Polling since the Court Case last week:- "Joe Biden leads Donald Trump by six points among registered voters – 50 to 44 per cent – up from a one-point lead in December, according to a new poll.
The president is getting stronger among women voters in the Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday, leading his predecessor by 58 to 36 per cent. In December, Mr Biden’s lead was significantly smaller among women, 53 to 41 per cent"
This tends to confirm the recent Pennsylvania polling which had him ahead there by 8. Perhaps the Republicans need a new candidate?
Hope this lead can be sustained and extended in forthcoming polling. This miserable specimen of a human being needs to be absolutely trounced, not just narrowly defeated.
This is the opposite movement to Savanta's poll published this morning.
Very close to convergence though, which would confirm my overall impression that Labour's lead is stable at around 20%.
But, how will Starmer do in the campaign?
Remember: most people can barely recall a word from him yet.
Sunak can't do what Corbyn did, and boom up out of nowhere, but I do wonder if Starmer could bore people into a derisory turnout.
59.4% is the low record to beat, from 2001. I think Starmer would have to go to some lengths to bore the nation below that level.
If anyone can, it’s him
Also worth remembering that in 1997 turnout was down 6.4%, despite the apparent enthusiasm for Blair. If that pattern holds for the Conservatives losing office, then the starting point for turnout will be 60.9% (i.e. 6.4% down on the turnout in 2019). That's actually pretty close!
Maybe a record low turnout is more likely than I thought? Any odds being offered on it?
Haven’t seen… or looked!
I’ve thought for a long while that it would be a very low turnout, but that’s just my hunch rather than any polling
I suppose you could look at people saying DK/WNV in current polls and comparing to polls from previous elections
Be careful with definitions on this. Turnout is usually defined as ballots cast / registered electorate x 100%. So the registration rate is a key part of this: if people don't register then that will artificially inflate the turnout.
Just to add, the requirement for photo ID is also likely to reduce turnout. That's the purpose of it, after all.
Don't worry – if you are over 70 and a confirmed Tory voter you can use an Oyster Card, today's newspaper, or any piece of junk mail that drops through your door.
And if you are one of the millions of newly-enfranchised ex-pats, you can vote Tory with no photo ID at all.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
I can't make any sense of this comment at all. The alleged Islamophobia has passed me by. There is specific reference to Islamist extremism in relation to the use of political violence, homophobia and anti Semitism.
If Mexicanpete thinks that this refers to Muslims generally, he has not read it.
Even with STV in Ireland, the last election saw FF win 38 seats to SF 37, despite SF attracting 535,595 first-preference votes to 484,320 for FF.
I think that's why, in the 1920's and 30's, STV was known as British Proportional Representation.
STV is not proportional and is not intended to be (although tends in that direction); it's a preferential system and deliberately designed to favour parties that have broad support. We need to get away from the idea that 'first preference' is the only thing that matters (particularly given that in many systems voters pre-distribute their vote so the preference cast isn't their true first preference anyway.
STV's biggest flaw is in how it seriously under-represents medium-sized and smaller parties given that constituencies are usually no larger than 5 representatives. A top-up system could resolve that but isn't used anywhere that has STV, as far as I know.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
The Star Wars prequels accurately predicted how inequality and disputes over free trade and free movement led to a major shift to the far right. I'm started to reevaluate those movies as borderline genius despite being tedious borefests.
At risk of showing my age and taste in films... I watched Star Wars when it opened at (possibly) the Dominion, Tottenham Court Road. I've never seen any of the sequels or prequels.
I think I have a proposal that will suit Donald Trump and the Democrats, and which would result in a much more interesting competition in November:
Time to repeal the 22nd Amendment.
This could be sold to Trump as allowing him to rule forever. And it would mean he could face off against his arch nemesis: Barack Obama.
If Trump and the Democratic leadership were both in favour, surely this could be rushed through: It would require just a two thirds majority in both the Senate and the House. (Which could happen this week). And then it would need 38 legislatures to ratify it: which could certainly be done by end the of March.
And then we have the fight we really all wanted: Barack vs the Donald.
I have a similar, but different counter-proposal.
Delete “natural born” from the citizenship requirements. Time for President Arnie to win 50 States.
A certain South African could also run
2040 POTUS race - Elon Musk vs Jimmy Donaldson
For some reason I read that as Elon Musk vs Jim Davidson. Which made me think - have they ever been seen in the same room together???
ONe is a grossly overrated comedian whose best days are long past.
My best result. On at 120 with stake laid back at 18. Smug city. But mug city if you back her at the current price.
The David Miliband of US politics.
But value imo at the big 3 digit price a year ago. My scenario (for backing) was the Dems doing whatever was necessary to thwart the unthinkable disaster of Trump2.
Yes, unlikely, and the precise mechanism not at all clear, but a less than 1% chance in this unprecedented (because of Trump) US election cycle? No way.
I think so. I think the odds are probably lower than 1-in-1000.
She doesn't want to do it. There are lot's of other potential candidates who do want to do it (some of them at least half decent). The procedural and timing circumstances to get it to happen are awkward and difficult even if she did want to do it.
The repeal of the 22nd amendment, to give us DJT v BHO, is more likely.
Really? 1000+/1? Gosh. Can I open an account?
I do think her current price of 15 is a bit silly though. If it's based only on my hypothetical scenario (the last resort saviour from Trump) it shouldn't be as short as that.
The only other times I can think of where a spouse has followed their husband/wife into politics without directly seeking it has been when the spouse has been prevented from running - e.g. see Belarus. It just doesn't happen.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
He mentions ‘extremism’ in all three of the posts, how much clearer can he be?
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
According to that kind of thinking, the Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity.
There is a long, clear history of partisans of various religions believing that their religion requires them to commit all kinds of crimes and atrocities.
Even with STV in Ireland, the last election saw FF win 38 seats to SF 37, despite SF attracting 535,595 first-preference votes to 484,320 for FF.
I think that's why, in the 1920's and 30's, STV was known as British Proportional Representation.
But that's because later preferences matter (for voters whose first preference choice is not elected).
In this particular case I think it was more that SF didn't stand enough candidates, but that's really incidental to the point I'm making.
Which is that you have another voting system that doesn't simply anoint the recipient of most votes as the winner, this isn't a problem for most people, and it even applies to a voting system regarded as "proportional".
So the situation with the electoral college in the US sometimes conflicting with the popular vote is very far from being unusual.
Oh, by the way, you also get transfers of votes above the quota too.
All voting systems involve some translation of votes into seats. This can never be 100% proportional. Clearly, however, systems vary widely in how proportional they are, and how well they meet other desired criteria. Presidential systems, of course, are rarely proportional because you are only electing 1 person, but they can do better or worse against other criteria.
The US system upweights votes in small states and downweights votes in big states. That's a very different functionality to the system than what STV is doing. Saying Fianna Fail got more seats but fewer first preference votes at the last Dáil election has very little to do with what's happening in the US Presidential election.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
I can't make any sense of this comment at all. The alleged Islamophobia has passed me by. There is specific reference to Islamist extremism in relation to the use of political violence, homophobia and anti Semitism.
If Mexicanpete thinks that this refers to Muslims generally, he has not read it.
I have read it again. I still believe Jenrick is dog whistling. The focus is on the Islamism rather than the terrorism. Factually Jenrick may be accurate, his focus however is calling to a particular reader.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
No, we're not. Amess's murderer, Ali Harbi Ali, was convicted of terrorist offences, which were radical Islamist in nature. Worth noting that Ali also scouted Freer's office.
It would be Islamophobic to say that Islam is necessarily violent, or that X will be violent, intolerant and homophobic because he is a muslim. It is not Islamophobic to note the disproportionate level of intimidation - and, at times, violence or the threat of it - that comes from muslims, in the name of Islam. Not least because the problem won't be solved unless it's first acknowledged and diagnosed correctly.
Polling since the Court Case last week:- "Joe Biden leads Donald Trump by six points among registered voters – 50 to 44 per cent – up from a one-point lead in December, according to a new poll.
The president is getting stronger among women voters in the Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday, leading his predecessor by 58 to 36 per cent. In December, Mr Biden’s lead was significantly smaller among women, 53 to 41 per cent"
This tends to confirm the recent Pennsylvania polling which had him ahead there by 8. Perhaps the Republicans need a new candidate?
