The much loved Disney movie, Mary Poppins, is to be reclassified so that
very young children are protected from the evil word "hottentots".
Does that actually help to reduce racism in society? I doubt it, but
maybe the original books should be under lock and key in a special library.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/feb/26/mary-poppins-uk-age-rating-raised-pg-discriminatory-language
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/movies/mary-poppins-returns-blackface.html
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a roof, a
naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, “We’re being attacked by Hottentots!” and orders his cannon to be fired at the “cheeky devils.” We’re in on the joke, such as it is: These aren’t really black Africans; they’re grinning white dancers in blackface. It’s a parody of black menace; it’s even posted on a white nationalist website as evidence of
the film’s racial hierarchy.
On 26-Feb-24 11:47, The Todal wrote:
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a roof, a
naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, “We’re being attacked by
Hottentots!” and orders his cannon to be fired at the “cheeky devils.” >> We’re in on the joke, such as it is: These aren’t really black Africans; >> they’re grinning white dancers in blackface. It’s a parody of black
menace; it’s even posted on a white nationalist website as evidence of
the film’s racial hierarchy.
It might be an extreme(ish) indication of the shift in attitudes from
the 1960s to the present.
After reading that story (and recalling that this newsgroup is about
legal matters) I began to wonder what legal changes that have taken
place would most surprise, upset, bewilder or enrage the Man/Woman on
the Clapham Omnibus of 1960?
Hitting your kids made illegal?
On 2024-02-26, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 26-Feb-24 11:47, The Todal wrote:
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a roof, a
naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, “We’re being attacked by
Hottentots!” and orders his cannon to be fired at the “cheeky devils.”
We’re in on the joke, such as it is: These aren’t really black Africans;
they’re grinning white dancers in blackface. It’s a parody of black
menace; it’s even posted on a white nationalist website as evidence of >>> the film’s racial hierarchy.
It might be an extreme(ish) indication of the shift in attitudes from
the 1960s to the present.
After reading that story (and recalling that this newsgroup is about
legal matters) I began to wonder what legal changes that have taken
place would most surprise, upset, bewilder or enrage the Man/Woman on
the Clapham Omnibus of 1960?
Hitting your kids made illegal?
It's not even 1960s - the Sheakespears Sister song "I don't care"
includes the "H word" repeatedly and reached no. 7 in the UK Singles
chart in 1992 without any controversy that I recall. I doubt anyone
had any idea what it meant - I must admit I had always assumed it was
some sort of historical European reference, akin to the Huguenots.
It's not even 1960s - the Sheakespears Sister song "I don't care"
includes the "H word" repeatedly and reached no. 7 in the UK Singles
chart in 1992 without any controversy that I recall. I doubt anyone
had any idea what it meant - I must admit I had always assumed it was
some sort of historical European reference, akin to the Huguenots.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-02-26, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 26-Feb-24 11:47, The Todal wrote:
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a roof, a
naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, “We’re being attacked by
Hottentots!” and orders his cannon to be fired at the “cheeky devils.”
We’re in on the joke, such as it is: These aren’t really black Africans;
they’re grinning white dancers in blackface. It’s a parody of black >>>> menace; it’s even posted on a white nationalist website as evidence of >>>> the film’s racial hierarchy.
It might be an extreme(ish) indication of the shift in attitudes from
the 1960s to the present.
After reading that story (and recalling that this newsgroup is about
legal matters) I began to wonder what legal changes that have taken
place would most surprise, upset, bewilder or enrage the Man/Woman on
the Clapham Omnibus of 1960?
Hitting your kids made illegal?
It's not even 1960s - the Sheakespears Sister song "I don't care"
includes the "H word" repeatedly and reached no. 7 in the UK Singles
chart in 1992 without any controversy that I recall. I doubt anyone
had any idea what it meant - I must admit I had always assumed it was
some sort of historical European reference, akin to the Huguenots.
Is it certain Hottentot is a reference to the people / group claimed? I’m not sure it was. It seemed possible it was some offensive term in their language, which is quite different.
There must be countless terms which sound like offensive terms in other languages - let alone gestures we make in other cultures. Are we going to
ban them all?
It is far more likely the original author of the story / song made up a ‘strange’ name which they thought was funny. They had probably never heard
of the people concerned, who appear to be a relatively obscure group. (
The first book Mary Poppins book was published in the 1930s. It is
perfectly feasible the author had never heard of the group.)
The much loved Disney movie, Mary Poppins, is to be reclassified so that
very young children are protected from the evil word "hottentots".
Does that actually help to reduce racism in society? I doubt it, but
maybe the original books should be under lock and key in a special library.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/feb/26/mary-poppins-uk-age-rating-raised-pg-discriminatory-language
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/movies/mary-poppins-returns-blackface.html
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a roof, a
naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, “We’re being attacked by Hottentots!” and orders his cannon to be fired at the “cheeky devils.” We’re in on the joke, such as it is: These aren’t really black Africans; they’re grinning white dancers in blackface. It’s a parody of black menace; it’s even posted on a white nationalist website as evidence of
the film’s racial hierarchy.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The much loved Disney movie, Mary Poppins, is to be reclassified so that
very young children are protected from the evil word "hottentots".
Does that actually help to reduce racism in society? I doubt it, but
maybe the original books should be under lock and key in a special library. >>
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/feb/26/mary-poppins-uk-age-rating-raised-pg-discriminatory-language
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/movies/mary-poppins-returns-blackface.html
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a roof, a
naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, “We’re being attacked by
Hottentots!” and orders his cannon to be fired at the “cheeky devils.” >> We’re in on the joke, such as it is: These aren’t really black Africans; >> they’re grinning white dancers in blackface. It’s a parody of black
menace; it’s even posted on a white nationalist website as evidence of
the film’s racial hierarchy.
Once upon a time, one avoided giving offence if at all possible; nowadays
the modus among fellow-travellers is to take offence at every real or imagined opportunity. This nonissue has probably arisen from the latter. It’s a form of what was known as agitprop.
On 27 Feb 2024 at 16:06:45 GMT, "Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:Hotentots was a common English word in nineteenth century writing. It referred
On 2024-02-26, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 26-Feb-24 11:47, The Todal wrote:
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a roof, a >>>>> naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, “We’re being attacked by
Hottentots!” and orders his cannon to be fired at the “cheeky devils.”
We’re in on the joke, such as it is: These aren’t really black Africans;
they’re grinning white dancers in blackface. It’s a parody of black >>>>> menace; it’s even posted on a white nationalist website as evidence of >>>>> the film’s racial hierarchy.
It might be an extreme(ish) indication of the shift in attitudes from
the 1960s to the present.
After reading that story (and recalling that this newsgroup is about
legal matters) I began to wonder what legal changes that have taken
place would most surprise, upset, bewilder or enrage the Man/Woman on
the Clapham Omnibus of 1960?
Hitting your kids made illegal?
It's not even 1960s - the Sheakespears Sister song "I don't care"
includes the "H word" repeatedly and reached no. 7 in the UK Singles
chart in 1992 without any controversy that I recall. I doubt anyone
had any idea what it meant - I must admit I had always assumed it was
some sort of historical European reference, akin to the Huguenots.
Is it certain Hottentot is a reference to the people / group claimed? I’m >> not sure it was. It seemed possible it was some offensive term in their
language, which is quite different.
There must be countless terms which sound like offensive terms in other
languages - let alone gestures we make in other cultures. Are we going to
ban them all?
primarily to some very numerous South African people. There is no doubt it has
been considered derogatory for at least half a century.
It is far more likely the original author of the story / song made up a
‘strange’ name which they thought was funny. They had probably never heard
of the people concerned, who appear to be a relatively obscure group. (
The first book Mary Poppins book was published in the 1930s. It is
perfectly feasible the author had never heard of the group.)
It is completely non-feasible, even I read the word in my childhood, not in that particular book; in her defence, she was putting the words in the mouth of a man not likely to be sensitive to causing offence.
On 27 Feb 2024 at 19:38:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The much loved Disney movie, Mary Poppins, is to be reclassified so that >>> very young children are protected from the evil word "hottentots".
Does that actually help to reduce racism in society? I doubt it, but
maybe the original books should be under lock and key in a special library. >>>
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/feb/26/mary-poppins-uk-age-rating-raised-pg-discriminatory-language
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/movies/mary-poppins-returns-blackface.html
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a roof, a
naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, “We’re being attacked by
Hottentots!” and orders his cannon to be fired at the “cheeky devils.”
We’re in on the joke, such as it is: These aren’t really black Africans;
they’re grinning white dancers in blackface. It’s a parody of black
menace; it’s even posted on a white nationalist website as evidence of >>> the film’s racial hierarchy.
Once upon a time, one avoided giving offence if at all possible; nowadays
the modus among fellow-travellers is to take offence at every real or
imagined opportunity. This nonissue has probably arisen from the latter.
It’s a form of what was known as agitprop.
You mean like your Lee Anderson accusing the mayor of London of being a terrorist
On 27 Feb 2024 at 19:38:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The much loved Disney movie, Mary Poppins, is to be reclassified so that >>> very young children are protected from the evil word "hottentots".
Does that actually help to reduce racism in society? I doubt it, but
maybe the original books should be under lock and key in a special library. >>>
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/feb/26/mary-poppins-uk-age-rating-raised-pg-discriminatory-language
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/movies/mary-poppins-returns-blackface.html
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a roof, a
naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, “We’re being attacked by
Hottentots!” and orders his cannon to be fired at the “cheeky devils.”
We’re in on the joke, such as it is: These aren’t really black Africans;
they’re grinning white dancers in blackface. It’s a parody of black
menace; it’s even posted on a white nationalist website as evidence of >>> the film’s racial hierarchy.
Once upon a time, one avoided giving offence if at all possible; nowadays
the modus among fellow-travellers is to take offence at every real or
imagined opportunity. This nonissue has probably arisen from the latter.
It’s a form of what was known as agitprop.
You mean like your Lee Anderson accusing the mayor of London of being a terrorist who had successfully completed an Islamist take over of our capital city? He must have been desperate to avoid giving offence; what a pity woke liberals decided to pretend to be offended!
On 27 Feb 2024 at 19:38:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time, one avoided giving offence if at all possible; nowadays
the modus among fellow-travellers is to take offence at every real or
imagined opportunity. This nonissue has probably arisen from the latter.
It’s a form of what was known as agitprop.
You mean like your Lee Anderson accusing the mayor of London of being a terrorist who had successfully completed an Islamist take over of our capital city?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 27 Feb 2024 at 19:38:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The much loved Disney movie, Mary Poppins, is to be reclassified so that >>>> very young children are protected from the evil word "hottentots".
Does that actually help to reduce racism in society? I doubt it, but
maybe the original books should be under lock and key in a special library.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/feb/26/mary-poppins-uk-age-rating-raised-pg-discriminatory-language
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/movies/mary-poppins-returns-blackface.html
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a roof, a
naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, “We’re being attacked by
Hottentots!” and orders his cannon to be fired at the “cheeky devils.”
We’re in on the joke, such as it is: These aren’t really black Africans;
they’re grinning white dancers in blackface. It’s a parody of black >>>> menace; it’s even posted on a white nationalist website as evidence of >>>> the film’s racial hierarchy.
Once upon a time, one avoided giving offence if at all possible; nowadays >>> the modus among fellow-travellers is to take offence at every real or
imagined opportunity. This nonissue has probably arisen from the latter. >>> It’s a form of what was known as agitprop.
You mean like your Lee Anderson accusing the mayor of London of being a
terrorist who had successfully completed an Islamist take over of our capital
city? He must have been desperate to avoid giving offence; what a pity woke >> liberals decided to pretend to be offended!
“My” Lee Anderson? With such emotive phraseology
you could be mistaken for a faux-indignant fellow traveller, which I’m sure you were not intending.
