Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

National Union of Students elects Malia Bouattia as president. Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HanSoloLuck)
    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'.
    How is that oxymoronic?

    You might posit that there is a common causal factor behind the attacks, but that doesn't stop them being lone wolf attacks, as that is a matter of how much co-ordination there is/was.

    For the record, there are pro-Israeli groups who have used the same terminology, describing it as both a "wave" and "lone wolf" - http://www.blog.standforisrael.org/i...error-attacks/ for example
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Venusian Visitor)
    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/...-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-...roduction.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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    She is an anti-Semite an needs to be stopped.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HanSoloLuck)
    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/...-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-...roduction.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.


    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.

    (Original post by HanSoloLuck)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Venusian Visitor)
    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 is 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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HanSoloLuck)
    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.
    http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...y-school-meals
    "Every group, apart from those from traveller, Gypsy or Roma families, performed better than white, British-born children."

    So when both whites and blacks are poor they do as bad as each other in education, in fact whites do worse. Therefore there goes your claim that other races don't suffer from the effects of poverty. I also notice that you fail to mention what I said about the GDPs of Trinidad and Poland. Poland sucks because it's been war-torn for years and under Communist occupation. Nothing much has happened in Trinidad. Again showing that when whites are in a bad situation they do worse than blacks.

    As for the sickle cell and prostate cancer stuff you're still failing to to realize that the blacks in the West only represent a small fraction of the black race from West Africa. Medical stats on UK blacks are not applicable to all blacks.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Venusian Visitor)
    http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...y-school-meals
    "Every group, apart from those from traveller, Gypsy or Roma families, performed better than white, British-born children."

    So when both whites and blacks are poor they do as bad as each other in education, in fact whites do worse. Therefore there goes your claim that other races don't suffer from the effects of poverty. I also notice that you fail to mention what I said about the GDPs of Trinidad and Poland. Poland sucks because it's been war-torn for years and under Communist occupation. Nothing much has happened in Trinidad. Again showing that when whites are in a bad situation they do worse than blacks.

    As for the sickle cell and prostate cancer stuff you're still failing to to realize that the blacks in the West only represent a small fraction of the black race from West Africa. Medical stats on UK blacks are not applicable to all blacks.
    I can't help you. Sorry, I just can't. I honestly don't know how to, you want to compare Poland with Trinidad and Tobago, we could, you want to talk about a select narrow spectrum of academia within the UK, we could do that also.

    But it would be pointless, you are bias, you have the answer before you go looking for the facts, you will inevitably find things on the internet to support it. For example; if I debunked any or all of these examples as evidence of your belief, how would your position change?

    Be honest, it wouldn't. And I wouldn't expect you to even realize or accept the invalidity of your evidence when/if I provided it, this is in the truest terms, intellectual tennis without a net.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Happy97)
    How about this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-outpost.html

    Or this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...g-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?
    Is this the right wing media too?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Happy97)
    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.
    Firstly, it is not racist to criticise Malia for her beliefs. It's racist to do so based on her 'race'. Secondly, criticism of Israel's policies is not necessarily anti-Semitic. But rarely are the motivations for these criticisms backed by evidence and instead are fuelled by a dislike for Judaism or the Jews. It's fair to say that it is identical to Muslims claiming that criticism of their faith or beliefs is Islamophobic (which is incidentally what you are trying to suggest). Finally, denouncing Islamic State has little to do with Israel. Why, then, is she unable to do so? Does she feel it goes against her Islamic views to do so?

    I'd also like to add a side note here (and this is not a personal attack): the level of ignorance about Zionism amongst much of the Western public and audience is quite shocking.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Well she is clearly going to deny she is an anti semite!

    The video posted on this thread was utterly devastating to her reputation vis a vis any decent, right thinking person. Have you watched it??

    If you have you will know that In it she denounces "peace talks" (she even says the phrase with a palpable sneer) and advocates terrorism to topple the "colonialist" Zionist State. She calls it "armed resistance" not terrorism.

    She is clearly going to deny she supports terrorism.

    What does that "armed resistance" mean in practice?

    Crazed hate filled Palestinians knifing random Israeli citizens. What else can it mean?

    Support for the terrorist organisations, Hamas and Hizbollah who murder Israeli citizens just because they are Jews. . What else can it mean?

    That video, her own words, demonstrate that she is utterly unsuitable to have the position she does and brings it, and all the UK students (it purports to represent) into serious disrepute.

    The only way forward is for individual SU's to disaffiliate. It is already happening, as others have said on this thread. I encourage all civilised, decent people, who abhor terrorism, to follow this lead and support disaffiliation also.
    All of this. No civilised person could possibly defend her.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Palestinian militants (who, in contrast to Israeli forces, are neither a single force nor centrally directed from above) lack the resources or capacity to employ such tactics, rendering the question of whether they are 'allowed' to use them redundant.
    It's precisely the tactic used:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-weapons
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket

    The Nazis fired a bit over 10,000 rockets, the Palestinians a bit less than 9,000.

