Rayvin

Agreed about Starmer tbf but we could stop supplying arms. Instead we're branding the people trying to prevent planes going over there as terrorists. I don't think any sort of genuine de-escalation is even possible anymore tbh, the hatred will span generations. Maybe if Netanyahu answered for war crimes but I don't think he values the peace and safety of his own people enough for that.

It will be whatever the government decides it is in the end. I'm wondering if they might be about to use this to make a show of going after left leaning people and putting them in prison same as they did for the hotel burning fiasco.

I get that for sure. I would throw into the mix as well though that the UK supports Israel whereas it doesn't support Russia - so there's a domestic angle to it there. There's not much more anyone can do than what we're doing with the Ukraine, the government supports them and is assisting them - Russia doesn't give a shit if we protest them but Israel does actually on some level respond to international pressure. So arguably people's energy is actually better spent on Gaza than it is on Ukraine. I think if people's feeds were full of dead and dying Ukrainian children it'd be different though, tbh.

I think a lot of what people struggle with is that they're seeing images of children being shot dead coming from Israel's situation. I've not seen anything like that from Ukraine for a long time. I know a girl living out in Ukraine atm and life sounds horrendous but at the same time they're just about hanging on. I send her some money each month to try to help, my own personal attempt to alleviate just a little of the agony. I don't do that with anyone in Gaza as I don't know anyone personally, so I would contend that I'm more invested in that conflict than this one. For what it's worth, I see Russia as a greater issue than Israel. But Gloom, for real man, idk if you see the videos that do the rounds coming out of Gaza... they're all over reddit, and they are beyond harrowing, sometimes involving IDF servicemen calling for all Palestinians to be murdered like animals etc. Maybe the Palestinians are just better at social media, maybe the videos are faked, dunno. But that's the context for a lot of this.

Why on earth did a Japanese flag cause offence...

Yep that does seem to be a part of it. But still though, it's an Islamic theocracy that supports trans existence on some level It's just wild to me. Maybe we really should regime change them tbh, their government is an anachronism relative to their people.

I thought it had to be based on non-changeable characteristics, identity stuff - that's what google says anyway. My bad though, it's a hate crime then. I suppose I've probably committed a few hate crimes in my time with comments about the Tories... maybe I really should go back and purge my comment history tbh..

As compassionate people we shouldn't be calling for the death of anyone. If this crime meets a threshold from existing legislation to be treated as a hate crime, then it simply does. We shouldn't express any particularly strong views on it anyway, it's a sensitive issue and genuinely if this does become a hate crime then some of the things being said in here about the situation could be viewed that way too.

I think we can work to the definitions provided by the IHRA at minimum. If we can't, there's no line anywhere. There needs to be a shared and agreed basis for what things mean otherwise society just makes no sense. Not to me at least.

I'm seeing this get said a lot these days tbh but if you think it through it's a pretty dangerous sentiment. That could apply to literally anything. I mean for one thing, supporting Israel's right to defend itself could then become Islamophobic - not up to us to define whether it is or not, it's up to Muslims. The whole debate would just become ridiculous.

I was reading Labour's guidelines on antisemitism which are informed by the IHRA. I don't understand how we've gotten to where we are: 13. In contrast, discussion of the circumstances of the foundation of the Israeli State (for example, in the context of its impact on the Palestinian people) forms a legitimate part of modern political discourse. So does discussion of – including critical comment on – differential impact of Israeli laws or policies on different people within its population or that of neighbouring territories. It is not racist to assess the conduct of Israel – or indeed of any other particular State or government – against the requirements of international law or the standards of behaviour expected of democratic States (bearing in mind that these requirements and standards may themselves be contentious). 14. However, care must be taken when dealing with these topics. The fact of Israel’s description as a Jewish State does not make it permissible to hold Jewish people or institutions in general responsible for alleged misconduct on the part of that State (see paragraph 9.g.). In addition, it is wrong to apply double standards by requiring more vociferous condemnation of such actions from Jewish people or organisations than from others – a form of racist treatment also all too common in other contexts, eg. holding Muslims or Muslim organisations to a higher standard than others as regards condemnation of illegal or violent acts by self-defining “Islamic” organisations or States (such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan). It is also wrong to accuse Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. 15. The term “Zionism” is intimately bound up in the history of Israel’s foundation as a State and in its role in international relations more generally. It is inevitable that the expressions “Zionism” and “Zionist” will feature in political discourse about these topics. The meaning of these expressions is itself debated. It is not antisemitism to refer to “Zionism” and “Zionists” as part of a considered discussion about the Israeli State. However, as the Chakrabarti Report advised, it is not permissible to use “Zionist” (and still less any pejorative abbreviation such as ‘zio’ which the Chakrabarti report said should have no place in Labour Party discourse) as a code word for “Jew”. Chakrabarti recommended that Labour Party members should only use “the term `Zionist’ advisedly, carefully and never euphemistically or as part of personal abuse”. Such language may otherwise provide evidence of antisemitic intent. I would fundamentally agree on every word of that. What I'm struggling with is why the IDF are some sort of protected characteristic. It's in poor taste to chant for their death absolutely, I don't condone it and I would never say it (same as for Russian troops) - but at the same time it doesn't feel like antisemitism per these definitions. In the end though I think we just need to make peace with this - the government has chosen a side and it's Israel/Trump. I'm increasingly concerned about being watchlisted over expressing views about this in case I need to travel to the US tbh, or indeed being charged with terrorism by the UK.

