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

[Liffguard]

It's a bit like climate change. It's very difficult to point at one storm or one drought and go, "this is due to climate change, if it weren't for climate change this wouldn't have happened," because there are so many complicated factors that go into the formation of a storm or drought. But the frequency, severity, and general pattern is still clearly discernable.

So with systemic racism. Any given event may or may not be put down specifically to racism, because yes there are many additional factors (including other isms, like I wonder how many of the Jamaica 50 were rich for example). But the pattern is still discernable.

 

[mormont]

17 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I’m not going to go back and count the amount of times I’ve asked you for evidence of racism in these cases, but it’s quite a lot. Two pages worth. You’ve continued to post on the topic  for some reason but have provided nothing. Not a thing.

Mr Sealion, nobody owes you a god damn thing. People can comment as they please, and decide for themselves which comments are worth responding to.

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

so... you don't have any then. Ok.

Because it's so obvious it's almost embarrassing to have to point it out. What I understand to be the first case of the UK making one of its citizens stateless (at least in modern history) happens to be a female islamist of Bengladeshi descent who, while arguably unrepentant, did apparently not herself directly engage in terrorist activity.
It's obvious that the punishment is not proportional to the crime, or even appropriate. The home secretary's decision corresponds neither to retributive justice or restorative justice, and certainly doesn't seek to prevent future crimes. If the decision does not correspond to any known approach to justice it follows that this was never about justice, but about the twin issues of citizenship and nationalism.
One would also have to conclude that Begum's filmed unrepentance also played a role, and that she was made an example of for political purposes.

It takes a lot of words to explain it, but it's really not rocket science.

Now you might want to argue that terrorism warrants a special approach to justice and citizenship I suppose, but you'd have to use a lot more words than I just did.

[A wilding]

Indeed, and when we discussed the Begum business at the time I pointed out the contrast between her case and that of the white James Joyce, aka "Lord Haw-Haw".

To recap, Joyce was a far right UK politician who moved to Germany at the outbreak of World War II, took out German citizenship, and spent the war broadcasting Nazi propaganda to the UK. At the end of the war he was brought back to the UK against his will, tried for treason against the UK, found guilty, and executed. All this despite that fact that he was born in the US and technically had remained a US citizen right up until he became a German one.

 

[maarsen]

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So you admit there's no precedent for the UK revoking the citizenship for one of its subjects?

Now then, what's the big difference between Begum and some Brit who picked up arms to fight for let's say the IRA (too lazy to look who brought up the IRA).

 

How about those who fought in the Spanish Civil War? The International Brigades were full of foreign nationals who came home after the war. How many lost citizenship? 

[Heartofice]

2 hours ago, Liffguard said:

So with systemic racism. Any given event may or may not be put down specifically to racism, because yes there are many additional factors (including other isms, like I wonder how many of the Jamaica 50 were rich for example). But the pattern is still discernable.

Which pattern are you referring to? The vast majority of people detained and deported from this country are white. It doesn't fit your pattern.  I just find it interesting that you can still identify that these cases are complicated and there are many factors at play, but your blanket answer to everything is... RACISM. Its lazy

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Mr Sealion, nobody owes you a god damn thing. People can comment as they please, and decide for themselves which comments are worth responding to.

Well hang on, you are the one making claims of racism, with nothing to back up your claims. And it's hardly the first time either, I could go back and pull up a few of these threads where you cite racist intentions behind peoples actions. Every time there there is no evidence, instead you love to rely on your own sense of telepathy to back up your claims. 

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

One would also have to conclude that Begum's filmed unrepentance also played a role, and that she was made an example of for political purposes.

Bingo. It is of course a massively despicable and political move by the home secretary, made due to the high profile nature of the case and the specific circumstances.  But was it made for any reasons of Begums skin colour? There is no evidence of that at all.

Also, and here is the real kicker to your argument. Begum isn't alone in having her citizenship stripped from her. There are over 100 people who went to join ISIS who have lost their UK citizenship.

Here's one of them.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/18/jack-letts-stripped-british-citizenship-isis-canada

Jack Letts, known as Jihadi Jack.  Guess what. He's from Oxfordshire... and he's white. 

 

[Rippounet]

16 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

But was it made for any reasons of Begums skin colour?

