Jump to content
Tywin Manderly

UK Politics: Unboldy Go There Where No Country Has Gone Before

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

We don't know his religious beliefs, I doubt he will want to talk about them, I certainly couldn't find anything to that regard. However his parents are Pakistani Muslims and he is routinely described as being of 'Muslim heritage', and being a 'muslim future PM'.  

Dude, most could use google and find this in less than 30 seconds just using the words ”Sajid Javid” and religion. 

https://christiantoday.com/article/sajid-javid-what-has-the-new-home-secretary-said-about-faith/128840.htm

My own family's heritage is Muslim. Myself and my four brothers were brought up to believe in God, but I do not practise any religion. My wife is a practising Christian and the only religion practised in my house is Christianity.
Guy’s not a Muslim. He just comes from a Muslim family. He’s was fairly clear on this.

If you honestly didn't think his religious beliefs we're blatantly public, I think it was inappropriate for you to declare he was a Muslim. 

Also, a guy can be Islamophobic even the direct target of his bigotry isn't actually a Muslim.

If said guy beats a brown guy skinned guy who wears a turban, because he thinks the guy ”looks” like the image of what a Muslim is, he is still being ”Islamophobic” 

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Also, a guy can be Islamophobic even the direct target of his bigotry isn't actually a Muslim.

If said guy beats a brown guy skinned guy who wears a turban, because he thinks the guy ”looks” like the image of what a Muslim is, he is still being ”Islamophobic” 

 

What on earth are you attempting to say here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

What on earth are you attempting to say here?

Seems self-explanatory; a hate crime is still a hate crime even if the culprit has misidentified their victim;

i.e if I think a straight man is gay and abuse him based on this, it’s a homophobic aggravated crime regardless of the victim’s sexuality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Seems self-explanatory; a hate crime is still a hate crime even if the culprit has misidentified their victim;

i.e if I think a straight man is gay and abuse him based on this, it’s a homophobic aggravated crime regardless of the victim’s sexuality

... and the relation to what we’re talking about is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

... and the relation to what we’re talking about is?

You did not seem to get people complaining about Javid suffering because Islamophobia can simultaneously recognize he is not a Muslim without being inconsistent. You seem to have contended that unless he is actually Muslim-he is not, I'm waiting for you to at least concede that-any talk of him suffering from Islamophobia is irrational in it of itself.

Not true. 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

What on earth are you attempting to say here?

Noting that you specifically ignore the part of the post which shows you and Johnson to be wrong. 

So how much work did you actually do to find about Javid’s religion?

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Heartofice said:

It's becoming pretty circular, and there just appears to be a lot of confusion amongst you guys as to what the issue even is, and nobody has been able to pinpoint racism over the last few pages, it's just the same points which are way off target again and again. 

Her being said to Bangladesh’s problem  with her having no real legal ties to the country. Again only ethnic

If they were consistent they would not take away her citizenship if it would render her stateless. You, and the British government have failed to demonstrate her being not made stateless by taking away her citizenship. You’ve just spouted the government said she wouldn't be as good enough reason for why they're being consistent-even though the woman is not a dual-citizen so taking away her citizenship makes her stateless. 

Their actual actions do not reflect their words.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can’t tell if it’s been addressed or not, but isn’t leaving someone stateless against international law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Can’t tell if it’s been addressed or not, but isn’t leaving someone stateless against international law?

International law is for other people and should bow down to what Britain wants. That's basically how it worked in Empire days and it should work that way forever dammit!

Edited by polishgenius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guys you do know the ignore function is there for a reason.

 

This is really getting tiresome, and no-one is achieving anything.  can we get back to talking about politics and not if someone here debates honestly.

 

Maybe talk about the proposed joint team of Cummings advisers for the treasury and PM.

Or how they are now saying there will be lots of checks on the boarder and this is what people voted for.

Or the Islamic Marriages being invalid

Or the guy deported to Jamaica because he had a driving conviction who had been living here since he was 14 and has no relatives in Jamaica.

Or something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

International law is for other people and should bow down to what Britain wants. That's basically how it worked in Empire days and it should work that way forever dammit!

We're the empire now, buster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

You gotta capitalize the E.

 

Shhh. We were trying to trick them before the gran reveal:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

Who's got the Elgin Marbles, yo?

That pales in comparison to the awesome power of the Ark of the Covenant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That pales in comparison to the awesome power of the Ark of the Covenant.

 

 

Yeah well just wait till we find the One Ring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

 

Yeah well just wait till we find the One Ring.

:lmao:Clearly you haven't heard of a little thing called SPACE FORCE!!1!1!!1!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

 

Yeah well just wait till we find the One Ring.

Hate to break it to you. 

But I heard New Zealand already has that artifact locked down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A True Kaniggit said:

Hate to break it to you. 

But I heard New Zealand already has that artifact locked down. 

 

 

Who is New Zealand's Queen? Not this Jacinda upstart. #AllOneEmpire baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Can’t tell if it’s been addressed or not, but isn’t leaving someone stateless against international law?

Yes, but the UK government's argument is that she can legally claim Bangladeshi citizenship. If Bangladesh refuses to grant her citizenship, then that's on them (in the UK government's view).

Technically the UK stripping her of her citizenship before Bangladesh grants her the same means that she will be stateless, but the UK government position seems to be that it's not a problem as long as she is not stateless permanently. And again, if Bangladesh refuse to grant her citizenship (as they have already indicated they will not), that's their problem.

The main kicker is that the only body Britain can really be held accountable to here is the EU Court of Human Rights, and they won't be able to rule on the case now that the UK has left the EU. The international criminal court is unlikely to take it on, and if they did then it'll take so long to get a ruling the current government don't remotely need to worry about it.

Edited by Werthead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Yes, but the UK government's argument is that she can legally claim Bangladeshi citizenship. If Bangladesh refuses to grant her citizenship, then that's on them (in the UK government's view).

Technically the UK stripping her of her citizenship before Bangladesh grants her the same means that she will be stateless, but the UK government position seems to be that it's not a problem as long as she is not stateless permanently. And again, if Bangladesh refuse to grant her citizenship (as they have already indicated they will not), that's their problem.

The main kicker is that the only body Britain can really be held accountable to here is the EU Court of Human Rights, and they won't be able to rule on the case now that the UK has left the EU. The international criminal court is unlikely to take it on, and if they did then it'll take so long to get a ruling the current government don't remotely need to worry about it.

So what you're saying is a bunch of bureaucrats are going maximum bureaucratic. Fitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×