My goodness if Boris wins the wailing from the left will be a sight to behold!
The wailing from Muslims will be more worrying, since Boris is an islamophobe, a Muslim-baiter. That's not the kind of thing that worries only the left. It goes across the spectrum.
Boris is himself part Muslim through his Turkish great-grandfather
"part Muslim"? What, does he go to the mosque only on the first Friday of the month?
Boris's Turkish ancestry doesn't make a bit of difference. He's an islamophobe. You shouldn't be defending him, you should condemn him exactly the same as you would if he were attacking Jews.
As far as I can see, Boris' attitude is more liberal than Macron's, who has banned the burqa and niqab in public spaces.
Boris, in his infamous article, said these garments should not be banned.
Whataboutery. If you want to talk about someone else's islamophobia, you should do it in the spirit of adding to the discussion in hand, not deflecting it. It doesn't defend Boris that someone in the world is worse than he is.
I'm aware of the content of Boris's article. It doesn't save him. Consider if someone wrote an article about Jews wearing the yarmulkah and comparing them with [something offensive, I'm not going there], but then said "oh but of course we shouldn't ban them", would you seriously be saying that this was all ok? I'm willing to bet not.
What's your line on Salman Rushdie?
I've read Midnight's Children and thought it was a splendid book. I don't know much else about him, and don't intend to get into yet another tangent. Islamophobia is as wrong as antisemitism. Can't people see that? Can you all really not see it?
Do you think he should die for writing The Satanic Verses?
No. I don't think anybody should die for things they say or write.
So Boris is moving towards accepting the three months. If the courts say it’s a law you have to abide by it, although theoretically he has a decision to make, in reality he has to accept the courts decision. Also, at this moment today we know exactly what answer the court will give, don’t we?
So Overnight Boris becomes level pegging or worse with Labour because of support flouncing off to Farage.
In that circumstance does Boris still want an election? Because yet again in theory he might or might not, but in reality he has to have the election because changing his mind to a no would hole his confidence and poll ratings beneath the water line.
This is what I am claiming happens next, courts say it’s law, Boris abides by it, UK extends exit, Boris has to go to country despite reduced poll lead (possible deficit) a resurgent insurgent Brexit Party. What bit have I got wrong?
My goodness if Boris wins the wailing from the left will be a sight to behold!
The wailing from Muslims will be more worrying, since Boris is an islamophobe, a Muslim-baiter. That's not the kind of thing that worries only the left. It goes across the spectrum.
He has criticized niqab-wearers, who are less than 5% of Muslims. Has he said something about Muslims more broadly?
Alas, that is enough. Attacking a subset of a religion for the way they express their religion through dress is enough for the charge to stick. But he has said other things, stupid ahistorical theories about progress and Islam. He's got a problem with Islam and Muslims.
So, are the governments of France, Denmark, Belgium, & Austria islamophobic?
They have banned the full veil in public spaces. There are also partial bans & restrictions (I believe) in Germany, the Netherlands, parts of Italy and Catalonia.
These are your beloved EU governments. They are much less liberal than Boris, who said that the garments should not be banned.
Whataboutery. If you want to talk about someone else's islamophobia, you should do it in the spirit of adding to the discussion in hand, not deflecting it. It doesn't defend Boris that someone in the world is worse than he is.
And for what it's worth, yes. You've successfully found OTHER examples of islamophobia. Islamophobia is widespread. All the more reason to join the fight and condemn it in all its manifestations. That means Boris (and any other whatabouteries you want to add to the list.)
Is it phobic to ban or dislike KKK regalia? Those wearing it find it important to their beliefs. I find it disgusting and I find the belief that one race is superior to be disgusting and I'm prepared to call them out on it. That doesn't make me phobic and more than I'm prepared to call out the incredibly similar dehumanising, demeaning and misogynistic niqab.
You can have your beliefs all you want. Doesn't mean your beliefs aren't vile and shouldn't be called out, whether that be the KKK or the niqab or anything else that comparable that dehumanises people.
My goodness if Boris wins the wailing from the left will be a sight to behold!
The wailing from Muslims will be more worrying, since Boris is an islamophobe, a Muslim-baiter. That's not the kind of thing that worries only the left. It goes across the spectrum.
Boris is himself part Muslim through his Turkish great-grandfather
Surely you are either adherents of a faith or you are not, can you be part Muslim/Christian?
If you believe all these governments are islamophobic, do you spend as much time attacking Merkel or Macron as you do Boris?
I think I have successfully shown that Boris (on this matter) is much more liberal than almost all the EU.
After all, I haven't yet got to the East where Victor Orban and Mateusz Morawiecki & Co are lurking with their emphasis on Christian Europe.
Whataboutery. If you want to talk about someone else's islamophobia, you should do it in the spirit of adding to the discussion in hand, not deflecting it. It doesn't defend Boris that someone in the world is worse than he is.
I have seen some discussion of antisemitism on here, and I don't recall people anyone being asked to follow up their condemnation of something antisemitic by having to condemn each individual act of antisemitism. You wouldn't do that, so why do you think it's right to do the same with Boris's islamophobia?
My goodness if Boris wins the wailing from the left will be a sight to behold!
The wailing from Muslims will be more worrying, since Boris is an islamophobe, a Muslim-baiter. That's not the kind of thing that worries only the left. It goes across the spectrum.
Boris is himself part Muslim through his Turkish great-grandfather
"part Muslim"? What, does he go to the mosque only on the first Friday of the month?
Boris's Turkish ancestry doesn't make a bit of difference. He's an islamophobe. You shouldn't be defending him, you should condemn him exactly the same as you would if he were attacking Jews.
As far as I can see, Boris' attitude is more liberal than Macron's, who has banned the burqa and niqab in public spaces.
Boris, in his infamous article, said these garments should not be banned.
Whataboutery. If you want to talk about someone else's islamophobia, you should do it in the spirit of adding to the discussion in hand, not deflecting it. It doesn't defend Boris that someone in the world is worse than he is.
I'm aware of the content of Boris's article. It doesn't save him. Consider if someone wrote an article about Jews wearing the yarmulkah and comparing them with [something offensive, I'm not going there], but then said "oh but of course we shouldn't ban them", would you seriously be saying that this was all ok? I'm willing to bet not.
What's your line on Salman Rushdie?
I've read Midnight's Children and thought it was a splendid book. I don't know much else about him, and don't intend to get into yet another tangent. Islamophobia is as wrong as antisemitism. Can't people see that? Can you all really not see it?
Do you think he should die for writing The Satanic Verses?
No. I don't think anybody should die for things they say or write.
For the more thoughtful sequel, Buddah’s a fat bastard, he should be condemned to death by OMing. Release the Flying Yogi’s!
My goodness if Boris wins the wailing from the left will be a sight to behold!
The wailing from Muslims will be more worrying, since Boris is an islamophobe, a Muslim-baiter. That's not the kind of thing that worries only the left. It goes across the spectrum.
Boris is himself part Muslim through his Turkish great-grandfather
"part Muslim"? What, does he go to the mosque only on the first Friday of the month?
Boris's Turkish ancestry doesn't make a bit of difference. He's an islamophobe. You shouldn't be defending him, you should condemn him exactly the same as you would if he were attacking Jews.
As far as I can see, Boris' attitude is more liberal than Macron's, who has banned the burqa and niqab in public spaces.
Boris, in his infamous article, said these garments should not be banned.
Whataboutery. If you want to talk about someone else's islamophobia, you should do it in the spirit of adding to the discussion in hand, not deflecting it. It doesn't defend Boris that someone in the world is worse than he is.
