Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Defraction)
    Where you from, near Katie Hopkin's racist house????????

    Please, I'm from a busy London area- you can't beat my area.
    London is a shithole
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by The Blue Nose)
    London is a shithole
    Like you but I don't complain.

    I need to fix up your ignorance- ignorance is the key to corruption.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Defraction)
    Like you but I don't complain.

    I need to fix up your ignorance- ignorance is the key to corruption.
    London is full of ignorant rude *****
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    This is gutter politics, playing on the fact Khan is a muslim to whip up religous tensions.
    I agree that Zac Goldsmith has played this as a dog-whistle, not from the perspective of genuine concerns that might hail from humanist factions but as part of a generalised, nebulous "Whoo woo, his name is Khan, he's a scary Muslim he must love terrorism"

    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.
    You make a very convincing case. He has voted in favour of gay marriage and attacked extremism. He has been assiduous in connecting with the Jewish community, and also distancing himself from Corbyn.

    And of course I would never criticise Khan for associating with terrorists in his capacity as a lawyer, of course everyone needs representation and no blame attaches to any lawyer simply for interacting with these people in a legal capacity. The one case that really did concern me was this Pakistani Muslim community leader here in England who called for that Pakistani Minister to be killed, that there was some connection between him and Khan?

    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.
    You make a strong argument, I shall think more on this.

    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.
    Really? The guy Cameron is claiming is an IS sympathiser is someone the Tories asked to campaign for them? If so, that is beyond outrageous and it would show the Tories are total hypocrites on this matter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The tories are absolutely stupid...Zac Goldsmith had contact with this guy as well, but when sadiq khan does it hes a terrorist because hes muslim.....shows you what idiots tories are
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    I agree that Zac Goldsmith has played this as a dog-whistle, not from the perspective of genuine concerns that might hail from humanist factions but as part of a generalised, nebulous "Whoo woo, his name is Khan, he's a scary Muslim he must love terrorism"



    You make a very convincing case. He has voted in favour of gay marriage and attacked extremism. He has been assiduous in connecting with the Jewish community, and also distancing himself from Corbyn.

    And of course I would never criticise Khan for associating with terrorists in his capacity as a lawyer, of course everyone needs representation and no blame attaches to any lawyer simply for interacting with these people in a legal capacity. The one case that really did concern me was this Pakistani Muslim community leader here in England who called for that Pakistani Minister to be killed, that there was some connection between him and Khan?



    You make a strong argument, I shall think more on this.



    Really? The guy Cameron is claiming is an IS sympathiser is someone the Tories asked to campaign for them? If so, that is beyond outrageous and it would show the Tories are total hypocrites on this matter
    Yes search it, Gani leafletted and canvassed for the Tories.

    The important point is this though, Khan has fought extremism and not been intimated by the Muslim community. We have a problem with Muslim extremism in this country. One of the best ways to tackle that is encouraging secular Muslims to stand up and fight extremism, to be role models for other young Muslims.

    There are a lot of bad eggs in the Muslim community and the fact is almost any Muslim growing up will come into contact with some unfavourable characters. But we have to allow for that if we want to encourage more secular Muslims to go the way of Khan rather than IS. We shouldn't crucify people for who they were in connection with when they were younger.

    Khan is a decent guy who's stood up to the extremist elements in his religion. He may have 'shared platforms' or had contact with some questionable characters, but they were largely in a legal capacity or people who were at the same mosque he went to.

    The Tory dog whistling campaign imo puts secular Muslims off and is more likely to send them the other way when they see a throughly decent guy who's stood up to extremism targeted as being extremist because he's Muslim.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Yes search it, Gani leafletted and canvassed for the Tories.

    The important point is this though, Khan has fought extremism and not been intimated by the Muslim community. We have a problem with Muslim extremism in this country. One of the best ways to tackle that is encouraging secular Muslims to stand up and fight extremism, to be role models for other young Muslims.

    There are a lot of bad eggs in the Muslim community and the fact is almost any Muslim growing up will come into contact with some unfavourable characters. But we have to allow for that if we want to encourage more secular Muslims to go the way of Khan rather than IS. We shouldn't crucify people for who they were in connection with when they were younger.

    Khan is a decent guy who's stood up to the extremist elements in his religion. He may have 'shared platforms' or had contact with some questionable characters, but they were largely in a legal capacity or people who were at the same mosque he went to.

    The Tory dog whistling campaign imo puts secular Muslims off and is more likely to send them the other way when they see a throughly decent guy who's stood up to extremism targeted as being extremist because he's Muslim.
    Good points. It is true, in my opinion, that Sadiq Khan has shared some platforms with some unsavoury characters but this was always from the perspective of being a human rights campaigner and criminal defence lawyer. He supported causes I might not, but he didn't do so thinking "Aha! Here are some terrorist-sympathisers I can get into bed with to further the Islamist cause". He did it from the perspective of opposing what he viewed as abuses of state power. I can live with that. They're causes I wouldn't support, but he did it with the best of intentions.

