UK Politics: Winter of Discontent

[Eggegg]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

I can only assume you haven't read his remarks, then, because it is literally there in black and white. It's absolutely plain and unambiguous. It wouldn't challenge the reading comprehension of an eight-year-old. 

I’ve watched the video and read the link posted. If he said more than that then fair enough. But based solely on those remarks I think his meaning is being twisted and pulled out of context 

[mormont]

51 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

I’ve watched the video and read the link posted. If he said more than that then fair enough. But based solely on those remarks I think his meaning is being twisted and pulled out of context 

In my opinion, that is not a view that any reasonable person could arrive at.

[Eggegg]

39 minutes ago, mormont said:

In my opinion, that is not a view that any reasonable person could arrive at.

I think in the context of the debate they were having at the time then I think it’s pretty reasonable to suggest that he was referring to some of the policies being proposed rather than hate speech against any group of people. Especially as the other line they published referred to the more extreme elements of the movement. It seems to me that what has happened is that one line has been isolated from the rest of what he said and used against him.

* obvious disclaimer ( always necessary in this place)  that it doesn’t mean I agree with him or like him

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

17 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

 

The Brexiteer argument was that the UK, because it has been an EU member for 40 years, is more closely aligned to the EU in regulatory terms than Canada or any other EU trade partners so a more comprehensive deal would be easier to reach. So it's not special status, just a reflection of the preexisting harmony between the EU and UK legal/regulatory systems. 

Which is kinda true, however, at the same time Brexiteers promised to remove all of that red tape that's holding the British economy back. Have fun sorting that out.

And what the UK want is something way better than the Canadian deal. They want the same (or close to) access to the single market as they enjoy as members of the EU (which Canada does not have). While being free to remove all the red tape (aka EU regulations), in addition- which you failed to address entirely - the UK would also like to bring in those fancy new trade deals, which of course is also not reconcilable with the idea the single market membership. I mean why would the EU want the UK to function as a gateway for foreign goods to flood the single market (likesay US food products). Or to put it more drastically, the EU has no interest whatsoever in the UK pimping out its access to the single market for UK free trade agreements. You can't have it both ways.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

3 hours ago, Eggegg said:

I think in the context of the debate they were having at the time then I think it’s pretty reasonable to suggest that he was referring to some of the policies being proposed rather than hate speech against any group of people. Especially as the other line they published referred to the more extreme elements of the movement. It seems to me that what has happened is that one line has been isolated from the rest of what he said and used against him.

* obvious disclaimer ( always necessary in this place)  that it doesn’t mean I agree with him or like him

 

I think referring to the right to legally change gender as “minority-obsessed nonsense” and “deviation from the norm” that will lead to “the implosion of society” is unnecessarily harmful language.

[Derfel Cadarn]

22 minutes ago, Stannis Eats No Peaches said:

I think referring to the right to legally change gender as “minority-obsessed nonsense” and “deviation from the norm” that will lead to “the implosion of society” is unnecessarily harmful language.

Agreed

[Eggegg]

44 minutes ago, Stannis Eats No Peaches said:

I think referring to the right to legally change gender as “minority-obsessed nonsense” and “deviation from the norm” that will lead to “the implosion of society” is unnecessarily harmful language.

What he seems to have said is:

"We are specifically concerned that the increasing focus on the rights of minorities will ultimately impact negatively on the rights of the majority population.

“We can’t go on as a society endlessly acceding to the demands of minorities. At some point we have to recognise that granting more rights to a particular minority group will negatively impact on the rights of the majority of people in our society as a whole.

“We have a perfect example of this with the recent controversies over transgender rights.

“A Conservative Government at Westminster is proposing some fairly wide-ranging increases to the rights of transgender people. This could mean that anyone who wishes to identify as being of a gender different to their physical gender may be able to do so simply by defining themselves as such.

“So we could have men entering women’s public toilets because these men claim to define themselves as women.

“We could have male criminals demanding to be sent to women’s prisons because they define themselves as women. We could end up with the Girl Guide movement having to accept men who define themselves as women as Guide leaders, because if the Girl Guide movement refuses to do this, they may end up facing prosecution because they have somehow breached somebody’s so-called human rights.

“We are going to have a lot of fun with this over the next few years if we continue to proceed as a society with this kind of minority-obsessed nonsense.

“What we need to do is have a grown-up conversation about the issue of minority rights and accept that there have to be limits to them.

“There is only so much deviation from the norm that any society can take before that society completely implodes. And if we carry on down this road of appeasing the nuttiest elements of the transgender movement, then what we will face as a society, within a very short space of time, is total implosion.

“That is not to say that there is no good work taking place in the field of human rights in Wales."

I mean, I completely disagree with him on this, he is wrong in his assessment of the situation. But in the context of the debate and the words surrounding the offending sentences I don't believe he is espousing hate speech against a group. Ill advised language, to be expected of most of UKIP,  but it seems to be aimed at the proposal, and those campaigning for it, rather than against any group of people. 