On 28 Feb 2024 at 09:47:05 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 27 Feb 2024 at 19:38:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The much loved Disney movie, Mary Poppins, is to be reclassified so that >>>>> very young children are protected from the evil word "hottentots".
Does that actually help to reduce racism in society? I doubt it, but >>>>> maybe the original books should be under lock and key in a special library.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/feb/26/mary-poppins-uk-age-rating-raised-pg-discriminatory-language
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/movies/mary-poppins-returns-blackface.html
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a roof, a >>>>> naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, “We’re being attacked by
Hottentots!” and orders his cannon to be fired at the “cheeky devils.”
We’re in on the joke, such as it is: These aren’t really black Africans;
they’re grinning white dancers in blackface. It’s a parody of black >>>>> menace; it’s even posted on a white nationalist website as evidence of >>>>> the film’s racial hierarchy.
Once upon a time, one avoided giving offence if at all possible; nowadays >>>> the modus among fellow-travellers is to take offence at every real or
imagined opportunity. This nonissue has probably arisen from the latter. >>>> It’s a form of what was known as agitprop.
You mean like your Lee Anderson accusing the mayor of London of being a
terrorist who had successfully completed an Islamist take over of our capital
city? He must have been desperate to avoid giving offence; what a pity woke >>> liberals decided to pretend to be offended!
“My” Lee Anderson? With such emotive phraseology
you could be mistaken for a faux-indignant fellow traveller, which I’m sure
you were not intending.
How about addressing the substance? Which makes nonsense of your contention.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 20:45:17 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
It's not even 1960s - the Sheakespears Sister song "I don't care"
includes the "H word" repeatedly and reached no. 7 in the UK Singles
chart in 1992 without any controversy that I recall. I doubt anyone
had any idea what it meant - I must admit I had always assumed it was
some sort of historical European reference, akin to the Huguenots.
The section of that song which uses the word[1] appears to be a reference to a line from The Wizard of Oz[2]. And, in turn, the line in The Wizard of Oz seems to be a play on words rather than related to the underlying meaning.
So it's entirely possible that the Shakespeare's Sister songwriters didn't know what it really meant.
As for what it actually means, it's a word coined by Dutch settlers to describe one of the indigenous peoples of southern Africa. These days, the preferred term for them is Khoekhoe. The etymology of the word is unclear;
it isn't related to any existing Dutch word, and the fact that it contains the English word "hot" (as referenced by Shakespeare's Sister and the Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz) is pure coincidence, it doesn't have that connotation in Dutch. The most plausible explanation is that it's an onomatopoeic reference to the Khoekhoe language, which, like a lot of southern African languages, uses a lot of click sounds.
It wasn't coined as a derogatory term; as far as the settlers were concerned it was just a label. The main reason it's considered offensive now is
because it's a colonial term, similar to the use of "Red Indian" to describe native North Americans.
On 27 Feb 2024 at 19:38:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The much loved Disney movie, Mary Poppins, is to be reclassified so
that very young children are protected from the evil word
"hottentots".
Does that actually help to reduce racism in society? I doubt it, but
maybe the original books should be under lock and key in a special
library.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/feb/26/mary-poppins-
uk-age-rating-raised-pg-discriminatory-language
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/movies/mary-poppins-
returns-blackface.html
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a roof,
a naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, Were being attacked by
Hottentots! and orders his cannon to be fired at the cheeky
devils. Were in on the joke, such as it is: These arent really
black Africans; theyre grinning white dancers in blackface. Its a
parody of black menace; its even posted on a white nationalist
website as evidence of the films racial hierarchy.
Once upon a time, one avoided giving offence if at all possible;
nowadays the modus among fellow-travellers is to take offence at
every real or imagined opportunity. This nonissue has probably arisen
from the latter. Its a form of what was known as agitprop.
You mean like your Lee Anderson accusing the mayor of London of being
a terrorist who had successfully completed an Islamist take over of
our capital city? He must have been desperate to avoid giving offence;
what a pity woke liberals decided to pretend to be offended!
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 27 Feb 2024 at 19:38:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[…]
Once upon a time, one avoided giving offence if at all possible; nowadays >>> the modus among fellow-travellers is to take offence at every real or
imagined opportunity. This nonissue has probably arisen from the latter. >>> It’s a form of what was known as agitprop.
You mean like your Lee Anderson accusing the mayor of London of being a
terrorist who had successfully completed an Islamist take over of our capital
city?
On a historical note, the city had been labelled as ‘Londonistan’ long before the current mayor took office, so perhaps he is being given too much credit.
[…]
On 20:11 27 Feb 2024, Roger Hayter said:
On 27 Feb 2024 at 19:38:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The much loved Disney movie, Mary Poppins, is to be reclassified so
that very young children are protected from the evil word
"hottentots".
Does that actually help to reduce racism in society? I doubt it, but
maybe the original books should be under lock and key in a special
library.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/feb/26/mary-poppins-
uk-age-rating-raised-pg-discriminatory-language
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/movies/mary-poppins-
returns-blackface.html
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a roof,
a naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, “We’re being attacked by
Hottentots!” and orders his cannon to be fired at the “cheeky
devils.” We’re in on the joke, such as it is: These aren’t really >>>> black Africans; they’re grinning white dancers in blackface. It’s a >>>> parody of black menace; it’s even posted on a white nationalist
website as evidence of the film’s racial hierarchy.
Once upon a time, one avoided giving offence if at all possible;
nowadays the modus among fellow-travellers is to take offence at
every real or imagined opportunity. This nonissue has probably arisen
from the latter. It’s a form of what was known as agitprop.
You mean like your Lee Anderson accusing the mayor of London of being
a terrorist who had successfully completed an Islamist take over of
our capital city? He must have been desperate to avoid giving offence;
what a pity woke liberals decided to pretend to be offended!
Anderson didn't make that accusation. What Anderson actually said in an interview with Martin Daubney is this:
"I was there [at the House of Commons] as you know, on Wednesday
night. We could hear the commotion outside and this is down to ...
we've got a very cowardly Khan running London. He seems to be letting
not only the Jewish population down but also the whole population
of London, and Britain as a whole.
