When will the prime minister publicly condemn the disgusting online abuse that Gina miller is receiving?

[KarlosKKrinkelbeim]

As well as the ignorant attacks on the judges who heard the brexit case?
Context: I am a Conservative party member considering resigning my membership in utter disgust at the government's conduct in relation to these matters.

Please do write and tell her why, Karlos. You are obviously very principled. Good for you.

Karlos - I agree with you entirely but please keep your membership. If the Conservative party loses it's more moderate members, things will only get worse.

Ah, you see I agree with Toynbee about the atmosphere - this week's headlines have dramatically underlined that. AND I agree that Jo's murder wasn't about Brexit itself.

That's because, significant though Brexit is as an economic event, I believe for some people it's really just the McGuffin. The plot device. The rallying point.

The US doesn't have Brexit, but they're having exactly the same type of politics emerging right now.

So I didn't read Toynbee as primarily writing about Brexit but bringing in Jo Cox. I read her as primarily writing about the much larger issue of this dangerous political trend, and pointing to stuff being hatched under cover of the leave campaign. (Though of course I'm not Toynbee, so can't speak to her true intention.)

I DON'T think you have to be racist to have voted Leave, or homophobic, or anti the rule of law. And I see the Trump-alikes, who seek disruption to give themselves a shot at power, as having found fertile ground in the Brexit campaign; rather than their behaviour being a true expression of everyone who voted Leave.

So the us-and-them I see here is between people who support parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, tolerance (the things nebulously touted as "British values"), and people trying to undermine those. Not Remain vs Leave.

Though the Wail are certainly trying quite hard to co-opt Leavers to their campaign of disruption.

I am not especially moderate (I suspect not by MN standards). But to me, the Conservative party should do what it says on the tin and not undermine our institutions and conventions for short term political advantage.

I think she has better things to do like running the country.

Gina Miller doesn't deserve online abuse as does no one. Maybe she can do something much more useful like campaigning for suitable laws to clean up the Internet.

I listened to an article about Gina Miller on R4 thie evening. It seems she tweeted that she felt sick at the referendum result... As such it appears her action was not intended to establish Parliamentary rule, but to subvert the referendum.

Gina Miller is an anti Brexit campaigner, she was pretty outspoken come vote time. Her husband is set to lose money with a Brexit, a large amount of money.

Plenty of motive, despite noone deserving threats online, what would anyone expect when a majority voted for an issue, and your actions are anti democratic, in a hugely public issue.

She doesn't help with the constant photo shoots, and philanthropy to anyone who will listen.

See, I always thought that if you perceived actions being taken which threatened your interests, and you have enforceable legal rights in that situation, you were entitled to take legal action to protect your rights and interests, regardless of what the majority thinks. I've practised law for about two decades now, and I'm pretty clear that that idea has been part of British life for centuries, and that recourse to law is essential to protect rights and freedoms including of minorities.
Has the referendum changed that too? Do we now live in a society where if the majority thinks something, there should be no recourse to law for those who think differently to enforce the rights they think they may have? If so where can I go to get away from it? Because it sounds s really shite place to live to me

Piza - why were Gina Miller's actions in bringing this case 'anti democratic'? Given that the UK is a parliamentary democracy, what is 'anti-democratic' in wanting parliament to be consulted and approve the terms of our exit from the EU?
Post-referendum many Brexit voters and remainers believed this should go to Parliament? In fact, cross-party MPs signed an Early Day Motion asking for the same within days of the referendum.
Clearly the High Court agreed that Theresa May had no mandate to push A50 through without parliamentary consultation, which seems to prove that GM (and others, don't forget) were right to bring this case.

Karlos

Where did I say she didn't deserve to do anything? And not all legal rights are morally right, are you arguing everything a person, or organisation does that is legal is just, and they shouldn't be publicly criticised?

This is a thread about online threats of a woman that has publicly opposed the will of the people for personal gain, who has a history for enjoying the public eye, and is viewed as marrying for money.

For the record, can we not leave her ethnicity out of this conversation? I 100% think anyone of any religion race or sex would receive the same hate, that hate would just be tailored to who they were.

Pizanfan I wish I could agree with your belief that 'anyone of any religion race or sex would receive the same hate' but the other headline claimant, Deir Dos Santos, has emerged pretty much unscathed. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-legal-challenge-deir-dos-santos-speech-high-court-david-greene-theresa-may-plans-voting-to-a7395096.html

For the record, can we not leave her ethnicity out of this conversation? I 100% think anyone of any religion race or sex would receive the same hate, that hate would just be tailored to who they were.

I don't think it's us who made an issue of her race/ethnicity.
here's a taste of some of the racist abuse she's been subjected to

I'm not convinced that Gina Miller's abuse is purely down to sex or ethnicity although I'm not naive enough to think it has no effect at all.

I suspect the main difference between her and Deir Dos Santos is that he has been fairly low profile. His statement, above, was issued through a solicitor and makes it clear that his motivation was principles whereas she has done personal interviews with posed photos making it very clear that her motivation was personal gain and a disdain for the votes cast by others. I read an interview with her in The Times a couple of weeks ago which left even me, as a moderate person, feeling very angry at her

Having said that I don't think any of that excuses vile abuse and cannot understand the people who do this and think it is ok

Pizanfan appears to believe it is morally wrong for minorities to seek to defend their legal rights against majority will.
Someone give her a time machine and point her in the direction of Germany. Together with all who think like her.

^ disgracefull comment!

I agree Pizanfan

I'm not sure that hurling insults at someone you disagree with whilst arguing that insults should be not be hurled at someone by people who disagree with her is really helpful.

Fwiw I have no issues with GM bringing the case. I just think we are all contributing to the tone of political discussion, whether by postively or negativly and if you don't want discourse to continue descending ever downwards, you need to avoid throwing personal insults yourself, rather than just criticize other people who are doing it.

If it is disgraceful to point out the parallels between statements made here and beliefs which prevailed in 1930s Germany, happy to be a disgrace. Infinitely preferable to wilful blindness, to my way of thinking.

Nothing wrong with pointing out a parallel, it's the ad hominem attack which seems unnecessary.