[BigFatCoward]

If that is the full extent of what he said, then i'm having a hard time seeing how the punishment fits the crime, despite disagreeing with pretty much every word he said.

We can't just shut arseholes up because we disagree with them, that is the slipperiest of slopes, we need to render them irrelevant.

 

[Eggegg]

27 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

If that is the full extent of what he said, then i'm having a hard time seeing how the punishment fits the crime, despite disagreeing with pretty much every word he said.

We can't just shut arseholes up because we disagree with them, that is the slipperiest of slopes, we need to render them irrelevant.

 

Exactly. If you want to show how someone is wrong you use counter arguments and demonstrate their wrongness. That’s why you have debates. By shutting him up all you are doing is giving him the power of martyrdom against the establishment , and making him a hero for those who feel the left is already too hardline and reactionary.

Had they not silenced him his speech would have gone unnoticed and would be forgotten immediately. 

[Chaircat Meow]

4 hours ago, Notone said:

Which is kinda true, however, at the same time Brexiteers promised to remove all of that red tape that's holding the British economy back. Have fun sorting that out.

And what the UK want is something way better than the Canadian deal. They want the same (or close to) access to the single market as they enjoy as members of the EU (which Canada does not have). While being free to remove all the red tape (aka EU regulations), in addition- which you failed to address entirely - the UK would also like to bring in those fancy new trade deals, which of course is also not reconcilable with the idea the single market membership. I mean why would the EU want the UK to function as a gateway for foreign goods to flood the single market (likesay US food products). Or to put it more drastically, the EU has no interest whatsoever in the UK pimping out its access to the single market for UK free trade agreements. You can't have it both ways.

Thank you. 

 

[mormont]

I'm not sure why we're still discussing the problems that EggEgg has with understanding bigotry when it is expressed in plain English.

If you can somehow read the above quote and imagine that it is a valid point, then just consider this: others in the debate managed to represent that point of view without feeling the need to insult people. Mr Evans, and indeed his entire party, has considerable form for doing just this - hiding behind the label of 'debate' to publicly promulgate lies and insults. We're going through a little thing called 'Brexit' that is a result of them doing just that. 

[Eggegg]

42 minutes ago, mormont said:

I'm not sure why we're still discussing the problems that EggEgg has with understanding bigotry when it is expressed in plain English.

If you can somehow read the above quote and imagine that it is a valid point, then just consider this: others in the debate managed to represent that point of view without feeling the need to insult people. Mr Evans, and indeed his entire party, has considerable form for doing just this - hiding behind the label of 'debate' to publicly promulgate lies and insults. We're going through a little thing called 'Brexit' that is a result of them doing just that. 

It is insulting and not very professional of him. But is it hate speech as you claimed? 

Btw a little bit hypocritical of you using this sentence no?

[mormont]

Yes, it is hate speech and no, it's not hypocritical. Although I feel it probably would be odd to claim that you can see an insult in that sentence, and yet act utterly perplexed when asked to find something derogatory in Mr Evans' remarks.

[Eggegg]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

Yes, it is hate speech and no, it's not hypocritical. Although I feel it probably would be odd to claim that you can see an insult in that sentence, and yet act utterly perplexed when asked to find something derogatory in Mr Evans' remarks.

Hate speech towards who though? Some extremist campaigners he doesn't agree with?  You really do need to explain that because I'm not seeing it in the paragraph I posted. 

I'm not saying his words aren't insulting, in fact I said they were. I'm saying they don't count towards hate speech, which is what you are claiming. There is a big difference between being a bit insulting to someone and being discriminatory towards an entire group of people and inciting violence. 

[maarsen]

Try changing the words transgender people to black people in the speech above. This may help with those who are lacking in reading comprehension skills. Does he sound like Roy Moore now? 

[BigFatCoward]

23 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Try changing the words transgender people to black people in the speech above. This may help with those who are lacking in reading comprehension skills. Does he sound like Roy Moore now? 

I see what you are trying to do, but in the context of the above text this makes no sense whatsoever.   

[mormont]

2 hours ago, Eggegg said:

Hate speech towards who though? Some extremist campaigners he doesn't agree with?  You really do need to explain that because I'm not seeing it in the paragraph I posted. 

There are, after all, none so blind as those who will not see. 

The text is perfectly clear. Evans is not referring to a tiny minority of trans* rights campaigners. Rather, he consistently refers to all trans* rights as an extremist view, a threat to society, a stalking horse for sexual crimes, 'nonsense' and 'deviation'. At one point, true, he refers to the 'nuttiest elements', which, if he had at any point acknowledged the existence of any supposedly more moderate position on trans* rights, or even if he had not spent the entire speech to that point slagging off any trans* rights position, might perhaps on a very charitable interpretation suggest that he thinks it is at least possible that some sort of moderate position on trans* rights exists, even if that consists of not actually burning them at the stake. However, since in fact he does not do that, the only reasonable interpretation is that Evans considers all pro-trans* rights positions to be among these 'nuttiest elements'. 

