Response to Sincilbanks re politics and racism

[hulloutpost]

"Hence it would be desirable to have a re-set, depoliticise the issue in the process and thereby remove the debate about whether it is appropriate to boo or not completely. Unless somebody has an ulterior political motive, what's not to like about that."

Yeah let's "depoliticise" protests against racism, astounding idea...

Racism is an issue that should be above the politics of ANY party. Equality should be a given entitlement and that people that try to weaponize it for political gain, consistently only leads to division and violence from both ends of the spectrum.

Political parties should have cross party agreement on policies towards equality and racism. It should be written in stone and unwavering as should their response when violence flares up from either the left or right.

Nobody should seek to exploit the issues for votes, but they do and that's why political parties are mealy mouthed when it comes to condemning violent protest. They are simply too invested in trying to secure identity issue voters and will not draw back from any position that may upset their target group.

 

[LA_Imp]

What is the reality is that black people have been a victim of systemic racism in the US (I'll let others speak for the UK), and that racism frequently results in violence committed upon them by agents of the state, typically police officers. A single athlete, in response to this, opted to express his frustration/anger/hurt at this reality by kneeling during the national anthem. Now others do so as an expression of solidarity.

We can discuss what should or should not be political, but it would seem to be more productive to address the reality of systemic racism in parts of our society. Kneeling is a reminder of that reality, and I suspect the boos and the encouragement to boo by certain members of the press, are because that reality makes them quite uncomfortable.

 

[hulloutpost]

I can't speak for the States but until last year we hadn't had regular, large scale riots and violence linked to demonstrations for many years, probably a decade. Even over Brexit that sort of behaviour was an exception rather than the norm, by those either for or against it.

The extreme right are effectively marginalised by media blackouts and are given barely any air time even if they are active, so unless somebody went looking for them 'on line' they get no oxygen.

I believe in recent years the UK had taken big steps via legislation, education and modernisation of the establishment, towards a more equitable society in a peaceful constructive manner.

Unarguably there is always more that can be done in an ongoing process. Unfortunately I feel the violent and politicised nature of the last year has actually set back the fight against inequality in the UK and has caused more division.

 

[Sincilbanks]

Racism is an issue that should be above the politics of ANY party. Equality should be a given entitlement and that people that try to weaponize it for political gain, consistently only leads to division and violence from both ends of the spectrum.

Political parties should have cross party agreement on policies towards equality and racism. It should be written in stone and unwavering as should their response when violence flares up from either the left or right.

Nobody should seek to exploit the issues for votes, but they do and that's why political parties are mealy mouthed when it comes to condemning violent protest. They are simply too invested in trying to secure identity issue voters and will not draw back from any position that may upset their target group.

The very act of protesting is a political statement, an attempt to raise awareness of injustices in the status quo, protesting pretty much anything is a political statement, protesting racism can be nothing but a political statement since it points to an inequality in the status quo that cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of those protesting because those with the power are invested in maintaining the status quo.

You fundamentally misunderstood my point and started a thread that appears to trying to disagree with a premise I never made...

Your argument appears to be "politicians should not take advantage of racism as a means to progress their party politics". This has absolutely nothing to do with the inherent political nature of protests against racism. You cannot remove the "politics" from a protest against racism, the very act is a political one.

The only reason any progress has been made at all is due to political protesting, some of it violent. The Brixton riots caused a fundamental shift in how the police managed the sinkhole estates whose constituents were made up largely of ethnic minorities. If Brixton hadn't burned nothing would have been done because no-one of any political persuasion that mattered in the governing of those people was listening, only after the Brixton riots of 1981 did the Scarman report come out and the police's indiscriminate use of the SuS law against ethnic minorities come to light.

 

[hulloutpost]

The very act of protesting is a political statement, an attempt to raise awareness of injustices in the status quo, protesting pretty much anything is a political statement, protesting racism can be nothing but a political statement since it points to an inequality in the status quo that cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of those protesting because those with the power are invested in maintaining the status quo.

You fundamentally misunderstood my point and started a thread that appears to trying to disagree with a premise I never made...

Your argument appears to be "politicians should not take advantage of racism as a means to progress their party politics". This has absolutely nothing to do with the inherent political nature of protests against racism. You cannot remove the "politics" from a protest against racism, the very act is a political one.