I heard the comments he was earlier making about Suella ... about
some of the comments she made earlier this week and I don't actually
believe these Islamists have control of our country but what I do
believe is they've got control of Khan, and they've got control of
London, and they've got control of Starmer as well.
We've seen the shocking scenes played out in Parliament just few
nights back, where Starmer crumbled. He put pressure on the Speaker
to alter the rules, if you like, for the nature of the debate. This
is the result of weak leadership: this is Starmer. I've got a little
bit of sympathy for the speaker, and I did sign the EDM [Early Day
Motion]. But this stems with Starmer and this stems with Khan.
Transcribed from: "There Is a Climate of Fear"
https://youtu.be/jT5LVJ6i_ew?si=iTC09858BFbio_MQ
Anderson's comments about Khan seem borne out by press reports today
that Islamists have been issuing death threats to Khan for trying to
oppose their favoured policies.
On 28 Feb 2024 at 14:12:19 GMT, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 20:11 27 Feb 2024, Roger Hayter said:
On 27 Feb 2024 at 19:38:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The much loved Disney movie, Mary Poppins, is to be reclassified so
that very young children are protected from the evil word
"hottentots".
Does that actually help to reduce racism in society? I doubt it, but >>>>> maybe the original books should be under lock and key in a special
library.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/feb/26/mary-poppins-
uk-age-rating-raised-pg-discriminatory-language
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/movies/mary-poppins-
returns-blackface.html
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a roof,
a naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, “We’re being attacked by
Hottentots!” and orders his cannon to be fired at the “cheeky
devils.” We’re in on the joke, such as it is: These aren’t really >>>>> black Africans; they’re grinning white dancers in blackface. It’s a >>>>> parody of black menace; it’s even posted on a white nationalist
website as evidence of the film’s racial hierarchy.
Once upon a time, one avoided giving offence if at all possible;
nowadays the modus among fellow-travellers is to take offence at
every real or imagined opportunity. This nonissue has probably arisen
from the latter. It’s a form of what was known as agitprop.
You mean like your Lee Anderson accusing the mayor of London of being
a terrorist who had successfully completed an Islamist take over of
our capital city? He must have been desperate to avoid giving offence;
what a pity woke liberals decided to pretend to be offended!
Anderson didn't make that accusation. What Anderson actually said in an
interview with Martin Daubney is this:
"I was there [at the House of Commons] as you know, on Wednesday
night. We could hear the commotion outside and this is down to ...
we've got a very cowardly Khan running London. He seems to be letting
not only the Jewish population down but also the whole population
of London, and Britain as a whole.
I heard the comments he was earlier making about Suella ... about
some of the comments she made earlier this week and I don't actually
believe these Islamists have control of our country but what I do
believe is they've got control of Khan, and they've got control of
London, and they've got control of Starmer as well.
We've seen the shocking scenes played out in Parliament just few
nights back, where Starmer crumbled. He put pressure on the Speaker
to alter the rules, if you like, for the nature of the debate. This
is the result of weak leadership: this is Starmer. I've got a little
bit of sympathy for the speaker, and I did sign the EDM [Early Day
Motion]. But this stems with Starmer and this stems with Khan.
Transcribed from: "There Is a Climate of Fear"
https://youtu.be/jT5LVJ6i_ew?si=iTC09858BFbio_MQ
Anderson's comments about Khan seem borne out by press reports today
that Islamists have been issuing death threats to Khan for trying to
oppose their favoured policies.
"the islamists have control of Khan" is not significantly different from saying Khan is an islamist.
On 28 Feb 2024 at 14:12:19 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 20:11 27 Feb 2024, Roger Hayter said:
On 27 Feb 2024 at 19:38:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The much loved Disney movie, Mary Poppins, is to be reclassified
so that very young children are protected from the evil word
"hottentots".
Does that actually help to reduce racism in society? I doubt it,
but maybe the original books should be under lock and key in a
special library.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/feb/26/mary-poppins-
uk-age-rating-raised-pg-discriminatory-language
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/movies/mary-poppins-
returns-blackface.html
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a
roof, a naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, “We’re being
attacked by Hottentots!” and orders his cannon to be fired at
the “cheeky devils.” We’re in on the joke, such as it is:
These aren’t really black Africans; they’re grinning white
dancers in blackface. It’s a parody of black menace; it’s even
posted on a white nationalist website as evidence of the film’s
racial hierarchy.
Once upon a time, one avoided giving offence if at all possible;
nowadays the modus among fellow-travellers is to take offence at
every real or imagined opportunity. This nonissue has probably
arisen from the latter. It’s a form of what was known as
agitprop.
You mean like your Lee Anderson accusing the mayor of London of
being a terrorist who had successfully completed an Islamist take
over of our capital city? He must have been desperate to avoid
giving offence; what a pity woke liberals decided to pretend to be
offended!
Anderson didn't make that accusation. What Anderson actually said in
an interview with Martin Daubney is this:
"I was there [at the House of Commons] as you know, on Wednesday
night. We could hear the commotion outside and this is down to ...
we've got a very cowardly Khan running London. He seems to be
letting not only the Jewish population down but also the whole
population of London, and Britain as a whole.
I heard the comments he was earlier making about Suella ... about
some of the comments she made earlier this week and I don't
actually believe these Islamists have control of our country but
what I do believe is they've got control of Khan, and they've got
control of London, and they've got control of Starmer as well.
We've seen the shocking scenes played out in Parliament just few
nights back, where Starmer crumbled. He put pressure on the
Speaker to alter the rules, if you like, for the nature of the
debate. This is the result of weak leadership: this is Starmer.
I've got a little bit of sympathy for the speaker, and I did sign
the EDM [Early Day Motion]. But this stems with Starmer and this
stems with Khan.
Transcribed from: "There Is a Climate of Fear"
https://youtu.be/jT5LVJ6i_ew?si=iTC09858BFbio_MQ
Anderson's comments about Khan seem borne out by press reports today
that Islamists have been issuing death threats to Khan for trying to
oppose their favoured policies.
