Oh, charity! I meant things that make a difference to the world and it's future. You won't win me over, because I don't think people matter that much, apart from the ones I have a responsibility for. I am inherently selfish, and not ashamed to be so. If push came to shove, if the situation demanded it, I'd eat you rather than die myself if that was the choice. There's no cure for what ails humanity other than a massive reduction in numbers.
May is utterly without spine. Trudeau seems to prefer mild passive aggression, which isn't that much better. Now's the time for countries in the west to show that they have actual values; we aren't going to coddle Trump into behaving like an actual leader.
The White House statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day didn't mention Jews or anti-Semitism because "despite what the media reports, we are an incredibly inclusive group and we took into account all of those who suffered," administration spokeswoman Hope Hicks told CNN on Saturday. Hicks provided a link to a Huffington Post UK story noting that while 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis, 5 million others were also slaughtered during Adolf Hitler's genocide, including "priests, gypsies, people with mental or physical disabilities, communists, trade unionists, Jehovah's Witnesses, anarchists, Poles and other Slavic peoples, and resistance fighters." Asked if the White House was suggesting President Donald Trump didn't mention Jews as victims of the Holocaust because he didn't want to offend the other people the Nazis targeted and killed, Hicks replied, "it was our honor to issue a statement in remembrance of this important day." So instead of mentioning the Roma, disabled, and communists also in an aside, they.... decide to not mention that the main thing of the Holocaust was its violent Antisemitism. ........ I don't ****ing know. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politi...day/index.html
I have always been a radical incrementalist: my desired endgame is very left-wing (relative to the political state in North America), but tactically I'm perfectly happy to work the margins, maintain a steady drumbeat of progress with as few setbacks as possible. But if the setbacks look like this, perhaps it's time to drop half of that equation. Perhaps it's time to accept not one step back.
The rise of right wing populism that we are currently witnessing across the free world is looking less and less like a setback on the road to progress, and more and more like an existential threat to the rights and freedoms previous generations had to fight for. So I fear your analysis is correct. You can't compromise with the far right even if you want to. To the Trumps, Le Pen's and Farage's of this world, the offer of compromise looks like weakness, and will be accepted only as surrender.
Even the offer of engagement. I'm not sure this can be debated. I'm not sure there are minds to be won over through rational discussion. The only option may be public shows of resistance in the streets, and as much resistance in the courts as can be mustered, and continue until the polls open again. We need a big win, honestly. Brexit and Trump were fluky in some respects, but they're losses. France and Germany are the next big dominoes...they need to remain upright.
There are always hearts and minds to be won. But sometimes you have to take it onto the streets. Like my grandad did against Moseley and the black shirts; like Martin Luther King did.
I've protested. Then it felt like a point of emphasis...say what you will about George W Bush (and god knows I said some pretty untoward things), but then it felt like an aberration. Register your opposition for the history books and your own conscience, that sort of thing. This feels existential, like Mosley et al; I generally don't go all apocalyptic, but this has the makings of a real-by-god pivotal moment. We win here or this will take a generation or more to unwind.
The rest of the world just needs to reply by banning Trump from entering the counntry until the ban is lifted. I wonder if any EU country will do this. Let the UK be the first.!!!
A court has already said they can't deport visa holders and refugees, I'm no expert on US law but I suspect it's a matter of time before the whole order (or at least large amounts of it) will be struck down. It's crazy he's doing this. Remarkable that a President is even attempting it. I'd be tempted to say it's unbelievable and shocking but, well, he did say he was going to do it.
I wouldn't count on it. An injunction has been issued; it'll now be fought through the court system to the Supreme Court. And even if it wins in SCOTUS, it'll be revised and fought again. I don't really think that Trump has much spine, regarding his proposals, but once it's on the table he isn't going to take a loss.
He said he was going to do a lot of crazy things. Turns out he might actually be as crazy has he seemed. Not a good time to be a Muslim, or Mexican, or a woman, or black, or poor, in the US of A.
I find it hard to believe that any court will agree that visa holders and those already granted refugee status can simply be detained and deported without some other good reason. Imposing a temporary travel ban on people from certain countries is less clear cut. There could be some extreme circumstances where you could justify such a ban. I don't think we're even close to those circumstances but I don't know whether a court would want to get into considering whether the justification is sufficient.
Not officially but that page cites plenty of examples of lawyers and judges who say it was wrong. I'd be astounded if the same decision was made now.
