Would you vote Tory if Kemi Badenoch was Tory the party leader and the election was tomorrow?

[lechiffre55]

Just curious to see what the answers here might be.
Would you vote Tory if Kemi Badenoch was the Tory party leader and the election was tomorrow?
Feel free to answer any way you like, and I don't care about derailing. The question is quite tongue in cheek, don't take it too seriously, and have fun with it if you want, rant if you want. I'm trying to get a picture of the MN mood.

It is not even about using female spaces. They want women in those spaces as they use them.

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
― Jean-Paul Sartre

You expect us to believe that you are incapable of googling and expect me to fill a thread on Kemi Badenoch with numerous examples of Corbyn's well-known and well-documented antisemitism? As though I were your unpaid research lackey?

Curious as to whether it's just Jews that you think can't define or recognise hatred directed against them, given you're posting on FWR? Do you also think that women can't define misogyny, and that men are the best judge of it, despite never experiencing it personally?

Or do you not? Is it just Jews you think are uniquely deceitful and/or stupid in making up claims of hate they receive?? And that random non-Jews, to whom it is not directed, are the best judge of whether it takes place or not??

I think your posts are very revealing - but not so much about Jeremy Corbyn - but about your own biases, which you seem bizarrely unaware of.

As to what crime (no inverted commas needed) I was a victim of, I was verbally abused in public (shouted and screamed at) while waiting for a train by a Corbyn fan, who spotted I was Jewish because I was reading a book about the Holocaust. Lovely people, Corbyn fans. Which is why David Duke is such a big Corbyn fan, of course. He can't get enough of Corbyn's support for Holocaust denialists.

And yes, I did report it. It was very frightening.

Not that you'd give a shit, @MadderthanMorris

And your post is full of blatant lies about Jewish organisations.

Suggesting that well-respected, long-standing Jewish organisations are 'controlled' by Israel just makes you sound unhinged.

@xxyzz
sorry to hear you were the victim of anti-semitism
Understand the people who engage in that are not right in the head and the vast majority of the population don't have the slightest issue with Jewish people. Don't let the odd moron ruin your day.

I do always find the parallels between antisemites and misogynists fascinating - the same way both claim to be an experts in hatred they can never experience by virtue of being non-Jews/men, their unspoken assumption that Jews/women are lying for nefarious reasons, their vocal assumption that antisemites/misogynists are the real victims, their demands for Jews/women to 'prove' they're not making it all up (an entirely frivolous demand, as of course, no amount of proof, no matter how well documented or in what quantities, would ever pass muster with them, as their mind is made up before they ask for 'proof', and they ask only in order to disconcert, demoralise and waste the time of the Jewish person/woman they ask).

Sartre said it well on Jews - but he could have been writing about TRAs too.

It's no surprise how many of those attacking JK Rowling (a great friend to British Jews and fierce opponent of Corbyn for this reason) are also antisemites.

Thank you. I have little tolerance for that kind of thing these days. Those kind of words come with consequences. I won't let it go.

@xxyzz I remember a long time ago when arguing with my friends on Facebook why Labour had become anti-semitic. This was maybe a few years before Corbyn but my recollection of exactly when is very hazy. I was asking because Labour used to be so anti-racist but I had noticed for a few months a slow but steady low volume series of anti-semitic comments on the web from the left. My friends, even the left leaning ones aren't anti-semitic so I believed them when they said they hadn't noticed it. When Labour went full anti-semite my lefty friends never went down that path so I'm quite lucky on that front, but I saw it happening before Corbyn got in.
My best guess is if you believe in a forbidden ideology that people start to clump together, and once a few people express publicly what's forbidden, it becomes easier to stop hiding it and come out and join in.
I have someone on the outer periphery of my friends circle who went full on anti-semite. Before that I thought they were one of the nicest friendliest people I had ever met. Minus the anti-semitism I still feel that towards them. I find it really difficult to understand how someone I think is such a nice person went full on anti-semite. Not just a little bit, but in at the deep end. Very strange and difficult for me to make logical sense of. Creative lefty involved heavily in the arts with famous family members in the arts.

They (men) are getting this access to female spaces under the very Govt that is proposing to stop this from happening.

Thats like me believing my former partner will no longer hit me because he promises he will not.

I support what you are demanding but i just do not believe that Kemi, Suella or Rishi will lift a finger to stop it, they ve been in power for so long and have done the square root of SFA.

I do think Kemi is motivated and out of all the politicians is actually pursuing change.

No one else is close. Lib Dem SNP Labour all actively against women, although the latter does a nice line in shhh we don’t talk about that.

Right now KB is the only one I can think of going for it. I’d be interested to hear if anyone o/s is doing the same at all.

An international organization is not more safe from error than a national organization. It isn't going to have more insight. And the fact that any nation signs up to an organization like that means they already recognize the concept of human rights.

