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

National Union of Students elects Malia Bouattia as president. Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    I get the impression that high-level student politics is a recruiting ground for the Labour Party and the trade unions. See Wes Streeting as an example.
    Student politics tends to be way to the left of Labour even.
    Last year we had numerous people regarding Ed Miliband as a staunch neo-liberal thatcherite etc.

    Labour tend to be the right wing of student politics.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    It's interesting that media on both sides of the spectrum are criticising her. The Guardian, for example, is far from the Telegraph in terms of political bias and yet have found that her election is not good for the NUS.



    This type of self-victimisation is exactly what's wrong here. Compare yourself to other minorities in Europe. There is no such issue with them. Why is that? Sometimes it's important to reflect on one's own beliefs and actions before blaming others.



    Evidence.



    If this hasn't been shown on the mainstream media how do you know it's been denounced by Muslims everywhere?



    It's hardly 'funny'. Her views on this topic remain far too ambiguous. She states she supports the Kurds who are fighting ISIS but refuses to openly condemn the organisation. How is one to interpret such statements? Secondly, condemning ISIS would be condemning an organisation that follows a literal interpretation of scripture. Condemning them would be unIslamic.



    You're placing every single media outlet into on category. Are you therefore stating that the writers of the Guardian or Telegraph should be compared to the views shared by the Sun?
    1) Her election is not good for the NUS, maybe that's true. But why on earth are some people throwing a tantrum because of her election. It was democratic and fair. NUS members have a right to elect who they want without being harassed for their preferences. I'm an avid reader of the Guardian and they made some fair criticisms, On the other hand, the Dailymail (aka the Daily trash) and the Telegraph launched a fully blown smear campaign. See the difference? if you actually took a minute to think of why they are doing this, you would come to the same inevitable conclusion as me.

    2) No, this is fact. Not self-victimisation. Muslims have contributed as much if not more than other minorities to Europe but there are some horrible people in the media who are desperate to scapegoat Muslims as the source of all the problems Western society faces. This is to distract the masses from economic woes (the credit crunch- which was caused by bankers stealing their clients' money. Everybody knows that know).

    3) This is common knowledge. Stop playing dumb.

    4) Well, that wouldn't fit their narrative would it? Muslims are terrorist sympathisers...they all secretly support ISIS etc. And for your information, the overwhelming majority of Kurds are Muslims and they are fighting ISIS, this also proves Muslims are against ISIS.

    5) As I said before, The Guardian is a balanced and fair newspaper. Right wing media on the other hand is comparable to the slime and filth one can find in the sewers. Absolute trash. The shame of humanity.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Happy97)
    1) Her election is not good for the NUS, maybe that's true. But why on earth are some people throwing a tantrum because of her election. It was democratic and fair. NUS members have a right to elect who they want without being harassed for their preferences.
    (Original post by NUS website)
    We are a confederation of 600 students' unions, amounting to more than 95 percent of all higher and further education unions in the UK. Through our member students' unions, we represent the interests of more than seven million students.
    When you represent a demographic as large as that, your every action needs to be scrutinised, especially when it deals with the youth. When an individual who has made controversial remarks in the past has been elected to the top position and hence the 'face' of said organisation, it is naturally going to cause concern (and rightly so).

    (Original post by Happy97)
    I'm an avid reader of the Guardian and they made some fair criticisms, On the other hand, the Dailymail (aka the Daily trash) and the Telegraph launched a fully blown smear campaign. See the difference? if you actually took a minute to think of why they are doing this, you would come to the same inevitable conclusion as me.
    I grant that the Daily Mail is often sensationalist, but both the Telegraph and Guardian are politically biased newspapers - regardless of whether every word they say is true, there is an ounce of truth in it or they would face harsh legal cases for misleading the public.


    (Original post by Happy97)
    2) No, this is fact. Not self-victimisation. Muslims have contributed as much if not more than other minorities to Europe but there are some horrible people in the media who are desperate to scapegoat Muslims as the source of all the problems Western society faces. This is to distract the masses from economic woes (the credit crunch- which was caused by bankers stealing their clients' money. Everybody knows that know).
    Your stating something does not necessarily make it fact. Would you have a reliable source to back up this claim? There are a number of common metrics one can use to calculate the net contribution of Muslims vs. other minorities.

