish treasonable, libellous, obscene and blasphemous utterance. In England, as in every civilized country, there is a law which forbids the production and distribution of subversive material - the law of sedition. Now this law also makes it an offence voluntarily to stir up hatred between different sections of the community. Proper application of that law -which makes not only the manipulation of racial hatred but also that of class hatred into a criminal offence - would have made the first Race Relations Act (the Act which still required some element of mens rea for its statutory crimes) more or less unnecessary. It was not applied. This was not only because the symbolic gesture of a law specific to racial relations appeared immensely powerful, if not in quelling racial antipathy, at least in appeasing the middle-class conscience over its existence. It was also because the application of the law would lead at once to the curtailing, not only of what was said on the rostrum of the National Front, but also of what used to be said at every radical demonstration, and at many a Trades Union Congress.

This decline in the very idea of sedition has been brought about not by popular agitation, but by the politics of power. The fact is, not that our society believes in freedom of speech and assembly, but rather that it is afraid to announce its disbelief. This disbelief is so entrenched in English law - in the common law just as much as in statutory provisions - that it is possible to doubt that it could be eradicated without wholly overthrowing the social order which the law enshrines. But it is now principally judges and juries who respond to its demand. Politicians, and especially politicians of the 'moderate' Right, have lost their nerve.

This is not to deny the reality of some less absolute ideal of freedom, according to which it would be quite true to say that there is and has been more freedom of speech (and more freedom of every kind) in the United Kingdom than in most other countries of the world. And this Anglo-Saxon freedom is rightly valued by all of us who share its benefits, including the benefit of writing and reading the present book. But this freedom is not identifiable apart from the institutions which have fostered it. It is a freedom to do precisely what is not forbidden by law, and what is forbidden by law records a long tradition of reflection on the nature and constitution of British society.

luka
16-01-2015, 10:33 AM
No one's gunna read that shit mate. Say something controversial. That's why we employ you remember?

vimothy
16-01-2015, 10:35 AM
If you read it, you'd see that I did.

luka
16-01-2015, 10:38 AM
Read 20,000 words of roger crouton on a mobile screen r u mad?

vimothy
16-01-2015, 12:25 PM
If 20,000 words of Roger Scuton's ultra-conservatism isn't enough to rile everyone, what will?

vimothy
16-01-2015, 12:28 PM
The fact is, not that our society believes in freedom of speech and assembly, but rather that it is afraid to announce its disbelief.

Similar things could be said of France, of course, which competes with Britain for the title of fons et origo of these ideas (of liberal freedoms, secularism, etc). It also finds it hard to bring itself to say that it doesn't believe in freedom of speech. So it's no surprise to see an outpouring of narcissistic, social media-fuelled sentiment, coupled with an actual crackdown on "free speech", especially speech linked to terrorism or that which might further upset the more sensitive ethnic minority populations. It's basically a Zizek article writing itself, probably appearing in Comment is Free at some point next week.

luka
16-01-2015, 12:29 PM
You making a pithy summary of those 20,000 words and pretending you thought it up yourself

luka
16-01-2015, 12:37 PM
That's what I would recommend. Understand and respect the medium you're working in

vimothy
16-01-2015, 01:04 PM
I'm so rusty I need all the help I can get at this point.

vimothy
16-01-2015, 01:05 PM
The discourse around highly idealised and abstracted notions of freedom is a relic of the Cold War and prior struggles against totalitarianism. Take, for e.g., freedom of speech. Traditionally, and in practice, both liberals and conservatives reject the notion of absolute freedom of speech. The liberal accepts constraints arising negatively from the potential for harm done to others. The conservative understands constraints as arising naturally from the law's embodiment of society's values. (The former is the dominant force in society today, although what constitutes harming others has expanded considerably, to the extent that it is thought necessary to preface works by Kant with "trigger warnings", lest today's fragile undergraduates be given vertigo by exposure to his dangerously subversive ideas. The latter is an almost occult tradition, which holds that such freedoms that exist are produced by our institutions rather than Platonic forms whose existence is limited by them where necessary.)

craner
16-01-2015, 01:12 PM
occult tradition

Well done, that'll grab his attention.

luka
16-01-2015, 01:16 PM
That's better but to really grab people's attention maybe try rhetorical judo. Say something that sounds indefensible to lure the unwary into an over hasty attack, then when they are off balance, SMASH THEM

droid
16-01-2015, 02:20 PM
That's better but to really grab people's attention maybe try rhetorical judo. Say something that sounds indefensible to lure the unwary into an over hasty attack, then when they are off balance, SMASH THEM

Hey, thats my entire raison d'etre right there. Works brilliantly with Tea everytime! ;)

luka
16-01-2015, 02:43 PM
Lol it always works best with emotion-led people. Reasoning people are harder to entrap.

droid
16-01-2015, 02:48 PM
If 20,000 words of Roger Scuton's ultra-conservatism isn't enough to rile everyone, what will?

Pretty much agree with you and Scuton here.

MARK THIS DAY.

luka
16-01-2015, 03:53 PM
You are so dedicated to arguing with tea you even do it all over Facebook. Multi-platform tea baiting

vimothy
16-01-2015, 03:53 PM
Normally when I tell people I don't believe in freedom of speech and neither do they, they're shocked and appalled.

craner
16-01-2015, 03:58 PM
I am shock and appalled.

droid
16-01-2015, 04:00 PM
You are so dedicated to arguing with tea you even do it all over Facebook. Multi-platform tea baiting

Youre too hard on him. He tends to take an everyman stance on things, but hes a smart bloke who responds to logic and dishes it out sometimes. Cant blame someone for their reflexes (too much at least).

droid
16-01-2015, 04:01 PM
Normally when I tell people I don't believe in freedom of speech and neither do they, they're shocked and appalled.

Well its just self evident isnt it?

vimothy
16-01-2015, 04:01 PM
This was a bit of anti-climax, frankly.

vimothy
16-01-2015, 04:01 PM
Droid agreeing with me hasn't helped.

Mr. Tea
17-01-2015, 02:59 PM
You are so dedicated to arguing with tea you even do it all over Facebook. Multi-platform tea baiting

If you'd looked over the last few days you'd have seen me and droid agreeing more than disagreeing, believe it or not. It would probably have given you some kind of fit.

Mr. Tea
17-01-2015, 03:01 PM
Droid agreeing with me hasn't helped.

I can imagine this causing you a fit too, or at least an existential crisis. Are you feeling alright? Good to have you back, anyway. You big old apocalyptic neocon psychopath.

luka
17-01-2015, 03:22 PM
Not only that craners in the corner sobbing wondering what happened to the beautiful relationship he had with vimothy. World's gone mad

Mr. Tea
17-01-2015, 03:26 PM
All the old certainties lie shattered on the floor, like a wine glass at a dinner party where everyone's had a bit too much to drink.

vimothy
19-01-2015, 09:35 AM
Craner is the only person who read my posts, is what I take from that.

vimothy
19-01-2015, 10:28 AM
Ed West put an amusing piece up recently that highlights the hypocrisy and spinelessness of our glorious leaders, vis-a-vis, those who "insult Islam", "The literal Islamophobia of the British media (http://www.edwest.co.uk/uncategorized/the-literal-islamophobia-of-the-british-media/?doing_wp_cron=1421661565.0576889514923095703125)".

His brief anecdote about the Republic of Ireland's response functions as a sort of multi-levelled ironic farce:


Following the ["Danish Cartoons"] affair Ireland introduced blasphemy laws for the first time [!], with the Defamation Act making the publication or utterance of blasphemous matter a crime punishable by a €25,000 (£22,500) fine. In response secularist campaigners set up an Exhibition of Blasphemous Art at the Irish Museum of Contemporary Art (Imoca) in Dublin on Good Friday, 2010, against a law that they said ‘prevents intellectual debate’. The artists tested this theory with works such as ‘F— Christmas’, ‘Bible Gun’ and ‘Resur-erection’, which all satirised religious figures such as Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary, although one particular 7th century figure was strangely absent. Not a single one mocked Islam, for the simple reason that long before the artists would be spending their lives under armed guard, the entire state machinery would have been forcing them to back down to spare Ireland a repeat of Denmark’s ordeal.

luka
19-01-2015, 11:34 AM
Given that the perpetrators are dead I do wonder what the clash of civilisations mob consider to be the appropriate response.

luka
19-01-2015, 11:34 AM
Declare war on Algeria presumably. Demonstrate Vigilant Resolve

luka
19-01-2015, 11:36 AM
Bellicose rhetoric?

luka
19-01-2015, 11:38 AM
Spasms of virulent idiocy. Froth at the mouth. Firebomb a mosque?

vimothy
19-01-2015, 11:58 AM
Who knows? None of those things seem very likely, though. I imagine that European authorities will want to make it harder for people to publish the sort of provocative, Muslim-baiting material found in Charlie Hebdo (and the media for the most part will be happy to oblige, since they don't want to be shot to pieces), and harder for Muslim extremists to publish the provocative, pro-jihadi type material that might result in more massacres of journalists, all the while ramping up the freedom and democracy rhetoric.

luka
19-01-2015, 12:00 PM
I mean you vimothy not the governments of Europe lol

vimothy
19-01-2015, 12:04 PM
I prefer ironic detachment to frothing at the mouth.

luka
19-01-2015, 12:05 PM
You have no view? No opinion on what the appropriate response might be? How disappointing

Mr. Tea
19-01-2015, 12:07 PM
Given that the perpetrators are dead I do wonder what the clash of civilisations mob consider to be the appropriate response.

Well D-Cam apparently thinks the thing to do is to is to give police/security agencies unlimited surveillance powers with regard to social media, email, SMS and Let's Discover Electronics! home-made Morse code sets.

Which I thought they already pretty much had anyway, but I guess not.

droid
19-01-2015, 12:33 PM
His brief anecdote about the Republic of Ireland's response functions as a sort of multi-levelled ironic farce:

Whilst Im not for a moment questioning the privileged status attacks on Islam have in liberal media in Europe, nor defending the atrocious blasphemy law, this is all a bit wonky.

I don't think its fair to say the legislation was brought in as a result of Danish cartoons - the argument at the time was that there was a legislative hole after the previous law was deemed impractical by the supreme court, and some legislation is demanded by the constitution. Id also say there is a bit of internal politics here - the church being the subject of attacks on gay marriage, abortion, school patronage, historical institutional abuse - all under a conservative govt with a considerable right wing catholic rump - so this could have been seen to be 'giving something back' to the RCC.

Regarding the blasphemy exhibition - Atheist Ireland aren't the most imaginative bunch. and I would say its most likely simply an attempt to (rightly) target offence at the dominant religion rather than fear of Muslim reaction.

