Not in my view. They (or at least Trump) was referenced by the Christchurch killer as a deliberate attempt to stir up a liberal backlash and destabilise what’s left of western democracies. I’ve not read his manifesto, of course, but I have read a couple of (contradictory) articles on it. It’s full of ultra right wing in jokes and red herrings etc. Some of it is ironic. He referenced Oswald Mosley 3 times, which I think may give a clue to his real thinking, as only genuine fascists and Brits of a certain vintage would be familiar with Mosley. From what I have read the neo Nazis are weaponised through deeply sinister places on the Internet, as I suspect are many Islamic terrorists. The public figure with most influence might well be Steve Bannon. As for the others, if we start equating anti immigration policy with fascism we are on a slippery slope. Do we class everyone who voted for Trump or Brexit on immigration grounds as fascist too? Though Trump’s language on this doesn’t help, I don’t think he has any ideology at all, unless narcissism is an ideology. Similar with Johnson, he’s an opportunist who is hopeless at spotting the right opportunity. Farage is just a joke.
Not that I'm one to defend farage johnson and trump but comparing them to the likes of hamza and qatada is a bit much. Pretty sure them islamic hate preachers actively tell their followers to kill western civilization and its people whereas im not sure either of these imbecils are telling people to kill the foreigners/muslims
Yes, I'm not suggesting that any of those I mentioned are fascists (although Trump comes pretty close, I would say), and far less that people voting for them on anti-immigration grounds are fascists. The anti-foreigner rhetoric from each of them (and all the other far-right 'populists' around the world) must be having some kind of impact on head-cases like Tarrant, though. They are giving these nutters a sense of legitimacy. Again, I said 'should they not bear some responsibility?' I'm not suggesting they are actively telling anyone to kill people.
On those terms it could be argued that they should ‘bear some responsibility’ though how that is squared with allowing people to express opinions which might clash with a liberal worldview (which I obviously share) is tricky. Should liberals who have who have protected the ‘rights’ of religious groups to behave in ways clearly at odds with liberal values (not just terrorism, but treatment of women etc) bear some responsibility too? We risk a circular argument. Meanwhile Brecow says he won’t allow a third vote unless the government motion is ‘substantially different’. Seems like they are all conspiring to make this as painful as ****ing possible.
Depends what you mean. Did they contribute? Possibly. Would the guy have done it even if trumpy wasnt in power? More than likely. In a way we are all complicit depending on how interlinked you want to make everything. We are complicit in capitalism everyday and inequality where this stuff is typically a breeding ground. Education, family nurture etc. At the end of the day i believe we should all be responsible for our own actions.
Hilarious. I've heard Tory MPs on the wireless complaining that they mustn't be denied another vote because they 'may have changed their minds'. Priceless.
Division Clear the lobbies Bercow 100% right she had two years to get a deal 16m people can’t allow a vote to keep going until it passes through via bullshit We go again and if 17m people say out with no deal then fine with me... I would probably take bets on here that won’t happen
It's funny how a racist terrorist citing Trump makes Trump responsible, but an Islamic terrorist citing Mohammed and the Quran doesn't make Islam responsible or related at all.
Benjamin@screwlabour Mar 14 More Copy link to Tweet Embed Tweet Right, when do we start rioting? Only difference between this one and the usual leftist rabble is that we will need to secure time off work #BrexitBetrayal
Funny, in a bitter, twisted way. Would have been nice if he had told everyone this before the vote last week, to focus their minds. Now it looks like he’s an attention seeking twat, given that he’s ****ed around with Parliamentary protocol plenty himself. And rules should only be followed if they serve a clear purpose. What’s in the national interest here? A final go at moving forward, or the guarantee of years more ****?
Brexiteers can argue to the cows come home but the fact remains that there is still a divide and that’s a few years on from the referendum The third vote on a deal that no ones wants needs substantial change it seems. Anyone think the EU are going to re open the existing deal ? No deal voted by the U.K. not to be an option So based on this exactly how can Brexit be executed? Hopefully tear it up and get new politics in General Election? Who would vote conversative after what we have seen ? In the best interests of the people whichever you look at it ... Brexit needs rethinking I even reckon Ellers now knows this hence why he has pushed off
I'd say that it's May herself that has been contemptuous of Parliament throughout the process. The national interest would be best served by May compromising on her red lines rather than keep coming back with the same ****.
