|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Feb 11, 2024 22:39:14 GMT
I am distinctly not impressed by the "our antisemite is not as bad as the other antisemite" argument, especially given the bad faith attacks on Rishi Sunak over the trans comment. "We can call out your dodgy comment but it's bad faith if you call out ours" The problem is that it was unwise, not dodgy. Nobody truly thought Sunak was attacking Brianna Ghey, nor was he attacking trans people. He was attacking Starme,r and Starmer, and the Labour Party more widely, used a murdered school girl as a human shield. That isn't comparable to Ali's conspiracies. |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,732
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Feb 11, 2024 23:19:21 GMT
It’s so daft that everyone will pretend a 50 year old Pakistani Muslim living in Rochdale having antisemitic views is shocking. It would be more surprsing to find a Pakistani Muslim living in Rochdale that was not antisemitic. He isn't from Rochdale. Also, he has a history of friendship with the Jewish community. I find his remarks shocking and unacceptable. I find Netanyahu to be a despicable human being, but don't believe for a moment he wanted the deaths of 7th October, which are all on Hamas, which Mr Ali rightly described as a massacre (unlike GG and his vile yoke). So, conspiracy theory nonsense overcame common sense. George Galloway didn't stand in Tamworth, Mid-Bedfordshire, Somerton and Frome, Kingswood, Selby and Ainsty or Wellingborough, but is standing Rochdale, a town I love. We all know why. He has no concept of the needs of the town, the history of its people or the careful walk it has taken in community relations. He storms in, destroys everything and, eventually, leaves. I am not overly impressed by the timing of the calling of the byelection, the shortlisting or selection, but, as my best friend who lives in the constituency said to me today, if you can't see the difference between an unapologetic anti-semitic twat like Galloway and the Labour candidate's stupid emotional outburst, you are putting on a show. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 11, 2024 23:36:34 GMT
That (I hope) has nothing to do with the by-election. |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Feb 12, 2024 0:05:09 GMT
All I know is that all these various "issues" with numerous candidates are going to make the prediction competition a nightmare!  |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 12, 2024 0:16:00 GMT
All I know is that all these various "issues" with numerous candidates are going to make the prediction competition a nightmare! I’ve already adjusted my prediction twice in the last week, and in doing so I have realised that (by accident) I have ended up with a three-way marginal competition for 3rd place. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Feb 12, 2024 10:30:50 GMT
Some may react TL:DR to what I'm about to say, but I hope you won't. I'm the most prominent (though not the only) Jewish Labour person in this forum and have been awake quite a portion of the night thinking about this situation. I have come to the conclusion that I was not correct in wishing that neither Azhar Ali nor George Galloway might win. This may be dismissed by one or two of you as typical partisan Labour stuff. That would be pretty unfair. I would remind anyone thinking in this way that some of the highest-profile anti-Semites who were in my party can "thank" me, amongst others, for their expulsions, and I am fiercely proud of the role that I, and Socialists Against Antisemitism more widely, played in them. Ken Loach is the best-known of these, but others including Crispin Flintoff & Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi can "thank" me & SAAS too. We also played a major role in the dismissal of David Miller from the University of Bristol, and I am outraged by the verdict in his tribunal. These people *are* anti-Semites, despite what some like Merseymike might say and despite the Jewish heritage of Wimborne-Idrissi. I would in addition remind those who accuse me of partisanship that I felt unable to vote Labour at the last general election. But if I look at the evidence in this particular case, I come to the Scottish verdict of neither "not guilty" or "guilty", but "not proven". I'd like to acknowledge the contributions made here by The Bishop, David Boothroyd, Matt Wilson & Catholic Left. But it was a question that graham asked that has caused me to think. It was a simple one, asking whether Azhar Ali's outburst could be reasonably argued to be a strong disagreement with Netanyahu and the Israeli government, and not one of antisemitism. At first I thought no, it can't. But, where is the evidence that he was motivated by a hatred of, mistrust of, or prejudice against Jews in what he said? I don't think there is incontrovertible evidence of that. For David & Sandy in Scotland, the mere fact that he is a Muslim is enough to convict him. I find that completely wrong & actually objectionable. Of course there is antisemitism within the Muslim population, and of course it is a problem. But there are actually many Muslims who simply do not have negative views of Jews, who do not believe the monstrous antisemitic conspiracy theories, and in many ways see the Jewish community as having in the past had similar experiences to what they now have. Some Muslims actively work with the Jewish community, for example in Afzal Khan's Muslim-Jewish forum in Manchester, and in Bradford when they helped to save Bradford's synagogue. Antisemitism is present amongst many communities, very much including White British Christians, and other ethnic minorities. Being a Muslim does not necessarily equal being antisemitic, far from it. However, it would be absurd to claim that there is not a serious problem in the Muslim community with antisemitism. We just need to get the balance right, and not lapse into generalities which are both inaccurate and unhelpful. To me, some of the worst antisemitism I experience derives from, if I may be permitted to use a stereotype for once, Keffiyeh-wearing White people who are often in my age group or older, though some are younger for sure. Of course some who profess the Islamic faith have physically attacked people because they were (or the attacker thought they were) Jewish, and that's a serious problem. But let's not fall into generalities.