But yes, an indefensible farce, though not for the reasons West outlines.

vimothy
19-01-2015, 12:51 PM
I'll defer to you on that. What I know of the internal politics of the Republic of Ireland could fit on a postage stamp -- a small postage stamp. But I don't see that wanting to offend Christian sensibilities and not wanting to offend Muslim sensibilities are mutually exclusive. The two normally work at lock step. That's why Charlie Hebdo is so problematic.

vimothy
19-01-2015, 12:52 PM
And the "Danish Cartoons" before them.

Mr. Tea
19-01-2015, 03:57 PM
Speaking of Denmark, I recently learned via Facebook (thanks droid) that Jyllands-Posten had previously refused to run cartoons lampooning Jesus on the basis that "...readers will [not] enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact...they will provoke an outcry".

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/feb/06/pressandpublishing.politics

Which is an interesting inversion of the situation vimothy describes in Ireland.

droid
19-01-2015, 04:37 PM
But I don't see that wanting to offend Christian sensibilities and not wanting to offend Muslim sensibilities are mutually exclusive..

And vice versa, in fact the right to offend Muslims is pretty much the only right being discussed here, a strange formalisation of propaganda really.


A string of at least 69 arrests in France this week on the vague charge of “defending terrorism” (“l’apologie du terrorisme”) risks violating freedom of expression, Amnesty International said...

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/france-faces-litmus-test-freedom-expression-dozens-arrested-wake-attacks-2015-01-16

vimothy
19-01-2015, 04:55 PM
Of course. People already have the right to offend Christians and have made such use of it as to make it more or less meaningless.

droid
20-01-2015, 01:01 PM
http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/unemployment.jpg

Mr. Tea
20-01-2015, 01:32 PM
http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/unemployment.jpg

It would be interesting to look not just at the number of claimants but also the total amount of benefits they were receiving, given that the benefits available to childless adults in the UK are actually remarkably stingy compared to most developed countries. (At least as a fraction of median earnings, not sure how it ranks in absolute terms.)

vimothy
20-01-2015, 01:50 PM
Revealed: thousands of Britons on benefits across EU (Guardian)

Twice as many EU immigrants claiming unemployment benefits in UK than vice versa, new research shows (Telegraph)

droid
20-01-2015, 01:52 PM
Good point. The Dole here is €160 a week I think. Plus child benefit, rent allowance and various other things. Id say we're paying at least twice as much on our UK scroungers than the UK is paying for its Polish ones.

Strange that during the various debates about immigration here w/all the usual bullshit, UK citizens (consistently our highest cohort of immigrants) were completely ignored.

droid
20-01-2015, 01:53 PM
Twice as many EU immigrants claiming unemployment benefits in UK than vice versa, new research shows (Telegraph)

lol. Yeah, but costing half as much.

Mr. Tea
20-01-2015, 02:47 PM
Strange that during the various debates about immigration here w/all the usual bullshit, UK citizens (consistently our highest cohort of immigrants) were completely ignored.

That's because Brits living outside Britain are not immigrants, but expatriates.

Also, bloody hell, oh to be unemployed in Ireland! For under-25s in the UK you get less than half that, and it's not much more for over-25s.

Mr. Tea
20-01-2015, 02:48 PM
Revealed: thousands of Britons on benefits across EU (Guardian)

Twice as many EU immigrants claiming unemployment benefits in UK than vice versa, new research shows (Telegraph)

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

droid
20-01-2015, 03:44 PM
That's because Brits living outside Britain are not immigrants, but expatriates.

Also, bloody hell, oh to be unemployed in Ireland! For under-25s in the UK you get less than half that, and it's not much more for over-25s.

Yeah, probably OK, for the young, but remember, no NHS, €50-€60 for a doctors visit, one of the highest costs of living in Europe, no rent controls, almost no social housing, and increasing tory-isation of benefits. Fucked if you're marginalised, chronically ill, disabled...

Obv better than the UK, but TBH, we'd be better off with a proper social safety net and lower dole.

Patrick Swayze
15-03-2015, 09:54 AM
Piece by Paul Kingsnorth about parochialism as a potential resistance (rather than just a reaction) to globalisation.


http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/englands-uncertain-future

Mr. Tea
15-03-2015, 02:54 PM
Interesting piece. I didn't know that about the origin of the phrase "Little Englander", although I guess we only have the author's word for it.

He touches on something that's bugged me for a while, which is that the default position among leftists in this country is that the only reason anyone could have for even wanting to talk about immigration, let alone anything as crazy as suggesting it might be better for a lot of the people living here already (whatever their ethnicity) if we had a little bit less of it, is that they're a terrible ignorant racist who should be mocked or ignored - which is exactly the attitude that couldn't possibly be more conducive to the interests of big business and the neoliberal status quo.

Patrick Swayze
15-03-2015, 06:12 PM
He raises some interesting questions although I thought the piece was pretty light on solutions (beyond very a generalised belief in some sort of localism).

I also couldn't stop thinking "isn't this what Billy Bragg says" all the way through. Not that that would necessarily devalue his arguments, but it probably doesn't help.

crackerjack
22-03-2015, 03:18 PM
He touches on something that's bugged me for a while, which is that the default position among leftists in this country is that the only reason anyone could have for even wanting to talk about immigration, let alone anything as crazy as suggesting it might be better for a lot of the people living here already (whatever their ethnicity) if we had a little bit less of it, is that they're a terrible ignorant racist who should be mocked or ignored -

True, and it's not helpful. But if you were to map people who talk about endlessly immigration (Ukip, Migration Watch, the tabloids) against terrible ignorant racists, you'd have a near-exact overlap.

Mr. Tea
22-03-2015, 07:30 PM
True, and it's not helpful. But if you were to map people who talk about endlessly immigration (Ukip, Migration Watch, the tabloids) against terrible ignorant racists, you'd have a near-exact overlap.

But of course! The Left - along with big business - is uniformly pro-immigration. So anti-immigration discourse becomes the sole prerogative of the hard and hard-ish Right, by default. It's completely symbiotic.

trza
28-05-2015, 03:25 PM
Boddika?

Mr. Tea
28-05-2015, 04:19 PM
Boddika?

Yeah, she was fairly anti-immigration as I remember. Particular bee in her bonnet about the Italians.

trza
08-06-2015, 03:39 PM
Now its gfoty

trza
09-06-2015, 07:56 PM
Does club culture have a problem with bigotry?

Ten Walls, GFOTY and Boddika have all said hateful things of late – so are they isolated bigots or symptomatic of a wider intolerance?

Then there was Boddika – a major producer working in the porous space around UK bass and techno – who tweeted earlier this month: “If you work in a shop/restaurant or whatever in the UK and you can’t speak English … FUCK OFF!” He later excused it as “sheer frustration”,(there were plenty of DJs who defended him, from Zed Bias to Eats Everything). Grime DJ Elijah noted the irony of the fact that the label Swamp81, which Boddika has worked with, is named after a police operation during the 1981 Brixton riots – suddenly Swamp81’s name, situating itself in Brixton’s Afro-Caribbean bass culture, was cast in an awkward light.

These artists’ comments, and this ongoing inequality, are a reminder that clubs are not yet the utopia that the culture aspires towards.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jun/09/does-club-culture-have-a-problem-with-bigotry


GFOTY ‏@GFOTY Jun 8

I know I push buttons, but I've gone too far this time. I was being really naive, and for that I take full responsibility.
View conversation
13 retweets 61 favorites
GFOTY ‏@GFOTY Jun 8

I was actually trying to make a joke about appropriation, but I fucked up and it wasn't funny. I’m sorry.
18 retweets 59 favorites


Earlier last week timbaland posted a meme about caitlyn jenner

Timbaland ‏@Timbaland Jun 2

"Timbaland said" in the headlines. But nevertheless that is the story but i doubt they will post this. Not interesting enough for them.
45 retweets 68 favorites
Timbaland ‏@Timbaland Jun 2

i didnt make the meme that was posted or said publicly what the meme said. Man i find it funny you can take a something reposted and say
44 retweets 63 favorites
Timbaland ‏@Timbaland Jun 2

movie was one of the funniest parts. and somebody decide to take out clay which was said in the movie and put bruce. thats it
33 retweets 46 favorites
Timbaland ‏@Timbaland Jun 2

alot of you guys. this is what happen. i saw a meme post and repost it cause i seen the movie in the post and thought that part of the
31 retweets 48 favorites

Timbaland ‏@Timbaland Jun 2

boy some of the media outlets have so many fooled. let me explain this cause i see they are putting up their own headlines to deceive
Retweets
60

Mr. Tea
13-11-2015, 09:53 PM
Fuuuuck, it's all kicking off in Paris. Again. :(

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34814203

droid
13-11-2015, 10:02 PM
Awful, but not sure what it has to do with immigration?

Mr. Tea
13-11-2015, 10:17 PM
Awful, but not sure what it has to do with immigration?

It might have something to do with nationalism, racism or both, though. And I'm going out on a limb here and guessing it might have something to do with Islamism and Syria.

Mr. Tea
13-11-2015, 10:24 PM
18 dead, a hundred hostages! Jesus, this is grim.

droid
13-11-2015, 10:24 PM
Entirely possible, but what percentage of terror attacks over the last 10 years in Europe do you think are connected to Islam?

Mr. Tea
13-11-2015, 10:36 PM
Entirely possible, but what percentage of terror attacks over the last 10 years in Europe do you think are connected to Islam?

Fucksake droid, could you resist the urge to lecture for five minutes?

droid
13-11-2015, 10:39 PM
You obviously have an opinion seeing as you reflexively link news of a terror attack with Islam and immigration.

http://www.counterfire.org/images/stories/Jan2015/terror_pie_chart-2006-13_rev1.png

Mr. Tea
14-11-2015, 02:04 AM
I'm not sure what your point is - I didn't say it was definitely Islamists, did I? I'm saying that whoever is behind it, it's probably not unconnected with the fact that France is not exactly an exemplar of successful multiculturalism and racial equality. Brievik's atrocity certainly had something to do with "nationalism, immigration and racism", didn't it?

They're now saying more than 120 dead - this is fucking unbelievable.

droid
14-11-2015, 02:14 AM
Yes, its horrendous.

trza
14-11-2015, 02:38 AM
I was just about to make a terrible joke about Jihadi John dying in a drone strike before the attacks hit the news.

HMGovt
14-11-2015, 09:08 AM
You obviously have an opinion seeing as you reflexively link news of a terror attack with Islam and immigration.

http://www.counterfire.org/images/stories/Jan2015/terror_pie_chart-2006-13_rev1.png

I'd love to see the working for that pie chart... total bollocks.

Mr. Tea
14-11-2015, 11:47 AM
I was just about to make a terrible joke about Jihadi John dying in a drone strike before the attacks hit the news.

Phew, well I suppose we were spared the worst of it then.

Mr. Tea
14-11-2015, 11:51 AM
I didn't say it was definitely Islamists, did I?