I'm aware of the content of Boris's article. It doesn't save him. Consider if someone wrote an article about Jews wearing the yarmulkah and comparing them with [something offensive, I'm not going there], but then said "oh but of course we shouldn't ban them", would you seriously be saying that this was all ok? I'm willing to bet not.
What's your line on Salman Rushdie?
I've read Midnight's Children and thought it was a splendid book. I don't know much else about him, and don't intend to get into yet another tangent. Islamophobia is as wrong as antisemitism. Can't people see that? Can you all really not see it?
Do you think he should die for writing The Satanic Verses?
No. I don't think anybody should die for things they say or write.
That seems not to be a view shared by lots of Muslims
@Noo ludicrously compared the Niqab to the yarmulkah. That's like comparing somebody wearing a cross to somebody hanging someone on a cross.
The niqab is directly comparable to people wearing KKK regalia. A full body garment that is directed by beliefs rooted in dehumanising people and treating some people as less than others.
Whataboutery. If you want to talk about someone else's islamophobia, you should do it in the spirit of adding to the discussion in hand, not deflecting it. It doesn't defend Boris that someone in the world is worse than he is.
I'm aware of the content of Boris's article. It doesn't save him. Consider if someone wrote an article about Jews wearing the yarmulkah and comparing them with [something offensive, I'm not going there], but then said "oh but of course we shouldn't ban them", would you seriously be saying that this was all ok? I'm willing to bet not.
The yarmulkah is not illiberal, misogynist, offensive and wrong.
The niqab is.
Its more like saying you don't like KKK garbs which are directly comparable to the niqab.
I'm sorry that this will be difficult for you to hear, but some women wear the niqab out of choice. It's not for you to tell them what they should or shouldn't wear, or to insult them for it. I regret that you have chosen consciously to say something directly islamophobic, with the KKK comparison. I will not engage with /you/ further on this subject because I have nothing kind to say to you.
I'm sorry that this will be difficult for you to hear, but some women wear the niqab KKK regalia out of choice. It's not for you to tell them what they should or shouldn't wear, or to insult them for it. I regret that you have chosen consciously to say something directly islamophobic antisemitic, with the KKK yarmulkah comparison. I will not engage with /you/ further on this subject because I have nothing kind to say to you I am prepared to stand up to your bigotry and hatred.
My goodness if Boris wins the wailing from the left will be a sight to behold!
The wailing from Muslims will be more worrying, since Boris is an islamophobe, a Muslim-baiter. That's not the kind of thing that worries only the left. It goes across the spectrum.
Boris is himself part Muslim through his Turkish great-grandfather
Surely you are either adherents of a faith or you are not, can you be part Muslim/Christian?
As a Muslim, no. You are either Muslim or not.
Anyone left to give a Christian view?
I can give a holistic view, Christianity and Islam share a relationship through the older Hebrew religion, so is there an argument neither is actually a unique religion but a sect of a bigger one?
My goodness if Boris wins the wailing from the left will be a sight to behold!
The wailing from Muslims will be more worrying, since Boris is an islamophobe, a Muslim-baiter. That's not the kind of thing that worries only the left. It goes across the spectrum.
Boris is himself part Muslim through his Turkish great-grandfather
Surely you are either adherents of a faith or you are not, can you be part Muslim/Christian?
As a Muslim, no. You are either Muslim or not.
Anyone left to give a Christian view?
You are either Christian or you are not. I believe the person who said "Boris is himself part Muslim through his Turkish great-grandfather" considered religion to be an ethnicity that can be inherited. A lot of people do think that (especially when it comes to children), although I don't think that's tenable for adults. Boris either believes in Christ as his savior and tries to act consistent with that belief, or he does not.
If you believe all these governments are islamophobic, do you spend as much time attacking Merkel or Macron as you do Boris?
I think I have successfully shown that Boris (on this matter) is much more liberal than almost all the EU.
After all, I haven't yet got to the East where Victor Orban and Mateusz Morawiecki & Co are lurking with their emphasis on Christian Europe.
Whataboutery. If you want to talk about someone else's islamophobia, you should do it in the spirit of adding to the discussion in hand, not deflecting it. It doesn't defend Boris that someone in the world is worse than he is.
I have seen some discussion of antisemitism on here, and I don't recall people anyone being asked to follow up their condemnation of something antisemitic by having to condemn each individual act of antisemitism. You wouldn't do that, so why do you think it's right to do the same with Boris's islamophobia?
You seem excessively judgmental about what people may discuss on a blog, with your shrill cries of Whataboutery.
As it happens, I don't believe Boris is an islamophobe.
My goodness if Boris wins the wailing from the left will be a sight to behold!
The wailing from Muslims will be more worrying, since Boris is an islamophobe, a Muslim-baiter. That's not the kind of thing that worries only the left. It goes across the spectrum.
Boris is himself part Muslim through his Turkish great-grandfather
Surely you are either adherents of a faith or you are not, can you be part Muslim/Christian?
As a Muslim, no. You are either Muslim or not.
Anyone left to give a Christian view?
I can give a holistic view, Christianity and Islam share a relationship through the older Hebrew religion, so is there an argument neither is actually a unique religion but a sect of a bigger one?
That's a tough one this time of night, particularly for an atheist as I must confess to be.
@Noo ludicrously compared the Niqab to the yarmulkah. That's like comparing somebody wearing a cross to somebody hanging someone on a cross.
The niqab is directly comparable to people wearing KKK regalia. A full body garment that is directed by beliefs rooted in dehumanising people and treating some people as less than others.
My goodness if Boris wins the wailing from the left will be a sight to behold!
The wailing from Muslims will be more worrying, since Boris is an islamophobe, a Muslim-baiter. That's not the kind of thing that worries only the left. It goes across the spectrum.
Boris is himself part Muslim through his Turkish great-grandfather
Surely you are either adherents of a faith or you are not, can you be part Muslim/Christian?
As a Muslim, no. You are either Muslim or not.
Anyone left to give a Christian view?
I can give a holistic view, Christianity and Islam share a relationship through the older Hebrew religion, so is there an argument neither is actually a unique religion but a sect of a bigger one?
Indeed they are both Abrahamic faiths with many of the same prophets and much of the hatred and trouble both have inflicted upon the world over the last millenia has the same origins. The difference between Islam and Christianity is rather like the difference between Catholicism and Mormonism or the difference between Sunnis and Shiites but on a larger scale.
If you believe all these governments are islamophobic, do you spend as much time attacking Merkel or Macron as you do Boris?
I think I have successfully shown that Boris (on this matter) is much more liberal than almost all the EU.
After all, I haven't yet got to the East where Victor Orban and Mateusz Morawiecki & Co are lurking with their emphasis on Christian Europe.
Whataboutery. If you want to talk about someone else's islamophobia, you should do it in the spirit of adding to the discussion in hand, not deflecting it. It doesn't defend Boris that someone in the world is worse than he is.
I have seen some discussion of antisemitism on here, and I don't recall people anyone being asked to follow up their condemnation of something antisemitic by having to condemn each individual act of antisemitism. You wouldn't do that, so why do you think it's right to do the same with Boris's islamophobia?
You seem excessively judgmental about what people may discuss on a blog. with your shrill cries of Whataboutery.
As it happens, I don't believe Boris is an islamophobe.
And I don't believe Corby is an antisemite.
You're a very trusting soul, for which you deserve commendation, but don't give out your phone number.
My goodness if Boris wins the wailing from the left will be a sight to behold!
