|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jul 16, 2021 12:19:35 GMT
Maybe you'd prefer it being on Wikipedia. Are you saying anything I wrote was inaccurate or untruthful? Please specify the precise edit. Or go away and sit under a bridge somewhere. Are you saying that leaflet in Batley and Spen didn't exist? If so then tell me which bridge you're under and I'll bring a flask. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 16, 2021 12:29:06 GMT
Are you saying anything I wrote was inaccurate or untruthful? Please specify the precise edit. Or go away and sit under a bridge somewhere. Are you saying that leaflet in Batley and Spen didn't exist? If so then tell me which bridge you're under and I'll bring a flask. I wrote that nothing on it was anti-Indian. And you can see exactly where I wrote it because it's on this page. Are you a complete simpleton or just pretending to be one? It seems to be the only thing you're good at. |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jul 16, 2021 12:51:09 GMT
Are you saying that leaflet in Batley and Spen didn't exist? If so then tell me which bridge you're under and I'll bring a flask. I wrote that nothing on it was anti-Indian. And you can see exactly where I wrote it because it's on this page. Are you a complete simpleton or just pretending to be one? It seems to be the only thing you're good at. I'm not simple enough to think that leaflet in B&S was anything other than race-baiting. Obviously you are. |
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Jul 16, 2021 12:51:54 GMT
So anyway is Galloway taking a petition forward or is he just making hot air? I suppose we have about a week to find out. I'm sure he's raising money for the costs of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 16, 2021 13:03:50 GMT
I wrote that nothing on it was anti-Indian. And you can see exactly where I wrote it because it's on this page. Are you a complete simpleton or just pretending to be one? It seems to be the only thing you're good at. I'm not simple enough to think that leaflet in B&S was anything other than race-baiting. Obviously you are. The leaflet mentioned foreign policy issues. It didn't say anything about race. Anything else is what you read into it, and if you're obsessed with race-baiting you'll see it whenever and wherever you care to. |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jul 16, 2021 13:05:34 GMT
I'm not simple enough to think that leaflet in B&S was anything other than race-baiting. Obviously you are. The leaflet mentioned foreign policy issues. It didn't say anything about race. Anything else is what you read into it, and if you're obsessed with race-baiting you'll see it whenever and wherever you care to. Yep. You are that simple. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 16, 2021 13:10:53 GMT
You have an insult, but not an argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2021 14:01:29 GMT
A photo of the Indian PM delivered to a seat with a Pakistani community is a leaflet designed to send a very specific message. I think we all know that.
|
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jul 16, 2021 14:08:33 GMT
You have an insult, but not an argument. The leaflet merely 'mentions' foreign matters, does it? In an area with a large Pakistani Kashmiri heritage population and a not insignificant Hindu one nearby, the Labour Party just happens to produce a leaflet showing the leader of their main opponent shaking hands with Modi but doesn't name the latter. And in an already heated atmosphere. Really? You don't think that's dog whistle politics of the lowest order? If you don't then let's get some more printed and we can go and deliver them together in Southall. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jul 16, 2021 14:31:43 GMT
I am not sure how Modi being a lightning rod is relevant here? Are you saying the British PM shouldn’t meet Modi officially because of this? The photo used in the leaflet essentially implies that Johnson shouldn’t have met Modi and this meeting means that Johnson is Islamophobic. As Modi is the PM of India (irrespective of the desires of Labour members or Muslims and whatever his popularity levels among Indians or Hindus), such a stance would logically be anti Indian and that’s how it has been construed in India by whoever actually pays attention to such stuff. It’s not even like Cameron who could’ve been said to have gone overboard by participating in Modi’s Wembley event in 2015. Here Johnson was just meeting Modi at some official function. I don't think you read my earlier posts in this lengthy exchange (going back to just after the election result). I made exactly that point. I was uncomfortable about the use of that image not for anxieties about stirring community tensions - Modi doesn't represent all Hindus, many of whom are appalled by the man. However I felt it was arguably unfair on Johnson, as most "guilt by association" propaganda is - and Labour is frequently on the receiving end of this. The leaflet implies "Don't vote Tory because they are mates with Modi". Simply meeting the man, as Indian prime minister, is part of the job. Unless Johnson made some laudatory comments about his past, or about his broader respect for human rights, then it isn't very fair to suggest a closer alignment. Or Labour should have made clear what we'd have said to Modi that was different. But these are qualms lost on all sides - these leaflets are common, showing a politician in the company of someone who people might not like or admire. It's my personal preference not to do that.
That concern isn't at all the same as the supposed concern about stirring community emnities that's been repeatedly spun.