Not quite sure why I bothered to type that, other than to pacify droid. Of course it was motherfucking Islamists.

Mr. Tea
14-11-2015, 11:54 AM
I'd love to see the working for that pie chart... total bollocks.

http://www.counterfire.org/news/17599-graphic-islamist-terror-accounts-for-only-0-7-of-attacks-in-europe

Their definition of "terror" includes - wait for it - criminal damage.

HMGovt
14-11-2015, 12:39 PM
http://www.counterfire.org/news/17599-graphic-islamist-terror-accounts-for-only-0-7-of-attacks-in-europe

Their definition of "terror" includes - wait for it - criminal damage.

It's very disingenuous - date range excludes the Madrid bombings, London 7/7 and everything that's happened after 2013. But even after that, 68% of deaths are due to Islamist terrorism.

Mr. Tea
14-11-2015, 02:08 PM
It's very disingenuous - date range excludes the Madrid bombings, London 7/7 and everything that's happened after 2013. But even after that, 68% of deaths are due to Islamist terrorism.

Droid, a couple of weeks ago you were roundly mocking me for describing what you called the "myth" of the self-loathing, pro-Islamist lefty. Now I don't know or care who these Counterfire wankers are - although I think I can pretty much get the measure of them from the name alone - but consider: to present a purported analysis of "all terror attacks whether foiled or completed" without considering at all the severity or scale of each attack, while including such irrelevant bollocks as bolshy Basques smashing up phone boxes or whatever Spanish separatist criminal damage might mean and using an arbitrary start date of 2006 to exclude two bombings that claimed 243 lives and maimed 2,500 people between them, as well as cutting off in 2013 so as to exclude the various attempted and actual atrocities in France in the last two years, as HMG says - and that's before you consider that nearly all the plots documented in the UK are described as 'not specified', despite presumably including the chapati flour bomb plot, the underpants bomber, the Lee Rigby murder and god knows what else:

What possible purpose does all that serve other than to deliberately downplay the prevalence and severity of Islamist terror in Europe since 2001? They are openly and transparently propagandising for the jihadis - and so are you by posting it here. That's all there is to it.

droid
14-11-2015, 04:38 PM
Both of you are full of it.

Ive read that Europol report from cover to cover. Its not 'disingenuous'. It starts in 2006 because thats when they started collecting data.

You've completely failed to grasp the basic fact that the survey was completed not by some 'self-loathing pro-islamist lefties', but by an official conservative European security organisation.

You can argue about the definition of 'terrorism' or the number or severity of attacks, or you could include 'allegations' by the UK security services, or you could take account of the fact that since 2011 ALL religiously motivated attacks are included in the 'Islamist' category, or you could make statements like:


They are openly and transparently propagandising for the jihadis - and so are you by posting it here. That's all there is to it.

So Europol is 'openly and transparently propagandising for the jihadis'?

Seriously?

What is wrong with you? This is the very definition of reactionary.


Of course it was motherfucking Islamists.

Thats what they said immediately after Brevik as well wasnt it? More to the point thats exactly what you thought, because, as we all know, Islam has a monopoly on terror.

HMGovt
14-11-2015, 05:35 PM
You're right! Islamist terror attacks are simply not a problem in Europe right now.

Glad you cut through the bullshit by sharing this report, Droid. It's those fucking Wiccans setting light to bins we need to worry about.

droid
14-11-2015, 05:50 PM
Thats an interesting interpretation of the europol statistics.

I suggest you write to them and tell them to stop giving succor to the enemy. https://www.europol.europa.eu/

Mr. Tea
14-11-2015, 05:59 PM
Ive read that Europol report from cover to cover. Its not 'disingenuous'. It starts in 2006 because thats when they started collecting data.

You didn't post a link to Europol though, did you? You posted a pie chart created by some people called Counterfire, blatantly intended to give the impression that Islamist terror is an insignificant proportion of all terrorism that's happened in Europe in the recent past. Which is clearly bullshit, as you well know.

And no, I don't accept that the simple number of "foiled or successful plots" is a good metric of the total "amount" of terrorism going on. A terror "plot" that begins and ends when some tragic special-needs case gets arrested for googling how 2 buy ricin on a public library computer is not equivalent to a sophisticated multiple bombing committed by a cell of Afghan-trained terrorists that kills tens or hundreds of people. If you take into account the scale of successful attacks, the picture for the last decade and a half looks like this:

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2015/01/blogs/graphic-detail/20150117_gdm001_1.png

As you can see, Islamist terror accounts for the overwhelming majority of fatal attacks. And fatal non-Islamist attacks would have been almost negligible but for a single man.



Thats what they said immediately after Brevik as well wasnt it? More to the point thats exactly what you thought, because, as we all know, Islam has a monopoly on terror.

Islamism certainly has a monopoly or near-monopoly on deadly terror attacks in France in recent years. Are you seriously telling me you didn't assume it was an Islamist attack when you first heard about it? Who's "full of it" now?

Mr. Tea
14-11-2015, 06:13 PM
Oh, and:


Awful, but not sure what it has to do with immigration?

Paris attacks: Isis militant said to be Syrian who passed through Greece on refugee route (http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates?CMP=share_btn_fb)

luka
14-11-2015, 07:11 PM
You're getting trounced by Mr Tea droid fucking hell how embarrassing. That will never happen to me

trza
14-11-2015, 07:55 PM
i was all set to go off on the leftist islamic terrorist apologists who would mourn the loss and inhumanity of jihadi john being droned to death. then i thought maybe i could wait until a day after the paris attacks.

has anyone here been to the concert venue?

Mr. Tea
14-11-2015, 09:06 PM
This is the very definition of reactionary.

I'm actually quite amused at your assertion that one would have to be "reactionary" to have some mental association between terrorism - or, if you want to be more specific, coordinated and lethal terror attacks in modern-day France - and Islamism. I can only imagine it must cost you a lot of energy to so studiously avoid making connections between things that are, well, obviously and demonstrably connected.

Mr. Tea
14-11-2015, 09:07 PM
You're getting trounced by Mr Tea droid fucking hell how embarrassing. That will never happen to me

*gun fingers*

droid
14-11-2015, 11:23 PM
You didn't post a link to Europol though, did you? You posted a pie chart created by some people called Counterfire, blatantly intended to give the impression that Islamist terror is an insignificant proportion of all terrorism that's happened in Europe in the recent past. Which is clearly bullshit, as you well know.

The chart is a completely accurate account of terror attacks in Europe since 2006, using the exact same categories Europol uses and the same statistical systems the OSCE and others use, and Europol collate only the incidence and not the effects of terror., so presumably they are also blatantly intending to minimise Islamist terror.


And no, I don't accept that the simple number of "foiled or successful plots" is a good metric of the total "amount" of terrorism going on. A terror "plot" that begins and ends when some tragic special-needs case gets arrested for googling how 2 buy ricin on a public library computer is not equivalent to a sophisticated multiple bombing committed by a cell of Afghan-trained terrorists that kills tens or hundreds of people. If you take into account the scale of successful attacks, the picture for the last decade and a half looks like this

Hang on, you were arguing previously that alleged attacks or plots should be taken into account?


http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2015/01/blogs/graphic-detail/20150117_gdm001_1.png

As you can see, Islamist terror accounts for the overwhelming majority of fatal attacks. And fatal non-Islamist attacks would have been almost negligible but for a single man.

Weren't you just arguing against setting an arbitrary date? Go back three years and the non-Islamic body count shoots up. Go back another 8 years and the number of attacks spikes hugely.

But what was it you were saying about 'genocide top trumps' recently? You seem to suddenly have little hesitation in deploying a body count argument when it suits you.


Islamism certainly has a monopoly or near-monopoly on deadly terror attacks in France in recent years.


IN france... ...moving the goalposts again, but fine. This is not true, or rather was not true until yesterday. I have to question the accuracy of the graph above. If you go directly to your source, the global terrorism database, between 2000-2014 (the last year of available data) 18 people were killed and 121 injured in France by individual or separatist terror attacks.


Are you seriously telling me you didn't assume it was an Islamist attack when you first heard about it? Who's "full of it" now?

And the lesson I learned from Brevik is not to make assumptions in the immediate aftermath of an attack, which is what you were doing last night and what I was arguing against. Statistically speaking its an incorrect assumption to make, or it was at least.

There have been three major terror attacks in Europe in 'recent years' (since 2011). Two have been Islamist, one has not. One killed 20 people, one killed 69 and the atrocity last night killed 130. Between 2011- 2014, 111 people were killed in terror attacks in Western Europe, all by individuals, separatist or political groups. Until 2015, there were no organised islamist attacks, so again, up until yesterday the statistical likelihood was it was not an Islamist attack.


I'm actually quite amused at your assertion that one would have to be "reactionary" to have some mental association between terrorism - or, if you want to be more specific, coordinated and lethal terror attacks in modern-day France - and Islamism. I can only imagine it must cost you a lot of energy to so studiously avoid making connections between things that are, well, obviously and demonstrably connected.

Except of course this is a straw man, as thats not what I said. I said it was reactionary to accuse Europol of 'openly and transparently propagandising for the jihadis' by supplying accurate statistics, which is completely clear from my post.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates?CMP=share_btn_fb

Retroactive justification is the best kind eh?, but from the article:


Syrian passports are known to be valuable currency amongst those trying to enter Europe, and it is not yet confirmed whether the holder of the passport is indeed the perpetrator.

Another assumption May be correct, but of course, you had absolutely no way of knowing either way.

But just to clarify, I had not intended to downplay the impact of significance of Islamist terror, It is quite clearly a major problem. I was simply pointing out the dangers of knee-jerk reactions immediately after an attack, even if, sometimes, they turn out to be (at least partially) correct.

Mr. Tea
15-11-2015, 06:23 PM
Droid, I have no intention of engaging with you when you're going to present "information" that's been so distorted and carefully selected as to be factually wrong.

I mean, I assume Europol have taken in good faith the official figures presented by the governments of each of these countries on the terror plots that happened or were foiled in each one - governments that may or may not be inclined to include stats on the ideology of the plotters. You'll notice that almost all of those recorded in the UK are listed as "not specified". Now your Counterfire chaps have dishonestly decided that "not specified" equals "not Islamist" and therefore counted them towards bogus non-Islamist-terror total.

In fact, if you believe them, there were only two completed or attempted Islamist terror attacks in the UK between 2006 and 2013. Like fuck there were - I can think of half a dozen that made the news right off the top of my head! And then to include acts as trivial as "criminal damage" in the analysis, alongside Islamist plots which invariably involve murder and usually mass murder at that - in order to whitewash the fundamentally violent nature of Islamism - is frankly revolting. Where's your shame? I expected better of you than this, but perhaps I was wrong.

baboon2004
15-11-2015, 07:38 PM
no wish to enter this personal argument, but to talk about "the fundamentally violent nature of Islamism" is wrong - eg Ennadha in Tunisia

You mean 'jihadism' I guess, of which it's tautological that it's fundamentally violent.

droid
15-11-2015, 08:00 PM
Droid, I have no intention of engaging with you when you're going to present "information" that's been so distorted and carefully selected as to be factually wrong.

