Snapshot of _Caroline Lucas MP: The mask has really dropped now, if there were any doubt who the real extremists are, it is #Sunak's government - threatening to take visas off protesters and stirring up anti-Muslim hate._ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1763625342223126683)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/CarolineLucas/status/1763625342223126683/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1763625342223126683) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1763625342223126683)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The French government deported an imam that had called the French flag 'satanic' just last week. He'd lived in France for 30+ years but was back in Tunisia within days.
Bloody hell that's quick. I really, really hope there's more to it than that because deporting someone immediately over some speech seems mildly horrifying to me.
You don't need to tolerate intolerance.
If the governments official stance is "we must tolerate all views except intolerant ones", then I have no problem with deporting non-citizens who oppose that.
Of course, we need to first have a government with that stance, which I don't think the current tory government achieves.
In fairness, it's much easier to retain control of your borders if you just straight-up ignore the restrictions you don't like. The French deport people in contravention of the ECHR all the time.
This was a common theme in UK-EU relations even before Brexit, we'd whinge incessantly about an unpopular policy but implement it to the letter (if not outright gold-plating it) while some other countries would wave it through then ignore it.
Yes, one of the problems with the EU, is that the Brits followed all the rules whereas, in 16 years of living in 5 european countries, they pic'n'mix. Consequently, we were more EU than the Europeans. Farage pointed that out one time but I don't think people grasped how important a distinction it is/was.
The problem is our justice system which is different from the European ones and is more similar to the USA ones.
So the French Gov for example can ignore the rules and just get on with it and know that they will get away with it and can delay any legal proceedings for years if not decades.
In the UK with our justice system an injunction forbidding their removal would be sought by some trouble maker funded by legal aid and would be in place by the same evening.
The Tunisian government has a very close relationship with France, similar to, say, being a member of the commonwealth over here. Through that it also has a close relationship with the EU.
We don't have access to that politico-legal structure any more.
Probably because they have some kind of "Rose tinted glasses" view of their country because they never actually lived there. Only heard stories about it (which often probably filter out the day to day bad stuff)
Or they are wealthy enough that a lot of the issues present in the home country wouldn't impact them or impact them as hard.
I've worked with several chaps who have built literal mansions back in their home country with all the land to boot and they're not exactly millionaires here.
Yup I visit often and I see why my parents left, don’t get me wrong if the country’s got itself together I would be back in a heartbeat, but until then, I’m not out here calling the country which took me in satanic blah then carry on living there ! If I thought a place was satanic I wouldn’t be living there because my moral and principles would not allow it
>It’s about time that guests either respected their new homes or get sent back to the places that they say are better anyway.
Are they held to a different standard of laws? i.e. IF this story is true of an Imam being deported from France for calling the flag satanic, does it not come under the umbrella of free speech/freedom to offend/whatever their equivalent is?
Plenty of anti “hate speech” rules passed in the past couple decades. Seems fair that you can restrict the speech of non-locals if you can do it to locals
Different standards? Have you seen the state of our laws these days? There’re dozens of ways to prosecute people for wrong-speak, wrong-think. It’s about time that some of our guests are treated the same, yes.
Yeah, only us who were born here through pure chance should have the right to complain about the state of the country, everyone else should have to praise it.
They're not transactional to party politics. Visas shouldn't be taken away for lawful acts. Protesting isn't illegal.
No where in the terms of a student visa does it say "you can't protest".
It's difficult. In theory it's ok, however.
- what should you do if you want to express your attitude to events when e.g. on some sort of visa, and are in England, especially if visa is permanent, like settled status? Expressing opinion peacefully (key word) is your right, isn't it?
- it's open to abuse much more than when the same is concerning a British citizen, when due process needs to be applied, in case of visa revocation it may be circumvented.
So in general, if you are not a citizen and are acting violently and illegally, it may be reasonable to simply recall your visa. However, a question is do you trust Home Office and Police enough not to abuse such powers. That's the concern, not basic principle.
The issue with using common sense as a defence is that everyone disagrees on what common sense is. It's like saying "facts and logic bro" when everyone believes the facts and logic are on the side of their beliefs, that's why they believe it. Common sense doesn't just mean "what I think is obvious"
Can you not attend a protest peacefully then if you're on a visa? Considering the UK is now propped up by a near majority migrant workforce that isn't going to bode very well in the long run for workers rights now is it....
Because someone's not going to be kicked out for *merely* attending a peaceful protest. Rather, if they do things that are clearly beyond peaceful protests or are stirring up hate. And quite rightly too.
What's stirring up hate mean though? I think you have to be very careful making vague laws like that - think of how it might affect *you* when you want to protest something you care about and the government decides you're "stirring up hate".
Sticking pictures of paragliders during a demo just after the October attacks is a blatant example that has pretty much universal condemnation.
You’re right that it needs to be defined but it’s also pointless to conclude that any protest attendance will be stirring up hate.
I'll have a go, and this is just spitballing.
Two components to this, **actions and environment**.
If someone is at the "world peace" protest and are doing things (including saying things) that exceed today's laws on intimidation, harassment, hate speech then they meet the threshold.
If someone is at the "they aren't really terrorists" rally, then just participation meets the threshold regardless of what they individually do (not incl. counter-protesting).
No, the parliament passes the laws, and a good law should be designed to not give too much wiggle room for abuse of any new powers given.
Clearly a government who wants to ban any protest that they as arbiters decide is "annoying" should be deeply troubling to *everyone*.
The fact that you may personally not agree with the current protestors does not make it sensible to cheer on as everyone's freedoms are lessened.
Because for some reason it's apparently our duty to allow anyone to come here and do anything they like including rape and terrorism. If you come here and commit crime you should be gone immediately, no expensive tax-payer funded lawyers, bullshit ECHR claims. Gone the follow day. How is that controversial?
We do that all the time. We ban people from coming to the UK if we feel they are not conducive to society. If a die hard neo nazi applied for a visa, depsite never breaking a UK law, you would support it being refused right? And if it was issued and later discovered he was a neo nazi you would support it's revocation?
I guarantee you, protest the wrong thing in Singapore, commit a cautionable offence, or one of your family members do the same thing and watch how quickly your visa isn't re-approved the following year.
The relevance is that people have different opinions of what constitutes a good country to live in.