2 hours ago, Eggegg said:

I'm not saying his words aren't insulting, in fact I said they were.

Here is what you actually said. 

On 12/14/2017 at 0:56 PM, Eggegg said:

I'm not sure who he is being derogatory to.

People have spent several posts explaining to you the plain meaning of Evans' words which, as noted, do not require any difficult interpretation or twisting or taking out of context. You have repeatedly defended them and insisted on asking for further explanations, while shifting from 'I'm not sure who he is being derogatory to' to 'it's not technically hate speech' (and it very much is). Meanwhile, you seem perfectly able to find insults in posts made on this board, which suggest you are capable of employing your reading comprehension on other texts than Mr Evans'. I note you've edited that bit out of your post now, which taken together with the selective application of your critical faculties, does not do wonders for the idea that you're discussing this in good faith. In fact, it's pretty clear you aren't. So I won't be engaging further with you on this, and I suggest others don't bother either. 

[Eggegg]

23 minutes ago, mormont said:

There are, after all, none so blind as those who will not see. 

The text is perfectly clear. Evans is not referring to a tiny minority of trans* rights campaigners. Rather, he consistently refers to all trans* rights as an extremist view, a threat to society, a stalking horse for sexual crimes, 'nonsense' and 'deviation'.

Is he? Where? 

Where specifically does he say that ALL trans rights are an extremist view? When he specifically mentions extremists within a movement rather than the whole movement itself? He hasn't actually spent the whole speech 'slagging off any trans rights position', rather a specific position that he disagrees with. 

Now your point on 'a stalking horse for sexual crimes' I'm not sure what it is you are referring to. Because he hasn't said that either. If you mean the examples he is giving about possible outcomes, like the Girl Guides thing, then again, he's not referring specifically to trans people, but is giving examples about how the law which was under debate could easily be abused by those who wish to abuse it. 

The word deviation seems to be the main bone of contention, but again this is a debate about men and women being able to change their gender at will, and lets be honest to most people that is a difficult concept for people to get their heads around. Your interpretation is that by simply using the world deviation in relation to anything to do with trans people he is calling all trans people deviants. I don't think that bares any relation to what he has said and I find it a pretty dishonest twisting of his words. He is not saying that trans people are deviants, but that if there is too many deviations and changes to our society, that it will cause problems down the line. Its a conservative and traditional viewpoint, but its not especially hateful and doesn't really qualify as hate speech. 

36 minutes ago, mormont said:

People have spent several posts explaining to you the plain meaning of Evans' words which, as noted, do not require any difficult interpretation or twisting or taking out of context. You have repeatedly defended them and insisted on asking for further explanations, while shifting from 'I'm not sure who he is being derogatory to' to 'it's not technically hate speech' (and it very much is). Meanwhile, you seem perfectly able to find insults in posts made on this board, which suggest you are capable of employing your reading comprehension on other texts than Mr Evans'.

My position hasn't changed one bit on this. Maybe you are misreading again. If he is being derogatory to anybody, its to the more extremist wing of the transexual movement, and if thats so then I cannot see how that would claim to be hate speech. If I said bad things about jihadis it would be very different than if I insulted the whole of islam and all muslims for instance.  Now he might well be against Trans people and being a disgusting individual, he probably is. But its not there in that speech, and thats my point. 

39 minutes ago, mormont said:

 I note you've edited that bit out of your post now, which taken together with the selective application of your critical faculties, does not do wonders for the idea that you're discussing this in good faith. In fact, it's pretty clear you aren't. 

I'm not sure what bit I edited out, and I don't quite recall doing it, but I don't think it changed what I was saying if I did nor do I understand why you feel the need to bring that up as if to weaken what I'm saying. I also noted you previously posted a rather abrupt and pretty obtuse reply to my posts which you felt the need to delete. But we won't bring that up. 
 

[Werthead]

Jacob Rees Mogg's silly comments on the transition deal this morning were amusing. That rising panic isn't because Britain would have to implement the 2019 EU rules on tax avoidance, by any chance Jacob?

[Werthead]

Interesting investigation into transparency in political donations, which the DUP are opposing like mofos because it will mean they have to disclose where they got their massive pro-Brexit donation from. Suspicion that it is from American groups. The Legislation Committee are debating a DUP proposal not to have this backdated to 2014 but only to come into effect from 2017, which conveniently would mean they wouldn't have to disclose the source of the funds. Owen Smith points out that this stinks to high heaven.

The whole thing seems designed to stop Open Democracy and other groups from getting their FoI request to find out where the hell this substantial money came from and if it constitutes interference with the electoral process.