Currently, polls which have RFK on the ballot have Trump leading. Polls without - forced choice ones - show Biden ahead.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
Jenrick (I am not one of his supporters) is acting quite properly. In our society it isn't acceptable for anyone in the name of any ideology (it makes no difference whether they are heretical within that ideology or not) to use political violence.
The only other comment I would make is that 'Islamism/Islamist' is not the best language we could offer. Just as we tended not to speak of IRA killers as, eg, 'Violent Irish Cultural Catholicists' we could do with a better term which more clearly distinguishes wicked killers from Mona Siddiqui and Mishal Hussein.
Even with STV in Ireland, the last election saw FF win 38 seats to SF 37, despite SF attracting 535,595 first-preference votes to 484,320 for FF.
I think that's why, in the 1920's and 30's, STV was known as British Proportional Representation.
But that's because later preferences matter (for voters whose first preference choice is not elected).
In this particular case I think it was more that SF didn't stand enough candidates, but that's really incidental to the point I'm making.
Which is that you have another voting system that doesn't simply anoint the recipient of most votes as the winner, this isn't a problem for most people, and it even applies to a voting system regarded as "proportional".
So the situation with the electoral college in the US sometimes conflicting with the popular vote is very far from being unusual.
Oh, by the way, you also get transfers of votes above the quota too.
All voting systems involve some translation of votes into seats. This can never be 100% proportional. Clearly, however, systems vary widely in how proportional they are, and how well they meet other desired criteria. Presidential systems, of course, are rarely proportional because you are only electing 1 person, but they can do better or worse against other criteria.
The US system upweights votes in small states and downweights votes in big states. That's a very different functionality to the system than what STV is doing. Saying Fianna Fail got more seats but fewer first preference votes at the last Dáil election has very little to do with what's happening in the US Presidential election.
Mechanically it's a different process, but the fundamental principle is the same: there is an agreed procedure for translating votes cast to people elected. Following that procedure can sometimes result in outcomes that simplisticly look "wrong", but they aren't a problem if everyone accepts the system.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
Even with STV in Ireland, the last election saw FF win 38 seats to SF 37, despite SF attracting 535,595 first-preference votes to 484,320 for FF.
I think that's why, in the 1920's and 30's, STV was known as British Proportional Representation.
STV is not proportional and is not intended to be (although tends in that direction); it's a preferential system and deliberately designed to favour parties that have broad support. We need to get away from the idea that 'first preference' is the only thing that matters (particularly given that in many systems voters pre-distribute their vote so the preference cast isn't their true first preference anyway.
STV's biggest flaw is in how it seriously under-represents medium-sized and smaller parties given that constituencies are usually no larger than 5 representatives. A top-up system could resolve that but isn't used anywhere that has STV, as far as I know.
If we're going to have PR, then I'd favour open party list by city or historic county.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
Jenrick (I am not one of his supporters) is acting quite properly. In our society it isn't acceptable for anyone in the name of any ideology (it makes no difference whether they are heretical within that ideology or not) to use political violence.
The only other comment I would make is that 'Islamism/Islamist' is not the best language we could offer. Just as we tended not to speak of IRA killers as, eg, 'Violent Irish Cultural Catholicists' we could do with a better term which more clearly distinguishes wicked killers from Mona Siddiqui and Mishal Hussein.
The reason we don't speak of "Violent Irish Cultural Catholicists" is that the PIRA were (at least supposedly) about a non-sectarian United Ireland. Hence "Republican Terrorists".
Note that "Protestant Paramilitaries" in the NI context is a common usage - because they express themselves and their aspirations in specifically anti-Catholic terms.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
Jenrick (I am not one of his supporters) is acting quite properly. In our society it isn't acceptable for anyone in the name of any ideology (it makes no difference whether they are heretical within that ideology or not) to use political violence.
The only other comment I would make is that 'Islamism/Islamist' is not the best language we could offer. Just as we tended not to speak of IRA killers as, eg, 'Violent Irish Cultural Catholicists' we could do with a better term which more clearly distinguishes wicked killers from Mona Siddiqui and Mishal Hussein.
Well then you’ll have to suggest a word that says that are extremist Muslims without somehow mention the Muslim bit? Is that what you want? What is this miraculous word then?
They call themselves Islamists. That’s what they are
I like STV, because - assuming it was 4 or 5 member constituencies - would likely result in a small but meaningful number of independents in the House of Commons. And people who are unbiddable by party hierarchies are almost always a positive for democracy.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
He mentions ‘extremism’ in all three of the posts, how much clearer can he be?
I think this is a bit like the deplorables commentary.
If you want people to change language really matters.
If Jenrick really wants to tackle and reduce Islamic extremism then being explicit that the issue is not with Muslims generally is essential. He is right to highlight the extremism as a threat, and that it is not sufficiently being tackled, but his words don't help reduce that threat imo.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
I can't make any sense of this comment at all. The alleged Islamophobia has passed me by. There is specific reference to Islamist extremism in relation to the use of political violence, homophobia and anti Semitism.
If Mexicanpete thinks that this refers to Muslims generally, he has not read it.
I have read it again. I still believe Jenrick is dog whistling. The focus is on the Islamism rather than the terrorism. Factually Jenrick may be accurate, his focus however is calling to a particular reader.
Fair enough. I think that is an extraordinary reading of a careful set of words. In our free society people are of course entitled to go around making severe critiques of religion of any sort - like the sort of 'sky fairy' rubbish about God/Christianity you can even find on PB.
Jenrick makes no criticism of Islam whatsoever even though he is entitled to. In this way he has clearly separated out the politically violent from normal people - just as references to 'IRA killers' in the bad old days clearly separated these people from normal nationalists and normal Catholics.
I like STV, because - assuming it was 4 or 5 member constituencies - would likely result in a small but meaningful number of independents in the House of Commons. And people who are unbiddable by party hierarchies are almost always a positive for democracy.
In theory yes. But in practice? At the moment we have an unusually large number of "independent" MPs in the HoC, most of whom have been thrown out of their parties for one reason or another. We had the same in the last Parliament too. Did any of these "independent voices" really add anything to public discourse? Not in my recollection.
Even if you go back to the likes of Martin Bell what did he actually contribute? He was a good protest vote against the political class but I don't recall him having much to say when he got there.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
He mentions ‘extremism’ in all three of the posts, how much clearer can he be?
I think this is a bit like the deplorables commentary.
If you want people to change language really matters.
If Jenrick really wants to tackle and reduce Islamic extremism then being explicit that the issue is not with Muslims generally is essential. He is right to highlight the extremism as a threat, and that it is not sufficiently being tackled, but his words don't help reduce that threat imo.
The problem with this is that you set yourself up as an arbiter of what is and isn't an acceptable belief, which doesn't work.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
Jenrick (I am not one of his supporters) is acting quite properly. In our society it isn't acceptable for anyone in the name of any ideology (it makes no difference whether they are heretical within that ideology or not) to use political violence.
The only other comment I would make is that 'Islamism/Islamist' is not the best language we could offer. Just as we tended not to speak of IRA killers as, eg, 'Violent Irish Cultural Catholicists' we could do with a better term which more clearly distinguishes wicked killers from Mona Siddiqui and Mishal Hussein.
Very true. I won't hear a word against Mishal. Although I prefer Amol if I'm being honest.
But Islam and Islamism are two different concepts. One is the religion; while the other is the political ideology. In that sense it is unique because islamists operate in the name (but not under the auspices) of Islam. While other religions have a moral and behavioural code none of them is also (today) a political philosophy.
The dictionary, well wiki (I know!) definition of Islamism is:
"a political ideology which seeks to enforce Islamic precepts and norms as generally applicable rules for people's conduct; and whose adherents seek a state based on Islamic values and laws (sharia) and rejecting Western guiding principles, such as freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, artistic freedom and freedom..."
Even with STV in Ireland, the last election saw FF win 38 seats to SF 37, despite SF attracting 535,595 first-preference votes to 484,320 for FF.
I think that's why, in the 1920's and 30's, STV was known as British Proportional Representation.
STV is not proportional and is not intended to be (although tends in that direction); it's a preferential system and deliberately designed to favour parties that have broad support. We need to get away from the idea that 'first preference' is the only thing that matters (particularly given that in many systems voters pre-distribute their vote so the preference cast isn't their true first preference anyway.