I mean, I assume Europol have taken in good faith the official figures presented by the governments of each of these countries on the terror plots that happened or were foiled in each one - governments that may or may not be inclined to include stats on the ideology of the plotters. You'll notice that almost all of those recorded in the UK are listed as "not specified". Now your Counterfire chaps have dishonestly decided that "not specified" equals "not Islamist" and therefore counted them towards bogus non-Islamist-terror total.

In fact, if you believe them, there were only two completed or attempted Islamist terror attacks in the UK between 2006 and 2013. Like fuck there were - I can think of half a dozen that made the news right off the top of my head! And then to include acts as trivial as "criminal damage" in the analysis, alongside Islamist plots which invariably involve murder and usually mass murder at that - in order to whitewash the fundamentally violent nature of Islamism - is frankly revolting. Where's your shame? I expected better of you than this, but perhaps I was wrong.

Dear god.

The counterfire chart is an accurate reflection of the Europol stats. it is Europol that include 'criminal damage' and other non-fatal terror acts in their stats. That chart has not distorted anything, it doesn't matter how you try to swing it. If counterfire is guilty of distortion, so is Europol.

You quoted the economist's analysis of the global database of terror right? thats the source you're using and I assume youre happy that they are not 'whitewashing the fundamentally violent nature of Islamism', yeah?

According to the GTD, there were TWO Islamist terror attacks in the UK between 2006 and 2014. 1 in 2007 in Abbotsinch by Al-Qa`ida in Iraq which killed 1 person, and one in Lockington in 2010 by Al-Qa`ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) which caused no injuries or fatalities. In the same period, dissident republican and individual attacks killed 12 people.

http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?page=4&casualties_type=b&casualties_max=&start_yearonly=2006&end_yearonly=2014&dtp2=all&country=603&count=100&expanded=no&charttype=line&chart=overtime&ob=GTDID&od=desc#results-table

So, YOUR OWN SOURCE agrees with Europol, YOUR OWN SOURCE contradicts everything youve just said, YOUR OWN SOURCE is presumably 'revolting', 'distorted' and 'factually wrong', because, you just 'know' of multiple 'plots' off the 'top of your head', in the same way you instinctively know that every terror attack in Europe is Islamist and in this case must have been committed by Syrian refugees (best ignore the possibility of a fake passport (http://news.sky.com/story/1588180/paris-terror-attacker-used-fake-passport) whilst we rush to judgement). If the facts contradict that knowledge, well then the facts must just be 'whitewashing the fundamental violent nature of Islamism' as well.

As I said, the very definition of reactionary. Worse than a Daily Mail editorial.

luka
15-11-2015, 08:13 PM
How come, and this is the innocent question I was recently accused of never asking, the Lee Rigby murder is not included?

droid
15-11-2015, 08:33 PM
Not sure, it seems odd, and I would say it probably should be included, but its not there in either the GTD or the Europol stats for 2013. the GTD is certainly aware of it as they have included several non-fatal incidents inspired by the Rigby murder.

Almost certainly due to very strict definitions and methodology and the fact that Rigby wasn't a civilian, or perhaps these conservative security and analysis groups are just self-loathing Islamist lovers.

trza
15-11-2015, 08:33 PM
I'm not sure what those two guys are arguing about. But has the media found out how the attackers were communicating? I thought I heard they used whatsapp but then someone said it was snapchat but yik yak is still a real possibility.

Mr. Tea
16-11-2015, 12:36 PM
According to the GTD, there were TWO Islamist terror attacks in the UK between 2006 and 2014.

Don't try and move the fucking goalposts - you were talking about terror plots, whether they succeeded, failed or were foiled.

June, 2007 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_International_Airport_attack)
June, 2007 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_London_car_bombs)
August, 2006 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot)
June, 2012 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9972367/EDL-attack-the-terror-plot-foiled-by-luck.html)
May, 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Exeter_attempted_bombing)
May, 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby)
Plus Umar Faroukh Abdulmutallab, the would-be Underpants Bomber, studied in London and was president of UCL's Islamic Society. And then this (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-jailed-for-trying-to-buy-ricin-online-after-being-inspired-by-breaking-bad-10507581.html), from this year, although that falls outside the arbitrary '06-'13 window, as does the 7/7 atrocity and the 2002 ricin plot.

And those are just the ones I can remember.

I repeat:


Droid, I have no intention of engaging with you when you're going to present "information" that's been so distorted and carefully selected as to be factually wrong.

Edit:

How about giving the "According to..." and "...but these guys say..." a break and using your own head for a bit? The stats from Europol describe 199 terror plots of a "not specified" nature in the period in question, and two that are described as "Islamist". Counterfire have falsely and dishonestly decided "not specified" means "not Islamist" for the purposes of their bullshit pie chart, despite the fact that I found seven - arguably eight - Islamist terror plots in the UK over that period. So to say "only two Islamist plots happened in the UK in this period" and use that data as input to a graphic is wrong - demonstrably, objectively, 2+2=5, the-Earth-is-6,000-years-old wrong. I don't know how else I can explain this.

HMGovt
16-11-2015, 12:44 PM
I'm not sure what those two guys are arguing about. But has the media found out how the attackers were communicating? I thought I heard they used whatsapp but then someone said it was snapchat but yik yak is still a real possibility.

Playstation 4?
http://www.politico.eu/article/why-terrorists-love-playstation-4/

droid
16-11-2015, 01:02 PM
Don't try and move the fucking goalposts - we were talking about terror plots, whether they succeeded, failed or were foiled.

August, 2006 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot)
June, 2012 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9972367/EDL-attack-the-terror-plot-foiled-by-luck.html)
May, 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Exeter_attempted_bombing)
May, 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby)
Plus Umar Faroukh Abdulmutallab, the would-be Underpants Bomber, studied in London and was president of UCL's Islamic Society. And then this (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-jailed-for-trying-to-buy-ricin-online-after-being-inspired-by-breaking-bad-10507581.html), from this year, although that falls outside the arbitrary '06-'13 window, as does the 7/7 atrocity and the 2002 ricin plot.

And those are just the ones I can remember.

I repeat:

Ive tried not to make this personal, despite your rabidly hysterical attempts to assert that I am 'distorting/whitewashing/giving succor to the evil Islamists' etc.

I will make this simple.


Europol collect stats on the frequency of terror attacks in Europe.
The GTD collects stats on reported terror attacks globally.
Both of those sources give more or less consistent statistics using more or less the same criteria.
The chart I posted is an accurate reflection of the stats.
Any accusation of distortion, propagandising for jihadis etc. aimed at me must apply also to Europol and the GTD.
You have used the GTD as your source, so presumably you think your own source is 'factually incorrect'.



Don't try and move the fucking goalposts - we were talking about terror plots, whether they succeeded, failed or were foiled.

Dear god man, dont you even see what youre doing?

First you said that foiled plots etc should be included.


that's before you consider that nearly all the plots documented in the UK are described as 'not specified', despite presumably including the chapati flour bomb plot, the underpants bomber, the Lee Rigby murder and god knows what else

Then you said they shouldnt be included:


A terror "plot" that begins and ends when some tragic special-needs case gets arrested for googling how 2 buy ricin on a public library computer is not equivalent to a sophisticated multiple bombing committed by a cell of Afghan-trained terrorists that kills tens or hundreds of people.

Then faced with evidence that your own source agrees with a source you claim is 'distorting/whitewashing islamist violence etc.' that they should now again be included.

Thats three times you've 'moved the goalposts' on just this one single point.

Both GTD and Europol do not, afaik include 'plots' unless some attempt was made to carry them out, understandably enough, as govts, security forces & the media have occasionally be known to exaggerate these things for political and other purposes.


But yeah, I think it would be preferable if you stopped 'engaging' because you're not behaving rationally or making any argument other than "You bad, stop defending teh evil muslamics."

droid
17-11-2015, 02:08 PM
This is very sad:

https://twitter.com/ParisVictims?lang=en

baboon2004
18-11-2015, 11:26 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/18/turkey-cut-islamic-state-supply-lines-erdogan-isis

This is all very interesting - is its central claim true though? Would Isis collapse quickly with a Turkish blockade of the type it has imposed upon Kurdish territories? Pretty extraordinary if that's the case.

craner
19-11-2015, 10:01 AM
It is true that the PKK did fight a sometimes ugly guerilla war with Turkey in the 1990s

Erm...no.

This reads like transparent PKK propaganda, and reminds me a bit of the gullible fools like Con Coughlin who push the pro-MEK arguments in regard to Iran.

It's not incorrect that the Turkish state has an ambiguous relationship with ISIS and JN, but the idea that the only block to defeating the Islamic State is for Turkey to allow the PKK/YPG free reign in Syria is...overstating you could say, or fantasy.

droid
19-11-2015, 10:34 AM
'Ambiguous'?

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/09/turkey-syria-daily-exposes-transfer-weapons-supplies-to-isis.html

Turkey is bombing the Kurds, attacking HDP rallies, dragging the bodies of the relatives of Kurdish politicians through the streets and shipping arms to ISIS.

They see an opportunity here.

craner
19-11-2015, 11:19 AM
Well, I'm not denying that arms have been shipped, I haven't got a clue either way, but your source there is an ally of Fethullah Gulen! Hardly impeccable.

droid
19-11-2015, 11:25 AM
Just the first I came across, there is, afaik, significant evidence. Enemy of my enemy is my friend etc.

baboon2004
19-11-2015, 06:22 PM
It's not incorrect that the Turkish state has an ambiguous relationship with ISIS and JN, but the idea that the only block to defeating the Islamic State is for Turkey to allow the PKK/YPG free reign in Syria is...overstating you could say, or fantasy.

Yeah, that claim seems dubious - but how about the claim made that Isis would fall apart if its supply lines through Turkey were stopped (whether or not the Turkish government itself is itself the providers of arms)? Would this in itself be enough to cripple Isis materially?

sufi
19-11-2015, 06:30 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqHNIEWkHuQ

sufi
19-11-2015, 06:35 PM
http://www.juancole.com/2015/11/terrorism-the-other-religions.html

trza
19-11-2015, 09:53 PM
captagon?

craner
20-11-2015, 08:57 AM
but how about the claim made that Isis would fall apart if its supply lines through Turkey were stopped (whether or not the Turkish government itself is itself the providers of arms)? Would this in itself be enough to cripple Isis materially?

I have absolutely no idea, sorry - it would be good if it could, though, wouldn't it? Certainly preferable to flattening what remains of Raqqa.