A lot of liberal Brits (I'd say the majority of this sub) will say that Singapore is a fascist hellhole. While, I'd argue that equally a very large percentage of Brits will be envious of the way they control their culture.
You can have a subjective opinion on it, of course, but you surely realise that evidence shows there is an equally valid different view?
I agree, the Tories are extremists. Allowing net immigration in the hundreds of thousands every year is an extreme act and they need to be electorally obliterated for the damage they've done to this country and its social fabric
The hypocrisy on this forum is absolutely insane. People supporting revoking visas over peacefully protesting, meanwhile literally in another post on the top of the page, a lot of the same people complaining about a neo nazi spreading propaganda being jailed. Taking about free speech and government overreach. Talk about transparent agenda.
It's the first time I've actually felt like unsubscribing from this sub honestly. I know it can have a bit of a right wing sway from time to time but I've never seen so much upvoted support for a literal nazi who's spreading Jewish conspiracy theories, and at the same time condemning people who protest against what's happening in Gaza and equating them all with antisemitism 😬
I unsubbed around the time that Britain First propaganda tweet hit the front page, followed by a rehashing of the same false story a few days later in the form of a Daily Mail article. I occasionally dip back in to see how things are going, and really I'm not that shocked anymore. The discourse here is predictable and has been played out multiple times over the past year or so.
There is no doubt that significant political subs are being used to push propaganda by various elements. Social Media, and reddit specifically in this instance, is a battle front. Bots and paid posters abound; often they are not hard to spot, but the sheer volume of them is astonishing.
The mods of this sub are questionable people that's all I'll say, knew one of them via discord and he was a menace.
I outright don't have a good view of the people controlling the flow of discussion on this subreddit after witnessing the attitude of one of their own.
I'm not sure I understand. There's nothing wrong with disliking people for their beliefs, we do this all the time. Redditors do it with those they perceive as right-wing, racist, nazis, transphobes etc.
There are numerous reasons for everyone aside straight conservative men to dislike islam and its adherents who believe its principles.
I'm a straight conservative man. Idgaf about Islam. I do care about the large majority of foreign Muslims we let in that drown our population out, and the rise in extremism as a consequence of doing so. If a Muslim wants to come to the UK and live in peace with us, I have no problem. If they want to preach their religion, I have no problem. If they want to invite all of their family into the UK, I hope they are the same peaceful person and we have room. If you want to start flooding the UK with Islam and start sharia law zones, I have a big issue with that. The same applies to any other religion. But saying that by many, constitutes me being an Islamophobe. I'm not going to treat someone different for being a Muslim (well, maybe not invite them for a hog roast or ask if they want to go for a few pints of lager)... And I hope they don't treat me differently for being a Christian!
It's more that they don't agree with the very concept of citizenship. They want everything based on residency instead:
>NY201 The Green Party believes that rights and responsibilities between individuals and government should be based on residence. They should be expressed in terms of citizenship rather than nationality.
>NY202 We view citizenship as a set of responsibilities and rights based on residence in and commitment to a geographical area. It is gained by living in the area ì not granted by government. It is lost by extended absence.
>NY203 In the long term, the Green Party wishes to see the concept of legal nationality abolished. In the short term, while other countries use it, this is not possible.
https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/our-policies/long-term-goals/nationality/
Effectively, they don't see the need for visas *at all*, because as soon as someone moves here they should be treated the same as anyone else.
This is of course *completely insane*. It's effectively calling for open borders, but without admitting it.
I more meant that they're calling it something other than "open border", because they know that will put people off.
They're trying to obfuscate by not using the commonly-used term.
Its not admitting it in the sense that if you say they are for open borders to an audience they know won’t be sympathetic to them they’ll use all sorts of semantic technicalities to try and make you out to be insane.
Are they aware this would necessitate concreting over green spaces at unprecedented levels?
I'm supposed to believe these lunatics care about the environment?
I suppose if you're feeling generous, you can assume that they have not thought through how their policy on citizenship might affect their environmental policies - they've thought of them independently, and not considered the interaction. If you're feeling generous.
If you're less generous, you might assume that their environmental image is a mere cover for what they *really* want.
Yes, that's the point.
Anything that increased or encouraged immigration would increase carbon footprints - because an individual's footprint will adjust to where they're living.
>as soon as someone moves here they should be treated the same as anyone else.
I'm not sure it's saying that
>We view citizenship as a set of responsibilities and rights based on residence in and **commitment to a geographical area.** It is gained by living in the area ì not granted by government. **It is lost by extended absence.**
It sounds like there's a time element to it.
In some cases I think this is reasonable. Take for example, the mayor of London elections. If you’re settled in London it impacts you just as much as if you’re not a British citizen. For that kind of election, anyone living in London continuously for maybe 5 years would seem fair.
I mean, this is a fundamental part of the EU freedoms. If you are an EU citizen (potentially even just an EU resident? I'm not sure about that one), then you can vote in local elections wherever you live, even if you're not a citizen of that country.
What counts as local vs national elections depends on the country itself, I believe, but I would imagine that EU citizens would have been able to vote in the London Mayoral elections. Certainly, if the UK were still part of the EU, I'd have been able to vote in the recent mayoral elections here in my city in Germany.
In the UK and Germany (at least) if you live somewhere (EG resident), you can vote in the mayoral and other civil (eg council) elections. No need to wait five years, it's done the day you move in.
Referendums and National elections are only open to citizens.
Sure, they're a bit vague on how it would work, so my "as soon as someone arrives" might have been a bit hyperbolic.
But I think the thrust of their argument is clear - they want rights based on nationality abandoned, so residents would all get the same rights. That would (presumably) mean we were unable to deport anyone who had passed the residency threshold.
Nor could we just cancel someone's visa - once they're resident in the UK, that's it, they live here.
There are definitely...issues...with their position. Although I'm not sure it's a million miles away from EU freedom of movement. Once you globalise that it does become something else though.
Yeah, famously in world history all cultures, ethnicities and religions get on swimmingly without any inducement to blend together, so can't see any problems there
Basically back to common sense ideas of where you live, like we've used for thousands of years.
The ideas of passports and visas are quite modern, and extended from Russian wars/spies.
Seems to be.