"the islamists have control of Khan" is not significantly different
from saying Khan is an islamist.
On 28/02/2024 14:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 14:12:19 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 20:11 27 Feb 2024, Roger Hayter said:
On 27 Feb 2024 at 19:38:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com>
wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The much loved Disney movie, Mary Poppins, is to be reclassified
so that very young children are protected from the evil word
"hottentots".
Does that actually help to reduce racism in society? I doubt it,
but maybe the original books should be under lock and key in a
special library.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/feb/26/mary-poppins-
uk-age-rating-raised-pg-discriminatory-language
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/movies/mary-poppins-
returns-blackface.html
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a
roof, a naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, “We’re being
attacked by Hottentots!” and orders his cannon to be fired at
the “cheeky devils.” We’re in on the joke, such as it is:
These aren’t really black Africans; they’re grinning white
dancers in blackface. It’s a parody of black menace; it’s
even posted on a white nationalist website as evidence of the
film’s racial hierarchy.
Once upon a time, one avoided giving offence if at all possible;
nowadays the modus among fellow-travellers is to take offence at
every real or imagined opportunity. This nonissue has probably
arisen from the latter. It’s a form of what was known as
agitprop.
You mean like your Lee Anderson accusing the mayor of London of
being a terrorist who had successfully completed an Islamist take
over of our capital city? He must have been desperate to avoid
giving offence; what a pity woke liberals decided to pretend to be
offended!
Anderson didn't make that accusation. What Anderson actually said in
an interview with Martin Daubney is this:
"I was there [at the House of Commons] as you know, on Wednesday
night. We could hear the commotion outside and this is down to
... we've got a very cowardly Khan running London. He seems to
be letting not only the Jewish population down but also the
whole population of London, and Britain as a whole.
I heard the comments he was earlier making about Suella ...
about some of the comments she made earlier this week and I
don't actually believe these Islamists have control of our
country but what I do believe is they've got control of Khan,
and they've got control of London, and they've got control of
Starmer as well.
We've seen the shocking scenes played out in Parliament just few
nights back, where Starmer crumbled. He put pressure on the
Speaker to alter the rules, if you like, for the nature of the
debate. This is the result of weak leadership: this is Starmer.
I've got a little bit of sympathy for the speaker, and I did
sign the EDM [Early Day Motion]. But this stems with Starmer and
this stems with Khan.
Transcribed from: "There Is a Climate of Fear"
https://youtu.be/jT5LVJ6i_ew?si=iTC09858BFbio_MQ
Anderson's comments about Khan seem borne out by press reports today
that Islamists have been issuing death threats to Khan for trying to
oppose their favoured policies.
"the islamists have control of Khan" is not significantly different
from saying Khan is an islamist.
And much the same as saying that "the Jews" have control over Khan (or
over the government, or over our political parties). Certain pressure
groups might have a disproportionate influence over our politics but
it is wrong and fosters hate to direct the blame at any ethnic group
as a group.
On 28 Feb 2024 at 10:20:26 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 27 Feb 2024 at 19:38:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[…]
Once upon a time, one avoided giving offence if at all possible; nowadays >>>> the modus among fellow-travellers is to take offence at every real or
imagined opportunity. This nonissue has probably arisen from the latter. >>>> It’s a form of what was known as agitprop.
You mean like your Lee Anderson accusing the mayor of London of being a
terrorist who had successfully completed an Islamist take over of our capital
city?
On a historical note, the city had been labelled as ‘Londonistan’ long >> before the current mayor took office, so perhaps he is being given too much >> credit.
[…]
Only by fascists and crypto-fascists. QED
Anderson's comments about Khan seem borne out by press reports today
that Islamists have been issuing death threats to Khan for trying to
oppose their favoured policies.
On 28 Feb 2024 at 10:20:26 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 27 Feb 2024 at 19:38:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[]
Once upon a time, one avoided giving offence if at all possible; nowadays >>>> the modus among fellow-travellers is to take offence at every real or
imagined opportunity. This nonissue has probably arisen from the latter. >>>> Its a form of what was known as agitprop.
You mean like your Lee Anderson accusing the mayor of London of being a
terrorist who had successfully completed an Islamist take over of our capital
city?
On a historical note, the city had been labelled as Londonistan long
before the current mayor took office, so perhaps he is being given too much >> credit.
[]
Only by fascists and crypto-fascists. QED
On 26/02/2024 11:47, The Todal wrote:
The much loved Disney movie, Mary Poppins, is to be reclassified so that
very young children are protected from the evil word "hottentots".
Does that actually help to reduce racism in society? I doubt it, but
maybe the original books should be under lock and key in a special library. >>
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/feb/26/mary-poppins-uk-age-rating-raised-pg-discriminatory-language
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/movies/mary-poppins-returns-blackface.html
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a roof, a
naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, “We’re being attacked by
Hottentots!” and orders his cannon to be fired at the “cheeky devils.” >> We’re in on the joke, such as it is: These aren’t really black Africans; >> they’re grinning white dancers in blackface. It’s a parody of black
menace; it’s even posted on a white nationalist website as evidence of
the film’s racial hierarchy.
Funny you should mention this. My wife has been dog-sitting for a
friend for the past couple of weeks, (a year-old puppy has come on heat
so cannot go to "doggy day-care"). I came home one evening last week to
find her and the dog watching TV together (apparently, the dog likes to
watch musicals) and this scene from Mary Poppins was playing.
I remarked to my wife that this had clearly not been spotted by the
Disney censors and that as soon as it was they'd be all over it.
I was expecting they would add the "this programme may contain outdated cultural depictions" warning and restrict viewing to those aged 7+ as
they did with Dumbo for similar reasons but I note that this current
action is by the BBFC rather than Disney. (My wife and Bonnie the dog
were watching it on Disney+ so I'm not sure if the BBFC classification
is displayed or Disney's own rating.)
I don't think a young viewer would pick up on the word "Hottentot" much
less know what it means but "rules is rules".
