You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
How is one different from the other?
Because there are plethora of people who have not been born here or are the children of immigrants currently holding security clearances across government, the civil service, defence and the security services.
And the fact that security clearance system also excludes white british individuals based on their risk, of which I know quite a few individuals who have failed to gain higher levels or even lost theirs due to their actions.
How is one different from the other?
Easy. One is actually about national security, and has been carefully designed and thought through by intelligent adults, the other is a piece of populist 'legislation' that has been designed purely to appeal to racist tory voters.
Neither is racist by nature
The N+B Act is. We've settled this.
Dismissive, disparaging and vaguely accusatory. Standard. Anyway.
The N+B Act is. We’ve settled this.
Have we? Explain it to me. Explain why this [b]act[/b] unfairly discriminates against a specific or several specified ethnic groups, but does not apply to another unmentioned individual or group? Surely, the act itself isn't racist until someone targets it toward a particular group. Your earlier evidence showed that Muslims had a higher likelihood of being deprived shows correlation, but ignores context.
I don't deny that the act is flawed and it has significant potential for abuse, but how is it racist? Genuinely curious.
Have we? Explain it to me
No point going over old ground. You can believe what you want, your choice. You're not going to accept the same point of view as Amnesty International, Greenpeace, the Good Law project and many other significant organisations and individuals, and that's up to you of course. And if it looks like a duck and quacks, you might think it's a rabbit. I doubt I could convince you otherwise, so let's leave it there.
Amnesty makes no mention of racism, inherent or otherwise, neither does the Law Society, nor does Greenpeace.
All of them, without exception, say that it “threatens the rights” of minorities as does almost every article you linked to on pages 17-19? None of them state that it is specifically targeting them, just that it could do.
It’s a bad bill, but again, is it racist?
I’m genuinely asking you, in your own words, to explain why it is.
I’m a scientist, I’m more than willing to be convinced I’m wrong and will happily accept it. I’m not tied to an opinion, I’m just seeking clarity as to why/what makes this racist? What language makes it so, which minorities does it specifically target?
I’m aware that like the groups above state, that it could be misused, but is that its intent?
WRT security clearance - there are blanket bans on nationals from certain nations for most defence projects and with ancestry (single generation, as it was at the time) for highly secure aspects such as nuclear deterrent.
“threatens the rights” of minorities
that right there is why it is racist. It effects minorities more - its racist. that does not prove intent but it shows outcomes are racist.
If the law, when applied to a caucasian or a ethnic minority person, results in the same outcome then it is in and of itself not racist.
The fact the law under discussion can equally be applied to a white christian American or to a muslim from Syria and can result in the same outcome for both suggests it's not racist.
However, the application of the law by the Government de jour to predominantly only ethnic minorities can be, and likely is, racist.
No, it says “threatens” a threat is not an action. The implication is that it can be used against established Britons with ancestry from without the British isles and colonies. That would be anyone, right?
But, and this is my point here, is it inherently racist if it benefits no group and doesn’t disenfranchise any other group, but is applied only on a casss by case basis and is applied fairly.
If you can have laws that protect national interests over and above the rest of the world’s population (within reason) is this not an extension of those laws?
I don’t believe the law is intended to be levelled at generational brits of minority backgrounds, it’s intended to respond to immigration based threats such as radicalisation of recent arrivals, etc.
Perhaps I’m just too naive?
My dim memories of the employment law course that was was part of my university course 25ish years ago includes the concept of indirect discrimination.
IANAL and these are old memories but... Say an business chose to make redundancies, and decided to get rid of all of their part time staff before making any full time staff redundant. If it could be demonstrated that a greater proportion of their part time staff were women than the proportion of their full time staff that were women then that redundancy policy could count as indirect sexual discrimination. While it did not explicitly target women disproportionately, in effect it did affect women more than men.
Could this law be indirectly racist? While it applies to all British citizens that can potentially apply for citizenship of another country and does not explicitly target minorities. But if in reality it disproportionately applies to racial minorities then is it indirectly racist?
The possibility that there are actually a lot of white British citizens who are eligible for Irish citizenship may affect that calculation, but this would seem to be a way that a law that does not explicitly target minorities could still be racist.