Ah, of course, that's your angle. The problem is islamism and islamists just happen to generally have brown skin. And since I started with skin color you knew from the start you'd be able to use plausible deniability.
You got me there.
 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Well hang on, you are the one making claims of racism, with nothing to back up your claims. And it's hardly the first time either, I could go back and pull up a few of these threads where you cite racist intentions behind peoples actions. Every time there there is no evidence, instead you love to rely on your own sense of telepathy to back up your claims. 

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

No nearly every time you literally just flat-out deny any evidence if the subject ibeing called racist is on the right/conservative.

Whether it's Johnson on the virtues of colonialism, or using racial slurs, politicos referring to themselves as politicos referring to themselves as grandwizards(I remember you went as far arguing they probably meant Harry potter grandwizards).

You do not extend any sort of nuance with it's them accusing others as such or a left-winger/liberal being accused of racism.

You’re not nuanced in the discussion. If a right-winger/conservative is accused of it you jump to their defense regardless of the actual evidence used against them.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Jack Letts, known as Jihadi Jack.  Guess what. He's from Oxfordshire... and he's white. 

And a dual citizen. Begum isn't. She was never born in Bangladesh, nor did she apply for citizenship to it and Bangladesh itself had made very clear their laws do not make her one of theirs.

If you desire to demonstrate Begum’s treatment had nothing to do with any sense of xenophobia or racism, perhaps use a better example than a white guy with dual citizenship, who probably did far worse things than Begum, getting his citizenship stripped. 

These are not equal. 

[Heartofice]

9 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Ah, of course, that's your angle. The problem is islamism and islamists just happen to generally have brown skin. And since I started with skin color you knew from the start you'd be able to use plausible deniability.
You got me there.
 

Well yes if we are having a conversation about racism, you'd think skin colour might come up

8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No nearly every time you literally just flat-out deny any evidence if the subject ibeing called racist is on the right/conservative.

Whether it's Johnson on the virtues of colonialism, or using racial slurs, politicos referring to themselves as politicos

What generally tends to happen around here is, one poster, generally the same gaggle of posters, will look at a situation, cry about it and then very quickly label everything and everyone they don't like racist, and sit and wait for the applause. That almost every situation mentioned is generally much more complicated than that and in almost all circumstances there is a much more likely and plausible explanation becomes mostly irrelevant because nothing can counteract the joy seemingly of calling someone racist. 

8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You’re not nuanced in the discussion. If a right-winger/conservative is accused of it you jump to their defense regardless of the actual evidence used against them.

What evidence are we talking about here, because so far there has been none, despite me asking over and over and over. The conversation in this thread has so far gone:

A - "This is terrible, it's really obviously racist!"
B - "Is it racist.. where is the evidence of racism"
A - " The evidence is so obvious.. why can't you see it!!"
B - "Well if it's obvious then show me.."
A - " I can't show you.. the evil right wing politicians are HIDING the evidence... but otherwise it's really obvious"
B - "riiiiiiight..."
C - "....systematic racism..privilege... buzzword..."
B -"facepalm"

So you wonder why I might not think this is a terribly fruitful discussion.

8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If you desire to demonstrate Begum’s treatment had nothing to do with any sense of xenophobia or racism, perhaps use a better example than a white guy with dual citizenship, who probably did far worse things than Begum, getting his citizenship stripped. 

Just the level of confusion you guys suffer on this issue is baffling. I demonstrated that not only was Begum not an isolated case in having her citizenship removed for going and joining ISIS, but then showed you that it happens to white people too. Which completely cripples any argument that Begum is getting different treatment due to her skin colour. It ruins it. 

Where you and others get confused is between thinking that being unjustly treated is the same as racism, because Begum is not white. She isn't being treated differently than the other ISIS members, the UK government deems that she is able to have citizenship elsewhere. Just because you don't like her treatment, and I don't either, doesn't mean that it is automatically racist. As I keep saying, it's lazy thinking and it's the sort of thinking that will probably lead to 10 more years of Tory Government and a lifetime of Trump.

[The Anti-Targ]

15 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Since the thread hasn't moved on...

Evidence will be hard to provide because right-wing parties or politicians now operate with a combination of plausible deniability and doghwhistling.