Regards
S.P.
On 14:55 28 Feb 2024, Roger Hayter said:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 14:12:19 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
Anderson's comments about Khan seem borne out by press reports today
that Islamists have been issuing death threats to Khan for trying to
oppose their favoured policies.
"the islamists have control of Khan" is not significantly different
from saying Khan is an islamist.
In that case, why are Islamists making death threats to Khan?
On 2024-02-28, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 14:55 28 Feb 2024, Roger Hayter said:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 14:12:19 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
Anderson's comments about Khan seem borne out by press reports today
that Islamists have been issuing death threats to Khan for trying to
oppose their favoured policies.
"the islamists have control of Khan" is not significantly different
from saying Khan is an islamist.
In that case, why are Islamists making death threats to Khan?
Because he isn't an Islamist and they *don't* have control of him?
Why would they send him death threats if it was true that he is
"their man"?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 27 Feb 2024 at 16:06:45 GMT, "Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:Hotentots was a common English word in nineteenth century writing. It referred
On 2024-02-26, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 26-Feb-24 11:47, The Todal wrote:
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a roof, a >>>>>> naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, “We’re being attacked by
Hottentots!” and orders his cannon to be fired at the “cheeky devils.”
We’re in on the joke, such as it is: These aren’t really black Africans;
they’re grinning white dancers in blackface. It’s a parody of black >>>>>> menace; it’s even posted on a white nationalist website as evidence of >>>>>> the film’s racial hierarchy.
It might be an extreme(ish) indication of the shift in attitudes from >>>>> the 1960s to the present.
After reading that story (and recalling that this newsgroup is about >>>>> legal matters) I began to wonder what legal changes that have taken
place would most surprise, upset, bewilder or enrage the Man/Woman on >>>>> the Clapham Omnibus of 1960?
Hitting your kids made illegal?
It's not even 1960s - the Sheakespears Sister song "I don't care"
includes the "H word" repeatedly and reached no. 7 in the UK Singles
chart in 1992 without any controversy that I recall. I doubt anyone
had any idea what it meant - I must admit I had always assumed it was
some sort of historical European reference, akin to the Huguenots.
Is it certain Hottentot is a reference to the people / group claimed? I’m >>> not sure it was. It seemed possible it was some offensive term in their
language, which is quite different.
There must be countless terms which sound like offensive terms in other
languages - let alone gestures we make in other cultures. Are we going to >>> ban them all?
primarily to some very numerous South African people. There is no doubt it has
been considered derogatory for at least half a century.
It is far more likely the original author of the story / song made up a
‘strange’ name which they thought was funny. They had probably never heard
of the people concerned, who appear to be a relatively obscure group. ( >>> The first book Mary Poppins book was published in the 1930s. It is
perfectly feasible the author had never heard of the group.)
It is completely non-feasible, even I read the word in my childhood, not in >> that particular book; in her defence, she was putting the words in the mouth >> of a man not likely to be sensitive to causing offence.
Possibly a book on fish.
Hottentot is a type of fish.
(Of the genus Pachymetopon, in the family Sparidae.)
Perfectly feasible the author heard the name from that source and thought
it may be ‘useful’ in a book.
No racism.
Fishism?
On 2024-02-28, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 14:55 28 Feb 2024, Roger Hayter said:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 14:12:19 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
Anderson's comments about Khan seem borne out by press reports today
that Islamists have been issuing death threats to Khan for trying to
oppose their favoured policies.
"the islamists have control of Khan" is not significantly different
from saying Khan is an islamist.
In that case, why are Islamists making death threats to Khan?
Because he isn't an Islamist and they *don't* have control of him?
Why would they send him death threats if it was true that he is
"their man"?
On 28 Feb 2024 at 14:12:19 GMT, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 20:11 27 Feb 2024, Roger Hayter said:
On 27 Feb 2024 at 19:38:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The much loved Disney movie, Mary Poppins, is to be reclassified so
that very young children are protected from the evil word
"hottentots".
Does that actually help to reduce racism in society? I doubt it, but >>>>> maybe the original books should be under lock and key in a special
library.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/feb/26/mary-poppins-
uk-age-rating-raised-pg-discriminatory-language
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/movies/mary-poppins-
returns-blackface.html
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a roof,
a naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, “We’re being attacked by
Hottentots!” and orders his cannon to be fired at the “cheeky
devils.” We’re in on the joke, such as it is: These aren’t really >>>>> black Africans; they’re grinning white dancers in blackface. It’s a >>>>> parody of black menace; it’s even posted on a white nationalist
website as evidence of the film’s racial hierarchy.
Once upon a time, one avoided giving offence if at all possible;
nowadays the modus among fellow-travellers is to take offence at
every real or imagined opportunity. This nonissue has probably arisen
from the latter. It’s a form of what was known as agitprop.
You mean like your Lee Anderson accusing the mayor of London of being
a terrorist who had successfully completed an Islamist take over of
our capital city? He must have been desperate to avoid giving offence;
what a pity woke liberals decided to pretend to be offended!
Anderson didn't make that accusation. What Anderson actually said in an
interview with Martin Daubney is this:
"I was there [at the House of Commons] as you know, on Wednesday
night. We could hear the commotion outside and this is down to ...
we've got a very cowardly Khan running London. He seems to be letting
not only the Jewish population down but also the whole population
of London, and Britain as a whole.
I heard the comments he was earlier making about Suella ... about
some of the comments she made earlier this week and I don't actually
believe these Islamists have control of our country but what I do
believe is they've got control of Khan, and they've got control of
London, and they've got control of Starmer as well.
We've seen the shocking scenes played out in Parliament just few
nights back, where Starmer crumbled. He put pressure on the Speaker
to alter the rules, if you like, for the nature of the debate. This
is the result of weak leadership: this is Starmer. I've got a little
bit of sympathy for the speaker, and I did sign the EDM [Early Day
Motion]. But this stems with Starmer and this stems with Khan.
