urban.spaceman Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 Stupidest possible definition of Islamophobia, now fully adopted by the Labour Party. And if you don’t agree that Islam is a race, which has no basis in logic or biology, you’re far right. We’re living in profoundly absurd times.
Foxxed Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said: Stupidest possible definition of Islamophobia, now fully adopted by the Labour Party. And if you don’t agree that Islam is a race, which has no basis in logic or biology, you’re far right. We’re living in profoundly absurd times. Someone could tell me I'm a Christian and therefore I think women should only learn about religion through their husband because the bible says so. Someone could also me I'm white therefore I believe in white supremacy. Those two are equally as bad to me. Using a linguist trick to argue that hate based on your perception of their religion is better than hate based on your perception of their race is, to me, cowardice. If someone wants to claim everyone of a race or relgion is bad - rather than judging individual people based on their individual actions - then do it. But don't hide behind word play and linguistics. Own up.
Nick Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 59 minutes ago, Countryfox said: And there you have it .... saying “I wish there fvckin P@kis would hurry up with my pizza” .. and calling someone a ”n1gger” is not the worst thing you can say ... which sort of makes it not too bad. Wonder what other things count higher on the racismometer .... 1. WTF was she doing ordering a Pizza in The Spice of Punjab? 2. She’s clearly from a long line of Police family racists and combined with the pizza misjudgment, I wonder if she should be held responsible for any of her actions. Being a Police Officer seems like the perfect role.
Buce Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 This is what John Bercow said about firming up his “no repeat votes” ruling. (See 3.32pm.) Reminding MPs of his original decision, Bercow told MPs: "In the course of answering questions following her statement [on Monday], the prime minister accepted this constraint, saying that 'I am very clear about the strictures that Mr Speaker gave when he made his statement last week and, were we to bring forward a further motion to this house, we would of course ensure that it met the requirements he made.'I understand that the government may be thinking of bringing meaningful vote three before the house either tomorrow or even on Friday, if the house opts to sit that day.Therefore, in order that there should be no misunderstanding, I wish to make clear that I do expect the government to meet the test of change. They should not seek to circumvent my ruling by means of tabling either a notwithstanding motion or a tabling motion. The table office has been instructed that no such motions will be accepted. "I very much look forward, colleagues, to today’s debate and votes which give the house the chance to start the process of positively indicating what it wants." There had been speculation that the government might get round John Bercow’s ruling, which is based on a rule in the Commons bible, Erskine May, by having a vote on a motion disapplying the rule in this case. That option has now been disallowed.
Strokes Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 13 minutes ago, Foxxed said: Someone could tell me I'm a Christian and therefore I think women should only learn about religion through their husband because the bible says so. Someone could also me I'm white therefore I believe in white supremacy. Those two are equally as bad to me. Using a linguist trick to argue that hating someone based on your perception of their religion is better than hating someone based on your perception of their race is, to me, cowardice. If someone wants to claim everyone of a race or everyone of a relgion is bad - rather than judging individual people based on their individual actions - then do it. But don't hide behind word play and linguistics. Own up. I hate everyone!
Guest MattP Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 52 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said: Stupidest possible definition of Islamophobia, now fully adopted by the Labour Party. And if you don’t agree that Islam is a race, which has no basis in logic or biology, you’re far right. We’re living in profoundly absurd times. Good read by Maajid Nawaz on why this definition is so absurd - https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/opinion-the-word-islamophobia-and-its-definition-are-not-fit-for-purpose/ Probable that Labour have adopted this as a political basis to attack the Tories which again shows how completely mental the party has become. Remember when we were all Charlie Hebdo? That lasted long didn't it.
Buce Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 4 minutes ago, Strokes said: I hate everyone! Pretty sound policy, tbf.
Countryfox Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 9 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said: 1. WTF was she doing ordering a Pizza in The Spice of Punjab? ... off her trolley by the sound of it ...
Grebfromgrebland Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 Think I'll nominate Stephen Fry on that cool list
Guest MattP Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 Just now, Grebfromgrebland said: Think I'll nominate Stephen Fry on that cool list A London based millionaire celebrity. Why on earth didn't the Remain campaign think of somebody like that before?
Foxxed Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 14 minutes ago, Strokes said: I hate everyone! Consistently, equality and fairness. It's rare to find a man who possesses these three qualities in equal measure.
Guest MattP Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 Just now, Grebfromgrebland said: What's your point? I just can't believe the Remain campaign didn't think of getting wealthy posh celebs to front it last time. The vote in Sunderland and Stoke would have been so different had it been Stephen Fry and Gary Lineker instead of Eddie Izzard and JK Rowling.