The strange thing is she is right about one thing - it’s only a tiny fraction of people on visas who are the worst offenders. As with all thing progressive it’s often the “allies” with no real skin in the game who take up the most vociferous positions. The greens seem to be the epicentre of this behaviour in the UK since Labour booted Corbyn.
But for that tiny minority of genuine trouble makers on visas I really don’t see why we should allow them to be our problem. Hospitality should not extend to those who intentionally abuse it
Protests are not, in large, "spewing hate speech" or "intimidating others". The right to free protest should extend to people who just have residency, as otherwise they are simply not living under democratic conditions.
Did she somehow not read Hamas's charter and miss it's leader openly stating that maximising civilian casualities so useful idiots like her will force Israel to stop is the plan?
So to her openly brutal insane religious deathcultists who wants everyone else dead and an violently oppose the ideals she supposedly holds dear are pussycats compared to a, (enthnically diverse) Tory government who frankly are so corrupt and stupid they can't do anything.
What a moron.
The number of people here who apparently think everyone here on a visa should be in total lockstep with the Conservative Party on all cultural issues and that having _any criticisms_ of Israel's military operations in Gaza (which is a rather distinct thing from claiming Israel has no right to exist), simply _being_ Muslim, or partaking in any kind of protest should all be worthy of losing your visa or naturalised citizenship is pretty concerning.
Lot of UKIP-type rhetoric here about how if you have _any_ criticisms of the state whatsoever as a non-citizen you should just be kicked out. Suppressing dissent like that is how you eventually end up with a state where _no-one_ has the right to criticise the government, and while there are probably some of you who'd love that, most of us would not.
Yeah, once again this thread is a car crash. Very concerning for all involved.
It's incredibly short sighted to allow a government to crack down on the right to protest just because you don't like the current protestors. A lot of people currently cheering this latest loss of freedom on will be very upset if they ever want to protest and suddenly find themselves "annoying" to the government in the future.
The vast majority of people never protest anything in their lives. Not hard to see why so many people don't value the right to protest especially highly.
But of course if you took away everything that was won by the minority who do actually protest, they'd be mad.
Not just here unfortunately. You can see a definite rise in anti Muslim rhetoric across all the UK subs, usually from young accounts with auto generated names.
We're entering guilt by association politics, and it's not going to get any better.
Look, if you want to set the precedent that if you can find one or two people of an ethnicity to disagree with an argument about their ethnicity, then it can’t be true, you’re going to have a really bad time.
I had this recently on a post with that insane anti-Israel Rabbi who leads a cultish fringe Ultra Orthodox sect and attends Holocaust Denial conferences in Iran with white nationalists (he’s formally censured by a bunch of major Jewish authorities). People see an interview with him going off about Israel while presenting in a very traditional Jewish way and ask ‘so is this guy and antisemite then?’ As if that were a trump card against any claim that anti-Zionism is bleeding into anti-Semitism at the present moment.
Yep, that’s the neturei karta to a tee. For religious reasons they don’t believe in the state of Israel but they’re waved around as poster-boys to legitimise any "anti-Zionist" stance.
Yeah. It's nuts. You can find black south africans who say South Africa was a better place under apartheid. You can find jews who say the holocaust didn't happen, or that Israel shouldn't exist. It means nothing.
Why can't the green party just stick to the pressing environmental issues/global warming so that people on the left and the right could vote for them.
Much like how UKIP persuaded the torys to do a brexit vote.
if you're stirring up anti-anyone hate you deserve to have your visa stripped.
you're essentially a guest. if you start causing trouble for your host, you deserve to be ejected.
i don't think this is the win she thinks it is.
So the government are extremists for wanting to get rid of extremists who apparently aren't extremists according to her.
Fuck me the Green Party have about 6 braincells and 2 chromosome between them
People have a right to freedom of expression as a human right. So we should grant that right and freedom. Only if someone is convicted in a court of law for an offence should their visa be questioned.
A guest in a house is not free to scream at the host without risk of being booted out. Visa holders are guests of the British people. The British people are free to remove invites given to their guests.
I disagree with her on many issues but she's not wrong about the anti Muslim campaigns being run by the government and the media. It's obvious they're now using the word "extremist" as a substitute for "Muslim" and "anti-Semitic" for "has concerns regarding Israel's actions in Gaza".
Ask your average Muslim their views on gay people, Jews and a women's place in society and see if the answer is a bit "extreme" compared to the views of the average Brit.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
I feel a lot of people who avidly defend all Muslims also avidly defend the LGBTQ+ community. And they haven't yet realised that's a paradox.
The % in that survey carried out by respected sources makes for grim reading from a multicultural UK Eutopia dream some people seem to have.
Islamo-Leftism is a real head scratcher. The Islamic community are by far one of the most extreme communities in the country on average.
Truly bizzare set of bedfellows
That poll is outdated and surveyed first-gen immigrants. Humza Yousaf, the Scottish-Pakistani Muslim First Minister of Scotland who is fighting the UK government to protect the rights of trans people. Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, who is working with the Met Police to find and arrest homophobic attacks and has publicly supported and celebrated London Pride and Black Pride for years. Zarah Sultana who has been publicly supportive of trans rights.
There's no paradox here. It's a protection of the minority, even if minority is imperfect. Principle here would be is though some, and maybe quite a few, muslims could be bigoted, not all of them are, and you can't apply collective justice, that would be racist.
This way you can justify ancient antisemitism too, while many if not almost all Jews were just normal working people, some did dabble in financial services at that time, which was against certain religious, moral and political views, so the solution was to banish them all. Surely, we don't think it was ok?
How do you explain Humza Yousaf, the Scottish-Pakistani Muslim First Minister of Scotland who is fighting the UK government to protect the rights of trans people? Or Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, who is working with the Met Police to find and arrest homophobic attacks and has publicly supported and celebrated London Pride and Black Pride for years? Or Zarah Sultana who has been publicly supportive of trans rights?
I'm not sure they are to be honest, it's just that a large majority of Muslims are anti-Semitic as it would be normally defined, they have no qualms about saying they don't think Israel should exist, and mainstream Muslim views are extremist compared to normal views in the UK - they don't think LGBT people should exist.
We don't do ourselves any favours by hiding from the discussion and hoping it gets better by itself.