Transcribed from: "There Is a Climate of Fear"
https://youtu.be/jT5LVJ6i_ew?si=iTC09858BFbio_MQ
Anderson's comments about Khan seem borne out by press reports today
that Islamists have been issuing death threats to Khan for trying to
oppose their favoured policies.
"the islamists have control of Khan" is not significantly different from saying Khan is an islamist.
On 16:38 28 Feb 2024, The Todal said:
On 28/02/2024 14:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 14:12:19 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 20:11 27 Feb 2024, Roger Hayter said:
On 27 Feb 2024 at 19:38:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com>
wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The much loved Disney movie, Mary Poppins, is to be reclassified >>>>>>> so that very young children are protected from the evil word
"hottentots".
Does that actually help to reduce racism in society? I doubt it, >>>>>>> but maybe the original books should be under lock and key in a
special library.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/feb/26/mary-poppins-
uk-age-rating-raised-pg-discriminatory-language
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/movies/mary-poppins-
returns-blackface.html
quote
When the dark figures of the chimney sweeps step in time on a
roof, a naval buffoon, Admiral Boom, shouts, “We’re being
attacked by Hottentots!” and orders his cannon to be fired at
the “cheeky devils.” We’re in on the joke, such as it is:
These aren’t really black Africans; they’re grinning white
dancers in blackface. It’s a parody of black menace; it’s
even posted on a white nationalist website as evidence of the
film’s racial hierarchy.
Once upon a time, one avoided giving offence if at all possible;
nowadays the modus among fellow-travellers is to take offence at
every real or imagined opportunity. This nonissue has probably
arisen from the latter. It’s a form of what was known as
agitprop.
You mean like your Lee Anderson accusing the mayor of London of
being a terrorist who had successfully completed an Islamist take
over of our capital city? He must have been desperate to avoid
giving offence; what a pity woke liberals decided to pretend to be
offended!
Anderson didn't make that accusation. What Anderson actually said in
an interview with Martin Daubney is this:
"I was there [at the House of Commons] as you know, on Wednesday
night. We could hear the commotion outside and this is down to
... we've got a very cowardly Khan running London. He seems to
be letting not only the Jewish population down but also the
whole population of London, and Britain as a whole.
I heard the comments he was earlier making about Suella ...
about some of the comments she made earlier this week and I
don't actually believe these Islamists have control of our
country but what I do believe is they've got control of Khan,
and they've got control of London, and they've got control of
Starmer as well.
We've seen the shocking scenes played out in Parliament just few
nights back, where Starmer crumbled. He put pressure on the
Speaker to alter the rules, if you like, for the nature of the
debate. This is the result of weak leadership: this is Starmer.
I've got a little bit of sympathy for the speaker, and I did
sign the EDM [Early Day Motion]. But this stems with Starmer and
this stems with Khan.
Transcribed from: "There Is a Climate of Fear"
https://youtu.be/jT5LVJ6i_ew?si=iTC09858BFbio_MQ
Anderson's comments about Khan seem borne out by press reports today
that Islamists have been issuing death threats to Khan for trying to
oppose their favoured policies.
"the islamists have control of Khan" is not significantly different
from saying Khan is an islamist.
And much the same as saying that "the Jews" have control over Khan (or
over the government, or over our political parties). Certain pressure
groups might have a disproportionate influence over our politics but
it is wrong and fosters hate to direct the blame at any ethnic group
as a group.
Surely Islamists (or Muslims for that matter) are not an ethnic group.
On 19:12 28 Feb 2024, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2024-02-28, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 14:55 28 Feb 2024, Roger Hayter said:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 14:12:19 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
Anderson's comments about Khan seem borne out by press reports today >>>>> that Islamists have been issuing death threats to Khan for trying to >>>>> oppose their favoured policies.
"the islamists have control of Khan" is not significantly different
from saying Khan is an islamist.
In that case, why are Islamists making death threats to Khan?
Because he isn't an Islamist and they *don't* have control of him?
Why would they send him death threats if it was true that he is
"their man"?
On the assumption that the death threat is unlikely to be carried out (although one never knows), then the purpose of a death threat is
coercion through fear.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-02-28, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 14:55 28 Feb 2024, Roger Hayter said:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 14:12:19 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
Anderson's comments about Khan seem borne out by press reports today >>>>> that Islamists have been issuing death threats to Khan for trying to >>>>> oppose their favoured policies.
"the islamists have control of Khan" is not significantly different
from saying Khan is an islamist.
In that case, why are Islamists making death threats to Khan?
Because he isn't an Islamist and they *don't* have control of him?
Why would they send him death threats if it was true that he is
"their man"?
You are assuming they are sending threats.
Or it is equally plausible there is more than one faction involved.
On 19:12 28 Feb 2024, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2024-02-28, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 14:55 28 Feb 2024, Roger Hayter said:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 14:12:19 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
Anderson's comments about Khan seem borne out by press reports today >>>>> that Islamists have been issuing death threats to Khan for trying to >>>>> oppose their favoured policies.
"the islamists have control of Khan" is not significantly different
from saying Khan is an islamist.
In that case, why are Islamists making death threats to Khan?
Because he isn't an Islamist and they *don't* have control of him?
Why would they send him death threats if it was true that he is
"their man"?
On the assumption that the death threat is unlikely to be carried out (although one never knows), then the purpose of a death threat is
coercion through fear.
On 2024-02-28, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-02-28, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 14:55 28 Feb 2024, Roger Hayter said:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 14:12:19 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
Anderson's comments about Khan seem borne out by press reports today >>>>>> that Islamists have been issuing death threats to Khan for trying to >>>>>> oppose their favoured policies.
"the islamists have control of Khan" is not significantly different
from saying Khan is an islamist.
In that case, why are Islamists making death threats to Khan?
Because he isn't an Islamist and they *don't* have control of him?
Why would they send him death threats if it was true that he is
"their man"?
You are assuming they are sending threats.
No I'm not. I'm responding on the basis of Pamela's assertion.
Or it is equally plausible there is more than one faction involved.
The plot thickens. Wheels within wheels.
