The man that assassinated Ms. Jo Cox, a member of Parliment in Great Britain was a Nazi Sympathizer and a White Supremacist, a lot like that Dylann Roof fellow that murdered the AA church attendents last summer.
MP. Cox was a 'liberal' in the sense that she supported Britain remaining in the EU and was a supporter of immigration into the country.
I don't know if I would subscribe to her view of the issue, but we don't resolve our differences in this way, do we? Besides, I do not live in Britain and may not be keen to all the facets of the BREXIT controversy.
But, I do know rightwingers and their pathological tendency to employ violence when they do not get what they want.
Before anyone says 'what about the tragedy in Florida'? Am I employing double standards? I say no, Radical Islam is a radical sect and has nothing to do with being liberal/progressive. But, unlike Trump, I won't hold all Muslims here responsible for the behavior of a few. He says this about Blacks and everybody else, except for the blond hair, blue eyed people who, of course, are to be evaluated as individuals and when they commit crimes, it is an anomaly, only.
Creating elements of and having people advocate solutions that touch on police state tactics as something that we must resist is my pet peeve.
So, based on this there is some relevance to U.S politics.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 … oup-claims
Jo Cox murderer: Nazi sympathizer, white supremacist, right winger, in favour of Brexit.
Omar Mateen: radical gun owner.
Clearly no double standards.
"But, unlike Trump, I won't hold all Muslims here responsible for the behavior of a few."
"But, I do know rightwingers and their pathological tendency to employ violence when they do not get what they want."
Thanks for looking in, what is your point? I said those things..
To the first comparison: there are double standards in attributing specific ideologies to the Jo Cox murderer, while holding Mateen as a vague "radical gun owner."
To the second: you made a generalization of rightwingers based on one man, and then stated you would not generalize Muslims based on the actions of a few. Another double standard.
(Now, I could go into a bit more detail as to why such statements are faulty:
- Nobody holds all Muslims responsible for the behaviour of a few. This Affleckian defense is tired and has no basis on reality. What sensible people attempt to state is that Islamic teachings have a predictable effect on the actions of people, and this has amounted to a significant % of people in the Islamic world acting in barbaric ways globally. It's not a few. This has nothing to do with "all Muslims" and everything to do with predictable patterns regarding ideologies.
- Your example is of a supposed British conservative. British conservatives are more liberal and thus more akin to Democrats than Republicans (http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/08 … -us/67930/ ).
- Outside of that one example, you didn't provide any evidence that rightwingers, whether it be all or a significant proportion, have a pathological tendency to employ violence.)
Muslims are a diverse people, not one group with a single focus and agenda
I did not say that all white people are rightwingers. Can I safely say that all Nazi's or white supremacists have a common agenda, for example? Rightwinger is defined as 'conservative squared', they are not just conservative but reactionary. You want to talk syllogism, I don't target people because of their race, religion or geography. If you tell me you are a Nazi, I can make some pretty accurate assumptions about you, right? Just because someone is Muslim does not mean he is a jihadist terrorist. You claim that you are an Islamic terrorist and the actions are commensute with the claim, I will take a different tack.
"Nobody holds all Muslims responsible for the behavior of a few". Well, Trump does, have you been listening to his utterings as of late?
I not concerned about predictable effects, all are innocent until proven guilty. So, I am to profile people because of some cryptic theory, yet I am being hard on overt racists. So, we have plenty of Muslims here, it the danger was as much as being drummed up, things would be much more difficult here.
Yeah, I know something about the difference between conservative and liberal in the different societies, that is correct.
I get back with you on the relative violence of right wing groups as opposed to libs later.
Take a look at the definition of reactionary/rightwinger and see what traits they have in common.
Unless you are going to argue with the predominant view of the press regarding the points of this story relative to your opinion, it is pretty clear what ideology he was following and what that ideology is all about.
Never mind the radical gun owner, anyone who uses a gun to kill 50 people is a radical gun owner. There was an unlawful discharge of a firearm resulting in multiple deaths, the perpetrator is certainly radical....
Lets get an encyclopedic definition of rightwing:
"Muslims are a diverse people, not one group with a single focus and agenda"
I never said they have a single focus and agenda. Note what I said: Islamic teachings have a predictable effect on the actions of people, and this has amounted to a significant % of people in the Islamic world acting in barbaric ways globally. A significant % of Muslims that hate gays, for instance, is not equal to saying all Muslims have a single focus and agenda.
"I did not say that all white people are rightwingers"
? I never said you said all white people are rightwingers. I never even mentioned white people. I said you used one example of a supposed right winger to make a generalization about all right wingers/conservatives.
"Can I safely say that all Nazi's or white supremacists have a common agenda, for example?"
Sure. They have a common agenda, just as Islamists have a common agenda. The point was that you refuse to point out the latter's agenda, and you extrapolated a Nazi to all right wingers.
"Rightwinger is defined as 'conservative squared', they are not just conservative but reactionary."
Yes, right wing is generally defined as conservative or reactionary: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/right--wing
What does that have to do with you using one man as an generalization of the right wing?
"You want to talk syllogism"
I don't think I do, but okay.