Especially since Johnson is known to be very friendly with Imran Khan, so attacking him for shaking Modi's hand is not very fair.. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 16, 2021 14:35:14 GMT
A photo of the Indian PM delivered to a seat with a Pakistani community is a leaflet designed to send a very specific message. I think we all know that. That the Conservatives are aligned with the present government of India on the issue of Kashmir. That the Labour candidate would not be. That is a perfectly legitimate campaigning issue. Are you saying parties shouldn't campaign on foreign policy issues? Remember all those Lib Dem leaflets about the Iraq war distributed in areas where there were a lot of muslim majority voters - what about them? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 16, 2021 14:40:08 GMT
You have an insult, but not an argument. The leaflet merely 'mentions' foreign matters, does it? In an area with a large Pakistani Kashmiri heritage population and a not insignificant Hindu one nearby, the Labour Party just happens to produce a leaflet showing the leader of their main opponent shaking hands with Modi but doesn't name the latter. Obviously it doesn't "just happen". The leaflet makes the point that the Conservatives are aligned with the present government of India on the issue of Kashmir. That the Labour candidate would not be. That is a perfectly legitimate campaigning issue. And so what if it doesn't name him? Atmosphere's been heated since 1947. That's you with your race-baiting obsession adding that to what is not there on the page. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jul 16, 2021 14:45:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jul 16, 2021 16:00:43 GMT
A photo of the Indian PM delivered to a seat with a Pakistani community is a leaflet designed to send a very specific message. I think we all know that. That the Conservatives are aligned with the present government of India on the issue of Kashmir. That the Labour candidate would not be. That is a perfectly legitimate campaigning issue. Are you saying parties shouldn't campaign on foreign policy issues? Remember all those Lib Dem leaflets about the Iraq war distributed in areas where there were a lot of muslim majority voters - what about them? Come off it, there's all the difference in the world between those two examples. Of course parties should campaign on forign policy issues bu that's not what happened here. There are all sorts of matters that are important to some communities but mostly irrelevant in the rest of the county/borough/constituency/ward etc. I doubt if parties of any persuasion have put out leaflets in Coventry about the state of the fishing industry, or in Peckham about the Green Belt. There are those that a party wouldn't bother delievering elsewhere and those that they wouldn't dare. This one is definitely in the latter column. If you disagree then come and deliver some with me in the Leicester East by-election. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 16, 2021 16:50:45 GMT
The leaflet merely 'mentions' foreign matters, does it? In an area with a large Pakistani Kashmiri heritage population and a not insignificant Hindu one nearby, the Labour Party just happens to produce a leaflet showing the leader of their main opponent shaking hands with Modi but doesn't name the latter. Obviously it doesn't "just happen". The leaflet makes the point that the Conservatives are aligned with the present government of India on the issue of Kashmir. That the Labour candidate would not be. That is a perfectly legitimate campaigning issue. And so what if it doesn't name him? Atmosphere's been heated since 1947. That's you with your race-baiting obsession adding that to what is not there on the page. Youmust forgive him David. Bit of a slow learner. Not on the programme yet. He just can't grasp the difference between crafted Labour sincere leaflet campaigning ....... And muck-raking, dog-whistle, race-baiting Tory hate documents. He just can't grasp the simple fact that by definition Labour actions can't be racist and Tory one's always are. He's just a bit dim. How'e the anti-Semitism coming along? Making progress? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 16, 2021 18:09:54 GMT
That the Conservatives are aligned with the present government of India on the issue of Kashmir. That the Labour candidate would not be. That is a perfectly legitimate campaigning issue. Are you saying parties shouldn't campaign on foreign policy issues? Remember all those Lib Dem leaflets about the Iraq war distributed in areas where there were a lot of muslim majority voters - what about them? Come off it, there's all the difference in the world between those two examples. Of course parties should campaign on forign policy issues bu that's not what happened here. It's precisely what happened here and your inability to produce an actual argument on this topic is shining out. You accept that it's reasonable to campaign on foreign policy issues. So if you want to assert that it was the wording of the leaflet which was wrong, what's your alternative wording that communicates the message of support for Kashmir, opposition to the present Indian government's approach there, and outlines the way the Conservative government has aligned with the present Indian government? |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jul 16, 2021 18:18:20 GMT
Come off it, there's all the difference in the world between those two examples. Of course parties should campaign on forign policy issues bu that's not what happened here. It's precisely what happened here and your inability to produce an actual argument on this topic is shining out. You accept that it's reasonable to campaign on foreign policy issues. So if you want to assert that it was the wording of the leaflet which was wrong, what's your alternative wording that communicates the message of support for Kashmir, opposition to the present Indian government's approach there, and outlines the way the Conservative government has aligned with the present Indian government? Not just the wording but the tone and the subliminal tactics that allowed apologists like you to condone it. Like I say, the real test is if it could have gone out elsewhere without causing massive offence rather than just disagreement. This leaflet fails that test by a mile. Still not too low for some I notice. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2021 14:38:23 GMT
So anyway is Galloway taking a petition forward or is he just making hot air? I suppose we have about a week to find out. I'm sure he's raising money f or the costs of it.FTFY |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 17, 2021 15:20:56 GMT
I honestly think that Wataboutery is the the highest form of political discourse I thought that was taking things out of context. Whataboutery is where someone implicitly accepts something's indefensible but highlights a similar offence from the opposite side. In this case I was arguing that the leaflet was perfectly acceptable, as were the Lib Dem leaflets. So it's not you saw here. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jul 17, 2021 17:53:53 GMT
A photo of the Indian PM delivered to a seat with a Pakistani community is a leaflet designed to send a very specific message. I think we all know that. That the Conservatives are aligned with the present government of India on the issue of Kashmir. That the Labour candidate would not be. That is a perfectly legitimate campaigning issue. Are you saying parties shouldn't campaign on foreign policy issues? Remember all those Lib Dem leaflets about the Iraq war distributed in areas where there were a lot of muslim majority voters - what about them? From what I read Labour and Tory policy on Kashmir is currently identical (it is a matter between India and Pakistan but we will definitely wring our hands quite a bit if there are human rights abuses). Is there a link to something different? |
|