The only reason any progress has been made at all is due to political protesting, some of it violent. The Brixton riots caused a fundamental shift in how the police managed the sinkhole estates whose constituents were made up largely of ethnic minorities. If Brixton hadn't burned nothing would have been done because no-one of any political persuasion that mattered in the governing of those people was listening, only after the Brixton riots of 1981 did the Scarman report come out and the police's indiscriminate use of the SuS law against ethnic minorities come to light.

Nobody owns racism, it's not political unless either people attach racism to parties or vice versa. Back to the premise that racism needs the politics taking out of it.

That means responsible political parties must have the cross party, unequivocal approach that actively denounces any attempts in their name to fan racial division, or to benefit from identity politics which is aimed negatively towards another group.

I have no issue with politicians extolling the positive virtues of people's culture in moderation, and identifying with them in order to build support, but the line is crossed when the 'others' are actively or passively briefed against. That for example can be the white supremacy of BNP towards non whites or Labour towards the Jewish community.

In both examples the virtues of 'favourable' identity groups are blindly amplified and any failings ignored or excused, whilst the 'others' are targeted and denigrated deliberately or by justifying and ignoring such behaviour carried out by others in their group.

If, as the case should be that nobody owns racism, then the setting up of groups or activism that inherently politicises the issue of racism (as you suggest) then this is indicative that politicians are either failing to keep the issue neutral, or the groups/acts are deliberately disingenuous protests and have an altogether different and insidious agenda such as white or black supremacy. In the latter the case i.e disingenuous acts, it is clear that the aim is therefore not equality and a fight against racism, but actually an extension of it.

You cite a historical event that helped shape the revolution of racism and an important one no doubt. The point is precisely that; it is historical. I would again argue that the evolution of legal reform, education and institutional changes over a number of recent years have been making steady, tangible progress in a largely peaceful manner. The reality is that racial equality is far better than it was 40 years ago and was continuing to improve without the need for violent protest.

Look at the equal opportunities legislation and enforcement we have in place now, the plethora of scholarships and opportunities available to minority groups, the increasing awareness and accountability of the institutions. There are still breaches (casual or deliberate) but there is a framework in place to challenge and punish indiscretions that would have either been tolerated or not recognised all those years ago in The UK. That framework had the growing awareness and understanding of the majority white population, and those that did not accept the change and modify their behaviour knew there was a price to pay.

The division and violence of the last year has been unhelpful to that process at best, and I would still maintain has actually set it back. The perception to some of the people is that it doesn't matter what they do, how they change, it is never enough, even if they were sympathetic to that cause and change in the first instance. That will inevitably breed a degree of resentment and resistance to change in some quarters as it could be construed that some people want more than equality. That in turn generates the division and mistrust that slows the acceptance of improvement down.

 

[PerthImp]

I am not going to get embroiled in the political side of the debate because I believe that’s one of the problems that perpetuates the whole issue. What I do believe is that there is good and bad in every single race and culture on this planet, just to varying degrees depending on their upbringing, education, influences, and everything else that moulds their personality, character and beliefs. Lewis Hamilton is one of the main influencers in the fight against racism. I follow F1 for the sport, not because I particularly admire Lewis or any of the others, but he is in a position to promote harmony and I 100% agree with him that the time for talks and gestures is over - as a global population we all need to sit down and think ‘what can I do to improve the negativity of my attitude, my children’s attitude and other people’s attitudes towards their fellow human beings‘. At the end of the day we all have very different influences on our lives from the moment we are born, but we are all just insignificant specs on the planet that have the potential to create harmony, no matter how large or small. Unfortunately there is a significant proportion of the World’s population who are not influenced by the harmonious route. Children are the future generations and it is important that they get the right messages and influence right from the beginning. Unfortunately they tend to get sidetracked by adults with warped perspectives or agendas, or personal experience which has shaped THEIR attitudes which they then impose on others. By that I am talking about ALL sides of humanity, race and culture because fault lies on ALL sides, not just white, black, religious or atheist, rich or poor. ALL LIVES MATTER. Everyone on this planet originates from a historically tribal race and therein lies part of the problem. Tribalism has traditionally brought conflict, from heated debate and disagreement to violent confrontation and conflict. Race, culture, religion, money, etc are just very basic vehicles to express our differences because many people are incapable of taking a step back and thinking rationally - as an individual - about the issues - they just react in ways that have influenced their personality and character as they have grown into adulthood Instead of thinking for themselves. Strange to think football teams have encouraged that tribal conflict attitude in some ways. When you think back to the football violence culture of the 70s, etc. Nowadays it tends to manifest itself in online banter, which is harmless, to outright insults and abuse, which is just wrong.
Many people will probably disagree with parts, or all of my views, and that is what healthy debate should be about, but in my own insignificant little way that is how I see the World, rightly or wrongly. It is obviously a lot more complicated than that - or is that the issue - maybe as a global and tribal race it has become overcomplicated through our disrespect and mistreatment of others over the generations, leading to conflict, and we now need to go through a process of adjustment towards harmony, little by little . Funny how it takes major incidents like George Floyd to bring us to our senses while everyday injustices and abuse pass our notice or sensibilities.
Sorry for my ramblings, etc - I put it down to old age and life experience. [tin helmet donned ]