Mr. Tea
20-11-2015, 10:40 AM
Hey droid, sufi wants to play too, can you deal him a hand please?


http://www.juancole.com/2015/11/terrorism-the-other-religions.html

I don't even know where to begin with the degree of inconsistency, whataboutery and flim-flam presented here. The world wars, in which religion (other than Nazi mysticism and Japanese Emperor-worship) played no significant part, can be put down to "Christians killing each other", while 1.5 million Armenians were massacred by "secular" Turks? Give me a fucking break.

Oh, and there's a link to another page of willful misinterpretation of the Europol terrorism data.

sadmanbarty
20-11-2015, 12:14 PM
Mr. Tea, I think you'll like this one:

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/665265126723973120

Mr. Tea
20-11-2015, 12:30 PM
Mr. Tea, I think you'll like this one:

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/665265126723973120

I'm aware there are huge double standards displayed by Western governments and much of the mainstream media about what constitutes "terrorism" and who is and isn't a "terrorist" - that much is obvious to anyone who thinks about it even for a moment.

What I'm taking issue with is people who, while claiming to debunk propaganda and present the unbiased truth, are guilty of exactly the same sort of fallacies, except in the opposite direction.

sadmanbarty
20-11-2015, 12:44 PM
I'm aware there are huge double standards displayed by Western governments and much of the mainstream media about what constitutes "terrorism" and who is and isn't a "terrorist" - that much is obvious to anyone who thinks about it even for a moment.

What I'm taking issue with is people who, while claiming to debunk propaganda and present the unbiased truth, are guilty of exactly the same sort of fallacies, except in the opposite direction.

I know, I agree. I was just being cheeky.

sufi
20-11-2015, 06:40 PM
Hey droid, sufi wants to play too, can you deal him a hand please?



I don't even know where to begin with the degree of inconsistency, whataboutery and flim-flam presented here. The world wars, in which religion (other than Nazi mysticism and Japanese Emperor-worship) played no significant part, can be put down to "Christians killing each other", while 1.5 million Armenians were massacred by "secular" Turks? Give me a fucking break.

Oh, and there's a link to another page of willful misinterpretation of the Europol terrorism data.

fine words and fancy talk is all very well, but what do you really think ;)

http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2015-11-14/outrage-at-paris-attacks-masks-our-racism/

craner
20-11-2015, 08:57 PM
Why am I the only one who gets disciplined by Sufi?

trza
20-11-2015, 09:38 PM
i am so tired of all the condensation coming from that guy

craner
20-11-2015, 10:03 PM
Who, me? What'd I do?

Mr. Tea
21-11-2015, 06:32 PM
fine words and fancy talk is all very well, but what do you really think ;)

http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2015-11-14/outrage-at-paris-attacks-masks-our-racism/

If being outraged by something objectively outrageous is "racist", can I ask what is a suitably non-racist reaction to an event like the Bataclan massacre? A bored shrug? A smirk? Some mumbled words of apologetics about, like, Iraq and stuff? Or do you look around for someone who looks like they might be a little bit outraged - a little bit sad, shocked or even angry about the murder of 130 people by religious fascists - and adopt a serious, weary and somewhat superior tone, like a teacher admonishing a backwards schoolboy, before delivering a little lecture or sermon about Islamophobia, and bias in the media, etc. etc., and then pat yourself on the back for having Done Your Bit To Fight Racism that day?

And people wonder why the Left has an image problem about being elitist, out of touch, sanctimonious and so on.

droid
21-11-2015, 08:21 PM
Its political correctness gone mad.

HMGovt
21-11-2015, 09:24 PM
http://www.politico.eu/article/molenbeek-broke-my-heart-radicalization-suburb-brussels-gentrification/

The debate is paralyzed by a paternalistic discourse in which radical Muslim youths are seen, above all, as victims of social and economic exclusion. They in turn internalize this frame of reference, of course, because it arouses sympathy and frees them from taking responsibility for their actions. The former Socialist mayor Philippe Moureax, who governed Molenbeek from 1992 to 2012 as his private fiefdom, perfected this culture of denial and is to a large extent responsible for the current state of affairs in the neighborhood.

Two journalists had already reported on the presence of radical Islamists in Molenbeek and the danger they posed — and both became victims of character assassination. In 2006, Hind Fraihi, a young Flemish woman of Morrocan descent published “Undercover in Little Morocco: Behind the Closed Doors of Radical Islam.” Her community called her a traitor; progressive media called her a “spy” and a “girl with personal problems.”

sadmanbarty
21-11-2015, 10:37 PM
Its political correctness gone mad.

Like a lot of cliche's, 'political correctness gone mad' is trite and furthermore the kind of ill informed reactionary views that accompany it are usually laughable.

That being said, political correctness in it's present form is by no means a benign phenomenon.In terms of real world examples, it has been suggested that political correctness was in part responsible for the authorities inaction in the Victoria Climbie case and likewise in cases of grooming gangs.

In the more abstract sense it is incongruent to the philosophy of science (which should be applied to the social sciences); namely no theory can ever be proved. Also much political correctness is based on straw man arguments and by extension ad hominem attacks. For example the debate about immigration is turned into an argument about race and thus those out of line are deemed racist.

I would stress however that the right use similar tactics; criticism of Israel's foreign policy is deemed anti-Israeli or even anti semitic. Similarly criticism of American foreign policy is deemed anti-America, against the troops, etc.

Mr. Tea
22-11-2015, 05:41 PM
Its political correctness gone mad.

Gosh droid, with material of this calibre you must have Stewart Lee breaking out in cold sweats!

sufi
22-11-2015, 05:42 PM
astonishing photo


https://newmatilda.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/oz-gov-deterrence-ad-Quetta-orig.jpg

The Meezan Chouk attack in Quetta, In September 2010. In the background is a billboard sponsored by the Australian Government, warning locals of the danger of getting on a boat to seek asylum.

via https://newmatilda.com/2015/11/14/paris-attacks-highlight-western-vulnerability-and-our-selective-grief-and-outrage/

droid
22-11-2015, 06:28 PM
Gosh droid, with material of this calibre you must have Stewart Lee breaking out in cold sweats!

I admit, Im having trouble keeping up with your sparklingly insightful analysis.

Mr. Tea
25-11-2015, 10:50 PM
If we can get away from reflexive and increasingly meaningless accusations of "racism" for a moment, consider the following. Isn't it possible, in fact extremely likely, that news agencies in the Middle East may have devoted more airtime and column inches to the recent Beirut bombings than to the Bataclan massacre? Is it really that surprising that people pay closer attention to things happening "nearby", in global terms? Your average person living in Britain, or anywhere in western Europe, is more likely to have a personal connection to France than they are to Lebanon. Three people I know - one French, two British - were in Paris when the attacks happened.

That's not to say there isn't an important conversation to be had about the media filter and how much attention is paid to certain events and why. But in the aftermath of the massacre I saw a number of people who weren't so much interested in having that conversation as they were in trying to make people who were feeling shocked and saddened by the atrocity feel worse by branding them "racist", and then patting themselves on the back for their achievement. And then there was endlessly repeated charge that "the media" (what, all of it?) hadn't reported the Beirut atrocities at all, which was flat-out untrue.

sadmanbarty
26-11-2015, 09:01 AM
1) I presume that it's an innate component of human cognition to experience greater empathy for those we consider 'us' or for those whose lives more closely mirror ours.

2) I imagine that most people aren't particularly shocked by a terror attack happening in the middle east, whereas one happening int Europe/ the west, has more of a novelty factor (although that's diminishing).

3) The Paris attacks suggest more about our societies then those in Beirut. Britain isn't part of the Iran/Shia - Saudi/Sunni conflict that has provoked the attacks in Lebanon. It does however have 'conditions' similar to France- former colony Muslim immigrants, similar foreign policy, etc.

droid
26-11-2015, 10:13 AM
If we can get away from reflexive and increasingly meaningless accusations

lol. Yes, please. If we can.

Mr. Tea
26-11-2015, 12:27 PM
1) I presume that it's an innate component of human cognition to experience greater empathy for those we consider 'us' or for those whose lives more closely mirror ours.

I think it's as much about geographical proximity as anything else. I mean, I've been to France, and I've been to Lebanon, but I've spent a hell of a lot more time in France than I have in Lebanon. This is bound to be true for most people in the UK (and in Ireland, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Spain...). I know French people living in the UK and British people living in France, including my parents, so the likelihood of someone I know being directly affected by a momentous event happening there is just that much higher.

Likewise, my brother lives in Sydney about a five minute walk from the café where that guy took those hostages last December. The office where his girlfriend works is even closer and they got evacuated. [edit: OK, so Australia isn't close to the UK geographically but it's close in terms of the degree of population exchange - and yes, culture, language, shared history...] Friends of mine in Holland said thankfully (for them, I mean) no-one they knew was on flight MH17 when I contacted them following that disaster, but one told me "everyone knows someone who's lost someone".

Which is not at all the same thing as finding the murder of any given French, Australian or Dutch person I don't know any more inherently tragic and unjust than the murder of any given Lebanese (or Syrian, Iraqi, Nigerian, Malian...) person I don't know.


2) I imagine that most people aren't particularly shocked by a terror attack happening in the middle east, whereas one happening int Europe/ the west, has more of a novelty factor (although that's diminishing).

3) The Paris attacks suggest more about our societies then those in Beirut. Britain isn't part of the Iran/Shia - Saudi/Sunni conflict that has provoked the attacks in Lebanon. It does however have 'conditions' similar to France- former colony Muslim immigrants, similar foreign policy, etc.

Yes, I think those facts are part of it too.

sadmanbarty
26-11-2015, 12:44 PM
I think it's as much about geographical proximity as anything else. .

Lebanon is closer to the UK then America or Australia, but I'd imagine attacks in the latter two would get more coverage.

Just in context of the novelty factor, take mass shootings in the US. I remember Virginia Tech getting loads of press, however as attacks have become more everyday, they have diminished from the news cycle.

Mr. Tea
26-11-2015, 10:09 PM
Lebanon is closer to the UK then America or Australia, but I'd imagine attacks in the latter two would get more coverage.

I guess you might be right about "people like 'us'" - I suppose that's not totally separable from "countries you're more likely to have a personal connection to". But it's still got more to do with culture than race per se, which is why the kneejerk cry of "racism" is getting a bit tiresome.


Just in context of the novelty factor, take mass shootings in the US. I remember Virginia Tech getting loads of press, however as attacks have become more everyday, they have diminished from the news cycle.

