Snapshot of _Labour suspends councillor who warned of anti-white racism_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-suspends-councillor-who-warned-of-anti-white-racism-dwrtt8w5f) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-suspends-councillor-who-warned-of-anti-white-racism-dwrtt8w5f)
*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.*
>It also reported that she has “liked” several social media posts… Including one which said that “white lives don’t matter to the political class, media or justice system… Another falsely claimed Humza Yousaf had given a million pounds of taxpayer’s cash to Hamas and another that called him “the Pakistani Prime Minister of Scotland”
This woman is an idiot and has gotten suspended for supporting racist dogwhistles. Any valid point she might have had or made about anti-white bias is tarnished by the fact that she’s shown support for blatant racist dogwhistles.
Dog whistles are whistles that dogs can hear but humans can't.
In a political context, they are statements that are heard loud and clear by their target audience but aren't really noticed by the general public.
A good example is that the far right use them all the time, the idea being to create a coded language that’s innocuous to a bystander but allows you to potentially signal extreme views to those in the know.
Or other kinds of unpopular or unsavory messages/viewpoints. Certainly racism in this case, but tons of bigots also use it to support sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and other forms of bigotry.
An example:
"From river to sea, Palestine will be free"
Sounds harmless but is a coded message demonstrating support for ethnically cleansing all Jews from Israel.
As a Jewish person (not practicing but close enough I likely wouldn't have survived if I was born in 1920s Germany) but who looks like an Arab and supports the plight of Palestine, with a _very_ big "ehhhhhhhh" - it is more complicated than that.
The phrase can simply mean that Palestine should be allowed to peacefully exist and not in return be destroyed by Israel. But it has been co-opted by anti-Semites who can't tell the difference between a genocidal state government and a race of people, so think that race of people should be destroyed.
Annoyingly (very annoyingly in recent months) a large number of seemingly decent people cannot tell the difference between Israel and Jewishness. Criticism of Israel is not anti Semitic, and assuming it is, ironically, is anti Semitic.
>As a Jewish person (not practicing but close enough
Opinion immediately discarded.
In your entire post history, apart from this one, you don't mention it once, so I'm going to assume you may only be saying this to give your argument more weight.
>The phrase can simply mean that Palestine should be allowed to peacefully exist and not in return be destroyed by Israel
The only way a Palestinin state can exist as a state from "river to sea" is by the annhiliation of the Israeli state. During the Yom Kippur war, the nations involved stated their intent to drive all Jews in the land to the sea. Hamas use it as a call for the extermination of all Jews. Don't hide behind weasel words. The phrase has a meaning which is why Hamas supporters insist on using it. Its like saying the phrase "There ain't no black in the Union Jack" isn't racist but just a statement of the fact the Union Jack contains the colours red, white and blue. It may be true that black isn't in the Union Jack, but why say it unless you're trying to make another point.
I have mentioned it before, on this and multiple other accounts.
I admit maybe I have it wrong. I'm no expert. But your overall tone comes across as mildly anti Semitic to be quite frank.
Dog whistle = I can't/won't argue against this point so I'm going to claim it actually means something else and argue against that.
Basically it's a strawman but dressed up differently.
People definitely use the word as you've said but it does have an actual meaning in a political context and there are definitely people that use it as such. Always two sides to a coin.
The problem with that, is I know teachers who have suffered abuse at the hands of non-white students.
The names they were called would certainly be consider racist if the situation was reversed but since they were white, it was not considered a racist incident.
My wife had a similar situation. She was called a slag because all white women were easy etc. Ignored.
But she also had rape threats from a few of the kids which were also ignored by the senior leadership. Perhaps it was just an awful school.
That's _exactly_ the problem and why she was rightly suspended.
No one with a brain is arguing that racism towards white people doesn't exist. I'm a "brown person" and have seen it loads of times. But it's the fact that she made a decent point then totally ruined it by citing right wing bullshit. _That_ was the problem, not her original point.
future marvelous roof ruthless summer sugar badge shocking attractive disgusted
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The first one is rhetorical so is up to people to decide whether its true of not, the same way BLMs slogans are rhetorical. Claiming a group is discriminated against isnt racism.
The Scottish government has given 750k of taxpayer money to supporting Palestine though, given that aid previously given to Gaza has ended up in the hands of Hamas its not unreasonable to assume this will occur again. They tore up water pipes to build MLRS systems. Again no racism.
Humza is of Pakistani heritage, though Scottish birth. He himself makes his Pakistani ethnicity a big part of his campaigning so calling him ethnically and at least somewhat culturally Pakistani is completely fair game. Pointing out facts about a persons background, also not racism.
[https://humzayousaf.scot/about-humza-yousaf/](https://humzayousaf.scot/about-humza-yousaf/)
There is also the fact the FM has explicitly cited race as an attack on parts of Scottish institutions. wanting to reduce the amount of X race in government positions, that is racism. (not that i want to make a what about XYZ point)
Fair point to say some of these are close to the line but we shouldnt suspend people based on our perception of something they liked on twitter.
"**The Lord President is white, the Lord Justice Clerk is white, every High Court judge is white, the Lord Advocate is white, the Solicitor General is white, the chief constable is white, every deputy chief constable is white, every assistant chief constable is white, the head of the Law Society is white, the head of the Faculty of Advocates is white and every prison governor is white.**
**That is not the case only in justice. The chief medical officer is white, the chief nursing officer is white, the chief veterinary officer is white, the chief social work adviser is white and almost every trade union in the country is headed by white people. In the Scottish Government, every director general is white. Every chair of every public body is white. That is not good enough.**"
>"The Lord President is white, the Lord Justice Clerk is white, every High Court judge is white, the Lord Advocate is white, the Solicitor General is white, the chief constable is white, every deputy chief constable is white, every assistant chief constable is white, the head of the Law Society is white, the head of the Faculty of Advocates is white and every prison governor is white.
>
>That is not the case only in justice. The chief medical officer is white, the chief nursing officer is white, the chief veterinary officer is white, the chief social work adviser is white and almost every trade union in the country is headed by white people. In the Scottish Government, every director general is white. Every chair of every public body is white. That is not good enough."
Fortunately for Humza, he said that before his hate crime law came into force, so he can't be prosecuted for it.
Not a legal person, so double check, but there's a function in Scottish law, that means every time something is opened (e.g reading an online article, or tweet) it is considered as newly published, even if it is years old.