Your biased framing aside, if it's true that wealth affects the strength of bigoted opinions, can that explanation be racist? This is a model of how people behave, It's an empirical (testable) hypothesis which can either be true or false. (obviously the reality is going to be a lot more complex/nuanced but you get what I'm saying)
>I disagree with her on many issues but she's not wrong about the anti Muslim campaigns being run by the government and the media.
Do you think islam is right about women?
> It's obvious they're now using the word "extremist" as a substitute for "Muslim"
No that's utter nonsense. Even Sunak laboured the point that there's a clear difference between general Islam, and Islamism.
> and "anti-Semitic" for "has concerns regarding Israel's actions in Gaza".
That's also nonsense. There are tons of people who clearly have concerns regarding Israel. The ones called anti-semitic are those saying Israel has no right to exist, or using the word "Zionist" where it is very obviously a dog-whistle for "Jew", or expressing support for a proscribed terrorist group who wants to genocide Jews.
He says while the country is run by 3 British Asians (UK, Scotland and London). Also, Ireland's Prime Minister equivalent, the son of an Indian man and an Irish woman.
The Scottish one wants to break the UK up on what I would say is an ethnic movement.
The Irish one is from the republic that broke away again based on ethnicity.
The UK one came to power on Brexit which was influenced by concern over immigration.
As I see it.
\>It's obvious they're now using the word "extremist" as a substitute for "Muslim"
If youre reading extremist and hearing muslim that's your own preconceptions.
\>and "anti-Semitic" for "has concerns regarding Israel's actions in Gaza".
Well when concerns seem to be uniquely held in the case of Israel, having no care for similar situations in the world, and giving no weight to the fact that the Jewish people have been ethnically cleansed from practically the entire middle east, whilst offering no practical solutions other than 'let them kill you all', and indeed joining in on that rhetoric with genocidal chants and invalidations of Israel's statehood, it all does start to become just that little bit antisemetic.
You can tell who is really the delusional one when she tries to imply Sunak and his government is the real extremists. She clearly has no idea what is going on in some of these communities. Schools and teachers have been hounded over issues from the Gaza conflict to sex education.
Free speech is one of most crucial cornerstones of democracy...
Unless it's a mild convenience, or I don't like it. Then the speaker(s) should be deported.
Now can we move past these minor deportations and focus on real issues? DON'T YOU KNOW A CONSERVATIVE WAS BANNED ON A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM?!?!
Snapshot of _Caroline Lucas MP: The mask has really dropped now, if there were any doubt who the real extremists are, it is #Sunak's government - threatening to take visas off protesters and stirring up anti-Muslim hate._ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1763625342223126683) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/CarolineLucas/status/1763625342223126683/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1763625342223126683) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1763625342223126683) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t think it’s that unusual to void visas when someone doesn’t adhere to its terms, especially when they’re just study visas
The French government deported an imam that had called the French flag 'satanic' just last week. He'd lived in France for 30+ years but was back in Tunisia within days.
Within 8 hours of them taking him into custody, he was on his way I believe.
Bloody hell that's quick. I really, really hope there's more to it than that because deporting someone immediately over some speech seems mildly horrifying to me.
If you're on a visa in the US, try saying something provocative.
"I hate this satanic country, I don't want to be here!" Two days later "NO! NOT LIKE THAT!"
Did he actually say he didn't want to be there? Maybe he *likes* satanic countries!
Satanic countries need the most attention!
Ozzy Imam
yeah sucks when people are allowed to criticise the country they've spent their life in
Who spends 30 years in a country and doesn't get citizenship if they want to live there? Just seems very silly unless there's another reason...
It'd best if we made criticizing the government and country fully illegal.
You don't need to tolerate intolerance. If the governments official stance is "we must tolerate all views except intolerant ones", then I have no problem with deporting non-citizens who oppose that. Of course, we need to first have a government with that stance, which I don't think the current tory government achieves.
This isn't possible, they are in the EU - they have no control of their borders!!! /s
In fairness, it's much easier to retain control of your borders if you just straight-up ignore the restrictions you don't like. The French deport people in contravention of the ECHR all the time.
This was a common theme in UK-EU relations even before Brexit, we'd whinge incessantly about an unpopular policy but implement it to the letter (if not outright gold-plating it) while some other countries would wave it through then ignore it.
We act like the rule of law means something.
He does intend to go to Strasbourg court, well his lawyer does, will be interesting to see what the ruling is and the action…
> will be interesting to see what the ruling is and the action… A marked increase in the size of the lawyer's bank account I expect.
Yes, one of the problems with the EU, is that the Brits followed all the rules whereas, in 16 years of living in 5 european countries, they pic'n'mix. Consequently, we were more EU than the Europeans. Farage pointed that out one time but I don't think people grasped how important a distinction it is/was.
The problem is our justice system which is different from the European ones and is more similar to the USA ones. So the French Gov for example can ignore the rules and just get on with it and know that they will get away with it and can delay any legal proceedings for years if not decades. In the UK with our justice system an injunction forbidding their removal would be sought by some trouble maker funded by legal aid and would be in place by the same evening.
If that happened here they'd be stuck in legal limbo for years before any deporting happened.
Tunisia cooperates with France and is legally safe for most people. Those two factors make a lot of difference.
The Tunisian government has a very close relationship with France, similar to, say, being a member of the commonwealth over here. Through that it also has a close relationship with the EU. We don't have access to that politico-legal structure any more.
Liberal paradise of the EU vs Fascist backwater of the UK, where it takes aeons to deport even literal rapists.
It’s about time that guests either respected their new homes or get sent back to the places that they say are better anyway.
Lool I often find as a second gen immigrant only those who don’t visit their mother land have this fantasy of how good it is compared to Uk.
Always seems to be the case. If their "motherland" was the land of milk and honey, why did their parents leave?
Probably because they have some kind of "Rose tinted glasses" view of their country because they never actually lived there. Only heard stories about it (which often probably filter out the day to day bad stuff)
Or they are wealthy enough that a lot of the issues present in the home country wouldn't impact them or impact them as hard. I've worked with several chaps who have built literal mansions back in their home country with all the land to boot and they're not exactly millionaires here.
Yeah, I guess if you have money you can pretty much maintain a western lifestyle even in an undeveloped 3rd world country.