    Britain's response to this was to devastate all German cities until they surrendered without condition, making way for execution of their leadership, outlawing of their state ideology, and reconstruction as an Anglo-American satellite. Justified or not? If once, why not twice? I don't see the difference.

    I have to say I tried a few times to give a meaningful response here, but I can't quite capture the sheer ridiculousness of what you just said.
    It's as ridiculous as to say that supporting the Nazis didn't become OK in 1945 because the Nazis became too weak to put their genocide and world conquest plans into practice. It's the idea that's the thing, not the means.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Happy97)
    The key word being 'allegedly', there's no proof she actually said these things. The claim that she conflated Zionists and Jews together might have been totally fabricated as an attempt to besmirch her character. How do you know this isn't part of a wider smear-campaign to force her to resign before she even started her job? My evidence supports this theory but your evidence is based on unverified allegations. It is blatantly obvious that some parts of the media are desperately trying to peddle an anti-Muslim narrative and this story fits nicely into that.

    I might change my mind if you prove me wrong by providing good solid evidence that no one can deny.
    I'm quite enjoying you conflating criticism of somebody who supports terrorism with criticism of Muslims. You seem upset that a terrorist supporter is being criticised and you plainly see it as unfair that the media is attacking a terrorist supporting antisemite.

    You lot aren't the victims in this. This tinfoil hat conspiracy theory of the media having it in for you as a delusion a lot of Muslims seem to have but it's just a delusion, I'm afraid. Just because they attack this NUS president, it doesn't mean there's an anti-Muslim agenda at work here. Just an a anti-terrorism and anti-Jew-hating one. Unless of course you see condemnation of terrorist supporters as the same thing as condensation of regular Muslims, which you obviously do.......
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Judea Declares War Against Malia Bouattia


    If they can turn us against Germany they should be able to get rid of some Black Muslim
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Happy97)
    The key word being 'allegedly', there's no proof she actually said these things. The claim that she conflated Zionists and Jews together might have been totally fabricated as an attempt to besmirch her character. How do you know this isn't part of a wider smear-campaign to force her to resign before she even started her job?
    It was in a co-written blog post (discussed here). She hasn't come out saying it was fabricated.

    I don't actually think she's an anti-semite (unlike some others commenting on this issue). However, I am wary of the NUS electing someone who has been careless in their language/approach at a time when anti-semitism is on the rise, particularly when the NUS hypocritically cracks down on any hint of dodgy language when it involves other minorities (with their "safe spaces" and so on).

    My evidence supports this theory but your evidence is based on unverified allegations. It is blatantly obvious that some parts of the media are desperately trying to peddle an anti-Muslim narrative and this story fits nicely into that.
    You've just linked to articles reporting what she has said/written/people's concerns. You've not provided evidence of the media attacking her solely on the basis of her faith. This has also been reported in the left-wing media.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Firstly, it is not racist to criticise Malia for her beliefs. It's racist to do so based on her 'race'. Secondly, criticism of Israel's policies is not necessarily anti-Semitic. But rarely are the motivations for these criticisms backed by evidence and instead are fuelled by a dislike for Judaism or the Jews. It's fair to say that it is identical to Muslims claiming that criticism of their faith or beliefs is Islamophobic (which is incidentally what you are trying to suggest). Finally, denouncing Islamic State has little to do with Israel. Why, then, is she unable to do so? Does she feel it goes against her Islamic views to do so?

    I'd also like to add a side note here (and this is not a personal attack): the level of ignorance about Zionism amongst much of the Western public and audience is quite shocking.
    Mate, if she wasn't a Muslim there wouldn't be a right-wing media witch-hunt against her. What she might or might not have said about Jews is irrelevant, the truth of the matter is Malia Bouattia is being attacked because of her religious background. It cannot be denied that there are elements in the media who are blatantly Islamophobic and wish to paint all Muslims with the same brush e.g. Rupert Murdoch.

    I'm not for or against Malia Bouattia, nevertheless as a Muslim I refuse to believe the media is objective and neutral when it comes to Muslims. Right-wing media is free to criticise my religion however they seem too busy focusing on painting Muslims as a 'fifth column' who are intent on destroying Europe. A considerable chunk of the media wants to polarise society into 'us' and 'them'. Sadly, a lot of people have fallen for this nonsense and this is why you see movements such as Pegida, who sincerely believe Europe is being invaded by migrants/refugees.

    This scaremongering tactic is being deployed to distract the masses from harsh economic realities and the only real winners are the top elites (Bankers, Politicians, Wall-street) and ISIS. Yes, ISIS. This is because they rely on Muslims being victimised so that they can gain new followers i.e. Radicalised youngsters.

    Secondly, ISIS are an extremist group who use the religion of Islam to further their own selfish agendas and do not represent Muslims at all. In fact, they label Muslims as non-Muslims and murder them if they do not subscribe to their sadistic interpretations of the Quran. Muslims all around the world have denounced them repeatedly, but you won't see this on mainstream media. I wonder why?

