Archive | Debating Culture RSS feed for this section

UK Labour Party’s Emma Dent Coad and Rightwing Manufactured Racism

8 Dec

[Published 08 December, 2017]

 

IMG_20171121_110523

In a further desperate attempt at yet another orchestrated smear campaign in the unrelenting witch hunt against Labour party members, rightwing Tory supporters and their ilk have now taken a stab at Emma Dent Coad, the newly elected MP for Kensington, West London.

Coad marginally won her seat from the Tories earlier this year, which is when the vultures set about their efforts to devour her entrails with their dirty tricks and whipping up of an unfounded media backlash against her.

It started with the rightwing funded blog Guido Falkes, set up by the Russian-linked Paul Staines.

After her election, Guido went on the trawl into the depths of the underbelly of the interwebz, leaving no rock unturned or crevices unexplored, seemingly uncovering a blog written by Coad in which she apparently refers to Shaun Bailey, a Tory MP, as ‘a token’ to the [Tory] party and a ‘fake ghetto boy.’

Thing is, Coad never made these comments about Bailey.

She was merely quoting someone else.

And, as it turned out, that ‘someone else’, was in fact Bailey making those comments about himself.

Cue the woefully misjudged and ill-informed procrastinations and condemnation of James Cleverly and Kemi Badenoch, with their immediately apparent faux outrage and unfounded claims of racism.

Prematurely, both Cleverly and Badenoch then went on a long Twitter rant and wrote letters, calling for the immediate resignation of Coad and a bi-election for her seat in parliament.

Then ensued the wrath and onslaught of the rightwing media machine, piling on the marauding barrage of condemnation: HERE, HERE, and HERE!

Shortly after, Badnoch proclaiming:

I’m a black conservative . I dont think every offensive comment is racism, but when I see real prejudice I have to call it out.’

Let’s back this clusterfuck up, shall we!?

Oi, wind your damn neck in, Kemi, and put your fangs away… you got the wrong end of the chew toy, and you know it!

It should be no surprise to readers by now, that this was a classic dog whistle exercise and fake news smear campaign.

Asked to make a retraction and issue an apology [for comments Bailey had made about himself], Guido, Cleverly and Badenoch suddenly clammed up.

Bailey has remained silent throughout.

Now, as is Bailey, both Cleverly and Badenoch are Black Tory MPs.

But as the respected and admirable, Black Activist, Lee Jasper put it in his response to Badenoch’s further protestations regarding being labelled a ‘Coconut’ or an ‘Uncle Tom’, Jasper replied with a coup de grâce:

That’s to deny the reality of black political collusion with racism. It’s a historical fact and a contemporary reality… however the archaic language you use Uncle Tom etc to describe Black Tories seems to reflect you’re own fears and anxieties.’

Indeed.

That is the crux of this completely fake news story and charade.

When the ‘story’ first broke, likely Conservative Party HQ (CPHQ) prolly broke out in sweats and staffers were positively apoplectic, likely experiencing multiple orgasms and doing repeated high fives and chest bumps.

Here’s the likely scenario:

— Guido gives CPHQ wind of the story. CPHQ instructs press team to inform all rightwing media. Party spokesperson/ adviser suggests asking [token] Cleverly and Badnoch to stoke the fire by speaking out.—

This is what Jasper means by, ‘collusion’ of our own.

Guess what, Cleverly and Badenoch, you are both Uncle Tom’s or Coconuts, whichever pejorative but accurate description suits you best.

Truth is, Bailey sought to big himself up as a ghetto Black boy done good, becoming part of the White establishment.

As a person of colour myself, I can see no possible reason nor comprehend such a reason, why any one of us, would ever align ourselves, let alone do the bidding of an oppressor such as is apparent that you appear quite willing to do.

I, for one, can never align myself to anyone or any group, who would seek to consistently undermine, denigrate, or take advantage of us because of our status or skin colour.

Like the cowardly and silent Bailey, you, Cleverly and Badenoch, are, and always will be, both tokens and nothing more!

Where was your outrage and condemnation of your fellow Tory Member of Parliament, AnneMarie Morris and her comment ‘Niggers in a woodpile‘ in the Houses of Parliament?

Yes, you guessed it!

Tumbleweed, you useful idiots!

You are nothing but monkeys to the White man’s organ grinder!

 

 

 

 

Author: Jason Schumann

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Ofsted inspectors will question girls wearing hijabs in primary schools

7 Dec

[Published 07 December, 2017]

This is a guest blog by Iftikar Ahmad of the London School of Islamics. in response to the article published HERE.

Muslim girls who wear the hijab to primary school will be asked why they wear it by inspectors. The reasons given will then be recorded in school reports, amid concerns girls are being forced to wear the headscarf by their parents. Amanda Spielman, the chief inspector of schools, announced the move on Sunday. Imagine being questioned about why you dress the way your parents tell you at 8 years of age!? What do you say?

“Sorry, I’ll tell them they are wrong”?

Looks like Ofsted are now so busy with combating Islam that they will have no time to deal with education? The problem is, before they start the quizzing, they’re making public exactly what the girls should get prepared to reply (by their family) to be allowed to keep the hijab. With all the time to rehearse. Any child asked by an inspector why she’s covering her hair should reply.. ‘its a free country I can wear what I effing want”!! We do not need inspectors chasing Muslims just because we hate them. Looks like Ofsted are now so busy with combating Islam that they will have no time to deal with education?

What is the role of the Government can any of the hijab haters answer This? Or do we need another PREVENT policy to target certain group of people? I bet all the readers who have kids have forced their kids to go to sleep, brush their teeth, wake them out of bed, eat dinner etc, wear a helmet whilst riding bike and so on…So what is wrong with telling your kid to cover the head to if one wants to. There is nothing wrong with this as long as its achieved peacefully and through education. Of course they are forced or at least required to wear hijabs by parents because it is the parents who bring up children according to their tradition, religion or both.

Freedom of religion is imperial . One can choose what to believe in an practise it , it’ not the government’ job to dictate what you should eat, how you should dress ,when you should pray ..it only has the power to coerce it’ civilians but it should just focusing on providing services and infrastructure and education and so on. So they need to send inspectors instead of assuming that it’s the parents brainwashing the kids. Interesting. Maybe they expect to find some 7 years old girls who will give them a detailed report of all the faiths they thoroughly researched before choosing Islam because it’s the one they believe provides the answers to all their existential and philosophical questions.