As far as I know, there is nothing in the new hate crime law prevents this from being used. Will be interesting to see if gets applied at all, or selectively.
Oddly enough, that speech is more likely to have broken the old law (that the new hate crime law repealed in Scotland but is still in force in England and Wales) than the new one.
The new one has functionally the same wording, but also has a general "reasonableness" defence, and you could argue that - in the context of a political speech - his words were reasonable and covered by freedom of expression.
He couldn't have argued that under the 1986 law.
That said, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue what he said was objectively "threatening, abusive or insulting."
It is somewhat insulting. It can reasonably be paraphrased as 'you shouldn't have this job because you are white' and that it's somehow bad to be white.
> "threatening, abusive or insulting."
In practice this means anything that a jury decides is such. Which is very subjective, and also means that no-one can be sure whether what they say falls within the law. Which is why laws like this are bad.
Jesus I cringed hard just reading that. If he had said 'middle/upper class white' I might have accepted it, although for all I know there's one or two 'chief' positions where the holder comes from a working class background but managed to ascend. Because in general 'white privilege' means nothing to poorer whites.
Anyway, to get to a chief position you basically need to be a careerist for decades, these people were starting their career when Scotland was nearly 100% white. A mid career doctor who immigrated here 5 years ago is just never gonna rise to such a senior position, they really expect decades of experience to get to such positions.
And one thing he missed out, the most prestigious lawyer in Scotland (Aamer Anwar, has his own wikipedia page and always pops up in high publicity cases) in Scotland is of Pakistani Muslim extraction like Humza. Also, Asians are way overrepresented in the medical proffesion in Scotland/the UK. There hasn't been an Asian chief medical officer yet, but as doctors they are overrepresented relative to their population. Also other proffesions like law, finance etc.
Personally I think these are overly the line in the wider context. And ultimately as a member of Labour she's got to adhere to their standards, in which alluding to the Scottish PM based on his race and implying he supports Hamas is well below the standards they expect. Whether or not you personally thing it's worthy of suspension is beside the point.
Once upon a time it was a racist dog whistle to point out the fact that thousands of children were being raped. We didn’t like the people who were saying it so we ignored them, at the expense of those children.
Maybe it’s a good idea to see if there’s any truth in what she is saying rather than just simply dismissing her. Then if she’s wrong you are beating her on facts, not just feelings.
>white lives don’t matter to the political class, media or justice system
This is a clearly a political statement and shouldn't be interpreted completely literally.
See also black lives matter, no one was saying that people literally didn't think black people's lives mattered but rather they had issues that deserved more attention and respect.
>Caimed Humza Yousaf had given a million pounds of taxpayer’s cash to Hamas
It's fair to assume a large portion of aid going to Palestine does end up in the hands of Hamas. Maybe the amount is wrong but that's not racist.
>Called him “the Pakistani Prime Minister of Scotland”
No idea about this, is he of Pakistani descent? Does he claim to be ethnically Pakistani?
If he is and he does I'm not sure how mentioning it is racist?
Point (a) is about the lack of support for whites from the establishment, which is just a fact. And even if it wasn’t, there should be no reason this rhetoric would be worth a suspension because it’s a harmless opinion.
Point (b) is not necessarily factual but hardly worth a suspension.
Point (c) is literally no different from all the times Sunak has been referenced as Indian.
It's not "a fact", it's a belief you happen to hold and it's one that a lot of incredibly divisive people push to attack policies that help minorities. It's certainly not a position that Labour holds though and so being a Labour member while publicly pushing a narrative Labour doesn't hold puts you at risk of suspension.
For b and c you have to look at the context around what she's implying, which is that she's implying that he's a terrorist supporter and that his race plays into that. That's clearly not going to be an acceptable position in a mainstream party.
It's also worth noting that she supported a lot more than these three things including posts that directly attacked the Labour party. Noone is suggesting any legal action against her or anything, but to expect her to remain part of Labour is unrealistic.
>No idea about this, is he of Pakistani descent? Does he claim to be ethnically Pakistani?
>If he is and he does I'm not sure how mentioning it is racist?
This is a really interesting perspective alot of my American colleagues have pointed out about having discussions about race in the UK - it's framed as being similar (but not exactly the same) to how emotionally neglected children or those with uninteresting parents/parents not interested in them often end up unable to articulate emotions, unable to form deep emotional connections with other people, poorly equipped to deal with social interaction and led into undesirable adult consequences like depression etc at higher rates.
Typically we brits don't grow up talking about race at any meaningful level, and adults are pretty constipated when it comes to talking about it in real life. None more so telling as when you look at the rationalisation of what could be "racist" comments. Its always rationalised from the perspective of the accused racist and technicalities of semantics, and hardly ever empathy wise from the prospective victim or victim groups lens or how the message is recieved - because that persons probably never been equipped to handle or deal with conversations on a meaningful level in terms of human social interaction. So to them its rationalised as a simple binary technicality where the conrnerstone is "Racism is bad, racists are bad people, I am not a bad person therefore what I said can't be racist - here's the technical rationale of why" - The logic is centred around indivdulism and the self, subjective technicalities of what's been said from their own eyes and not being labelled with a label for your own self rather than the impact on other people. Again the link to above - it's a gaping gap of emotional intelligence/development.
Getting outside of being hellbent of focusing on racism as a label rather than impacts, if you have said/done anything that could for any reason be recieved as a slight on another person or group of people in life or at work for example - real terms that's a problem for everyone involved. The general mature and emotionally intelligent road to go down is to resolve that rather than shield behind a technicality, which is probably going to result in a bad time for you and for the others involved.
>"The Lord President is white, the Lord Justice Clerk is white, every High Court judge is white, the Lord Advocate is white, the Solicitor General is white, the chief constable is white, every deputy chief constable is white, every assistant chief constable is white, the head of the Law Society is white, the head of the Faculty of Advocates is white and every prison governor is white.
>
>That is not the case only in justice. The chief medical officer is white, the chief nursing officer is white, the chief veterinary officer is white, the chief social work adviser is white and almost every trade union in the country is headed by white people. In the Scottish Government, every director general is white. Every chair of every public body is white. That is not good enough."
Why is it ok for Yousaf to describe people by their race/ethnicity, but not for others to do the same about Yousaf?
Did I say it was ok?