"I don't target people because of their race, religion or geography"
What if there were significant numbers of people who belong to a religion that practices human sacrifice? Would you target those people (or more accurately, their beliefs/practices)?
"If you tell me you are a Nazi, I can make some pretty accurate assumptions about you, right?"
If you tell me you are a Muslim, I can make some pretty accurate assumptions about you as well.
"Just because someone is Muslim does not mean he is a jihadist terrorist."
Just because someone is a Nazi does not mean he is a Nazi terrorist.
"You claim that you are an Islamic terrorist and the actions are commensute with the claim, I will take a different tack."
I don't think you would. Mateen pledged allegiance to an Islamic group and his actions were in accordance with Islamism, and you still opted to think that his actions were because he was a spurned lover.
"Well, Trump does, have you been listening to his utterings as of late?"
What has he said? I'm sure he's not basing himself on one man, and instead on the actions of many globally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t … 3June_2016
Pick any month you want, you'll find a pattern of terrorism being primarily conducted in the name of Islamism. Again, not just a few people.
"I not concerned about predictable effects, all are innocent until proven guilty."
Trying to determine causalities does nothing to infringe on innocent until proven guilty. I don't know why you keep assuming it does. I am trying to find solutions to those causes, whether that be ideologies or mental illness. That does not mean I want to arrest everyone who believes a specific ideology or who has a mental illness.
"So, I am to profile people because of some cryptic theory, yet I am being hard on overt racists"
First, it's not that cryptic (look at the link above). Second, who said you were being hard on overt racists? All I did was point out a double standard.
"So, we have plenty of Muslims here, it the danger was as much as being drummed up, things would be much more difficult here."
"Plenty" of Muslims? They're 1% of your population, and they're some of the least religious, most non-fundamentalist Muslims on the planet, and even then, significant numbers of those Muslims hold poor views of homosexuals relative to the general population: http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/ … der-issues
"Unless you are going to argue with the predominant view of the press regarding the points of this story relative to your opinion, it is pretty clear what ideology he was following and what that ideology is all about."
I have no idea what you're talking about. Did I try to argue with the press? Or did I highlight a double standard?
"Never mind the radical gun owner, anyone who uses a gun to kill 50 people is a radical gun owner. There was an unlawful discharge of a firearm resulting in multiple deaths, the perpetrator is certainly radical...."
As is Jo Cox's murderer. He's a radical. Why is he a radical? You clearly outline it with Jo Cox's murderer, you obfuscate it with Omar Mateen. But I can see no amount of explanation will get through to you.
So what do we do with your 'tendency theory'? There are a lot of fundy Christian types that hate gays and homosexuality, so what? Your cryptic theory is not a factor as to how those of the Muslim faith behave here in the US and their general compliance with the law. Who are you to say that 'effects' are predictable? Islam like Christianity has many sects, do I broadbrush off shoots of Christianity like "Christian Identity" and Methodist as the same animal? Those adhering to violent sects of either faith are going to tend toward untoward behavior.
Those practicing Islam are not inherently violent or barbaric as you define. Those practicing radical offshoots of the faith are. So let's recognize the difference. Liberal progressive ideology is contrary to the foundation of Nazism, that is not true for the Right wing, as it is a rightwing movement by definition. Can you wordsmith your way out of that? Surely, you do read, is not Nazism where ever practiced considered a Rightwing movement? And of course we know what rightwing means, right?
I don't know about Canada, but the rule of law applies to all here. No human sacrifices are allowed otherwise I don't care what you believe. Mormoms and polygamy? No, I would not target the people.
You like to play with words, don't you? Muslim=Nazism ok...
Right, Mateen, a gay jihadist? From Muslims who like you said hate gays, this Islamic radical lives in their world for years at a time. I Don't buy it.
Trying to determine the casualties? What are you grabbing at here? And you're looking for solutions to what?
The amount of Muslims in the US. That is 3 million people, hardly insignificant. In this country Muslims are just another religion, not a group to harrass and profile because rightwingers are willing to gut the Constitution to accomodate unfounded fear. Like I told you before, there are several groups that are not fond of the concept of homosexuality. We don't make all kinds of unwarranted inferences about them.
When you cut the BS artist stuff, you will see that I am quite easily to communicate with. Cox's murderer and the Orlando shooter are BOTH radical, there was nothing there that is being obfuscated.
In correction, Mr. P I should say, after sleeping on it, your accusation that I am biased against Racist and Nazis, but not jihadists may have some merit.
Iam listening to rightwing news outlets that are already writing off the shooter in Britain as 'mentally ill' The same as what many were trying to say in regard to Dylann Roof, he was mentally ill. But they did not say that Mateen was mentally ill, no instead, he is part of some international jihadist plot.
I dislike conservatives and their hypocrisy in these matters much of the time, but, I don't want to create hypocrisy of my own. So, either all the shooters were mentally ill or they all were driven by loathsome philosophies. But, I guess that it has to be either one or the other, and I won't cherry pick.
So, Ok, you win, the principles of Islamic Jihad was a driving force in the Orlando attacks. But I can also say that the principles of Nazism influenced the British shooter, and those philosophies of the loathsome white-supremacist racist types were behind Roof and his killing spree.