Parents are free to teach their children what they want as long as it’ not harming them physically or mentally. Its called education not force. I guess every parent has the right to educate their child into doing something which they believe is good (as long as its not a crime etc). It’s the parents that they should be questioning, not the children. No good asking the girls. If they are made to wear it, they will be made to say they aren’t, since that’s what the Inspectors want to hear. Everybody knows who the Inspectors spoke to.

You are/will be brainwashing your believes to your future children on what to do and what not. If my daughter from a young age is willing to wear the hijab I will not oppose it and make her understand that it is empowering her when she reaches puberty and she will be ready for it. When you live in a over sexualised society I believe such precaution is important. The child will progress just as much as the kids not wearing a headscarf in what sense does it make them weaker…apart of you sexualising the children when the Muslim parent prepares them for the real life and teaches what’s right or wrong . Who are you to tell ?

Where is the freedom of religion? Can she not express her identity at young age. Surely preparation makes one better.

I do not want my children to be brainwashed by half naked girls instead I’ll teach her what’s right or wrong and that is my duty not yours not the government. Asking little girls why they wear a headscarf is silly. It is forced on them in one way or another, through dictate by parents, training, social pressure.

Tell that to the Queen… even the DailyMail has no problem with her wearing one… Hijab is not the problem. It’s just a headscarf. The Queen like to wear one!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/The-Queen-steps-headscarf…

Did the NSS also ask for Sikh boys to be quizzed about their turbans and Jewish children for their religious headgear (skull caps or wigs)? If not why are Muslims being exclusively targeted again. I hope they’re also going to quiz Sikh boys who cover their hair..? No, thought not. Just pick on the girls.

Start by quizzing children if they are abused by parent who are alcoholics start by protecting children who are left homeless start by actually doing something usefully instead of targeting Muslims for wearing a religious symbol. Start by quizzing all children why they follow a religion after all they are smart in off to decide for themselves Will they ask Jewish kids if they are wearing their outfits voluntarily?

The opposite to hijab wearing is the display of highly sexualised forms of many western women. Western men get to enjoy this without thinking they are entitled to help themselves to every woman wearing a skirt up to her bum-cheeks.

The bottom line (pun intended) gents, is you can look but not touch. If you are offended, look away you control freak prude.

 

Edited by: Jason Schumann 

Disclaimer:

This has been published as an opinion piece only. The contents or views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the author of the debatingculture.wordpress.com blog.

UK Government Dismisses Complaints on Importance of Teaching Black History Authentically in Schools

5 Dec

[Published 04 December, 2017]

everydayblackhistory_pstr3

If you live in the UK and were or are currently being educated under what is known as the National Curriculum, what you and I have or will be taught about (B)lack History, has always been taught from a Eurocentric or national perspective.

This is to say, (B)lack History has always been and largely continues to be taught today from a ‘colonial’ and semi-religious ‘civilizing’ perspective, albeit with a few very recent additions to the curriculum.

I am a person of colour – both Black and White – who came into existence thanks to a South Afri(k)an Grandfather and Scottish Grandmother.

Both my Grandparents were disowned by their families, because at that time, inter-racial marriages were not accepted.

(No Blacks, no Irish, no Jews, no dogs!)

Thank you, Enoch, you fascist cunt!

Because I have always (and still do) feel as though I am not, nor will I ever be, accepted as fully Black or White, in my late teens I sought to understand my origins, trauma, afflictions, and foibles, as a person of colour.

I wanted to understand my brown skin and golly wog hair and affirm where it is that I am positioned and can identify myself in this world.

Yes, I was taught about slavery and colonialism, but never that it was wrong, immoral, and brutal. Nothing about the role of Arabs, Jews, and my fellow Afrikans, who enabled it. Nor anything about racism or about the contributions of people of colour in society.

I would only begin to learn about this in later, independent studies.

Teaching about Black History from just a slavery and colonial perspective, in fact limits our understanding and perspective of how the world in which, regardless of our cultures and skin tones, is made and remade and impacts on all of us at the basest level of consciousness, histories, traumas, and lived experiences.

Note: Not everything about Black History is about slavery, ffs!

Black History is also about the interconnections, current perspectives, intersectionality, and contributions we make as people of colour in society, generally, in an interconnected, intergenerational and often politically polarized society.

In context, true and authentic history about the histories of all Black and all people of colour – in valuing and identifying our sense of place in the pervading powerful White spaces – should be taught holistically and without bias as a matter of inclusive teaching practice. Our histories define part of us, so if it is incomplete then so are we.

The teaching of Black history should also be specific to society in a local, national, and in a global context, which is to say, although American Black History is relevant from a world history perspective, it is equally if not more important to teach Black British history to Black Britons, Muslims etc.

As the BLAM Charity recently stated at an event held in London for Black History Month:

The false narrative that continually portrays racism and civil rights as an American issue erases the struggles endured by the Black British population.”

In the UK, the National Curriculum for history makes no specific mention of the teaching of Black history or any other history, except to say, from a ‘non-European perspective’ and of ‘Ancient Civilizations.’

Look closely and all statutory and non-statutory teaching requirements concern European and British history, with the exception of the requirement to teach pupils about the holocaust.

In response to a petition by Stephanie Pitter, the UK Government replied:

The content and structure of the new history curriculum provides scope for black history to be taught in schools.”

Adding:

This, however, is not prescribed in detail within the statutory programmes of study. Instead, schools have the flexibility to teach these topics in ways that are appropriate and sensitive to the needs of their pupils.”

Scope? Flexibility?

One has to ask how it could not be more appropriate and sensitive to teach a Black or any other person of colour about history from their own, as well as from other cultural and national perspectives?

How does the Government respond?

In the primary history programmes of study, Rosa Parks and Mary Seacole are listed at key stage 1 as examples of significant individuals in the past who have contributed to national and international achievements.”

Ms. Parks is not British and was not the first Black woman to refuse to give up her seat.

Although important in the context of history and rights of PoC, the story of Parks was in fact a stunt to stir up a reaction within the Black community by the NAACP. The first person to refuse to give up her seat was Claudette Colvin.

Whilst teaching pupils about Seacole is relevant in the context of Black contributions to British history, it is only recently that her story was added to the curriculum as a topic of study and nearly always there is an institutional and cultural bias toward comparing her against Florence Nightingale. Add to that the story of Seacole is not recent history, so may not be as relevant to some as it is to others.

