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.

Patel herself for joyously deporting British citizens to Jamaica even though they've never lived there...

Why do we have to be so childish about this

The thread says is the cartoon racist, doesn’t matter about the intent to me but yes the cartoon could be considered racist

It wouldnt occur to me to say...well patel and johnson have done/said some racist things...go on a thread about them and you’ll see comments about their racism

Fucking fed up with mumsnet and its constant ‘well if you didn’t actually say A you must automatically think B’

I mean does this happen to anyone in real life?

Youre in the restaurant with a friend and you say you don’t eat meat and they go ‘OH BUT YOU THINK ITS OK THAT SOME CULTURES EAT DOG THEN...OMG’

And youre sat there thinking WHAT THE FUCK

Do i think the cartoon is racist...yes

Do i think patel is a horrible person who has done and said some dreadful things....yes

Do i think the same of johnson....yes

Am i against anti semitism (cos someone is sure to say that) .....yes

Do i think people are racist towards abbot...yes

Have i missed anything....yes

The defence that all politicians are subject to the same treatment only works if all politicians are white and male

No it doesn’t. You can’t have different standards for different groups. It makes no difference what sex or race they are, that’s the price of being a politician. As someone once said “If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen”.

No it doesn’t. You can’t have different standards for different groups. It makes no difference what sex or race they are, that’s the price of being a politician. As someone once said “If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen”

There’s a difference between saying that someone shouldn’t get satirical treatment because they are not white males, and saying that satirical treatment which plays on a someone’s skin colour or religion for its effect is of a different magnitude than standard satire. The first is applying the same standards to everyone. The other is deliberately othering. There were ample means available of satirising Patel that wouldn’t have drawn on historical tropes about the racial and cultural inferiority of Hindus.

There’s a difference between saying that someone shouldn’t get satirical treatment because they are not white males, and saying that satirical treatment which plays on a someone’s skin colour or religion for its effect is of a different magnitude than standard satire

Totally agree but I understood the poster I quoted to be saying the former. If I misinterpreted, I apologise.

The debate about whether the cartoon is racist or not is very valid, but my issue is the double standard that particularly the garden, but also the followers of the new left wing seem to have. Satire, disproportionate personal insults with racial undertones are rightly completely unacceptable to them. Unless the subject is to the right of them politically. Then it's excusable as the person is deemed beyond the pale for holding reasoably mainstream right wing views.

On a side note, I'll add a correction on my description of priti Patel as 'centre-right'. This was a small error, I should have described her as right of centre. There is no way however 'extreme right' is a suitable description.

There is no way however 'extreme right' is a suitable description

She defends capital punishment and suggested starving the N Irish population would be acceptable. It’s difficult to see how much further right she could be.

That cartoon is vile and like something out of the history books. Along with lots of PPs politics. But her being a nasty bully does not mean we get to bully her back. You can disagree with her politics without resorting to racism, and if you can't then you shouldn't be given a voice. I don't want to see crap like this against the left or the right. The guardian should be ashamed. Just as many publication should be posting things like this.

“ suggested starving the N Irish population would be acceptable.”

This has been mentioned many times on MN. I still cannot find anything showing she said this. It’s a complete hash of what she actually said.

She defends capital punishment

"September 2016 Tory minister Priti Patel reveals she no longer backs the death penalty."

www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/news/78950/tory-minister-priti-patel-reveals-she-no-longer-backs-death

Would this cartoon be acceptable if it denigrated a Muslim politician rather than a Hindu person.
Of course it wouldn't.
I cancelled my guardian subscription a while ago. These cartoon are unacceptable

Would this cartoon be acceptable if it denigrated a Muslim politician rather than a Hindu person.
If it showed them as a bull, the same as Patel and Johnson in this one, with the point being that they are bullish, yes it would be acceptable.

So she’s seen how unacceptable publically backing the death penalty is and has back pedalled. So, that’s OK then. I despair sometimes - quite a lot of the time actually.

So she’s seen how unacceptable publically backing the death penalty is and has back pedalled. So, that’s OK then
Yeah, I don't believe for a second she actually had a Damascene conversion about it.

"how unacceptable publicly backing the death penalty is"

She is allowed to change her mind - her previously quoted views on the death penalty are from 2011. In the article she claims to have raised human rights issues abroad, including the use of the death penalty. She's not very 'extreme right' if she so easily conforms to mainstream opinion.

Missing the point entirely @Clavinova. I doubt very much that she’s changed her mind, she’s just not admitting what she believes because it’s expedient.

The mainstream opinion has moved farther right than I ever imagined possible. Just because a large body of people agree with you it doesn’t mean you’re right.

it showed them as a bull - with the point being that they are bullish

Not how it is being viewed by the Hindu community - report in the Times of India -

timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/guardian-cartoon-of-cow-in-relation-to-priti-patel-sparks-outrage-amongst-diaspora-in-britain/articleshow/74557770.cms

It’s a complete hash of what she actually said.

It isn't, and she's had to try and row back on what she said by claiming it was taken out of context.

“This paper appears to show the government were well aware Ireland will face significant [food supply] issues in a no-deal scenario. Why hasn’t this point been pressed home during negotiations,” she told the Times in reference to the report.

[food supply]

Not her actual words then.

The papers referred specifically to perishable goods supply issues. Theresa May even had to to answer a question in Parliament to state that food shortages in Ireland would not be used to strengthen Britain's hand during the Brexit negotiations in the wake of Patel's comments.

You're clutching at straws to defend the indefensible.

The report also said;
"Britain leaving the EU without an agreement would see Ireland hit with a 7 per cent drop in GDP, compared with 5 per cent for the UK, according to papers seen by The Times." - sounds like a "significant issue" to me,

"Theresa May even had to to answer a question in Parliament to state that food shortages in Ireland would not be used to strengthen Britain's hand during the Brexit negotiations in the wake of Patel's comments."

Yes - because a Labour MP raised it as a scoring point;

"UK Labour MP for Oldham West and Royton has asked Theresa May if food shortages in Ireland would be part of the UK's Brexit negotiating stance."

Because those "significant issues" were clearly stated to include perishable food supplies and the amount of those perishable food supplies crossing the UK border.

Either Patel made those remarks knowing full well how they would play or she was utterly ignorant of Irish history. Neither of those is a good look.

’There’s a difference between saying that someone shouldn’t get satirical treatment because they are not white males, and saying that satirical treatment which plays on a someone’s skin colour or religion for its effect is of a different magnitude than standard satire. The first is applying the same standards to everyone. The other is deliberately othering. There were ample means available of satirising Patel that wouldn’t have drawn on historical tropes about the racial and cultural inferiority of Hindus.’

Exactly this. Depicting Boris Johnson as a bull, in the same cartoon, doesn’t carry the additional associations. No one who makes their living as a political cartoonist can claim to be unaware of the impact of images.

What Priti Patel said or didn’t say, how she behaves towards civil servants and her views on the death penalty don’t make the cartoon any more acceptable.

Because those "significant issues" were clearly stated to include perishable food supplies and the amount of those perishable food supplies crossing the UK border.

I haven't noticed Ireland panicking about food supplies - the report was nonsense then?

What Priti Patel said or didn’t say, how she behaves towards civil servants and her views on the death penalty don’t make the cartoon any more acceptable

Seriously? She can be a totally vile human being but nobody’s allowed to satirise her?