Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

David Cameron called 'racist' after accusing Sadiq Khan over links to IS supporter watch

Announcements
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    A race is a racial group.
    Judaism is not a racial group.
    A theological doctrine is not objective fact. If a theological doctrine says all people with brown hair are Muslims, that doesn't make it so.
    I have given you a definition of a race and a reasoned argument why Jews satisfy that definition.

    You have given a circular definition of a race (basically, "A race is a race.") and then a baseless assertion that Jews don't satisfy the non-definition.

    As this doesn't constitute any point at all, I don't even need to respond to this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xelfrost)
    Now, in the context of the genetic Jews, there is not a Jewish "Race" per se, however, there are Jewish "Tribes" and each tribes have their own unique genes and such. These tribes are "Ashkenazi" (Eastern European) "Sephardi" (Spanish) and "Mizrahi" (Oriental). So yes you can be "Genetically" .
    There aren't muslim tribes or christian tribes?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Killing people who profess Judaism may not be racist if you leave people alone who do not profess Judaism but are descended from Jews.

    The Nazis killed anyone descended from Jews regardless of whether they professed Judaism.

    Killing people who profess Judaism is similar to killing people who profess Islam is similar to killing people who profess capitalism, but none of those things are the same as what went on in Germany between 1940 and 1945.
    I'm not saying they were.
    I'm saying that Judaism and Islam are both religions, not races and just because some people or religious doctrines regard them as racial groups, it does not make it so.
    Killing someone because they are Jewish is the equivalent to killing someone because they are Muslim, irrespective of whether they profess such religion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I have given you a definition of a race and a reasoned argument why Jews satisfy that definition.
    But christians and muslims dont?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I'm not saying they were.
    I'm saying that Judaism and Islam are both religions, not races and just because some people or religious doctrines regard them as racial groups, it does not make it so.
    Killing someone because they are Jewish is the equivalent to killing someone because they are Muslim, irrespective of whether they profess such religion.
    Judaism is a religion that defines membership by descent. It is chauvinist, isolationist, and arguably racist. To convert to Judaism you must beg a Rabbi to become a Jew, be rejected three times, and still come back and ask again.

    Islam is a religion that says that it is and ought to be the religion of the entire world. Not only do Muslims want every living human to be a Muslim, they believe that every living human "really" is a Muslim already, and just needs to "revert". To convert (or "revert") to Islam you merely have to say three times that you are a Muslim.

    These are not the same idea, nor do they or their membership have the same biological properties. Judaism is, to a first approximation, an extended family. Islam is pure universalist ideology.

    The idea of "a Muslim who doesn't profess Islam" doesn't even make sense. Who is such a person? Can you name one? The Nazis on the other hand primarily wanted to kill irreligious Jews - people who didn't believe in the Jewish religion but were descended from Jews - who they regarded as carriers of Bolshevism, and ended up killing all of them indiscriminately in large part because they decided it was too difficult to try to tell the difference.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Judaism is a religion that defines membership by descent. It is chauvinist, isolationist, and arguably racist. To convert to Judaism you must beg a Rabbi to become a Jew, be rejected three times, and still come back and ask again.

    Islam is a religion that says that it is and ought to be the religion of the entire world. Not only do Muslims want every living human to be a Muslim, they believe that every living human "really" is a Muslim already, and just needs to "revert". To convert (or "revert" to Islam you merely have to say three times that you are a Muslim.

    These are not the same idea, nor do they or their membership have the same biological properties. Judaism is, to a first approximation, an extended family. Islam is pure universalist ideology.

    The idea of "a Muslim who doesn't profess Islam" doesn't even make sense. Who is such a person? Can you name one? The Nazis on the other hand primarily wanted to kill irreligious Jews - people who didn't believe in the Jewish religion but were descended from Jews - who they regarded as carriers of Bolshevism, and ended up killing all of them indiscriminately in large part because they decided it was too difficult to try to tell the difference.
    So if you beg three times you can change race but merely saying you want to change race 3 times isn't enough.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Judaism is a religion that defines membership by descent. It is chauvinist, isolationist, and arguably racist. To convert to Judaism you must beg a Rabbi to become a Jew, be rejected three times, and still come back and ask again.
    Only according to Orthodox Judaism, not in reform, liberal and other types of Judaism. In those you can just convert no problems at all.