In any event, in 2012 the Government (Michael Gove, MP) proposed removing Seacole from the curriculum in favor of more important focus on Churchill etc., but was forced to back down, after a petition was set up by Operation Black Vote.

As noted by Gus John:

Every review of the National Curriculum has required us to campaign and lobby to make sure that our children (and all the nation’s children) are not exposed to a white, British nationalist curriculum.”

To illustrate, Nelson Mundell, recounts the comments of one of the presenters at a recent conference on Black history:

During an excellent presentation by Justice 2 History, in which they covered some of the problems they had faced in London classrooms on the teaching of slavery, one of the presenters, a young man from inner London, explained that during his placement he had wandered over to the walls and looked at the displays created by the class. On a poster that collected the generalized end products of slavery, he noticed a subheading titled, something similar to, “how did slavery benefit black people?” Naturally as he recounted this story the audience were all quite shocked and, caught up in the moment, someone declared “if this is what is happening in London schools, what is the teaching around the rest of the country like?

Darren Chetty, a former teacher notes, in the book, the Good Immigrant, how a pupil (a child of colour) once stood up in his class and told him that all stories had to be about White people (1).

Chetty compares this experience with that of Verna Wilkins, whose son came home from school one day with a self-portrait of himself with his face painted in pink. When asked, why pink? Her son replied: ‘Because it has to be that colour.'(2)

The point being made, is that if it is not made a requirement to teach it and to do so in an appropriate and sensitive way, then Black history will only be taught from a White perspective, which ultimately devalues and marginalizes people of colour.

Appropriateness and sensitivity does not include telling your pupils to black-up and wear soiled clothing, or planning a lesson involving a mock slave auction, as was recently the case.

I mean, imagine the uproar of having pupils re-enacting what happened in the Auschwitz concentration camp?

Is that a step too far?

If you think so, you are promoting exceptionalism and victimhood and devaluing the totality of the lived experiences of people of colour.

There is also a strong argument that it will enable the real possibility to reinforce and promote notions of White nationalism and supremacy. The fact that Gove, then Education Secretary, sought to remove Seacole from the curriculum is clear supporting evidence of this.

By not requiring the mandatory inclusion of Black history to be taught in our schools, without which there would be no British history or society, the Government is both failing and damaging Black and other children of colour, by whitewashing Britain’s past and denying people of colour there’s.

In no way does this approach pander to political correctness and neither does it impact on teachers’ freedom to teach.

For a more informed and expert opinion on the importance of authentic representation and teaching of Black history, watch and listen to the author, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie HERE.

 

Author: Jason Schumann

 

  1. Niklesh Shukla, Ed., The Good Immigrant, Unbound, 2016, p. 100 – 1.
  2. Verna Wilkins, ‘The Right to Be Seen’, Patrick Hardy Lecture, October 29th, 2008.

 

 

British Sikhs Rally With Alt Right to Malign and Vilify Muslims

29 Jul

[Published 29 July, 2017]

Screen Shot 2017-07-29 at 16.50.25.png

[Image via Twitter from a now deleted Facebook post of interview given by Bhai Mohan Singh on LBC with Katie Hopkins]

For somewhat disgruntled and clearly resentful reasons, a number of British Sikh organisations appeared to have aligned themselves with members of the alt shite and libertarian movement in order to attack Muslims.

One of these organisations is the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS), which lists Prabjot Singh as its website registrant. Bhai Mohan Singh (above) is also involved in the work and activities of SAS.

SAS states on its website, that:

“In Britain today Sikh youth are still actively targeted on the basis of their religion and history. This historically linked hate-crime causes much emotional distress to the families involved with the majority of these cases ending up in abuse.”

Perhaps herein lies part of the root cause of the Sikh community’s alignment with Far Right commentators and hate preachers in an ongoing bitter attack on British Muslims.

It seems that SAS are rightfully unhappy with the fact that British police wrongly classify racist attacks on Sikhs as antiMuslim hate crimes and/ or classify them under general “Race and Religious” hate crimes.

It is perfectly right that SAS and other Sikh organisations should have such grievances and challenge the police to properly record hate crimes according to the classification of different ethnic and religious groups.

As early as March 2016, another Sikh organisation, which lists Lord (Indarjit) Singh of Wimbledon CBE as its director and published a letter on its website regarding the false reporting and recording of hate crimes against Sikhs.

SAS, however, has gone one step too far and sought to align itself and garnered support from the likes of Katie Hopkins, Anne-Marie Waters, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, and Dr Ryan Waters of the UK Independence Party.

Waters, Hopkins, and Lennon, have all repeatedly called for the genocide and expulsion of all Muslims from Europe, claiming that Europe is being overrun and facing imminent Islamification and that the White race is being wiped out.

Bhai Mohan Singh, also of SAS, recently gave an interview for LBC with the former radio presenter, Hopkins, before she was forced to resign due to her continued and unapologetic racist and antiMuslim outbursts after a public campaign.

Hopkins, described as a PR machine for extremists, has recently been photographed having a selfie taken with a holocaust denier and travelled to Sicily to support the anti-Immigrant campaign, Defend Europe.

Lennon, aka Tommy Robinson, is more than happy to drag up and reignite ancient and colonial division between Sikhs and Muslims, which SAS seems more than happy go along with and draw out to no constructive or positive benefit or outcome.

Returning to the Sikh communities grievances with police monitoring of hate crimes and having corresponded with Jasvir Singh of the Sikh Federation, UK, the available data for hate crimes against Sikhs would suggest that some 3,500 hate crimes were misreported and recorded for 2015/ 6.

But do such valid grievances of Muslim grooming gangs and the marginalisation of Sikh concerns regarding the police ever warrant the Sikh communities White supremacist associations?

Many members of the Sikh community say no!

The comments have been anonymised in a now apparently deleted Facebook post, but here are some of the sentiments voiced by Sikhs in relation to SAS’s antiMuslim stance and links to the Far Right:

“Katie Hopkins a known and openly racist broadcaster?”

“Fucking pricks. You don’t represent my community.”

“Why are you aligning us with Katie Hopkins? She is hijacking this for her own cause”

Hardeep Singh, of the Sikh Messenger, has tweeted and posted numerous comments and articles against Muslims, including mocking the right of Muslim women to choose and have the right to wear head and face coverings in public.