I think the central point of my comment might have gone over your head, which is ironic as it was about emotional intelligence.
I haven't got any time for Humza Yousaf lmao
It's always the same thing isn't it? Like you have a point or view and the people who agree most with you are racists and other scum. Maybe just maybe you need to evaluate why they agree with you, if that is who you want to be in bed with, and maybe it is a clear signal that you're on the wrong path.
If what she’s claiming is true, should we ignore the truth because we don’t like the people telling us it? It sounds to me like that’s what you are saying.
More like - is what she is saying true, given who is in her corner? Chances are slim and there will be tons of misinformation. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but boy wouldn't I trust it to get me somewhere on time. Before jumping on board you have to do due diligence.
So yeah, you are saying that because of the people saying it you will instantly dismiss it as false. We have a precedent of that being a very stupid position to take.
From grooming gangs to Jimmy Saville, we’ve seen time and time again to base the truth on who’s saying it.
Could you enlighten me on the Jimmy Saville connection and being careful about any POV that is also supported by racists?
The connecting to Grooming Gangs is obvious, although worth noting that Priti Patel's commissioned report states:
> Beyond specific high-profile cases, the academic literature highlights significant limitations to what can be said about links between ethnicity and this form of offending. Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White.
To me it sounds like you're falling exactly into the trap I've outlined - you're views also align with racists and you have not sufficiently questioned this.
>Could you enlighten me on the Jimmy Saville connection
People were trying to talk about Saville all his life but because he was a media beast at the BBC and they were frequently poor kids and their parents, everyone took the side of Saville.
>and being careful about any POV that is also supported by racists?
I’ll say it again, just because you don’t like the person saying something it doesn’t mean it’s not true.
>The connecting to Grooming Gangs is obvious, although worth noting that Priti Patel's commissioned report states:
>>Beyond specific high-profile cases, the academic literature highlights significant limitations to what can be said about links between ethnicity and this form of offending. Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White.
I know what all the reports say. I know that saying they are most commonly white isn’t the gotcha you think it is considering we live in an overwhelmingly white country. I also know that the data is crap because in most instances the ethnicity wasn’t recorded but the data we did have shown Asian being over represented by a factor of 3.
>To me it sounds like you're falling exactly into the trap I've outlined - your views also align with racists and you have not sufficiently questioned this.
My views are primarily driven by my lived experiences of growing up in a neighbourhood where grooming gangs were operating. I know what my eyes saw.
Edit: this is why I gave 2 examples, because I knew with the grooming gangs you’d try to obfuscate. It should be quite telling that you won’t touch the Saville example, it pulls your argument to bits. There’s nobody to call racist so you don’t have that as your battering ram.
On your “trap”. There is none. If one group of people is saying “this happened” and the other is saying “no it didn’t” or just “shut up” and I have first hand experience that it is true then where I does that leave me? I am sticking to the truth, I’m not lying about my experiences just because you don’t like the other people saying the same things. The fact is that I can’t escape that reality because it was a huge part of my world for a time. If you don’t like where that puts me then why not first stop calling people like me a liar every time we talk? Why not just fucking listen instead of “whatabouting” every time we talk. Yeah, there might be more white pedos in a white country, I don’t care because my friends were being raped by none white pedos and you refuse to acknowledge it.
It sounds like we are slipping back to the "if you don't go after the Nazis around your table, you are also a nazi" which was conveniently dropped as a talking point for the pro Palestinian protests
The good old "mistakes happen when it's my team"... I wish it was more like football where everyone's pissed off with their player for an own goal.
Guarantee when the Canadian conservatives win, liberals are going to go straight in the offensive over immigration levels and housing
Edit: oh wait, trudeau already has while he's still leader 🤣
* “Labour suspends councillor who had steak and chips for dinner last night”
* “Labour suspends councillor who owns a small dog”
* “Labour suspends councillor who has Irish ancestry”
Each potentially true here, and each as relevant to the actual reason she was suspended. She got suspended for “liking” some far right shit on social media.
Nah, this is an obvious bait headline. She's been suspended for her social media activity, presumably the leader of her Labour group asked her to stop "liking" far-right posts and she's refused.
**Article Text**
A Scottish Labour councillor who became embroiled in a racism row has claimed she is the victim of a “vendetta” against her after being suspended from the party.
Audrey Dempsey will be investigated by party bosses over comments warning of “rising racist attacks on white children and teachers” and new allegations about her social media activity.
She said she found out she had been suspended after she was contacted by The Times on Monday night, although she had at that point only accessed her council emails, not her personal account.
“I feel if people take a step back they will see that this is a vendetta and a complete attack on my character to discredit me for someone else’s agenda,” Dempsey said.
“I don’t know what that is and the sad thing is, if someone had come and spoken to me it wouldn’t have come to this.”
Last week she was criticised by anti-racism campaigners, political opponents and some within her own party after she claimed that an increasing number of incidents merited a stronger response from local authorities and urged her colleagues at Glasgow city council to “monitor” the issue and “collect more data”.
Dempsey, who represents the Springburn and Robroyston ward, said at the time that the issue was too “dangerous” to ignore and that since her comments were reported, she had been contacted by other Glasgow teachers claiming to have experienced similar incidents.
She rejected criticism of her stance and highlighted her work with migrants in the north of the city through the charity she founded in 2017.
It is understood she has been suspended pending the outcome of any investigation and that her online activity was the catalyst for the action rather than her comments about schools.
The most recent figures show there were 2,075 racist incidents recorded in primary and secondary schools across Scotland in 2022-23.
Labour said: “The Labour Party takes all complaints seriously. They are fully investigated in line with our rules and procedures, and any appropriate action is taken.”
New allegations emerged on Monday that led to Labour escalating its response from simply distancing itself from her comments to a formal sanction.
Dempsey says that she does not use Twitter/X and that a friend operates an account on her behalf
Dempsey says that she does not use Twitter/X and that a friend operates an account on her behalf
The National newspaper reported that Dempsey made comments on TikTok claiming that asylum seekers get “priority” over native Scots.
It also reported that she has “liked” several social media posts about “anti-white racism” on Twitter/X, including one which said that “white lives don’t matter to the political class, media or justice system”.
The Herald, which first reported Dempsey’s comments, reported that she also “liked” one post that falsely claimed Humza Yousaf, the first minister, had given a million pounds of taxpayers’ cash to Hamas and another that called him the “Pakistani prime minister of Scotland.”
Dempsey said that she does not use Twitter/X and that a friend operates an account on her behalf. An account in her name posted on Monday morning about her charity work.
Glasgow city council has said there is no evidence of an increase in racism against white students or teachers.
A spokesman for the Green group on Glasgow city council said: “Councillor Dempsey’s ignorant yet dangerous comments are something we used to hear from the BNP [British National Party] … Those seeking asylum in Springburn and Robroyston ward will feel they don’t have a fighter in their corner against the toxic and inhumane Home Office. Greens will continue to fight along with communities against the demonisation of those seeking asylum perpetuated by Tory, and now sadly Labour, politicians.”
An SNP source said: “This pattern of behaviour raises serious concerns about the attitudes and views of councillor Dempsey.”
Councilors suspended for telling the truth.
About part for the course around this. We have the RAF talking about "useless white men" but daring to suggest we might have adopted an anti white animus. Oh no you can't do that.
The double stand is real.
Read what she actually got suspended for. Don't just read the headline. She actually got suspended for liking pages with far right and racist dog-whistle leanings. Not raising concerns about anti-white racism.
Irresponsibly misleading headline.
This argument may be in good faith if that was all she retweeted and shared as a labour councillor. But it's not is it?
She clearly is on record interacting with views contrary to the party she's affiliated with, hardly a surprise that liking a comment that Hamza Yousef, first minister of Scotland, gave millions to Hamas gets you disciplined when it's complete bullshit.
I could say the exact same thing about your view because you have just disregarded the evidence put in front of you. Have you got evidence to counter the fact that anti-white racism is on the rise? Or are you going to sneer and call me far right like some out of touch uni student living off his parent's bursary.
She wasn't suspended for saying "anti white racism is on the rise". This headline is tricking you by implying correlation matches causation. You are also getting the burden of proof the wrong way round- if you want to make a statement like it's a "fact that anti-white racism is on the rise" it's up to you to show evidence. Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
But the point I was making was a more general one. People of all beliefs will kiss the arse of politicians who "tell the truth", but they just mean "tell me what I think, what I want to hear". Telling people hard truths they don't want to hear is no path to success in politics, sadly. How often do people say "wow, that was hard to hear, I'm going to have to seriously rethink my views, but thank you for telling the truth"?
People always complain about politicians "pandering", but only when they perceive them as pandering to someone else. People rarely feel they're being pandered too, that's why it's effective.
As for that student comment, bloody hell, like internet comment cliche bingo. You got extremely defensive at imagining me calling you "far right", considering I wasn't even replying to you!
The comment you were replying to gave you proof in that the RAF are saying things like "useless white men". That is one example, and if you look around you will find plenty more such as organisations treating white people worse in their hiring policies. After your lecture about pandering to people, you have just, ironically, dimissed the evidence because it doesnt pander to what you want to hear! And the student comment alludes to how people like you often use the term 'far right' to shut down debate.
They didn't "give me proof" actually, but I'm aware of those leaked emails, and that the white males victims received pay outs. I'm sure you're aware there are many, many examples of similar things happening to other ethnic groups in this country, so I'm not going to use one example to identify myself as a victim, even though I am a white male. As a group, we still do quite well in this country overall, better than most demographic groups in most areas.
What does "people like me" even mean? What do you know about me? You're getting offended by your own imagination of some stereotypical person calling you "far right". Still seems to have no relation to students, which I am not, I'm guessing it's more old school stereotyping about "leftie students".
Can you provide these "many" RECENT examples of whites discriminating against minorities in hiring? I was born and live in an area where the ethnic minorities are now the majority over the indigenous white population. Dont believe me? Come and have a look. Are you suggesting that in places like this, white people still have the upper hand? Have you heard of strength in numbers?
And I use the phrase "people like you" because people on both sides of the debate peddle pretty much the same arguments (I am not partial to that fact).
What anti white racism is actually going on!?
Edit: guys this is a genuine question, not trying to be contratrian here. I honestly don't know. Please don't downvote without actually telling me.
I'm not saying that this is specifically what she was referring to, but we've seen several examples recently of jobs that effectively saw white people banned from applying. For example, Glasgow Council putting out a job description for non-white candidates:
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/snp-run-glasgow-city-council-29996098.amp
And the RAF doing something similar:
https://news.sky.com/story/raf-recruiters-were-advised-against-selecting-useless-white-male-pilots-to-hit-diversity-targets-12893684
And also the BBC:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bbc-discrimination-row-advertising-job-ethnic-monorities-b941600.html
Actively preventing white people from applying for particular jobs is a fairly obvious example of anti-white racism, isn't it? And what is quite concerning is that these are just the ones that we know about - how many similar policies have managed to slip under the radar?
Wow, thank you very much for actually informing me. I really don't like quotas for jobs and stuff like this, it's racist whichever way you have the quota for.
I've genuinely not seen these articles, so had no clue it was going on.
I was rejected from a job a couple of years ago for not being “diverse enough” obviously they didn’t put this in writing but someone I know working in this establishment asked about it and that was the answer they were given. And before any one asks, I’m not mentioning who that person is or where they work.
I will say I've been involved in hiring and my company has definitely gone beyond positive action into positive discrimination at times.
In my experience the discrimination was more anti-men than anti-white. (I work in tech)
100ish people applied for the role. Mostly men (and to be honest mostly south asian men).
Of those 100 people I was given 10 women of various ethnicities to interview and 1 black male.
It's not the fault of any of these people applying but HR departments are likely breaking the law.
Snapshot of _Labour suspends councillor who warned of anti-white racism_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-suspends-councillor-who-warned-of-anti-white-racism-dwrtt8w5f) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-suspends-councillor-who-warned-of-anti-white-racism-dwrtt8w5f) *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.*
>It also reported that she has “liked” several social media posts… Including one which said that “white lives don’t matter to the political class, media or justice system… Another falsely claimed Humza Yousaf had given a million pounds of taxpayer’s cash to Hamas and another that called him “the Pakistani Prime Minister of Scotland” This woman is an idiot and has gotten suspended for supporting racist dogwhistles. Any valid point she might have had or made about anti-white bias is tarnished by the fact that she’s shown support for blatant racist dogwhistles.
What are dog whistles? Googling it just gives actual dog whistles 😂 E: thanks gang. A lot of conflicting definitions below but I get the general idea.