It fucking would have as well. Maybe not directly into the comments but on some level they'd have been seething.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70rreer004o - Parental leave and pay for new parents to be reviewed Gammons in the comments complaining about why they have to pay for other people to have kids. I guarantee that these idiots haven't connected this to immigration and will happily crow about that at the same time. Either we have more kids, or we have high immigration - which is it, you clueless fucking muppets. You can't whine about both things at the same time.

I'm sure they do on many levels but the actual legal situation I googled repeatedly because I didn't believe it either. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_Iran Not perfect by any stretch but also not what I expected personally.

You know one interesting thing in the subject of Iran is how progressive they are on trans rights. They recognise gender dysphoria as a mental condition wherein someone is born into the wrong body and support gender reassignment, even with state subsidy. Legal documentation is apparently also updated to reflect this on official record. The Ayatollah himself decreed this. That makes them more progressive on trans rights than the current US government But also its just kinda funny to imagine given how we perceive them. Its worth noting mind that they dont have such a positive relationship with homosexuality, and seem to confuse the two things in some quite problematic ways. But still i found it interesting and worth sharing since they were brought up.

I know we talk about fascism a lot and the word probably does get thrown around too easily but for real, at what point is it actually fascism?

They're banning British rappers from Glastonbury from entering the US now. I suspect I'm currently banned from entering ffs, if they ever tied this place to me as a person. Ironically probably not banned from Israel...

I still wonder if the club has more ducks lined up than we think and is just waiting for the PSR deadline to pass. At least I desperately hope that's it. If not then IMO what has held us back this summer has been chaos in the boardroom.

"Economists and analysts at Cambridge Econometrics found that, by 2035, the UK is anticipated to have three million fewer jobs, 32% lower investment, 5% lower exports and 16% lower imports, than it would have had been. The report states that the UK will be £311bn worse off by 2035 due to leaving EU." Our old people did this to us. I also checked the yearly loss to the public purse and it's estimated to be about £25bn a year. How much of this shit we're currently doing wouldn't have been necessary if we weren't so stupid...

If they just came out and pointed the finger at Brexit, I think these conversations would be a lot easier...

I agree with you ultimately but nonetheless, these are the sorts of issues he will lose support over and I'm not seeing where he gains it otherwise. The right quite literally will never vote for him.

No, Starmer has come out droning on about trans people again but I didn't want to link it and end up in yet another back and forth about that, so I'm trying to keep it general.

I'm wondering at what point Labour are expecting things to improve for them in terms of popular support - this cannot possibly be the strategy they're going to stick to running into the next GE. All these policies and statements which seem designed to alienate young, progressive voters, how on earth is this going to benefit them? I could buy it if they were picking up votes somewhere to the right but there's no evidence that they are. It feels like the whole thing is designed to suffocate the Tories but how does that help once Reform merge/ally/flat out replace them.

If that is genuinely the reason this doesn't happen then we deserve the hellscape we're heading towards.

I honestly feel like if they just made homes affordable it would make things a lot better on this front. Labour seem to be doing absolutely nothing on that front and I've no clue why in all honesty. As for hating the country, that followed Brexit specifically so I'm not exactly too worked up otherwise, but there are no solutions to any of this in the current administration. Treating symptoms and not causes.