    The idea of "a Muslim who doesn't profess Islam" doesn't even make sense. Who is such a person? Can you name one? The Nazis on the other hand primarily wanted to kill irreligious Jews - people who didn't believe in the Jewish religion but were descended from Jews - who they regarded as carriers of Bolshevism, and ended up killing all of them indiscriminately in large part because they decided it was too difficult to try to tell the difference.
    The Nazis mistakingly regarding Jewish people as a race does not make it so.
    It's a religion regardless of what the Nazis or any theological doctrine says.

    Race is an objective, biological quality. Judaism is not. Judaism runs according to a religious doctrine, race runs according to biology and science.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Only according to Orthodox Judaism, not in reform, liberal and other types of Judaism. In those you can just convert no problems at all.
    And to which has Judaism for the greater part of 2,000 years born closer resemblance? Especially given, as shown by genetic science, only 0.5% admixutre at every generation for 80 generations!

    The Nazis mistakingly regarding Jewish people as a race does not make it so.
    It's a religion regardless of what the Nazis or any theological doctrine says.

    Race is an objective, biological quality. Judaism is not. Judaism runs according to a religious doctrine, race runs according to biology and science.
    The Nazis were correct to view Jews as a race, and as I have already pointed out, modern genetic science confirms this view entirely. Judaism is a religious doctrine that has created a race by mandating inbreeding.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    And to which has Judaism for the greater part of 2,000 years born closer resemblance? Especially given, as shown by genetic science, only 0.5% admixutre at every generation for 80 generations!


    The Nazis were correct to view Jews as a race, and as I have already pointed out, modern genetic science confirms this view entirely. Judaism is a religious doctrine that has created a race by mandating inbreeding.
    Orthodox Judaism doesn't speak for all Judaism.

    You have admitted you can convert to Judaism even if t is difficult. You cannot convert to a race. A race is an objective biological quality attached to a person. Not a belief system nor a belief system that your ancestors had.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Orthodox Judaism doesn't speak for all Judaism.

    You have admitted you can convert to Judaism even if t is difficult. You cannot convert to a race. A race is an objective biological quality attached to a person. Not a belief system nor a belief system that your ancestors had.
    It is true that there are religious Jews who are not also racial Jews. This is no concession at all since I have freely admitted there are lots of racial Jews who are not religious Jews. There does not have to be perfect overlap between the two groups for the concept of a racial Jew to be real.

    In fact, the lack of such overlap is precisely what shows the difference between the Nazi policy and dislike of Muslims in India. The Nazis did not give a damn about Jewish converts while they ruthlessly murdered millions of racial Jews who professed Christianity or atheism. This is precisely what makes the Nazis racists rather than anti-clericalists.

    There would be a good argument for comparing a movement that murdered people who practised Judaism while leaving those merely related to Jews alone to "Islamophobes". But that is not what Naziism was.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It's not racist..
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    It's unbecoming for the PM to use his parliamentary privilege to make unsubstantiated accusations and allegations about citizens of the UK, safe in the knowledge that he will not be hauled up before judges for defamation.

    It is also unbecoming for the PM to use his office to deliver verbal personal attacks against the future Mayor of London, in an effort to help his own candidate secure the coveted position.
    You seem to misunderstand what the Prime Minister is. It's not a non-partisan constitutional institution like the Monarchy.
    Absolutely of course the Prime Minister is going to help his own candidate and attack others. Of course he is. I'm baffled as to why you would think otherwise, or that it shouldn't be the case. Were you also surprised that the government is allowed to take an official stance in the EU referendum?!

    David Cameron wouldn't be 'hauled up' before judges anyhow. I don't know what the basis is of Cameron's claim that Ghani supports ISIS, but he certainly has numerous dubious links with extremist preachers, radical clerics and convicted terrorists.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...an-over-links/

    A bit hypocritical of Cameron considering that we remain such strong allies with the KSA, but racist? It's racist to criticise someone for shmoozing with fascists?
    As a Labour member I was disinclined to believe these accusations, and Sadiq Khan has been good in opposing anti-semitism and distancing himself from Corbyn.