STV's biggest flaw is in how it seriously under-represents medium-sized and smaller parties given that constituencies are usually no larger than 5 representatives. A top-up system could resolve that but isn't used anywhere that has STV, as far as I know.
If we're going to have PR, then I'd favour open party list by city or historic county.
I like open list too but the same limiting factor on constituency size applies, so you'd still need top-ups to be fair to small-to-medium sized parties.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
Jenrick (I am not one of his supporters) is acting quite properly. In our society it isn't acceptable for anyone in the name of any ideology (it makes no difference whether they are heretical within that ideology or not) to use political violence.
The only other comment I would make is that 'Islamism/Islamist' is not the best language we could offer. Just as we tended not to speak of IRA killers as, eg, 'Violent Irish Cultural Catholicists' we could do with a better term which more clearly distinguishes wicked killers from Mona Siddiqui and Mishal Hussein.
Well then you’ll have to suggest a word that says that are extremist Muslims without somehow mention the Muslim bit? Is that what you want? What is this miraculous word then?
They call themselves Islamists. That’s what they are
Would 'Murderous humanity and Allah hating heretics' do?
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
He mentions ‘extremism’ in all three of the posts, how much clearer can he be?
I think this is a bit like the deplorables commentary.
If you want people to change language really matters.
If Jenrick really wants to tackle and reduce Islamic extremism then being explicit that the issue is not with Muslims generally is essential. He is right to highlight the extremism as a threat, and that it is not sufficiently being tackled, but his words don't help reduce that threat imo.
Think of all the Protestants who get upset when the UDF gets called a “Protestant Terrorist organisation”.
Or Hindus when Modi’s chums get all Roderick Spode and burn down some Mosques?
Or Buddhists when the government of Myanmar does what it does in the name of…
I like STV, because - assuming it was 4 or 5 member constituencies - would likely result in a small but meaningful number of independents in the House of Commons. And people who are unbiddable by party hierarchies are almost always a positive for democracy.
In theory yes. But in practice? At the moment we have an unusually large number of "independent" MPs in the HoC, most of whom have been thrown out of their parties for one reason or another. We had the same in the last Parliament too. Did any of these "independent voices" really add anything to public discourse? Not in my recollection.
Even if you go back to the likes of Martin Bell what did he actually contribute? He was a good protest vote against the political class but I don't recall him having much to say when he got there.
Which MPs belonging to parties do you feel have added particularly to public discourse in say the last couple of parliaments?
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
Jenrick (I am not one of his supporters) is acting quite properly. In our society it isn't acceptable for anyone in the name of any ideology (it makes no difference whether they are heretical within that ideology or not) to use political violence.
The only other comment I would make is that 'Islamism/Islamist' is not the best language we could offer. Just as we tended not to speak of IRA killers as, eg, 'Violent Irish Cultural Catholicists' we could do with a better term which more clearly distinguishes wicked killers from Mona Siddiqui and Mishal Hussein.
Well then you’ll have to suggest a word that says that are extremist Muslims without somehow mention the Muslim bit? Is that what you want? What is this miraculous word then?
They call themselves Islamists. That’s what they are
Would 'Murderous humanity and Allah hating heretics' do?
“Heretic” - hmm…. are you advocating violence against people of the “wrong” religious views?
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
He mentions ‘extremism’ in all three of the posts, how much clearer can he be?
I think this is a bit like the deplorables commentary.
If you want people to change language really matters.
If Jenrick really wants to tackle and reduce Islamic extremism then being explicit that the issue is not with Muslims generally is essential. He is right to highlight the extremism as a threat, and that it is not sufficiently being tackled, but his words don't help reduce that threat imo.
It's so obvious that equivalent statements relating to Judaism instead of Islam would have people here climbing the walls as they hurled accusations of anti-semitism.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Do we know yet if Freer was intimidated by a Muslim terror group or some scabby North London socialists? Either way it is unacceptable behaviour and it should be called out.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
He mentions ‘extremism’ in all three of the posts, how much clearer can he be?
I think this is a bit like the deplorables commentary.
If you want people to change language really matters.
If Jenrick really wants to tackle and reduce Islamic extremism then being explicit that the issue is not with Muslims generally is essential. He is right to highlight the extremism as a threat, and that it is not sufficiently being tackled, but his words don't help reduce that threat imo.
It's so obvious that equivalent statements relating to Judaism instead of Islam would have people here climbing the walls as they hurled accusations of anti-semitism.
But Muslims are considered fair game.
There were and are Jewish terrorists - terrorists who’s actions came from their reading of Judaism.
Some of the settlers in Israel/Palestine have created such organisations.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
He mentions ‘extremism’ in all three of the posts, how much clearer can he be?
I think this is a bit like the deplorables commentary.
If you want people to change language really matters.
If Jenrick really wants to tackle and reduce Islamic extremism then being explicit that the issue is not with Muslims generally is essential. He is right to highlight the extremism as a threat, and that it is not sufficiently being tackled, but his words don't help reduce that threat imo.
The problem with this is that you set yourself up as an arbiter of what is and isn't an acceptable belief, which doesn't work.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
Please expand. What do you mean religious schooling.
Would you like a society with no religion or do you see some (all?) religious schooling as contributing to Islamic extremism.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
He mentions ‘extremism’ in all three of the posts, how much clearer can he be?
I think this is a bit like the deplorables commentary.
If you want people to change language really matters.
If Jenrick really wants to tackle and reduce Islamic extremism then being explicit that the issue is not with Muslims generally is essential. He is right to highlight the extremism as a threat, and that it is not sufficiently being tackled, but his words don't help reduce that threat imo.
The problem with this is that you set yourself up as an arbiter of what is and isn't an acceptable belief, which doesn't work.
I like STV, because - assuming it was 4 or 5 member constituencies - would likely result in a small but meaningful number of independents in the House of Commons. And people who are unbiddable by party hierarchies are almost always a positive for democracy.
In theory yes. But in practice? At the moment we have an unusually large number of "independent" MPs in the HoC, most of whom have been thrown out of their parties for one reason or another. We had the same in the last Parliament too. Did any of these "independent voices" really add anything to public discourse? Not in my recollection.
Even if you go back to the likes of Martin Bell what did he actually contribute? He was a good protest vote against the political class but I don't recall him having much to say when he got there.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
Surely you don’t think they learn this stuff at British state schools???
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Do we know yet if Freer was intimidated by a Muslim terror group or some scabby North London socialists? Either way it is unacceptable behaviour and it should be called out.
He specifically mentioned actions by “Muslims Against Crusades” and “Ali Harbi Ali” in his resignation letter.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
Please expand. What do you mean religious schooling.
Would you like a society with no religion or do you see some (all?) religious schooling as contributing to Islamic extremism.
I sense this could go on and on, so like a client of a genie you shall three questons and thats the first.
Religious schooling - Schools either segregated by religion and/or teaching a specific religion as a core part of school. And yes, otherwise I wouldnt suggest tackling them,
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Do we know yet if Freer was intimidated by a Muslim terror group or some scabby North London socialists? Either way it is unacceptable behaviour and it should be called out.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
Surely you don’t think they learn this stuff at British state schools???
Even with STV in Ireland, the last election saw FF win 38 seats to SF 37, despite SF attracting 535,595 first-preference votes to 484,320 for FF.
I think that's why, in the 1920's and 30's, STV was known as British Proportional Representation.
STV is not proportional and is not intended to be (although tends in that direction); it's a preferential system and deliberately designed to favour parties that have broad support. We need to get away from the idea that 'first preference' is the only thing that matters (particularly given that in many systems voters pre-distribute their vote so the preference cast isn't their true first preference anyway.
STV's biggest flaw is in how it seriously under-represents medium-sized and smaller parties given that constituencies are usually no larger than 5 representatives. A top-up system could resolve that but isn't used anywhere that has STV, as far as I know.
If we're going to have PR, then I'd favour open party list by city or historic county.
I like open list too but the same limiting factor on constituency size applies, so you'd still need top-ups to be fair to small-to-medium sized parties.
It depends on the county or city.
Hampshire would have 18 MPs, which is a rather large county and good enough, whilst Rutland would struggle with just one.
