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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    he's the poster boy for the failed left wing metropolian multicultural movement

    Judging by your avatar this is probably you

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AR_95)
    Judging by your avatar this is probably you

    just what the **** is that
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Is it just me, or does the new mayor of London look a lot like Jose Mourinho?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    he's the poster boy for the failed left wing metropolian multicultural movement
    do elaborate
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimmy Seville)
    So glad that posh ****** Zac didn't get in. Really hope the Tories don't win the next GE, and the fearmongering and attacks on Corbyn/Khan by the media have been pathetic.
    http://thetab.com/2016/05/04/heres-e...t-months-88863

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...yoral-campaign

    Good reads on that disgusting prick
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    Not sure about the BBCs headline 'Sadiq Khan is londons first Muslim mayor'

    I mean, its true.. but it just feels a little out of place to me.

    It just strikes me as people trying to reach for a huge deal, when actually its kind of not.. Feels like newspapers want that 'first black president' 'first woman prime minister' headline, so badly, that they will just ignore that its not currently a huge departure from the existing norm,, as the existing norm is tiny.
    It's not even the media reaching; the BBC tends not to indulge in that anyway. It's a landmark for Britain and Europe to have a demographically atypical, ethnic minority leader, and that is to be celebrated.

    I am really glad that he won, as goldsmith ran a horrible campaign, and really showed his true colors behind his previously managed appearance.. but he should be celebrated for his politics and policies, rather then the headlines focusing on his religion. Its almost as bad as the tory campaign which focused on his religion..
    Khan has few policies to celebrate as of yet - he's just got in. No headline ever consists of a policy layout and it's nowhere near as bad as the shameful the Tory slur campaign.

    (Original post by sevchenko)
    Then again what chance did Goldsmith actually stand running the way he did in a place like London? It's no surprise SJW and leftist institutions like the BBC and guardian are making a big deal out of this. You could argue being an ethic minority muslim probably worked in his favour. London is a bubble i guess.
    Are you taking the piss? Insinuating that any media shouldn't be joyous over the triumph of a candidate that was disgracefully slurred with the extremist tag that he's worked hard to remove from his community?

    A third of Londoners are uncomfortable with a Muslim mayor, that third containing a greater proportion of voters. Khan was up against it from the start. We're 6 months removed from the Paris attacks and fewer from Brussels. The idea that his faith made it easier for him is ludicrous, especially as Muslims have a lower voter turnout.

    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    I do fear islamaphobia will continue to grow in the Uk and all of europe. We need more people like khan etc, in the public eye giving a good representation to the religion, otherwise the news just gets drowned out with all the negative sides. And although they exist, and should be tackled + dealt with with all our might, For people like my family in england, who never see an islamic person in daily life, and live in an area that has no mosque, no community etc - its important for them to see a good representation of islam on the news, as well as the bad, when it happens.
    This completely negates your earlier contention? How could you ask for a positive representation of Muslims and then suggest that it not be made clear when a Muslim makes office?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feel No Ways)
    do elaborate
    1) left wing politics don't work
    2) multiculturalism doesn't work;
    khan is a labour party flip-flopping lacky who tries to portray himself as a representation of multiculturalism, even though he's far from a muslim without any skeletons in his closet as a criminal lawyer that used to defend radicals for £
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Reckon man just got ethically, morally and intellectually stimulated

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Wonder if the reaction would be the same if not for his religion?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SA-1)
    Reckon man just got ethically, morally and intellectually stimulated

    repped, bubbles get a reply when I'm more worked up. Feeling good cos of
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feel No Ways)
    repped, bubbles get a reply when I'm more worked up. Feeling good cos of
    Genuinely invited her to stimulate you :huff:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SA-1)
    Genuinely invited her to stimulate you :huff:
    Thoughts on what happened at The Hit Factory Studios in 2000?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Kenan and Kel zKlown
    Mirin reference?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Jimmy Seville)
    So glad that posh ****** Zac didn't get in. Really hope the Tories don't win the next GE, and the fearmongering and attacks on Corbyn/Khan by the media have been pathetic. Government have had so many u-turns in the last few months, dodgy stuff revealed about their past and where their money has come from - On the one hand I want out of Europe, but don't want to end up in a country governed exclusively by the Tories.
    I think part of this is simply because the Tories are really being affected by the lack of credible opposition.