    But there have been so many instances coming out of Sadiq Khan associating with and drawing political support from extremist Pakistani Islamist factions that I cannot in good conscience vote for him.

    This Harry's Place article lays it out pretty well I think

    http://hurryupharry.org/2016/04/20/s...he-fosis-case/
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Orthodox Judaism doesn't speak for all Judaism.

    You have admitted you can convert to Judaism even if t is difficult. You cannot convert to a race. A race is an objective biological quality attached to a person. Not a belief system nor a belief system that your ancestors had.
    Yep, A "Jew" is simply a European who's ancestors practiced Judaism. I'm sorry to brush aside the notion of "Ethinic Jews" but if the son of a Jew no longer professes to Judaism then they are simply a person. More likely just a European.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yamus)
    YES WE KNOW.

    You are the only one calling judaism a race, you retard.

    Judaism is just the religion, the unorthdox sects of that religion allow any person to convert to judaism, the religion.

    But the jewish lineage is restricted to only jews.

    Whoppi goldberg is an african american woman who practices judaism, that doesn't mean she's jewish by birth.
    Except the person i'm quoting expressly called it a race.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    As a Labour member I was disinclined to believe these accusations, and Sadiq Khan has been good in opposing anti-semitism and distancing himself from Corbyn.

    But there have been so many instances coming out of Sadiq Khan associating with and drawing political support from extremist Pakistani Islamist factions that I cannot in good conscience vote for him.

    This Harry's Place article lays it out pretty well I think

    http://hurryupharry.org/2016/04/20/s...he-fosis-case/
    This is gutter politics, playing on the fact Khan is a muslim to whip up religous tensions.

    Khan was a human rights lawyer and a Muslim. As a human rights lawyer he obviously would have come into contact with questionable individuals but to hold him responsible for that is absurd, it would be like berating a criminal lawyer for representing criminals. Everyone no matter what they have done is entitled to legal representation, its a basic, inalienable human rights which separates us from the people we oppose. Khan as a lawyer has a duty to represent his clients no matter what. In the same way that a doctor has a duty to treat their patients no matter what they've done.
    As a Muslim he goes to his local place of worship, whoever else goes there is not his responsibility.

    Far from supporting islamic extremism, Khan termed it as a cancer. He's the ideal type of person this country needs, a secular muslim willing to tackle Islamic extremism.
    He made himself an enemy of many Muslims by coming out strongly in favour of gay marriage and even had to get police protection for his daughters.
    He's not an extremist nor an extremist sympathizer.

    Khan has also been particularly strong as you say in opposing anti-semitism and racial and relgious discrimination of all kind.

    A secular muslim willing to tackle radical islam is exactly what we need, he's a role model for other secular muslims and these attacks and smears on him are beyond dirty.

    But let's take this accusation by Cameron in isolation. Cameron accused gani of being an IS sympathizer yet when asked repeatedly after could not come up with a single example of him being so. This same guy was actually asked by the conservatives to campaign for them in the 2015 election after refusing to support khan due to his stance on gay marriage.

    It was a completely unfounded, ridiculous accusation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Judaism is a religious doctrine that has created a race by mandating inbreeding.
    like armenians, or kurds?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...an-over-links/

    A bit hypocritical of Cameron considering that we remain such strong allies with the KSA, but racist? It's racist to criticise someone for shmoozing with fascists?
    The race card. Used when a person loses an argument

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Nor does it say anywhere that the PM's office should be a partisan constitutional institution and indeed, the courts would generally interpret it as the following:

    When the PM sits in office, he is representing the interests of the entire country, and not just those he pandered to during the election. This PM seems to have forgotten that.

    Of course, he can represent his constituency from the benches, as is his prerogative but when he speaks in front of No.10, all semblance of partisanship must be absent.