In response to Singh’s mocking of the right to wear face and head coverings, the Sikh Federation appeared to condemn his comments and in fact draw parallels with similar concerns affecting Sikhs in Europe.

Author: Jason Schumann

Colour Blind: Flags, Racism, PoC, and LGBTI Pride

28 Jun

[Published 28 June, 2017]

download
[Source: ZARI TARAZONA / BILLY PENN]

For those not aware, ‘PoC’ is an abbreviation of the phrase People of Colour.

It’s a term that is commonly used as an all-encompassing catchall phrase – mainly in the United States – to describe people of all cultures and ethnicities, who are non-White.

Whilst it’s still a label indicative of difference – and some may find it too politically correct or even contentious – its usage makes for a good start in the process of moving away from – and the divisions and inequalities of – and connotations associated with racial profiling.

Moreover, its use has been adopted as an attempt to partly cast off notions of race and racism – and, in some way – seeks to unite people [of colour] in a common cause against systemic and social injustices.

In 2017, as part of the official ceremony and opening celebrations for the Philadelphia annual Pride event, the organising committee unveiled a redesigned Pride flag, to include two new (black and brown) stripes, thus seeking to give greater recognition to People of Colour (PoC).

The addition of these two stripes was intended to make QPoC somehow feel more included – and to acknowledge the existence racism from within the community – as a result of the publication of a report of racial profiling in LGBTI bars and clubs in Philadelphia’s Gaybourhood.

Despite this key point, some within our LGBTI communities, were dismissive about the addition of the stripes… on ‘aesthetic grounds’ – yes, you read that right – as if the pretty colours are apparently more important than rights and inclusion! Then we have those expressing complete outrage and indignation at the ‘desecration of such an iconic symbol’, because it the flag already represents PoC. Others have blamed PoC and accused them of being divisive. Yes, this is mainly White people saying all these things.

And people say there is no racism with in the community? I mean, we only need to consider how many non-PoC still perpetuate racial stereotypes of Black men as ‘lions and beasts’, South East Asian men and and women in their smaller physiques, willingness to please, and perceived submissive manner, and Black women as ‘hard work’ or ‘difficult to handle.’

These statements are all stereotypes made and acted out by both Heterosexuals and members of the LGBTI communities, who them use to define PoC.

My partner, of 11 years – who is a White male – told me of an encounter whilst he was on the metro system, with a colleague when he lived in KL some years ago. On hearing two young women speak in Malay, his colleague heard them commenting on ‘how White men are supposed to have big cocks.’ As he was getting off the metro, my partner’s (White, male) colleague, who speaks or spoke fluent Malay, said: “Yes, it’s true! Wanna try?”

The fact is, many White men do travel to live, work, and holiday in South East Asia, purely to have sex with South East Asian men and women. For example, ‘Rice queens’ – as some LGBTI-ers are called, within the community – are mainly White men who prefer South East Asian men.

I know that many of my South East Asian friends, are now increasingly fed up with this narrative and insist on being dominant with White men. Similarly, many African-American and Black-British men, have refused to have any sexual and/ or social relations with White males, because of perceived racism. To give further weight to this view, many White males will put ‘no Black or Asians’ on their profiles on dating websites and apps.

Clearly, without wish to sexualise this any further, many PoC are still viewed as – exotic objects and ‘Other’; to be conquered, dominated, and to be subservient – which maintains and continues to prop up the tired, repetitious position that PoC are lower beings and should know their place.

At this years’ Pride event in Ohio, a group of PoC LGBTI-ers conducted a small protest by stopping the parade. They were asking onlookers to give several minutes silence, in remembrance of the murders of more than 14 Trans PoC in the United States in the first part 2017. It follows similar campaigns on social media, like ‘Black Lives Matters’ and ‘Say Her Name.’

However, before being moved on by police, with some of the protesters actually being arrested, the onlookers apparently booed and jeered at the protesters, claiming that the protesters were obstructing the parade and disrespecting their fellow LGBTI-ers and the celebrations.

The point is, that many PoC within the community still experience exclusion, injustice, and forms of racism both from within the community itself and externally in their lives outside the community – and are still disadvantaged because of how society views us, simply because of the colour of their skin. PoC still rightly believe that they continue to be marginalised; that their voices are not heard or being listened to, and that nothing has moved on for them since the Stonewall riots. This is particularly acute in the United States and in countries like France.

As I noted earlier, whilst some may argue that this change is unnecessary or even diminutive – what this step actually does – is give PoC within the community, greater visibility and enables non-PoC to reflect on their own personal views of PoC and racism from within. Clearly, it’s another step towards greater inclusivity for PoC who have been made to feel excluded and subjected to different forms of prejudice and discrimination by White LGBTI-ers.

The view that the flag has always colour blind and inclusive of all cultures and ethnicities, does not wash with anyone, except non-PoC. One might describe this ‘colour blind’ perspective of the flag, as a form of ‘exceptionalism’ and ‘cognitive dissonance.’ So if the addition of these two new stripes encourages and creates more debate, then this has done its job and is a positive and necessary step in realising what needs to change within the LGBTI community to address some of the above issues.

Card.jpg

As I explained to an old friend and colleague who runs a national organisation for PoC in the arts in the UK:

“Look at these additions [of the two [black and brown] stripes to the flag] as a mirror into which the largely White, privileged hegemony of [the LGBTI] community can [take a long, hard] look at itself, introspectively, and to reflect, on its own role, in perpetuating racial exclusion, and cultural stereotypes.”

We might also then take the time to look further at our views of people who are transgender and the participation and acceptance of members of the Jewish diaspora within our community without the politics of ‘us’ and ‘them.’

If you are a White person reading this blog article, may I suggest that you click on some the linked articles, reflect, and start a conversation with others. Hey, if you don’t socialise with PoC, perhaps even make the effort to.

Author: Jason Schumann

Two Tier Justice: White Terrorist Versus Muslim Terrorist and Institutional Racism

21 Feb

unequal-justice-black-sq-1170x1170

In mid-2016, a 17-year-old male from the City of Bradford in the North of England was arrested on terrorism charges after being reported by a suspicious neighbour.

What ever we say about curtain-twitchers in our local communities, sometimes they can be lifesavers, hey?