The wailing from Muslims will be more worrying, since Boris is an islamophobe, a Muslim-baiter. That's not the kind of thing that worries only the left. It goes across the spectrum.
Boris is himself part Muslim through his Turkish great-grandfather
Surely you are either adherents of a faith or you are not, can you be part Muslim/Christian?
As a Muslim, no. You are either Muslim or not.
Anyone left to give a Christian view?
I can give a holistic view, Christianity and Islam share a relationship through the older Hebrew religion, so is there an argument neither is actually a unique religion but a sect of a bigger one?
It's an argument, yes. Not, I would venture to say, a successful one...
Thank you. I'm not familar with One Poll. The wording of the article suggests they haven't polled since at least the General Election. Though their figures are bang in the middle of this weekend's range so nothing obviously suspect about them.
If someone points out something they think it wrong, and you say "but why aren't you condemning all these other people", that is the very essence of whataboutery. It's exactly what the term is meant to cover. You don't have to do it. You can just say that you disagree (which you have). Maybe we can't convince each other. But you were using a classic diversion tactic, and it's only right I point it out.
I will add that I think it tends to be done when people aren't secure in refuting a point but they also want that point to disappear. It's a fallacy derived from weakness.
My goodness if Boris wins the wailing from the left will be a sight to behold!
The wailing from Muslims will be more worrying, since Boris is an islamophobe, a Muslim-baiter. That's not the kind of thing that worries only the left. It goes across the spectrum.
Boris is himself part Muslim through his Turkish great-grandfather
Surely you are either adherents of a faith or you are not, can you be part Muslim/Christian?
As a Muslim, no. You are either Muslim or not.
Anyone left to give a Christian view?
I can give a holistic view, Christianity and Islam share a relationship through the older Hebrew religion, so is there an argument neither is actually a unique religion but a sect of a bigger one?
It's an argument, yes. Not, I would venture to say, a successful one...
Philosophically I'd say its quite a successful one and it is the narcissism of small differences that leads to Christians and Muslims sometimes hating each other [or other sects of their own faith] rather than seeing just how much they have in common. Both Abrahamic faiths [and Judaism too] have far more in common with each other than they do with say Hinduism, or Aborigine beliefs, or Buddhism, or Graeco-Roman mythologies, or the Norse or . . . countless other variants of religions that humanity has invented over the millenia.
Indeed the way the Greek and Roman gods can get lumped together as Graeco-Roman gods . . . with Zeus being comparable to Jupiter, Poseidon to Nepture, Cronus to Saturn, Hades to Pluto etc is very comparable to the way the Abrahamic faiths have evolved in their creation.
My goodness if Boris wins the wailing from the left will be a sight to behold!
The wailing from Muslims will be more worrying, since Boris is an islamophobe, a Muslim-baiter. That's not the kind of thing that worries only the left. It goes across the spectrum.
Boris is himself part Muslim through his Turkish great-grandfather
Surely you are either adherents of a faith or you are not, can you be part Muslim/Christian?
As a Muslim, no. You are either Muslim or not.
Anyone left to give a Christian view?
I can give a holistic view, Christianity and Islam share a relationship through the older Hebrew religion, so is there an argument neither is actually a unique religion but a sect of a bigger one?
It's an argument, yes. Not, I would venture to say, a successful one...
My argument would sound like this. There are certainly sects within Islam and Christianity, with strong differences of view and fierce rivalry, at the same much similarity between Christianity and Islam and Judaism in how climate and fertility, and naked fear and hatred of women shaped them. For example, when the french government proposed rethink on Halal meat It brought Muslims and Jews together.
A further example is not forgetting how use of veils, for the same reason Islam claim to use them today is part of Christianity, for a long time, though a touch out of favour today. Could the change of attitude be related to growing freedom and status of women in Christian societies in stark contrast to the subjugation of women historically?
Boris hasn’t got anything to worry about - a recent PM started and illegal war based on lies and didn’t even get fined.
Why was it an illegal war?
What laws were broken?
I suspect I'll get the same answer when I ask these questions of the Corbynites.
The argument is that it was a war of aggression and therefore contrary to the UN charter.
The legal justification was twofold. That Hussein was in breach of the security council resolution on disarming weapons of mass destruction, and that there was a humanitarian crisis.
I thought that the evidence was clear that he had actually disarmed, that the inspections had been effective. The humanitarian crisis was caused by sanctions.
There's a long record of Britain not taking international law as seriously as domestic law - ask the Chagos Islanders for example - and this distinction is not in Johnson's favour.
If someone points out something they think it wrong, and you say "but why aren't you condemning all these other people", that is the very essence of whataboutery. It's exactly what the term is meant to cover. You don't have to do it. You can just say that you disagree (which you have). Maybe we can't convince each other. But you were using a classic diversion tactic, and it's only right I point it out.
I will add that I think it tends to be done when people aren't secure in refuting a point but they also want that point to disappear. It's a fallacy derived from weakness.
Its exactly what you are doing with your vile antisemitic attempts to equate the niqab with the yarmulkah. That is the definition of whataboutery.
Had you said the hijab you may have had a point, but if you think your whataboutery can make anyone with two brain cells to rub together think that the yarmulkah and the niqab are the same thing then you are barking up the wrong tree. You were the one lashing out with whataboutery while accusing others of the same thing - the niqab has literally nothing in common with the yarmulkah yet you tried to use whataboutery to make the comparable.
Disgusting antisemitism to equate a simple skullcap with a dehumanising full body covering.
If someone points out something they think it wrong, and you say "but why aren't you condemning all these other people", that is the very essence of whataboutery. It's exactly what the term is meant to cover. You don't have to do it. You can just say that you disagree (which you have). Maybe we can't convince each other. But you were using a classic diversion tactic, and it's only right I point it out.
I will add that I think it tends to be done when people aren't secure in refuting a point but they also want that point to disappear. It's a fallacy derived from weakness.
I think you are going to be very busy if you feel you need to point out all the alleged logical fallacies, inconsistencies, whatabouteries, ad hominem attacks, ad hoc hypotheses, beggings of the question, epistemic commitments, equivocations, loaded questions, special pleadings, red herrings, improper analogies and tautologies that constitute a typical days postings on pb.com.
My goodness if Boris wins the wailing from the left will be a sight to behold!
The wailing from Muslims will be more worrying, since Boris is an islamophobe, a Muslim-baiter. That's not the kind of thing that worries only the left. It goes across the spectrum.
Boris is himself part Muslim through his Turkish great-grandfather
Surely you are either adherents of a faith or you are not, can you be part Muslim/Christian?
As a Muslim, no. You are either Muslim or not.
Anyone left to give a Christian view?
I can give a holistic view, Christianity and Islam share a relationship through the older Hebrew religion, so is there an argument neither is actually a unique religion but a sect of a bigger one?
It's an argument, yes. Not, I would venture to say, a successful one...
My argument would sound like this. There are certainly sects within Islam and Christianity, with strong differences of view and fierce rivalry, at the same much similarity between Christianity and Islam and Judaism in how climate and fertility, and naked fear and hatred of women shaped them. For example, when the french government proposed rethink on Halal meat It brought Muslims and Jews together.
A further example is not forgetting how use of veils, for the same reason Islam claim to use them today is part of Christianity, for a long time, though a touch out of favour today. Could the change of attitude be related to growing freedom and status of women in Christian societies in stark contrast to the subjugation of women historically?