Is that what you were looking for?
"your accusation that I am biased against Racist and Nazis, but not jihadists may have some merit."
Bias is too strong a word, which is why I didn't use it. I said you have a double standard - that might be just a simple mistake. To clarify, I don't think you are being unfair to racists or Nazis. I think you are being unfair to right wingers by accusing them of having violent tendencies whenever people disagree with them.
"Iam listening to rightwing news outlets that are already writing off the shooter in Britain as 'mentally ill'"
Yes, because he was described by neighbours and family as having a history of mental problems, and because he was, as recent as 2011, described as being on psychotherapy and medications. It's not 'writing off' so much as it is yes, this man is mentally ill.
"The same as what many were trying to say in regard to Dylann Roof, he was mentally ill"
Who said that? They were most likely wrong. Either way, he can be both mentally ill and racist.
"But they did not say that Mateen was mentally ill"
Let's not make false equivalences. Mateen was sexually repressed. Sexual repression is not a mental illness. Mair was on psychotherapy and medications. There's a difference.
"no instead, he is part of some international jihadist plot."
I don't know who you're listening to, but no credible source has said Mateen was part of some international jihadist plot. What has been said is that he was inspired by jihadists, not directed by them. Likewise, if we are to assume Mair's motivations are to do with Nazism, he was not directed by Nazis in some international Nazi plot, he was inspired by Nazism.
"So, either all the shooters were mentally ill or they all were driven by loathsome philosophies. But, I guess that it has to be either one or the other, and I won't cherry pick."
It doesn't have to be one or the other... they can all be mentally ill and be driven by loathsome philosophies at the same time. We just need evidence. What evidence do you have of mental illness for Mateen, Roof and Mair? What evidence do you have of their motivations and how they are linked to the attack?
"But I can also say that the principles of Nazism influenced the British shooter"
Okay, how did they influence him? Why would a Nazi target Jo Cox?
Mr. P, no false equivalencies, Mr. Mateen is considered 'mentally unstable' from any number of sources and while not officially documented as in the case of the Cox killer, it does not mean that he was any more sound of mind than this killer.
Ok: let use inspired..
You just said earlier that Mair was found mentally ill by the authorities earlier on. You provided the evidence in your post as to their motivations, you said that Mateen was influenced by radical Islamic objectives. I can say that Racist/Nazi ideologies motivated Roof and Mair. Racism is a component of Nazism, is it not?
Why do you think a 'mad' Nazi sympathizer would attack Cox? That is not too hard looking at her record as pro-immigration, pro-EU. All you have to do is look at Ms. Cox political activity and then understand the ideology and principles behind Nazism and there is your answer. Do I really need to elaborate?
"So what do we do with your 'tendency theory'?"
Are you forgetting that you began this thread with a tendency theory of your own? About right wingers?
"There are a lot of fundy Christian types that hate gays and homosexuality, so what?"
So nothing. They don't kill gays, they refuse to bake them cakes or occasionally celebrate the death of a gay soldier. This is hardly comparable to criminalizing homosexuality.
"Your cryptic theory is not a factor as to how those of the Muslim faith behave here in the US and their general compliance with the law"
You know, calling it cryptic repeatedly doesn't make it any more cryptic.
Anyway, I'm not talking about Muslims in the US specifically, I'm talking about Muslims worldwide. I gave you a source, you're welcome to pick any month of the last decade to see terrorist attacks predominantly committed by Islamists globally.
As I specifically pointed out to you, Muslims in the US are the least fundamentalist and the most liberal on the planet. They are the least of our concerns and yet they still hold deeply flawed views relative to the general population. Do I need to spell it out? The most progressive Muslims on the planet are still lagging behind relative to modern society. This is troubling.
"Who are you to say that 'effects' are predictable?"
How about a friendly wager? Let's give it a weekend and see the % of terrorist attacks which are Islamic in nature. I will be lenient and say 80% of them will be Islamic.
"Those practicing Islam are not inherently violent or barbaric as you define. Those practicing radical offshoots of the faith are. Those practicing radical offshoots of the faith are."
Can you explain this, then? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV710c1 … amNetVideo
Can you name any version of Islam that doesn't advocate punishing gays, apostates, adulterers and sinners?
“Liberal progressive ideology is contrary to the foundation of Nazism, that is not true for the Right wing, as it is a rightwing movement by definition. Can you wordsmith your way out of that? Surely, you do read, is not Nazism where ever practiced considered a Rightwing movement?”
Why are you equating Nazism with right wingers? All Nazis are right wingers but all right wingers are not Nazis. I’m not saying you’re being unfair to Nazis, I’m saying you’re being unfair to right wingers.
“And of course we know what rightwing means, right?”
Right wing = conservative to me. It doesn’t mean Nazi or racist.
“No human sacrifices are allowed otherwise I don't care what you believe.”
But now you are targeting people because of their religion, which you said you wouldn’t do. Apparently the line in the sand for you is “human sacrifice.” What about corporal punishment? What about genital mutilation? What about the rights of women, gays and apostates?
“You like to play with words, don't you? Muslim=Nazism ok...”