The young male’s identity has been protected because he is considered a minor under British Law; and so, he is protected under various legal instruments including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Yes, you may laugh at this; but this is one of the tenets that are supposed to make the British judicial system unique and to be envied as a beacon, is it not?

Many would disagree with this, and suggest that such protections; particularly in this instance, are ‘nannyish’ in the extreme, arguing that the seriousness of the matter (had an act of terrorism been carried out) would warrant removal of anonymity. 

Hold that thought for a moment! 

The police are quoted in the mainstream media; and subsequently by his prosecution, that he became ‘radicalised’ by social media and events happening in the UK and events portrayed in World news.

The 17-year-old had posted images of homemade incendiary devices and made comments on social media, praising the murder of the Labour MP, Jo Cox, who was shot dead in the street of her constituency by a member of the public with Far Right connections.

When West Yorkshire police raided the young male’s family home, they found various extremist paraphernalia and incriminating content on his personal computer, including messages and communications posted on chat forums, that he had shared with others with similar views to his own.

He was apparently planning an attack on a local mosque.

Incidentally, the young male in question, also had links to the same extremist group, National Action, as did Jo Cox’s murderer. Rightly so, National Action has since been proscribed as a terrorist organisation.

In January 2017, the male was found guilty of making ‘viable’ explosive devices, but acquitted of intent to carry out an act of terror. His defence team successfully argued that he was only ‘experimenting’, and had no intention of carrying out any kind of attack.

He was sentenced by Mr Justice Goss, rather leniently, to just a supervision and rehabilitation order.

But what if he had been a 17-year-old Muslim, ‘messing’ around with explosives and posting extremist content on social media, not intending to act out his desires to commit a terrorist act?

Let’s look, shall we?

In March 2015, a 15-year-old male from Lancashire was convicted on terrorism charges, after pleading guilty to inciting a person to commit an act of terrorism.

In May 2015, a teenager from Newham, London, was convicted of grooming a “vulnerable” young man, to kill UK soldiers, and sentenced to 8-years in a young offenders institution and placed on a 15-year prevention and supervision order.

In October 2016, in Paris, France, a teenager was charged with criminal association with a terrorist group. Again, in Paris, in 2017, a 16-year-old female was arrested on suspicion of planning a future attack.

Only within the last couple of days, five teenagers, between the ages of 17 – 19, have been arrested in London, on suspicion of planning a terrorist attack.

In 2014/ 5, two teenage males in the North East of England were arrested by Northumbria police, on suspicion of planning a terrorist attack. Again, the defence team argued that the two males involved were not serious and had no intention of carrying out an act of terror. They were also given anonymity and let off the supervision orders.

In the case of the 17-year-old from Bradford and the two teenagers from the North East of England, all three were young White males.

In all other cases referred to, the teenagers involved are Muslim and have all been sentenced to detention, or are waiting to be given detention orders.

In the case of the 15-year-old, from Bolton, in Lancashire, convicted of terrorism charges, for inciting a person to commit an act of terrorism in Australia, his rights as a minor and to anonymity were removed by the British courts.

Anonymity if you are a White teenage terrorist suspect but not if you a Muslim teenage terrorist suspect, you query? 

Does this mean that the British media and judicial system only say ‘terrorism’, when the person involved is Muslim? Can we say that the ‘system’ looks on White teenage terror suspects and treats them more favourably and with more leniencies?

In short, the answer is yes!

In comparing each of these circumstances, all those involved were/ considered minors under the British legal system; only those who are Muslim have received a custodial sentence. Only those who are White have been afforded the right to anonymity. 

Perhaps the British Judicial System is not an enviable beacon after-all?

Indeed, it’s the same outcome when we look at arrests and sentencing rates, of other minority groups. Only in the last week, the Guardian and Voice Newspaper journalist, Leah Sinclair, revealed that Black and other minority groups in the UK are 40% more likely to be tasered by the Metropolitan police.

As we know, it’s even worse in countries like France; and particularly, in draconian countries like the United States.

Whilst the term ‘racism’ is used as a blanket or catchall description; for all forms of prejudice and discrimination, it seems that wherever we are, our criminal and public institutions remain inherently and systemically racist and biased.

Until we remove this double standard of cultural bias and privilege and difference of ‘Other’; true equality under the law (and in society as whole) is, but an aspiration and an everyday reality of inequality to us non-White folk.

Don’t be surprised if we refuse to sit for it much longer!

 

 

Author: Jason Schumann

 

 

 

 

The Future of UK Labour: Why Jeremy Corbyn Must Go

14 Feb

labourFar from being a hypocrite, I have always stated that Corbyn is an interim party leader.

Despite protestations from anti Corbynista or Corbynite naysayers, I have never believed that he has either the gravitas or image to be a world leader.

He appeals to my values, but I consider him to be simply too bland and aloof and never quite on the ball or in the loop. If not also too harsh, Corbyn reminds me of the person who arrives at the party when it’s just finished and everyone is leaving.

I am certain, however, that he is thoroughly principled and humanitarian, in his values and politics, and that is what attracts me to him. But in the politics of today, being principled will never be enough to win hearts and minds, without presence and some charisma.

It is with sadness that his convictions and principles just aren’t enough to sate today’s often ill-informed, MSM-influenced, and style-over-substance electorate. I also do not believe he is capable of winning over new voters. He is viewed as too left-wing, which is why he is bête noire to many on the right.

Rather like an obese father, too lazy to fetch his own slippers, Corbyn must go; first, because he did very little or nothing to support the remain campaign in the Brexit vote. In fact, he was hardly anywhere to be seen.

It’s true that politics are also fickle; but also, that Corbyn genuinely seems to shy away from the public eye, and he most certainly does not like journalists, TV cameras and MSM.

But can we blame him when more than 70% of the coverage they print and report about him is all negative?

No, of course not!

In Corbyn’s favour on Brexit, there are some suggestions his own party supporters conspired against him to ensure he couldn’t campaign. If so, we can also blame the lack of positive media coverage by Murdoch’s imposed blackout on him and the factory of negative briefings churned out against him by the Number 10 press office, as they did with his predecessor, Ed Miliband.

Just as they did with Ed in 2015, Labour supporters turned their back on Corbyn and the remain campaign, largely due to orchestrated fears, played out by leave campaigners around ‘foreigners invading our country and taking our jobs’ and ‘an unelected EU taking our money, and making our laws.’