    (Original post by Happy97)
    3) This is common knowledge. Stop playing dumb.
    I'll repeat my previous statement: evidence. Your stating something does not necessarily make it fact.

    (Original post by Happy97)
    4) Well, that wouldn't fit their narrative would it? Muslims are terrorist sympathisers...they all secretly support ISIS etc. And for your information, the overwhelming majority of Kurds are Muslims and they are fighting ISIS, this also proves Muslims are against ISIS.
    Straw man.

    (Original post by Happy97)
    5) As I said before, The Guardian is a balanced and fair newspaper. Right wing media on the other hand is comparable to the slime and filth one can find in the sewers. Absolute trash. The shame of humanity.
    The bias of a newspaper is beyond the scope of this debate. Suffice it to say that such a statement is false.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    When you represent a demographic as large as that, your every action needs to be scrutinised, especially when it deals with the youth. When an individual who has made controversial remarks in the past has been elected to the top position and hence the 'face' of said organisation, it is naturally going to cause concern (and rightly so).



    I grant that the Daily Mail is often sensationalist, but both the Telegraph and Guardian are politically biased newspapers - regardless of whether every word they say is true, there is an ounce of truth in it or they would face harsh legal cases for misleading the public.




    Your stating something does not necessarily make it fact. Would you have a reliable source to back up this claim? There are a number of common metrics one can use to calculate the net contribution of Muslims vs. other minorities.



    I'll repeat my previous statement: evidence. Your stating something does not necessarily make it fact.



    Straw man.



    The bias of a newspaper is beyond the scope of this debate. Suffice it to say that such a statement is false.
    I don't agree with you on this matter. Let's just keep it at that. If you insist on ignoring the numerous amounts of evidence I have provided, I will not waste any more of my time debating with you.

    Good night.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Indeed it smacks of hypocrisy.
    NUS are a joke. .
    Yes they are a joke.

    The problem is that it isn't a very funny one.

    I am torn between thinking in the big picture they are irrelevant, don't inflate their sense of self importance. ignore them. And the thought that that what this loony lefty NUS President intellectually represents is truly dangerous.

    Part of me thinks that ridicule and derision is the answer. But we saw how ineffective the ridicule and satire of Charlie Hebdo was. The only way, it seems to me, is to take them seriously, to directly confront the likes of Malia Bouattia.

    With her poisonous cocktail of lefty moral and cultural relativism mixed with Islamist absolutism.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Yes they are a joke.

    The problem is that it isn't a very funny one.

    I am torn between thinking in the big picture they are irrelevant, don't inflate their sense of self importance. ignore them. And the thought that that what this loony lefty NUS President intellectually represents is truly dangerous.

    Part of me thinks that ridicule and derision is the answer. But we saw how ineffective the ridicule and satire of Charlie Hebdo was. The only way, it seems to me, is to take them seriously, to directly confront the likes of Malia Bouattia.

    With her poisonous cocktail of lefty moral and cultural relativism mixed with Islamist absolutism.
    I'd distinguish nut job people like her who are probably the type that want to stop us saying 'he and she' from the mainstream 'left' and centre left. Just like we should distinguish the nutters in the BNP from the mainstream right.

    The NUS is totally irrelevant and i'm not sure why anyone gets so invested in it. It has no real power, it's just a symbol and a bad one at that. It has no relevance in the real world and just seems to satisfy peoples' need to feel important.

    I always do find it funny when at university someone announces that they are 'resigning' from a student soceity committee.When I was in the Labour society our events office resigned ffs! I mean what are they resigning from? Organizing a piss up once a month?
    Another incident was when the society had far left nutjobs accusing its members of being war mongerers!

    It's just people wanting to feel important and they aren't.
    I don't know why anyone gets so invested in it.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I'd distinguish nut job people like her who are probably the type that want to stop us saying 'he and she' from the mainstream 'left' and centre left. Just like we should distinguish the nutters in the BNP from the mainstream right.

    The NUS is totally irrelevant and i'm not sure why anyone gets so invested in it. It has no real power, it's just a symbol and a bad one at that. It has no relevance in the real world and just seems to satisfy peoples' need to feel important.

    I always do find it funny when at university someone announces that they are 'resigning' from a student soceity committee.When I was in the Labour society our events office resigned ffs! I mean what are they resigning from? Organizing a piss up once a month?
    Another incident was when the society had far left nutjobs accusing its members of being war mongerers!