    It's also clear that to the extent there are any associations, they are incidental or perhaps sometimes opportunistic but by no stretch of the imagination could Khan be considered to have any sympathy for Islamist extremism.

    Thanks for taking the time to lay out those points, I've decided not to abstain my ballot anymore. I'll be voting for him, hopefully next month we'll see the Wrath of Khan
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Well, Cameron isn't a racist but it's good that he's getting a taste of his own medicine. He can throw around accusations and attempt to smear Khan but he can't actually establish these ties with extremist sympathisers which Khan supposedly has. Cameron is more guilty of this than Khan is.

    But just because you keep reading the word “racist” alongside his name – in a way seemingly calculated to tap into any wholly wrong-headed prejudices you might have about Tories being predisposed to racism – doesn’t make it true. Although if I were trying to plant the entirely inaccurate idea in your head that Cameron was indeed a racist, this would be a pretty good way to go about it.

    Ugly, isn’t it? Such sly, insidious poisoning of the well is hard to shrug off, precisely because nothing is ever said directly; you’re left boxing with shadows, or with people too cowardly to come out of them. Such tactics should have no part in decent politics. And that’s why Cameron should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for employing them against Sadiq Khan.
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...khan-repellent
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    He's just scare mongering. You don't have to fall for it.


    (Original post by KingBradly)
    What do you mean I "don't get to"? Of course I "get to", you don't have some kind of authority over what I say. I have never heard of Islamophobia towards people who have left Islam. I have heard plenty of antisemitism towards people who are only Jewish by lineage. Islamophobia is dislike of people for following Islam, not for their genes. Once a Muslim leaves Islam, they are no longer considered Muslims except in the tiny exception of Bosnia (unlike with Jews, who are still considered "ethnic Jews" regardless of their beliefs). Muslims are made up of masses of different races and being Muslim has nothing to do with your genetics. However, the vast majority of Jews are ethnic Jews from the Sephardi and Ashkenazi divisions, and the overwhelming majority of all Jews from all the Jewish ethnic divisions have genes that can be traced back to a common Israelite population. As such Jews are almost like a race, and regardless of what you think of that statement, the important thing is that antisemitism often targets them in this way. We all know the stereotypes of the Jews with big hook noses, beady eyes, and thick curly black hair. Those stereotypes are no different to racist depictions of blacks with big lips etc. You don't get "Islamophobic" pictures like that because there are no physical traits that define Muslims because they're not anything even close to being a racial group. There is probably a greater variation in the genes of all the major populations that follow Islam than there is in those that don't. Islamophobia targets Muslims for following Islam, full stop. Muslims can leave Islam and are no longer considered Muslims, and therefore won't be victims of Islamophobia. Jews can leave Judaism but will always be considered Jews simply for their genetics, and will still be subjected to the same antisemitic stereotypes. Any visual depictions of Muslims that you might consider "Islamophobic" are probably racist depictions of arabs or Pakistanis, but not Islamophobic.

    Islamophobia and antisemitism can't be considered the same and therefore should not be given the "same standards". Antisemitism targets people for their genetics, and so is similar to racism, Islamophobia targets people for their beliefs. They are entirely different.
    lol not true at all mate
    And jews always try to pass as regular white and a lot of the times it works as well. You can't be "subjected" to racism if you're passing. And jews are racist more often than not. But if you're a brown person they will get accused of being a Muslim even if they're not; if you're white you're not getting accused of being jew. Idk what you're spouting. I don't feel bad for either groups though because they both have faults, so there's no special case of being a victim more or less with either of them.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Well, Cameron isn't a racist but it's good that he's getting a taste of his own medicine. He can throw around accusations and attempt to smear Khan but he can't actually establish these ties with extremist sympathisers which Khan supposedly has. Cameron is more guilty of this than Khan is.



    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...khan-repellent
    It's just pure dog whistling. 'Khans a Muslim so let's keep using the words radical, extremist and sympathiser and hope they stick'
    When in reality khans done far more to oppose radical Islam than goldsmith and Cameron whose devisive rhetoric if anything is likely to increase it and deter secular Muslims.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It's just pure dog whistling. 'Khans a Muslim so let's keep using the words radical, extremist and sympathiser and hope they stick'
    When in reality khans done far more to oppose radical Islam than goldsmith and Cameron whose devisive rhetoric if anything is likely to increase it and deter secular Muslims.
    I don't remember which of your posts I already rated but PRSOM. It really is a cheap shot.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Because it shows it had nothing to do with race?
    No it does not. I've explained why it was in my post so read it first.