Corbyn failed to do a single thing to enlighten, inform, or change the minds of those even from within his own party wanting to leave the European Union.

Neither was he, or those close to him, it appears, aware of just how big the swell to vote leave would turn out to be.

Rightly, Corbyn recognised the benefits of EU membership (to protect trade, investment, the environment, farming, our freedoms and rights), but he failed to convey this to supporters, and seemed completely unconcerned about the potential outcomes of not doing so.

Importantly, it goes to show just how out of touch he is; with the values, and expectations, of young people, traditional Labour voters, & his own grass roots supporters. It was as if he was either purposely asleep at the wheel, or derelict in his duty. That, or his chauffeur drove him in the wrong direction.

It is also clear to me that his deliberate, almost conceited unwillingness to engage in public debate, has helped in his undoing. He also now appears to be proving himself to be an autocratic leader, who is dismissive of the valid criticisms of his failure to lead, rightly laid at his feet.

At the start of his leadership of the party, he had already removed several of his detractors from their shadow leadership roles, informing the press that he isn’t going anywhere. This is arrogant and dictatorial of him. Perhaps also a red rag to bull. You don’t remove someone just because you don’t get on with him or her, or they don’t like you, especially if they are good and effective at what they do.

Corbyn should have been more diplomatic, statesman-like, and proactively sought to galvanise and inspire his party and supporters. In sum, well below the expectations of an effective opposition leader and he has shown neither foresight nor strategy. All of these have served to harm Labour’s future and counter the destructive efforts to diminish rights and privatise everything, as is the current course of the incumbent party.

As Brexit unfolds and becomes more clear, right-wing supporters in the Tory party will slowly repeal the laws that were agreed by all EU member states and designed and enacted, primarily to protect citizens from exploitation and and greater inequality. Without a doubt, things will become worse for the majority, but minorities in particular. We can see the beginnings of this already being evident in the resurgence of the Far Right and increases racism.

Corbyn’s inaction has effectively given the likes of Gove, Hunt, May et al, carte blanche, to repeal the HRA, DPA, FoIA, worker’s rights, privatise the National Health Service & more.

Perhaps more worrying, is that Theresa May is worse. Well, of course she is, especially as it is her clear intention to carry on where Margaret Thatcher left off. But what she lacks in ability and confidence as a sheepish head of state, is masked by her image and taste for designer clothing. More importantly, her longer term aims to diminish what few rights we have remaining. 

As little thanks, we can take small comfort in the fact that the UK Independence Party that began much of this is now disintegrating from within. 

 

 

Author: Jason Schumann

 

 

 

Doh! UK Zionist Lobby Exposes The Zionist Lobby

24 Jan

 

Earlier today, on the 24 January 2017, the Times of Israel published an article penned by Justin Cohen, one of its News Editors.

The article concerns the recent 4-part undercover documentary conducted by Al-Jazeera; to expose – what can only be described, as the seriously seditious activities of Shai Masot at the behest of the Israeli government – to undermine British politics and democracy – including attempts at removing political opponents, like Sir Alan Duncan and Jeremy Corbyn – who are deemed to be obstacles and therefore incompatible with Israel’s aspirations and long-term goals.

Despite a public outcry and requests made by members of opposition parties – thus far, the PM, Theresa May, and the rest of her government – have categorically refused all calls for a public inquiry into the extent and scale of the role of Israeli government, its officials, actors, and diplomats, attempting to subvert and influence British democracy, favourably to Israel’s goals.

It is self-evident in Cohen’s article, that neither members of the UK Jewry, nor the Israeli government itself, are particularly happy about Al-Jazeera’s far-reaching expose of the tactics that the Israeli government is willing to employ and the lengths it is willing to go in order to push its expansionist agenda.

When Al-Jazeera’s expose was first aired – many (if not all) members of the Jewish diaspora, were unequivocally dismissive, and frankly insouciant – about the gravity of such nefarious interference of a foreign state (Israel) in another state’s (UK) sovereign powers – to independently and democratically, determine what its approach to and its foreign policy should entail. I dare say some were even apoplectic.

After Shai Masot was caught out in his candid admission of state-sanctioned and funded covert operations, to undermine British foreign and domestic policy, a prominent member of the UK Jewry, Jonathan Hoffman – who is a former Bank of England official – recently saw fit to use his own influence, to complain to members of the UK Parliament and House of Commons – seeking that Al-Jazeera be reprimanded for exposing something that is in all our interests to know and be aware of.

And guess what happened, folks?

Yes, you guessed it right!

The British government, like a compliant and pathetic lap dog rolling over on its back for its master, has happily kow-towed and will consider acting on Hoffman’s demands for it to reprimand Al-Jazeera.

(Now just for clarity, Theresa May, please remind us who your ‘Mamma’ is?)

 

Recently, Mr Hoffman, has let it be known, that anyone who speaks out against what many consider to be a rogue and terrorist state, its plans for expansion, or its human rights abuses, should automatically be considered an enemy of the Jewish diaspora and Israel itself.

Hoffman has made clear (in a recent Facebook post) that all dissenters should be discredited by “shining a light on the dissenter”, as opposed to “whispers to discredit them”.

(It appears that Mr Hoffman has since deleted or altered his Facebook account, attempting to disprove that he made these comments, but screenshots were obtained, prior to deletion).

You can also see Jonathan Hoffman in action here:

 

If, for some bizarre reason, you do not consider Mr Hoffman’s efforts to be a clear example and therefore somewhat of a confirmation of the existence of the Israeli/ Zionist lobby in action and its efforts to influence foreign democracies in its favour, one might wish to have a rethink about that.

Clearly, Mr Hoffman’s personal interventions, as a respected member of the Jewish establishment in the UK, to seek punitive measures against Al-Jazeera – for merely exposing the truth regarding Israel’s sedition – should be considered nothing short of an attempt at coercion or undue influence. In the very least, ‘crying foul’ or claiming ‘but that’s not fair’, when you have been caught out doing the deed.

In the last few days the Campaign Against AntiSemitism (CAA), a so-called UK-based charity, that is known to use legal means to silence Israel’s critics, has also decided to flex its muscles, by lodging a formal complaint against Al-Jazeera with the Broadcasting Regulator, OFCOM.