Never said that. You are missing the point of the double standard.
“Right, Mateen, a gay jihadist? From Muslims who like you said hate gays, this Islamic radical lives in their world for years at a time.”
What evidence do you have that he was living there for years at a time? What I am seeing here is that he went to Saudi Arabia once in 2011 for 8 days, and again in 2012 for 10 days.
Now, do you think he was expressing his homosexuality while in Saudi Arabia? Do you know what Saudi Arabia does to homosexuals?
Obviously his sexuality was only expressed in a country that would not kill him for it AKA the United States.
“Trying to determine the casualties? What are you grabbing at here? And you're looking for solutions to what?”
Not casualties, causalities, as in, what causes these events. I am looking for solutions to those causes.
“The amount of Muslims in the US. That is 3 million people, hardly insignificant.”
I never said it was insignificant. I said your assumption that things would be worse off than they are is faulty given how small of a % they are.
“In this country Muslims are just another religion, not a group to harrass and profile because rightwingers are willing to gut the Constitution to accomodate unfounded fear.”
You ought to read my response to you in the White Privilege thread. There is a reason why men are profiled as criminals more often than women. This does not mean their rights are being infringed upon. The Constitutional amendments grant you the right of presumption of innocence. That does not mean that people have a right to not be suspected of crimes.
“Like I told you before, there are several groups that are not fond of the concept of homosexuality. We don't make all kinds of unwarranted inferences about them.”
Are you sure? The Christian right has many inferences made about them, unwarranted or not.
“Cox's murderer and the Orlando shooter are BOTH radical, there was nothing there that is being obfuscated.”
You are obfuscating the reason for their radicalness.
Homosexuality is not a criminal offense under American law that is why Christians don't do greater harm to homosexuals. The attacks against homosexuals that have proven lethal are in Islamic societies where Homosexuality is against the law. So, I say that many Christian sects, based upon their rhetoric would respond violently to homosexuality, if they were permitted.
The point I make about where I draw the line is that any religious practice cannot be in violation of secular law here in the United States. The Muslims here for the most part assimilate to that understanding of secular law. As long as they do that, I have no problems with them.
"Lives in 'their world" refers to life in the homosexual community which Mateen has been frequenting more than casually over 2-3 years...
Unless, you advocate some sort of 'thought police' or law enforcement methods that can be said to cross the lines of civil liberties in this country, there is no solution.
As to the percentage of Muslims in the U.S. being insignificant, don't forget it only took 2 persons recently in San Bernadino, or 20 to cause thousands of casualties experienced in New York on Sept 11, 2001. Why am I not dealing with these sorts of things every other day?
I don't like profiling, as it a lazy way to do what otherwise should be good police work. Suspecting me of a crime is one thing, but you had better have probably cause or at minimum, reasonable suspicion before any authority can stop me, accost me or arrest me. The powers that be are free to speculate (profile) to their delight, but that ends when you cross my path with accusations lacking PROOF and SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE.
The reason for their radicalness, whether you agree with me or not, are both mental illness combined with their having been influenced by odious ideologies and philosophies.
LOL. I noticed that also. Glad you pointed it out.
What is happening with Brexit?
Vote Remain is exploiting the Jo Cox murder.
News with Paul Joseph Watson and Stefan Molyneux in Britain.
This is a very serious situation.
Ah, so the guy has a history of mental illness as well.
Even if he did say "Britain first," the reasons behind Brexit have nothing to do with violence. To insinuate that Brexit supporters would be just as violent is incredibly disingenuous.
Compare to Islamists attacking gays, which have a clear rationale for doing so.
Interesting video, by the way.
England fans are standing up against violent clashes, and even the police. David Cameron is very concerned, so he says. Their sovereignty means a lot to them.
I follow reporters in the EU. Things are bad.
Nobody is insinuating that Brexit supporters are violent, who has been saying that?
"I do not live in Britain and may not be keen to all the facets of the BREXIT controversy.
But, I do know rightwingers and their pathological tendency to employ violence when they do not get what they want."
I did not!!
So, I said I did not live in Britain and am not keen to all the aspects of the controversy.
All BREXIT supporters are not rightwingers, did I say otherwise?
So, I did not say anything about violence and BREXIT supporters.
I respect the positions held by both sides per my conversation with Greensleeves.
A Brexit supporter killed a woman. I don't know much about Brexit... buuuuut... right wingers tend to be violent.
That implies that the Brexit supporter killed the woman because he was right wing.
Note that most of the Brexit campaign has been pushed by the right wing and opposed by the left, with one or two exceptions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaigni … al_parties
Yes, the BREXIT supporter killed the woman because of mental illness and malignant influence of rightwing ideology, not because he was a BREXIT supporter. Please don't befuddle my words.
I never said that BREXIT was inherently 'rightwing'.
Accusing right wingers of a tendency of violence because of a Brexit lunatic implies that Brexit supporters (who are mainly right wing) are also violent. I don't know how to make that any clearer.
You ought to have stated that Nazi or racist ideology tends to be violent. That would have been a more accurate statement.
It is not clear, I do say Nazi and racist ideology tends to be violent. So, why ask me the question as to how the Nazi ideology has something to do with Cox' murder?