Yes, it's horrible when your reaction slides from "God, how to awful" to "Oh for fuck's sake, not again". But there are attacks and there are attacks - I mean, mass shootings are old news in America but Islamist terror is still new enough to have a certain shock value - even while there's a very long-established tradition of far-right terrorism that, as many people have pointed out, tends to get put down to "lone madmen" or "psychopaths" rather than described as terrorism as such.

droid
27-11-2015, 11:59 AM
Like a lot of cliche's, 'political correctness gone mad' is trite and furthermore the kind of ill informed reactionary views that accompany it are usually laughable...

Its been a long time since Ive had to point out to anyone here that I was being sarcastic, but you're relatively new here so Ill give you a pass. ;)

sadmanbarty
27-11-2015, 12:14 PM
Its been a long time since Ive had to point out to anyone here that I was being sarcastic, but you're relatively new here so Ill give you a pass. ;)

I knew you were being sarcastic. I thought you were mocking Mr. Tea by comparing his opinions to those held by the kind of person who says "political correctness gone mad". I didn't actually think that was your genuine point of view.

droid
27-11-2015, 12:19 PM
I knew you were being sarcastic. I thought you were mocking Mr. Tea by comparing his opinions to those held by the kind of person who says "political correctness gone mad". I didn't actually think that was your genuine point of view.

Ok, good. :D I most certainly was.

Mr. Tea
27-11-2015, 12:58 PM
I was being sarcastic

Yes droid, literally nobody has ever done or said anything hyperbolic, counterproductive, irrational or flat-out malicious in the name of identity politics or 'social justice'.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/university-yoga-class-suspended-over-cultural-appropriation-dispute-a6744426.html

baboon2004
27-02-2016, 03:34 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/27/gap-year-students-deciding-asylum-claims

It's hard to be surprised by anything recently, but this does seem particularly unbelievable

sadmanbarty
25-03-2016, 12:42 PM
This thread has had some talk of terrorism on it, so I'll post this stuff here. It's not surprising, but I'm glad to see the media pointing it out.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brussels-attacks-saudi-arabia-influence-oil-contracts-sowed-seeds-radicalism-belgium-great-mosque-a6745996.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/03/23/the-roots-of-belgiums-islamist-threat-reach-back-to-saudi-arabia/

Mr. Tea
29-03-2016, 08:10 AM
That's not to say there isn't an important conversation to be had about the media filter and how much attention is paid to certain events and why. But in the aftermath of the massacre I saw a number of people who weren't so much interested in having that conversation as they were in trying to make people who were feeling shocked and saddened by the atrocity feel worse by branding them "racist", and then patting themselves on the back for their achievement. And then there was endlessly repeated charge that "the media" (what, all of it?) hadn't reported the Beirut atrocities at all, which was flat-out untrue.

Interesting piece by the Guardian's social media editor.

http://medium.com/@martinbelam/the-difficulty-of-getting-people-to-read-about-lahore-5a82bf1c8e6d#.50vv7ifw4

Basic thrust is that when people say "Why isn't the media reporting on [latest atrocity in a third-world country]?", very often what they really mean is "I can't be arsed to read about it." In other words, the story is there, but it doesn't get read as much (by white and/or Anglophone people, I mean), so it doesn't get shared as much, so people who get their day's news by glancing at their Facebook/Twitter feed don't find out about it - until they see one of their friends complaining about the "media blackout", when they could have read about it by going to the BBC news homepage, the homepage of any remotely "quality" newspaper or, heaven forfend, buying a print edition.

Also there's the unfortunate but unavoidable fact that there's always much more follow-up coverage of big events that happen nearby as much because it's far easier and cheaper to send journalists from London to Brussels or Paris than to Lahore or Bangkok as for any other reason.

vimothy
29-03-2016, 02:27 PM
People are more interested in being sanctimonious about the lack of coverage of foreign affairs than they are in actually reading it.

Mr. Tea
29-03-2016, 03:23 PM
People are more interested in being sanctimonious about the lack of coverage of foreign affairs than they are in actually reading it.

Sadly I think this is frequently the case.

craner
29-03-2016, 08:12 PM
Exactly right Mr. Tea. It drives me nuts, this line of argument. It reached a peak, I think, after Paris, with all these idiots posting "what about Lebanon?" links, and it was often the first time I'd seen them say anything about Lebanon. What about Lebanon? Well, I don't know, do you read all of the reports about Lebanon in the papers? Do you bother with the international pages? They're not that hard to find.

trza
29-03-2016, 08:21 PM
lebanomenon

craner
29-03-2016, 09:49 PM
I mean, it drives me nuts, but I also understand it too. I got a bit bored reading The Times last week, it was like 4 pages on Belgium with no new information to convey; that space could have been better used. And the emotive use of media, rather than reportage or analysis, I object to (I think The Independent started this shit in 2003, with their front page editorials). I also get bored and frustrated by the emphasis on domestic political squabbles. But, that's just because I am more interested in international affairs, fundamentally; it would be unreasonable of me to expect UK media to be putting the internal machinations of Uzbekistan on the front page however important I feel that particular story is. But I can always find the story if I look for it, on the BBC, in the Guardian or the Herald Tribune, or RFE/RL or Eurasianet online. You know, you have to make a bit of effort yourself, rather than just complain that the media is not serving it up to you on a plate.

craner
29-03-2016, 09:56 PM
I get a bit strict on this. My response is: "fine, you haven't been paying attention, then. Not my fault."

droid
20-04-2016, 02:17 PM
Zizek, that exemplar of the left on the refugee crisis.

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10153691102191939/

droid
23-11-2016, 01:07 PM
Breaking: Thomas Mair guilty of murder of Jo Cox.

Thomas Mair guilty on all four counts: murder, possession of a firearm, GBH, possession of dagger. Unanimous jury

Mair asked via his barrister to address the court before sentencing. Mr Justice Wilkie declined to give him opportunity to make a speech.

Thomas Mair given whole life sentence for murder of Jo Cox MP. Can only be released, if ever, by the Home Secretary.

Judge Wilkie: "There is no doubt that this murder was done to advance the cause of violent white nationalism."

droid
23-11-2016, 01:10 PM
Brexit thread shut for some bizarre reason, so thought this was the most apt place.

sadmanbarty
01-02-2017, 01:43 PM
Pretty good considering it's from 2009. Droid might like it

http://crookedtimber.org/2009/10/05/twilight-of-the-reds-pinks/

Leo
08-02-2017, 07:58 PM
not related to immigration in the EU but thought i'd put this from mediapost here:


DHS May Require Social Media Passwords From Some Travelers

The Department of Homeland Security is considering a new rule that would require individuals from the seven countries affected by the administration’s recent travel moratorium to hand over their social-media passwords in order to gain entry to the United States, according to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly.

Kelly mentioned the password requirement as one of a number of possible new vetting procedures for travelers in testimony to Congress on Tuesday.

The House Homeland Security Committee called Kelly to explain what measures the administration plans to implement after its 90-day ban on travelers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen ends. That ban is currently being challenged in the courts.

In his testimony, Kelly told the committee: “We want to get on their social media, with passwords: What do you do, what do you say? If they don’t want to cooperate, then you don’t come in.”

Kelly noted that this proposal was prompted, in part, by the fact that U.S. officials can’t rely on background information provided by weak governments in countries like Syria, Somalia and Yemen, currently embroiled in civil wars.

"It’s very hard to truly vet these people in these countries, the seven countries... But if they come in, we want to say, what Web sites do they visit, and give us your passwords. So we can see what they do on the Internet," said Kelly"

Social media isn’t the only area under consideration for more intensive vetting: Kelly said DHS is also examining whether it can gain access to financial records, which could reveal possible ties to terrorist organizations.

All the new screening measures would be implemented in the countries of origin: “But over there we can ask them for this kind of information and if they truly want to come to America, then they will cooperate. If not, next in line.”

The previous administration had already introduced social-media screening for foreign travelers, but at a much lower level. In December, the DHS began asking visitors from abroad to voluntarily provide details of their social-media accounts – but not passwords.
Under the current screening system, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection service includes a query on its Electronic System for Travel Authorization form for individuals seeking entrance to the country under a visa waiver program, asking them to provide information identifying their social media accounts.

The electronic form provides a pull-down menu that includes a number of major social networks like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube; it also asks for user names, screen names, or other identifying information.

sufi
09-02-2017, 09:43 PM
not related to immigration in the EU but thought i'd put this from mediapost here:
interesting ... i had a bit of a "lightbulb moment" a few years ago when a young (american) millennial (i suppose) explained how he'd built up his online rep by blogging, tweeting etc in his own name, while i'd always languished in the (quite possibly false) anonymity of online pseudonyms. made me feel like a daft old fart. maybe not so much now

sadmanbarty
15-03-2017, 08:19 PM
Netherlands, Ipsos exit poll:

VVD-ALDE: 21%
CDA-EPP 13%
PVV-ENF 13%
D66-ALDE 13%
GL-G/EFA 11%
SP-LEFT 9%
PvdA-S&D 6%

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/842103853873000448

yyaldrin
15-03-2017, 09:45 PM
Netherlands, Ipsos exit poll:

VVD-ALDE: 21%
CDA-EPP 13%
PVV-ENF 13%
D66-ALDE 13%
GL-G/EFA 11%
SP-LEFT 9%
PvdA-S&D 6%

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/842103853873000448

It's so extremely disappointing again. Sure, the PVV didn't won as much as was expected some weeks ago but where you read VVD you might as well just read PVV-Light, because they have shamelessly taken over a lot of the xenophobe and racist rhetoric of the PVV for the last few months. It will be another four years of conservative right-wing neo-liberal politics. Was really hoping for the left to finally gain some power but they (GL+SP) only got 20% of the votes.

Mr. Tea
15-03-2017, 09:49 PM
where you read VVD you might as well just read PVV-Light, because they have shamelessly taken over a lot of the xenophobe and racist rhetoric of the PVV for the last few months.

Something horribly familiar about this.

yyaldrin
15-03-2017, 10:06 PM
Something horribly familiar about this.

It's frustrating to read all the (non-)Dutch media writing about this result as if it is a loss for the PVV, populism and xenophobia, and as a sign of progressiveness, because it's not, it's just populism and xenophobia all over still except scattered over multiple parties. In a sense Geert Wilders even won, because his ideas have been standardized, his hate-speech has been normalized, and can now be found in other parties.

baboon2004
15-03-2017, 10:11 PM
It's so extremely disappointing again. Sure, the PVV didn't won as much as was expected some weeks ago but where you read VVD you might as well just read PVV-Light, because they have shamelessly taken over a lot of the xenophobe and racist rhetoric of the PVV for the last few months. It will be another four years of conservative right-wing neo-liberal politics. Was really hoping for the left to finally gain some power but they (GL+SP) only got 20% of the votes.

So if I'm reading the acronyms correctly, the Labour Party vote collapsed from 24% to 6% in the past five years. Presumably they occupy much the same centre-right territory as Labour in the UK and are another victim of Pasokification?