 

Makes me think of the American Wendy's add vs McDonalds back in the ...80s? "where's the beef?" Obviously there's beef there, it's just for marketing purposes you pretend there is none there.

[Werthead]

Trouble at mill. Sajid Javid has resigned after a reportedly testy meeting with Johnson, apparently after being told he could stay as Chancellor but he'd have to sack all of his advisors, presumably due to their financial advice on how to proceed with Brexit cautiously.

Julian Smith out at the Northern Ireland office, unexpectedly as he was the most effective NI minister for some time (not necessarily saying much). Even worse, the main reason he's out is because BJ wanted to demote Brandon Lewis from Security after he fell out with his girlfriend (!) but didn't want to boot him from government, so sent him to "the doghouse" (as the NI office is usually regarded in Westminster).

BJ showing an unsurprising amount of thin skin and "getting even" in this reshuffle.

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I demonstrated that not only was Begum not an isolated case in having her citizenship removed for going and joining ISIS, but then showed you that it happens to white people too. Which completely cripples any argument that Begum is getting different treatment due to her skin colour.

You didn't demonstrate anything, you simply ignored the fact that Begum faced an especially harsh punishment to make a false equivalence.

As for the broader picture, I can't help but think of Obama's 2008 campaign when Obama was accused of "playing the race card" for pointing out that some attacks against him were using covert racism or dogwhistles (not his exact words).

There'd be a lot to say about the mechanisms at work here, but this would be off-topic. Also, I don't see the point of this exchange, since you are evidently not interested in trying to understand how such mechanisms work, only trying to demonstrate what you believe is a clever point.
I'm afraid it's the reverse: not understanding plausible deniability or dogwhistling is not clever. It shows a lot of willful ignorance about the world we live in and prevents one from understanding political movements throughout the West today. And at the end of the day, such ignorance is on you, not us.

To quote:

Quote

Racist is a word of our times, indicative that social history does include intellectual progress. It has evolved into a word that asks of us a degree of psychological, anthropological, and sociohistorical sophistication.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/racism-concept-change/594526/

 

[mormont]

It seems that Javid was told that he'd not only have to sack his own advisers, but work with new ones appointed by Dominic Cummings. 

That, combined with the rumour that all the ministers sacked had disagreed with Johnson in Cabinet meetings, makes clear how this government will be run from now on: no tolerance of any dissent. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

15 hours ago, maarsen said:

How about those who fought in the Spanish Civil War? The International Brigades were full of foreign nationals who came home after the war. How many lost citizenship?  

Don't ask me, those questions shall be happily answered by HoI, and he will surely equally happily provide legal reasons for it. To put all those faux outrage in its place. Human rights, pfffft.

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

That almost every situation mentioned is generally much more complicated than that and in almost all circumstances there is a much more likely and plausible explanation becomes mostly irrelevant because nothing can counteract the joy seemingly of calling someone racist. 

It's really not. You do not need telepathy to know arguing for the virtues of anyone colonialism is racist. It's not complicated. 

Which Johnson has done and you defended with the vapid appeal to this idea of him known to being humorous. If you desire to offer a better argument(I do not believe you can) for why that isn't racist, please make one now. 

You don't need to be a History major to see when British politicians refer to themselves as grand wizards even jest, they're not talking about Harry potter.

You could have simply said they were doing it ironically. 

You instead went to extremes and tried to pretend there was no possibility that they meant the most well known real-world political-entity, who uses such titles-that being the KKK.

You literally used the basis of it being 2019 for why it was unreasonable to think a guy who posted a pic of people carrying a monkey in response  to a mixed raced couple having a baby might possibly be racist. 

You only need to google Rosanne Barr for five minutes, in regards to her racism to know she’s made a bunch of racist statements before this multimillionaire lost her show. As far as I could see because she's was a right-winger being accused of racism. There was no nuance. The woman literally said ”Jewish mind control” and black people being half-chimps.

You intercede and try to interject a false sense  . of nuance to cover for those the on the right or conservative.  You do not offer the modicum of this idea ”don’t rush to accuse others of racism” when it's the right/conservatives throwing around frivolous accusations of racism. Hell you defend it.

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Just the level of confusion you guys suffer on this issue is baffling. I demonstrated that not only was Begum not an isolated case in having her citizenship removed for going and joining ISIS, but then showed you that it happens to white people too. Which completely cripples any argument that Begum is getting different treatment due to her skin colour. It ruins it. 

You cite a white guy who had dual-citizenship who lost his British citizenship and turned over to a land where he is also citizen.

Begum is not a citizen of Bangladesh. She has no ties to it besides her family’s ethnic background.
Again it is you who lacks nuance; you see them both getting the same punishment, for the same crime, but ignore the particular context of their situation.

Let’s say a white European tourist goes to America and sells drugs. He gets found out, arrested, and eventually  gets deported(assuming it’s in small enough quantities).

Now let’s say a A black guy whose family has lived in America for generations did the same thing and he gets the same punishment as the white-European, and expedited to an Africa.

Unless some white-Americans with equally strong roots in America are getting similar punishment, the punishment of the black guy is undoubtedly racist.

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Where you and others get confused is between thinking that being unjustly treated is the same as racism, because Begum is not white. She isn't being treated differently than the other ISIS members, the UK government deems that she is able to have citizenship elsewhere.

Again she is not a dual-citizen. She is not legally a citizen of the place they'd deport her to. It’s entirely racial.

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Just because you don't like her treatment, and I don't either, doesn't mean that it is automatically racist. 

No, her getting deported to a country who she has no legal ties to, only ethnicity is evidence of it.

If you desire to make a case for why Begum is a dual-citizen, please actually do so. 
Or show white-males with no dual-citizenship getting the same treatment. 

[ljkeane]

3 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Don't ask me, those questions shall be happily answered by HoI, and he will surely equally happily provide legal reasons for it. To put all those faux outrage in its place. Human rights, pfffft.

In fairness British Citizenship didn't actually exist at the time so it would have been fairly difficult for them to lose it.

[Which Tyler]

 

[HexMachina]

12 hours ago, Werthead said:

Trouble at mill. Sajid Javid has resigned after a reportedly testy meeting with Johnson, apparently after being told he could stay as Chancellor but he'd have to sack all of his advisors, presumably due to their financial advice on how to proceed with Brexit cautiously.

Julian Smith out at the Northern Ireland office, unexpectedly as he was the most effective NI minister for some time (not necessarily saying much). Even worse, the main reason he's out is because BJ wanted to demote Brandon Lewis from Security after he fell out with his girlfriend (!) but didn't want to boot him from government, so sent him to "the doghouse" (as the NI office is usually regarded in Westminster).

BJ showing an unsurprising amount of thin skin and "getting even" in this reshuffle.

I am troubled by the new AG too. She seems to be in complete agreement with BJ’s stance on the courts/judiciary. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/13/new-attorney-general-wanted-to-take-back-control-from-courts

I’m hugely apprehensive about how this government may damage our judicial system

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 2/12/2020 at 2:44 PM, Heartofice said:

Which pattern are you referring to? The vast majority of people detained and deported from this country are white. It doesn't fit your pattern.  

And how  many of the white people who lose their citizenship are not  Dual-citizens? 
You keep side-stepping this particular point of Begum not actually having any legal ties to Bangladesh. Only ethnic. 
Seriously, you might as well say it’d be totes not racist for Trump to start deporting Mexican-Americans to Mexico for drug crimes even if the offenders were born in America, and comes from a family that has legally been in the US for generations. 

If you could provide a reason this particular spot was chosen other than her ethnicity, please do so. 
 

9 hours ago, ljkeane said:

In fairness British Citizenship didn't actually exist at the time so it would have been fairly difficult for them to lose it.

And to be fair HOI has shown white-people lost their citizenship to Britain before.

But he also failed to acknowledge Begum, in contrast to Jahadi Jack did no have any real legal ties to the place she’d be deported to. 
If he could, he’d very much demonstrate his bolster his point of this having nothing to do with racism.

[BigFatCoward]

I dont get why people are getting so bothered about the Begum deportation. Was it morally and legally dubious? Obviously. Does it set a dangerous precedent and was it probably racist? Yes.

But on the other side of that, fuck her. 

This is why the left lose elections, putting decency before popularity gets you nowhere.