Do you have a problem with my previous post, are you beating a dead horse?
I think that my previous post prior to yours is pretty clear.
Who is to say that BREXIT is mainly 'rightwing'? I have said ad nauseum that both sides have significant and meaningful points. The shooter is a radical rightwinger because of his being influenced by Nazi and racist ideology. I can't make that any clearer, can I ?
I have looked at the video linked to by colorfulone, and it is a totally biased, distorted, inaccurate retelling of events following the murder of Jo Cox. It is full of assumptions and inaccuracies and it is almost laughably hypocritical in the manner in which it accuses newspapers, Remain supporters and others, of a lack of journalistic ethics, and of not caring about the facts. And yet the YouTube video is extraordinarily lacking in journalistic ethics and being careless about facts, preferring to totally distort the evidence.
I have written a very long comment under that YouTube video under my own name of Alun Rhys Griffiths. If you watch the video, please also read the comment. I live in Britain and I have followed both the EU referendum campaign and the reporting of this callous murder, and I know how irresponsible videos like this can be, when presented by people who do not know what they are talking about and do not care enough to find out.
Scientist have discovered a new strain of fact resistant humans. They are not sure what has caused it, but it could be genetic, with the brainwashing on mainstream media at the root of it. As more facts arise, their defense get even stronger.
Yes, I can agree that some humans are fact resistant - it's just a question of which humans they are. I suggest you read my comment about that video on YouTube.
By the way the main argument they were making in that video is that the killer of Jo Cox did not shout 'Britain first!' Today in public court in full earshot of everyone, he shouted 'death to traitors, freedom for Britain!'
Its spooky either way. I wonder if he was on MKUltra. People just don't normally get that crazy. We may never know that truth. Its very sad that Jo's life was taken away from her.
I cannot find you post on the video m'dear, I'm sorry because I wanted to read it. My heart goes out to everyone in the UK.
I am sure that Colorfulone will get this, my condolences to you and the British people for this recent outrage. It would sure be interesting to get your take on these events. I will check the video, thanks...
Thanks Credence very much. To be honest I actually support the Brexit (British exit from the EU) campaign, because I believe we should have greater control over issues such as immigration. But I'm more passionate about honesty and objectivity, and that was singularly lacking in that video which attacked the Remain (in the EU) campaign.
I've actually been impressed with the way the aftermath has been handled by politicians and journalists. Senior politicians have suspended campaigning for two days as a mark of respect, even though the referendum is less than one week away. And the Conservatives are not going to contest the election for a new MP which will now have to be held in Jo Cox's (Labour) constituency, because it would be wrong to benefit from the murder of an opponent. Of course there are people on Twitter and other social media who have been really obnoxious in their comments - that would have applied whether the killer was right wing or left wing - but they are not typical.
The evidence at the moment is that the killer is a right wing fanatic but with mental instability as well. Whether it was a lethal combination of the two will possibly come out in court, but as far as political motivations are concerned, it was probably more to do with Jo Cox's support for Syrian refugees and increased immigration of refugees from that country than her broad support for Remain. But that's speculation at this stage. By all accounts - and even allowing for the natural tendency to eulogise after an event like this - she does seem to have been an especially decent and compassionate person who put human values above political values.
On a slightly different matter, and without wishing to open up a whole different can of worms, Jo was killed when meeting members of the public in her constituency in open consultation, without appointment or any security checks. That's normal practice for all MPs every week, and yet this is the first time since 1981 that one has been shot, and that previous occasion was in Belfast during the Irish troubles. Something to be said for gun control
Greensleeves, there has been a lot controversy, much of it crossing the 'pond' on this issue. I have heard compelling explanations from both sides. Your entire nation has closed ranks in the light of this tragedy acknowledging that Mair's method of dissent is not acceptable to either side of your debate.
I don't think that we are as sophisticated about such things like civility here in the states.
It's difficult to find your comment in the mire that is YouTube. Could you copy it here for the rest of us?
It's obvious that they're wrong about the killer being apolitical, but their larger point - that people use this death to push an agenda - is still true. All the while, it does not stand to reason that one political nutjob is representative of Brexit supporters as a whole.
mrpopo, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity. As you ask, I will reprint here what I wrote on YouTube although it's pretty long! Basically it was a plea for objectivity and honest and fair assessment regardless of which side of a debate people are on. As I say in the comment, (which is quite forceful for me! ) I actually support 'Brexit', but nonetheless I dislike the way the video attacks the 'Remain' campaign. I should emphasise for others that what follows relates to the people who presented the video, Paul Joseph Watson and Stefan Molyneux, rather than anyone writing here on HubPages, and will be pretty meaningless to those who haven't seen the video. Anyway this is the comment for what it's worth:
"First let me make clear - I support Brexit, I support stronger immigration controls, and I have never voted Labour in my life. So I've not got a political axe to grind in support of the Remain campaign. But there are are things more important than Brexit, and among them are honesty, fair reporting and a lack of hypocrisy. This YouTube video is dishonest, unfair and utterly hypocritical. Much is made of whether 'Britain First' was shouted by Jo Cox's attacker. It was not Hicham Ben Abdallah who claimed he shouted 'Britain First' - it was two other witnesses who did NOT subsequently retract their report. Now whether their version could be trusted, I do not know - neither do you - but it seems credible, and it is entirely reasonable and not at all suspicious that other eyewitnesses did not hear it - in the chaos and confusion of a traumatic event of course some will not hear what others hear. But you have decided on no basis whatsoever to take one version of events and categorise the other version as 'absolutely shameful lies'. According to you the attacker never said 'Britain first'. You do not know that.