My first reaction on hearing what Ali said was of total outrage, and to some extent I still feel outraged. I was reminded of a quote from that Jew-hater extraordinaire, former National Front leader John Tyndall, who said of the Holocaust "Such a toll matters little to the Jew engaged in his struggle for world domination". But when I came to think in greater clarity, the part about world domination is in no way present in what Ali said. There is nothing in his past to suggest that he supports or gives credence to the gross antisemitic myths & conspiracy theories which have been around, in some cases, for hundreds of years, indeed he has been critical of them himself. Was he wrong to say what he did? Absolutely, totally wrong. It is clearly absurd, and very stupid, to claim that Binyamin Netanyahu deliberately connived in or allowed the October 7 outrages to provide a justification for military action in Gaza. Few people can outdo me in the intense dislike I have for Netanyahu. I feel that yes, he HAS by some of his actions made life less safe for Israeli Jews, let alone those of us who live in the diaspora. I care deeply about the security of Israel's Jews, not least because I have relatives living there. Israel is supposed to be a safe haven for the Jewish people and it is not a safe haven at the moment, and he & his government must accept their share of the blame for that (of course, Hamas, and other terrorists who hate Jews as a people, must accept even more). I absolutely have to agree that he does not give a shit about diaspora Jews who do not aspire to live in Israel. If he cared about us, he would not for example be pally with that lousy anti-Semite Viktor Orban (his appalling son Yair is even more pally). But does he genuinely not care about Israeli Jews' safety? Even as an arch-critic of Netanyahu I have to reject that completely. Azhar Ali should absolutely not have said what he did, it was disgraceful and wrong, and I completely respect those who feel unable to campaign for him. Indeed, even if I could conveniently get to Rochdale, which I can't really, I don't think I'd want to campaign for him either. Nevertheless, I cannot see any evidence that tells me "he said this because he has a negative view about Jews in general, or because he mistrusts us as a people". Instead, I see it as stupid, ignorant, way over-the-top and inappropriate criticism of the motives of Netanyahu. David says that he doesn't mean his apology, and he's entitled to think that. I however don't think it's possible to prove, apparently just because he's a Muslim, that he does not mean it when he says he is sorry. I think that this renders him, at best, a very poor Labour candidate. But is there any proof that antisemitic motives were behind it, whether they are Holocaust denial, conspiracy theories, dislike/mistrust of Jews, etc. etc., rather than an inappropriate ascribing of motives to Netanyahu? I cannot see such proof. And don't say I'm naive. I have spent most of the last 5-6 years studying and campaigning against antisemitism in my party and am the co-author of the most detailed listing ever produced of antisemitism in all its recognisable forms.
As David Boothroyd & others pointed out, he does have a record of opposition to antisemitism and has shown at least some understanding of what antisemitism is. His record is not perfect but it is largely an honourable one. There is nothing in his record to suggest that there is an identifiable antisemitic motive to his outburst. And it is important to note the response of leading Jewish organisations. Their response, whether they are Labour-aligned or otherwise, has been a measured one, and I don't think we should pretend to know better than them, especially if we're not Jewish. I am honoured to be a friend of a member of the Jewish Leadership Council who is a member of the Labour Party's Advisory Board on Antisemitism (which includes some non-Labour figures). The JLC has refrained from calling for Ali to be disowned, and the response of the BoD has been similar. Although there is a right-wing faction which thinks that the BoD is not anti-Labour enough, neither they nor the JLC are Labour-leaning organisations, but are strictly non-partisan, and so they should be. The Jewish Labour Movement, of which I am a member, has also stopped short of asking the Party to disown Ali, although they will not campaign in Rochdale. I think that the responses of these 3 organisations are the correct ones, and that we should respect them.
I would very much like to think that I am fair-minded enough to come to these conclusions irrespective of the identity of Labour's apparent main opposition in Rochdale. If it is right not to disown Ali, which I now believe that it is, it is right whether the main threat came from a pro-Israel Conservative or from the antisemitic goon George Galloway. If this contribution shows one thing, it is that I am never afraid to call an anti-Semite if they are an anti-Semite; but I need conclusive evidence before I say such a thing. In this case, I find the evidence, at present, lacking.
So in conclusion, while I think what he said was utterly wrong and reflects extremely badly on him as a potential Labour MP, I do now hope he defeats Galloway and the other candidates on offer in the by-election. He needs now to show by his actions that he has learnt lessons from this and that he realises that he has come dangerously close to a very nasty form of antisemitism, even it cannot be proven that this was his motivation.
|
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Feb 12, 2024 10:31:24 GMT
Nick Griffin has endorsed George Galloway.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,988
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 12, 2024 10:31:47 GMT
"We can call out your dodgy comment but it's bad faith if you call out ours" The problem is that it was unwise, not dodgy. Nobody truly thought Sunak was attacking Brianna Ghey, nor was he attacking trans people. He was attacking Starme,r and Starmer, and the Labour Party more widely, used a murdered school girl as a human shield. That isn't comparable to Ali's conspiracies. Au contraire, lots of people think exactly that. Indeed, what else is the "I know what a woman is!" jibe but at least a pretty big dog whistle to those who think trans people do not (or indeed, should not) exist? |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,732
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Feb 12, 2024 10:42:59 GMT
Some may react TL:DR to what I'm about to say, but I hope you won't. I'm the most prominent (though not the only) Jewish Labour person in this forum and have been awake quite a portion of the night thinking about this situation. I have come to the conclusion that I was not correct in wishing that neither Azhar Ali nor George Galloway might win. This may be dismissed by one or two of you as typical partisan Labour stuff. That would be pretty unfair. I would remind anyone thinking in this way that some of the highest-profile anti-Semites who were in my party can "thank" me, amongst others, for their expulsions, and I am fiercely proud of the role that I, and Socialists Against Antisemitism more widely, played in them. Ken Loach is the best-known of these, but others including Crispin Flintoff & Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi can "thank" me & SAAS too. We also played a major role in the dismissal of David Miller from the University of Bristol, and I am outraged by the verdict in his tribunal. These people *are* anti-Semites, despite what some like Merseymike might say and despite the Jewish heritage of Wimborne-Idrissi. But if I look at the evidence in this particular case, I come to the Scottish verdict of neither "not guilty" or "guilty", but "not proven". I'd like to acknowledge the contributions made here by The Bishop, David Boothroyd, Matt Wilson & Catholic Left. But it was a question that graham asked that has caused me to think. It was a simple one, asking whether Azhar Ali's outburst could be reasonably argued to be a strong disagreement with Netanyahu and the Israeli government, and not one of antisemitism. At first I thought no, it can't. But, where is the evidence that he was motivated by a hatred of, mistrust of, or prejudice against Jews in what he said? I don't think there is incontrovertible evidence of that. For David & Sandy in Scotland, the mere fact that he is a Muslim is enough to convict him. I find that completely wrong & actually objectionable. Of course there is antisemitism within the Muslim population, and of course it is a problem. But there are actually many Muslims who simply do not have negative views of Jews, who do not believe the monstrous antisemitic conspiracy theories, and in many ways see the Jewish community as having in the past had similar experiences to what they now have. Some Muslims actively work with the Jewish community, for example in Afzal Khan's Muslim-Jewish forum in Manchester, and in Bradford when they helped to save Bradford's synagogue. Antisemitism is present amongst many communities, very much including White British Christians, and other ethnic minorities. Being a Muslim does not necessarily equal being antisemitic, far from it. However, it would be absurd to claim that there is not a serious problem in the Muslim community with antisemitism. We just need to get the balance right, and not lapse into generalities which are both inaccurate and unhelpful. To me, some of the worst antisemitism I experience derives from, if I may be permitted to use a stereotype for once, Keffiyeh-wearing White people who are often in my age group or older, though some are younger for sure. Of course some who profess the Islamic faith have physically attacked people because they were (or the attacker thought they were) Jewish, and that's a serious problem. But let's not fall into generalities. My first reaction on hearing what Ali said was of total outrage, and to some extent I still feel outraged. I was reminded of a quote from that Jew-hater extraordinaire, former National Front leader John Tyndall, who said of the Holocaust "Such a toll matters little to the Jew engaged in his struggle for world domination". But when I came to think in greater clarity, the part about world domination is in no way present in what Ali said. There is nothing in his past to suggest that he supports or gives credence to the gross antisemitic myths & conspiracy theories which have been around, in some cases, for hundreds of years, indeed he has been critical of them himself. Was he wrong to say what he did? Absolutely, totally wrong. It is clearly absurd, and very stupid, to claim that Binyamin Netanyahu deliberately used the October 7 outrages to provide a justification for military action in Gaza. Few people can outdo me in the intense dislike I have for Netanyahu. I feel that yes, he HAS by some of his actions made life less safe for Israeli Jews, let alone those of us who live in the diaspora. I care deeply about the security of Israel's Jews, not least because I have relatives living there. Israel is supposed to be a safe haven for the Jewish people and it is not a safe haven at the moment, and he & his government must accept their share of the blame for that (of course, Hamas, and other terrorists who hate Jews as a people, must accept even more). I absolutely have to agree that he does not give a shit about diaspora Jews who do not aspire to live in Israel. If he cared about us, he would not for example be pally with that lousy anti-Semite Viktor Orban (his appalling son Yair is even more pally). But does he genuinely not care about Israeli Jews' safety? Even as an arch-critic of Netanyahu I have to reject that completely. Azhar Ali should absolutely not have said what he did, it was disgraceful and wrong, and I completely respect those who feel unable to campaign for him. Indeed, even if I could conveniently get to Rochdale, which I can't really, I don't think I'd want to campaign for him either. Nevertheless, I cannot see any evidence that tells me "he said this because he has a negative view about Jews in general, or because he mistrusts us as a people". Instead, I see it as stupid, ignorant, way over-the-top and inappropriate criticism of the motives of Netanyahu. David says that he doesn't mean his apology, and he's entitled to think that. I however don't think it's possible to prove, apparently just because he's a Muslim, that he does not mean it when he says he is sorry. I think that this renders him, at best, a very poor Labour candidate. But is there any proof that antisemitic motives were behind it, whether they are Holocaust denial, conspiracy theories, dislike/mistrust of Jews, etc. etc., rather than an inappropriate ascribing of motives to Netanyahu? I cannot see such proof. And don't say I'm naive. I have spent most of the last 5-6 years studying and campaigning against antisemitism in my party and am the co-author of the most detailed listing ever produced of antisemitism in all its recognisable forms. As David Boothroyd & others pointed out, he does have a record of opposition to antisemitism and has shown at least some understanding of what antisemitism is. His record is not perfect but it is largely an honourable one. There is nothing in his record to suggest that there is an identifiable antisemitic motive to his outburst. And it is important to note the response of leading Jewish organisations. Their response, whether they are Labour-aligned or otherwise, has been a measured one, and I don't think we should pretend to know better than them, especially if we're not Jewish. I am honoured to be a friend of a member of the Jewish Leadership Council who is a member of the Labour Party's Advisory Board on Antisemitism (which includes some non-Labour figures). The JLC has refrained from calling for Ali to be disowned, and the response of the BoD has been similar. Although there is a right-wing faction which thinks that the BoD is not anti-Labour enough, neither they nor the JLC are Labour-leaning organisations, but are strictly non-partisan, and so they should be. The Jewish Labour Movement, of which I am a member, has also stopped short of asking the Party to disown Ali, although they will not campaign in Rochdale. I think that the responses of these 3 organisations are the correct ones, and that we should respect them. I would very much like to think that I am fair-minded enough to come to these conclusions irrespective of the identity of Labour's apparent main opposition in Rochdale. If it is right not to disown Ali, which I now believe that it is, it is right whether the main threat came from a pro-Israel Conservative or from the antisemitic goon George Galloway. If this contribution shows one thing, it is that I am never afraid to call an anti-Semite if they are an anti-Semite; but I need conclusive evidence before I say such a thing. In this case, I find the evidence, at present, lacking. So in conclusion, while I think what he said was utterly wrong and reflects extremely badly on him as a potential Labour MP, I do now hope he defeats Galloway and the other candidates on offer in the by-election. He needs now to show by his actions that he has learnt lessons from this and that he realises that he has come dangerously close to a very nasty form of antisemitism, even it cannot be proven that this was his motivation. Thank you for this extremely thoughtful post. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Feb 12, 2024 11:06:55 GMT
"We can call out your dodgy comment but it's bad faith if you call out ours" The problem is that it was unwise, not dodgy. Nobody truly thought Sunak was attacking Brianna Ghey, nor was he attacking trans people. He was attacking Starme,r and Starmer, and the Labour Party more widely, used a murdered school girl as a human shield. That isn't comparable to Ali's conspiracies. Of course he wasn’t attacking an individual murder victim and I don’t think anyone has suggested he did. But he was joking over the difficult challenge that she and her family faced and the fundamental issues that would have affected her future had she lived. It really should be possible to discuss trans issues, which are complicated and challenge simple assumptions, with a degree of care and without partisan labelling. Yes, Labour has found it difficult working through some of this. But trying to make silly jokes about that is mere culture wars tactics, with some very vulnerable people in the battlefield, including this family. The mother being present in Parliament added to the unpleasantness but he was wrong anyway to choose this attack line. It fits the “culture wars” agenda and no doubt we’ll get plenty more. |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Feb 12, 2024 11:38:44 GMT
For the record, I did not say that he's an antisemite because he's a Muslim. There are many Muslims, or people of Muslim origin, who are not antisemitic. An Iranian acquaintance of mine, for instance, is very pro-Israel. Far more than I am. Indeed, as far as I'm aware, despite batman's comment, I don't think I've ever articulated my view of Muslim antisemitism, just the prevalence of Muslim homophobia. Which, given the Houthis recently announced they're going to publically execute 13 men for homosexuality, I do not resile from. That may make straight people uncomfortable, but I don't care. Moreover, the reason why I think Ali isn't some poor mistaken soul, is, as I said, because he said it publically without any inhibition. It's all so similar to the "they were warned not to go to work on 9/11, you know" trope. I am not inclined to offer him the benefit of the doubt, and, unlike batman and his colleagues, I do not have a partisan motive for doing so. Futher, "David and Sandy in Scotland". Yeah, I am in Scotland. Scotland is still, and long may it remain, part of the UK. Some of us argue for that nearly every day. As far as I'm concerned, living in Scotland and commenting on other issues in another part of the United Kingdom is like living in Alberta and commenting on events in BC. Bluntly, it isn't the own the Labour room seems to think it is. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Feb 12, 2024 11:41:59 GMT
Some may react........... his motivation. Cogently put, thankyou I remind the forum that the remarks were made to a room full of people not one of whom expressed objection. Now this be a seperate matter from the candidate or it may be that the candidate went further than he usually would because he correctly read what the room wanted to hear. But regardless, it is not acceptable. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Feb 12, 2024 11:43:37 GMT
(in response to Forfarshire Conservative) I called you "David..........in Scotland" purely to distinguish you from David Boothroyd. I don't know your surname whereas I do know Sandy's, so it was the least worst way of identifying you other than using your handle. There were none of the assumptions about Scotland there that you have just ascribed to me. I accept what you say. You have not been as bluntly "he's antisemitic because he's a Muslim" as Sandy was in his comments & it was perhaps somewhat unfair of me to lump you both in together. The homophobic aspect is obviously a very serious one & I naturally entirely share your concerns about that. I apologize if I have been unfair to you in any way.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Feb 12, 2024 11:48:42 GMT
I think one problem from a north east perspective is that lack of action in this case seems inconsistent with strong measures taken against Jamie Driscoll, Holly Waddell and Andy McDonald
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,732
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Feb 12, 2024 11:53:07 GMT
For the record, I did not say that he's an antisemite because he's a Muslim. There are many Muslims, or people of Muslim origin, who are not antisemitic. An Iranian acquaintance of mine, for instance, is very pro-Israel. Far more than I am. Indeed, as far as I'm aware, despite batman's comment, I don't think I've ever articulated my view of Muslim antisemitism, just the prevalence of Muslim homophobia. Which, given the Houthis recently announced they're going to publically execute 13 men for homosexuality, I do not resile from. That may make straight people uncomfortable, but I don't care. Moreover, the reason why I think Ali isn't some poor mistaken soul, is, as I said, because he said it publically without any inhibition. It's all so similar to the "they were warned not to go to work on 9/11, you know" trope. I am not inclined to offer him the benefit of the doubt, and, unlike batman and his colleagues, I do not have a partisan motive for doing so. Futher, "David and Sandy in Scotland". Yeah, I am in Scotland. Scotland is still, and long may it remain, part of the UK. Some of us argue for that nearly every day. As far as I'm concerned, living in Scotland and commenting on other issues in another part of the United Kingdom is like living in Alberta and commenting on events in BC. Bluntly, it isn't the own the Labour room seems to think it is. I am not sure how you read his "in Scotland" comment as being any kind of 'own', that he thought it disqualified commentary on other parts of the UK or that the Red Room, with its Scots members, would believe that. You are entitled to your opinion on Mr Ali, and to correct any misrepresentation of your opinions, but you are not entitled to misrepresent the position or opinions of others, nor pretend to know the motivations of members of this forum. By all means, ask questions, but to dismiss the well-argued and thought out position as laid out above of batman as partial is unworthy - nobody has challenged his party more on anti-semitism than he has. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Feb 12, 2024 11:55:28 GMT
I think one problem from a north east perspective is that lack of action in this case seems inconsistent with strong measures taken against Jamie Driscoll, Holly Waddell and Andy McDonald Jamie shared a platform with Ken Loach knowing that he had been expelled from the Labour Party for an antisemitism-related offence. The fact that it was a cultural event is neither here nor there. What did he expect? People can protest till they’re blue in the face that he was expelled for being a member of a proscribed organisation but of course it was proscribed for good reason, being highly antisemitic. His protestations that he wasn’t a member were pure semantics, he was their figurehead and clearly identified with its aims. Having been generally supportive of Jamie Driscoll before that I felt that his sharing a platform with a Holocaust-revisionist anti-Semite was a kick in the teeth. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,988
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 12, 2024 12:07:32 GMT
Some may react........... his motivation. Cogently put, thankyou I remind the forum that the remarks were made to a room full of people not one of whom expressed objection. Now this be a seperate matter from the candidate or it may be that the candidate went further than he usually would because he correctly read what the room wanted to hear. But regardless, it is not acceptable. And you are quite right, it is not. That does not mean that Labour has an easy way out of its dilemma regarding this byelection. Or that their candidate still isn't a considerably lesser evil than Galloway. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Feb 12, 2024 12:08:42 GMT
I have shared a platform with Alex Salmond. I didn't think at the time that it implied an endorsement of all his views. Nor that he endorsed mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 12, 2024 12:21:47 GMT
The problem is that it was unwise, not dodgy. Nobody truly thought Sunak was attacking Brianna Ghey, nor was he attacking trans people. He was attacking Starme,r and Starmer, and the Labour Party more widely, used a murdered school girl as a human shield. That isn't comparable to Ali's conspiracies. Au contraire, lots of people think exactly that. Indeed, what else is the "I know what a woman is!" jibe but at least a pretty big dog whistle to those who think trans people do not (or indeed, should not) exist? Quite. He (Sunak) made a cheap simplistic political jibe on a complicated issue that affects the well-being of a very small, but vulnerable, group of people. That is not an admirable, responsible or useful approach. In passing, I will note that those of us of more advanced years will note parallels between the way some people address the trans issue today and the way many people addressed the matter of homosexuality some decades ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 12, 2024 12:22:40 GMT
Nick Griffin has endorsed George Galloway. Two cheeks of the same arse, as someone once said |
|