Yup I visit often and I see why my parents left, don’t get me wrong if the country’s got itself together I would be back in a heartbeat, but until then, I’m not out here calling the country which took me in satanic blah then carry on living there ! If I thought a place was satanic I wouldn’t be living there because my moral and principles would not allow it
Call me radical but I don’t think it should be illegal to moan about the country, no matter how long you’ve been living here.
Of course, to moan about the gov is to be British. Stir up hatred though and it should be a one way ticket.
>It’s about time that guests either respected their new homes or get sent back to the places that they say are better anyway. Are they held to a different standard of laws? i.e. IF this story is true of an Imam being deported from France for calling the flag satanic, does it not come under the umbrella of free speech/freedom to offend/whatever their equivalent is?
Plenty of anti “hate speech” rules passed in the past couple decades. Seems fair that you can restrict the speech of non-locals if you can do it to locals
Different standards? Have you seen the state of our laws these days? There’re dozens of ways to prosecute people for wrong-speak, wrong-think. It’s about time that some of our guests are treated the same, yes.
Yeah, only us who were born here through pure chance should have the right to complain about the state of the country, everyone else should have to praise it.
What makes someone a guest? If my origin I another country but I was born in the UK am I still a guest?
Being on a visa makes you a guest. Which wasn’t that hard to work out from the context
Great news! Keep it up, France.
Never been envious of France before.
Great, there has to be a threshold
Why? If someone lives 30 years in a country while being hostile to the natives they are still a problem.
Good
They're not transactional to party politics. Visas shouldn't be taken away for lawful acts. Protesting isn't illegal. No where in the terms of a student visa does it say "you can't protest".
Completely agree, only breaking the law should put a visa at risk.
It’s weird that this even has to be said. The idea that an international student with a “save our library” banner could be deported is bizarre.
It's difficult. In theory it's ok, however. - what should you do if you want to express your attitude to events when e.g. on some sort of visa, and are in England, especially if visa is permanent, like settled status? Expressing opinion peacefully (key word) is your right, isn't it? - it's open to abuse much more than when the same is concerning a British citizen, when due process needs to be applied, in case of visa revocation it may be circumvented. So in general, if you are not a citizen and are acting violently and illegally, it may be reasonable to simply recall your visa. However, a question is do you trust Home Office and Police enough not to abuse such powers. That's the concern, not basic principle.
regardless of a right to protest, there is no human right to a UK visa
There's a tiny minority who are very loud especially on reddit that will just whine about very basic common sense issues
The issue with using common sense as a defence is that everyone disagrees on what common sense is. It's like saying "facts and logic bro" when everyone believes the facts and logic are on the side of their beliefs, that's why they believe it. Common sense doesn't just mean "what I think is obvious"
Protest goes against the terms of a visa?
So everyone can protest... as long as they are citizens? Even student visas are people who are living here. They shouldn't have curtailed freedoms.
Can you not attend a protest peacefully then if you're on a visa? Considering the UK is now propped up by a near majority migrant workforce that isn't going to bode very well in the long run for workers rights now is it....
Because someone's not going to be kicked out for *merely* attending a peaceful protest. Rather, if they do things that are clearly beyond peaceful protests or are stirring up hate. And quite rightly too.
What's stirring up hate mean though? I think you have to be very careful making vague laws like that - think of how it might affect *you* when you want to protest something you care about and the government decides you're "stirring up hate".
> What's stirring up hate mean though? Chants and placards that call for the ethnic cleansing of a certain region perhaps?
Don't be silly! That's only illegal when white people do it.
So no support for Israel then?
Sticking pictures of paragliders during a demo just after the October attacks is a blatant example that has pretty much universal condemnation. You’re right that it needs to be defined but it’s also pointless to conclude that any protest attendance will be stirring up hate.
I'll have a go, and this is just spitballing. Two components to this, **actions and environment**. If someone is at the "world peace" protest and are doing things (including saying things) that exceed today's laws on intimidation, harassment, hate speech then they meet the threshold. If someone is at the "they aren't really terrorists" rally, then just participation meets the threshold regardless of what they individually do (not incl. counter-protesting).
You trust the government to make that call? Sounds incredibly dangerous.
[удалено]
No, the parliament passes the laws, and a good law should be designed to not give too much wiggle room for abuse of any new powers given. Clearly a government who wants to ban any protest that they as arbiters decide is "annoying" should be deeply troubling to *everyone*. The fact that you may personally not agree with the current protestors does not make it sensible to cheer on as everyone's freedoms are lessened.
To play devil's advocate: would you support the deportation of anyone who attended pro-ANC rallies during the 1980s?
They were linked to murder quite a few people, very many of them black. Look up "necklacing" next time you want to be depressed.
> Considering the UK is now propped up by a near majority migrant workforce What the fuck are you on about?
They’re only protesting for gods sake. This is authoritarianism at its very best.
Extremely rare French w if true
Because for some reason it's apparently our duty to allow anyone to come here and do anything they like including rape and terrorism. If you come here and commit crime you should be gone immediately, no expensive tax-payer funded lawyers, bullshit ECHR claims. Gone the follow day. How is that controversial?
rape and terrorism are not the same as attending a protest. Strange that I actually have to use that sentence to explain this to someone.
How did you go from attending a protest to rape and terrorism? Strange leap.
“How is that controversial?” You ever heard of this thing called rule of law? You know, the principle that the country’s been built on for 800 years?
And when that law is being undermined?
Am not aware when we decided visas were anything other than transactional.
They're not transactional to party politics. Visas shouldn't be taken away for lawful acts. Protesting isn't illegal.
We do that all the time. We ban people from coming to the UK if we feel they are not conducive to society. If a die hard neo nazi applied for a visa, depsite never breaking a UK law, you would support it being refused right? And if it was issued and later discovered he was a neo nazi you would support it's revocation?
I guarantee you, protest the wrong thing in Singapore, commit a cautionable offence, or one of your family members do the same thing and watch how quickly your visa isn't re-approved the following year.
Yeah and you can't protest in Russia either. What is the relevance of that to the UK?
The relevance is that people have different opinions of what constitutes a good country to live in. A lot of liberal Brits (I'd say the majority of this sub) will say that Singapore is a fascist hellhole. While, I'd argue that equally a very large percentage of Brits will be envious of the way they control their culture. You can have a subjective opinion on it, of course, but you surely realise that evidence shows there is an equally valid different view?