You then claim that Tommy Mair was simply mentally unstable and suggest that he was not politically motivated. Well, whether or not he said 'Britain First' which you dispute, today in a public court when he was asked his name, Mair shouted 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain'. I take it you will now accept that he probably did indeed shout 'Britain First' and that he did have some political motivation, albeit exacerbated by mental instability? Will you retract your comments, as you have suggested others should do?
At one point, Stefan Molyneux says 'where the Hell are the journalistic ethics that you need to get some confirmation?' - Where the Hell are yours? The hypocricy is wonderful.
Almost everything in the video is a bigoted distortion of the truth. First, the suggestion that Jo Cox was a prominent campaigner for Remain. Well, I've followed the debate and to be honest I'd never heard of Jo until this tragic event. She was just one of hundreds of MPs who supported the Remain campaign. Second, you talk about Vote Remain supporters exploiting the murder on Twitter. Of course some did. That is the nature of social media unfortunately. The same would have applied in reverse if a Brexit supporter had been killed. Sadly Twitter attracts the virulent and bigoted minority. I guess you are probably very active on there? But the leaders of the Remain campaign did not exploit this and are not exploiting it now. Finally you try to scaremonger by saying that the referendum is not legally binding. True, but it would be political suicide for David Cameron not to accept the result.
I spoke of hypocrisies. You say 'the left doesn't care about the facts.' Neither, apparently do you. Paul Joseph Watson says 'some people are incredibly stupid and they will believe and remember only the first thing they hear'. Yes I can agree with that, but I will amend it slightly. Some people are incredibly stupid and they will believe and remember only what they WANT to believe and remember.
I will conclude by saying I don't know why Jo Cox was murdered. It seems likely that mental illness played a part, but it also seems likely that Jo's support for Syrian refugees and immigration may have been a bigger factor than her broader support for Remain. Whatever the truth, it will probably come out in the trial, but I suspect that it will not be revealed by the people who put forward this appalling video. Sad to see over 6000 people have so far 'liked' this video. Despite being pro-Brexit, I don't.
(My condolences to the family of Jo Cox who does seem to have been a truly decent and good member of parliament during the short time she was there.)
Thank you very much for sharing this eloquent post. You make some very good points.
I thought the same thing regarding their skepticism regarding Britain First - yes, they should have been skeptic of the claim, but to dismiss the claim altogether because one of many witnesses denied it is poor form.
Despite that, I didn't think it was a significant blunder on Watson and Molyneux's part because I've seen media tread that line of exploiting the murder for the pursuit of an agenda. For instance, the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre … are_btn_tw
Douglas Murray also highlights a few EU and NA leaders and media pundits who have done similar: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/ca … um=twitter
In light of that, I'd be cautious in stating that such agenda-pushing behaviour is limited to a vocal minority on Twitter (though they are certainly less subtle about it). I'll defer to your analysis on your political leaders because I am not overly familiar with British politicians, or Brexit altogether. They should be commended for their decency, restraint and leadership. But I know that not all politicians and media sources are as honourable. To me, the video alluded to that larger point, which is why I am more willing to forgive their poor execution of such values.
Regardless, I do think it's important to hold any reporter to higher standards. Your comment does that brilliantly.
I couldn't watch the video through to the end. They begin with an inaccuracy about Jo Cox - describing her as a mother of three - she actually leaves behind two children. If they can't check that simple fact, widely reported over the past few days, there is little hope for the veracity of the rest of their report.
Here's another video. Kim Leadbetter, Jo Cox's sister, and her parents, giving a master lesson in dignity and strength. Some might do well to emulate them.
https://www.facebook.com/BBCRadioLeeds/ … mp;theater
In view of recent exchanges, can I, as a Brit, say how I see the main debate between Brexit (British exit from the European Union) and Remain (remain in the EU)? Maybe it will help American readers to appreciate the main arguments / political leanings. As far as politicians are concerned, the two main parties in the UK are the Conservatives and Labour. The names can be slightly misleading, because although the Conservative Party is more right-wing than Labour (social democrats), they are still to the left of 'conservatives' in America, having much more in common with the Democratic Party than with the Republican Party (at least as represented by the recent Republican candidates for Presidential nomination!).
The great majority of Labour MPs (Members of Parliament) support Remain. Conservative MPs are roughly evenly split, with a slight majority also supporting Remain. But among the general public the situation is not at all clear. Different age groups, educational levels, regions of the country etc tend to more solidly support one side or the other. As far as right-left politics are concerned it is certainly true that almost all xenophobic extreme right wingers are likely to vote Brexit, though these are a tiny minority. By way of contrast a significant number of Labour supporters who fear losing their jobs to immigrants are also likely to vote Brexit.
