7
Greens’ ‘Zionism is racism’ worse than anything under Corbyn, antisemitism tsar warns (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 2 days ago by to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

“It’s well beyond anything ever tried under Jeremy Corbyn. The ultimate irony is the one closest to their policy is Ben Gvir who also wants one unified state rather than two states,” he added.

That's a rather silly comparison.

Leading barrister Adam Wagner KC has also said there is a strong risk the motion, passed at the Greens’ annual conference this weekend, contravenes the Equality Act 2010.

Parties taking political stances are exempt from this sort of viewpoint discrimination. That's the whole point of a political party. This is false.

Meanwhile, there have been growing calls for political parties to refuse to enter into any kind of coalition arrangement with the Greens, after senior Labour figures told The Independent on Monday that Andy Burnham should rule out any collaboration.

I think that the world may not be ready to hear "Zionism is Racism", even if it is true. This comes at a rather bad time with the coming byelection, with a media frenzy mischaracterizing all of this likely to cause the Greens to lose votes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I still don't get what your angle is here. All I get from this at best is they might not be perfect or monolithic. I don't see why either case would be a deal-breaker. Those would be unreasonable expectations. And so I don't care.

But okay, let me address the specific point you're making. I'll even make a concession: let's say they were letting for profit and living purely as a landlord (patently false, even from just your quotes): what matters from a leader and representative is that they can put their own interests aside and work for the wants and needs of the people they represent. And I see no reason as of yet to say they wouldn't be able to do that. They could be completely ready to give up their property. If not, then it's a problem and needs to be addressed, but that's not an issue at present.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    You think he's not making profit? It must be for altruistic reasons he has two properties held in a limited company. I have a bridge to sell you.

    You're either playing dumb or are a naive fool. I shouldn't have to explain the most obvious of points. Good day to you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    Man, I'm quite entertained here. Didn't even address the main points of my reply.

    But yes, your own source states he did not profit from them. It's unclear, but the implication seems to be that information comes from the records and not Ali's own claims. In which case, yeah, there are some severe issues with tax evasion if you're correct and he's actually profiting lmao.

    You still haven't said what my takeaway from this should be either. Representation of different views is good, and is often why the US has a VP from a different slant of the party than the President. Seems like that'd be fine within a British party too.

    Anyway, I agree with one point: this discussion has gone on too long without actually getting anywhere. I'm sure we'll re-read this under another post some other day, and maybe actually end up gaining some sort of understanding from each other.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent