Cruella Braverman...

[mudsticks]

Whether it started off as pejorative and was then taken on as the opposite does not really matter, and as I said, I do not like it being used as an insult. Its current use is more relevant.

The problem with describing people as socially aware is the assumption that people who don't agree are socially unaware, when in fact they may just have a different view of what is socially correct or desirable.

I have my views of what is socially or morally correct in different scenarios, or indeed in looking at past history, but in anything other than a very small number of absolutes am wary of assuming that my views are absolutely or primarily right

On the contrary I think it matters a lot.

You were trying to claim that people used it to claim something for or about themselves, which they didn't do.

The fact that the word being used as perjorative, says a lot about that person using it, is their own fault, no one else's.

Being socially aware, doesn't mean that a person thinks they're 'absolutely correct'

It means they know there is an issue that needs taking into consideration, and exploring.

The idea that there is no nuance, context, or 'it depends' that needs considering, or that there are 'absolutes' is far more a tendency of the reactionary 'anti-wokes'..

See populist press for further details.

 

[Deleted member 28]

I do smile to myself at times with all this talk of 'progressive ' from you lefties and the accusations of the 'right wingers ' not wanting change yet you're the ones calling for the ban on private car ownership and genuinely believing we live in a society where we could live car free.

You apparently think the internet is great with your love of 'twatter' and I'm assuming you want the 'freedom of movement ' to go back how it was?

How do you think this happens without cars, boats, planes etc?

 

[winjim]

I mean I've literally called for the overthrow and reorganisation of our entire patriarchal society so in that respect I agree with you, we're not gonna get very far with things as they stand.

Unfortunately I'm not able to assist in the overthrow of society, being that I'm far too busy and tired out from simply being a part of it. Funny that.

 

[winjim]

#AccidentallyLeftWing there maybe?

 

[newfhouse]

There are very few absolutes in political, social or moral debate.

There are quite a few. Disagreement doesn’t mean they are not absolute, it means some people are wrong.

 

[mudsticks]

I mean I've literally called for the overthrow and reorganisation of our entire patriarchal society so in that respect I agree with you, we're not gonna get very far with things as they stand.

Unfortunately I'm not able to assist in the overthrow of society, being that I'm far too busy and tired out from simply being a part of it. Funny that.

Well exactly it's designed to keep you busy, working away to keep the wheels turning, and just about entertained and distracted enough to not have quite enough energy for doing very much else.

You have small children though, so basically you get a free pass (for now) for being limp wristed and ineffectual in most matters of political activism 😊

The good news however is that change, and transition is still happening, driven forward by those who do have some spare energy, time and motivation right now.

Although there is of course, always some push back.

I even bred some fresh troops for the fight last century, who are now quite nicely embedded on the front lines*

*One of them even had the cheek to tell me that my privelege was showing the other day -

- cheeky little monster - but also at the same time
"That's ma boy" 😅

 

[newfhouse]

accusations of the 'right wingers ' not wanting change

What does ‘conservative’ mean?

 

[Rusty Nails]

There are quite a few. Disagreement doesn’t mean they are not absolute, it means some people are wrong.

At least we agree you are right about some people being wrong, even if we may possibly disagree about what is an absolute.

You were trying to claim that people used it to claim something for or about themselves, which they didn't do.

Not to claim it, but to accept it, as with Kathy Burke.

Being socially aware, doesn't mean that a person thinks they're 'absolutely correct'

It means they know there is an issue that needs taking into consideration, and exploring.

The idea that there is no nuance, context, or 'it depends' that needs considering, or that there are 'absolutes' is far more a tendency of the reactionary 'anti-wokes'..

I totally agree about the need for consideration and exploration. It is the judgement afterwards that sometimes causes the problems and leads to difference.

100% agree that nuance and context is important in any social/moral debate and that the number of 'absolutes' is very small.

Reactionary is an interesting word implying that such people are against reform or progress, when some of them would say they are arguing that the reform is not actually progress. There is change and there is progress, and progress is essential, but they are not mutually inclusive. That is where the nuance, context and exploration is vital.

I agree with your comment about the populist press.. particularly the Mail and also media such as GB News.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I even bred some fresh troops for the fight last century, who are now quite nicely embedded on the front lines*

For my sins I have two children who are very socially aware and ready to fight the good fight.

Don't know where I went wrong!

 

[mudsticks]

Not to claim it, but to accept it, as with Kathy Burke.

There is a well documented history of perjorative terms being taken on and thereby defused, or even reused against the original aggressor.

This is just one, in a long line of same.

The rest might have to wait .
As yet another dinner invite calls..
Phew it's a hard life 🙄

 

[mudsticks]

For my sins I have two children who are very socially aware and ready to fight the good fight.