Halal and Kosher are the same thing [minus differences about blessing, the restrictions on slaughter etc are the same]. That's because they've got the same Abrahamic origins. Halal is to Kosher as Venus is to Aphrodite.
The funny irony is of course while @Noo is trying to pretend the yarmulkah and niqab are comparable [they're of course not], because they've got the same origins what is comparable to the yarmulkah is the taqiyah in Islam.
If someone objected to the taqiyah but not the yarmulkah then that'd be strange - like if someone objects to halal but not kosher. But the whataboutery of trying to equate the niqab with the yarmulkah is nonsense. Its like equating halal with vegan - two very different things.
If someone points out something they think it wrong, and you say "but why aren't you condemning all these other people", that is the very essence of whataboutery. It's exactly what the term is meant to cover. You don't have to do it. You can just say that you disagree (which you have). Maybe we can't convince each other. But you were using a classic diversion tactic, and it's only right I point it out.
I will add that I think it tends to be done when people aren't secure in refuting a point but they also want that point to disappear. It's a fallacy derived from weakness.
Its exactly what you are doing with your vile antisemitic attempts to equate the niqab with the yarmulkah. That is the definition of whataboutery.
Had you said the hijab you may have had a point, but if you think your whataboutery can make anyone with two brain cells to rub together think that the yarmulkah and the niqab are the same thing then you are barking up the wrong tree. You were the one lashing out with whataboutery while accusing others of the same thing - the niqab has literally nothing in common with the yarmulkah yet you tried to use whataboutery to make the comparable.
Disgusting antisemitism to equate a simple skullcap with a dehumanising full body covering.
How fucking dare you accuse me of antisemitism? I explicitly drew a parallel with the way people are attacked and dehumanised for what they wear. THIS IS THE LIVED EXPERIENCE OF BOTH JEWS AND MUSLIMS. My purpose for bringing it up the parallel is because they are exactly the same thing. Religions where some of its adherents wear clothing that identifies them as being of that religion. It is WRONG that anybody in those circumstances is attacked or insulted. The fact that you think I was attacking Jews by making that comparison speaks volumes for your attitudes. Jews and Muslims are equal and deserve equal protection from bigotry.
So Boris is moving towards accepting the three months. If the courts say it’s a law you have to abide by it, although theoretically he has a decision to make, in reality he has to accept the courts decision. Also, at this moment today we know exactly what answer the court will give, don’t we?
So Overnight Boris becomes level pegging or worse with Labour because of support flouncing off to Farage.
In that circumstance does Boris still want an election? Because yet again in theory he might or might not, but in reality he has to have the election because changing his mind to a no would hole his confidence and poll ratings beneath the water line.
This is what I am claiming happens next, courts say it’s law, Boris abides by it, UK extends exit, Boris has to go to country despite reduced poll lead (possible deficit) a resurgent insurgent Brexit Party. What bit have I got wrong?
If Boris goes all the way to the courts trying to prevent the extension I don't think that Brexiteers will blame Boris or flounce to the Brexit Party as a result. Brexiteers aren't idiots, much as Remainers like to pretend we are, and can see what Parliament and the courts have done.
If you want to defeat Remainers in Parliament then voting Farage won't do that. Boris will need more MPs behind him to defeat the Remainers.
The funny irony is of course while @Noo is trying to pretend the yarmulkah and niqab are comparable [they're of course not], because they've got the same origins what is comparable to the yarmulkah is the taqiyah in Islam.
If someone objected to the taqiyah but not the yarmulkah then that'd be strange - like if someone objects to halal but not kosher. But the whataboutery of trying to equate the niqab with the yarmulkah is nonsense. Its like equating halal with vegan - two very different things.
My goodness if Boris wins the wailing from the left will be a sight to behold!
The wailing from Muslims will be more worrying, since Boris is an islamophobe, a Muslim-baiter. That's not the kind of thing that worries only the left. It goes across the spectrum.
Boris is himself part Muslim through his Turkish great-grandfather
Surely you are either adherents of a faith or you are not, can you be part Muslim/Christian?
As a Muslim, no. You are either Muslim or not.
Anyone left to give a Christian view?
I can give a holistic view, Christianity and Islam share a relationship through the older Hebrew religion, so is there an argument neither is actually a unique religion but a sect of a bigger one?
It's an argument, yes. Not, I would venture to say, a successful one...
Philosophically I'd say its quite a successful one and it is the narcissism of small differences that leads to Christians and Muslims sometimes hating each other [or other sects of their own faith] rather than seeing just how much they have in common. Both Abrahamic faiths [and Judaism too] have far more in common with each other than they do with say Hinduism, or Aborigine beliefs, or Buddhism, or Graeco-Roman mythologies, or the Norse or . . . countless other variants of religions that humanity has invented over the millenia.
Indeed the way the Greek and Roman gods can get lumped together as Graeco-Roman gods . . . with Zeus being comparable to Jupiter, Poseidon to Nepture, Cronus to Saturn, Hades to Pluto etc is very comparable to the way the Abrahamic faiths have evolved in their creation.
I like what you saying. But if you are lumping Greco Roman together, why not throw in the other pagan Gods of that ancient Arcadia and have a pan Euro Asian Pagan religion rather than Pagan religions?
Take the days of the week for example. In English a Sunday, a moonday, Tue (war God day) Woden day, Thor day, Freya (lady day), Saturn day. And compare to the days of the week in Roman for example war day, lady day and the rest match, and the Greek too, which suggests pagan europe all joined up long ago rather than stand alone pagan religion?
If someone points out something they think it wrong, and you say "but why aren't you condemning all these other people", that is the very essence of whataboutery. It's exactly what the term is meant to cover. You don't have to do it. You can just say that you disagree (which you have). Maybe we can't convince each other. But you were using a classic diversion tactic, and it's only right I point it out.
I will add that I think it tends to be done when people aren't secure in refuting a point but they also want that point to disappear. It's a fallacy derived from weakness.
Its exactly what you are doing with your vile antisemitic attempts to equate the niqab with the yarmulkah. That is the definition of whataboutery.
Had you said the hijab you may have had a point, but if you think your whataboutery can make anyone with two brain cells to rub together think that the yarmulkah and the niqab are the same thing then you are barking up the wrong tree. You were the one lashing out with whataboutery while accusing others of the same thing - the niqab has literally nothing in common with the yarmulkah yet you tried to use whataboutery to make the comparable.
Disgusting antisemitism to equate a simple skullcap with a dehumanising full body covering.
How fucking dare you accuse me of antisemitism? I explicitly drew a parallel with the way people are attacked and dehumanised for what they wear. THIS IS THE LIVED EXPERIENCE OF BOTH JEWS AND MUSLIMS. My purpose for bringing it up the parallel is because they are exactly the same thing. Religions where some of its adherents wear clothing that identifies them as being of that religion. It is WRONG that anybody in those circumstances is attacked or insulted. The fact that you think I was attacking Jews by making that comparison speaks volumes for your attitudes. Jews and Muslims are equal and deserve equal protection from bigotry.
I dare accuse you of antisemitism because you compared pressuring women to cover their entire body up to wearing a cap on the skull.
Islam does not demand the niqab and if it did then it would be entirely appropriate to insult Islam for such a dehumanising demand. Just because preaches something nasty in the name of religion does not make it OK.
Absolutely Jews and Muslims are equally deserving of protection from bigotry. Including your bigoted equation of a skullcap with a full body covering.
So Boris is moving towards accepting the three months. If the courts say it’s a law you have to abide by it, although theoretically he has a decision to make, in reality he has to accept the courts decision. Also, at this moment today we know exactly what answer the court will give, don’t we?