    Obviously the incident with Corbyn had nothing to do with race, they're both white.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Not racist per se (although probably partially because he's a brown person) but certainly Islamaphobic.'he's a Muslim so therefore he's an extremist'.
    You tried this sly trick before and promptly got destroyed for it so I'm surprised you've tried it again. It's pathetic
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    I agree that Zac Goldsmith has played this as a dog-whistle, not from the perspective of genuine concerns that might hail from humanist factions but as part of a generalised, nebulous "Whoo woo, his name is Khan, he's a scary Muslim he must love terrorism"
    However, the shoe fits. Saying this about, say, Sajid Javid would be that, as his entire history and character would contradict the allegations. Khan is either an integrated far leftist who thinks of terrorists as scamps with basically sound motives but incorrect methods, or he is the legal equivalent of a mob doctor.

    I don't believe Khan is an IS sympathiser simply because very few even extreme Muslims are, but I certainly believe he has IS sympathisers in his extended social and professional circle. How could he not? Do you believe that Boris Johnson doesn't have a single racist in his extended social or professional circle? (Zac Goldsmith, however, may well not.)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    You tried this sly trick before and promptly got destroyed for it so I'm surprised you've tried it again. It's pathetic
    You'd been quite decent recently so i'm not sure what this childish put down is for.
    I'm not 'trying' anything nor have I been 'destroyed'. This is a student forum.

    Goldsmith's campaign has been incredibly dubious and controversial, hugely playing on the fact Khan is a muslim to try and link him with extremists and extremism.

    Even lifelong Tory and Daily Mail writer Peter Oborne has come out and slammed Goldsmith for his dog-whistling campaign. http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns...ions-538083247

    Do I think it's racist? Not quite, but do I think Cameron as well as Goldsmith is playing on the fact Khan is a muslim to try and absurdly link him to extremism, playing on prejudicial stereotypes - absolutely.

    Bear in mind that Ghani, who Khan 'shared a platform' with actually was asked to and did campaign for the conservatives in the last election after Khan came out in support of gay marriage.

    I know you won't reply, you never do when you're proven wrong and you run off. But i've not 'tried' anything here. I'm arguing Cameron and Goldsmith have played on the fact Khan is a muslim to make out he's an extremist, playing to certain stereotypes. Even quite a few tories think that to.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    However, the shoe fits. Saying this about, say, Sajid Javid would be that, as his entire history and character would contradict the allegations. Khan is either an integrated far leftist who thinks of terrorists as scamps with basically sound motives but incorrect methods, or he is the legal equivalent of a mob doctor.

    I don't believe Khan is an IS sympathiser simply because very few even extreme Muslims are, but I certainly believe he has IS sympathisers in his extended social and professional circle. How could he not? Do you believe that Boris Johnson doesn't have a single racist in his extended social or professional circle? (Zac Goldsmith, however, may well not.)
    Khan as labour whip, whipped through 42 day detention without trial after 9/11. Most of those detained were Muslim extremists, doesn't exactly seem like a Muslim extremist sympathizer.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Hmmm. See I defended you against accusations on here that you were not Jewish since supporting the cause of rabid anti-Semites doesn't mean you're not Jewish. Just mad or naive

    However after reading this thread I'm starting to think I might have been wrong. I'm very skeptical that a Jew wouldn't know what that other poster has been trying to tell you. I hope I'm wrong but it's increasingly looking like you're making up your Jewishness so that you're allowed to defend antisemites to your heart's content without anybody being allowed to call you out on it.

    I might have known after that time you claimed to have personally witnessed roadsigns in Israel for Jew-only roads which don't exist. Again, I hope I'm wrong but even if I'm not it's quite poor form and I'd suggest you educate yourself a bit more on Judaism.
    Judaism is not a race. It really is as simple as that.
    As to the road signs, I meant israeli only signs which do exist. I haven't defended a single anti semite nor will I ever.
    I went to a Jewish school for 16 years and lived in israel for a year. I certainly know about Judaism and I know it's not a race.

    You can convert to Judaism, you cannot convert to a race.
    Which 'rabid anti semite have I ever supported?

    I also noted you haven't replied to my response to you earlier...
    Running scared like the coward you are.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Except I am Jewish.
    What do you mean saying that you are Jewish?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    What do you mean saying that you are Jewish?
    My parents are Jewish, I've been circumcised, had a bar mitzvah, went to a jewish school for 16 years, lived in israel, member of the local synagogue and have never denounced my religion.

    My only point which has been incredibly misinterpreted, is that Judaism is not a race. That's all.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    White people must become more assertive.

    Not look down on the pavement when they cross paths with a creature like that.

    Ask them what the **** they are doing. You're in England.

    It's time white people don't look away anymore and rise up.

    Because if you don't the enemy will.
 
 
 
Poll
Favourite type of bread
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.