Could this law be indirectly racist? While it applies to all British citizens that can potentially apply for citizenship of another country and does not explicitly target minorities. But if in reality it disproportionately applies to racial minorities then is it indirectly racist?
Thank the lord someone has figured it out!
Amnesty makes no mention of racism
On the actual page I linked to, at the very top of the article:
UK: Priti Patel's racist Nationality and Borders Bill 'drags the UK's reputation through the mud
The Good Law Project also states:
The Nationality and Borders Bill is racist – we want Government to think again
-------------------------------
The Law Society and Greenpeace both state how it will negatively impact on minorities. So as tjagain says:
that right there is why it is racist. It effects minorities more – its racist. that does not prove intent but it shows outcomes are racist.
I’m genuinely asking you, in your own words, to explain why it is.
I already have, and used loads of other sources.
I’m a scientist
Perhaps you're looking too hard for some sort of scientific proof. Which, as I've explained. You will not find because that's not how things work in this instance. Racism is a philosophical construct, it does not follow scientific principles. Ergo, it can exist, and be proved to exist, even when there is no 'evidence' as you would expect in scientific terms. So what you are demanding, you will not find. You have to switch to a different, non-linear, non-binary way of thinking. As I've explained before; the legislation will have been written very carefully to ensure it does not transgress any legal boundaries. In this sense, it cannot be considered 'racist' on face value. But apply a deeper philosophical analysis, and it soon becomes clear just how racist it actually is.
WRT security clearance – there are blanket bans on nationals from certain nations for most defence projects and with ancestry (single generation, as it was at the time) for highly secure aspects such as nuclear deterrent
As a scientist, you'll be happy to prove this, I'm sure.
I don’t believe the law is intended to be levelled at generational brits of minority backgrounds, it’s intended to respond to immigration based threats such as radicalisation of recent arrivals, etc.
Perhaps I’m just too naive?
Perhaps.
But if in reality it disproportionately applies to racial minorities then is it indirectly racist?
But does it though? Genuine question by the way.
I suspect there may be very large proportion of the population to which it could be applied that are or are the direct offspring of white europeans with either british residency or british citizenship that legitimately have or could claim dual nationality.
I don't know what the breakdown of ethnicities is to which the law could be applied therefore I cannot form an opinion as to whether the law is inherently indirectly racist to ethnic minorities or not.
By the way I'm in no way saying it could not be applied in a way which is racist.
I would expect all nations to treat non nationals differently to nationals.
Begum was born here. Do you have a different definition of "national"?
The problem with you asking for ‘evidence’ in this context, is that you are failing to see experience and knowledge of racism as the ‘evidence’ needed to prove something like the N+B Act is inherently racist.
Again,
I don't doubt that you've experienced racism and for that I'm sorry. I grew up in a largely Muslim neighbourhood, I've seen endemic racism first-hand albeit indirectly and it is horrific. But just because it exists doesn't mean you get a free pass to make shit up, your "knowledge" is (wholly understandably) biased. My experience was that the Asian families were fantastic and it was the white ones who were problematic; but it would be foolish of me to extrapolate that experience beyond "people I met."
‘Evidence’ in this context isn’t the same as someone being caught on CCTV putting stolen items in their bag then walking out of a shop, it doesn’t work in that way.
Sure it does. Evidence doesn't have context. Something is demonstrable or it isn't. Otherwise, what you're describing there is conjecture.
Racism is a philosophical construct, it does not follow scientific principles.
Seriously?
Cougar
If it effects minorities more then its racist. I am astonished you are finding this a difficult conceot.
Its been explained many time in many words
"Evidence doesn’t have context. Something is demonstrable or it isn’t. Otherwise, what you’re describing there is conjecture."
Show me a tachyon or a higgs boson particle. Prove evolution, show me "dark matter"
If it effects minorities more then its racist
To ask again; does it though?
Has or can anyone provide a breakdown of ethnicities and their comparative proportions to show that this particular law applies to more of the population that are ethnic minorities with uk citizenship and access to dual nationality than whites with uk citizenship with access to dual nationality?
I had a quick look at the census to see if there was a dataset that could show this but couldn't find a easy option or if there is a way to break out that data.
In my relatively small circle of acquaintances the number of ethic minority people and the number of white european people (whom since brexit have taken uk citizenship) who are immigrants that have taken citizenship or 1st generation uk born is roughly the same. I would be keen to understand if that is a trend that extends across the UK.
Show me a tachyon or a higgs boson particle. Prove evolution, show me “dark matter”
There isn't evidence, that's why they are (accepted) theories and part of Theoretical Physics.
So there's no evidence of evolution?
That Darwin was full of shite.
Thats my point Jonm81. these things are accepted as true withbout solid evidence
altho I think they actually found something that acted as a higgs boson would be expected to do
Not quite the point Ernie - cougar said "Evidence doesn’t have context. Something is demonstrable or it isn’t. Otherwise, what you’re describing there is conjecture.
We cannot demonstrate evolution nor prove it. Plenty of evidence for it but that evidence has context and is not demonstrable. You cannot run a double blind study showing evolution and certainly not for evolution in the past
Plenty of evidence for it
Well that's a relief.
TJ, they are not accepted as "true". They are accepted as a likely solution that has not been determined to be fact due to the lack of evidence.
Regarding evolution, humans have been studying and recording it long enough now to evidence that a good number of species have evolved across hundreds of generations to meet changing environmental conditions. It is not unreasonable to extrapolate that evidence to all organic species.
I do sympathise with brownperson as they cannot provide evidence that a white person in Bagums exact position would be treated the same as her. It hasn't happened and you cannot prove a negative therefore they cannot prove her treatment is racist or not. Therefore, they are quite reasonably falling back on personal experience.
However evidencing that that law is (indirectly) racist should be possible. The law as written applies equally to all uk citizens that have access to dual nationality. The question is: Are there significantly more ethnic minority people in this group than white people. If answer is yes then it can be classed as indirectly racist, if not then it's not.
I can't find an answer to that question. Can anyone else?
The question is: Are there significantly more ethnic minority people in this group than white people. If answer is yes then it can be classed as indirectly racist, if not then it’s not.
No - the question is does it effect minorities more? to which the clear answer is yes so its racist
I find it hard to accept in this day and age that people here are being so obtuse about this and that a bunch of white guys are telling a brown person that something he sees as racist is not racist.
Quite disheartening. I thought we had moved beyond this blanket denials
TJ - that’s not what’s happening. People are asking “why?”
People are trying to understand how something which is intended to be applied in one context (new immigration and perceived threat regardless of skin colour, country of origin, etc) can be perceived as racist because it “could” be applied retroactively in another context to minority groups already here.
Brownperson tried to show with stats that this had already happened to Muslims in depravation of citizenship from 2005, but without context and during a period of high threat, it’s difficult to prove that this was religion or country based and not simply threat based.
Simply saying it affects minorities more isn’t helpful as everyone arriving in this country is technically a minority when considered in the context of the British population.
"TJ – that’s not what’s happening. People are asking “why?”"
Which has been explained numerous times by several differnt people and those explanations ignored or denied
"Simply saying it affects minorities more isn’t helpful as everyone arriving in this country is technically a minority when considered in the context of the British population. "
Correct.
Can't find data by ethnic background, but this is interesting - especially the terrorist risk who had their citizenship reinstated after being made stateless!
You'd think someone would have done an FOI to get the data
I must have missed the bit where it was fully explained. What I’ve seen was people referring to opinion pieces on various websites which state that the bill/act is racist because. But they all make assumptions on its use.
Any supporting evidence of misuse has lacked context or has been anecdotal and when asked for evidence has been dismissed.
When asked for anything which supports misuse, we’ve had “well, Tories, populist, infantile law, not thought out, etc” which is a glib dismissal of the vast backworkings of government departments that draft things like this.
There’re a lot of emotions on this thread, a lot of personal experience and a lot of bias, I’m just trying to get through all of that to what is the specific racist quality of the bill/act and is it intentionally racist, inherently racist or has the potential to be racist and how other laws stack up in this regard.
