Priti Patel Cartoon

[Everanewbie]

Whatever you think of her politics, AIBU to feel that the Guardian, and left wing commentators display disgusting hypocracy in their treatment of politicians in the centre-right, especially when female or of colour, in thius case Home Secretary Priti Patel?

Diane Abbott has been targetted by the most foul abuse, which is rightly highlighted and condemned, however claims of abuse are fired back when her views, consistency, politics and competance are questioned. But if the person in question is more of a centre-right pursuasion, they seem to be fair game.

Patch “ did they not care?”

It was probably deliberate.

Too far compared to what?

To decent, civilised behaviour. Obviously.

I'm afraid I find the imagery in the cartoon obtuse - I'm not sure what it's meant to convey. But my first reaction was not to perceive it as racist given that both Boris J and Priti P are similarly portrayed.

I'm pretty sure Priti Patel doesn't give a fuck about the cartoon or the Guardian or posters' opinions on here. She's an excellent Home Secretary and none of the above will stop her continuing doing her job.

Since it seems open season on here to rip politicians to pieces perhaps we should take a closer look at the total incompetence of Diana Abbot? Oh wait, I forgot only Tory bashing is allowed on MN

@JellyfishandShells

You will forgive me but of course everyone has a different idea of what that is. You cannot say “too far” without having an idea where to draw the line.

Quite simply, what would you have found acceptable?

She's an excellent Home Secretary

Oh, and for balance, I have the misfortune of having Diana Abbot [sic] as my MP and can't bear her either.

I think the cartoon can be interpreted a racist even if that’s not what the cartoonist intended.

However, I don’t like the way some are engaging in whatabouterry. There’s simply no need to invoke Diane Abbot and Strormzy to try and strengthen your argument. It’s not as though either of these figures are never attacked. It makes your argument that this cartoon is racist appear disingenuous. It’s actually interesting that a racist cartoon drawn by a white man leads to attacks on two other minorities.

Racism is racism and should be called out whenever it’s seen. I don’t think it’s a right or left thing. I’m not even convinced the old left and right currently exists. I’m right wing on some things (economy) and left on others (e.g. gay marriage). I voted remain wishing there was a way to remain and end free movement as I feared we were importing large numbers of Neo-Nazis who don’t align to our values. I don’t even think The Guardian is a left wing paper even though it’s wedded to identity politics to an embarrassing scale (something which I believe actually harms minorities), it was very vocal in its attacks on Corbyn regarding anti-semitism.

If you’re an anti racist, you should not be using the protected characteristics of minorities as political footballs regardless of whether you agree with their politics.

Additionally, we minorities (I’m mixed raced with a white DH), need to be very careful in allowing ourselves to be used as political footballs even if our particular minority appear to be currently being praised over others by one side. It’s very dangerous for everyone in the long term.

I just wish Bell hadn’t done it. Patel actually makes my flesh crawl because I find her views abhorrent and dangerous. That would be the case whatever race and religion she was. I’m getting tired of any criticism of her being branded racist but I think this cartoon is an own goal.

Whatever you think of Priti Patel does not alter the fact that the cartoon is racist.
It is vile and should not be allowed. I am surprised at the Guardian stooping so low.

This is not about Patel.
It is about a cartoon that is clearly racist.

How the fuck is this racist? For god sake.

You will forgive me but of course everyone has a different idea of what that is. You cannot say “too far” without having an idea where to draw the line

It’s a phrase in common usage that does not require exact definition, and it is disingenuous to suggest it does. Insisting so is the equivalent of the Reddit: ‘ Citation, citation !’

I agree with GrumpyHoonMain and swishthecat. I thought it was iffy as soon as I saw it, notwithstanding being familiar with Steve Bell’s cartoons and his habit of portraying politicians as animals.
The Guardian really should do better than this.

@JellyfishandShells

Actually it’s very reasonable because you struggle to define it. So that pretty much means you get endless arguments like these, claiming it has passed some imperceptible boundary.

Such relativism cuts both ways. You either have a standard that applies to everyone in public life or you do not.

There are endless articles which are racist, sexist etc. At one point Gillray showed the whole of Britain shutting turds on continental Europe. Being totally offensive in cartoon form is legally protected and a strong English tradition. Tony Benn used to be portrayed as a Jacobin with a guillotine. He got on with his day.

Priti Patel can look after herself. I’d say if she has to resort to a demand of common decency to stop her being painted like this then she is out of luck.

Steve Bell will be absolutely delighted at upsetting people. He also upset Cameron, but Cameron was not so stupid as to require special pleadings. He too got on with his day.

I don't get the cartoon, and I don't get the allegations of racism either. I would not have connected the cartoon with Hinduism, but if that is the reference I don't have a problem with that, any more than I have a problem poking fun at other ideologies.

(And incidentally Patel is one of the most obnoxious and vile people in mainstream politics that I can remember for a very long time!)

I would not have connected the cartoon with Hinduism, but if that is the reference I don't have a problem with that, any more than I have a problem poking fun at other ideologies.

Would you have a problem with poking fun, say, at Jewish people in a way that played on stereotypes that have been used historically by Europeans to designate them as inferior? The cow / bull trope has been used historically (and, as one Hindu poster on here has said, has been used against her) in relation to Hindus to validate Europeans' racial and cultural superiority, i.e. that Hindus are cow-worshipping, ignorant heathens, lacking in sophistication and knowledge, and therefore can be justifiably kept in their place by a superior colonial regime.

I mean, if that's the way the Guardian want to go, fair enough. Freedom of speech, and all that. But they should quit hectoring the British public with their self-righteous moral authoritarianism, and give it a rest with the performative virtue that we are bombarded with daily on their website and their insufferable columnists' Twitter accounts. They are no different to any other bog standard racist rag.

Hi @GCAcademic

Would you have a problem with poking fun, say, at Jewish people in a way that played on stereotypes that have been used historically by Europeans to designate them as inferior?

I can't really think of an equivalent for Jews. I'm guessing that the obnoxious Jewish stereotypes you're thinking of are connected to a caricature of some offensive physical stereotypes. But I think mocking religious beliefs is a different and perfectly valid enterprise.

Tellmetruth4 I don't think anyone was talking about Dianne Abbot and Stormzy in the way you imply.

But I think mocking religious beliefs is a different and perfectly valid enterprise.

Even when that enterprise has been undertaken historically by people in / from this country to justify racial oppression, violence, and colonisation? It's OK to continue that trajectory?

But I think mocking religious beliefs is a different and perfectly valid enterprise

Wow. Never thought I’d ever see that.

Hi there @GCAcademic,
Even when that enterprise has been undertaken historically by people in / from this country to justify racial oppression, violence, and colonisation? It's OK to continue that trajectory?

In my opinion, yes. I'd say that religion is enormously damaging, and I would not give it immunity from piss-taking. That would itself be a retrograde step.

@Alsohuman
Wow. Never thought I’d ever see that.
Stick around here, it happens quite a lot

@Alsohuman

Didn’t you? It was permitted in the law until very recently.

There have always been those who claim religious offence. Some of us remember all the rubbish about “The Life of Brian” and that it insulted the Jews and Christians and should not be shown. I dare say today the same sort of people would make a similar criticisms of Bell.

Liberty and freedom sometimes are ugly in their expression.

No, I didn’t. I’m appalled.

Well I’m an oldie. But until the laws came in about racial and religious hatred (and this cartoon is nowhere near that), then this was totally unregulated.

Ironically this Government doesn’t seem very interested in the human rights protections that means such laws exist. Patel is one of those people who dislikes the Human Right s Act. Get rid of it and we will be back to having pretty free discussion on both race and religion.

Everyone is so damn sensitive

But until the laws came in about racial and religious hatred (and this cartoon is nowhere near that), then this was totally unregulated.

To be fair it was a bit asymmetrical as I recall. There was longstanding law against blasphemy which protected christianity. Other religions had no equivalent. Under the new legislation incitement to hatred based on any religion is an offence. Mocking as you say falls a long way short of this, and is lawful (although that's not to say it's socially acceptable).