National Union of Students elects Malia Bouattia as president.

the NUS wouldn't touch them with a barge poll.

She may or many not be a nutter as you say, I don't know anything about her but that is not the issue at hand. Being a Muslim myself I'm certainly not oblivious to the fact that a significant section of the media is demonising Malia Bouattia because of her religious background regardless of her political beliefs. Love her or hate her, she was democratically elected and no amount of unsubstantiated accusations and thinly-veiled hate articles will ever change that fact.

Democratically elected by a bunch of other ****wits.

She should not hold the position she is in no matter stupid fairytale religion she follows. It is her remarks about the Jewish community which have raised the most concerns.

Being against the systemic human right abuses committed by the government of Israel does not make a person anti-Semitic, it makes them human. Being against a certain political ideology, Zionism in this case, doesn't make her an anti-Semitic. If that was true than the same can be said about the thousands of orthodox Jews who are also against Zionism, which is an oxymoron. I've never seen a single shred of evidence of Malia Bouattia being anti-Semitic in any way whatsoever as I read articles about her over the past few days.

What is disgusting and racist though, is the shameless and unhinged attacks right-wing media has been making against Malia Bouttia solely because of her faith.

Calling Birmingham University a "zionist outpost" and then going on to say, in the same sentence, that it has the largest Jewish Society in the UK. That doesn't suggest she conflates Zionism and Jews at all...



You talk about evidence above, but where is your evidence that the "right-wing media" has been attacking Malia "solely because of her faith"?

How about this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3549948/NUS-elects-president-refuses-condemn-ISIS-calls-Birmingham-University-Zionist-outpost.html

Or this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/20/malia-bouattia-elected-nus-president-after-causing-controversy/

This articles are based on allegations and have no true substance in them. And you know what, it's alright isn't it, as long as they're attacking 'Muslims'. Bloody Hypocrites.

Now where's your evidence?

Where in those articles are they attacking Malia "solely because of her faith"? As far as I can see, they are reporting things she has allegedly said.



I just provided it to you and it suggests she conflates Anti-Zionism and Jews.

In the sense that you can argue that Britain used similar tactics in WWII, that is true. Britain also killed civilians to spread terror.

However, Britain and Germany acted reciprocally. If Israel were allowed to use Bomber Command or Luftwaffe tactics there would be no Palestine today, and probably no Palestinians. Palestine is allowed to use Bomber Command/Luftwaffe tactics whereas Israel is not.

So saying you support Palestine doing what it is doing now is morally equivalent to saying you support Israeli committing genocide in Palestine

Except that bigotry and hatred is inherent in any support for Hamas

in light of its charter which calls for all the Jews in the world to be executed.

Also, it's inherent in supporting the "armed resistance" that she supports the deliberate targeting of civilians which is a war crime.

Bouattia believes Israelis stabbed to death deserve it because they are citizens of a "colonialist, Zionist" power, whose illegal, immoral government is murdering Palestinians and depriving them of their homeland.

And this is to to ignore another differentiating point which is also vital. The ends aren't the same in the two cases. WW2 was a "just war." The cause of Palestinian terrorism (wiping Israel off the map) is not.

Most of the recent wave of Palestinian attacks have been lone wolves, so we don't necessarily know what exactly their political desires were.

Why does the BBC headline say she is the first black Moslem female president of the NUS? She is Algerian descent and most likely to be Berber or Arab.

more vulnerable to certain diseases like HIV

black men they have higher testosterone levels

higher rates of prostate cancer, sickle cell anemia

and the color/race of people has also got serious notable and measurable social patterns that repeat.

Not to inject myself into your discussion, but, this statement is both intellectually dishonest and oxymoronic........... that there are so many attacks you would call it a 'wave' and in the same sentence begin calling them 'lone wolves'.

Because poverty and lower education or are you saying that the state of being black gives the HIV virus an easier time?


Got a source for this buddy? I find this hard to believe seeing blacks are notable for having less body hair on average.

pretty sure this applies to West Africa mainly. But all blacks are the same right?


Yep nothing to do with socioeconomics.

Prostate cancer/testosterone;

"It was also confirmed by a recent British study (prostate cancer rates are somewhat lower in Black British men because a higher proportion of them have one White parent):
Black men in the United Kingdom have substantially greater risk of developing prostate cancer compared with White men, although this risk is lower than that of Black men in the United States. The similar rates in Black Caribbean and Black African men suggest a common genetic etiology, although migration may be associated with an increased risk attributable to a gene–environment interaction” (Ben-Shlomo et al 2008)."
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/black-males-and-testosterone-evolution-and-perspectives/

Sickel cell anemia;
"Sickle cell anaemia is a serious inherited blood disorderwhere the red blood cells, which carry oxygen around the body, develop abnormally.The disorder mainly affects people of African, Caribbean, Middle Eastern, Eastern Mediterranean and Asian origin. In the UK, sickle cell disorders are most commonly seen in African and Caribbean people."
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Sickle-cell-anaemia/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Can't remember were I read the transmissible STD/HIV spread easier among blacks, yes all blacks, it'll come to me and I'll update this post or make another if you are interested. I remember it being a reputable source, enough so to lodge the fact into my brain.

Also socioeconomic patterns are repeated along racial boundaries the world over, suggesting genetic factors. Of course I could say IQ and you could then claim 'socioeconomic factors' again caused that, I could claim that socioeconomic factors were caused/limited by IQ and you could keep claiming 'socioeconomic factors' caused that as well, without having to do much.

Infinite regression, Inherent IQ difference is there and it explains it, it is simple and fits. Plenty of other racial groups have faced similar/harsher socioeconomic factors, they have pushed beyond this factor. Saying that blacks cannot is, well it suggests a genetic factor.

Black people in the UK where do they come from? West Africa. How are these studies in any way applicable to Kenyans or Tanzanians?

Being unable to post the HIV statistic is a sign that you are talking rubbish. There is absolutely no scientific study out there that says it's easier for blacks to be infected with HIV.



You've just gone full white supremacy mode here so I'll not bother arguing with you further. All I'll say is that half the Caribbean has a higher GDP per capita than Eastern Europe (Trinidad vs Poland) etc and in virtually all UK school studies black kids on average outperform the white ones.

It's all blacks, compared to White Europeans, have a higher testosterone level/prostate cancer/sickle cell anemia rate. And this is just the things I can name off the top of my head, this might vary between regional black demographics in Africa or the Caribbean, and the Robert Lindsey report it says just that, if you decided to read it, which you didn't. It also says why the variation, correlated as it is, exists.

But all are still higher, I would ask you to provide evidence for your bold claims that blacks outperform whites in UK schools, but I don't need to, I can already see it now, some completely narrow select group, perhaps relating to college applications or admissions per capita.......... it's generally the same junk.

What it in fact comes down to every single time I have had this discussion, is, that person arguing from your position are almost always extremely bias and also unable to understand the fundamentals of rational discourse.I can't help with that.

And no, my inability to whip out a link on a dime doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. I wouldn't ask you to believe without it, but for you to assert it automatically doesn't exist shows your bias........ I don't know why I bother. Good day, sir.