Guest MattP Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 14 minutes ago, Buce said: This is what John Bercow said about firming up his “no repeat votes” ruling. (See 3.32pm.) Reminding MPs of his original decision, Bercow told MPs: "In the course of answering questions following her statement [on Monday], the prime minister accepted this constraint, saying that 'I am very clear about the strictures that Mr Speaker gave when he made his statement last week and, were we to bring forward a further motion to this house, we would of course ensure that it met the requirements he made.'I understand that the government may be thinking of bringing meaningful vote three before the house either tomorrow or even on Friday, if the house opts to sit that day.Therefore, in order that there should be no misunderstanding, I wish to make clear that I do expect the government to meet the test of change. They should not seek to circumvent my ruling by means of tabling either a notwithstanding motion or a tabling motion. The table office has been instructed that no such motions will be accepted. "I very much look forward, colleagues, to today’s debate and votes which give the house the chance to start the process of positively indicating what it wants." There had been speculation that the government might get round John Bercow’s ruling, which is based on a rule in the Commons bible, Erskine May, by having a vote on a motion disapplying the rule in this case. That option has now been disallowed. I know Bercow has a mammoth ego but even I'd be amazed if he genuinely try to oppose the will of the house.
AKCJ Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 We're now on 1007 out of 1009 days until Brexit and we're still none the wiser. Just goes to show how impressively inept this government is. May has to go IMO.
urban.spaceman Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 1 hour ago, Foxxed said: Someone could tell me I'm a Christian and therefore I think women should only learn about religion through their husband because the bible says so. Someone could also me I'm white therefore I believe in white supremacy. Those two are equally as bad to me. Using a linguist trick to argue that hate based on your perception of their religion is better than hate based on your perception of their race is, to me, cowardice. If someone wants to claim everyone of a race or relgion is bad - rather than judging individual people based on their individual actions - then do it. But don't hide behind word play and linguistics. Own up. The actual word is completely nonsensical. A phobia is an irrational fear or hatred; it’s a perfectly rational position to fear or hate a religious doctrine, particularly in the way it’s implemented. That’s not the same as hating the people who practice it, which is wrong - I’d have no problem with terms like Muslimophobia or AntiMuslim to describe it. It’s no coincidence that the OIC - who have tried and failed for years to get “defamation of religion” AKA blasphemy laws through the UN, are now pushing this definition. 1 hour ago, MattP said: Good read by Maajid Nawaz on why this definition is so absurd - https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/opinion-the-word-islamophobia-and-its-definition-are-not-fit-for-purpose/ Probable that Labour have adopted this as a political basis to attack the Tories which again shows how completely mental the party has become. Remember when we were all Charlie Hebdo? That lasted long didn't it. Under this definition Maajid is a racist. Charlie Hebdo were slandered as racists before the bodies were even ****ing cold. 100,000 people signed a petition to the British government saying a French publication shouldn’t be allowed to criticise their religion. I’m still Charlie. 100% this is a political move by Labour - I don’t think I can morally vote for them again while they still have this definition on the books. It is blasphemy laws through the back door and only seeks to criminalise atheist, ex-Muslims and reformers.
Guest MattP Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 Until I read a lot of Majid Nawaz I didn't realise just how sinister the people behind the term "Islamophobia" were - I always assumed it's intention was to censor criticism of the religion but I didn't think it would ever lead to a position where a group like MEND could have influence over an all-parliamentary committee.
Nick Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 15 minutes ago, MattP said: Until I read a lot of Majid Nawaz I didn't realise just how sinister the people behind the term "Islamophobia" were - I always assumed it's intention was to censor criticism of the religion but I didn't think it would ever lead to a position where a group like MEND could have influence over an all-parliamentary committee. Have you read the definitions/terminologies used by any of the other political parties?
Guest MattP Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 Just now, Swan Lesta said: Have you read the definitions/terminologies used by any of the other political parties? I think the Lib Dems, Plaid and the SNP hold exactly the same?
Nick Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 3 minutes ago, MattP said: I think the Lib Dems, Plaid and the SNP hold exactly the same? All parties have been really slow to adapt to connotations and shifts in contemporary language in relation to Islamaphobia / Muslimphobia and even those writing policy and backing campaigns from Muslim demographics use the terms interchangeably... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/05/tories-suspend-14-members-over-alleged-islamophobia
AKCJ Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 May has asked Tory MPs to back her deal, saying she will step down for the next step of negotiations.
Guest MattP Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 7 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said: All parties have been really slow to adapt to connotations and shifts in contemporary language in relation to Islamaphobia / Muslimphobia and even those writing policy and backing campaigns from Muslim demographics use the terms interchangeably... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/05/tories-suspend-14-members-over-alleged-islamophobia I don't really understand what that has to do with the wider point being made. Muslimphobia/anti Muslim hatred needs clamping down on - "Islamophobia" is a phrased coined and often pushed by hardliners to try and censor criticism of the Islamic faith.
Guest MattP Posted 27 March 2019 Posted 27 March 2019 Just now, AKCJ said: May has asked Tory MPs to back her deal, saying she will step down for the next step of negotiations. Now it's down to the DUP - she must nearly be there in terms of numbers now.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.