Amongst many other accusations, CAA’s complaint claims that Al-Jazeera’s expose is “mendacious”, “inaccurate”, amounting to “unfair treatment” (of Masot?), and even “promot(ing) incitement”. CAA is also seeking to force or impose upon OFCOM for it to use and adopt a definition of antiSemitism that is widely disputed, because it infringes on universal rights of free speech, expression, assembly and protest.

In making these complaints, the wider agenda of Hoffman and CAA here, is, once and for all, to finally criminalise any and all criticism of Israel’s persistent human rights abuses and illegal occupation of Palestinians and further expansion into settlements. All of which, not doubt, could not happen without the direction, influence, and input of Israel itself.

Talk about shooting yourself and your cause in the foot, by trying to silence critics and, in actuality only serving to prove the ‘conspiracy’ of the ‘Lobby’ to be true by your own actions and interventions, Mr Hoffman and CAA?

Now, if you are reading this and you are in any way concerned – as any vaguely intelligent person should be – regarding any foreign state unduly influencing your own government’s sovereignty, you should sign this petition.

It seems clear and simple: Zionism is racism and a truly subversive element in world politics, that may well be to the detriment of all humankind!

 

Regards,

Jason Schumann

Xxxxxxx

 

Twitter Launches All-Out Assault On Freedom Of Speech

18 Nov

The focus of this blog article is set out in two parts:

a) The rightful shutting down and suspensions of social media user accounts that espouse, promote, and/ or incite hatred;

b) The wrongful shutting down and suspensions of social media user accounts that espouse valid criticism of human rights abuses by oppressive nation states.

Despite falling traffic and market value, in a drive to combat so-called online ‘hate speech’, Twitter has recently started banning controversial and/ or outspoken user accounts on its social media platform.

One of the first accounts to fall foul of Twitter’s perma-suspension/ lifetime ban, was that of Milo Yiannopoulos, known as ‘the infamous internet troll.’

This was back in July 2016, after he (Milo) attacked the actress, Leslie Jones, and encouraged his followers to do the same, which included her receiving death threats and racial abuse.

More recently, Twitter has begun dishing out bans to similar accounts of the alt-right.

Slate has since reported, that the most prominent of these, was Richard Spencer, director of a white nationalist think tank, the National Policy Institute. His associated accounts were also suspended.

USA Today also reports that other alt-right user accounts have been suspended.

Other accounts, such as Tarek Fatah, David Vance, Tommy Robinson, Pam Geller, Pat Condell, Paul Joseph Watson, and Robert Spencer, have so far escaped the culling.

Don’t get me wrong, Twitter is right to do this.

In this instance, this is not about silencing rights and freedoms to speak one’s mind, seek to offend, or be politically incorrect. The issue here, is one of stopping hate speech and incitement.

As evidence of the problem, we only need look at Trump’s rhetoric during the presidential campaign. There is clear evidence that his comments spawned several thousand racist hate attacks, abuse, and also murders, across the US. How do we know Trump is to blame? Well, in many of the incidents, his supporters, who have been the perpetrators in many instances, claimed to have his consent to carry out their racist acts.

Within the last few days, Tommy Robinson, the Pegida, UK leader and founder of the former English Defence League, incited his followers to claim that an anti-Islamophobia campaign, #IAM2016, launched by Mend Community, was in fact, a campaign supporting Daesh.

It is clear, that the alt-right are inciting hatred and abuse online, which, in turn, manifests in our every day real lives, causing genuine harm and suffering; mainly to the lives of minority communities.

(As an aside, the recent and now more prevalent use of the term ‘alt-right’ is a deliberately misapplied label, that is used to disguise, not only the views of those who consider themselves as libertarians espousing the right to offend and speak without censure, but also to make the views of extremists and racists on the far right more acceptable and tolerated.

Indeed, use of the term ‘alt-right’ is one of the single most cynical, perverse and iniquitous attempts by the likes of Milo, Robinson, Watson et al, to seek to diminish and white-wash the impact of hate speech and racism ladled on minorities and trivialise what they perceive is the right to abuse, cause offence and spread hatred).

Without doubt, Twitter should be applauded for its efforts to curb members of the Far Right from spreading hate, marginalising minorities, promoting homophobia, misogyny, racial abuse, and inequality.

After-all, there is no such thing as free speech without responsibility. Any sane and reasonable person accepts this. If not, you are more than likely to have one or more personality disorders.

More worryingly, however, is that Twitter is now actively silencing liberals and socialists, like myself, who speak out against members of the Far Right and crimes of oppressive regimes, such as Saudi, Turkiye and Israel.

Erdogan and Netanyahu have both actively sought to crush the right of any individual to criticise their national policies of brutality, human rights abuses, political interventions, and continued war crimes.

For its part, the UK-based Community Security Trust (CST), working on behalf of the Israeli government, announced a few days ago, that it is working with and to ‘influence’ and re-educate Twitter to ‘remove’ anti-Zionist accounts, critical of Israel’s apartheid, demonstrated by its forced displacement of people, and illegal annexation and occupation of Palestinian lands.

As the journalist Asa Winstanley recently reminded us with a post on his Twitter feed, CST – a so-called registered charity, under the guise of monitoring anti-Semitism – ‘leads’, and ‘has been secretly participating in counter measures to shut down campaigns by the BDS movement‘, for a number of years.

The relevance of the use of the word ‘secretly’ in the above statement, by Asa, is very pertinent here.

As is clearly evident by recent statements made by the UK Tory party Conservative Friends of Israel, CST proactively seeks to influence and subvert the UK Government in its effort to have anti-Zionism and the BDS movement labelled as anti-Semitic and thus proscribed. Thereby creating a new offence, punishable by criminal sanction, such as a fine or prison sentence.

‘Antony Lerman — a genuine expert on the problem of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish violence in Europe — has strongly criticized the CST for its conflation of anti-Semitism with any moves to question the behavior of the State of Israel.’

(Quote from Sarah Irving Lobby Watch, published on Electronic Intifada’s site on 20 January 2015)

CST’s efforts to criminalise BDS and anti-Zionism in the UK have thus far failed, despite mucho butthurt outrage and protestations from other, equally, subversive and vexatious UK-based Jewish organisations, including by the Israeli government itself and Mark Regev, its UK Ambassador.