That’s it. I’m not telling people they’re wrong, I’m just seeking clarity.
I’m a firm believer in equality, but also acknowledge the need for nationally preferential laws especially in the case of security and welfare. Where does this act/bill sit on this line? I’m want a clear picture of where nationally discriminating laws (which are so by their nature) become racist. Is it language? Is it potential? Is it application?
the question is does it effect minorities more? to which the clear answer is yes so its racist
From what I can see the law, as written, doesn't differentiate between minorities or whites. If applied to a white person or a minority person under the same circumstances will result in the same outcome. Ergo, it is not racist.
If it applies to a significantly greater proportion of the population that are an ethnic minority then it is indirectly racist.
A law that is not racist can be applied in a way that is racist by those which administer it which is fundamentally different from "that law is racist"
Take stop and search. As a law it is not racist in any way. It applies equally to the whole population regardless of race and will lead to the same outcome if the same offence is committed. The Police however stop far more middle eastern looking people and black male teens because they apply racial profiling in how they apply it. Taken with no context (i.e. treat analysis etc) the application is racist, not the law.
The law being discussed could be the same in which case there may be no problem with the law and we as a population need to focus on it's incorrect application to make a fairer society for all. So far no one has presented a breakdown of the uk populations ethnicity to which this particular law applies determine whether it is indirectly racist or not.
It may come across as semantics but the correct use of language will build strength in the argument put forward and allow identification of the root cause of racism so it can be properly delt with.
If the law can be shown to be indirectly racist lets campaign to rework it so it's not and if it is not but is being applied in a way which is racist lets campaign deal with that.
From what I can see the law, as written, doesn’t differentiate between minorities or whites.
Minorities can be white
If you are argueing from a false premise then any conclusions are false. You start your post above with a false premise
Minorities can be white
This is true.
But the bill/act as written could only, technically be applied to a single group - those that have the potential for other citizenship - right? That’s not AN ethnic group, it’s ALL ethnic groups and the only thing they have in common is that they have or can claim other citizenship.
So again, is it a national bill/act intended to provide future security or is it a racist bill/act intended to harm all immigrants?
I’m arguing that its intent is the former, but the perception, given the title of this thread and the government in office is the latter.
"So again, is it a national bill/act intended to provide future security
the aim of the bill is to appease the racists in the tory party and its voting cohort.
or is it a racist bill/act intended to harm all immigrants? "
No one has claimed that - the claim is that it disproportionately effects minorities which is clearly so as minorities are far more likely to have dual citizenship or the potential for doing so
the aim of the bill is to appease the racists in the tory party and its voting cohort.
How many voters have even heard of it? Did you know that the bill became the Nationality and Borders Act 2022?
We cannot demonstrate evolution nor prove it.
That's incorrect, we have lab experiments demonstrating evolution in action.
As an aside, as a long-term resident in Spain I'm eligible for citizenship here. It'd be quite amusing to see the Mail's reaction if this new Bill were to be applied to the "expat" community...
Thats my point Jonm81. these things are accepted as true withbout solid evidence
By that logic you've just proven god. Congratulations on your conversion.
If the question is: Would a white person have been treated differently? Then look at what happened to Shimima.
She travelled on her sister's passport to get to Syria (at fifteen, she wouldn't have got far on her own). Would a white fifteen year have been stopped at that point? I think its likely
She finds herself eventually at Al-Hawl camp, she tries to apply to get home. the HO say to her; as you have no means of identifying yourself, we need photo and fingerprints. This would've been the same for any-one, I don't think a white woman who's being detained as a member of ISIL would've been treated any differently at this point.
Obviously she can't do that where is is, there's no consular or diplomatic representation at the camp anyway. It's at this point that Javid decides to deny her re-entry, his reasoning is pretty prosaic; she's a member of ISIL. It's the only chance he'll get to act, if she travels back he can have her arrested at point of entry, but detention is at the court's discretion and he has no control of that process and there's a risk (however small) that if she has been radicalised, she may be an actual threat, that's not a chance any H.Sec is likely to ponder for long. He may or may not think she's an actual terrorist*, but if it goes to trial, there's certainly a chance that the Govt would have to reveal the identity of the Canadian intelligence asset who trafficked her, and they likely weigh up the pros and cons of that, look at public opinion which is heavily in favour of leaving her where she is; and throw Shamimi to the wolves...easy choice.
As the supreme court point out, there's no evidence that being a UK citizen or not has made any material difference to her situation as a displaced/detained person detained at a camp run by the SDF, becasue as far as they're concerned; she's a member of ISIL .
* that she was trafficked there is obviously undisputed, that she may subsequently actually be a terrorist threat is a different question.
She travelled on her sister’s passport to get to Syria (at fifteen, she wouldn’t have got far on her own). Would a white fifteen year have been stopped at that point? I think its likely
I think she travelled to Turkey on her sisters passport. It is very likely a white fifteen year old travelling on their elder sisters passport would very likely be allowed to travel.
she tries to apply to get home. the HO say to her; as you have no means of identifying yourself, we need photo and fingerprints.
Did that happen? I missed it if so. This whole story blew up in the first place because a journalist happened across her, asked "do you want to come at some point?" she replied "yes" and fury erupted in all the places you'd expect. I was unaware that she'd actually tried to return.
It is very likely a white fifteen year old travelling on their elder sisters passport would very likely be allowed to travel.
I'm inclined to agree, but this is speculation again.
Did that happen?
Paragraph 26 of Begum vs Home Office
It's useful to read the judgement anyway, it covers (in detail) much of the misunderstandings that arise in this discussion.
“do you want to come at some point?”
That should of course have read "do you want to come home at some point?" Not, well, yeah.
So the hardened terrorist and threat to society / teenage girl who was probably silly or a victim of trafficking* is still stateless and doesn't have a right to appeal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2n8xv61x3o
*delete as appropriate, I still think this is an appalling reflection on our government and legal system. No-one should be made stateless and, irrespective of whether you think she is bad or not, we should not be shunting our problems on to other countries because her parents happened to be born outside of the UK
Groomed, trafficked, raped and sexually abused, subjected to the mental trauma of seeing her three children die, all before she was 20.
Stateless and a political football.
I can't help but feel she's been failed very badly by those with power no matter how stupid her life choices were at 15.
I'm also pretty sure she'd be back here in prison if she was white
A good time to write to your new MPs if your constituency changed hands. Congratulate you new MP and ask them to remind Starmer of what he stood/ stands for.
I see that her final route of appeal looks to be ECHR. I then thought about the Daily Mail reaction if ECHR overrule and she (brown girl with foreign name) comes back to the UK as a result of an ECHR ruling. The Daily Wail readers will absolutely explode. I would imaging a fair few of them would have an actual stroke through sheer anger. It will be brilliant.
I’m also pretty sure she’d be back here in prison if she was white
I reckon if the story was written with her called Alice and white the Daily Mail and the like would be clamouring for her to be allowed home (and not in prison).
Interesting:
Countries Don’t Want Their ISIS Foreign Fighters Back: A Review (pbs.org)
Terrible situation - am I right in assuming the decision that there were no valid legal reasons for an appeal is because the law gave the government the power to do this?
Unusual for a law to be drafted so thoroughly, sadly.
Terrible situation – am I right in assuming the decision that there were no valid legal reasons for an appeal is because the law gave the government the power to do this?
Unusual for a law to be drafted so thoroughly, sadly.
That's the way I understand it... I might be wrong though.
The fact is she was a minor, and obviously coerced/groomed, so 'normally' any back street lawer should easily be able to fight it in court and win, on grounds she wasn't old enough to make an informed and free choice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d9plerrrqo
David Lammy told Good Morning Britain on Thursday that Ms Begum's case had gone through the courts and that she was "not a UK national".
He said that the government would "act in our security interests. And many of those in those camps are dangerous, are radicals."
I wonder if Lammy struggled to keep a straight face when he implied that Shamina Begum is a dangerous radical and a threat to UK national security.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has also said Ms Begum should not return. "Citizenship means committing to a country and wanting its success"
Of course it doesn't mean that. It generally just means that the person was born in the country concerned.