 

[Sincilbanks]

We are not talking about racism. We are talking about protesting racism.

 

[John Bigbooté]

I can't speak for the States but until last year we hadn't had regular, large scale riots and violence linked to demonstrations for many years, probably a decade. Even over Brexit that sort of behaviour was an exception rather than the norm, by those either for or against it.

The extreme right are effectively marginalised by media blackouts and are given barely any air time even if they are active, so unless somebody went looking for them 'on line' they get no oxygen.

I believe in recent years the UK had taken big steps via legislation, education and modernisation of the establishment, towards a more equitable society in a peaceful constructive manner.

Unarguably there is always more that can be done in an ongoing process. Unfortunately I feel the violent and politicised nature of the last year has actually set back the fight against inequality in the UK and has caused more division.

Sorry but this is total bullshit. The Brexit campaign was fought on race and nationalism, two issues that are forever interlinked.

The far-right ie UKIP and the extreme wing of the Tory Party were and are front and centre in the British media. The Tory party manifesto now mirrors the demands of the NF in the 80s. Its institutional racism and Islamophobia reports were frankly embarrassing works of fiction. We have a prime minister who compared veiled Muslim women to "letterboxes" and bank robbers, and called black people "picaninnies with water melon smiles". The Windrush scandal was and is flat out racist. The Tory plan to end the right to protest is about as far right and undemocratic a policy as I have ever seen in this country. Ten years in prison for knocking down a statue of a slave trader, a few less for raping a woman. That shows you where the priorities lie.

The Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, among others, are rabid right-wing rags happy to stir up, amplify and reinforce the same issues.

And one of the responses to all of this has been protests, some of which have been BLM, some of which have not.

But to return to the central issue: booing footballers who kneel in protest at the ongoing, indisputable racism faced by black people and black footballers is a fucking disgrace, and an act that condones and encourages ongoing abuse.

 

[hulloutpost]

We are not talking about racism. We are talking about protesting racism.

Yes we are.

 

[hulloutpost]

Sorry but this is total bullshit. The Brexit campaign was fought on race and nationalism, two issues that are forever interlinked.

The far-right ie UKIP and the extreme wing of the Tory Party were and are front and centre in the British media. The Tory party manifesto now mirrors the demands of the NF in the 80s. Its institutional racism and Islamophobia reports were frankly embarrassing works of fiction. We have a prime minister who compared veiled Muslim women to "letterboxes" and bank robbers, and called black people "picaninnies with water melon smiles". The Windrush scandal was flat out racist. The Tory plan to end the right to protest is about as far right and undemocratic a policy I have ever seen in this country. Ten years in prison for knocking down a statue of a slave trader, a few less for raping a woman. That shows you where the priorities lie.

The Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, among others, are rabid right-wing rags happy to stir up, amplify and reinforce the same issues.

And one of the responses to all of this has been protests, some of which have been BLM, some of which have not.

I guess it depends where you define far right. Personally I have UKIP and the Tories as centre right whereas BNP and NF would be the far right and BLM would be far left with Labour centre left. I respect you may 'grade' differently.

Yes with the Conservatives, you make my point about the mainstream parties of power (i.e. Labour and Tories) being a big part of the problem. I would say fringe organisations like BLM recently and BNP in the past also add significantly to it though.

I see where you're coming from with centre right papers, a bit like The Guardian and others with their white privilege agenda; it doesn't help. However I was thinking more in terms of the violent protests, marches and mantras of extreme organisations such as BNP and Combat 18. They are effectively starved of publicity and it may help if BLM were treated the same.