Like its counter-parts, such as the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, one of the other nefarious tactics that CST employs – in seeking to silence constructive debate and criticism to challenge and bring Israel’s human rights abuses to the fore – is to recruit, train, and work with individual volunteers. These volunteers then harass and name and shame BDS supporters and anti-Zionists online and in their real lives.

Both CST and CAA also encourage their volunteers to make multiple false and malicious reports to Twitter – in order to have BDS and pro-Palestinian accounts suspended – as recently happened to my Twitter account.

(As shown in the above link, @BedlamJones (regarding my own account suspension) is a well-known Zionist troll on social media, working with CST and other Zionist propaganda organisations, to have mine and other anti-Zionist twitter accounts suspended. It was CST who personally had my own account suspended).

My own account was suspended because I tweeted a meme of a troll doll with the quote ‘I would pay to see a noose around my trolls’ neck’. Twitter claims that my tweet was a violent threat and targeted harassment.

Similarly to making multiple false reports to Twitter, CST and CAA actively encourage their volunteers to gather potential evidence and make reports to the police to bring criminal charges of anti-Semitism. Insofar as I am aware, these efforts have failed in all but one case.

There is also new evidence that CST and CAA ‘volunteers’ are actively attempting to hack BDS and anti-Zionist social media accounts, as shown here:

https://twitter.com/JOYOURPAPARAZZI/status/800278221405257729

Twitter, more bizarrely, is now is now being increasingly selective and biased in which accounts it will suspend. In an experiment conducted by one user, the user tweeted the same post, but from two different accounts, substituting the word ‘White’ for the word ‘Black’. Guess which account Twitter suspended.

I will leave you with this quote by Voltaire:

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

In conclusion, it appears that the battle for freedom of speech; to challenge racism, oppression, and the criminal activity of nations such as Israel, has now stalled, and that by collusion with Twitter, proponents of, have won the argument for the moment.

All this serves to do, is to drive people away and make them more determined.

From my perspective, efforts to counter criticism of Israel’s war crimes, by smears, discrediting, and malicious reports, also ferments and exacerbates animosity toward Israel and Jews in general.

Yes, extremism, racism and anti-Semitism are entirely wrong! That said, I believe Zionism is racism.

I, and others like me, will continue to fight it!

The same view applies to the likes of Saudi and Turkiye.

TAKE NOTE: One day, we will rise again, and there will be change, but let’s just hope the Far Right don’t!



By Jason Schumann

formerly @debatingculture

Donald Trump: A Walking Disaster

9 Nov

When I say disaster, I mean it!

Trump is a documented serial bankrupt, an alleged paedophile and rapist, an out and out racist and homophobe, and a proud misogynist who even lusted after his own daughter on live television.

I don’t need to back up any of these claims, as the evidence is already out there.

Trump won because those who voted him in — largely White, uneducated, gun-toting, religious rednecks and coffin-dodgers — did so, to stick one to the establishment and on a clearly racist anti-immigration ticket.

This was coupled with the outrage of the bible-bashers upset with LGBTI rights laws, Muslims, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the economic woes of every day batshit American lives. 

The right-wing media gleefully did its part to feed into and stoked much of this hatefilled and vitriolic clusterfuck.

Like the humorons who voted for Brexit in the UK with their ‘little island’ mentality who are supporters of racist UKIP et al, the Moricons — by which I mean wilfully moronic, fuck-nugget Americans, in case you don’t understand what the term implies — who voted for Trump see themselves as having more rights and privilege over anyone else they do not consider one of them.

Want examples?

The KKK, the American Nazi Party, and the White Nationalist American Freedom Party, all endorsed Trump, as did the many evangelical organizations.

Well, here is what Trump is going to do, or seek to do:

  • Repeal equality laws for Black and other minority people, including the LGBTI community.
  • Strengthen religious freedom to discriminate against each of the above groups.
  • Repeal Obama’s healthcare bill that currently protects 62 million people on low incomes.
  • Forcibly deport and intern Latinos and Muslims.
  • Introduce greater protections for law enforcement officers who shoot down unarmed members of the public to allow them to escape scrutiny and justice in many cases.
  • Remove the rights of Native Americans to protect their homelands and property, which will include sending in military to forcibly remove them, even in a body bag.
  • Increase pollution and global warming by removing current legislation and granting no strings licenses to big corporations to produce more coal and frack without any consideration to local residents or the environment.
  • Make abortion illegal, even for rape victims, in favour of demented fucktard Xtian zealots.

With Trump in the driving seat of one of the world’s leading and most powerful economies, these are just a few of the things that are likely to get the go ahead.

Don’t even get me started on the American economy. It’s already on its arse; by which I mean dirt broke. Yes, that’s right, America is bankrupt; both morally and financially! Not a pot to piss in! Tanking! Living on borrowed time!

Doubt me?

In case you were wondering, there are now more than 10 major American cities that have filed for bankruptcy since Wall Street and lacks financial control caused the 2000, 2007 & 2008 crashes that resonated across and still impact on the world to this day. Many other American cities are in prolonged deficit and the housing market is still on its arse.

America is the most indebted country in the world, to the tune of 19,643,000,000,000 dollars. That is more than all the other most indebted countries in the world combined. Its trade deficit is equally as bad, and there is nothing Trump can do.

What about checks and balances, you may ask? They won’t work. America’s political system of lobbying, bribes, and favours, is one of the most corrupt in the world. Besides, Trump’s supporters and the humorons who voted for him would lynch him if he doesn’t carry out his promises.

Only today, on the announcement of his election, the dollar dropped again. It will drop further. The example below is proof.

[Image via Twitter]

World markets have also slumped but are recovering, unlike America.

Yes, America, you can expect recession and a deep depression like no other! Ultimately, Americans will suffer more than they have ever before. The rest of the world will also feel it but will recover more quickly.

Trump’s only solution is quantitative easing, which will devalue the dollar further, thus increasing inflation, damaging the markets such as structured products, depressing interest rates which impacts on savings and pensions, and international trade.

(China has previously stopped exporting valuable minerals to the U.S. due to its quantitative easing program).

Already world leaders are sending warning shots to Trump.

As my neighbour’s 11 year old daughter said today: “Mummy, the world is doomed! What are we going to do? Can someone assassinate him?”

Despite my equally negative views of Hillary, I would have to agree with this girl’s conclusions.

America is well and truly fucked!

By Jason Schumann

%d bloggers like this: