UK Politics Thread 18-inch Mark VI: Witty Title Forthcoming

[South Park Labourite]

Letting people think for themselves does mean that sometimes they'll think things you don't approve of. We can only try to teach them that they are wrong. We can't police their thoughts and beliefs and opinions.

Or we could not let them into the country? Same way we don't let in murderers or rapists for instance?

"With immigrants it's different - we citizens are letting them into our country, we expect them to fulfill a number of obligations that we set. If they don't, we can kick them out of the country."

What's wrong with not renewing their visa if the country isn't for them? If there's been let in on the assumption they'll behave in an ethical manner, surely there should be no issue and most would have their visa renewed?

Throwing people out of the country, not letting them in the country, not really a huge difference.

Anything less then open borders is immoral.

Am I calling you racist? When was this? When you were telling me about how corrupt Bangladeshis are? Or when you were explaining how superior British values march forward constantly while inferior Saudi values are stuck in the first millennium?

This is such a straw man... clan politics have been a well-documented phenomena in the Tower Hamlets Bangladeshi community. It something that needs to be called out and tackled, just as the political machine Tammany Hall was tackled in the US. The issue with clan politics is that it is sectarian and exclusionary of anyone not of a Bangaladeshi background and also encourages segregation and mistrust. Additionally, the Bangaladeshi Labour-supporting community has done little to oppose the influence of the extremist Islamic Forum of Europe, which promotes extremism and actually infiltrated the Tower Hamlets Labour Party, resulting in the expulsions of numerous members over the last five years including sitting councilors.

A lot of these sitting councilors who were expelled formed a party called Tower Hamlets First, which was exclusively monocultural with all their members being Bangaladeshi and also immensely patriarchal with only one female councillor out of 17. Is it racist to say the community has done little to oppose this? Because that's the truth - as has consistently been pointed out by the local MPs Jim Fitzpatrick and Rushanara Ali (of a Bengali background, would you believe it). Whenever anyone pointed this out in the local Labour Party accusation of racism often flew out, so you're not the first to defend something pretty reactionary.

Are we really going to argue that the social policy Saudi Arabia is morally the same as the United Kingdom's? We can have the argument. I'll win.

Will not integrating be a criminal offence?

Ridiculous question.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Letting people think for themselves does mean that sometimes they'll think things you don't approve of. We can only try to teach them that they are wrong. We can't police their thoughts and beliefs and opinions.

Or we could not let them into the country? Same way we don't let in murderers or rapists for instance?

Ah, the three greatest crimes. Murder, rape, and, most heinous of all, daring to disagree with Wolfmanne.

[South Park Labourite]

Or we could not let them into the country? Same way we don't let in murderers or rapists for instance?

Ah, the three greatest crimes. Murder, rape, and, most heinous of all, daring to disagree with Wolfmanne.

What's pretty heinous is that you're not able to make a productive contribution beyond that - and calling it productive is generous.

[Great Nepal]

Our judiciary should become more like the American one, because as we all know politicians are the appropriately qualified in everything including in determining qualifications of justices, having attended all the classes for few days; also don't worry replicating American system doesn't lead to politicization of judiciary or judges being selected on their views not legal qualifications, as is evident from Americas well run, and complete supreme court.

-Iain Duncan Smith

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Ah, the three greatest crimes. Murder, rape, and, most heinous of all, daring to disagree with Wolfmanne.

What's pretty heinous is that you're not able to make a productive contribution beyond that - and calling it productive is generous.

It was perfectly productive. I highlighted, in suitably snarky fashion, the false analogy. Murder and rape are crimes. Not holding "British values" is not.

[South Park Labourite]

Our judiciary should become more like the American one, because as we all know politicians are the appropriately qualified in everything including in determining qualifications of justices, having attended all the classes for few days; also don't worry replicating American system doesn't lead to politicization of judiciary or judges being selected on their views not legal qualifications, as is evident from Americas well run, and complete supreme court.

-Iain Duncan Smith

Oh please IDS.

[Ifreann]

Letting people think for themselves does mean that sometimes they'll think things you don't approve of. We can only try to teach them that they are wrong. We can't police their thoughts and beliefs and opinions.

Or we could not let them into the country? Same way we don't let in murderers or rapists for instance?

You could. But one wonders why you would want to enact a policy that treats believing things that you don't approve of the same as murder and rape.

"With immigrants it's different - we citizens are letting them into our country, we expect them to fulfill a number of obligations that we set. If they don't, we can kick them out of the country."

What's wrong with not renewing their visa if the country isn't for them? If there's been let in on the assumption they'll behave in an ethical manner, surely there should be no issue and most would have their visa renewed?

So you are, in fact, talking about deporting people for having opinions and beliefs and values that you don't like.

Throwing people out of the country, not letting them in the country, not really a huge difference.

Anything less then open borders is immoral.

Maybe you should ban that opinion as well.

Am I calling you racist? When was this? When you were telling me about how corrupt Bangladeshis are? Or when you were explaining how superior British values march forward constantly while inferior Saudi values are stuck in the first millennium?

This is such a straw man...

It's a question. Is that when I called you racist? Because if I was going to call you racist, it seems like I would have done it then, yeah? Only, I don't remember calling you racist, so maybe you could remind me when it was?

Are we really going to argue that the social policy Saudi Arabia is morally the same as the United Kingdom's? We can have the argument. I'll win.

I seem to recall that the contention was that British values march ever forward, constantly modernising, whereas Saudi values are frozen in the first millennium. But again, I was just asking if this was when I was calling you racist.

Will not integrating be a criminal offence?

Ridiculous question.

Is that a yes or a no?

[South Park Labourite]

You could. But one wonders why you would want to enact a policy that treats believing things that you don't approve of the same as murder and rape.

I wasn't making a moral equivalence. We already punish people for prejudice-motivated crimes - they're called hate crimes. Why do we want to let someone in who would verbally abuse black people and thus commit a hate crime? It's preventative.

So you are, in fact, talking about deporting people for having opinions and beliefs and values that you don't like.

It's not, failing to renew your visa and having to go home is not a deportation. You failed to renew your visa, so unless you want to be a criminal and overstay your visa, you have to go home.

Maybe you should ban that opinion as well.

You don't look any smarter by not engaging with the argument and responding with snark. It just shows you have nothing of substance.

It's a question. Is that when I called you racist? Because if I was going to call you racist, it seems like I would have done it then, yeah? Only, I don't remember calling you racist, so maybe you could remind me when it was?
---
I seem to recall that the contention was that British values march ever forward, constantly modernising, whereas Saudi values are frozen in the first millennium. But again, I was just asking if this was when I was calling you racist.

What was the point of that? So you just insinuated I'm a racist to make me explain how my points are factual then said 'ah but I never said you were a racist'. You've been trying to construct an argument to make me appear racist and have failed because I keep on proving I'm not, as I have the truth on my side. Why don't you just end it and say 'Wolf, in no way shape and form you've been racist in constructing your arguments'? Go on - do it.

[Ifreann]

What's pretty heinous is that you're not able to make a productive contribution beyond that - and calling it productive is generous.

It was perfectly productive. I highlighted, in suitably snarky fashion, the false analogy. Murder and rape are crimes. Not holding "British values" is not.

And I don't get that. Supposedly letting people into Britain who don't hold British values, or who don't adopt them quickly enough, is tearing the country apart or some such thing, people don't trust anyone different from them and don't have any faith in government institutions.

But people who have British citizenship, it's not anywhere near so big a deal if they don't hold British values. Try to convince them to change their minds, try to educate the next generation to know better, but don't do anything to them, don't fine them or imprison them or boot them out of the country.

[South Park Labourite]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38238980

So Chris Grayling opposed rail devolution of London's railways because of partisan politics. He's been blocking this takeover over fears of a Labour Mayor taking over, in spite of the fact TfL-ran transport is significantly better than privatised transport. My local MP, the Tory MP Bob Neill, wants him to resign - and I'm inclined to agree. I'll be writing a letter of support.

[Ifreann]

You could. But one wonders why you would want to enact a policy that treats believing things that you don't approve of the same as murder and rape.

I wasn't making a moral equivalence. We already punish people for prejudice-motivated crimes - they're called hate crimes. Why do we want to let someone in who would verbally abuse black people and thus commit a hate crime? It's preventative.

There's still a difference between people who have actually done things that are serious crimes in Britain and people who have beliefs that could, in theory, lead them to committing a crime.

So you are, in fact, talking about deporting people for having opinions and beliefs and values that you don't like.

Yes, get over it.

It's just that you said that you weren't talking about deporting people.

Maybe you should ban that opinion as well.

You don't look any smarter by not engaging with the argument and responding with snark. It just shows you have nothing of substance.

I'm more about feeling smarter myself than trying to look smart to people on NSG, but thanks for the advice all the same.

It's a question. Is that when I called you racist? Because if I was going to call you racist, it seems like I would have done it then, yeah? Only, I don't remember calling you racist, so maybe you could remind me when it was?
---
I seem to recall that the contention was that British values march ever forward, constantly modernising, whereas Saudi values are frozen in the first millennium. But again, I was just asking if this was when I was calling you racist.

What was the point of that? So you just insinuated I'm a racist to make me explain how my points are factual then said 'ah but I never said you were a racist'. You've been trying to construct to make me appear racist

Except I'm not. I'm pointing out that if I wanted to do that I have had ample opportunity, however fallacious it might have been. But contrary to your accusations I have not been calling you racist. Maybe you wish I had, so you could declare that you won't argue with someone who'll throw around baseless accusations, and decline to respond to any of my posts, and snarkily comment to anyone who does about "Oh don't say that, or Ifreann will call you a racist too! He calls everyone racist. He's a big racist-calling racist-caller." Great fun, I'm sure, if only I had actually called you racist. Awful of me.

and have failed because I keep on proving I'm not, as I have the truth on my side. Why don't you just end it and say 'Wolf, in no way shape and form you've been racist in constructing your arguments'? Go on - do it.

Nah. I reserve the right to characterise your arguments as racist if, in the future, I find that to be an appropriate thing to do.

[Frank Zipper]

I see Joshua Bonehill-Paine is in trouble again, for anti-Semitic harassment of a Labour MP. It is people like him that I worry about infiltrating Labour, even more than the Trots.

[The Huskar Social Union]

I see Joshua Bonehill-Paine is in trouble again, for anti-Semitic harassment of a Labour MP. It is people like him that I worry about infiltrating Labour, even more than the Trots.

Found this on the evening standard when i googled his name.

A Neo-Nazi extremist has been found guilty of waging a vile anti-Semitic hate campaign against MP Luciana Berger, dubbing her “evil” and a “filthy Jew B***h”.

Joshua Bonehill-Paine, 24, ranted about the MP for Liverpool Waverlee on his white supremacist website and blog, photoshopping her face on to a rat and blaming her for the death of Jesus.

What a Charming fella.

[Ifreann]

I see Joshua Bonehill-Paine is in trouble again, for anti-Semitic harassment of a Labour MP. It is people like him that I worry about infiltrating Labour, even more than the Trots.

Found this on the evening standard when i googled his name.

A Neo-Nazi extremist has been found guilty of waging a vile anti-Semitic hate campaign against MP Luciana Berger, dubbing her “evil” and a “filthy Jew B***h”.

Joshua Bonehill-Paine, 24, ranted about the MP for Liverpool Waverlee on his white supremacist website and blog, photoshopping her face on to a rat and blaming her for the death of Jesus.

What a Charming fella.

"Bonehill-Paine" is a pretty metal name, though.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Found this on the evening standard when i googled his name.

What a Charming fella.

"Bonehill-Paine" is a pretty metal name, though.

Its the name you would expect of the first idiotic raider boss you would fight in a post apocalyptic game

[Divitaen]

I wasn't making a moral equivalence. We already punish people for prejudice-motivated crimes - they're called hate crimes. Why do we want to let someone in who would verbally abuse black people and thus commit a hate crime? It's preventative.

There's still a difference between people who have actually done things that are serious crimes in Britain and people who have beliefs that could, in theory, lead them to committing a crime.

Yes, get over it.

It's just that you said that you weren't talking about deporting people.

You don't look any smarter by not engaging with the argument and responding with snark. It just shows you have nothing of substance.

I'm more about feeling smarter myself than trying to look smart to people on NSG, but thanks for the advice all the same.

What was the point of that? So you just insinuated I'm a racist to make me explain how my points are factual then said 'ah but I never said you were a racist'. You've been trying to construct to make me appear racist

Except I'm not. I'm pointing out that if I wanted to do that I have had ample opportunity, however fallacious it might have been. But contrary to your accusations I have not been calling you racist. Maybe you wish I had, so you could declare that you won't argue with someone who'll throw around baseless accusations, and decline to respond to any of my posts, and snarkily comment to anyone who does about "Oh don't say that, or Ifreann will call you a racist too! He calls everyone racist. He's a big racist-calling racist-caller." Great fun, I'm sure, if only I had actually called you racist. Awful of me.

and have failed because I keep on proving I'm not, as I have the truth on my side. Why don't you just end it and say 'Wolf, in no way shape and form you've been racist in constructing your arguments'? Go on - do it.