    Doesn't the fact that Labour have been unable to capitalise whilst all this has been going on say a lot? When Blair took over he tore a weak Major Government to shreds (to the extent that it was a minority Govt at the end of Parliament) and won a landslide election in 1997, but even then most of the English constituencies were Tory:


    Spoiler:
    Show


    Labour under Corbyn aren't credible opposition. The Tories have always been incredibly unpopular in Scotland, so what does it say about Labour that the Tories have now gone ahead of them as the main opposition to the SNP?

    They need to ditch Corbyn if they want to get elected in 2020.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sr90)
    When Blair took over he tore a weak Major Government to shreds (to the extent that it was a minority Govt at the end of Parliament) and won a landslide election in 1997, but even then most of the English constituencies were Tory:
    Labour very very nearly won double the number of English constituencies as the Tories in 1997.

    Agree on your main point though. The Tories have got complacent with no opposition against them. These Labour results just now weren't quite bad enough to threaten Corbyn so he's probably here until 2020, which guarantees another Tory majority.

    But Labour's left will carry on with this self indulgent vanity project because it makes them feel good, which to them is more important than actually obtaining office. The tragedy is that the type of people who elected Corbyn are the type of people who don't need a Labour government. They get by just fine regardless of who's in office. It's a game to them. Those who do need government support - the poor and the least fortunate - are left to suffer under the Tories because of the sheer cowardice of those running the Labour Party right now, and those supporting that leadership.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feel No Ways)


    This completely negates your earlier contention? How could you ask for a positive representation of Muslims and then suggest that it not be made clear when a Muslim makes office?
    Because in this specific case it does not make complete sense to me, especially in the context of the election given how much people have been deploring the use of his religion by both sides as a tool for politics. You could litterally find articles either side of the election from the media, the day before saying (bassically): Dont focus on his relgion, it should be about more then that etc. Then the day after saying: 'Look a religious person won!' - that coupled with the fact that I dont believe it to be a huge standing point in the history of islamic intergration into the Uk that they are blowing it up to be.

    Now, him becoming the first Muslim MP - that was huge. its a mile-stone in a longstanding history of MPs not being muslim
    But him becoming the first muslim mayor in a position that was only created a decade ago, in one of the most multicultrual cities in the world? well.. it does not have quite the same significance to me.

    I always remember being at a lecture ages ago about equality, and one of the students was arguing about how they need to assert all victories of a person based on their minority, to raise awareness and show the good of that group to the majority.

    The lecturer shot them down. He explained that by doing so you further establish the boundary between groups - you make a division that unsettles the majority, and goes to undermine the good work that could have been done by this achievement. He preferred an approach where the best way to push towards equality and full integration is by presenting the image of normality. You treat them as being normal, from day1 of your campaign. You don't push them up, to try and compensate for previous wrongs, as that has a reverse effect, but instead you just project the image of equality straight away.

    For me that would look like this: If a headline is not about religion or anything to do with that, him being a muslim should not be mentioned, it has no relivance.

    If the headline is about religion, equality, minorities or anything else - it should be mentioned. These situations would arise, and people would be made aware of his relgion, and the positive message that I wanted above, would still happen - but it would do so in a genuine, and not forced way.

    What i hate to see is:
    'Muslim mayor messes up train system' etc. A headline that throws in his relgion as nothing more then a cry for readership.

    But this works both ways, as his religion can also be mis-placed into positive headlines, by papers that lean that way:
    'Muslim mayor saves London housing crisis' - Would be a headline some would love, but I would hate as its equally not relevant.