So Overnight Boris becomes level pegging or worse with Labour because of support flouncing off to Farage.
In that circumstance does Boris still want an election? Because yet again in theory he might or might not, but in reality he has to have the election because changing his mind to a no would hole his confidence and poll ratings beneath the water line.
This is what I am claiming happens next, courts say it’s law, Boris abides by it, UK extends exit, Boris has to go to country despite reduced poll lead (possible deficit) a resurgent insurgent Brexit Party. What bit have I got wrong?
If Boris goes all the way to the courts trying to prevent the extension I don't think that Brexiteers will blame Boris or flounce to the Brexit Party as a result. Brexiteers aren't idiots, much as Remainers like to pretend we are, and can see what Parliament and the courts have done.
If you want to defeat Remainers in Parliament then voting Farage won't do that. Boris will need more MPs behind him to defeat the Remainers.
That’s a good answer! But let’s see what really happens after no brexit by that 31st, because any amount of support going to Farage in November due to lost faith and trust in Boris we agree could have big impact?
If Boris goes all the way to the courts trying to prevent the extension I don't think that Brexiteers will blame Boris or flounce to the Brexit Party as a result.
They might not blame him, mostly, but it'll still weaken him.
BXP will also get some switchers just by the issue being foremost in the news. Given how narrow Johnson's electoral window is, I don't think he can afford that.
I like what you saying. But if you are lumping Greco Roman together, why not throw in the other pagan Gods of that ancient Arcadia and have a pan Euro Asian Pagan religion rather than Pagan religions?
Take the days of the week for example. In English a Sunday, a moonday, Tue (war God day) Woden day, Thor day, Freya (lady day), Saturn day. And compare to the days of the week in Roman for example war day, lady day and the rest match, and the Greek too, which suggests pagan europe all joined up long ago rather than stand alone pagan religion?
No religion is real or passed down by their mythical gods, all religions have been invented as stories by humanity and evolved through centuries or millenia of retold human stories. So absolutely you can throw in others together. The distinctions between them can be as arbitrary as trying to distinguish between historical European royal families as being distinct to each nation when they're really intermingled.
European pagan mythologies evolved largely together. Abrahamic religions evolved. The further apart [or more disruptive a change] the more the evolutions changed.
If Boris goes all the way to the courts trying to prevent the extension I don't think that Brexiteers will blame Boris or flounce to the Brexit Party as a result.
They might not blame him, mostly, but it'll still weaken him.
BXP will also get some switchers just by the issue being foremost in the news. Given how narrow Johnson's electoral window is, I don't think he can afford that.
We'll see. If foremost in the news is Remainers frustrating Boris it could drive people too Boris rather than away from him. Like how in 2017 Remainers were driven too Corbyn despite Corbyn himself not necessarily being that popular. Polarisation can have unexpected consequences.
My goodness if Boris wins the wailing from the left will be a sight to behold!
The wailing from Muslims will be more worrying, since Boris is an islamophobe, a Muslim-baiter. That's not the kind of thing that worries only the left. It goes across the spectrum.
Boris is himself part Muslim through his Turkish great-grandfather
Surely you are either adherents of a faith or you are not, can you be part Muslim/Christian?
As a Muslim, no. You are either Muslim or not.
Anyone left to give a Christian view?
I can give a holistic view, Christianity and Islam share a relationship through the older Hebrew religion, so is there an argument neither is actually a unique religion but a sect of a bigger one?
It's an argument, yes. Not, I would venture to say, a successful one...
My argument would sound like this. There are certainly sects within Islam and Christianity, with strong differences of view and fierce rivalry, at the same much similarity between Christianity and Islam and Judaism in how climate and fertility, and naked fear and hatred of women shaped them. For example, when the french government proposed rethink on Halal meat It brought Muslims and Jews together.
A further example is not forgetting how use of veils, for the same reason Islam claim to use them today is part of Christianity, for a long time, though a touch out of favour today. Could the change of attitude be related to growing freedom and status of women in Christian societies in stark contrast to the subjugation of women historically?
Halal and Kosher are the same thing [minus differences about blessing, the restrictions on slaughter etc are the same]. That's because they've got the same Abrahamic origins. Halal is to Kosher as Venus is to Aphrodite.
And Halal and kosher related to hot climate, that same as speedy burials and not to eat ox you need for tillage and other work that is more vulnerable in hot climate than temperate or colder. The rituals practices and laws directed on societies by climate. Or not?
And Halal and kosher related to hot climate, that same as speedy burials and not to eat ox you need for tillage and other work that is more vulnerable in hot climate than temperate or colder. The rituals practices and laws directed on societies by climate. Or not?
Precisely. Many of the rules made sense back then but don't necessarily now etc
All religion evolved as generation to generation of humans retelling rules and explanations as to how they see the world with storytelling mixed in.
Its a shame even intelligent people today can be so blinded by the myths of centuries ago and can read whatever zealotry, hate or bigotry they want into it, while some people can see the same myths from centuries ago and see a simple telling of how to live your life to the best of your ability.
I like what you saying. But if you are lumping Greco Roman together, why not throw in the other pagan Gods of that ancient Arcadia and have a pan Euro Asian Pagan religion rather than Pagan religions?
Take the days of the week for example. In English a Sunday, a moonday, Tue (war God day) Woden day, Thor day, Freya (lady day), Saturn day. And compare to the days of the week in Roman for example war day, lady day and the rest match, and the Greek too, which suggests pagan europe all joined up long ago rather than stand alone pagan religion?
No religion is real or passed down by their mythical gods, all religions have been invented as stories by humanity and evolved through centuries or millenia of retold human stories. So absolutely you can throw in others together. The distinctions between them can be as arbitrary as trying to distinguish between historical European royal families as being distinct to each nation when they're really intermingled.
European pagan mythologies evolved largely together. Abrahamic religions evolved. The further apart [or more disruptive a change] the more the evolutions changed.
How far geographically are we taking the joined up euro pagan religions? Did the Persian days of the week match the sequence above? What about above the steppes? Or North Africa?
And Halal and kosher related to hot climate, that same as speedy burials and not to eat ox you need for tillage and other work that is more vulnerable in hot climate than temperate or colder. The rituals practices and laws directed on societies by climate. Or not?
Precisely. Many of the rules made sense back then but don't necessarily now etc
All religion evolved as generation to generation of humans retelling rules and explanations as to how they see the world with storytelling mixed in.
Its a shame even intelligent people today can be so blinded by the myths of centuries ago and can read whatever zealotry, hate or bigotry they want into it, while some people can see the same myths from centuries ago and see a simple telling of how to live your life to the best of your ability.
Did the subjugation of women by these religions stem from a view of fertility being fragile?
I like what you saying. But if you are lumping Greco Roman together, why not throw in the other pagan Gods of that ancient Arcadia and have a pan Euro Asian Pagan religion rather than Pagan religions?
Take the days of the week for example. In English a Sunday, a moonday, Tue (war God day) Woden day, Thor day, Freya (lady day), Saturn day. And compare to the days of the week in Roman for example war day, lady day and the rest match, and the Greek too, which suggests pagan europe all joined up long ago rather than stand alone pagan religion?
No religion is real or passed down by their mythical gods, all religions have been invented as stories by humanity and evolved through centuries or millenia of retold human stories. So absolutely you can throw in others together. The distinctions between them can be as arbitrary as trying to distinguish between historical European royal families as being distinct to each nation when they're really intermingled.