I'm not sure where you're coming from with sentencing. I think you'll find the maximum penalty for criminal damage is less than for rape, and with the UK being a very liberal country maximum sentences are rarely enforced. Did I miss somebody without a previous criminal record getting a sentence of 10 years for a single offence of damaging a statue of Churchill? If so, very interesting and that would seem a bit harsh compared to what a person normally has to do to get any sort of prison sentence.

Edit - I've done a quick search of the web and I found somebody who got a small fine for damaging the Churchill statue. Can you link me to the person that got 10 years as I would be interested to see the circumstances, or was it an example of a hypothetical sentence you were making?

 

[John Bigbooté]

I'm not sure where you're coming from with sentencing. I think you'll find the maximum penalty for criminal damage is less than for rape, and with the UK being a very liberal country maximum sentences are rarely enforced. Did I miss somebody without a previous criminal record getting a sentence of 10 years for a single offence of damaging a statue of Churchill? If so, very interesting and that would seem a bit harsh compared to what a person normally has to do to get any sort of prison sentence.

Edit - I've done a quick search of the web and I found somebody who got a small fine for damaging the Churchill statue. Can you link me to the person that got 10 years as I would be interested to see the circumstances, or was it an example of a hypothetical sentence you were making?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...l-2021-criminal-damage-to-memorials-factsheet

Increasing the maximum penalty for criminal damage of less than £5,000 to a memorial from 3 months to 10 years’ imprisonment

1. What are we going to do?
The offence of criminal damage is an either way offence which attracts a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. Where the damage value is less than £5,000, the case must be tried summarily and attracts a maximum sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment and, or a fine of up to £2,500.

Damage to a memorial is covered by the offence of criminal damage and where the damage value is under £5,000, the court’s powers are restricted as outlined above.

Concern has been voiced in Parliament and society that the law focuses too heavily on the monetary value of the damage with insufficient consideration given to the emotional or wider distress caused by this type of offending, and as a result, the punishments do not fit the crime.

We intend, where there is damage to a memorial, to remove the consideration of monetary damage, which would otherwise, in some cases, determine venue and limit sentencing powers.

Instead, in cases where a memorial has been damaged, mode of trial will not be determined by the monetary value of the damage caused and the maximum sentence of imprisonment will be ten years’ imprisonment.

---

One of the many reasons there have been protests against this government over the last year. Have you not been reading the news?

 

[John Bigbooté]

I see where you're coming from with centre right papers, a bit like The Guardian and others with their white privilege agenda; it doesn't help. However I was thinking more in terms of the violent protests, marches and mantras of extreme organisations such as BNP and Combat 18. They are effectively starved of publicity and it may help if BLM were treated the same.

Also, comparing BLM to the BNP and Combat 18 shows you are clearly off your rocker.

 

[Sincilbanks]

I guess it depends where you define far right. Personally I have UKIP and the Tories as centre right whereas BNP and NF would be the far right and BLM would be far left with Labour centre left. I respect you may 'grade' differently.

Yes with the Conservatives, you make my point about the mainstream parties of power (i.e. Labour and Tories) being a big part of the problem. I would say fringe organisations like BLM recently and BNP in the past also add significantly to it though.

I see where you're coming from with centre right papers, a bit like The Guardian and others with their white privilege agenda; it doesn't help. However I was thinking more in terms of the violent protests, marches and mantras of extreme organisations such as BNP and Combat 18. They are effectively starved of publicity and it may help if BLM were treated the same.

I'm not sure where you're coming from with sentencing. I think you'll find the maximum penalty for criminal damage is less than for rape, and with the UK being a very liberal country maximum sentences are rarely enforced. Did I miss somebody without a previous criminal record getting a sentence of 10 years for a single offence of damaging a statue of Churchill? If so, very interesting and that would seem a bit harsh compared to what a person normally has to do to get any sort of prison sentence.

Edit - I've done a quick search of the web and I found somebody who got a small fine for damaging the Churchill statue. Can you link me to the person that got 10 years as I would be interested to see the circumstances, or was it an example of a hypothetical sentence you were making?

Black Lives Matter originates in the United States, how "far left" in relation to our politics can it possibly be?

 

[John Bigbooté]

Black Lives Matter originates in the United States, how "far left" in relation to our politics can it possibly be?

You'll probably now get a response that its leaders have declared it a Marxist organisation. Blah blah blah, yadda yadda.