I think the two main reasons people support 'Remain' are:
1) A feeling that as part of a very large economic community, Britain has more influence and more power in the world than if we go it alone.
2) Economically we benefit from free trade and free movement within the community and we'll suffer considerable trade upheaval and a short or long term economic downturn if we leave.
I think the two main reasons people support 'Brexit' are:
1) A feeling that we no longer have control of our own destiny, as so many decisions are now taken in Brussels (EU headquarters).
2) A desire to curb immigration, notably from Eastern Europe. Whilst we are members of the EU, any EU citizen - particularly people in poorer countries who wish for a better living standard - can immigrate into Britain, and we cannot prevent them from coming.
Anyway, I hope that helps some to understand the main issues and why people in the UK may vote one way or another.
I appreciate that what goes for conservative in British politics is much more tame than its American counterpart. Somebody like a Donald Trump would be impossible in British politics.
Both sides have compelling arguments, it will be the will of the predominant number of British voters that will determine this one, as it should be.
Very much so! Most Brits are incredulous that Donald Trump has such high levels of support in America. Much of what he says is just ridiculed here by people of all main political persuasions. But then we find it hard to comprehend much of American right wing politics, just as I guess supporters of Trump would also find our political viewpoints difficult to understand.
For two nations so very similar and so close in so many ways, we nonetheless have huge differences in thinking on some issues
Greensleeves, I live here and I find it incredulous that he has such high levels of support here. American rightwing politics have always been a tough nut to crack.
Supporters of Trump here would find your political views incomprehensible.
Things have changed here a lot beginning with the Eighties, there is not any civility between the political parties and consequently, hardly anything gets done in Washington these days.
But out of curiosity, how are the polls pointing as to whether Britain remains in the EU or exits?
Regarding what you say about the 80s, that tallies with my perceptions as I remember them. My impression is that long ago when I was a child, Americans tended to rally behind the president, and Republicans and Democrats were closer together? Today politics seem much more polarised in America than in the UK (even though Labour last year elected its most left wing leader ever).
The polls are very very close. The Remains had always been in front but last week Brexit edged ahead. Since the murder of Jo Cox, there may be a slight backlash if her killer is perceived as a Brexit supporter. But probably not, because most people recognise him as an isolated nut job, rather than part of a major movement.
There are a significant number of 'undecideds' who could make a big difference. The feeling is that the majority of undecided voters will probably ultimately vote for things to stay the same ie: 'Remain' (on the basis of 'better the Devil you know than the Devil you don't). So my guess is that Remain will probably win. However, it's believed that Brexit supporters are generally more passionate and are more likely to make the effort to turn out to vote if, for example, it's raining heavily. On such things can the result of campaigns turn!
A recent 3 week to Scotland showed this incomprehension, just as you say. Not only about Trump, but about the concept our conservatives espouse (beyond religion, that is). From my viewpoint as a conservative, I found the difference to be that between independence and self reliance and the nanny state - Britain has, to my way of thinking, become very much a nanny state with government taking care of everyone from cradle to grave and Brits just don't understand any other view any more.
America isn't that far behind, though, and progressing down that same road more every year, so some day we may have similar viewpoints.
Hi. Hope you enjoyed your time in Scotland. Believe it or not, I've never yet been north of the 'border' from England! I think that most Western democracies are much more similar to Britain than to America in their level of governmental involvement in the way we live. Indeed I believe many are more 'nannyish' than the UK. Personally my view would be that Britain has gone just a little too far in some areas, whilst America hasn't gone nearly far enough.
But how one describes a situation reflects how one views it. For 'nanny state' some would say 'organised society for the benefit of all including the disadvantaged'. For 'independence and self reliance' some would say 'self-interest and paranoia about central government'. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one - a freedom we both enjoy
We had a terrific time, including a coach tour down through York and back up through the Lake country. So we got to see some of England and well as Scotland.
I'm not one to appreciate the fancy linguistics of being politically correct. So I don't use things like 'organised society for the benefit of all including the disadvantaged', particularly as it kind of leaves out those that are footing the bill - the "benefit" of losing half or more of their earnings isn't real apparent. While "Nanny state" may sound rather condescending, it isn't meant to be, but instead the only descriptive term I can come up with. It is intended, and I think does, describe a culture with a governmental attitude that all citizens must be cared for by the politicians as they are unable to take care of themselves.
Oooh you really don't know me at all wilderness if you think I'm politically correct! I've got no objection to political incorrectness - the phrases I used were not to demonstrate that 'Nanny State' is politically incorrect, but to demonstrate that it reflected your personal opinion of that kind of society. 'Nanny State' certainly isn't the only descriptive term you could have come up with if you didn't want to sound condescending. How about 'caring society'? Or is any term that is more favourable than 'Nanny State', regarded as being politically correct?
Cultures like the UK's certainly don't believe that 'all citizens must be cared for by the politicians' - merely that those citizens who cannot look after themselves receive certain levels of support. We have to decide whether we live as a society where people do help others less fortunate, or whether we live as a collection of individuals who just look after our own interests and nobody else.
