Kilkrazy wrote:
I've never noticed Shadow Captain Edithae being racist. There's plenty we disagree about but I believe we're both on the same page of the hymn book as regards racism....

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The sort of person they're defending doesn't matter. I don't want this scrote beaten up in prison, or made to "drop the soap" or whatever - or for those things to happen to anyone else, because I'm not a scrote like him.

 r_squared wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've never noticed Shadow Captain Edithae being racist. There's plenty we disagree about but I believe we're both on the same page of the hymn book as regards racism....

You believed otherwise previously. The last 3 posts of that un-deleted thread say otherwise. I've not linked to it, but I can provide direct quotes and links, or anyone can simply go through the off topic thread to find the UK politics thread that was locked by Killkrazy on 27/4/2017. Off topic, page 11 will help if you're struggling.

Does that jog any memories? Because I've not forgotten, and every time they open their mouth I am reminded of what lies behind their words.

SCE was asked earlier to provide evidence of the claims that Tommy made about being put in a block with Muslims to beat him up by the authorities and it turned out he could not...

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/29/former-edl-leader-tommy-robinson-claims-prison-bosses-put-his-life-in-danger_n_7896242.html?guccounter=1

Tommy himself attacked a Somalian during induction and was then segregated by prison authorities. He tried to put up a picture of his injuries, but that turned out to have been from a long time previously.

So before these two get all self righteous about prison violence and the sanctity of the person, understand exactly where they are coming from and the sort of individual they are defending.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've never noticed Shadow Captain Edithae being racist. There's plenty we disagree about but I believe we're both on the same page of the hymn book as regards racism.

To get back to the topic, there's an interesting article on The Guardina about how Labour could claim an anti-Brexit position and parlay it into an election victory.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/29/labour-mps-fear-brexit-voters-unfounded-study

I can't even remember back when the last thread was closed, or whatever R_squared is insinuating. IIRC, you accidentally deleted it...So no, R_squared, people can't go and see for themselves.

So I'll quite openly state my motivations here.

Spoiler:

I believe Islam is an outdated religion badly in need of reform and modernisation like Christianity was. I believe that, much like the Bible, the Quran contains a lot of bigoted, regressive scriptures that are easily interpreted to support an extremist interpretation of Islam therefore there is a direct causal link to Islam as stated by every Muslim terrorist; but there is a tremendous reluctance on the Left to acknowledge this and encourage the liberalisation and secularisation of Islam in the same way that Christianity was (and still is) made to reform.

I do NOT however believe in the targeting and harassment of individual Muslims. My issue is with the ideology of Islam, specifically the ideas and values within it that I consider to be illiberal and bigoted; not individual Muslims.

I believe in the rule of Law and Justice. I believe that if anyone is guilty of a crime, like Tommy Robinson, they should be convicted and imprisoned within the boundaries of the Law. I do NOT believe in revenge and violence. Even if that person is a Far Right extremist who incites violence, or a Muslim terrorist guilty of actual violence like the Lee Rigby killers. We have Laws for dealing with their crimes, and vigilantism as advocated by various Left wingers here on Dakka is NOT the answer.

tl;dr
NO Tommy Robinson does not deserve to get the gak kicked out of him, he deserves to be imprisoned. He is entitled to the same basic rights as you and I.

Neither does Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale. Anjem Chaudhary. Abu Hamza. NOBODY deserves to be subjected to violence, short of whatever is required by law enforcement to subdue and arrest them. If you think people deserve to be punishment for their actions with violence, why not put your money where your mouth is and advocate reinstating Corporal and Capitol Punishment? At least then we'd be following the rule of law.

A steaming racist gak pile he is.

A steaming racist gak pile with rights he also is.

He has every right to serve sentence without harm being condoned. Much as a racist and so. He not deserve being beaten on jail. 13 months locked away from his Facebook and so should be ernough punishment!

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've never noticed Shadow Captain Edithae being racist. There's plenty we disagree about but I believe we're both on the same page of the hymn book as regards racism....

You believed otherwise previously. The last 3 posts of that un-deleted thread say otherwise. I've not linked to it, but I can provide direct quotes and links, or anyone can simply go through the off topic thread to find the UK politics thread that was locked by Killkrazy on 27/4/2017. Off topic, page 11 will help if you're struggling.

Does that jog any memories? Because I've not forgotten, and every time they open their mouth I am reminded of what lies behind their words.

SCE was asked earlier to provide evidence of the claims that Tommy made about being put in a block with Muslims to beat him up by the authorities and it turned out he could not...