    Regarding the motion, Malia Bouattia has condemned ISIS on many occasions but did not vote since she was against the wordings of the motion. I don't agree with her in this particular case but right wing media has portrayed this action of hers as a 'refusal to condemn IS' , Funnily enough you seem to think she did this because of her 'Islamic views'

    When Muslims are slandered on the media it is called 'Freedom of speech'. On the other hand, if a person criticises Israel they are at risk of being jailed and labelled as 'anti-Semitic' or as a 'terrorist sympathiser'. Unfortunately, double standards have become the norm within the media and Muslims have become fair game.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    For the sake of fairness I'd like to see the differences between the motion she rejected and the alternative that was later accepted.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    For the sake of fairness I'd like to see the differences between the motion she rejected and the alternative that was later accepted.
    Yes I was wondering about this too. On what basis exactly did she reject the original motion while accepting the latter?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    For the sake of fairness I'd like to see the differences between the motion she rejected and the alternative that was later accepted.
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Yes I was wondering about this too. On what basis exactly did she reject the original motion while accepting the latter?
    Well, here is the rejected motion:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...t?pref=2&pli=1

    Notice that it specifically criticises the US intervention.

    The passed motion is here:

    http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/...iraq-and-syria

    It gives with the right hand, while taking away with the left, of course, by condemning the western allies ate the same time, and condemning Islamophobia (undefined).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Well, here is the rejected motion:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...t?pref=2&pli=1

    Notice that it specifically criticises the US intervention.

    The passed motion is here:

    http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/...iraq-and-syria

    It gives with the right hand, while taking away with the left, of course, by condemning the western allies ate the same time, and condemning Islamophobia (undefined).
    It seems that the main difference in the two is that the second heaps more blame on The West and states that among the victims in all of this are British Muslims and the British govrnment is to blame for this.

    So this person refused to ratify the motion on the above features were added. It is not enough to condemn ISIS. You cannot condemn ISIS without also condemning The West to a similar extent. NUS gonna NUS. Complete liabilities.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    I've been following this debate for a long time, not wanting to get involved because I'm neither Jewish nor Muslim and because I think the NUS is pretty much an irrelevance to my life as a student. But I think it's worth adding a post because I think some people conflate things that aren't always the same.

    There are four concepts that matter here:

    1. Being against militant Zionism
    2. Being against Zionism
    3. Supporting terrorism
    4. Denying or downplaying the Holocaust

    The first of these is uncontroversial. Militant Zionists are those who settle lands not recognised by the international community as part of Israel. They are, in effect, stealing the Palestinians' homeland. This is clearly unacceptable to most people, including 99% of Jews, even most Israelis.

    The second is a legitimate opinion, albeit one that flies in the face of international law and archeological evidence. Zionism is simply the belief that the state of Israel has the right to exist, with its borders as at 1967, on land inhabited by the Jewish people for at least 3000 years (archeologists have found the remains of synagogues dating back more than three millennia there).

    The third, which Bouattia has done, is in my view absolutely out of order. She has called for 'armed resistance' by Palestinians and refused to condemn ISIS. If one student is emboldened by her actions to join ISIS or give money to a terrorist group, she should be held responsible for her contribution to the resulting deaths.

    The fourth thing she hasn't done so far as I'm aware, but someone else did it and hasn't been condemned. It's a small step from 'there's nothing unique about the Holocaust - we should focus more on other atrocities, despite the fact that they killed a tiny fraction of the number of people' to 'there's a Jewish conspiracy in the media and academia to overstate the significance of the Holocaust' or even 'those pesky Jews made it all up.'

    Though I'm not Jewish, my girlfriend is, and it's an unspoken understanding between us that we'll get engaged this summer when she finishes her degree and married two years later when I complete mine. As with most Jews, family is very important to her and I've met most of her extended family. You need go back only two generations to find grandparents who grew up as orphans or in poverty and suffered huge losses of close relations because of the Pogrom. Her parents and grandparents have family keepsakes representing people who died through overwork in the ghettoes, of starvation or disease on forced migrations or in the gas chambers. And a couple of generations earlier, something similar happened with the expulsion of Jews from the Russian countryside. Some moved to the US or UK, but many moved to Poland and other parts of Europe where their descendants were persecuted again when Hitler came to power.

    Given this history, I don't think it's surprising that it's really important to most Jews that the full horror of the Holocaust is recognised and that the world preserves the right of Israel to exist. Even if most never visit it, let alone live there, they want to know it exists as a place of last refuge if things get really bad. And when Muslim terrorists targeted Jews in Paris recently, some Parisian Jews relocated to Israel, as is every Jew's birthright.

    Hearing anyone, especially someone with power and influence among students and Muslims, challenging Zionism, supporting those who commit terrorist acts against Israeli Jews and refusing to condemn ISIS or a motion opposing the marking of Holocaust Memorial Day, is deeply offensive to most Jews, as well as people like me who love Jewish people. My girlfriend is an amazing person and her family are some of the warmest, most welcoming and most generous people I've been privileged to meet, in part because of their faith and the amazing culture they've grown up in. Ms Bouattia's infantile posturings offend and frighten them. It's not clever or funny, and she should not be in the position she holds.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 18, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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