Consensus Unpacked
Lines are being drawn between distinct racisms at UK universities. Anti-Jewish racism in particular is to be treated differently to other types of discrimination.
According to the Tweet below, UK Labour, under Sir Keir Starmer, will be backing the Government’s threat to defund universities that don’t adhere to the controversial IHRA definitions of anti-Jewish racism.
How could the need to defend Jews from racism cause controversy?
Could it be that, under these proposals, other students will not be afforded the same protections as Jews?
In India there is tension between ‘high caste’ Brahmins, and ‘low caste’ Dalits / ‘untouchables’ because of both perceived privilege and affirmative action.
In the US there has been a backlash against affirmative action with some campaigners saying that Universities discriminate against certain ethnic groups despite their high academic achievements.
Make them believe, that offensive operations, often times, is the surest, if not the only (in some cases) means of defence.
George Washington
Criticisms of ‘cancel culture’ and ‘no platforming’ are generally used to defend freedom of speech and to allow controversial figures highly sought after platforms at universities.
I was at University in Manchester when Al Qaeda were recruiting heavily as were the BNP.
My preference leans toward freedom of speech.
I understand that deals are done between different student societies, student politicians and union officers in order to keep everyone happy.
But tension is still there.
The idea that there is no racism at university is misplaced.
Yet, it is important to ensure the university environment is a safe one for everyone.
It would be an unfortunate outcome if, by particularly defending the rights of one group, the government ends up making things harder for individuals of that group on campus.
Operation successful, patient died.
Autriche
The Austrian French conversation has historically given us Adolf Hitler and Marie Antoinette.
Now French President Emmanuel Macron has been bonding with the Austrian leader Sebastian Kurz over the rejection of ‘political Islam’.
The article below from the Irish Times references Mehreen Khan of the FT’s piece reminding Macron that he risks alienating France’s Muslim population precisely when he needs them most.
Macron complained to the FT about the article and they took it off their website.
Former Telegraph and Mail political reporter Peter Oborne replied on Middle Eastern Eye:
So it looks like tension is only increasing. And that it is all so avoidable. Why bother making life harder for either group?
The English approach to weaponizing anti-Jewish sentiment may help achieve certain political aims in the culture war. But will it help individual Jews?
Will Starmer and Johnson’s approach promote harmony or encourage segregation?
It appears to me that they are both divisive politicians who would prefer as much segregation as possible in society, as would Macron and Kurz.
All this talk of fishing rights in the ongoing French / UK Brexit talks is a complete distraction from how much they all have in common.
The EU and Britain are clearly both focused on a particular way of doing things.
Big Business & Banking are working with Big Government to keep things sewn up for the people up top.
That doesn’t mean we can’t do anything about it. But for now resistance against increasing inequality is particularly weak. Whereas inequality has tended to be lowered only after serious struggles, at this point the struggles themselves are being outlawed.
The only reason people are not noticing this is that the spin and propaganda machine is so strong that we are left begging for censorship and to be permanently misled.
“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.”