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/29/former-edl-leader-tommy-robinson-claims-prison-bosses-put-his-life-in-danger_n_7896242.html?guccounter=1

Tommy himself attacked a Somalian during induction and was then segregated by prison authorities. He tried to put up a picture of his injuries, but that turned out to have been from a long time previously.

So before these two get all self righteous about prison violence and the sanctity of the person, understand exactly where they are coming from and the sort of individual they are defending.

Right, now that you've jogged my memory and pointed me to the thread... I still deny that anything I said was racist at the end of that thread. Or FWC. Everything i said was consistent with what I am still saying now.

Spoiler:

I was critical of Islam. There was a recent terror attack (possibly the Manchester bombing?) and I predicted that it was almost certainly a radical Muslim, remarking that it's not hard to predict. (I was right).

FWC then remarked that there were "thousands of the crazies" (there are. https://www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/islamist-extremists-uk-highest-number-europe-25000-terror-threat-eu-official-isis-islam-britain-a7923966.html?amp_js_v=a1&_gsa=1&amp&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fhome-news%2Fislamist-extremists-uk-highest-number-europe-25000-terror-threat-eu-official-isis-islam-britain-a7923966.html
He neglected to specify that he was talking about radical Muslims, not all Muslims.

I responded with a remark saying that there are millions. I was referring not just to Britain, but all of Europe and the Middle Eats because at the time there had a lot of news about terror attacks and extremism all over Europe and Sryia etc. A Freudian slip.

You're accusing us of racism based on an out of context miscommunication which we would have cleared up had someone challenged us, but couldn't because the thread was locked. In fact we did later clarify what we said in a later thread. So we've already had this discussion, and you're very pettily picking at old wounds.

Is it inaccurate to characterise Radical Muslim as "crazies?"

(News flash btw. Islam is not and never will be a race. Bring critical of Islam is not racism).

We then commented on an NUS president Malia Bouttia being ousted. I forget what for, but it was probably for race baiting and making racist remarks or something (not that you think it's possible for non white people to be racist). We predicted that she would deflect from her own wrong doings by complaining of Islamophoboa, and joked that people would call it a Zionist conspiracy.

...You clearly have a very low bar for your definition of racism.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In Brexit related news, applications by UK citizens for EU passports (e.g. French, Dutch etc.) are up 165% as Brits living in the continental EU try to ensure their safe status to continue their lives and businesses.

nfe wrote:
All Scottish elections. The Scottish government can't change voting rights for a GE (hence why voting regulations are already different in Scottish and Westminster elections, with Scottish ones being more inclusive). An excellent idea that will almost certainly pass. It has good support amongst the populace. Why shouldn't you get to vote in the place you live? Next stop, prisoners (hopefully, that will obviously take a lot more convicing and is far more politically dangerous).

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Well then lets cut the crap and get to the point. I reject your arguments regarding cultural racism. I've heard them before, you didn't change my mind last time and you won't change my mind now.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Why should they get to decide on local politics as foreigners who are set to return home at the earliest opportunity? To my mind that undermines the democratic nation state. The citizens and permanent residents are the only people who should decide on that nation state's policies.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Well then lets cut the crap and get to the point. I reject your arguments regarding cultural racism. I've heard them before, you didn't change my mind last time and you won't change my mind now.

Fine, we'll skip cultural racism as a reason for why your "besides, Islam isn't a race so you can't be racist against muslims" is a really, really poorly thought-ought argument and move on to the next problem with the statement:

All so-called "races" are social constructs. The primary issue with racism is that it generalizes people based on a socially constructed idea of what they are like and how they "ought" to behave when the group being generalized actually are incredibly diverse. Are we in agreement thus far?

Assuming we agree on the above statement, if we understand "racism" as the belief that certain "races" have inherent qualities that make some better and some worse then all you have to do in the case of Islam is replace "race" with "culture" or "religion". Sure, if you define racism using your narrower definition then you're technically correct (the best kind of correct!) that you can't be racist against muslims based on their faith, but that's missing the point, wilfully or ignorantly, that you have a situation where everything mimics the mechanics of racism except that the perceived inferiority of Islam in this case is due to factors inherent in culture rather than ones inherent in race.

At best that argument lands in "it's not racist, it's just bigoted!" which isn't much of a win.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

nfe wrote:
All Scottish elections. The Scottish government can't change voting rights for a GE (hence why voting regulations are already different in Scottish and Westminster elections, with Scottish ones being more inclusive). An excellent idea that will almost certainly pass. It has good support amongst the populace. Why shouldn't you get to vote in the place you live? Next stop, prisoners (hopefully, that will obviously take a lot more convicing and is far more politically dangerous).