If there were 8-12 seats available I'd say that's better than STV constituencies with 4-5.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
It's neither pathetic (other than in its original literal meaning) nor a non-sequitur as it's relevant to the point.
Also, consider this point: if moderate voices cannot call out intimidation and violence for fear of offending the people doing it (or others who might misinterpret the comments as meaning them), then you leave the field free to populists and extremists to make that case - and they'll get support because providing they're not too pungent in how they put it, the intimidation and violence they speak of is real and worrying.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
Please expand. What do you mean religious schooling.
Would you like a society with no religion or do you see some (all?) religious schooling as contributing to Islamic extremism.
The French have no religion in schools, at all, or any other public body.
Does not mean they don't have religion in their country.
It's rather baffling why the state should interfere with peoples relationships with their imaginary friends when it is such a personal matter.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
It's neither pathetic (other than in its original literal meaning) nor a non-sequitur as it's relevant to the point.
Also, consider this point: if moderate voices cannot call out intimidation and violence for fear of offending the people doing it (or others who might misinterpret the comments as meaning them), then you leave the field free to populists and extremists to make that case - and they'll get support because providing they're not too pungent in how they put it, the intimidation and violence they speak of is real and worrying.
FFS - I want people to call out Islamic extremism, it is a real problem as I said in my first post which has been responded to with all sorts of weird assumptions.
But I want it done in a manner that actually has a chance of reducing Islamic extremism.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
Please expand. What do you mean religious schooling.
Would you like a society with no religion or do you see some (all?) religious schooling as contributing to Islamic extremism.
I sense this could go on and on, so like a client of a genie you shall three questons and thats the first.
Religious schooling - Schools either segregated by religion and/or teaching a specific religion as a core part of school. And yes, otherwise I wouldnt suggest tackling them,
What on earth do you think is being taught in Islamic schools. Love thy neighbour, surely.
Islam / Muslim: the religion / the practitioner Islamist: someone who believes Islam should be the foundation for politics and the law Jihadist: someone who believes in exercising violence to achieve the aims of political islamism
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
Please expand. What do you mean religious schooling.
Would you like a society with no religion or do you see some (all?) religious schooling as contributing to Islamic extremism.
I sense this could go on and on, so like a client of a genie you shall three questons and thats the first.
Religious schooling - Schools either segregated by religion and/or teaching a specific religion as a core part of school. And yes, otherwise I wouldnt suggest tackling them,
What on earth do you think is being taught in Islamic schools. Love thy neighbour, surely.
Probably mostly Maths, English, the wider national curriculum and Arabic and Islam. But never been to one so who knows.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
Please expand. What do you mean religious schooling.
Would you like a society with no religion or do you see some (all?) religious schooling as contributing to Islamic extremism.
The French have no religion in schools, at all, or any other public body.
Does not mean they don't have religion in their country.
It's rather baffling why the state should interfere with peoples relationships with their imaginary friends when it is such a personal matter.
Couldn't agree more but I think that is 2,000+ years of history we are up against plus it's pretty harmless stuff if I recall my RE lessons.
My interest is that to stop Islamic extremism for some unknown reason @noneoftheabove thinks we should stop religious education.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
If Jenrick wanted to make a wider point to call out all extremism and intimidation/ murder of politicians rather than make the trigger point he did, why did he not also reference Cox.
I am not defending any sort of extremism, Muslim or otherwise, but I am questioning why Jenrick chose to include some and not others in his condemnation of violence against MPs. It doesn't help that my starting point is I that I believe Jenrick to have a personal self -agrandising agenda.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
Please expand. What do you mean religious schooling.
Would you like a society with no religion or do you see some (all?) religious schooling as contributing to Islamic extremism.
The French have no religion in schools, at all, or any other public body.
Does not mean they don't have religion in their country.
It's rather baffling why the state should interfere with peoples relationships with their imaginary friends when it is such a personal matter.
But the Islamist menace in France is probably even worse than it is in Britain. It is also dire in Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands - basically, anywhere in Europe with a significant Muslim population
That is the uncomfortable truth. The painful fact is that sizeable minorities of Muslim migrant populations in Europe hold opinions incompatible with modern liberal democracy as we know it - from free speech to gay rights. And smaller elements within those populations are willing to use violence to enforce or illuminate these extreme opinions
And it is now so bad it is threatening the foundation of democracy itself - people willing to stand as MPs and serve in Parliament
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
Please expand. What do you mean religious schooling.
Would you like a society with no religion or do you see some (all?) religious schooling as contributing to Islamic extremism.
The French have no religion in schools, at all, or any other public body.
Does not mean they don't have religion in their country.
It's rather baffling why the state should interfere with peoples relationships with their imaginary friends when it is such a personal matter.
This is both exaggerated and polemical. Unlike the French, England (rUK is all different) has an established church which has duties and obligations, but to which no-one has any such duties in return. The state's interference in religion is Zero. People are allowed but not compelled to send their children to church schools.
I know lots of such schools, and have been chair of governors of two such. The road from Cumbria's rural church primary schools, which convey a blissful aura of a land of lost content, to violent religious extremism is, to say the least, a long and winding one.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
Please expand. What do you mean religious schooling.
Would you like a society with no religion or do you see some (all?) religious schooling as contributing to Islamic extremism.
I sense this could go on and on, so like a client of a genie you shall three questons and thats the first.
Religious schooling - Schools either segregated by religion and/or teaching a specific religion as a core part of school. And yes, otherwise I wouldnt suggest tackling them,
What on earth do you think is being taught in Islamic schools. Love thy neighbour, surely.
Probably mostly Maths, English, the wider national curriculum and Arabic and Islam. But never been to one so who knows.
Why would teaching maths and english and Arabic and Islam contribute to Islamic extremism.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
Please expand. What do you mean religious schooling.
Would you like a society with no religion or do you see some (all?) religious schooling as contributing to Islamic extremism.
The French have no religion in schools, at all, or any other public body.
Does not mean they don't have religion in their country.
It's rather baffling why the state should interfere with peoples relationships with their imaginary friends when it is such a personal matter.
But the Islamist menace in France is probably even worse than it is in Britain. It is also dire in Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands - basically, anywhere in Europe with a significant Muslim population
That is the uncomfortable truth. The painful fact is that sizeable minorities of Muslim migrant populations in Europe hold opinions incompatible with modern liberal democracy as we know it - from free speech to gay rights. And smaller elements within those populations are willing to use violence to enforce or illuminate these extreme opinions
And it is now so bad it is threatening the foundation of democracy itself - people willing to stand as MPs and serve in Parliament
I suspect that conversion to Islam will become an increasingly appealing option for native Europeans from deprived areas. People need meaning, and it's not being provided by consumerism.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
Please expand. What do you mean religious schooling.
Would you like a society with no religion or do you see some (all?) religious schooling as contributing to Islamic extremism.
I sense this could go on and on, so like a client of a genie you shall three questons and thats the first.
Religious schooling - Schools either segregated by religion and/or teaching a specific religion as a core part of school. And yes, otherwise I wouldnt suggest tackling them,
What on earth do you think is being taught in Islamic schools. Love thy neighbour, surely.
Probably mostly Maths, English, the wider national curriculum and Arabic and Islam. But never been to one so who knows.
Why would teaching maths and english and Arabic and Islam contribute to Islamic extremism.
Separating kids at a young age into "us" and "them" is unnecessary and creates divisions in society that can be exploited by extremist groups as the kids grow up. The part of the UK with the most violent and persistent sectarian problems is the part of the UK that has the most religiously segregated schools.
The alternative of kids growing up together and realising people of different religions and no religion can all be great (or not great as some humans aren't), will see the world that little bit more hunky dory.
Ah, I’ve found the solution. Or, rather, the Guardian has
In its report on Freer’s resignation it doesn’t mention Islam, Muslims or Islamism AT ALL. It gives some names and mentions Israel but nothing about Islam or Islamism, despite the content of Freer’s resignation letter
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
Please expand. What do you mean religious schooling.
Would you like a society with no religion or do you see some (all?) religious schooling as contributing to Islamic extremism.
The French have no religion in schools, at all, or any other public body.
Does not mean they don't have religion in their country.
It's rather baffling why the state should interfere with peoples relationships with their imaginary friends when it is such a personal matter.