I agree, the Tories are extremists. Allowing net immigration in the hundreds of thousands every year is an extreme act and they need to be electorally obliterated for the damage they've done to this country and its social fabric
The hypocrisy on this forum is absolutely insane. People supporting revoking visas over peacefully protesting, meanwhile literally in another post on the top of the page, a lot of the same people complaining about a neo nazi spreading propaganda being jailed. Taking about free speech and government overreach. Talk about transparent agenda.
well unless it’s the same people you’re completely mischaracterising hypocrisy.
It does seem to be the same people in many cases.
I thought you were exaggerating so I went and checked the other post too. Christ on a bike, what the fuck is happening.
It's the first time I've actually felt like unsubscribing from this sub honestly. I know it can have a bit of a right wing sway from time to time but I've never seen so much upvoted support for a literal nazi who's spreading Jewish conspiracy theories, and at the same time condemning people who protest against what's happening in Gaza and equating them all with antisemitism 😬
I unsubbed around the time that Britain First propaganda tweet hit the front page, followed by a rehashing of the same false story a few days later in the form of a Daily Mail article. I occasionally dip back in to see how things are going, and really I'm not that shocked anymore. The discourse here is predictable and has been played out multiple times over the past year or so.
I think there's honestly something manipulating this sub and the UK sub (and I say that as a mo d of the UK one too). It's really disheartening.
There is no doubt that significant political subs are being used to push propaganda by various elements. Social Media, and reddit specifically in this instance, is a battle front. Bots and paid posters abound; often they are not hard to spot, but the sheer volume of them is astonishing.
The mods of this sub are questionable people that's all I'll say, knew one of them via discord and he was a menace. I outright don't have a good view of the people controlling the flow of discussion on this subreddit after witnessing the attitude of one of their own.
I'm not sure I understand. There's nothing wrong with disliking people for their beliefs, we do this all the time. Redditors do it with those they perceive as right-wing, racist, nazis, transphobes etc. There are numerous reasons for everyone aside straight conservative men to dislike islam and its adherents who believe its principles.
I'm a straight conservative man. Idgaf about Islam. I do care about the large majority of foreign Muslims we let in that drown our population out, and the rise in extremism as a consequence of doing so. If a Muslim wants to come to the UK and live in peace with us, I have no problem. If they want to preach their religion, I have no problem. If they want to invite all of their family into the UK, I hope they are the same peaceful person and we have room. If you want to start flooding the UK with Islam and start sharia law zones, I have a big issue with that. The same applies to any other religion. But saying that by many, constitutes me being an Islamophobe. I'm not going to treat someone different for being a Muslim (well, maybe not invite them for a hog roast or ask if they want to go for a few pints of lager)... And I hope they don't treat me differently for being a Christian!
Is it Green Party policy to provide visas for those who spew hate speech and intimidate others?
It's more that they don't agree with the very concept of citizenship. They want everything based on residency instead: >NY201 The Green Party believes that rights and responsibilities between individuals and government should be based on residence. They should be expressed in terms of citizenship rather than nationality. >NY202 We view citizenship as a set of responsibilities and rights based on residence in and commitment to a geographical area. It is gained by living in the area ì not granted by government. It is lost by extended absence. >NY203 In the long term, the Green Party wishes to see the concept of legal nationality abolished. In the short term, while other countries use it, this is not possible. https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/our-policies/long-term-goals/nationality/ Effectively, they don't see the need for visas *at all*, because as soon as someone moves here they should be treated the same as anyone else. This is of course *completely insane*. It's effectively calling for open borders, but without admitting it.
It kinda is admitting it tbf. Like I can't think of a single functional or technical difference between that and open borders really.
I more meant that they're calling it something other than "open border", because they know that will put people off. They're trying to obfuscate by not using the commonly-used term.
Its not admitting it in the sense that if you say they are for open borders to an audience they know won’t be sympathetic to them they’ll use all sorts of semantic technicalities to try and make you out to be insane.
Are they aware this would necessitate concreting over green spaces at unprecedented levels? I'm supposed to believe these lunatics care about the environment?
I suppose if you're feeling generous, you can assume that they have not thought through how their policy on citizenship might affect their environmental policies - they've thought of them independently, and not considered the interaction. If you're feeling generous. If you're less generous, you might assume that their environmental image is a mere cover for what they *really* want.
Surely it would also massively increase the pull factor meaning greater carbon footprints?
Yes, that's the point. Anything that increased or encouraged immigration would increase carbon footprints - because an individual's footprint will adjust to where they're living.
>as soon as someone moves here they should be treated the same as anyone else. I'm not sure it's saying that >We view citizenship as a set of responsibilities and rights based on residence in and **commitment to a geographical area.** It is gained by living in the area ì not granted by government. **It is lost by extended absence.** It sounds like there's a time element to it.
In some cases I think this is reasonable. Take for example, the mayor of London elections. If you’re settled in London it impacts you just as much as if you’re not a British citizen. For that kind of election, anyone living in London continuously for maybe 5 years would seem fair.
I mean, this is a fundamental part of the EU freedoms. If you are an EU citizen (potentially even just an EU resident? I'm not sure about that one), then you can vote in local elections wherever you live, even if you're not a citizen of that country. What counts as local vs national elections depends on the country itself, I believe, but I would imagine that EU citizens would have been able to vote in the London Mayoral elections. Certainly, if the UK were still part of the EU, I'd have been able to vote in the recent mayoral elections here in my city in Germany.
In the UK and Germany (at least) if you live somewhere (EG resident), you can vote in the mayoral and other civil (eg council) elections. No need to wait five years, it's done the day you move in. Referendums and National elections are only open to citizens.
Sure, they're a bit vague on how it would work, so my "as soon as someone arrives" might have been a bit hyperbolic. But I think the thrust of their argument is clear - they want rights based on nationality abandoned, so residents would all get the same rights. That would (presumably) mean we were unable to deport anyone who had passed the residency threshold. Nor could we just cancel someone's visa - once they're resident in the UK, that's it, they live here.
There are definitely...issues...with their position. Although I'm not sure it's a million miles away from EU freedom of movement. Once you globalise that it does become something else though.