European pagan mythologies evolved largely together. Abrahamic religions evolved. The further apart [or more disruptive a change] the more the evolutions changed.
How far geographically are we taking the joined up euro pagan religions? Did the Persian days of the week match the sequence above? What about above the steppes? Or North Africa?
That's going beyond my knowledge I'm afraid. I do know those societies did interact and there are some shared elements of their mythologies that aren't shared with the mythologies that evolved further afield.
Erm, if I’m Jeremy Corbyn and I’ve just got a “caretaker” Gvt in power (I think he’d be mad to for the reasons above) I’m going to want it to do more than extend. I’m probably going to want to lay the groundwork for a referendum, essentially doing all the Brexit stuff I don’t want to own, under the cover of political consensus.
Yup, better to do the whole thing: Actually *deliver Brexit*. (Unless the voters vote to cancel it in the confirmatory referendum)
Then Corbyn can fight an election on turf he's more comfortable with.
My goodness if Boris wins the wailing from the left will be a sight to behold!
The wailing from Muslims will be more worrying, since Boris is an islamophobe, a Muslim-baiter. That's not the kind of thing that worries only the left. It goes across the spectrum.
Boris is himself part Muslim through his Turkish great-grandfather
Surely you are either adherents of a faith or you are not, can you be part Muslim/Christian?
As a Muslim, no. You are either Muslim or not.
Anyone left to give a Christian view?
I can give a holistic view, Christianity and Islam share a relationship through the older Hebrew religion, so is there an argument neither is actually a unique religion but a sect of a bigger one?
It's an argument, yes. Not, I would venture to say, a successful one...
Philosophically I'd say its quite a successful one and it is the narcissism of small differences that leads to Christians and Muslims sometimes hating each other [or other sects of their own faith] rather than seeing just how much they have in common. Both Abrahamic faiths [and Judaism too] have far more in common with each other than they do with say Hinduism, or Aborigine beliefs, or Buddhism, or Graeco-Roman mythologies, or the Norse or . . . countless other variants of religions that humanity has invented over the millenia.
Indeed the way the Greek and Roman gods can get lumped together as Graeco-Roman gods . . . with Zeus being comparable to Jupiter, Poseidon to Nepture, Cronus to Saturn, Hades to Pluto etc is very comparable to the way the Abrahamic faiths have evolved in their creation.
Not that it’s a game of oneupmanship, but one of those differences good for Islam for treating its scientists better than the Christian Church treated theirs.
And Halal and kosher related to hot climate, that same as speedy burials and not to eat ox you need for tillage and other work that is more vulnerable in hot climate than temperate or colder. The rituals practices and laws directed on societies by climate. Or not?
Precisely. Many of the rules made sense back then but don't necessarily now etc
All religion evolved as generation to generation of humans retelling rules and explanations as to how they see the world with storytelling mixed in.
Its a shame even intelligent people today can be so blinded by the myths of centuries ago and can read whatever zealotry, hate or bigotry they want into it, while some people can see the same myths from centuries ago and see a simple telling of how to live your life to the best of your ability.
Did the subjugation of women by these religions stem from a view of fertility being fragile?
IMHO no. The subjugation of women came from arrogant men in organised religions getting away with what they could get away with. People have used organised religion to further their own agendas.
Historically women have frequently been treated far better than they can be by misogynists who think things like the niqab are anything less than misogyny. There were female priests in antiquity before the Catholic Church banned them.
Not that it’s a game of oneupmanship, but one of those differences good for Islam for treating its scientists better than the Christian Church treated theirs.
100% agreed.
Before the European Enlightenment I think there's a very good case to make that the Islamic world was more enlightened than the Christian one was. The problem is that since then Europe has evolved with the Enlightenment [though there remain many very unenlightened Christians] whereas much of Islam especially as endorsed by the Saudis has gone the opposite direction.
One area we've gone too far is in viewing all religion as equal or acceptable. Its not. All religion is a form of beliefs, and beliefs can be either good or dangerous. We shouldn't tar all with the same brush because they have the same name - but we should absolutely be prepared to call out beliefs that are unenlightened and inferior to our own.
In the same way I'd never compare all of the left to Pol Pot or Stalin and I'd never compare all of the right to Hitler or Mussolini. Some beliefs are good and some beliefs are bad whether they be political or religious. We should be prepared to stand up to extreme beliefs whether they be Nazis or Communists or extreme sects of Islam or Christianity.
But wouldn't a Labour grandee make more sense? Clarke has accepted leaving the EU when the whole point of this is to facilitate remaining. It's a faint risk, but what if he tried to get a deal passed?
I think a Labour grandee is bad for the Team Corbyn because of the risk that they'll run off with the Labour Party, either with an actual leadership contest or just by de-facto marginalizing Corbyn.
You also don't want to have a LibDem or a Green as you'd be bigging up a competitor, so if it isn't Corbyn himself, you need either an ex-Tory or Sylvia Hermon.
There's one more benefit to running an ex-Con, which is that they not only cleave more voters away from the BXP-ified Tories, they may also be able to get more defectors, which is useful if the SNP or the LDs start playing silly buggers.
As far as the risk of Clarke trying to get the thing passed goes, I'd think of that as an opportunity rather than a risk. Get Brexit passed (or defeated), subject to a referendum, than have an election on territory Corbyn is more comfortable with.
Re: next cabinet exit. If I was going to put money on it, Nicky Morgan feels like the one.
She last tweeted (on local matters) last night about the time Rudd quit. She was in the same group as Rudd who kicked off about the 21 expulsions, and was a similarly odd choice for the BJ cabinet.
I guess Julian Smith is another possible.
I reckon Mancock thinks all his Christmases have come at once by keeping his job so far. Having tweeted his loyalty today and been a bit more obvious than Rudd & Morgan in showing his love for BJ, I’d say he’s hanging around for now. That said, he’ll probably calculate at some point that doing so does his future chances more harm than good if Bozza starts breaking laws etc.
Anyone else (I’m assuming Shapps is in the same “all my christmases” boat?)
Is there anyone in British politics who has abased themselves more abjectly than Matt Hancock?
Ross 'SNP gain' Thomson MP, he beats Hancock on the arslikhan of BJ stakes and he didn't even receive the tiniest bauble for it.
You can still get a very generous 1/2 for an SNP gain in Aberdeen South. Bearing in mind the willingness of SLab voters to tactically back the SNP this time (and there are a heck of a lot of them in this formerly SLab seat), and the fact that Thomson has proven to be a bell-end of ginormous proportions, it looks like a fairly risk free 50% return on investment.
I suddenly get the strange impression that a lot of the opposition to a Brexit deal, from certain quarters, is not because this or any Brexit deal is bad, but because it might not be so bad after all, and these people ultimately want Remain.
So a tolerable Brexit deal is the worse result of all, as these people want no Brexit at all.
Oodathunk
For the MPs who really want to stop Brexit the overwhelming goal is a second referendum. Obviously they'd like whatever the alternative to Remain is to be unpopular, but it's quite hard to tell which alternative would be most unpopular, as a harder brexit loses moderate appeal but gains leaver enthusiasm, and vice versa.
They're probably actually the easiest people to satisfy: Provided you give them the second referendum, they'll nod through whatever kind of brexit everyone else is agreed on.
Statistical draw for Swinson really, but you'd think she'd be romping ahead with les femmes, especially since Ruth the hearthrob of the centrists is wiv da angels now.
We continue to hear a lot of sledging on Ruth Davidson and how crap she is from Scottish Nationalists.
One has to wonder why.