    The electorate does not elect a partisan Prime Minister.
    It doesn't say anything anywhere because the office of Prime Minister was not established by any constitution or law and no buggering court has anything to do with it. The PM is merely a high ranking MP, not some neutral umpire.
    This seems to be a case more of how you'd rather things be than how they actually are (although I'd also wager this is only an issue when a Conservative Prime Minister does so). The Prime Minister has never been non-partisan and never will. The electorate elect their MPs to push their favoured political agenda. Beats me how you believe that equates into a non-partisan Prime Minister.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Of course not, because that is not a partisan issue. It is a national issue, which affects all regardless of how we voted in the last general election.
    Of course it's a partisan issue, which is the whole point of the government taking a stance.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Cameron's claim is seemingly fraudulent, which is why he made it in the Commons and refuses to utter it outside of Parliament, so as to use parliamentary privilege as a shield against any future defamation case.
    There's nothing seemingly fraudulent about it. Ghani has links to know radical cleric, extremist preachers and convicted terrorists. In the two days since, where has Cameron tried to skirt the issue that justifies your claim that he 'refuses to utter it outside of Parliament'?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The PM occupies a number of offices whilst being PM, of which being an MP is one of them.

    Should he wish to represent the wishes of his constituency, then he does so as an MP or a private citizen, like he did when he wrote that letter to his local council lamenting the front line service cuts that they were engaging in, a policy that ironically was of his own making.

    You use 10 Downing Street to carry out matters of state, not constituency matters, a fact which David Cameron seems well aware of.



    The electorate elect MP's and not the PM. Whilst the PM may be drawn from the Commons, it is not necessary that he, or she plays partisan politics with the office of the PM.

    You may not like it and you may pass it off as "It's always been done this way" but you cannot deny that the Office of the PM should be strictly above partisan politics and looking out for matters of state.
    I can deny it, because that's not how it is. The Prime Minister has never been above partisan politics. I'm baffled as to how you came to assume that it is, or what would lead you to think that. It's almost as if you've never seen any Prime Minister and have no understanding of British politics. The Prime Minister is simply the leader of the governing party, not an impartial statesman. That's what the Monarchy is for.
    You're describing a situation that has never occurred. The job of the Prime Minister is to lead his party. David Cameron is OBVIOUSLY going to rip Labour's candidate for the Mayor of London and support his own. It's not abuse of position, unethical, immoral or against the rules so save your faux outrage.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    It is not a partisan issue, demonstrated by the fact that the Conservative Party are split, as are some of the Labour Party members.

    If the EU referendum was a partisan issue, we would see one clear and coherent message from the Tories, but they seem all over the place.

    The Government, and by extension the civil servants (the people that actually run the country and are the backbone of Westminster), are obliged to remain politically neutral on all policy issues.

    They serve the Crown and the realm, not petty political maneuverings.
    Few issues have all MPs of the two largest parties in consensus. That doesn't stop it being partisan. The official stance of the Conservatives and of Labour is to support remaining in the EU. A minority rebelling that position doesn't change that.

    Again, this has never been the case and is something you've simply made up or wish was so, but it isn't.
    The whole point of the democratic process is to select a party to form and run our government and implement policies. For example, the official position of the HM Government, as dictated by the Conservatives, is that we should retain a nuclear deterrent. Likewise, the official position of HM Government, as dictated by the Conservatives, is that we should remain in the EU.
    The whole point of the civil service is to implement government policies.
    You're complete misunderstanding and ignorance of British politics is astounding.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The man that he has accused, has asked the PM to repeat said statements outside of Parliament. Cameron has not done so, hence, skirting the issue.

    If he has links to extremism, then the police must have carried out some investigation and given that supporting IS is a crime in this country, the fact that said person has not been charged with any offences speaks for itself.

    The simple truth is that Cameron is a coward who hides his oily exterior behind the office of the PM, which perverse and demeans such a distinguished office.
    Ghani hasn't asked the PM anything. He made comments to some low-brow media organisations. I doubt the PM regularly keeps track of 5 Pillars UK.

    It doesn't speak for anything. There are numerous known radicals and terrorist-sympathisers still walking our streets. There are a multitude of reasons as to why the police haven't been able to or won't prosecute. Certainly innocent until proven guilty, but not being prosecuted isn't proof of not being guilty.

    Like I said, the speaker John Bercow generally takes a hard line to MPs abusing privilege, such as flouting super-injunctions.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.