Yeah, famously in world history all cultures, ethnicities and religions get on swimmingly without any inducement to blend together, so can't see any problems there
Well I'm not arguing for the green position, but that quote is mainly about the criteria for citizenship, it doesn't cover who can live where.
Basically back to common sense ideas of where you live, like we've used for thousands of years. The ideas of passports and visas are quite modern, and extended from Russian wars/spies.
Wow..
Probably. Don't forget that Lucas was leader of the Greenies when they wanted deindustrialisation, universal income and open borders.
To be honest, probably.
Seems to be. The strange thing is she is right about one thing - it’s only a tiny fraction of people on visas who are the worst offenders. As with all thing progressive it’s often the “allies” with no real skin in the game who take up the most vociferous positions. The greens seem to be the epicentre of this behaviour in the UK since Labour booted Corbyn. But for that tiny minority of genuine trouble makers on visas I really don’t see why we should allow them to be our problem. Hospitality should not extend to those who intentionally abuse it
Protests are not, in large, "spewing hate speech" or "intimidating others". The right to free protest should extend to people who just have residency, as otherwise they are simply not living under democratic conditions.
Yes most protesters are exercising their right. A minority are spewing hate and these are the people Sunak wants to target.
Did she somehow not read Hamas's charter and miss it's leader openly stating that maximising civilian casualities so useful idiots like her will force Israel to stop is the plan? So to her openly brutal insane religious deathcultists who wants everyone else dead and an violently oppose the ideals she supposedly holds dear are pussycats compared to a, (enthnically diverse) Tory government who frankly are so corrupt and stupid they can't do anything. What a moron.
The number of people here who apparently think everyone here on a visa should be in total lockstep with the Conservative Party on all cultural issues and that having _any criticisms_ of Israel's military operations in Gaza (which is a rather distinct thing from claiming Israel has no right to exist), simply _being_ Muslim, or partaking in any kind of protest should all be worthy of losing your visa or naturalised citizenship is pretty concerning. Lot of UKIP-type rhetoric here about how if you have _any_ criticisms of the state whatsoever as a non-citizen you should just be kicked out. Suppressing dissent like that is how you eventually end up with a state where _no-one_ has the right to criticise the government, and while there are probably some of you who'd love that, most of us would not.
Yeah, once again this thread is a car crash. Very concerning for all involved. It's incredibly short sighted to allow a government to crack down on the right to protest just because you don't like the current protestors. A lot of people currently cheering this latest loss of freedom on will be very upset if they ever want to protest and suddenly find themselves "annoying" to the government in the future.
The vast majority of people never protest anything in their lives. Not hard to see why so many people don't value the right to protest especially highly. But of course if you took away everything that was won by the minority who do actually protest, they'd be mad.
World news and uk politics have been completely taken over by bots, it's a shame
[удалено]
Not racist, just dont like em
Not just here unfortunately. You can see a definite rise in anti Muslim rhetoric across all the UK subs, usually from young accounts with auto generated names. We're entering guilt by association politics, and it's not going to get any better.
Anti Islam. The political and religious ideology, not the people. You’re not saying you support the likes of ISIS are you?
My guy, it's not *the political ideology* who is going to have their visas taken away, is it?
Didn't she attend marches which were deemed antisemitic?
Yes but according to non jews those chants aren't antisemitic so that's fine.
I suppose the Jews that were there as well were antisemitic too?
Look, if you want to set the precedent that if you can find one or two people of an ethnicity to disagree with an argument about their ethnicity, then it can’t be true, you’re going to have a really bad time.
I had this recently on a post with that insane anti-Israel Rabbi who leads a cultish fringe Ultra Orthodox sect and attends Holocaust Denial conferences in Iran with white nationalists (he’s formally censured by a bunch of major Jewish authorities). People see an interview with him going off about Israel while presenting in a very traditional Jewish way and ask ‘so is this guy and antisemite then?’ As if that were a trump card against any claim that anti-Zionism is bleeding into anti-Semitism at the present moment.
Yep, that’s the neturei karta to a tee. For religious reasons they don’t believe in the state of Israel but they’re waved around as poster-boys to legitimise any "anti-Zionist" stance.
Yeah. It's nuts. You can find black south africans who say South Africa was a better place under apartheid. You can find jews who say the holocaust didn't happen, or that Israel shouldn't exist. It means nothing.
I mean, the KKK had black members dosent make them right.
Maybe you should ask the Verband nationaldeutscher Juden?
“There are plenty of Jews on these marches!” Marches: always happening on Shabbat.
Pretty normal for a March to happen on a Saturday, most do. Not every Jewish person practices.
The march against antisemitism was on a Sunday. My point is, there aren’t a lot of Jews on these marches.
No, she didn't, she attended pro-Palestinian marches.
Why can't the green party just stick to the pressing environmental issues/global warming so that people on the left and the right could vote for them. Much like how UKIP persuaded the torys to do a brexit vote.
if you're stirring up anti-anyone hate you deserve to have your visa stripped. you're essentially a guest. if you start causing trouble for your host, you deserve to be ejected. i don't think this is the win she thinks it is.
Can someone inform me about the context of this tweet? The tweet sounds very emotionally appealing and I suspect it's a form of propaganda.
I hate Islam, Muslims are its primary victims and need our help to escape.
So the government are extremists for wanting to get rid of extremists who apparently aren't extremists according to her. Fuck me the Green Party have about 6 braincells and 2 chromosome between them
I hate Tories, but they don't blow themselves up or behead you when you draw cartoons of Maggie Thatcher.
ITT people who haven’t the slightest idea how Visa’s work.
People have a right to freedom of expression as a human right. So we should grant that right and freedom. Only if someone is convicted in a court of law for an offence should their visa be questioned.
Visa is a privilege not a right.
People don’t have a human right to visa’s to stay or visit this country, which is granted at our discretion. Good riddance.
A guest in a house is not free to scream at the host without risk of being booted out. Visa holders are guests of the British people. The British people are free to remove invites given to their guests.
[удалено]
Didn’t she take part in projecting “From the River to the Sea” on to Parliament?
She was part of the demonstration yes. She didn’t actually project it though
Haven't seen anything about that. Any links?
If you're on a visa why tf are you out protesting? This statement is going to get the least sympathy from majority brits
So if someone moved to the UK intending to work in the NHS, it would be appalling of them to go out and protest a reduction in NHS funding?