Because it’s true.
She was SCon leader for many years and totally failed to build anything remotely resembling a policy platform on which to win at Holyrood (her key task). Everyone knew what she was against, but nobody knew what she was for. Not even her. She was an horrific flip-flopper, forever switching position on a whim.
The Ruthie myth was entirely a media-sustained fantasy. She was absolutely crap at her job.
Feel free to believe the myth, but don’t expect many Scots to grieve over the loss of an almighty FM-to-be. She was never going to get anywhere near Bute House.
I expect the Brit Nat media to try the same trick with Vicky Pollard, but as she is a personality-free zone, and not even an MSP, it will be an uphill battle.
Why do the Unionist media need a woman front-figure? There are several reasons, not the least being that the men are all even worse. Murray being the honourable exception.
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Much less than your suggestion of raising the quality of state schools to match private schools, is my point
Yes, let's close our privatest common denominator.
Mrs Thatcher closed most grammar schools.
The Wilson and Callaghan and Heath governments closed most actually, Thatcher as PM closed fewer than they did and grammar school attendance increased at the end of her premiership and under Major
Mrs Thatcher was the Education Secretary in Heath's government.
She had to follow Heath's orders though unlike when she was PM
Maggie was “just following orders” was she?
I wonder who ordered her to put on that famous European flags suit and campaign hard for membership of the Brussels team?
My goodness if Boris wins the wailing from the left will be a sight to behold!
The wailing from Muslims will be more worrying, since Boris is an islamophobe, a Muslim-baiter. That's not the kind of thing that worries only the left. It goes across the spectrum.
Boris is himself part Muslim through his Turkish great-grandfather
Surely you are either adherents of a faith or you are not, can you be part Muslim/Christian?
Yes one of my mother's friends grandchildren have a Muslim mother and Christian father and have been brought up in both faiths
Brought up in both is one thing but surely the tenets of the faiths preclude simultaneously believing in both.
So much for them coming around. Though as it happens I kind of agree with him. If people think no deal Boris must be stopped and his mps will perform the bulk of that stopping they can back him. If they wont I guess they arent that concerned with Boris and are, gasp, virtue signalling.
Boris is himself part Muslim through his Turkish great-grandfather
Surely you are either adherents of a faith or you are not, can you be part Muslim/Christian?
As a Muslim, no. You are either Muslim or not.
Anyone left to give a Christian view?
I can give a holistic view, Christianity and Islam share a relationship through the older Hebrew religion, so is there an argument neither is actually a unique religion but a sect of a bigger one?
It's an argument, yes. Not, I would venture to say, a successful one...
Philosophically I'd say its quite a successful one and it is the narcissism of small differences that leads to Christians and Muslims sometimes hating each other [or other sects of their own faith] rather than seeing just how much they have in common. Both Abrahamic faiths [and Judaism too] have far more in common with each other than they do with say Hinduism, or Aborigine beliefs, or Buddhism, or Graeco-Roman mythologies, or the Norse or . . . countless other variants of religions that humanity has invented over the millenia.
Indeed the way the Greek and Roman gods can get lumped together as Graeco-Roman gods . . . with Zeus being comparable to Jupiter, Poseidon to Nepture, Cronus to Saturn, Hades to Pluto etc is very comparable to the way the Abrahamic faiths have evolved in their creation.
I like what you saying. But if you are lumping Greco Roman together, why not throw in the other pagan Gods of that ancient Arcadia and have a pan Euro Asian Pagan religion rather than Pagan religions?
Take the days of the week for example. In English a Sunday, a moonday, Tue (war God day) Woden day, Thor day, Freya (lady day), Saturn day. And compare to the days of the week in Roman for example war day, lady day and the rest match, and the Greek too, which suggests pagan europe all joined up long ago rather than stand alone pagan religion?
The English day names are just rough translations of the Latin although with a few deviations - compare the French.
The Lord's Day - Dominicus, Dimanche; Monday - Lundi; Tuesday - Mardi; Wednesday - Mercredi; Thursday - Jeudi; Friday - Vendredi; Saturday - Samedi, the Sabbath, Sabado in Spanish. I don't know what the Latin name is for Sunday that doesn't refer to the Lord. The Sabbath in Sabado etc is the Jewish Sabbath, Saturday.
I mean, comparing Muslims to the KKK, a group that persecutes and kills them, is not different from those who compare Jews to Nazis, which is correctly regarded in all mainstream circles as antisemitic. I'm struggling to believe it's accepted on these boards, but I don't see a code of conduct anywhere. I've heard that people have been banned from this place in past, so there must be some rules. Would be happy to know exactly what they are.
So now I understand. The wealthy only send Tarquin and Jemima to private schools out of the kindness of their hearts, so as to save the taxpayer the cost of educating the little darlings.
There are very many ordinary working people who send their children to private school making huge sacrifices. They would not class themselves as the left snear 'weathy'
Or at least long enough to best Boris' tenure as PM?
But wouldn't a Labour grandee make more sense? Clarke has accepted leaving the EU when the whole point of this is to facilitate remaining. It's a faint risk, but what if he tried to get a deal passed?
We can assume he really would be doing what he thought best, because it absolutely would be the last act of his career. Wouldn’t surprise me if he had one last crack at achieving something. However look to his ministerial career - he enjoys confrontation and has never been a unifier.
There also has to be a Budget of some form, leading to a Finance Bill. I’m not sure Clarke’s new left wing supporters would enjoy his thinking on those things.
Put all that together and I don’t think a Clarke ministry, underwritten by Labour and with a Tory (likely Boris) opposition is a goer.
Clarke would be PM for 2 months to extend until a general election in November and until the result is declared.
He would be a technocrat PM in all but name
And therefore all of my post applies. Even if you’re a caretaker, the business of Government must go on and I think a Finance Bill is going to need to be introduced.
Parliament would be suspended immediately post extension for the duration of the general election campaign so no.
I expect Clarke would spend most of his premiership watching jazz and birdwatching
PM Clarke could advise the Queen to end the progoration early.
I was really surprised that Pedley and Barissa were taken in by the report of the poll purporting to show that Britons "would rather have No Deal and no Corbyn". Clue: consider whether the SAME assumption was likely to have been entertained by respondents when considering both parts of the "dilemma".
I was really surprised that Pedley and Barissa were taken in by the report of the poll purporting to show that Britons "would rather have No Deal and no Corbyn". Clue: consider whether the SAME assumption was likely to have been entertained by respondents when considering both parts of the "dilemma".
Comments
So Overnight Boris becomes level pegging or worse with Labour because of support flouncing off to Farage.
In that circumstance does Boris still want an election? Because yet again in theory he might or might not, but in reality he has to have the election because changing his mind to a no would hole his confidence and poll ratings beneath the water line.
This is what I am claiming happens next, courts say it’s law, Boris abides by it, UK extends exit, Boris has to go to country despite reduced poll lead (possible deficit) a resurgent insurgent Brexit Party. What bit have I got wrong?
I have seen some discussion of antisemitism on here, and I don't recall people anyone being asked to follow up their condemnation of something antisemitic by having to condemn each individual act of antisemitism.
You wouldn't do that, so why do you think it's right to do the same with Boris's islamophobia?
The niqab is directly comparable to people wearing KKK regalia. A full body garment that is directed by beliefs rooted in dehumanising people and treating some people as less than others.
As it happens, I don't believe Boris is an islamophobe.
And I don't believe Corby is an antisemite.
I will add that I think it tends to be done when people aren't secure in refuting a point but they also want that point to disappear. It's a fallacy derived from weakness.