Dog whistles are whistles that dogs can hear but humans can't. In a political context, they are statements that are heard loud and clear by their target audience but aren't really noticed by the general public.
A good example is that the far right use them all the time, the idea being to create a coded language that’s innocuous to a bystander but allows you to potentially signal extreme views to those in the know.
For example, using a the word “globalists” when the far-right knows you mean Jews.
Also 'DEI' being their most recent stand in for the N-word
Google "Brandon meme" for more information.
It’s an ostensibly innocuous statement that is in fact used to discretely share racist messages or viewpoints.
Or other kinds of unpopular or unsavory messages/viewpoints. Certainly racism in this case, but tons of bigots also use it to support sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and other forms of bigotry.
An example: "From river to sea, Palestine will be free" Sounds harmless but is a coded message demonstrating support for ethnically cleansing all Jews from Israel.
As a Jewish person (not practicing but close enough I likely wouldn't have survived if I was born in 1920s Germany) but who looks like an Arab and supports the plight of Palestine, with a _very_ big "ehhhhhhhh" - it is more complicated than that. The phrase can simply mean that Palestine should be allowed to peacefully exist and not in return be destroyed by Israel. But it has been co-opted by anti-Semites who can't tell the difference between a genocidal state government and a race of people, so think that race of people should be destroyed. Annoyingly (very annoyingly in recent months) a large number of seemingly decent people cannot tell the difference between Israel and Jewishness. Criticism of Israel is not anti Semitic, and assuming it is, ironically, is anti Semitic.
>As a Jewish person (not practicing but close enough Opinion immediately discarded. In your entire post history, apart from this one, you don't mention it once, so I'm going to assume you may only be saying this to give your argument more weight. >The phrase can simply mean that Palestine should be allowed to peacefully exist and not in return be destroyed by Israel The only way a Palestinin state can exist as a state from "river to sea" is by the annhiliation of the Israeli state. During the Yom Kippur war, the nations involved stated their intent to drive all Jews in the land to the sea. Hamas use it as a call for the extermination of all Jews. Don't hide behind weasel words. The phrase has a meaning which is why Hamas supporters insist on using it. Its like saying the phrase "There ain't no black in the Union Jack" isn't racist but just a statement of the fact the Union Jack contains the colours red, white and blue. It may be true that black isn't in the Union Jack, but why say it unless you're trying to make another point.
I have mentioned it before, on this and multiple other accounts. I admit maybe I have it wrong. I'm no expert. But your overall tone comes across as mildly anti Semitic to be quite frank.
Dog whistle = I can't/won't argue against this point so I'm going to claim it actually means something else and argue against that. Basically it's a strawman but dressed up differently.
People definitely use the word as you've said but it does have an actual meaning in a political context and there are definitely people that use it as such. Always two sides to a coin.
I'll admit I was being glib there. I'm just tired of the recent trend on reddit where everything is allegedly a dog whistle.
sorry mate you can't say that, that's a dogwhistle
The problem with that, is I know teachers who have suffered abuse at the hands of non-white students. The names they were called would certainly be consider racist if the situation was reversed but since they were white, it was not considered a racist incident.
My wife had a similar situation. She was called a slag because all white women were easy etc. Ignored. But she also had rape threats from a few of the kids which were also ignored by the senior leadership. Perhaps it was just an awful school.
That's _exactly_ the problem and why she was rightly suspended. No one with a brain is arguing that racism towards white people doesn't exist. I'm a "brown person" and have seen it loads of times. But it's the fact that she made a decent point then totally ruined it by citing right wing bullshit. _That_ was the problem, not her original point.
future marvelous roof ruthless summer sugar badge shocking attractive disgusted *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The first one is rhetorical so is up to people to decide whether its true of not, the same way BLMs slogans are rhetorical. Claiming a group is discriminated against isnt racism. The Scottish government has given 750k of taxpayer money to supporting Palestine though, given that aid previously given to Gaza has ended up in the hands of Hamas its not unreasonable to assume this will occur again. They tore up water pipes to build MLRS systems. Again no racism. Humza is of Pakistani heritage, though Scottish birth. He himself makes his Pakistani ethnicity a big part of his campaigning so calling him ethnically and at least somewhat culturally Pakistani is completely fair game. Pointing out facts about a persons background, also not racism. [https://humzayousaf.scot/about-humza-yousaf/](https://humzayousaf.scot/about-humza-yousaf/) There is also the fact the FM has explicitly cited race as an attack on parts of Scottish institutions. wanting to reduce the amount of X race in government positions, that is racism. (not that i want to make a what about XYZ point) Fair point to say some of these are close to the line but we shouldnt suspend people based on our perception of something they liked on twitter. "**The Lord President is white, the Lord Justice Clerk is white, every High Court judge is white, the Lord Advocate is white, the Solicitor General is white, the chief constable is white, every deputy chief constable is white, every assistant chief constable is white, the head of the Law Society is white, the head of the Faculty of Advocates is white and every prison governor is white.** **That is not the case only in justice. The chief medical officer is white, the chief nursing officer is white, the chief veterinary officer is white, the chief social work adviser is white and almost every trade union in the country is headed by white people. In the Scottish Government, every director general is white. Every chair of every public body is white. That is not good enough.**"
>"The Lord President is white, the Lord Justice Clerk is white, every High Court judge is white, the Lord Advocate is white, the Solicitor General is white, the chief constable is white, every deputy chief constable is white, every assistant chief constable is white, the head of the Law Society is white, the head of the Faculty of Advocates is white and every prison governor is white. > >That is not the case only in justice. The chief medical officer is white, the chief nursing officer is white, the chief veterinary officer is white, the chief social work adviser is white and almost every trade union in the country is headed by white people. In the Scottish Government, every director general is white. Every chair of every public body is white. That is not good enough." Fortunately for Humza, he said that before his hate crime law came into force, so he can't be prosecuted for it.
Not a legal person, so double check, but there's a function in Scottish law, that means every time something is opened (e.g reading an online article, or tweet) it is considered as newly published, even if it is years old. As far as I know, there is nothing in the new hate crime law prevents this from being used. Will be interesting to see if gets applied at all, or selectively.
> Will be interesting to see if gets applied at all, or selectively. Indeed.