Your last paragraph was most eloquent, Sir....
I fear that my comments are being taken as derogatory, and that is not my meaning at all.
But there are two things to your post here that just don't fit my philosophy on the duties of a government. The first is "caring society" - you failed to address that the ones footing the bill aren't being cared for at all, but instead, just the opposite. This does not fit MY definition of a "caring society" - it fits the concept of playing Robin Hood by stealing from someone to fill your own personal goals. That those goals - "helping" the unfortunate - are worthy does not mean that forcibly taking possessions from someone that has earned them is justified. It is not.
To temper that, though, requires a discussion of degree - just how much is taken and how much is given? Along with the very concept of "helping", as I find that simply supporting people for their entire lives is not "helping" at all, but instead chaining them the largesse of the politician desiring their vote. Just how much is reasonable to take and give is beyond this paragraph, so I will let it go with saying my impression of the social net in the UK is considerably beyond what I find to be reasonable and useful for either the country of the individual getting the "help".
This should not be a surprise; nearly all of Europe is more socialistic leaning than the US and certainly more than the conservative minds in America. IMHO those socialistic "nanny state" philosophies is harming those European countries enormously and is, in fact, the primary reason some are failing. Too much is demanded from producers and too much is given to non producers. And THAT is where we primarily differ - we can see this with the desire to change "independence and self reliance" into " self interest and paranoia" even those descriptions have exactly nothing to do with independence OR reliance on one's self. On the other hand, "Nanny" is a caretaker for someone unable to care for themselves - exactly what is being done, and from your own words. It isn't about caring - it's about people wanting more than they can earn or buy and thus demanding that someone else buy it FOR them.
I don't think that he sees your comments as derogatory. But they are just different from the view of Government by the English people and what they have grown accustomed to as its role in their lives.
But he certainly will get a taste of the 'conservative' point of view in America when you provide your prospective.
I hope not. But yes, very different - I've perhaps come to realize, just a little, just how different the views are between the UK (and Europe) and the conservative faction in the US. The liberals not so much, but the conservative philosophy of self-reliance and small government is almost impossible to understand across the pond.
What DID surprise me on our trip was to find the philosophy of Big Government functioning so long ago. Hundreds of years ago they had Government providing specific needs for individuals and I had not expected to see that. Large, community projects like sanitation or police yes, but not maintaining housing for the poor in any but the smallest numbers. Not true, and it was quite interesting to find that.
Makes one wonder if that lack of self reliance, of "entrepreneurship", of personal responsibility and freedom is what drove the US to develop technologically so much more rapidly than most of Europe in spite of a very late start and vast areas of nearly unoccupied land.
True, but what example of the ideal of small government, entrepreneurialship and self reliance in a culture as an example to point to? Could we mention Hong Kong as a place that might out capitalist our conservative capitalists in the U.S?
I visited London in 1978 and I recall asking a bobby working at a bank where was his 'piece'? How can you do your job with just a baton? He told me of a civility where even the bad guys don't cross the line and assault a bobby in the manner of an American bankrobbery. No such line of civility existed in American culture, is it the frontier hertitage? Who can say?
So there are many differences good and bad. From some circles people say that the taxes are exorbitant, but from other circles, not so much more burdensome than here relative to the services that are available.
We had our heyday in the last century, particularly mid century before global markets and being the only major power really unscathed from the 2nd World War. It was our time. All those concepts you speak of rings hollow in this day and age for many more reasons than, as the right says, the encroachment of socialism.
We did have our heyday in the last century or two. And the further we progress towards socialism the worse it gets. Now correlation is not causality, but it does seem smart to consider the "why's" of the decline. Perhaps there IS a causality, particularly when most of the rest of the socialistic countries have done the same thing. Maybe people really do need a reason to work and produce beyond the desire to sweat!
by JOC 2 years ago
Why are conservatives so intent on pissing off a whole religion that has like three billion members instead of singling out the extremist groups that have resorted to terrorism as their primary offensive strategy?
by paarsurrey 7 years ago
Hi friendsI appreciate post of our friend yoshi97.http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/52955?p … ost1211545Following points could resolve the present impasse:1. "True Islam does not preach anger or war, but how would we know differently, given the actions of radical...
by Real Life Stories 5 years ago
What are the parallels between the right to offend Islam and the right to offend Royalty?In the west, most consider the right to offend an important right and integral to healthy democracy. Do we have right to offend Islam? Christianity? Royalty? Here in UK , some consider it...
by Credence2 4 years ago
Excellent op-ed page that discusses conservatism taking two distinct tracts. Have a read and share your opinion, please. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … /?src=recg
by Credence2 2 years ago
When you look at the posters in this forum, I see liberal/progressives, conservatives and reactionaries.Without naming names everybody pretty much know under category they belong.When I read Mr. Brooks column for the New York Times, it dawned upon me that perhaps the turn of the GOP toward rabid...
by LoliHey 2 years ago
Will not saying the name "Radical Islam" really keep us safe?Obama says that saying the name "Radical Islam" won't make a difference. Well, if it won't make a difference, why not just say the name? The mentality here is that if we call it what it is (Islamic...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|