Off Topic Political Debate

he was fighting against white oppression... is that really terrorism?????


If how you write is who you really are... I find it so stereotypically simplistic

 

`The man who has done more for social justice in the UK than almost anyone else.`

Rather a damming judgement on your own party!

 

Mandela was the head of the military wing of the ANC that killed many innocent people using car bombs. Sorry to spoil the whitewashed image of this guy.

 

This rather begs the question of political choice ie. who do we call 'freedom fighters' and who are 'terrorists'. The French resistance also killed some innocent, non military personnel, where they terrorists ?

 

No, just sensibly acknowledging a decent politician over the decades.

Normally you bleat about politicians following party lines instead of following their consciences. This guy has always done the right thing regardless of his career. If he had not been a Brexit supporter you would be agreeing. You have double standards.

 

No white wash..... Like many fighting oppression he has blood on his hands and he always acknowledged it .. ( Have you read his inspirational autobiography?..as did many many members of the white dominant ethos backed by the UK which ruled and brutalised many indigenous people from any years.

Take a look at Andrew's Marr's splendid History of the World... and you will see man's inhumanity to man evident throughout the centuries....In many case white cultures oppressing and enslaving native cultures...

 

I don't disagree.... but looks like the schism in the Labour Party is now surfacing. Perhaps those who really care about our planet can join the green Party and fight for our future

 

I also believe that he has said things that should have made the government stop and think about the social policy it has followed. Unfortunately they took little notice, and are further away from what he believes in than ever.

 

So is Warrington, Omagh justifiable collateral damage?

 

If an MP is elected on a party platform, and with the support of his local constituency party then it is reasonable to presume that he will represent the values of that party once in office. By all means stand as an independent - but then you will have to pay for your own election campaign, and get your own message out there using your own resources.

 

It looks like FF is granting your wish for a by election, could be the first of many, just highlighting the vast split in the LP.

 

I agree that there is a split in the LP. between the grassroots of the party and a lot of the PLP. Corbyn's ideas on democratization of the party from the bottom up may well be a threat to some of the establishment figures in the party and they are grasping at any means to discredit what he stands for. You do this yourself - constantly. Do you really believe that we should avoid criticism of either Israel or right wing Zionism through fear of it being called anti Semitism ? That, as a result, the state of Israel should have an immunity from criticism which no other state enjoys ? You want the best of both World's. You have often referred to Corbyn (and his 'cronies') as Marxist, yet you join in with the wave of propaganda casting him as an anti Semite ? Many of the founders of Marxism were Jewish - Marx himself, Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg. Jews were always central to the workers movements of Europe. How many Socialists have learned their trade on the Kibbutzes of the past ? Is it then logical that Socialists of today should be anti Semitic ? Anti Right wing Zionism yes, but many Jews are also the same on this.

 

The problem you have is that it is his fellow socialists that are attacking him, and some in Momentum, for being anti Semite not the right wing press although it obviously make good headlines for them.

I don't think anybody is trying to stop any legitimate criticism of Israel.

 

The right wing press is magnifying this out of all proportions SH. Take the rather extraordinary claim that Jeremy Corbyn was an ''existential threat'' to ''Jewish Life'' in the UK. coming from a joint editorial published on the front pages of 3 leading Jewish newspapers. Think of the wording of this - it places Corbyn almost on the same footing as the Nazis. Is this not hysterical and offensive in the extreme ? As well as smacking of conspiracy and planning ? Anyone who has an axe to grind with Corbyn is using this to beat him over the head - apparently lacking other material to do it with. Those in the party who have clearly come out with anti semitic comments have been expelled from the party - what more can Corbyn do ? We need to be able to debate this rationally to determine exactly what is anti semitic (ie. racially motivated) and what isn't - but this essential step is being ignored, time and time again.

 

The party's ruling body could accept the definition issued by the IHRA for a start, then kick out the rest of the anti semites from the party. If you think this is just some conspiracy it will roll on and cause further damage to the LP.

 

Full acceptance of the IHRA code could suppress legitimate criticism of Israel. The first question is why we need a separate code regarding anti Semitism which goes over and above the normal laws regarding racial discrimination - this, in itself, implies preferential treatment for one group over another. The second is that according to the full IHRA code it is racist to describe a country which practises forms of Apartheid as racist. It is not allowed to describe the actions of the Israeli state as being in any way similar to the Nazis - a small point (I would never actually dream of doing this myself) - but, I have seen other states described in this way with apparent immunity. Netanyahu has, himself, described the Iranian regime in this way without any charge of racism being thrown in his direction. They are asking that Israel has an immunity to criticisms which are often thrown at other states, and this is not acceptable. How often have I seen Trump and his administration described as being Fascists (ludicrous comparison I know) without this being taken as a racist statement against 'Yankeedom' in general ?

 

Well I would certainly describe them as fascist as we've previously discussed. Whether that is a correct defintion in political science is another matter but the orange baboon's maladministration is made up of elitists, racists, xtian dominionists, Uncle Toms, propagandists, war-mongerers, science ignoramuses and so on.

We see gerrymandering from them to influence the vote, discrimination against minorities (basically anyone who's not a white male xtian), politically appointed judges many of whom are ill qualified for the job. So he already has control of both Houses and soon he'll have the courts, or at least the SCotUS.

The maybitch, our own sorry shower of ****, and the bigots that support them are just watching what happens over there so as to see what they think can get away with over here.

Right wing; elitist; racist; homophobic; undemocratic... fascist. It walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck.... it's a duck!

 

What a wonderful diversion this is proving to be for the government. Led by the press the major split in Tory ranks is on the back burner for now.

 

Well yes Fez. I agree with your description of Trump, at least 99% of it. But I am being very pedantic here - I use the word Fascist to describe Mussolini's Italy, which was brutal but not racist in it's foundations. There were Jewish, African and Moslem sections of the Italian Fascist party. But yes 'Right wing' (far too much to be described as Fascist, or Nazi for that matter), racist (fits the Nazi camp perfectly), undemocratic (fits both camps).......and a duck (insulting to the duck).

 

Senior Labour politicians are now flocking to support the Hornets.