The same reason anyone else is protesting.
Because protesting is part of a healthy democracy and people on a visa deserve to have basic human rights as such?
I disagree with her on many issues but she's not wrong about the anti Muslim campaigns being run by the government and the media. It's obvious they're now using the word "extremist" as a substitute for "Muslim" and "anti-Semitic" for "has concerns regarding Israel's actions in Gaza".
Ask your average Muslim their views on gay people, Jews and a women's place in society and see if the answer is a bit "extreme" compared to the views of the average Brit.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law I feel a lot of people who avidly defend all Muslims also avidly defend the LGBTQ+ community. And they haven't yet realised that's a paradox. The % in that survey carried out by respected sources makes for grim reading from a multicultural UK Eutopia dream some people seem to have.
Remember those LGBTQ+ with Palestinians protesters. Peak lack of understanding of Palestine and Islam in these areas.
Chickens for KFC
Islamo-Leftism is a real head scratcher. The Islamic community are by far one of the most extreme communities in the country on average. Truly bizzare set of bedfellows
>Islamo-Leftism "Anti west" That's all you need to know.
Anyone who isn't male and pale is assumed to be good, basically. That's all there is to it.
Because they want to be seen as good people, but anyone with a functioning brain can see them for the idiots they are.
Seriously, if muslims were majority white, the Left would hate them
[удалено]
That poll is outdated and surveyed first-gen immigrants. Humza Yousaf, the Scottish-Pakistani Muslim First Minister of Scotland who is fighting the UK government to protect the rights of trans people. Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, who is working with the Met Police to find and arrest homophobic attacks and has publicly supported and celebrated London Pride and Black Pride for years. Zarah Sultana who has been publicly supportive of trans rights.
There's no paradox here. It's a protection of the minority, even if minority is imperfect. Principle here would be is though some, and maybe quite a few, muslims could be bigoted, not all of them are, and you can't apply collective justice, that would be racist. This way you can justify ancient antisemitism too, while many if not almost all Jews were just normal working people, some did dabble in financial services at that time, which was against certain religious, moral and political views, so the solution was to banish them all. Surely, we don't think it was ok?
Nazis are a minority too, why aren't leftists protecting them, they're ideologically very similar to extremist muslims.
Ask your average Tory about any of these things too, and you'd discover the extremists are in control of our country.
Did people forget the Conservatives did not vote for gay marriage. It was only passed with Labour and Lib Dem votes
How do you explain Humza Yousaf, the Scottish-Pakistani Muslim First Minister of Scotland who is fighting the UK government to protect the rights of trans people? Or Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, who is working with the Met Police to find and arrest homophobic attacks and has publicly supported and celebrated London Pride and Black Pride for years? Or Zarah Sultana who has been publicly supportive of trans rights?
How on earth are any of those 'average muslims'? They're not average people, let alone average muslims/christians/whatever.
I'm not sure they are to be honest, it's just that a large majority of Muslims are anti-Semitic as it would be normally defined, they have no qualms about saying they don't think Israel should exist, and mainstream Muslim views are extremist compared to normal views in the UK - they don't think LGBT people should exist. We don't do ourselves any favours by hiding from the discussion and hoping it gets better by itself.
That is the exact plan. “*When they become more affluent, they become more like us. It’ll be ok in a few decades*”.
[удалено]
It’s a terrible plan. Like a lot of the apologist reasoning, it’s based on wishful thinking & crossed fingers, and used to shut down honest debate.
Which, ironically, is actually a really racist mindset. “They’re just underdeveloped for now, but soon they’ll evolve to be like us whites”.
Your biased framing aside, if it's true that wealth affects the strength of bigoted opinions, can that explanation be racist? This is a model of how people behave, It's an empirical (testable) hypothesis which can either be true or false. (obviously the reality is going to be a lot more complex/nuanced but you get what I'm saying)
>I disagree with her on many issues but she's not wrong about the anti Muslim campaigns being run by the government and the media. Do you think islam is right about women?
> It's obvious they're now using the word "extremist" as a substitute for "Muslim" No that's utter nonsense. Even Sunak laboured the point that there's a clear difference between general Islam, and Islamism. > and "anti-Semitic" for "has concerns regarding Israel's actions in Gaza". That's also nonsense. There are tons of people who clearly have concerns regarding Israel. The ones called anti-semitic are those saying Israel has no right to exist, or using the word "Zionist" where it is very obviously a dog-whistle for "Jew", or expressing support for a proscribed terrorist group who wants to genocide Jews.
Isn't it a bit more complicated than that? Can you at least admit that multiculturalism has real complications?
He says while the country is run by 3 British Asians (UK, Scotland and London). Also, Ireland's Prime Minister equivalent, the son of an Indian man and an Irish woman.
The Scottish one wants to break the UK up on what I would say is an ethnic movement. The Irish one is from the republic that broke away again based on ethnicity. The UK one came to power on Brexit which was influenced by concern over immigration. As I see it.
\>It's obvious they're now using the word "extremist" as a substitute for "Muslim" If youre reading extremist and hearing muslim that's your own preconceptions. \>and "anti-Semitic" for "has concerns regarding Israel's actions in Gaza". Well when concerns seem to be uniquely held in the case of Israel, having no care for similar situations in the world, and giving no weight to the fact that the Jewish people have been ethnically cleansed from practically the entire middle east, whilst offering no practical solutions other than 'let them kill you all', and indeed joining in on that rhetoric with genocidal chants and invalidations of Israel's statehood, it all does start to become just that little bit antisemetic.
>and "anti-Semitic" for "has concerns regarding Israel's ~~actions in Gaza~~ existence".
You can tell who is really the delusional one when she tries to imply Sunak and his government is the real extremists. She clearly has no idea what is going on in some of these communities. Schools and teachers have been hounded over issues from the Gaza conflict to sex education.
[удалено]
Free speech is one of most crucial cornerstones of democracy... Unless it's a mild convenience, or I don't like it. Then the speaker(s) should be deported. Now can we move past these minor deportations and focus on real issues? DON'T YOU KNOW A CONSERVATIVE WAS BANNED ON A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM?!?!
The green party are the extremists that want to seek british culture eradicated and move away from the laws of biology