Maybe she believes that anyone with a criminal conviction should be stripped of their citizenship?
To be fair to Lammy, he's between a rock and a hard place. The law has decided she has no right to come here, the recommendation is now that she could. This isn't the first time that the Tory legacy will be a mess to unpick.
I would love for the government to simply retrospectively change the law so citizens can't be stripped of their right to live here.
Given how keen trump’s terror lead is to see her out of Syria perhaps they can offer her citizenship of the USA
It's all very well and good Gorka politicking as he does, but the US would simply have interred her without trial in Gitmo if she was a US citizen, he's clearly not recognised the moral high ground is a plateau and we're looking at each other awkwardly.
Trump really is going for the mid-wit version of the avengers for his staff.
Do you think Lord Far Far's handlers are coming up with the most stupid things for him to agree to, just to see how much of their bitch he is?
To be fair to Lammy
Let's not. He has the option to let her back and for 'due process' to then take place with an appropriate judicial punishment for the mis-guided woman. There's really no downside for him as he can uphold our national commitment to the supremacy of the law not the media (anti-social or otherwise).
the mis-guided woman.
Mis-guided child. If she had murdered someone the judicial system would have given her anonymity because she was a child.
And she would have been released from a Young Offenders Institution by now.
I'd also suggest, as most of us did here months ago, that if she is that dangerous, we should have her back her to keep her locked up or monitored, rather than being free to plot her world takeover from a camp somewhere.
She should have been returned, appraised, faced justice instead of being used a point scoring pawn for those that dislike brown folk with different names.
As it is she's festering in a camp. She's more likely to inspire our disaffected to take up extremism while she remains there and I can see her being martyred.
She may be an adult (A very damaged with a massive bag of spuds on her shoulder) now, but at the time she was a child groomed.
Exactly. Far from not letting her return, we should be demanding it.
But, we're back to Starmer playing it safe again.
. The law has decided she has no right to come here
That's an arse-about-face of looking at it imo. The Supreme Court decided that the political decision to remove her citizenship was lawful.
Therefore I see no reason why it would not be lawful for the current Home Secretary to reverse that and reinstate her citizenship.
Nor any reason why the current government, with a huge **** off majority, doesn't introduce legislation to remove these unreasonable powers from the Home Secretary.
Well other than they are scared of Daily Mail columnists. Which really isn't the way to tackle the growing far-right threat. Agreeing with Nigel Farage's narrative isn't what will defeat him, it is what will boost his support though.
Don't make racism and bigotry mainstream if you want to defeat it.
Well other than they are scared of Daily Mail columnists.
Exactly this but as Brazil demonstrated with the levers of legislation PLC's can be brought to heel by cutting off their funds and markets. Rothermere should be careful he does not provoke the beast, it has a huge majority.
@ernielynch my comment applies to how she is now, I conced and have aregued in the past that she was a trafficked child and should have been treated as a victim. As a responsible nation we should clear up our own mess not cut it adrift for others to deal with.
Don’t make racism and bigotry mainstream if you want to defeat it.
It's a bit late for that. That's one for the Brexit Benefits thread if you don't like foreigners, 2016 normalised racism. I've heard comments passed that I haven't heard since the 1980s (and I'm white so gods only know how people of a darker complexion are faring).
It’s a bit late for that.
You think that Nigel Farage's bigotry and racism is now mainstream UK politics ...... the Labour Party is now also a racist party?
Perhaps you can you explain why Reform UK are currently doing so well and why their support is growing? Obviously it isn't connected to the fact that they are racist because, according to you, that is mainstream politics now.
So what do think a growing number of voters are finding so attractive about Reform UK?
But, we’re back to Starmer playing it safe again
He was DPP you know. Although I must admit he makes Tony Blair look like Che Guevara (the real one).
The labour party follow the racist brexit policy and have been blowing racist dog whistles for years.
They have outsourced their foreign policy to the right wing propaganda organs and their fear of racist voter
You think that Nigel Farage’s bigotry and racism is now mainstream UK politics
It has been for some time.
the Labour Party is now also a racist party?