20% for the Greens and Socialists might be disappointing from a Netherlands viewpoint, but looks at least promising from an outsider's perspective, since it says here that the SP actually opposes privatisation (unlike some alleged socialist parties). Chances of such parties getting 20% in the UK are risibly low, though I suppose the Greens are majorly stymied by the lack of proportional representation and the resulting lack of publicity/sense that they're 'worth' voting for (which on the upside also ensures UKIP have 1 MP, but sadly doesn't stop millions voting for them or deny them publicity).

yyaldrin
15-03-2017, 10:24 PM
So if I'm reading the acronyms correctly, the Labour Party vote collapsed from 24% to 6% in the past five years. Presumably they occupy much the same centre-right territory as Labour in the UK and are another victim of Pasokification?

20% for the Greens and Socialists might be disappointing from a Netherlands viewpoint, but looks at least promising from an outsider's perspective, since it says here that the SP actually opposes privatisation (unlike some alleged socialist parties). Chances of such parties getting 20% in the UK are risibly low, though I suppose the Greens are majorly stymied by the lack of proportional representation and the resulting lack of publicity/sense that they're 'worth' voting for (which on the upside also ensures UKIP have 1 MP, but sadly doesn't stop millions voting for them or deny them publicity).

This is true yes.

I had to look up Pasokification, is this correct: "reducing a country's main social democratic party to the smallest party in parliament as a result of the rise of a more radical left party"?. Because I would say they have not been reduced due to the rise of a more radical left but by a more radical right in fact. A lot of old (Dutch) Labour Party voters have moved to the PVV of Geert Wilders (who, besides being the trademark Muslim/immigrant-basher also has a rather economically socialist program, in fact, it parallels the actual Socialist Party on quite some points). It's especially the Greens (GL) that have won on the left side and this is almost completely due to young voters.

droid
15-03-2017, 10:26 PM
Young voters are the future though.

Positives are the quadrupling of the green vote and wilders dropping to 13% after polls showing 25-40%. Very similar result to Austria actually.

Mr. Tea
15-03-2017, 10:43 PM
This is true yes.
A lot of old (Dutch) Labour Party voters have moved to the PVV of Geert Wilders (who, besides being the trademark Muslim/immigrant-basher also has a rather economically socialist program, in fact, it parallels the actual Socialist Party on quite some points).

This figures with stuff I've read elsewhere about how the PVV is mainly 'right-wing' or 'far-right' in its attitude to immigration in general and Muslims in particular, and that it's actually fairly liberal or even leftist in other regards. In fact I believe a main feature of Wilders' spiel is to say that Muslim immigrants with reactionary views are a threat to traditional Dutch tolerance and equality. I recall people talking about this tendency as 'the Left Right' when I lived there a few years ago.

baboon2004
15-03-2017, 11:23 PM
I had to look up Pasokification, is this correct: "reducing a country's main social democratic party to the smallest party in parliament as a result of the rise of a more radical left party"?

Well I guess it depends how you define it, but I understood it as the very rapid (by historical standards) collapse of the vote of the main social democratic party, to the benefit of parties both more left and more right (as Pasok's collapsed vote was by no means all due to Syriza, just as PSOE's -lesser- collapse certainly wasn't solely due to Podemos in Spain). And more widely as an indicator of the general collapse of the centre ground - as you said, the centre right is generally surviving/propspering by encroaching upon the nationalist/racist rhetoric of the far right, whereas the centre left is widely struggling to forge any new identity/convince voters it retains any relevance.Although Macron is an interesting case of course - compared to Blair in the media, but going out of this way to insist that 'left' and 'right' don't relate to his politics at all (but then the media is also hailing him as an outrageous success and model for UK centrists to follow, when his presumed place in the second electoral round depended upon Fillon self-destructing)

baboon2004
15-03-2017, 11:46 PM
This figures with stuff I've read elsewhere about how the PVV is mainly 'right-wing' or 'far-right' in its attitude to immigration in general and Muslims in particular, and that it's actually fairly liberal or even leftist in other regards. In fact I believe a main feature of Wilders' spiel is to say that Muslim immigrants with reactionary views are a threat to traditional Dutch tolerance and equality. I recall people talking this tendency as 'the Left Right' when I lived there a few years ago.

that fits neatly with Le Pen's apparent (and potentially v frightening) appeal to old-school socialist voters based on some economic policies that are generally considered left-wing/anti-neoliberal (obvious historical precedents here).

And I suppose that the shift in racism to largely focus upon invective against Islam (post-2001, or was it occurring before - I find it hard to remember) has often involved a shift in far right tactics to position itself as the defender of tolerance, of women's rights in particular and even of gay rights in some cases (as with Wilders, while Le Pen's attitude, well, it's pretty conflicted...: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/02/14/frances-marine-le-pen-quietly-pledges-to-end-same-sex-marriage/).

From a UK perspective, things could change a lot if UKIP decided to go down a similar path, taking its lead from the more 'sophisticated' European fascists rather than Trump (appealing disproportionately to voters who will soon be dead, while Le Pen scores highest among both 18-24 year olds and 35-49s). Though I guess that the UK voting public's attachment to neoliberalism would stop some of the same manoeuvres Le Pen is attempting.

The world is absurdly complicated right now.

yyaldrin
16-03-2017, 09:38 AM
If anyone is interested in how to interpret the Dutch elections, this is a good place to start in general: https://twitter.com/redlightvoices, and these few tweets sum up my feelings pretty precise: https://twitter.com/saramsalem/status/842307091125686272

firefinga
16-03-2017, 10:50 AM
Young voters are the future though.

Positives are the quadrupling of the green vote and wilders dropping to 13% after polls showing 25-40%. Very similar result to Austria actually.

It's of course encouraging - after Brexit and Trump's victory, it looked as if the populists' international was an unstoppable steamroller. As an Austrian I can verify everybody thought Hofer would win the presedential race here - but he didn't and he was actually losing gound. Same with Wilders. And, it's interesting how the polls now seem to exagerate the populists' possible votes, whereas until 2015 the populitsts usually had lower poll expectations than actual voting results.

At stake now is liberal western democracy, threatened by the populistswho all have authoritarian streaks in common. Sure you can lament liberal western democracy is most and foremost catering to the 5% wealthy (which it is) - still at least regarding personal freedoms and the rule of law this is way better than the "populist democracy" THEY propose.

The populists now begin to lose and don't match the (somewhat hyperbolic) expectations of themselves, their supporters and some fear-loving media.

Mr. Tea
16-03-2017, 12:55 PM
that fits neatly with Le Pen's apparent (and potentially v frightening) appeal to old-school socialist voters based on some economic policies that are generally considered left-wing/anti-neoliberal (obvious historical precedents here).

And I suppose that the shift in racism to largely focus upon invective against Islam (post-2001, or was it occurring before - I find it hard to remember) has often involved a shift in far right tactics to position itself as the defender of tolerance, of women's rights in particular and even of gay rights in some cases (as with Wilders, while Le Pen's attitude, well, it's pretty conflicted...: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/02/14/frances-marine-le-pen-quietly-pledges-to-end-same-sex-marriage/).

From a UK perspective, things could change a lot if UKIP decided to go down a similar path, taking its lead from the more 'sophisticated' European fascists rather than Trump (appealing disproportionately to voters who will soon be dead, while Le Pen scores highest among both 18-24 year olds and 35-49s). Though I guess that the UK voting public's attachment to neoliberalism would stop some of the same manoeuvres Le Pen is attempting.


It's notable that attitudes towards immigration and Islam/Muslims have become the litmus test for whether politicians in Europe are regarded as 'left-wing' or 'right-wing'. I don't know how serious Wilders really is about feminism, LGBT rights and animal rights, but it certainly puts him at odds with Le Pen and other far-right groups elsewhere in Europe, for whom he's expressed distaste - although he did form a coalition with the FN in the European parliament. But at any rate, it certainly makes him stand out, and it's notable that he's regarded as the successor to Pim Fortuyn, who was big on LGBT and women's rights and openly gay himself, of course. And he's very pro-Jewish, in contrast to most of the alt-right rabble currently taking over the USA.

The flipside to this is the unfortunate tendency of some on the capital-L Left to make common cause with Islamists whose views on women, gays and Jews would have them labelled far-right - neo-Nazi, even - if they were white.

Of course, all this is only half the story as it ignores the economic aspect - I don't really know where Wilders stands on this but it sounds like he's anti-austerity, at least, and is presumably keen on protecting 'ordinary Dutch people' (who may be working- or middle-class but are obvious white) from the deleterious effects of neoliberalism, although this is rather at odds with his professed admiration for Margaret Thatcher. I understand Le Pen has some policies that are pretty unarguably left-wing, if not 'socialist' per se. In this country, the fact that UKIP are obviously never going to get anywhere near direct power gives them (like the Greens) the luxury of not having to have anything close to a consistent economic policy*, with palaeosexist lunatic Godfrey Bloom drawing cheers from socialists for his criticism of the banking system while the party's MEPs can't even agree on whether or not the NHS should be privatized. Unlike the Greens, UKIP represents a significant enough vote drain to threaten the Tories and are also benefiting from Labour's implosion in some working-class former Labour strongholds. Indeed UKIP's real triumph is that its manifesto points are starting to become policy without the party occupying a single seat in the Commons.

*though they're arguably in good company with the present government on that score



The world is absurdly complicated right now.

Christ, you can say that again.

yyaldrin
16-03-2017, 01:06 PM
It's notable that attitudes towards immigration and Islam/Muslims have become the litmus test for whether politicians in Europe are regarded as 'left-wing' or 'right-wing'. I don't know how serious Wilders really is about feminism, LGBT rights and animal rights, but it certainly puts him at odds with Le Pen and other far-right groups elsewhere in Europe, for whom he's expressed distaste - although he did form a coalition with the FN in the European parliament. But at any rate, it certainly makes him stand out, and it's notable that he's regarded as the successor to Pim Fortuyn, who was big on LGBT and women's rights and openly gay himself, of course. And he's very pro-Jewish, in contrast to most of the alt-right rabble currently taking over the USA.

The flipside to this is the unfortunate tendency of some on the capital-L Left to make common cause with Islamists whose views on women, gays and Jews would have them labelled far-right - neo-Nazi, even - if they were white.

Of course, all this is only half the story as it ignores the economic aspect - I don't really know where Wilders stands on this but it sounds like he's anti-austerity, at least, and is presumably keen on protecting 'ordinary Dutch people' (who may be working- or middle-class but are obvious white) from the deleterious effects of neoliberalism, although this is rather at odds with his professed admiration for Margaret Thatcher. I understand Le Pen has some policies that are pretty unarguably left-wing, if not 'socialist' per se. In this country, the fact that UKIP are obviously never going to get anywhere near direct power gives them (like the Greens) the luxury of not having to have anything close to a consistent economic policy*, with palaeosexist lunatic Godfrey Bloom drawing cheers from socialists for his criticism of the banking system while the party's MEPs can't even agree on whether or not the NHS should be privatized. Unlike the Greens, UKIP represents a significant enough vote drain to threaten the Tories and are also benefiting from Labour's implosion in some working-class former Labour strongholds. Indeed UKIP's real triumph is that its manifesto points are starting to become policy without the party occupying a single seat in the Commons.