    It's just people wanting to feel important and they aren't.
    I don't know why anyone gets so invested in it.
    It is a great springboard. NUS Presidents can subsequently become figures of national importance...

    https://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/20...-1969-present/

    Malia Bouattia hasn't got the smarts to do anything like as well as some on that list of course, but you can see what she is in it for. It is naked careerism on her part.

    If she presides over an unintended partial break up of the NUS however her national prominence may prove a liability to her career progression.

    Let's hope so. It couldn't happen to a nicer gal...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Happy97)
    I don't agree with you on this matter. Let's just keep it at that. If you insist on ignoring the numerous amounts of evidence I have provided, I will not waste any more of my time debating with you.

    Good night.
    That is very much the issue, Happy97. I have requested evidence on a number of issues, which you have not provided. Your 'logic' will not do here.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Happy97)
    As I said before, The Guardian is a balanced and fair newspaper.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    That is very much the issue, Happy97. I have requested evidence on a number of issues, which you have not provided. Your 'logic' will not do here.
    'if you can't see it' or 'If only you'd open your mind', or 'when you thinks about it'

    Sadly these are all the 'evidence' some people can provide
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    'if you can't see it' or 'If only you'd open your mind', or 'when you thinks about it'

    Sadly these are all the 'evidence' some people can provide
    Indeed. His/Her replies have always been based around the idea that there is a conspiracy theory against all Muslims in the West.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Factual evidence, common sense and logic is thrown out of the window, when it doesn't agree with the opinions of certain individuals What can I say
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    If one believes Palestine has a right to carpet bomb Israeli cities, one should believe Israel has a right to carpet bomb Palestinian cities. Or one could believe that no one has this right, but doesn't have to respect any such restriction if one's opponent breaches it first. That was our position in WWII.
    There is no Palestinian carpet bombing of Israeli cities. If you define the missiles from Gaza as "carpet bombing", you're rendering the term meaninglessly broad.

    You reply that you don't support genocide of Israelis, because your support for Palestinian carpet bombing of Israel is contingent on it killing relatively few people. I do not find support for killing small but not large numbers of people morally plausible.
    Firstly, to go back to the original point, this isn't about what I support, but about what Malia Bouattia might support (which is heavily clouded by people trying to infer what they want to hear from what was actually a pretty abstract speech). It is possible to disagree with a position, but still defend it from unjustified or exaggerated attacks.

    Secondly, we're back to the question of support vs acceptance. In particular, context is important. Now, you can phrase this in many ways. You could say the ends justify the means, or that atrocities are merely an unfortunate by-product of a campaign, or even just portray it in lesser evil terms, but in a sense they're all the same - that the context of the struggle overrides that of individual atrocities (though they differ on whether it justifies them or merely minimises them).

    This is hardly a novel idea, it's been accepted in the cases of various armed struggles throughout history. Even Israel accepts it through the official rehabilitations and venerations of Irgun and Lehi terrorism.

    Thirdly (and this is more of a side-point), genocide is not a moral concept, but a legal and sociological one. You might well hold the opinion that killing a small number of people is no morally different to killing a large number, but that has no bearing on the question of genocide.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    She said she supports the armed resistance; currently the only group that fits that description is Hamas.
    She never actually used the phrase "the armed resistance" in her speech. She referred to things like 'armed struggle', 'resistance', etc, but in quite abstract terms. Also, PFLP still exist, as do other smaller groups, and at times (most notably during the Second Intifada, but on other occasions as well)

    Just because you've "explained" it doesn't mean your explanation was accepted, or valid.
    I've stated it several times, and never got a response yet. But here goes again. Article 31 of the Hamas Charter says "Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other." That's a blatant contradiction to a supposed desire to kill all Jews.

    If this obscene part of their charter is "irrelevant" (at least, when he's speaking to Western journalists), why don't they amend it? Other Hamas leaders have said it is impossible to amend it for political reasons, which shows the kind of organisation they are if they can't muster enough support to remove a call for racist genocide in their charter
    The PLO have never formally amended their charter, just declared they regard certain parts of it as null, and the PLO's was far more of a binding constitution than Hamas', yet no-one really cares about that because everyone knows the PLO has de facto changed its positions anyway.

    From what I've gathered there seem to be two different political reasons behind not amending (though I've seen some say it's merely a manifesto written in 1988 which can no more be 'amended' than any political party can 'amend' past manifestos to fit in with what they support now). One, yes, is that they don't want to lose certain hardline Islamist supporters (though it's worth pointing out that if Hamas did lose them, they'd simply go to an even more extreme Islamist faction). The other is that they see it essentially is a bargaining chip that they don't want to concede if they don't see what they're going to get for it.

    Because in targeting Israelis, Hamas does not seek to target Arab Israelis. They are only interested in killing Jewish Israelis. Say you have a scenario where there's a Hamas terrorist with a rifle; in front of him are two Israeli citizens. One is a Jewish Israeli, the other an Arab Israeli. Which one will he kill? The answer is obvious; the Jewish one. And the only reason he will kill the Jew rather than the Arab is because of his religious/ethnic identity.

    That is the true face of Hamas
    Aside from anything else, that doesn't answer my question. You've just said what you think Hamas are likely to do, not why that is inherent to armed resistance in general.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    This article is a pretty good response to the attacks on Bouattia, certainly a better one than I can give: https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jam...eft-are-flimsy
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    This article is a pretty good response to the attacks on Bouattia, certainly a better one than I can give: https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jam...eft-are-flimsy
    The left are being hoisted by their own petard. They constantly go nuts when any comment that can loosely be interpreted as negative is directed towards a minority, and in particular they have conflated criticism of Islam as an ideology with being anti-Muslim for a while now. Accusations of antisemitism thrown at the left may be flimsy, but they are coming from a culture that the left have created.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am going to clear this up for everyone, in a simple format of bullet points:

    - There are Zionists lobbying and twisting everything. At every level of education, employment, society, and government. You can see some in this thread. They will spread pro-Israel propaganda, and accuse anyone who disagrees of anti-Semitism. They even make fake anti-Semitic pro-Palestine posts, to prove their agenda.

    - Zionists and Jews are totally different things. The majority of Zionists are actually of non-Jewish faith.

    - Israel is in breach of a lot of international law, and is a highly unethical country. Just because being [...] is legal in Israel, but not next-door in [...], it doesn't mean it is tolerated. That is more Zionist propaganda.

    - If you are sure you do not work for Mossad or Shin Bet, but are pro-Israel, you need to understand that their propaganda has worked on you, and yes, you are brainwashed.

    - There is no anti-Semitism in any mainstream political party. In fact, there is a lot of pro-Zionism. See how the youth wings of many parties responded to a non-Zionist being elected as NUS chair? You must understand that all supposed anti-Semitism in mainstream politics is false flag Zionist propaganda.

    I hope this educates you. Of course, it will anger the Mossad & Shin Bet agents on this thread. I have esteemed credentials as a politics student, and am very politically active. I hope you can learn.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by win7sony)
    There is no anti-Semitism in any mainstream political party.
    It is ironic that you post this on the day that Naz Shaz resigns as John McDonnell's aide as a result of her anti-semitism.

    The Guardian, that bastion of the extreme right, had Jonathan Friedland, a liberal Zionist, say this a little while ago:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-jeremy-corbyn

    At the same time, in the Daily Telegraph:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...i-Semitic.html

    And John McDonnell himself called for more action against anti-Semitism by Labour:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6951371.html

    It doesn't appear to me as though the Labour party thinks it doesn't have a problem, so I think you are alone in your views.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why doesn't anyone just admit the truth, Labour has been co-opted by Muslims which is why they hate Jews now
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Omen96)
    like it or not, the people who represent you are all pro Islam and pro Islamism. I used to believe "it's not all of them" or "it's not representative" but every left winger I meet and every left wing representative I meet is pro Islam, pro Islamic terrorism and pro extremism. I hate Islam as much as I hate Christianity or any of these vile ideologies but no not left wingers, they all defend it all the time by declaring it "the religion of peace and tolerance", pathetic all of them. I was never angry or this stereotypical towards left leaning voters but recent years has shown me the true face of left wing politics and vile it is. I can't believe I once associated with these people because of my concern for animal rights, women rights, Environmental rights ect. but that is not what the left stand for, just a pro-Islam group, and to think I thought we were moving away from religion in politics :/

    I don't get the remark about the Tories, I hate the Tories
    Im left and I don't love islam.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    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

    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.