But the Islamist menace in France is probably even worse than it is in Britain. It is also dire in Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands - basically, anywhere in Europe with a significant Muslim population
That is the uncomfortable truth. The painful fact is that sizeable minorities of Muslim migrant populations in Europe hold opinions incompatible with modern liberal democracy as we know it - from free speech to gay rights. And smaller elements within those populations are willing to use violence to enforce or illuminate these extreme opinions
And it is now so bad it is threatening the foundation of democracy itself - people willing to stand as MPs and serve in Parliament
I suspect that conversion to Islam will become an increasingly appealing option for native Europeans from deprived areas. People need meaning, and it's not being provided by consumerism.
Maybe. Tho many Europeans would struggle with teetotalism
I do believe we are heading for some kind of showdown. European voters are increasingly willing to elect hard/far right leaders to tackle this. Meloni, Wilders, maybe Le Pen
Ah, I’ve found the solution. Or, rather, the Guardian has
In its report on Freer’s resignation it doesn’t mention Islam, Muslims or Islamism AT ALL. It gives some names and mentions Israel but nothing about Islam or Islamism, despite the content of Freer’s resignation letter
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
Please expand. What do you mean religious schooling.
Would you like a society with no religion or do you see some (all?) religious schooling as contributing to Islamic extremism.
The French have no religion in schools, at all, or any other public body.
Does not mean they don't have religion in their country.
It's rather baffling why the state should interfere with peoples relationships with their imaginary friends when it is such a personal matter.
But the Islamist menace in France is probably even worse than it is in Britain. It is also dire in Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands - basically, anywhere in Europe with a significant Muslim population
That is the uncomfortable truth. The painful fact is that sizeable minorities of Muslim migrant populations in Europe hold opinions incompatible with modern liberal democracy as we know it - from free speech to gay rights. And smaller elements within those populations are willing to use violence to enforce or illuminate these extreme opinions
And it is now so bad it is threatening the foundation of democracy itself - people willing to stand as MPs and serve in Parliament
I suspect that conversion to Islam will become an increasingly appealing option for native Europeans from deprived areas. People need meaning, and it's not being provided by consumerism.
Maybe. Tho many Europeans would struggle with teetotalism
I do believe we are heading for some kind of showdown. European voters are increasingly willing to elect hard/far right leaders to tackle this. Meloni, Wilders, maybe Le Pen
Henry Olsen @henryolsenEPPC And remember- Trump doesn’t need to win the popular vote to win. He wins the EC if he loses by 3% or less, and likely wins it if he loses by 3.7% or less.
I think I have a proposal that will suit Donald Trump and the Democrats, and which would result in a much more interesting competition in November:
Time to repeal the 22nd Amendment.
This could be sold to Trump as allowing him to rule forever. And it would mean he could face off against his arch nemesis: Barack Obama.
If Trump and the Democratic leadership were both in favour, surely this could be rushed through: It would require just a two thirds majority in both the Senate and the House. (Which could happen this week). And then it would need 38 legislatures to ratify it: which could certainly be done by end the of March.
And then we have the fight we really all wanted: Barack vs the Donald.
I have a similar, but different counter-proposal.
Delete “natural born” from the citizenship requirements. Time for President Arnie to win 50 States.
A certain South African could also run
2040 POTUS race - Elon Musk vs Jimmy Donaldson
For some reason I read that as Elon Musk vs Jim Davidson. Which made me think - have they ever been seen in the same room together???
I don't see why. I mean one is a lifelong racial separatist who can't form a lasting relationship with a woman despite fame and wealth, and the other...
Ah, I’ve found the solution. Or, rather, the Guardian has
In its report on Freer’s resignation it doesn’t mention Islam, Muslims or Islamism AT ALL. It gives some names and mentions Israel but nothing about Islam or Islamism, despite the content of Freer’s resignation letter
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
All the civil servant participants were given a topic to research and present. One attendee said her brother had been radicalised and fought in Syria for Islamic State (ISIS). ’Phew’, I thought. At least one person here will understand the problems of extremism (!) Her presentation was about the UK’s Counter Terrorism Strategy, Prevent. She argued Prevent is inherently racist because it focuses on Islamist extremism. The mere mention of Islamist extremism makes Muslims ‘feel uncomfortable’, she argued. Her brother would most certainly have agreed....
Later on, we were shown an ISIS propaganda recruitment video filmed in Syria. The same attendee’s face lit up. Laughing and pointing at the Jihadi in the video, ‘He used to go to my school! I know him!’ she exclaimed. Mouth agape, I looked around the room for responses to yet another disclosure involving personal links to ISIS terrorists. I appeared to be the only one to find this extraordinary...
... The lecturer further argued that Douglas Murray and Joe Rogan are both examples of the far right. ‘To what extent should Joe Rogan and Douglas Murray be suppressed?’ he asked. ‘They have millions of followers. To de-platform them would cause issues.’ Concluding his talk, the lecturer told a room full of government professionals, ‘so, society needs to find other ways to suppress them.’
I think I have a proposal that will suit Donald Trump and the Democrats, and which would result in a much more interesting competition in November:
Time to repeal the 22nd Amendment.
This could be sold to Trump as allowing him to rule forever. And it would mean he could face off against his arch nemesis: Barack Obama.
If Trump and the Democratic leadership were both in favour, surely this could be rushed through: It would require just a two thirds majority in both the Senate and the House. (Which could happen this week). And then it would need 38 legislatures to ratify it: which could certainly be done by end the of March.
And then we have the fight we really all wanted: Barack vs the Donald.
I have a similar, but different counter-proposal.
Delete “natural born” from the citizenship requirements. Time for President Arnie to win 50 States.
A certain South African could also run
2040 POTUS race - Elon Musk vs Jimmy Donaldson
For some reason I read that as Elon Musk vs Jim Davidson. Which made me think - have they ever been seen in the same room together???
I don't see why. I mean one is a lifelong racial separatist who can't form a lasting relationship with a woman despite fame and wealth, and the other...
...although only one of them has worked with Deanna Troi. It is weird the things I know.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
Jenrick (I am not one of his supporters) is acting quite properly. In our society it isn't acceptable for anyone in the name of any ideology (it makes no difference whether they are heretical within that ideology or not) to use political violence.
The only other comment I would make is that 'Islamism/Islamist' is not the best language we could offer. Just as we tended not to speak of IRA killers as, eg, 'Violent Irish Cultural Catholicists' we could do with a better term which more clearly distinguishes wicked killers from Mona Siddiqui and Mishal Hussein.
The reason we don't speak of "Violent Irish Cultural Catholicists" is that the PIRA were (at least supposedly) about a non-sectarian United Ireland. Hence "Republican Terrorists".
Note that "Protestant Paramilitaries" in the NI context is a common usage - because they express themselves and their aspirations in specifically anti-Catholic terms.
I like STV, because - assuming it was 4 or 5 member constituencies - would likely result in a small but meaningful number of independents in the House of Commons. And people who are unbiddable by party hierarchies are almost always a positive for democracy.
Henry Olsen @henryolsenEPPC And remember- Trump doesn’t need to win the popular vote to win. He wins the EC if he loses by 3% or less, and likely wins it if he loses by 3.7% or less.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
Please expand. What do you mean religious schooling.
Would you like a society with no religion or do you see some (all?) religious schooling as contributing to Islamic extremism.
The French have no religion in schools, at all, or any other public body.
Does not mean they don't have religion in their country.
It's rather baffling why the state should interfere with peoples relationships with their imaginary friends when it is such a personal matter.
But the Islamist menace in France is probably even worse than it is in Britain. It is also dire in Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands - basically, anywhere in Europe with a significant Muslim population
That is the uncomfortable truth. The painful fact is that sizeable minorities of Muslim migrant populations in Europe hold opinions incompatible with modern liberal democracy as we know it - from free speech to gay rights. And smaller elements within those populations are willing to use violence to enforce or illuminate these extreme opinions
And it is now so bad it is threatening the foundation of democracy itself - people willing to stand as MPs and serve in Parliament
I suspect that conversion to Islam will become an increasingly appealing option for native Europeans from deprived areas. People need meaning, and it's not being provided by consumerism.