Don't know where I went wrong!

They get it off each other half the time, it's like nits...

Mine are just super-spreaders 🙄

 

[Fab Foodie]

What a piece of work she is....

09.22 BST

Braverman says UN refugee convention shouldn't protect women and gay people just facing discrimination​

Good morning. Suella Braverman, the home secretary, is in Washington today where she is going to deliver a speech that marks a significant escalation of her attempts to dismantle current laws protecting refugees. In part this is a personal crusade – Politico this morning says she is firing the starting gun for the next Conservative leadership contest, which is a reasonable take – but it is also government/party policy. What she is saying is consistent with the direction taken by Rishi Sunak.

The government passed the Illegal Immigration Act because it wants to establish the principle that people who arrive in the UK illegally on small boats have no right to claim asylum. The act has become law, but it has not been implemented yet because arguably it goes beyond what is allowed under international human rights law and and these issues have got to be resolved by the supreme court.

Braverman today is making a simple counter-proposal; if international law (specifically the United Nations 1951 refugee convention) is the problem, let’s just change it.

Extracts from the speech have been briefed in advance, and they show that Braverman is making a provocative argument, grounded in the theory that a convention drawn up more than 70 years ago does not work today.

• Braverman will claim that almost 800 million people could claim the right to move to another country under the convention. She was criticised in March for telling MPs that there were 100 million people in the world who might qualify for asylum in the UK. Today she is using a figure almost eight times as large. She will reportedly say:

When the refugee convention was signed, it conferred protection on some two million people in Europe.
According to analysis by Nick Timothy and Karl Williams for the Centre for Policy Studies, it now confers the notional right to move to another country upon at least 780 million people.
It is therefore incumbent upon politicians and thought leaders to ask whether the refugee convention, and the way it has come to be interpreted through our courts, is fit for our modern age or whether it is in need of reform.

• She will say that people should not be able to claim asylum just because they face discrimination as women, or for being gay. She will reportedly say:

I think most members of the public would recognise those fleeing a real risk of death, torture, oppression or violence, as in need of protection.
However, as case law has developed, what we have seen in practice is an interpretive shift away from ‘persecution’, in favour of something more akin to a definition of ‘discrimination’ …
Let me be clear, there are vast swathes of the world where it is extremely difficult to be gay, or to be a woman.
Where individuals are being persecuted, it is right that we offer sanctuary.
But we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if in effect, simply being gay, or a woman, and fearful of discrimination in your country of origin, is sufficient to qualify for protection.

Here is Rajeev Syal’s preview of the speech. We wil be covering the speech, and the reaction it is provoking, in full.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ion-discrimination-uk-politics-latest-updates

 

[C R]

What a piece of work she is....

09.22 BST

Braverman says UN refugee convention shouldn't protect women and gay people just facing discrimination​

Good morning. Suella Braverman, the home secretary, is in Washington today where she is going to deliver a speech that marks a significant escalation of her attempts to dismantle current laws protecting refugees. In part this is a personal crusade – Politico this morning says she is firing the starting gun for the next Conservative leadership contest, which is a reasonable take – but it is also government/party policy. What she is saying is consistent with the direction taken by Rishi Sunak.

The government passed the Illegal Immigration Act because it wants to establish the principle that people who arrive in the UK illegally on small boats have no right to claim asylum. The act has become law, but it has not been implemented yet because arguably it goes beyond what is allowed under international human rights law and and these issues have got to be resolved by the supreme court.

Braverman today is making a simple counter-proposal; if international law (specifically the United Nations 1951 refugee convention) is the problem, let’s just change it.

Extracts from the speech have been briefed in advance, and they show that Braverman is making a provocative argument, grounded in the theory that a convention drawn up more than 70 years ago does not work today.

• Braverman will claim that almost 800 million people could claim the right to move to another country under the convention. She was criticised in March for telling MPs that there were 100 million people in the world who might qualify for asylum in the UK. Today she is using a figure almost eight times as large. She will reportedly say:

• She will say that people should not be able to claim asylum just because they face discrimination as women, or for being gay. She will reportedly say:

Here is Rajeev Syal’s preview of the speech. We wil be covering the speech, and the reaction it is provoking, in full.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ion-discrimination-uk-politics-latest-updates

Well, it is just wimin and the gays, why would they need protection?

 

[newfhouse]

According to analysis by Nick Timothy

Enough said.

 

[Beebo]

Anyone else very concerned at the irony shown by an Asian woman attacking the UK’s “failed multiculturalism”

This woman is dangerous and is stirring up tensions which could get very ugly.