How deep does the rabbit hole go?
On 29/02/2024 01:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-02-28, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-02-28, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 14:55 28 Feb 2024, Roger Hayter said:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 14:12:19 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
Anderson's comments about Khan seem borne out by press reports today >>>>>>> that Islamists have been issuing death threats to Khan for trying to >>>>>>> oppose their favoured policies.
"the islamists have control of Khan" is not significantly different >>>>>> from saying Khan is an islamist.
In that case, why are Islamists making death threats to Khan?
Because he isn't an Islamist and they *don't* have control of him?
Why would they send him death threats if it was true that he is
"their man"?
You are assuming they are sending threats.
No I'm not. I'm responding on the basis of Pamela's assertion.
I assumed the various people contending he is controlled are suggesting the threats have been made and that he has given way - that is, has been controlled.
Rather like the mess in the Commons the other day, he isn't an Islamist, but doing what they want. I have no idea if he is, or isn't controlled, or an Islamist and proffer no opinion on it other than that.
And much the same as saying that "the Jews" have control over Khan (or
over the government, or over our political parties). Certain pressure
groups might have a disproportionate influence over our politics but
it is wrong and fosters hate to direct the blame at any ethnic group
as a group.
Surely Islamists (or Muslims for that matter) are not an ethnic group.
"Islamists" are not any kind of group, the word is used to describe a political movement to fight for Islamic government everywhere of an extremist kind, mainly by people who don't like the idea. But Muslims are clearly a religious group protected under the Equality Act.
kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 29/02/2024 01:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-02-28, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-02-28, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 14:55 28 Feb 2024, Roger Hayter said:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 14:12:19 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
Anderson's comments about Khan seem borne out by press reports today >>>>>>>> that Islamists have been issuing death threats to Khan for trying to >>>>>>>> oppose their favoured policies.
"the islamists have control of Khan" is not significantly different >>>>>>> from saying Khan is an islamist.
In that case, why are Islamists making death threats to Khan?
Because he isn't an Islamist and they *don't* have control of him?
Why would they send him death threats if it was true that he is
"their man"?
You are assuming they are sending threats.
No I'm not. I'm responding on the basis of Pamela's assertion.
I assumed the various people contending he is controlled are suggesting the >> threats have been made and that he has given way - that is, has been controlled.
Rather like the mess in the Commons the other day, he isn't an Islamist, but >> doing what they want. I have no idea if he is, or isn't controlled, or an
Islamist and proffer no opinion on it other than that.
Can you define an Islamist?
I suspect, if you asked some people, they would say ‘Any Muslim’. Others
would err towards ‘extremist ‘ etc .
On 28/02/2024 19:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
And much the same as saying that "the Jews" have control over Khan
(or over the government, or over our political parties). Certain
pressure groups might have a disproportionate influence over our
politics but it is wrong and fosters hate to direct the blame at
any ethnic group as a group.
Surely Islamists (or Muslims for that matter) are not an ethnic
group.
"Islamists" are not any kind of group, the word is used to describe a
political movement to fight for Islamic government everywhere of an
extremist kind, mainly by people who don't like the idea. But Muslims
are clearly a religious group protected under the Equality Act.
Where does the Equality Act prohibit negative criticism of a religious
group at the group level? AIUI the issue of such criticism was
addressed and is allowed.
On 2024-02-28, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 19:12 28 Feb 2024, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2024-02-28, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 14:55 28 Feb 2024, Roger Hayter said:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 14:12:19 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
Anderson's comments about Khan seem borne out by press reports today >>>>>> that Islamists have been issuing death threats to Khan for trying to >>>>>> oppose their favoured policies.
"the islamists have control of Khan" is not significantly different
from saying Khan is an islamist.
In that case, why are Islamists making death threats to Khan?
Because he isn't an Islamist and they *don't* have control of him?
Why would they send him death threats if it was true that he is
"their man"?
On the assumption that the death threat is unlikely to be carried out
(although one never knows), then the purpose of a death threat is
coercion through fear.
Come on, this is pretty basic. Why would you send death threats to
someone who is *already doing what you want*? If someone had to draw
a conclusion from such threats, surely it would be an indication that
in fact they are not doing what you want.
On 11:18 29 Feb 2024, Pancho said:
On 28/02/2024 19:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
And much the same as saying that "the Jews" have control over Khan
(or over the government, or over our political parties). Certain
pressure groups might have a disproportionate influence over our
politics but it is wrong and fosters hate to direct the blame at
any ethnic group as a group.
Surely Islamists (or Muslims for that matter) are not an ethnic
group.
"Islamists" are not any kind of group, the word is used to describe a
political movement to fight for Islamic government everywhere of an
extremist kind, mainly by people who don't like the idea. But Muslims
are clearly a religious group protected under the Equality Act.
Where does the Equality Act prohibit negative criticism of a religious
group at the group level? AIUI the issue of such criticism was
addressed and is allowed.
Although blasphemy was abolished in 2008, there's an offence of stirring
up religious hatred in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.
However, a case of six men burning the Quran in 2011 was instead brought under the racial provisions of the Public Order Act 1986 (s.21),
specifically with regard to *distributing* material causing racial
hatred. Perhaps this was easier to prove than the other act.
My original home town had a population of Muslims who lived peacefully
since before WW1, they were mainly from the Yemen. A World Famous Muslim Boxer famously visited the Mosque they built. I don???t recall any problems of a racial nature. As far as I know, the same is true today.
That said, it is clear many of those involved in the current ‘protests’ ( note the quotes - their activities have gone way beyond what is acceptable) have shown they not only support terrorism and anti semitism but have
engaged in violence and other illegal acts.
Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
My original home town had a population of Muslims who lived peacefully
since before WW1, they were mainly from the Yemen. A World Famous Muslim
Boxer famously visited the Mosque they built. I don???t recall any problems >> of a racial nature. As far as I know, the same is true today.
The sand dancers of South Shields?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 48:09:38 |
| Calls: | 6,710 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,638 |
| Posted today: | 1 |