UK Politics V - Have We Got News For You

Gorbles said:
So you'd have no trouble with people being racist for no other reason than to test the boundaries of a law? Do you think laws around race-related hate speech are (presumably already) too strict?
Click to expand...
Yes I would have a problem with people being racist.

My issue with the new act is that it has not only expanded the protected categories (in principle perhaps ok, if not my preference) but also lowered the bar with regards to what constitutes hate speech. It is the lowering of the bar which worries me.

From this bbc article:

www.bbc.co.uk

Scotland's new hate crime law comes into force

Police say they expect a flood of complaints, but the government insists the act provides protection.
www.bbc.co.uk

The bar for this offence is lower than for the other protected characteristics, as it also includes "insulting" behaviour, and as the prosecution need only prove that stirring up hatred was "likely" rather than "intended".
 
Nick723 said:
Yes I would have a problem with people being racist.
Click to expand...
Why? You don't seem to have a problem with someone being transphobic to challenge a law you consider illiberal?

This isn't a gotcha, I just don't see any consistency in your position that can't be explained without something you'd consider tit-for-tat or worse.
Nick723 said:
The bar for this offence is lower than for the other protected characteristics, as it also includes "insulting" behaviour, and as the prosecution need only prove that stirring up hatred was "likely" rather than "intended".
Click to expand...
And? The article also describes provisions in the bill that require a weight of evidence for assumptions made. In short, there will still be due process.

Why are you presenting a one-sided interpretation? If the BBC article manages to provide these points, why aren't you?
 
Nick723 said:
Click to expand...
This is not racist even by the most permissive definition. He wasn't even pushing the boundaries of any laws. Its not comparable to what Rowling did, lmao.
 
She's fantastically rich and currently a darling of the alt-right scene. She probably won't ever even be cautioned.

Remember the Tory donor who gave millions to the party and then it turned out that he'd said that Diane Abbot (a famous black woman and long-time Labour MP) made him hate all black women? The Tories fell over themselves not to condemn him, with one even saying that we should extend him the hand of Christian forgiveness
 
Rich ones, definitely.
 
It's there right now.

1712232843850.png
 
So the Rwanda bill has gone through Parliament. The more I read and understand about this, the worse it looks.

Why Rishi Sunak has spent so much political capital and energy on a bill that is so divisive, expensive and ineffective is beyond me.
 
I find that odd too.

I can only think that it is due to a combination of at least five reasons:

(a) Rishi lacked the nerve to confront the right wingers and change course early
(b) as a financial capitalist he thinks the solution is to do a deal e.g. in this case with the Rwandan government
(I have this theory that working in the derivatives markets subtly corrupts the intellect into believing there is always a clever fix)
(c) he doesn't care tuppence if the indigenous population doesn't want de facto unlimited immigration
(d) as a second generation immigrant he disregards or is unaware of the historical tradition to use the navy to rebut uninvited guests
(e) he is out of touch with the common voter and so does not realise they have seen through this particular fraud.

It is in my opinion, his worst mistake.

They are doing some other foolish things just before the election; proposing to review sickness benefit, cut the
civil service, introducing age checks on buying tobacco etc, each of which will alienate particular sections of voters.
 
He has no ideas left and is grasping wildly at anything that could be presented as a win, however slim.

Just let's ignore that it's completely contrary to international law, our own laws and that withdrawing from the ECHR would put us in the same exclusive boat as Russia and Belarus. Of course, it won't even reduce the number of refugees in the country as part of the plan is that we house people that Rwanda doesn't want in return.
 
Of course it won't recude the "refugee" (economic migrants in fact) flow. The only purpose of the bill is to pretend to be doing anything against uncontrolled immigratuon. Without doing anything.

The oligarchs of Europe want an unequal society. They wanted to do away with social-democracy, to reinstake a poor, exploited class and acculturate the population to it, as the "natural order of things". But immiserating the native voters right away was politically unfeasible - they might react by voting some real leftists into power who would have the state take away the oligarch's toys. Their workaround was to import this poor class, whyle letting the voters believe they were exempt from the increasing misery. Or might even benefit from the cheap labour, and the ethnic foods and the "multiculturalism" and so on. Some heavy propaganda got deployed as part of this project. Managed fo fool many people who really wanted to believe themselves leftists that uncontrolled immigration was a good and virtuous thing to support. The olugarch's strategy is succeeding. Homelessness and breakdown of social services are the new normal. Exploitation of labour is the new normal.

Sunak is an oligarch himself. He represents his class's interests and so is simply keeping course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Aiken_Drumn
  • Locked
UK Politics IV - In Lies we Don't Truss
199 200 201
Replies
4K
Views
98K
AmazonQueen
AmazonQueen
Samson
  • Locked
UK Politics - BoJo and chums
166 167 168
Replies
3K
Views
118K
Arakhor
Arakhor
EnglishEdward
  • Locked
UK politics - continuing into 2021
124 125 126
Replies
3K
Views
91K
Arakhor
Arakhor
Top Bottom