I am really struggling to understand why you think that would be the case. If it were, we could ensure every country protected human rights by just having some kind of continental human rights court that would somehow have access to the Truth and impose the right decisions of nations. (Of course no nation would agree to be bound by such an organization unless they already recognized the concept of human rights.)

Of all the arguments for such an organization, and I think there are some strong ones, this is the one that seems to me to make the least sense.

No.

No, I wouldn't.
Hate what they seem to be doing.
They just seem to be out for every minority going.
First it's speeches about "the boats", appealing to the racists.
Now it's speeches about trans people appealing to the transphobes.
(Not saying everyone is transphobe, blah blah blah, just like I'm not saying everyone is automatically racist for the boat speech)
They're dangerous.
No chance am I supporting them.

I’m a teacher. Hell no.

No, not if she stood on the corner of the street handing out £50 notes. Never.

Yes

That's terrible.

I didn't put inverted commas around crime, I put them around lies. You suggested it was Jeremy Corbyn's lies that caused this to happen to you. Are you suggesting he lied about the holocaust or something?

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-apologises-for-hosting-2010-holocaust-event-1427379

Mr Corbyn issued the apology after it emerged he had hosted a Holocaust Memorial Day event in 2010 at which speakers are said to have likened the actions of Israel in Gaza to Hitler’s regime.

The Labour leader acknowledged that he had appeared alongside people “whose views I completely reject” and apologised for the “concerns and anxiety” that caused.

He said: “The main speaker at this Holocaust Memorial Day meeting, part of a tour entitled ‘never again - for anyone’, was a Jewish Auschwitz survivor. Views were expressed at the meeting which I do not accept or condone.

...

CAA chairman Gideon Falter was scathing about Mr Corbyn’s apology.

He said: “Jeremy Corbyn has spent his political career sharing stages with anti-Semites and honouring them.

“This apology rings utterly hollow. Mr Corbyn did not merely attend the event, he chaired it, and in response to the criticism of the Jewish community in 2010 he did not apologise.

“Only now, eight years late and under enormous pressure, has Mr Corbyn issued his mealy-mouthed apology. We do not believe him.”

Corbyn is know to have supported several Holocaust deniers. He campaigned to get Holocaust Memorial Day changed to Genocide Memorial Day in 2010. He hosted an event at the House of Commons, also in 2010, entitled 'The Misuse of the Holocaust for Political Purposes' (where a speaker compared Israel to Nazi Germany). Corbyn was a member for years of a secret Facebook group, Palestine Live, which included links to Holocaust denial myths, allegations of Israel’s involvement in the 9/11 and 7/7 terror attacks and the training of Islamic State fighters, and conspiracy theories involving the Rothschild family. He attended meetings of a group called Deir Yassin Remembered, founded by Holocaust denier Paul Eisen, who he also funded. He met met Raed Salah, a cleric convicted of racist incitement involving the medieval blood libel that Jewish people use the blood of children to make bread.

There you go - that took me 2 mins to find with a quick google search.

But apparently you can find no evidence of Corbyn ever having been antisemitic.

And that's not mentioning the more famous examples, such as the notorious mural, the wreath or the 'British irony'. I could go on and on. But as I said, the only real reason you see none of these is because you are wilfully blind.

These are the people on Corbyn's side: UK left activists attended events with far right antisemites | Antisemitism | The Guardian

Is the "never again for anyone" a coded attack on Israel here?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/corbyn-called-for-uks-holocaust-memorial-day-to-be-renamed/amp/

Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the British Labour Party, which is embroiled in a series of anti-Semitism scandals, in the past supported a parliamentary motion to rename the country’s Holocaust Memorial Day.

In 2011, Corbyn was among a group of predominantly Labour politicians who proposed changing the name to “Genocide Memorial Day – Never Again For Anyone,”...

It does look suspiciously like Corbyn was trying to rename "Holocaust Memorial Day" to something that attacked Israel.

That's fucked up.

@Rudderneck - if we accept that, the ECHR loses its purpose. The genesis was clearly to set an international standard.

For human rights, that was because of what happened in Europe.

I hope no one is childish enough to go all Godwin's law on this. But one of the problems after WW2 was that what had happened in Germany was lawful by their own domestic laws, written by nazi lawyers. And so the recognition was it needed to bind a country.

I am always leery of the case for British decency and moral exceptionalism. It's easy for us to say this because largely, we did not face the tyranny others in Europe did.

But you need not look very far, to some of the Channel Islands were European Jews were taken and worked to death during the war. The local population was like any other country. They were frightened and did nothing.

But one of the problems after WW2 was that what had happened in Germany was lawful by their own domestic laws, written by nazi lawyers. And so the recognition was it needed to bind a country.

But if Germany was signed up before WW2, they could simply have withdrawn. It is not as if all their actions in starting and fighting the war complied with international agreements they signed up to.

How does that take the argument any further? The point is that binding commitments in international law is a signal beyond its domestic concerns.

Of course, were the U.K. to withdraw, then that is the signal it would send. That it are not concerned with a legal commitment of international law.

Yes.