Just because you are curently living somewhere doesn't mean you should be allowed to affect the local politics by voting. There shoudl be a long time of residence with no indication someone will leave soon, otherwise anyone could vote anywhere provided you're currently a resident and I hope I shouldn't have to spell out all the issues that creates.

Why should they get to decide on local politics as foreigners who are set to return home at the earliest opportunity? To my mind that undermines the democratic nation state. The citizens and permanent residents are the only people who should decide on that nation state's policies.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

nfe wrote:
All Scottish elections. The Scottish government can't change voting rights for a GE (hence why voting regulations are already different in Scottish and Westminster elections, with Scottish ones being more inclusive). An excellent idea that will almost certainly pass. It has good support amongst the populace. Why shouldn't you get to vote in the place you live? Next stop, prisoners (hopefully, that will obviously take a lot more convicing and is far more politically dangerous).

Just because you are curently living somewhere doesn't mean you should be allowed to affect the local politics by voting. There shoudl be a long time of residence with no indication someone will leave soon, otherwise anyone could vote anywhere provided you're currently a resident and I hope I shouldn't have to spell out all the issues that creates.

Why should they get to decide on local politics as foreigners who are set to return home at the earliest opportunity? To my mind that undermines the democratic nation state. The citizens and permanent residents are the only people who should decide on that nation state's policies.

Kilkrazy wrote:In UK general elections only UK citizens and Irish citizens can vote. Is that what you mean?

Kilkrazy wrote: In terms of residence, I've moved to five different addresses in the past 11 years. How many year of residence should I rack up before I am allowed to vote?

nfe wrote:
Well you can already vote in regions you live in momentarily in the UK. I know a lot of English and NI students who changed their voting address to vote in the independence referendum, for example. I see no problem with extended that to others. If they choose to live here, they have every bit as much right to impact legislation as I do as someone who was born here. Whilst this wont have any effect on this example, I think it preposterous that my Turkish girlfriend, who has lived in South East England for a decade and has permanent residency, cannot vote in elections but if I go and live there for a month then I can.

nfe wrote:
I don't accept the nation-state as a meaningful concept. We're also talking about the UK, which kinda disregards the nation state in the first place.

nfe wrote: If indeed, it is meaningful anywhere in a globalised world. Or indeed, if it ever was.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

nfe wrote:
Well you can already vote in regions you live in momentarily in the UK. I know a lot of English and NI students who changed their voting address to vote in the independence referendum, for example. I see no problem with extended that to others. If they choose to live here, they have every bit as much right to impact legislation as I do as someone who was born here. Whilst this wont have any effect on this example, I think it preposterous that my Turkish girlfriend, who has lived in South East England for a decade and has permanent residency, cannot vote in elections but if I go and live there for a month then I can.

Did you read my post? I said someone who lives here permanently should get to vote in elections. Your girlfriend, from the sound of it, would fit the bill in my eyes.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

nfe wrote:
I don't accept the nation-state as a meaningful concept. We're also talking about the UK, which kinda disregards the nation state in the first place.

The UK is a nation state formed of 4 countries.

nfe wrote: If indeed, it is meaningful anywhere in a globalised world. Or indeed, if it ever was.

I'm astounded at the level of ignorance expressed in this statement. Just look at America right now, or us, or any nation with hard borders, centralised government, and customs duties, for relevance of the nation state. And to assert that it has never had relevance? I guess 1848 never happened then.

nfe wrote:

And UK citizens that live monetarily in places they never intend to live in again? I'm trying to iron out how strict your requirements are. Is it cool for English residents that live briefly in Scotland to vote in local elections, for instance?

nfe wrote:
I think you need a sojourn into definitions of nation state before being as condescending as this. Few states have applied citizenship in a way that strictly adheres to the concept of the nation state as a sovereign entity where the vast majority of citizens are also united through common language, descent, and ethnicity. Maybe some of the Arabian peninsula states I guess. There are nations which could be categorised as de facto nation states. Japan and South Korea I suppose are good examples given their near-monoethnicity. The US is certainly not a good example. In fact, it's an utterly dreadful one. Same goes for the UK - heck, same goes for its constituent countries. All of which, like the US, have been comprised of diverse populations from the start of their existence.


EDIT: Thinking about it, Egypt might be the closest thing going, given it is both nearly monoethnic, and the time-depth of the borders and history with which the vast majority of its population closely identifies.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In UK general elections only UK citizens and Irish citizens can vote. Is that what you mean?

Yes. Although if someone's lived here for a decade say, I'd say it's fine to vote in a GE.

Kilkrazy wrote: In terms of residence, I've moved to five different addresses in the past 11 years. How many year of residence should I rack up before I am allowed to vote?

Depends. If you've moved around on country a lot, I see no issue, but if that's five different countries, as I would run it you wouldn't get to vote in GE in those countries.

nfe wrote:
Well you can already vote in regions you live in momentarily in the UK. I know a lot of English and NI students who changed their voting address to vote in the independence referendum, for example. I see no problem with extended that to others. If they choose to live here, they have every bit as much right to impact legislation as I do as someone who was born here. Whilst this wont have any effect on this example, I think it preposterous that my Turkish girlfriend, who has lived in South East England for a decade and has permanent residency, cannot vote in elections but if I go and live there for a month then I can.

Did you read my post? I said someone who lives here permanently should get to vote in elections. Your girlfriend, from the sound of it, would fit the bill in my eyes.

nfe wrote:
I don't accept the nation-state as a meaningful concept. We're also talking about the UK, which kinda disregards the nation state in the first place.

The UK is a nation state formed of 4 countries.

nfe wrote: If indeed, it is meaningful anywhere in a globalised world. Or indeed, if it ever was.

I'm astounded at the level of ignorance expressed in this statement. Just look at America right now, or us, or any nation with hard borders, centralised government, and customs duties, for relevance of the nation state. And to assert that it has never had relevance? I guess 1848 never happened then.

Also this is a pretty good reason to leave the EU. Or stay in and fight it. Keep the Internet free kids.

https://edri.org/eu-member-states-agree-on-monitoring-filtering-of-internet-uploads/

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

nfe wrote:

And UK citizens that live monetarily in places they never intend to live in again? I'm trying to iron out how strict your requirements are. Is it cool for English residents that live briefly in Scotland to vote in local elections, for instance?

I would say no. If you're just there for 6 months for work, for example, you shouldn't get to vote in local elections.

nfe wrote:
I think you need a sojourn into definitions of nation state before being as condescending as this. Few states have applied citizenship in a way that strictly adheres to the concept of the nation state as a sovereign entity where the vast majority of citizens are also united through common language, descent, and ethnicity. Maybe some of the Arabian peninsula states I guess. There are nations which could be categorised as de facto nation states. Japan and South Korea I suppose are good examples given their near-monoethnicity. The US is certainly not a good example. In fact, it's an utterly dreadful one. Same goes for the UK - heck, same goes for its constituent countries. All of which, like the US, have been comprised of diverse populations from the start of their existence.


EDIT: Thinking about it, Egypt might be the closest thing going, given it is both nearly monoethnic, and the time-depth of the borders and history with which the vast majority of its population closely identifies.

I've looked at the Wikipedia for nation state, and apparently it related to a quite ethnically and culturally homogenous state, so for that misunderstanding I apologise.

However, there is a long list of countries to who that would apply, and I would say that across a country like, say, Germany, or America, whilst there are of course subcultures and different ethnic groups, there is more than a strong enough shared culture for claims of nationhood to be made.

However, all that being said, I still hold to my previous argument, the only concession I would make here is to change the term nation state (which I think can still be applied to most countries, as most countries have an internal shared culture that all permanent residents are a part of to a greater or lesser extent) to sovereign state. The general elections of sovereign states should only be open to citizens or permanent/longterm residents. Local elections I'd be more lenient on, but still. I'd be a bit miffed if someone here for a few months got to vote on council elections or come to consultations about local issues.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Here's an extraordinary piece of evidence of the structural racism in the UK.

TL/DR: Black university applicants are 20 times more likely to be investigated for possible anomalies in their applications.

nfe wrote:
I don’t have the time at the minute to look at this fully. Do international students apply through UCAS and are they included in the numbers? I can imagine there being many investigations triggered into students on the basis that they’re applying with qualifications earned in some African nations, for example? If there isn’t some major skewing factor like that, it’s alarming.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Here's an extraordinary piece of evidence of the structural racism in the UK.

TL/DR: Black university applicants are 20 times more likely to be investigated for possible anomalies in their applications.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:


Also this is a pretty good reason to leave the EU. Or stay in and fight it. Keep the Internet free kids.

https://edri.org/eu-member-states-agree-on-monitoring-filtering-of-internet-uploads/

The article wrote:Ucas had previously insisted that ethnicity was not taken into account during the screening of applications – however today’s report states that individuals who may be aware of an applicant’s ethnicity can contact Ucas and raise their concerns about an application.

The verification team can be contacted by individuals from schools, employers, banks and the police, the new report says.

The admissions service said that its fraud detection software – which is used to screen applications – uses historical data as a reference, and this could potentially play a part in the differences.