Maybe. Tho many Europeans would struggle with teetotalism
I do believe we are heading for some kind of showdown. European voters are increasingly willing to elect hard/far right leaders to tackle this. Meloni, Wilders, maybe Le Pen
Then we will see
The other thing is that Islam appeals to men alienated by 'woke'. I think Andrew Tate converted to Islam.
Polling since the Court Case last week:- "Joe Biden leads Donald Trump by six points among registered voters – 50 to 44 per cent – up from a one-point lead in December, according to a new poll.
The president is getting stronger among women voters in the Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday, leading his predecessor by 58 to 36 per cent. In December, Mr Biden’s lead was significantly smaller among women, 53 to 41 per cent"
This tends to confirm the recent Pennsylvania polling which had him ahead there by 8. Perhaps the Republicans need a new candidate?
Currently, polls which have RFK on the ballot have Trump leading. Polls without - forced choice ones - show Biden ahead.
Beth Rigby of Sky reporting Rachel Reeves has indicated that she is about to drop the 28 billion green flagship plan
On Mike Freer it is a terrible state of affairs that any of our elected representatives lives are threatened and indeed the deaths of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess show how real this is
As commentators are saying the use of language from all sides needs to be moderated
I would not stand for public office in this climate
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
All the civil servant participants were given a topic to research and present. One attendee said her brother had been radicalised and fought in Syria for Islamic State (ISIS). ’Phew’, I thought. At least one person here will understand the problems of extremism (!) Her presentation was about the UK’s Counter Terrorism Strategy, Prevent. She argued Prevent is inherently racist because it focuses on Islamist extremism. The mere mention of Islamist extremism makes Muslims ‘feel uncomfortable’, she argued. Her brother would most certainly have agreed....
Later on, we were shown an ISIS propaganda recruitment video filmed in Syria. The same attendee’s face lit up. Laughing and pointing at the Jihadi in the video, ‘He used to go to my school! I know him!’ she exclaimed. Mouth agape, I looked around the room for responses to yet another disclosure involving personal links to ISIS terrorists. I appeared to be the only one to find this extraordinary...
... The lecturer further argued that Douglas Murray and Joe Rogan are both examples of the far right. ‘To what extent should Joe Rogan and Douglas Murray be suppressed?’ he asked. ‘They have millions of followers. To de-platform them would cause issues.’ Concluding his talk, the lecturer told a room full of government professionals, ‘so, society needs to find other ways to suppress them.’
Sweet Jesus. And yet I’m not surprised
I am kinda reconciled to the end of European democracy. I don’t believe any country will find the backbone, Muslim populations will grow, our freedoms will slowly be extinguished, it’s over
We had a good run. I shall be elsewhere if and when it happens
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
Please expand. What do you mean religious schooling.
Would you like a society with no religion or do you see some (all?) religious schooling as contributing to Islamic extremism.
The French have no religion in schools, at all, or any other public body.
Does not mean they don't have religion in their country.
It's rather baffling why the state should interfere with peoples relationships with their imaginary friends when it is such a personal matter.
But the Islamist menace in France is probably even worse than it is in Britain. It is also dire in Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands - basically, anywhere in Europe with a significant Muslim population
That is the uncomfortable truth. The painful fact is that sizeable minorities of Muslim migrant populations in Europe hold opinions incompatible with modern liberal democracy as we know it - from free speech to gay rights. And smaller elements within those populations are willing to use violence to enforce or illuminate these extreme opinions
And it is now so bad it is threatening the foundation of democracy itself - people willing to stand as MPs and serve in Parliament
I suspect that conversion to Islam will become an increasingly appealing option for native Europeans from deprived areas. People need meaning, and it's not being provided by consumerism.
Maybe. Tho many Europeans would struggle with teetotalism
I do believe we are heading for some kind of showdown. European voters are increasingly willing to elect hard/far right leaders to tackle this. Meloni, Wilders, maybe Le Pen
Then we will see
The other thing is that Islam appeals to men alienated by 'woke'. I think Andrew Tate converted to Islam.
I agree with Mike on Buttigieg. He emits an unusual mixture of managerial competence, intellect and sparky charisma. Not a natural orator but that might come with time.
I'd love to see him as US president but I suspect he'll never quite make it.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
All the civil servant participants were given a topic to research and present. One attendee said her brother had been radicalised and fought in Syria for Islamic State (ISIS). ’Phew’, I thought. At least one person here will understand the problems of extremism (!) Her presentation was about the UK’s Counter Terrorism Strategy, Prevent. She argued Prevent is inherently racist because it focuses on Islamist extremism. The mere mention of Islamist extremism makes Muslims ‘feel uncomfortable’, she argued. Her brother would most certainly have agreed....
Later on, we were shown an ISIS propaganda recruitment video filmed in Syria. The same attendee’s face lit up. Laughing and pointing at the Jihadi in the video, ‘He used to go to my school! I know him!’ she exclaimed. Mouth agape, I looked around the room for responses to yet another disclosure involving personal links to ISIS terrorists. I appeared to be the only one to find this extraordinary...
... The lecturer further argued that Douglas Murray and Joe Rogan are both examples of the far right. ‘To what extent should Joe Rogan and Douglas Murray be suppressed?’ he asked. ‘They have millions of followers. To de-platform them would cause issues.’ Concluding his talk, the lecturer told a room full of government professionals, ‘so, society needs to find other ways to suppress them.’
Sweet Jesus. And yet I’m not surprised
I am kinda reconciled to the end of European democracy. I don’t believe any country will find the backbone, Muslim populations will grow, our freedoms will slowly be extinguished, it’s over
We had a good run. I shall be elsewhere if and when it happens
I agree, I think there’s no stopping it. The demographic trends, allied with liberal society’s refusal to even be aware of the possibility make it inevitable. I saw a clip of Christopher Hitchens talking about this earlier, from 2009
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
Please expand. What do you mean religious schooling.
Would you like a society with no religion or do you see some (all?) religious schooling as contributing to Islamic extremism.
The French have no religion in schools, at all, or any other public body.
Does not mean they don't have religion in their country.
It's rather baffling why the state should interfere with peoples relationships with their imaginary friends when it is such a personal matter.
But the Islamist menace in France is probably even worse than it is in Britain. It is also dire in Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands - basically, anywhere in Europe with a significant Muslim population
That is the uncomfortable truth. The painful fact is that sizeable minorities of Muslim migrant populations in Europe hold opinions incompatible with modern liberal democracy as we know it - from free speech to gay rights. And smaller elements within those populations are willing to use violence to enforce or illuminate these extreme opinions
And it is now so bad it is threatening the foundation of democracy itself - people willing to stand as MPs and serve in Parliament
I suspect that conversion to Islam will become an increasingly appealing option for native Europeans from deprived areas. People need meaning, and it's not being provided by consumerism.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
All the civil servant participants were given a topic to research and present. One attendee said her brother had been radicalised and fought in Syria for Islamic State (ISIS). ’Phew’, I thought. At least one person here will understand the problems of extremism (!) Her presentation was about the UK’s Counter Terrorism Strategy, Prevent. She argued Prevent is inherently racist because it focuses on Islamist extremism. The mere mention of Islamist extremism makes Muslims ‘feel uncomfortable’, she argued. Her brother would most certainly have agreed....
Later on, we were shown an ISIS propaganda recruitment video filmed in Syria. The same attendee’s face lit up. Laughing and pointing at the Jihadi in the video, ‘He used to go to my school! I know him!’ she exclaimed. Mouth agape, I looked around the room for responses to yet another disclosure involving personal links to ISIS terrorists. I appeared to be the only one to find this extraordinary...
... The lecturer further argued that Douglas Murray and Joe Rogan are both examples of the far right. ‘To what extent should Joe Rogan and Douglas Murray be suppressed?’ he asked. ‘They have millions of followers. To de-platform them would cause issues.’ Concluding his talk, the lecturer told a room full of government professionals, ‘so, society needs to find other ways to suppress them.’
Sweet Jesus. And yet I’m not surprised
I am kinda reconciled to the end of European democracy. I don’t believe any country will find the backbone, Muslim populations will grow, our freedoms will slowly be extinguished, it’s over
We had a good run. I shall be elsewhere if and when it happens
This is a good argument to vote for Trump - ie "we're completely screwed anyway so it may be worth a shot".