Oddly enough, that speech is more likely to have broken the old law (that the new hate crime law repealed in Scotland but is still in force in England and Wales) than the new one. The new one has functionally the same wording, but also has a general "reasonableness" defence, and you could argue that - in the context of a political speech - his words were reasonable and covered by freedom of expression. He couldn't have argued that under the 1986 law. That said, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue what he said was objectively "threatening, abusive or insulting."
It is somewhat insulting. It can reasonably be paraphrased as 'you shouldn't have this job because you are white' and that it's somehow bad to be white.
stocking treatment wide snow faulty future gaping bear puzzled swim *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> "threatening, abusive or insulting." In practice this means anything that a jury decides is such. Which is very subjective, and also means that no-one can be sure whether what they say falls within the law. Which is why laws like this are bad.
He spits the word White out like an epithet two dozen times. Worth listening to the speech to hear just how worked up he gets himself.
Gee, in a country where 96% of the population is white, white people are head of pretty much every public institution. What a shock that is 🙄
Jesus I cringed hard just reading that. If he had said 'middle/upper class white' I might have accepted it, although for all I know there's one or two 'chief' positions where the holder comes from a working class background but managed to ascend. Because in general 'white privilege' means nothing to poorer whites. Anyway, to get to a chief position you basically need to be a careerist for decades, these people were starting their career when Scotland was nearly 100% white. A mid career doctor who immigrated here 5 years ago is just never gonna rise to such a senior position, they really expect decades of experience to get to such positions. And one thing he missed out, the most prestigious lawyer in Scotland (Aamer Anwar, has his own wikipedia page and always pops up in high publicity cases) in Scotland is of Pakistani Muslim extraction like Humza. Also, Asians are way overrepresented in the medical proffesion in Scotland/the UK. There hasn't been an Asian chief medical officer yet, but as doctors they are overrepresented relative to their population. Also other proffesions like law, finance etc.
Personally I think these are overly the line in the wider context. And ultimately as a member of Labour she's got to adhere to their standards, in which alluding to the Scottish PM based on his race and implying he supports Hamas is well below the standards they expect. Whether or not you personally thing it's worthy of suspension is beside the point.
Its labours decision but im rightly allowed to have my own views on whether it was appropriate as you are yours
Once upon a time it was a racist dog whistle to point out the fact that thousands of children were being raped. We didn’t like the people who were saying it so we ignored them, at the expense of those children. Maybe it’s a good idea to see if there’s any truth in what she is saying rather than just simply dismissing her. Then if she’s wrong you are beating her on facts, not just feelings.
>white lives don’t matter to the political class, media or justice system This is a clearly a political statement and shouldn't be interpreted completely literally. See also black lives matter, no one was saying that people literally didn't think black people's lives mattered but rather they had issues that deserved more attention and respect. >Caimed Humza Yousaf had given a million pounds of taxpayer’s cash to Hamas It's fair to assume a large portion of aid going to Palestine does end up in the hands of Hamas. Maybe the amount is wrong but that's not racist. >Called him “the Pakistani Prime Minister of Scotland” No idea about this, is he of Pakistani descent? Does he claim to be ethnically Pakistani? If he is and he does I'm not sure how mentioning it is racist?
[удалено]
Point (a) is about the lack of support for whites from the establishment, which is just a fact. And even if it wasn’t, there should be no reason this rhetoric would be worth a suspension because it’s a harmless opinion. Point (b) is not necessarily factual but hardly worth a suspension. Point (c) is literally no different from all the times Sunak has been referenced as Indian.
It's not "a fact", it's a belief you happen to hold and it's one that a lot of incredibly divisive people push to attack policies that help minorities. It's certainly not a position that Labour holds though and so being a Labour member while publicly pushing a narrative Labour doesn't hold puts you at risk of suspension. For b and c you have to look at the context around what she's implying, which is that she's implying that he's a terrorist supporter and that his race plays into that. That's clearly not going to be an acceptable position in a mainstream party. It's also worth noting that she supported a lot more than these three things including posts that directly attacked the Labour party. Noone is suggesting any legal action against her or anything, but to expect her to remain part of Labour is unrealistic.
>No idea about this, is he of Pakistani descent? Does he claim to be ethnically Pakistani? >If he is and he does I'm not sure how mentioning it is racist? This is a really interesting perspective alot of my American colleagues have pointed out about having discussions about race in the UK - it's framed as being similar (but not exactly the same) to how emotionally neglected children or those with uninteresting parents/parents not interested in them often end up unable to articulate emotions, unable to form deep emotional connections with other people, poorly equipped to deal with social interaction and led into undesirable adult consequences like depression etc at higher rates. Typically we brits don't grow up talking about race at any meaningful level, and adults are pretty constipated when it comes to talking about it in real life. None more so telling as when you look at the rationalisation of what could be "racist" comments. Its always rationalised from the perspective of the accused racist and technicalities of semantics, and hardly ever empathy wise from the prospective victim or victim groups lens or how the message is recieved - because that persons probably never been equipped to handle or deal with conversations on a meaningful level in terms of human social interaction. So to them its rationalised as a simple binary technicality where the conrnerstone is "Racism is bad, racists are bad people, I am not a bad person therefore what I said can't be racist - here's the technical rationale of why" - The logic is centred around indivdulism and the self, subjective technicalities of what's been said from their own eyes and not being labelled with a label for your own self rather than the impact on other people. Again the link to above - it's a gaping gap of emotional intelligence/development. Getting outside of being hellbent of focusing on racism as a label rather than impacts, if you have said/done anything that could for any reason be recieved as a slight on another person or group of people in life or at work for example - real terms that's a problem for everyone involved. The general mature and emotionally intelligent road to go down is to resolve that rather than shield behind a technicality, which is probably going to result in a bad time for you and for the others involved.
>"The Lord President is white, the Lord Justice Clerk is white, every High Court judge is white, the Lord Advocate is white, the Solicitor General is white, the chief constable is white, every deputy chief constable is white, every assistant chief constable is white, the head of the Law Society is white, the head of the Faculty of Advocates is white and every prison governor is white. > >That is not the case only in justice. The chief medical officer is white, the chief nursing officer is white, the chief veterinary officer is white, the chief social work adviser is white and almost every trade union in the country is headed by white people. In the Scottish Government, every director general is white. Every chair of every public body is white. That is not good enough." Why is it ok for Yousaf to describe people by their race/ethnicity, but not for others to do the same about Yousaf?