Is it?
There was a degree of antisemitism accusations levelled at Corbyn's tenure, how much of that held water I don't know. It's not a subject I know much about, though it does seem to be a lazy stick to beat with.
Perhaps you can you explain why Reform UK are currently doing so well and why their support is growing? Obviously it isn’t connected to the fact that they are racist because, according to you, that is mainstream politics now.
I don't follow your logic here, sorry. That's exactly why they're gaining support. That sect is phenomenally good at telling people what they want to hear, and what a lot of people want to hear is unpleasant.
So what do think a growing number of voters are finding so attractive about Reform UK?
I've already explained my thoughts on this, several times over.
I’m not sure why everyone seems to think racism is solely a right wing policy. It exists on both sides of the centre
This may be true in itself, but it's hardly a balanced scale. It's a bit of a "why aren't you out catching real criminals?" argument. Not having the monopoly on racism isn't really something to be boasting about.
I’m not sure why everyone seems to think racism is solely a right wing policy. It exists on both sides of the centre
Racism is pretty much exclusively right-wing. Which is why it is now widely used by the media as the defining characteristic of what is right-wing, despite the fact that it is an oversimplification.
Obviously if you want to argue that lefties or liberals who criticize Israel's treatment of Palestinians are racist, as the Israeli government does on a daily basis, then that is a whole different issue.
"but the US would simply have interred her without trial"
Surely that's a bit drastic, even for the USA....
Let’s not. He has the option to let her back and for ‘due process’
Giving someone back their citizenship back so you can put them on trial is against International law (for obvious reasons)
Racism is pretty much exclusively right-wing. Which is why it is now widely used by the media as the defining characteristic of what is right-wing, despite the fact that it is an oversimplification.
I didn't make my point very well - plenty of extreme "left wing" groups/parties have been involved with racism, there's a view that the South African trade unionists supported apartheid as it protected white jobs, communist Russia has gone after minorities, our own "red wall" gave Boris what he needed for Brexit. I've said before that left and right aren't a straight line continuum, they curve round till the extremes meet in a circle, hence National Socialism.
Anyway, Begum and any other British citizens need to be brought back home for whatever trial/punishment/monitoring that each individual requires. We can't expect other countries/militia groups to do our dirty work for us. Far better than leaving these camps to breed the next generation of terrorists
against International law
Im not sure there is such a thing these days. International law affects the far rights ability to act illegally, which is why i feel the concept is now dead.
I’ve said before that left and right aren’t a straight line continuum, they curve round till the extremes meet in a circle, hence National Socialism.
Yes this is often trotted out but in reality the fish hook model plays out far more often.
For "national socialism". You could start with the obvious problem that names arent always honest or do you believe the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea actually tried to be any of the first three?
For the Nazis in particular locking in on "socialism" in the name is something the hard right are fond of but shows a lack of understanding of how it was used in Germany at the time dating back to Bismarck's embrace of it to try and fend off the left. Which was pretty much what the Nazis continued using it to try and get some left wing votes. Whilst there were some who did seem to believe in a warped variation it shouldnt be surprising they were quickly purged once Hitler got power.
As the Bolsheviks also demonstrated offering things to the working class is great to help gain power but something to bin off once you do or go back further to levellers, diggers etc who soon had it explained to them that revolutions only go so far.
Giving someone back their citizenship back so you can put them on trial is against International law
I would counter that with removal was not exactly lawful either with the reasons given and accepted as proven to be spurious as the young woman is currently stateless. As ever the law has not moved much from when Denning was around and refuses the concede that mistakes may have been made that need correcting. Nothing is ever infalllible and justice is equally flawed at times.
Isn’t it something how we simultaneously have scandals about about how abusers were allowed by the police to operate in the open in multiple British locations with their teenage prey seen as troublesome provocateurs instead of victims with the usual vacant human foghorns up in arms and calling for regime change, while the alleged political appeasers seem unironically insistent that this girl be seen as a provocateur and not a victim of grooming this time with the support of the loud bigots? I have insufficient capacity for cognitive dissonance to separate these things.