Nah. I reserve the right to characterise your arguments as racist if, in the future, I find that to be an appropriate thing to do.

What if those people with racist beliefs are expressing their opinions in a manner that could clearly inspire others to commit a violent hate crime, even if the adherent himself doesn't seek to commit such crimes? Isn't that equally dangerous and worthy of censure?

[Frank Zipper]

Joshua must be a slightly uncomfortable name for an anti-Semite though.

[Divitaen]

I see Joshua Bonehill-Paine is in trouble again, for anti-Semitic harassment of a Labour MP. It is people like him that I worry about infiltrating Labour, even more than the Trots.

Well there has been a resurgence of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party recently so its a pretty valid concern. Also do you know if this "Bonehill-Paine" is a Labour voter or just a dick?

[Ostroeuropa]

What if those people with racist beliefs are expressing their opinions in a manner that could clearly inspire others to commit a violent hate crime, even if the adherent himself doesn't seek to commit such crimes? Isn't that equally dangerous and worthy of censure?

Got an example?

[Divitaen]

What if those people with racist beliefs are expressing their opinions in a manner that could clearly inspire others to commit a violent hate crime, even if the adherent himself doesn't seek to commit such crimes? Isn't that equally dangerous and worthy of censure?

Got an example?

The 47% spike in hate crimes in the UK after all the xenophobic rhetoric from Leave campaigners is one such example.

[Ostroeuropa]

Got an example?

The 47% spike in hate crimes in the UK after all the xenophobic rhetoric from Leave campaigners is one such example.

So suppose people started talking about tax evasion and a rich guy got shanked, are taxes suddenly off the table too? Why not?

[Divitaen]

The 47% spike in hate crimes in the UK after all the xenophobic rhetoric from Leave campaigners is one such example.

So suppose people started talking about tax evasion and a rich guy got shanked, are taxes suddenly off the table too? Why not?

You kinda have to demonise a minority group and actively portray them as a threat in order for that to happen. And as far as I know I've never heard of any hate crimes against the wealthy inspired by sensible revelations of tax evasions. Was there a 47% spike in hate crimes against rich people in the UK after the Panama Papers were released? No, so its a false equivalency.

[Frank Zipper]

Does anybody agree with Bonehill-Paine's methods?

[Ostroeuropa]

So suppose people started talking about tax evasion and a rich guy got shanked, are taxes suddenly off the table too? Why not?

You kinda have to demonise a minority group and actively portray them as a threat in order for that to happen. And as far as I know I've never heard of any hate crimes against the wealthy inspired by sensible revelations of tax evasions. Was there a 47% spike in hate crimes against rich people in the UK after the Panama Papers were released? No, so its a false equivalency.

It's difficult to register the number of spikes when the crime probably goes unrecorded.
If someone spat in the burgers of every muslim they served, would you consider that a hate crime?

Now consider the rich.
Maybe we should ban the left wing, right?

Or at least, appoint someone to determine whether what they say will lead to anti-rich hatecrimes. I'm sure you're happy being censored by those looking out for the rich.

This is the problem, you're using "But harm!" as a reason to justify censorship, then doubling down and refusing to allow other perspectives on harm except a left wing one. You're dodging between universalist principles and progressive ones. It's a common tactic from the new left.

Why shouldn't we censor left wing speech if it causes harm?

And this is MAINSTREAM at this point among the left, this absurd, "Only we are an acceptable way to view the world" censorship campaign. And you wonder why people are ditching the left wing.

[Divitaen]

You kinda have to demonise a minority group and actively portray them as a threat in order for that to happen. And as far as I know I've never heard of any hate crimes against the wealthy inspired by sensible revelations of tax evasions. Was there a 47% spike in hate crimes against rich people in the UK after the Panama Papers were released? No, so its a false equivalency.

It's difficult to register the number of spikes when the crime probably goes unrecorded.
If someone spat in the burgers of every muslim they served, would you consider that a hate crime?

Now consider the rich.
Maybe we should ban the left wing, right?

I never advocated banning the right wing in its entirety. I'm just saying extreme cases of advocating for the discrimination of an entire vulnerable, minority group, or promoting harmful stereotypes that a group of people is homogenously dangerously, is something which should be banned, and to be fair most developed nations already have hate speech laws so I'm not really proposing anything new, just saying we should retain what we already have.