Liberal, Briton, FBPE. Co-mod of m/neoliberal

  • 1 Post
  • 48 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle


  • I think he was pretty clearly there with the intent of his presence being antagonistic. He’s not just a random Jewish man who coincidentally happened to be walking through the area at that particular time, he’s a pro-Israeli activist who was hoping his presence would provoke a reaction as part of an attempt by political partisans to paint mainstream pro-Palestinian protestors as racist.

    But - regardless of his intent - if the only reason the Met could point to for them believing his presence might have actually been antagonistic is his ethnicity and his religion, then on the surface he hasn’t done anything wrong.

    I think this episode should be read in the context of a wide-ranging assault on free speech and the right to protest by the current Conservative government, which is encouraging a pattern of overreach by the Met police in response to legitimate protest.







  • In general I get that and my instinct was similarly that it was strange not to use the word. I’d use Taoiseach for Varadkar in a way I wouldn’t use the native language word for other world leaders, because I think of Ireland as a primarily English-speaking country and that’s the word they still use whilst otherwise speaking in English.

    But then again, I can also see that British readers like you and I who follow current affairs are going to be a lot more familiar with the term Taoiseach (or, in Calamity Truss’s case, the ‘Tea Sock’) given it’s the country next door and so hugely intertwined with British politics. I could name every Taoiseach in the last quarter century just by virtue of how much those individuals have featured in UK news - through the peace process, the financial crisis and then Brexit. I couldn’t do that for the leaders of any other foreign country of Ireland’s size. So I think it’s not unreasonable to assume the average US or other reader might not not know what a Taoiseach is.



  • There is very little to read into this. Rochdale is an unusual constituency, Galloway is an unusually high profile candidate, there was no official Labour or Green candidate. Still, he failed to even win 40% of the vote yesterday.

    This sort of thing is his speciality. He’s personally won three seats from Labour over the last few decades but never in circumstances that can be repeated by other candidates in other seats. This will be no different.

    Also he’s a deeply unpleasant individual. It’s frustrating that the false charge of antisemitism gets thrown round like confetti by supporters of the Netanyahu regime, because when an actual bonafide antisemite like Galloway comes along people don’t realise that this time the shoe does fit. His previous support for Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party is total horseshoe theory stuff.



  • A child who was groomed and sex trafficked by terrorists is now being punished for it. Also this is a punishment that is only being applied to her because she has Bangladeshi ancestors so the government argues she is hypothetically eligible for a Bangladeshi passport (which the government of Bangladesh has no intention of giving her), and so the Tories can pretend they’re not illegally rendering her stateless.

    This is literally a punishment that, by the Tories’ own formulation of their rule, would not be applied if the sex trafficking victim was a white girl called Shania with English parents instead of a brown girl called Shamima.

    We’re supposed to be a country where people are treated equally before the law. But the Tories are now claiming that they and any future government has the right to render any Briton with some hypothetical right to a foreign passport (for example, most second generation immigrants and every single Jewish Briton) stateless at the whim of the home secretary.



  • Muslim immigrants will have de facto faced as much (if not far more) hostility and prejudice before any of those events.

    What changed is that by the late 20th century, it had become politically unacceptable for right-wing parties to be perceived to be preying on overt racism towards their countries’ brown-skinned citizens. But the War on Terror at the start of the 21st century created a new organising framework for nativists, whereby they could incite hatred against exactly the same brown-skinned people as before, but claim they were targeting them for their religion and not their skin colour. At the heart of it is still the same prejudice towards those who are different, it’s just that the aspect of difference they choose to focus on today is more politically acceptable than the one they used to focus on.

    From the perspective of a brown-skinned Muslim immigrant, the ideological hoops the far-right jump through are likely irrelevant. These people were targeted by nativists before, and they get targeted by nativists now.




  • Humza Yousaf became the first Muslim head of state in western Europe in 2023 when he was appointed First Minister of Scotland.

    This is a really specific point, but the sub-heading irks me in several ways.

    First, how do so many people not know the difference between a head of state and a head of government? Scotland’s head of state is Charles III.

    Second, by what definition is Yousaf the first Muslim head of government in western Europe? I assume they must at least mean ‘in western Europe in the modern era’, since various parts of Iberia obviously had Muslim rulers for over seven centuries in the Middle Ages.

    Third, Scotland isn’t an independent state, and the head of government of the United Kingdom is Rishi Sunak. So if they’re counting Humza Yousaf, that means they’re counting leaders at sub-national levels of government (such as devolved government in the UK, Länder in Germany, etc). But if they’re counting devolved government, why does Humza Yousaf (first minister of Scotland, population 5.4 million, since 2023) count but Sadiq Khan (mayor of London, population 8.8 million, since 2016) apparently doesn’t?