Why no real outcry about tory racism?

[JP_]

So much was made about Labour's anti-semitism by the right wing press, but hardly a peep about the tory racism against muslims from the same media outlets...

Because no party is any more racist than any other, but the press control this country. People believe what they read, and they write what the Tories pay them to write; obviously not directly, but through tax breaks etc. which is well documented. Just look at Rupert Murdoch.

https://theconversation.com/ian-his...ship-with-tories-should-be-investigated-67864

The tabloid press are a lot like paedophiles - they lure impressionable people in with jovial stories and sports chat to then abuse their brains with lies, leaving them forever mentally scarred.

Best thing we can do to make this country great again is ban the tabloids. Go back to news, not propaganda 24 hours a day.

 

[ellal]

It also says that the perception of Tory Islamaphobia is greater that the reality, based on the complaints that it investigated.

Unlike 'the perception of labour anti-semitism is greater that the reality'?

And based on which selected complaints

 

[Lower]

Unlike 'the perception of labour anti-semitism is greater that the reality'?

And based on which selected complaints

I do know that they investigated the 30 complaints that Baroness Warsi raised.

I would imagine the big difference between the Tories and Labour under Corbyn is that, unlike Labour, there was no evidence of interference in the investigations, and where evidence of Islamaphobia was found, the Tory party took action which was in 1/3 of complaints.

Whilst Boris is never going to be allowed to forget his 'Letterbox' article, he hasn't been inviting terrorists to the houses of parliament or allowing himself to be put on a platform with extremist or terrorist groups.

More to the point, and unlike Corbyn, the country seems to be generally supportive of Boris.

 

[ellal]

I do know that they investigated the 30 complaints that Baroness Warsi raised.

I would imagine the big difference between the Tories and Labour under Corbyn is that, unlike Labour, there was no evidence of interference in the investigations, and where evidence of Islamaphobia was found, the Tory party took action which was in 1/3 of complaints.

Whilst Boris is never going to be allowed to forget his 'Letterbox' article, he hasn't been inviting terrorists to the houses of parliament or allowing himself to be put on a platform with extremist or terrorist groups.

More to the point, and unlike Corbyn, the country seems to be generally supportive of Boris.

So not exactly an unbiased attitude to racism in political parties then

As for inviting 'terrorists' to Westminster, weren't members of sinn fein invited to stand for election?

And didn't various UK governments talk to 'terrorists' in N.I. in order to bring about peace?

It appears you have an issue with a politician talking to those who have a 'muslim skin'!

 

[Lower]

So not exactly an unbiased attitude to racism then

Not sure what you mean by that?

 

[Captain Nemesis]

Removed, with apologies.

 

[Lower]

Lower - do not assume that your readers are so stupid that they wont see what you did there. A great many of them, even on this forum, are brighter than you.

I assume you are referring to my quoted post above? In fairness, that's what Ellal's post said at the time i quoted it. He's added to it since.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

So not exactly an unbiased attitude to racism in political parties then

As for inviting 'terrorists' to Westminster, weren't members of sinn fein invited to stand for election?

And didn't various UK governments talk to 'terrorists' in N.I. in order to bring about peace?

It appears you have an issue with a politician talking to those who have a 'muslim skin'!

The Queen has met with a terrorist, as has the next King.

Margaret Thatcher was on good terms with a terrorist.

Tony Blair met a terrorist.

There is a statue of a terrorist in Parliament Square.

 

[Lower]

So not exactly an unbiased attitude to racism in political parties then

As for inviting 'terrorists' to Westminster, weren't members of sinn fein invited to stand for election?

And didn't various UK governments talk to 'terrorists' in N.I. in order to bring about peace?

It appears you have an issue with a politician talking to those who have a 'muslim skin'!

Its old ground, but i'm sure you know that Corbyn always took the side of what he perceived to be the oppressed, which happened to be terrorists on a number of occasions, and always wanted to prevaricate and talk through an issue, rather than taking decisive action.

Eg. wanting to talk to Russia about the Salisbury poisonings even when the clear evidence was put in front of him that it was a criminal act by a foreign power on UK soil that harmed UK citizens.

But for clarity's sake, i have absolutely no issue with 'muslim skin'.

I do have issues with extremist muslims, but then i have issues with most extremists.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

I assume you are referring to my quoted post above? In fairness, that's what Ellal's post said at the time i quoted it. He's added to it since.

In fairness I apologise - I hadn't spotted the edit time vs your post.

I'll remove my comment.

 

[Lower]

The Queen has met with a terrorist, as has the next King.

Margaret Thatcher was on good terms with a terrorist.

Tony Blair met a terrorist.

There is a statue of a terrorist in Parliament Square.

Timing is everything.

Edit: which is an ironic comment when i read your next post

 

[sxturbo]

Baroness Warsi had made accusations of institutional Islamophobia and provided 30 complaints as example. She obviously had an opinion prior to the investigation and because the investigation find some evidence of Islamophobia, but not the institutionalised Islamophobia she believed existed, she disagrees with the report.

The report basically says that there is some anti muslim sentiment at local tory party levels, but that the party investigated and acted on anti-muslim complaints in a fair manner that was equal to the actions taken on other types of complaints. It says that there were no attempts by the party to intervene in any of the investigations. It also says that the perception of Tory Islamaphobia is greater that the reality, based on the complaints that it investigated.

thats the jist i got aswell, but thought i missed something.

 

[sxturbo]

Maybe you're not bothered because the target of the racism are Muslims not Jews?
If you googled that you would understand.

The Labour party have 'friends of Palestine' and 'friends of Israel' groups...

The tories only have a 'friends of Israel' group...

Plus the right wing press hammered away at Labour over racism but have virtually ignored the institutional racism in the tory party...

But the decades of that institutional racism history in the tory party is there if you could be bothered to look!

i did google and didnt find anything really balanced, all i saw was reports on Baroness warsi words and not what was actually in the report or how they investigated it and came to their conclusion.

Your clinging to the words of a single party and disregarding the facts which an independent review allayed.

personally i dont care what colour, creed or religion people are, treat me with respect, i'll treat you with respect. it's not exactly difficult. As long as i dont get stopped from celebrating xmas and all that goes with it (carols, church, nativity plays) because a few muslims deem themselves offended by it then they can practice what religion they like. i dont get offended by them practising islam, and i have no intention of forcing them to close mosques etc.

p.s. jews are the most persecuted sect of people throughout history, and it continues by and large to this day, but because they arent shouting it from the rooftops you appear to belive its ok to continue persecuting them, at least that is how your words are coming across.

p.p.s muslims might have a better rep if they didnt blow up gigs or go on mass murder sprees with knives or vehicles.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

Its old ground, but i'm sure you know that Corbyn always took the side of what he perceived to be the oppressed,

Do you deny the validity of his perception?

which happened to be terrorists on a number of occasions,

When we bombed and shelled civilians in a military operation condemned by the UN, what were we?

and always wanted to prevaricate and talk through an issue, rather than taking decisive action.

"Jaw-jaw is better than war-war." Harold Macmillan

Eg. wanting to talk to Russia about the Salisbury poisonings even when the clear evidence was put in front of him that it was a criminal act by a foreign power on UK soil that harmed UK citizens.

No matter how clear evidence of criminal behaviour is, the accused are still interviewed by the police, and still stand trial where they are allowed to defend themelves.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

p.p.s muslims might have a better rep if they didnt blow up gigs or go on mass murder sprees with knives or vehicles.

Do you have any data on the number of terror incidents carried out by Muslims vs the numbers carried out by Christions, Jews, Hindus etc?

Or does your Islamophobia not allow you to base your criticisms on facts?