    So for me it comes down to this:

    1. I dont believe that mentioning religion when it is not relivant is a positive thing, as it re-inforces devisions between groups in society
    2. I do believe that we need more positive islamic representations to offset the negative that we see from overseas.
    3. That representation needs to come in organic and relivant ways, that do not force further devisions.

    = In this case I put the result of the election as something that falls into a non-relivant thing.. partly becase for the whole election every one, including the bbc has been saying that. So for me, it falls into the catagory of things we do not need to mention his religion about.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Acorns' posts would really benefit from using tl;dr
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The point Acorns has missed is that the negative side of the media is what's caused this. When DM and The Sun are printing articles pertaining to criminal activities committed by "Muslims"- Muslim paedo, Muslim assaults man etc. When there's no correlation between the two, then naturally there will be a push for the positive contributions made to be broadcast nationally. His point of view is very idealistic, and I would also love for everybody to be judged on merit, and no skin colour or religion should be involved in the process, but it's naïve to think that this is the case.

    And btw, I feel that it IS a milestone in the integration of Muslims within the UK.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Just seen the Khan-Canello fight.

    Absolute definition of knocked the f*ck out!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    that coupled with the fact that I dont believe it to be a huge standing point in the history of islamic intergration into the Uk that they are blowing it up to be.
    How can a Muslim taking office over one of the biggest cities in the world not be a huge standing point of Islamic integration? Take it at face value, you don't need to analyse it. If London is so multicultural as you go on to claim, it's never shown it as blatantly as this.

    The lecturer shot them down. He explained that by doing so you further establish the boundary between groups - you make a division that unsettles the majority, and goes to undermine the good work that could have been done by this achievement. He preferred an approach where the best way to push towards equality and full integration is by presenting the image of normality. You treat them as being normal, from day1 of your campaign. You don't push them up, to try and compensate for previous wrongs, as that has a reverse effect, but instead you just project the image of equality straight away.
    You are reaching here. There is literally nothing to indicate that anybody is presenting Khan as a Muslim to right previous wrongs, and it is laughable to suggest that this would establish further boundaries within groups. London voting for a Muslim mayor is only evidence that Muslims are joining the group, and that is to be celebrated; with the headline. And your anecdote isn't relevant to the headline anyway.

    For me that would look like this: If a headline is not about religion or anything to do with that, him being a muslim should not be mentioned, it has no relivance.
    There is relevance here.

    But this works both ways, as his religion can also be mis-placed into positive headlines, by papers that lean that way:
    'Muslim mayor saves London housing crisis' - Would be a headline some would love, but I would hate as its equally not relevant.
    That headline has not been made, so what is your point?

    1. I dont believe that mentioning religion when it is not relivant is a positive thing, as it re-inforces devisions between groups in society
    You fail to understand that it is relevant here and a mark of integration; which is positive, to be celebrated and made clear.

    3. That representation needs to come in organic and relivant ways, that do not force further devisions.
    Your idea of organic will be different to other people's ideas of organic. It's a spectrum. The truth is that this is relevant, and it's laughable that you think the headline would force further divisions. It's something you have literally no evidence for other than an anecdote from a lecturer about an incomparable situation, and flies in the face of common sense. Khan's appointment is a slap in the face to the long-running media vitriol towards Muslim integration and hostile racist attitudes spawned as a result. If you're not going to highlight to the masses that Muslims are integrating then you yourself are creating those divides that you seem keen to prevent. You are also overstating the power of the headline dominating Khan's profile and media image, and then there's conjecture about future headlines and their impacts.

    Media driven racial profiling is the largest cause of divisions between groups. And even if it wasn't, it would be ridiculous to not use any means possible, such as positive profiling in the media, to close those gaps. Khan being a Muslim IS relevant, and worthy of a place in the headline.
 
 
 
  • 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
  • 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.