 

[LA_Imp]

I guess it depends where you define far right. Personally I have UKIP and the Tories as centre right whereas BNP and NF would be the far right and BLM would be far left with Labour centre left. I respect you may 'grade' differently.

Yes with the Conservatives, you make my point about the mainstream parties of power (i.e. Labour and Tories) being a big part of the problem. I would say fringe organisations like BLM recently and BNP in the past also add significantly to it though.

I see where you're coming from with centre right papers, a bit like The Guardian and others with their white privilege agenda; it doesn't help. However I was thinking more in terms of the violent protests, marches and mantras of extreme organisations such as BNP and Combat 18. They are effectively starved of publicity and it may help if BLM were treated the same.

I'm not sure where you're coming from with sentencing. I think you'll find the maximum penalty for criminal damage is less than for rape, and with the UK being a very liberal country maximum sentences are rarely enforced. Did I miss somebody without a previous criminal record getting a sentence of 10 years for a single offence of damaging a statue of Churchill? If so, very interesting and that would seem a bit harsh compared to what a person normally has to do to get any sort of prison sentence.

Edit - I've done a quick search of the web and I found somebody who got a small fine for damaging the Churchill statue. Can you link me to the person that got 10 years as I would be interested to see the circumstances, or was it an example of a hypothetical sentence you were making?

If racism is not political, as you say, then how do you define BLM as a far left political movement? What political issues are they protesting for or against?
Or perhaps, based on the positions held by politicians and parties, and the treatment of different groups of people by those politicians and parties over a very long time this is a political issue. And if you arrive at that conclusion you must then judge those politicians and parties by their words and actions. Which may be difficult for some.

 

[hulloutpost]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...l-2021-criminal-damage-to-memorials-factsheet

Increasing the maximum penalty for criminal damage of less than £5,000 to a memorial from 3 months to 10 years’ imprisonment

1. What are we going to do?
The offence of criminal damage is an either way offence which attracts a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. Where the damage value is less than £5,000, the case must be tried summarily and attracts a maximum sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment and, or a fine of up to £2,500.

Damage to a memorial is covered by the offence of criminal damage and where the damage value is under £5,000, the court’s powers are restricted as outlined above.

Concern has been voiced in Parliament and society that the law focuses too heavily on the monetary value of the damage with insufficient consideration given to the emotional or wider distress caused by this type of offending, and as a result, the punishments do not fit the crime.

We intend, where there is damage to a memorial, to remove the consideration of monetary damage, which would otherwise, in some cases, determine venue and limit sentencing powers.

Instead, in cases where a memorial has been damaged, mode of trial will not be determined by the monetary value of the damage caused and the maximum sentence of imprisonment will be ten years’ imprisonment.

---

One of the many reasons there have been protests against this government over the last year. Have you not been reading the news?

Like I thought then, rape still carries a higher sentence and nobody has got 10 years for criminal damage. Let me know when they do.

 

[hulloutpost]

Also, comparing BLM to the BNP and Combat 18 shows you are clearly off your rocker.

Like I say, we grade differently. So far as I am concerned BLM are an extreme political party who promote racial bigotry and carry out acts of violence. Check out good old YouTube for the reality, not the face they would like to present. As far as I can tell there is very little difference between the likes of BLM, Antifa, Combat 18, BNP etc. They all hate and they all carry out mainly peaceful protests. They just hate different groups of people.

 

[hulloutpost]

If racism is not political, as you say, then how do you define BLM as a far left political movement? What political issues are they protesting for or against?
Or perhaps, based on the positions held by politicians and parties, and the treatment of different groups of people by those politicians and parties over a very long time this is a political issue. And if you arrive at that conclusion you must then judge those politicians and parties by their words and actions. Which may be difficult for some.

You misunderstand me. Racism has been made a political issue. It shouldn't be, I really rather it wasn't for the reasons I have explained previously.

 

[John Bigbooté]

Like I thought then, rape still carries a higher sentence and nobody has got 10 years for criminal damage. Let me know when they do.

You're a verified idiot. I have no interest in discussing anything with a man who refuses to accept reality. Goodbye.

 

[NottyImp]

You're a verified idiot. I have no interest in discussing anything with a man who refuses to accept reality. Goodbye.

Ah, you've discovered what I did over a year ago about Hulloutpost. I've had him on "ignore" ever since.

A deluded useful idiot for the likes of Farage and Trump.