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
Pathetic non sequitur but will give one clarification. It is not because of offence to Muslims that I think Jenricks comments unwise, it is because his comments are counter productive in reducing Islamic extremism and could have been on the productive side of the balance sheet with a simple and obvious addition.
What in your opinion would be productive in reducing Islamic extremism.
Start with education, so get rid of any religious schooling.
Please expand. What do you mean religious schooling.
Would you like a society with no religion or do you see some (all?) religious schooling as contributing to Islamic extremism.
The French have no religion in schools, at all, or any other public body.
Does not mean they don't have religion in their country.
It's rather baffling why the state should interfere with peoples relationships with their imaginary friends when it is such a personal matter.
But the Islamist menace in France is probably even worse than it is in Britain. It is also dire in Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands - basically, anywhere in Europe with a significant Muslim population
That is the uncomfortable truth. The painful fact is that sizeable minorities of Muslim migrant populations in Europe hold opinions incompatible with modern liberal democracy as we know it - from free speech to gay rights. And smaller elements within those populations are willing to use violence to enforce or illuminate these extreme opinions
And it is now so bad it is threatening the foundation of democracy itself - people willing to stand as MPs and serve in Parliament
I suspect that conversion to Islam will become an increasingly appealing option for native Europeans from deprived areas. People need meaning, and it's not being provided by consumerism.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
Jenrick (I am not one of his supporters) is acting quite properly. In our society it isn't acceptable for anyone in the name of any ideology (it makes no difference whether they are heretical within that ideology or not) to use political violence.
The only other comment I would make is that 'Islamism/Islamist' is not the best language we could offer. Just as we tended not to speak of IRA killers as, eg, 'Violent Irish Cultural Catholicists' we could do with a better term which more clearly distinguishes wicked killers from Mona Siddiqui and Mishal Hussein.
The reason we don't speak of "Violent Irish Cultural Catholicists" is that the PIRA were (at least supposedly) about a non-sectarian United Ireland. Hence "Republican Terrorists".
Note that "Protestant Paramilitaries" in the NI context is a common usage - because they express themselves and their aspirations in specifically anti-Catholic terms.
On this one, I would support the use of the word Islamist certainly with respect to David Amess, as it is a distinct and more specific word than Islamic or Muslim and does not cast the net too widely as the latter words would do.
Whether the ones who crossed the line with Mike Freer were exclusively Islamist and couching themselves unambiguously in those terms I don't know, he says so, but it may have been part of a mix with more Corbynite types and wider Muslim and anti-conduct-of-war concerns.
Freer afaict does tack closer to trenchant elements of the Israeli right, recently and historically, than do the front benches in their support for Israel, my sense was he would want Israel to go in heavier on Gaza, and can legitimately be the target of pretty strong criticism in a free society, including from Muslims and Islamists. Which is not to say that going beyond the limits is any more justified than for anyone else.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
So the main problem here is not that an MP and minister has been terrorised into resigning because of multiple Islamist death threats and an arson attack, the main problem is that he might have offended Muslims by mentioning this in the first place?
Is that it? Is that your take?
I would have thought someone with your exceptional IQ could have read that and realised that I had not discussed at all what the main problem is, merely commented on the language being discussed. Maybe the aging is catching up with you quicker than you realise.
No, your main focus was not on the horrible implications of a minister resigning because of Islamist death threats, it was on the “words missing from jenrick’s statement” that meant he might have offended Muslims
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
All the civil servant participants were given a topic to research and present. One attendee said her brother had been radicalised and fought in Syria for Islamic State (ISIS). ’Phew’, I thought. At least one person here will understand the problems of extremism (!) Her presentation was about the UK’s Counter Terrorism Strategy, Prevent. She argued Prevent is inherently racist because it focuses on Islamist extremism. The mere mention of Islamist extremism makes Muslims ‘feel uncomfortable’, she argued. Her brother would most certainly have agreed....
Later on, we were shown an ISIS propaganda recruitment video filmed in Syria. The same attendee’s face lit up. Laughing and pointing at the Jihadi in the video, ‘He used to go to my school! I know him!’ she exclaimed. Mouth agape, I looked around the room for responses to yet another disclosure involving personal links to ISIS terrorists. I appeared to be the only one to find this extraordinary...
... The lecturer further argued that Douglas Murray and Joe Rogan are both examples of the far right. ‘To what extent should Joe Rogan and Douglas Murray be suppressed?’ he asked. ‘They have millions of followers. To de-platform them would cause issues.’ Concluding his talk, the lecturer told a room full of government professionals, ‘so, society needs to find other ways to suppress them.’
Sweet Jesus. And yet I’m not surprised
I am kinda reconciled to the end of European democracy. I don’t believe any country will find the backbone, Muslim populations will grow, our freedoms will slowly be extinguished, it’s over
We had a good run. I shall be elsewhere if and when it happens
I agree, I think there’s no stopping it. The demographic trends, allied with liberal society’s refusal to even be aware of the possibility make it inevitable. I saw a clip of Christopher Hitchens talking about this earlier, from 2009
The word ‘Islamophobia’ is accepted as uncontroversial by most people now
Go East young man. Out here I don’t feel any less free than I do in the UK. Indochina is meant to be corrupt and autocratic but the cops aren’t arresting anyone for being transphobic on Twitter and they don’t get hysterical if you talk about race/religion and crime
The countries are youthful and optimistic, the sun shines a lot, the food is brilliant, and now you can hail tuktuks with an app
Henry Olsen @henryolsenEPPC And remember- Trump doesn’t need to win the popular vote to win. He wins the EC if he loses by 3% or less, and likely wins it if he loses by 3.7% or less.
Ummm:
I don't think that's true at all.
There will be places Trump gains votes, and places he loses them. The same is true of Biden.
It is entirely possible that Trump's vote will get more efficient (in terms of mapping to electoral college votes). It is also entirely possible, in fact quite probable, that Trump's vote will become less efficient.
Let's look at the midterms for guidance. The Republican's vote share increased by 3.4 percentage points, while the Democrats dropped 2.5%. That should have resulted, according to the models, in a comfortable Republican victory with around 235 seats. They actually only scraped it, managing 222.
Why?
Well, the biggest changes in vote share happened in New York, where the Republican share increased a staggering 7.6 percentage points
By contrast, the Democrat vote share actually rose in Michigan! And their vote shares barely changed in Georgia (1.3%) or Pennyslvania (1.8%). Wisconsin on the other hand was very weak for them.
Comments
If Mexicanpete thinks that this refers to Muslims generally, he has not read it.
STV's biggest flaw is in how it seriously under-represents medium-sized and smaller parties given that constituencies are usually no larger than 5 representatives. A top-up system could resolve that but isn't used anywhere that has STV, as far as I know.
The other hosted Big Break.
There is a long, clear history of partisans of various religions believing that their religion requires them to commit all kinds of crimes and atrocities.
To say otherwise is to lie.
The US system upweights votes in small states and downweights votes in big states. That's a very different functionality to the system than what STV is doing. Saying Fianna Fail got more seats but fewer first preference votes at the last Dáil election has very little to do with what's happening in the US Presidential election.
Is that it? Is that your take?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sir-david-amess-ali-harbi-ali-murder-terror-attack-b2056986.html
It would be Islamophobic to say that Islam is necessarily violent, or that X will be violent, intolerant and homophobic because he is a muslim. It is not Islamophobic to note the disproportionate level of intimidation - and, at times, violence or the threat of it - that comes from muslims, in the name of Islam. Not least because the problem won't be solved unless it's first acknowledged and diagnosed correctly.
Which is why so much money has been donated to RFK by some fairly prominent Trump backers: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/rfk-jrs-bid-independent-presidential-run-garners-mega-trump-donor-support-2024-02-01/
The only other comment I would make is that 'Islamism/Islamist' is not the best language we could offer. Just as we tended not to speak of IRA killers as, eg, 'Violent Irish Cultural Catholicists' we could do with a better term which more clearly distinguishes wicked killers from Mona Siddiqui and Mishal Hussein.
Some of us are making money out of this.
Note that "Protestant Paramilitaries" in the NI context is a common usage - because they express themselves and their aspirations in specifically anti-Catholic terms.
They call themselves Islamists. That’s what they are
If you want people to change language really matters.