Did I say it was ok? I think the central point of my comment might have gone over your head, which is ironic as it was about emotional intelligence. I haven't got any time for Humza Yousaf lmao
Whether or not someone accused of being a racist is actually a racist is not a technicality.
Anybody who uses the phrase "racist dogwhistle" is always wrong. Take a bow.
An Idiot in the respect that she’s shouldn’t highlight posts that point out events stranger than propaganda.
It's always the same thing isn't it? Like you have a point or view and the people who agree most with you are racists and other scum. Maybe just maybe you need to evaluate why they agree with you, if that is who you want to be in bed with, and maybe it is a clear signal that you're on the wrong path.
If what she’s claiming is true, should we ignore the truth because we don’t like the people telling us it? It sounds to me like that’s what you are saying.
More like - is what she is saying true, given who is in her corner? Chances are slim and there will be tons of misinformation. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but boy wouldn't I trust it to get me somewhere on time. Before jumping on board you have to do due diligence.
So yeah, you are saying that because of the people saying it you will instantly dismiss it as false. We have a precedent of that being a very stupid position to take. From grooming gangs to Jimmy Saville, we’ve seen time and time again to base the truth on who’s saying it.
Could you enlighten me on the Jimmy Saville connection and being careful about any POV that is also supported by racists? The connecting to Grooming Gangs is obvious, although worth noting that Priti Patel's commissioned report states: > Beyond specific high-profile cases, the academic literature highlights significant limitations to what can be said about links between ethnicity and this form of offending. Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White. To me it sounds like you're falling exactly into the trap I've outlined - you're views also align with racists and you have not sufficiently questioned this.
>Could you enlighten me on the Jimmy Saville connection People were trying to talk about Saville all his life but because he was a media beast at the BBC and they were frequently poor kids and their parents, everyone took the side of Saville. >and being careful about any POV that is also supported by racists? I’ll say it again, just because you don’t like the person saying something it doesn’t mean it’s not true. >The connecting to Grooming Gangs is obvious, although worth noting that Priti Patel's commissioned report states: >>Beyond specific high-profile cases, the academic literature highlights significant limitations to what can be said about links between ethnicity and this form of offending. Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White. I know what all the reports say. I know that saying they are most commonly white isn’t the gotcha you think it is considering we live in an overwhelmingly white country. I also know that the data is crap because in most instances the ethnicity wasn’t recorded but the data we did have shown Asian being over represented by a factor of 3. >To me it sounds like you're falling exactly into the trap I've outlined - your views also align with racists and you have not sufficiently questioned this. My views are primarily driven by my lived experiences of growing up in a neighbourhood where grooming gangs were operating. I know what my eyes saw. Edit: this is why I gave 2 examples, because I knew with the grooming gangs you’d try to obfuscate. It should be quite telling that you won’t touch the Saville example, it pulls your argument to bits. There’s nobody to call racist so you don’t have that as your battering ram. On your “trap”. There is none. If one group of people is saying “this happened” and the other is saying “no it didn’t” or just “shut up” and I have first hand experience that it is true then where I does that leave me? I am sticking to the truth, I’m not lying about my experiences just because you don’t like the other people saying the same things. The fact is that I can’t escape that reality because it was a huge part of my world for a time. If you don’t like where that puts me then why not first stop calling people like me a liar every time we talk? Why not just fucking listen instead of “whatabouting” every time we talk. Yeah, there might be more white pedos in a white country, I don’t care because my friends were being raped by none white pedos and you refuse to acknowledge it.
It sounds like we are slipping back to the "if you don't go after the Nazis around your table, you are also a nazi" which was conveniently dropped as a talking point for the pro Palestinian protests
I think it was dropped after Canada invited a literal Nazi to parliament and applauded him
The good old "mistakes happen when it's my team"... I wish it was more like football where everyone's pissed off with their player for an own goal. Guarantee when the Canadian conservatives win, liberals are going to go straight in the offensive over immigration levels and housing Edit: oh wait, trudeau already has while he's still leader 🤣
IIRC he blamed a Russian conspiracy or misinformation for the whole thing too
* “Labour suspends councillor who had steak and chips for dinner last night” * “Labour suspends councillor who owns a small dog” * “Labour suspends councillor who has Irish ancestry” Each potentially true here, and each as relevant to the actual reason she was suspended. She got suspended for “liking” some far right shit on social media.
Nah, this is an obvious bait headline. She's been suspended for her social media activity, presumably the leader of her Labour group asked her to stop "liking" far-right posts and she's refused.
**Article Text** A Scottish Labour councillor who became embroiled in a racism row has claimed she is the victim of a “vendetta” against her after being suspended from the party. Audrey Dempsey will be investigated by party bosses over comments warning of “rising racist attacks on white children and teachers” and new allegations about her social media activity. She said she found out she had been suspended after she was contacted by The Times on Monday night, although she had at that point only accessed her council emails, not her personal account. “I feel if people take a step back they will see that this is a vendetta and a complete attack on my character to discredit me for someone else’s agenda,” Dempsey said. “I don’t know what that is and the sad thing is, if someone had come and spoken to me it wouldn’t have come to this.” Last week she was criticised by anti-racism campaigners, political opponents and some within her own party after she claimed that an increasing number of incidents merited a stronger response from local authorities and urged her colleagues at Glasgow city council to “monitor” the issue and “collect more data”. Dempsey, who represents the Springburn and Robroyston ward, said at the time that the issue was too “dangerous” to ignore and that since her comments were reported, she had been contacted by other Glasgow teachers claiming to have experienced similar incidents. She rejected criticism of her stance and highlighted her work with migrants in the north of the city through the charity she founded in 2017. It is understood she has been suspended pending the outcome of any investigation and that her online activity was the catalyst for the action rather than her comments about schools. The most recent figures show there were 2,075 racist incidents recorded in primary and secondary schools across Scotland in 2022-23. Labour said: “The Labour Party takes all complaints seriously. They are fully investigated in line with our rules and procedures, and any appropriate action is taken.” New allegations emerged on Monday that led to Labour escalating its response from simply distancing itself from her comments to a formal sanction. Dempsey says that she does not use Twitter/X and that a friend operates an account on her behalf Dempsey says that she does not use Twitter/X and that a friend operates an account on her behalf The National newspaper reported that Dempsey made comments on TikTok claiming that asylum seekers get “priority” over native Scots. It also reported that she has “liked” several social media posts about “anti-white racism” on Twitter/X, including one which said that “white lives don’t matter to the political class, media or justice system”. The Herald, which first reported Dempsey’s comments, reported that she also “liked” one post that falsely claimed Humza Yousaf, the first minister, had given a million pounds of taxpayers’ cash to Hamas and another that called him the “Pakistani prime minister of Scotland.” Dempsey said that she does not use Twitter/X and that a friend operates an account on her behalf. An account in her name posted on Monday morning about her charity work. Glasgow city council has said there is no evidence of an increase in racism against white students or teachers. A spokesman for the Green group on Glasgow city council said: “Councillor Dempsey’s ignorant yet dangerous comments are something we used to hear from the BNP [British National Party] … Those seeking asylum in Springburn and Robroyston ward will feel they don’t have a fighter in their corner against the toxic and inhumane Home Office. Greens will continue to fight along with communities against the demonisation of those seeking asylum perpetuated by Tory, and now sadly Labour, politicians.” An SNP source said: “This pattern of behaviour raises serious concerns about the attitudes and views of councillor Dempsey.”