Indeed the way the Greek and Roman gods can get lumped together as Graeco-Roman gods . . . with Zeus being comparable to Jupiter, Poseidon to Nepture, Cronus to Saturn, Hades to Pluto etc is very comparable to the way the Abrahamic faiths have evolved in their creation.
https://www.france24.com/en/20120305-fillon-france-kashrut-kosher-halal-jews-muslims-election
A further example is not forgetting how use of veils, for the same reason Islam claim to use them today is part of Christianity, for a long time, though a touch out of favour today.
Could the change of attitude be related to growing freedom and status of women in Christian societies in stark contrast to the subjugation of women historically?
The legal justification was twofold. That Hussein was in breach of the security council resolution on disarming weapons of mass destruction, and that there was a humanitarian crisis.
I thought that the evidence was clear that he had actually disarmed, that the inspections had been effective. The humanitarian crisis was caused by sanctions.
There's a long record of Britain not taking international law as seriously as domestic law - ask the Chagos Islanders for example - and this distinction is not in Johnson's favour.
Had you said the hijab you may have had a point, but if you think your whataboutery can make anyone with two brain cells to rub together think that the yarmulkah and the niqab are the same thing then you are barking up the wrong tree. You were the one lashing out with whataboutery while accusing others of the same thing - the niqab has literally nothing in common with the yarmulkah yet you tried to use whataboutery to make the comparable.
Disgusting antisemitism to equate a simple skullcap with a dehumanising full body covering.
It is great to have you policing it all.
If someone objected to the taqiyah but not the yarmulkah then that'd be strange - like if someone objects to halal but not kosher. But the whataboutery of trying to equate the niqab with the yarmulkah is nonsense. Its like equating halal with vegan - two very different things.
My purpose for bringing it up the parallel is because they are exactly the same thing. Religions where some of its adherents wear clothing that identifies them as being of that religion. It is WRONG that anybody in those circumstances is attacked or insulted.
The fact that you think I was attacking Jews by making that comparison speaks volumes for your attitudes. Jews and Muslims are equal and deserve equal protection from bigotry.
If you want to defeat Remainers in Parliament then voting Farage won't do that. Boris will need more MPs behind him to defeat the Remainers.
Take the days of the week for example. In English a Sunday, a moonday, Tue (war God day) Woden day, Thor day, Freya (lady day), Saturn day. And compare to the days of the week in Roman for example war day, lady day and the rest match, and the Greek too, which suggests pagan europe all joined up long ago rather than stand alone pagan religion?
Islam does not demand the niqab and if it did then it would be entirely appropriate to insult Islam for such a dehumanising demand. Just because preaches something nasty in the name of religion does not make it OK.
Absolutely Jews and Muslims are equally deserving of protection from bigotry. Including your bigoted equation of a skullcap with a full body covering.
BXP will also get some switchers just by the issue being foremost in the news. Given how narrow Johnson's electoral window is, I don't think he can afford that.
European pagan mythologies evolved largely together. Abrahamic religions evolved. The further apart [or more disruptive a change] the more the evolutions changed.
All religion evolved as generation to generation of humans retelling rules and explanations as to how they see the world with storytelling mixed in.
Its a shame even intelligent people today can be so blinded by the myths of centuries ago and can read whatever zealotry, hate or bigotry they want into it, while some people can see the same myths from centuries ago and see a simple telling of how to live your life to the best of your ability.
Then Corbyn can fight an election on turf he's more comfortable with.
Historically women have frequently been treated far better than they can be by misogynists who think things like the niqab are anything less than misogyny. There were female priests in antiquity before the Catholic Church banned them.
Before the European Enlightenment I think there's a very good case to make that the Islamic world was more enlightened than the Christian one was. The problem is that since then Europe has evolved with the Enlightenment [though there remain many very unenlightened Christians] whereas much of Islam especially as endorsed by the Saudis has gone the opposite direction.
One area we've gone too far is in viewing all religion as equal or acceptable. Its not. All religion is a form of beliefs, and beliefs can be either good or dangerous. We shouldn't tar all with the same brush because they have the same name - but we should absolutely be prepared to call out beliefs that are unenlightened and inferior to our own.
In the same way I'd never compare all of the left to Pol Pot or Stalin and I'd never compare all of the right to Hitler or Mussolini. Some beliefs are good and some beliefs are bad whether they be political or religious. We should be prepared to stand up to extreme beliefs whether they be Nazis or Communists or extreme sects of Islam or Christianity.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7440319/John-McDonnell-says-caretaker-government-Britain-led-Jeremy-Corbyn.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/08/tory-mp-andrew-griffiths-cleared-of-wrongd
You also don't want to have a LibDem or a Green as you'd be bigging up a competitor, so if it isn't Corbyn himself, you need either an ex-Tory or Sylvia Hermon.
There's one more benefit to running an ex-Con, which is that they not only cleave more voters away from the BXP-ified Tories, they may also be able to get more defectors, which is useful if the SNP or the LDs start playing silly buggers.
As far as the risk of Clarke trying to get the thing passed goes, I'd think of that as an opportunity rather than a risk. Get Brexit passed (or defeated), subject to a referendum, than have an election on territory Corbyn is more comfortable with.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/08/mark-sanford-2020-republican-challenge-trump
Accountancy giant forecasts GDP to shrink by 1.5% with business confidence badly dented
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/09/kpmg-predicts-no-deal-brexit-recession-in-2020
Johnson will block the delay bill getting the Royal Assent
Johnson will ignore the bill
Johnson will resign
Johnson will refuse to write to the Eu
Johnson will write a second letter to the EU saying “ignore the first”
Am I caught up?
http://www.deltapoll.co.uk/breaking-the-grip-2-2
They're probably actually the easiest people to satisfy: Provided you give them the second referendum, they'll nod through whatever kind of brexit everyone else is agreed on.
She was SCon leader for many years and totally failed to build anything remotely resembling a policy platform on which to win at Holyrood (her key task). Everyone knew what she was against, but nobody knew what she was for. Not even her. She was an horrific flip-flopper, forever switching position on a whim.
The Ruthie myth was entirely a media-sustained fantasy. She was absolutely crap at her job.
Feel free to believe the myth, but don’t expect many Scots to grieve over the loss of an almighty FM-to-be. She was never going to get anywhere near Bute House.
I expect the Brit Nat media to try the same trick with Vicky Pollard, but as she is a personality-free zone, and not even an MSP, it will be an uphill battle.
Why do the Unionist media need a woman front-figure? There are several reasons, not the least being that the men are all even worse. Murray being the honourable exception.
I wonder who ordered her to put on that famous European flags suit and campaign hard for membership of the Brussels team?
The Lord's Day - Dominicus, Dimanche; Monday - Lundi; Tuesday - Mardi; Wednesday - Mercredi; Thursday - Jeudi; Friday - Vendredi; Saturday - Samedi, the Sabbath, Sabado in Spanish. I don't know what the Latin name is for Sunday that doesn't refer to the Lord. The Sabbath in Sabado etc is the Jewish Sabbath, Saturday.
http://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2481252#Comment_2481252
I mean, comparing Muslims to the KKK, a group that persecutes and kills them, is not different from those who compare Jews to Nazis, which is correctly regarded in all mainstream circles as antisemitic. I'm struggling to believe it's accepted on these boards, but I don't see a code of conduct anywhere. I've heard that people have been banned from this place in past, so there must be some rules. Would be happy to know exactly what they are.
@rcs1000
@MikeSmithson