*though they're arguably in good company with the present government on that score



Christ, you can say that again.

This is Wilders' program, literally (meaning, it really is 1(!) page long):


“Enough of the mass immigration, asylum, terror, violence and lack of safety.
Here is our plan: instead of financing the entire world and the people we do not want here, we give our money back to the common Dutch person.
This is what the PVV [ed: name of Geert Wilders’ party or “Party for Freedom” in English] will do:
1) de-islamize the Netherlands
- Zero asylum seekers and no more immigrants from Muslim countries: we are closing our borders.
- Withdrawal of all residence permits already granted to asylum seekers; asylum seeker centers closed down.
- No more Muslim veils in public functions
- Ban of overall Muslim expressions that are against the public order
- Preventive incarceration of radical Muslims
- Criminals with double nationality stripped of their Dutch citizenship and deported
- Syrian fighters not allowed back in The Netherlands
- All Mosques and Muslim schools are to be closed and the Koran banned.
2) The Netherlands will reclaim its independence. Therefore, we leave the EU.
3) Direct democracy: binding referendums, citizens have the power.
4) Deductible/excess in healthcare insurance is eliminated
5) Rents to be lowered
6) Age of retirement back to 65 years old. Pensions for everyone.
7) No more money for foreign aid, windmills, art, innovation, public broadcasters, etc.
8) Past budget cuts involving care will be reversed.
9) Plenty extra funds for defense and police
10) Lower income taxes
11) 50% reduction for vehicle ownership taxes
Financial benefits per point [ED: the savings for the Dutch State that each of his points will provide]
1. + 7.2 billion Euro
2. to be calculated at a later date
3. to be calculated at a later date
4. — 3.7 billion Euro
5. — 1 billion Euro
6. — 3.5 billion Euro
7. + 10 billion Euro
8. — 2 billion Euro
9. — 2 billion Euro
10. — 3 billion Euro
11. — 2 billion Euro

From: https://medium.com/@flaviadzodan/be-afraid-geert-wilders-released-his-platform-for-next-years-election-a1ac453a0fff#.sqscgnlm1

Mr. Tea
16-03-2017, 01:15 PM
7) No more money for foreign aid, windmills, art, innovation, public broadcasters, etc.

Lol, only in the Netherlands.

Mr. Tea
04-04-2017, 02:49 PM
Anyone else see this breathtaking piece of hypocrisy in yesterday's Mail?

http://p0.politics.co.uk/rwd-full-photos/for-the-likes-of-the-daily-mail-to-now-be-di.21399704.jpg

YEAH AND I WONDER WHY PEOPLE MIGHT FEEL LIKE THAT ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS, PAUL DACRE.

baboon2004
06-04-2017, 09:20 AM
Broadly similarly - while Ken Livingstone is (or has become, I don't remember the GLC too well cos I was v young) a self-serving arsehole who tries to be controversial in unforgivable ways, the media witchhunt around him is something else. Give it a rest until inflammatory racialised comments are punished on every occasion, not just when they coincide with the wishes of right-wing tabloid owners/editors.

Boris Johnson intoning gravely on issues of racism and discrimination? What parallel dimension are we in?

Mr. Tea
06-04-2017, 12:20 PM
Boris Johnson intoning gravely on issues of racism and discrimination? What parallel dimension are we in?

Well yeeesss...but at the same time, being a hypocrite doesn't actually make him wrong, does it?

It can't all be blamed on "right-wing media witch-hunts", either. I dunno about you but my FB and Twitter feeds are chock full of people who are lifelong Labour voters, members of the party even, who are furious about KL and what they see as Corbyn's utterly inadequate response.

There's probably also an element of double standards, in that everyone knows the Tory party has always been riddled with bigots, whereas Labour are supposed to be, you know, the good guys.

baboon2004
06-04-2017, 12:49 PM
Well yeeesss...but at the same time, being a hypocrite doesn't actually make him wrong, does it?

It can't all be blamed on "right-wing media witch-hunts", either. I dunno about you but my FB and Twitter feeds are chock full of people who are lifelong Labour voters, members of the party even, who are furious about KL and what they see as Corbyn's utterly inadequate response.

There's probably also an element of double standards, in that everyone knows the Tory party has always been riddled with bigots, whereas Labour are supposed to be, you know, the good guys.

Not being wrong is not a sufficient standard. Might as well have Stuart Hall offering commentary on why the football child sex abuse scandal is terrible, if that's the only criterion. It acts as an unwarranted public rehabilitation for career media racists like BJ, which is ethically (and in every other way) repugnant.

There's more than an element of double standards to the Livingstone affair; it's a textbook example of how they play out in public life, particularly with a media fiercely invested in discrediting the Left, and powerful enough to concentrate the public conversation almost solely upon the racism that most certainly does feature on the Left, and disguise the fact that it is endemic in the Tory Party (obvs).

Fine for people with basic morals to hang Livingstone out to dry. But this isn't motivated by actual concern about anti-semitism from the Tory Party (as if!) - it's political. I think it's possible and appropriate to criticise both Livingstone and the oh-so-cynical tactics of the right wing.

droid
06-04-2017, 01:00 PM
Do we have to revisit the thread where this was discussed? There has been virtually no coherent evidence of serious anti-semitism within labour.

Livingstone is primarily a twonk rather than a racist, whereas the right are both.

Mr. Tea
06-04-2017, 01:16 PM
Baboon, your post above mentions Boris Johnson, the Tory party (twice) and 'the right wing' - you make some good points as far as that all goes, but I'm talking about the criticism that has come from within Labour itself or from within the broader Left. Or, indeed, from Jewish organizations or individuals who aren't aligned with any party but are concerned about hearing such inflammatory statements coming from a senior figure in the political establishment.



Livingstone is primarily a twonk rather than a racist...

Lol yeah, we should all just give Ken "Hitler Hitler Hitler, Jews don't vote Labour because they're all filthy rich, Hitler Hitler Hitler" Livingston the benefit of the doubt. Again.

Really, you're both illustrating extremely well the fact that antisemitism is the only form of racism that many on the left instinctively react to with a shrug, a smirk or a kneejerk counter-accusation of conspiracy and witch-hunt.

baboon2004
06-04-2017, 01:20 PM
Livingstone has to go, whatever. He's damaging the LP by association, and he doesn't seem to give a shit.

But this has to be accompanied by a serious attack on the Tories' abysmal record around race. Any party that allows itself to be branded racist by Theresa May without a savage counterattack is a fucking disaster.

Mr. Tea
06-04-2017, 01:47 PM
Well yes, it should be both. Unfortunately Corbyn is unwilling to properly discipline an old comrade like Livingstone and unable, for whatever reason, to offer much in the way of opposition to a Tory government that's been hijacked by the party's lunatic fringe. Perhaps in large part because, on the matter of the biggest issue of the day, he's fundamentally in agreement with them.

baboon2004
06-04-2017, 09:55 PM
Really, you're both illustrating extremely well the fact that antisemitism is the only form of racism that many on the left instinctively react to with a shrug, a smirk or a kneejerk counter-accusation of conspiracy and witch-hunt.

Er, I said Livingstone should go? But don't let what I actually said get in the way of your rant.

(now comes my rant)

And it's not a 'kneejerk counter-accusation' to suggest that any concern about racism coming from the Tory Party is laughable. It's not a conspiracy, it's a very clear political tactic.

If comments with extremely suspect undertones in terms of 'race' are a crime for which the punishment is ejection from the political party - as they should be - then Livingstone should be gone obviously (as above), but so should Boris Johnson, Zac Goldsmith and half the Tory Party. Selective morality is worse than no morality at all, because it's utterly unconnected with ethics and driven by cynical opportunism. At least you know where you are when people say what they really think...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/06/ken-livingstone-hitler-zionism-jews David Baddiel's article on KL is quite good - "The real problem, in a way, is the tone of Livingstone when giving this interpretation. There’s no sympathy. No compassion – no sense of the tragedy behind this." is more on point than anything else I've read. Actually engaging with what was said in an incisive way, is an underrated way of approaching this kind of media storm.

droid
06-04-2017, 11:05 PM
Lol yeah, we should all just give Ken "Hitler Hitler Hitler, Jews don't vote Labour because they're all filthy rich, Hitler Hitler Hitler" Livingston the benefit of the doubt. Again.

Really, you're both illustrating extremely well the fact that antisemitism is the only form of racism that many on the left instinctively react to with a shrug, a smirk or a kneejerk counter-accusation of conspiracy and witch-hunt.

Far be it from me to leap in front of your hobby horse yet again, but I was speaking specifically of the recent furore over Ken's zionist comment which I went to considerable effort to dismantle at the time (In the face of particularly pathetic opposition from yourself and Vim I might add).

His kapo comment several years earlier was of the same ilk. Idiotic, insensitive, possibly motivated by some level of racism, but also, no doubt a result of years of political accusations of anti-semitism due to his position on Israel.

TBH though, Im not interested in excusing him. Hes a twonk.

Mr. Tea
07-04-2017, 12:09 PM
Er, I said Livingstone should go? But don't let what I actually said get in the way of your rant.


Well hang on, you only explicitly said he should go after my above post about accusations of witch-hunting and whatnot. And my main point was that your last few posts have been about 10% "Yeah Ken is being kind of a dick here" and 90% "RAARRGH, THE TORIES, THE TORIES, THE TORIES!!!!". A lot of it has sounded rather like 'tu quoque', to be honest. My point was that KL (and by extension, Corbyn) has faced heavy criticism from within his own party and from non-aligned groups and individuals, so whatever the Tories are doing or saying is irrelevant in that respect.

But be that as it may: Tories in 'criticizing Labour' shocka! What do you expect? The parties have been bitter rivals for the 117 years that Labour has existed.


Far be it from me to leap in front of your hobby horse yet again...

What you did in that thread was give a lawyer-like breakdown of every word that KL said, while ignoring the spirit of it, which was "Zionists were in cahoots with Hitler; Hitler is the very definition of badness; ergo Zionism is likewise bad". As succinctly explained by David Baddiel in that excellent piece that baboon quoted from.

Moreover, I notice you've changed your tune from "KL is an idiot but not a racist" to "possibly motivated by some level of racism", which is a bit of a step change. Even so, I can't imagine you being this pedantic about the precise, technical definition of 'racism' if we were talking about someone who'd been accused of demonstrating prejudice against Muslims or black people, for example.