So basically she decided to talk about the wrong type of racism.
This is a bait headline. “Warned” - she was suspended for racist dog whistles, not for anti-white racism bullshit.
She ought to join the SDP. And she's quite correct about anti-white racism.
Councilors suspended for telling the truth. About part for the course around this. We have the RAF talking about "useless white men" but daring to suggest we might have adopted an anti white animus. Oh no you can't do that. The double stand is real.
Read what she actually got suspended for. Don't just read the headline. She actually got suspended for liking pages with far right and racist dog-whistle leanings. Not raising concerns about anti-white racism. Irresponsibly misleading headline.
"white lives don’t matter to the political class, media or justice system" So racist wow
This argument may be in good faith if that was all she retweeted and shared as a labour councillor. But it's not is it? She clearly is on record interacting with views contrary to the party she's affiliated with, hardly a surprise that liking a comment that Hamza Yousef, first minister of Scotland, gave millions to Hamas gets you disciplined when it's complete bullshit.
>dog-whistle leanings. Not even dog whistles but dog whistle leanings. Utter nonsense.
"Telling the truth" just equals telling you what you already think? Sometimes the truth is actually what you don't want to hear.
I could say the exact same thing about your view because you have just disregarded the evidence put in front of you. Have you got evidence to counter the fact that anti-white racism is on the rise? Or are you going to sneer and call me far right like some out of touch uni student living off his parent's bursary.
She wasn't suspended for saying "anti white racism is on the rise". This headline is tricking you by implying correlation matches causation. You are also getting the burden of proof the wrong way round- if you want to make a statement like it's a "fact that anti-white racism is on the rise" it's up to you to show evidence. Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But the point I was making was a more general one. People of all beliefs will kiss the arse of politicians who "tell the truth", but they just mean "tell me what I think, what I want to hear". Telling people hard truths they don't want to hear is no path to success in politics, sadly. How often do people say "wow, that was hard to hear, I'm going to have to seriously rethink my views, but thank you for telling the truth"? People always complain about politicians "pandering", but only when they perceive them as pandering to someone else. People rarely feel they're being pandered too, that's why it's effective. As for that student comment, bloody hell, like internet comment cliche bingo. You got extremely defensive at imagining me calling you "far right", considering I wasn't even replying to you!
The comment you were replying to gave you proof in that the RAF are saying things like "useless white men". That is one example, and if you look around you will find plenty more such as organisations treating white people worse in their hiring policies. After your lecture about pandering to people, you have just, ironically, dimissed the evidence because it doesnt pander to what you want to hear! And the student comment alludes to how people like you often use the term 'far right' to shut down debate.
They didn't "give me proof" actually, but I'm aware of those leaked emails, and that the white males victims received pay outs. I'm sure you're aware there are many, many examples of similar things happening to other ethnic groups in this country, so I'm not going to use one example to identify myself as a victim, even though I am a white male. As a group, we still do quite well in this country overall, better than most demographic groups in most areas. What does "people like me" even mean? What do you know about me? You're getting offended by your own imagination of some stereotypical person calling you "far right". Still seems to have no relation to students, which I am not, I'm guessing it's more old school stereotyping about "leftie students".
Can you provide these "many" RECENT examples of whites discriminating against minorities in hiring? I was born and live in an area where the ethnic minorities are now the majority over the indigenous white population. Dont believe me? Come and have a look. Are you suggesting that in places like this, white people still have the upper hand? Have you heard of strength in numbers? And I use the phrase "people like you" because people on both sides of the debate peddle pretty much the same arguments (I am not partial to that fact).
What anti white racism is actually going on!? Edit: guys this is a genuine question, not trying to be contratrian here. I honestly don't know. Please don't downvote without actually telling me.
I'm not saying that this is specifically what she was referring to, but we've seen several examples recently of jobs that effectively saw white people banned from applying. For example, Glasgow Council putting out a job description for non-white candidates: https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/snp-run-glasgow-city-council-29996098.amp And the RAF doing something similar: https://news.sky.com/story/raf-recruiters-were-advised-against-selecting-useless-white-male-pilots-to-hit-diversity-targets-12893684 And also the BBC: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bbc-discrimination-row-advertising-job-ethnic-monorities-b941600.html Actively preventing white people from applying for particular jobs is a fairly obvious example of anti-white racism, isn't it? And what is quite concerning is that these are just the ones that we know about - how many similar policies have managed to slip under the radar?
Wow, thank you very much for actually informing me. I really don't like quotas for jobs and stuff like this, it's racist whichever way you have the quota for. I've genuinely not seen these articles, so had no clue it was going on.
I was rejected from a job a couple of years ago for not being “diverse enough” obviously they didn’t put this in writing but someone I know working in this establishment asked about it and that was the answer they were given. And before any one asks, I’m not mentioning who that person is or where they work.
If you’re a man, interview wearing women’s clothes.
I will say I've been involved in hiring and my company has definitely gone beyond positive action into positive discrimination at times. In my experience the discrimination was more anti-men than anti-white. (I work in tech) 100ish people applied for the role. Mostly men (and to be honest mostly south asian men). Of those 100 people I was given 10 women of various ethnicities to interview and 1 black male. It's not the fault of any of these people applying but HR departments are likely breaking the law.