If Jenrick really wants to tackle and reduce Islamic extremism then being explicit that the issue is not with Muslims generally is essential. He is right to highlight the extremism as a threat, and that it is not sufficiently being tackled, but his words don't help reduce that threat imo.
Jenrick makes no criticism of Islam whatsoever even though he is entitled to. In this way he has clearly separated out the politically violent from normal people - just as references to 'IRA killers' in the bad old days clearly separated these people from normal nationalists and normal Catholics.
Even if you go back to the likes of Martin Bell what did he actually contribute? He was a good protest vote against the political class but I don't recall him having much to say when he got there.
The implications of his resignation are direful. Who will ever be brave enough to be an MP, especially a gay or Jewish MP? An MP speaking about Israel, an MP willing to be pro Israel? An MP willing to challenge anything about Islam or islamism?
We are fast approaching a terrible point where either our democracy capitulates to these menaces, or we all stand up together and say Enough
The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Three years later
But Islam and Islamism are two different concepts. One is the religion; while the other is the political ideology. In that sense it is unique because islamists operate in the name (but not under the auspices) of Islam. While other religions have a moral and behavioural code none of them is also (today) a political philosophy.
The dictionary, well wiki (I know!) definition of Islamism is:
"a political ideology which seeks to enforce Islamic precepts and norms as generally applicable rules for people's conduct; and whose adherents seek a state based on Islamic values and laws (sharia) and rejecting Western guiding principles, such as freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, artistic freedom and freedom..."
I mean it's wiki but not far off.
Or Hindus when Modi’s chums get all Roderick Spode and burn down some Mosques?
Or Buddhists when the government of Myanmar does what it does in the name of…
Etc etc
Terrorists get labelled by their motivation.
But Muslims are considered fair game.
Some of the settlers in Israel/Palestine have created such organisations.
https://x.com/kateferguson4/status/1753094004231549229?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Would you like a society with no religion or do you see some (all?) religious schooling as contributing to Islamic extremism.
Religious schooling - Schools either segregated by religion and/or teaching a specific religion as a core part of school.
And yes, otherwise I wouldnt suggest tackling them,
Hampshire would have 18 MPs, which is a rather large county and good enough, whilst Rutland would struggle with just one.
If there were 8-12 seats available I'd say that's better than STV constituencies with 4-5.
Also, consider this point: if moderate voices cannot call out intimidation and violence for fear of offending the people doing it (or others who might misinterpret the comments as meaning them), then you leave the field free to populists and extremists to make that case - and they'll get support because providing they're not too pungent in how they put it, the intimidation and violence they speak of is real and worrying.
Does not mean they don't have religion in their country.
It's rather baffling why the state should interfere with peoples relationships with their imaginary friends when it is such a personal matter.
But I want it done in a manner that actually has a chance of reducing Islamic extremism.
Islamist: someone who believes Islam should be the foundation for politics and the law
Jihadist: someone who believes in exercising violence to achieve the aims of political islamism
That seems fairly straightforward language to me.
My interest is that to stop Islamic extremism for some unknown reason @noneoftheabove thinks we should stop religious education.
Just what does he think is being taught.
I am not defending any sort of extremism, Muslim or otherwise, but I am questioning why Jenrick chose to include some and not others in his condemnation of violence against MPs. It doesn't help that my starting point is I that I believe Jenrick to have a personal self -agrandising agenda.
That is the uncomfortable truth. The painful fact is that sizeable minorities of Muslim migrant populations in Europe hold opinions incompatible with modern liberal democracy as we know it - from free speech to gay rights. And smaller elements within those populations are willing to use violence to enforce or illuminate these extreme opinions
And it is now so bad it is threatening the foundation of democracy itself - people willing to stand as MPs and serve in Parliament
I know lots of such schools, and have been chair of governors of two such. The road from Cumbria's rural church primary schools, which convey a blissful aura of a land of lost content, to violent religious extremism is, to say the least, a long and winding one.
The alternative of kids growing up together and realising people of different religions and no religion can all be great (or not great as some humans aren't), will see the world that little bit more hunky dory.
That was your last one so I am out.
In its report on Freer’s resignation it doesn’t mention Islam, Muslims or Islamism AT ALL. It gives some names and mentions Israel but nothing about Islam or Islamism, despite the content of Freer’s resignation letter
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/01/tory-justice-minister-mike-freer-to-quit-as-mp-over-safety-fears
So that’s our answer. Just don’t mention it and it doesn’t exist. Solved
I do believe we are heading for some kind of showdown. European voters are increasingly willing to elect hard/far right leaders to tackle this. Meloni, Wilders, maybe Le Pen
Then we will see
Henry Olsen
@henryolsenEPPC
And remember- Trump doesn’t need to win the popular vote to win. He wins the EC if he loses by 3% or less, and likely wins it if he loses by 3.7% or less.
https://fathomjournal.org/scandalous-indoctrination-inside-a-kings-college-counter-terrorism-course-for-uk-civil-servants/
All the civil servant participants were given a topic to research and present. One attendee said her brother had been radicalised and fought in Syria for Islamic State (ISIS). ’Phew’, I thought. At least one person here will understand the problems of extremism (!) Her presentation was about the UK’s Counter Terrorism Strategy, Prevent. She argued Prevent is inherently racist because it focuses on Islamist extremism. The mere mention of Islamist extremism makes Muslims ‘feel uncomfortable’, she argued. Her brother would most certainly have agreed....
Later on, we were shown an ISIS propaganda recruitment video filmed in Syria. The same attendee’s face lit up. Laughing and pointing at the Jihadi in the video, ‘He used to go to my school! I know him!’ she exclaimed. Mouth agape, I looked around the room for responses to yet another disclosure involving personal links to ISIS terrorists. I appeared to be the only one to find this extraordinary...
... The lecturer further argued that Douglas Murray and Joe Rogan are both examples of the far right. ‘To what extent should Joe Rogan and Douglas Murray be suppressed?’ he asked. ‘They have millions of followers. To de-platform them would cause issues.’ Concluding his talk, the lecturer told a room full of government professionals, ‘so, society needs to find other ways to suppress them.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Unionist_Party
The Republican justices gave the U.S. such great campaign finance laws.
On Mike Freer it is a terrible state of affairs that any of our elected representatives lives are threatened and indeed the deaths of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess show how real this is
As commentators are saying the use of language from all sides needs to be moderated
I would not stand for public office in this climate
I am kinda reconciled to the end of European democracy. I don’t believe any country will find the backbone, Muslim populations will grow, our freedoms will slowly be extinguished, it’s over
We had a good run. I shall be elsewhere if and when it happens
https://x.com/triffic_stuff_/status/1752855671240868050?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
The word ‘Islamophobia’ is accepted as uncontroversial by most people now
https://x.com/frankleebrian/status/1753007509638434843?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Whether the ones who crossed the line with Mike Freer were exclusively Islamist and couching themselves unambiguously in those terms I don't know, he says so, but it may have been part of a mix with more Corbynite types and wider Muslim and anti-conduct-of-war concerns.
Freer afaict does tack closer to trenchant elements of the Israeli right, recently and historically, than do the front benches in their support for Israel, my sense was he would want Israel to go in heavier on Gaza, and can legitimately be the target of pretty strong criticism in a free society, including from Muslims and Islamists. Which is not to say that going beyond the limits is any more justified than for anyone else.
The countries are youthful and optimistic, the sun shines a lot, the food is brilliant, and now you can hail tuktuks with an app
I don't think that's true at all.
There will be places Trump gains votes, and places he loses them. The same is true of Biden.
It is entirely possible that Trump's vote will get more efficient (in terms of mapping to electoral college votes). It is also entirely possible, in fact quite probable, that Trump's vote will become less efficient.
Let's look at the midterms for guidance. The Republican's vote share increased by 3.4 percentage points, while the Democrats dropped 2.5%. That should have resulted, according to the models, in a comfortable Republican victory with around 235 seats. They actually only scraped it, managing 222.
Why?
Well, the biggest changes in vote share happened in New York, where the Republican share increased a staggering 7.6 percentage points
By contrast, the Democrat vote share actually rose in Michigan! And their vote shares barely changed in Georgia (1.3%) or Pennyslvania (1.8%). Wisconsin on the other hand was very weak for them.