Posted on 06/24/2019 4:29:30 AM PDT by Kaslin
After Prime Minister Theresa May announced that she would be stepping down, there has been a battle raging to decide who will become the next leader of the British Conservative Party, and therefore the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Several hopeful candidates have fallen since the leadership battle began, and now only two remain. Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt stands as the clear underdog to Boris Johnson, the famously-eccentric former London Mayor.
Some of Boris Johnson’s critics have launched waves of accusations of racism and bigotry in an effort to thwart his leadership hopes. Not only is this strategy destined to fail, it also further divides an already polarized society. Regardless of the misplaced and unsubstantiated accusations of racism, like it or not, Boris will soon be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Donald Trump showed that basing entire opposition schemes upon accusations of bigotry is far from a winning strategy. This is not because every accusation against Trump was misplaced - some of his rhetoric was objectively racist - but because the same strategy is used by the political Left against every Right-leaning candidate. When people are labeled as misogynistic racists regardless of their character, it’s unsurprising that such accusations have lost their potency.
In addition, opponents of Boris are also ignoring the wounds left by the Brexit referendum. A large component of the “Remain” campaign was based on the absurd claim that any desire to leave the European Union was built on a foundation of anti-immigrant ignorance. Many who label Boris as “racist” apply the same label to those who voted “Leave." Instead of recognizing that misplaced accusations of racism only serves to alienate voters, they seem determined to double-down on this delusional and divisive strategy.
Another factor which completely invalidates the attempt to label Boris as a bigot is the illogical definition of racism that is being applied. The Scottish National Party (SNP) Westminster leader Ian Blackford argued that Boris was racist because of a poem published in The Spectator magazine in 2004 which described “The Scotch” as a “verminous race." These words have been attributed to Boris as proof of his bigotry, despite the fact that he wasn’t the author. He was simply the editor of the magazine at the time.
Even criticism regarding Boris’ actual words is often highly subjective, such as his Daily Telegraph column in 2018 which contained the claim that Muslim women wearing burkas “look like letter boxes”." The column was titled “Denmark has got it wrong. Yes, the burka is oppressive and ridiculous - but that’s still no reason to ban it”. During the article, he argued in favor of the right to choose to wear the burka, but also posited that the burka is a tool of female oppression with no grounding in religious scripture. To criticize his choice of words is understandable, but to take a tolerantly-critical opinion out of context in bad faith is not. Should we forbid any critique of religious practice when it is motivated by the defense of women’s rights?
It is perfectly acceptable to criticize the views and words of Boris Johnson. Like all politicians, his language and ideology should face heavy scrutiny. However, the continued attempt to avoid objective debate by simply shouting “racist” will not only fail to prevent Boris Johnson from becoming Prime Minister, but also dilute the meaning of racism and damage the fight against actual instances of bigotry that exist in our society.
Unless we want our children to replace “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” with “The Boy Who Cried Bigot," we should fight for a return to honest, objective, and logical debate, instead of blindly labeling all those with whom we disagree as bigots.
“some of his rhetoric was objectively racist “
What is the “objective” proof for that claim?
Didn’t he suggest that most Mexicans were ‘rapists and criminals’? Although he did qualify it by saying “Some” were very fine people. If you say this kind of generalised thing, you are probably going to get called a racist.
As for Boris, he refered to black children as ‘piccaninies’ with ‘watermelon smiles’. If you are a politician, you probably shouldn’t say dumb things like this.
Nope; you'll be call journalistic.
Some, many, sources, could, might, ALL the weasel words in the dictionary is how MEDIA presents it's spin to the public.
They have generalization down to a FINE art!
A lone lunatic in DC, ranting about a burr under their saddle, will get headlined:
Not if it’s said about whitey!
Boris isn't racist imho. he's an opportunist and wouldn't care less if the folks putting him in power were black, white, purple or yellow with magenta polka-dots
Trump said no such thing about “most Mexicans” being rapists and criminals. He correctly said that they weren’t sending their best and that there were rapists and criminals among them.
Have you actually bought into the lies on this without watching the clip of his announcement directly?
President Trump did not suggest that.
What candidate Trump did say was
“They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”
He’s saying “Their rapists” as a shorthand for “They’re bringing their rapists”. He basically dropped the word “bringing” and everyone deliberately assumed the worst.
he did not suggest most Mexican illegal immigrants, leave alone most Mexicans, were criminals.
As to Boris’ gaffes - they are Boris acting like Charless Biffy Biffen
If Boris dyed his hair, he could almost pass for the Donald.
Trump did not state that about most Mexicans. Would you not agree that some Americans are rapists and criminals”? Does that entail that you are an anti-American bigot who thinks that most Americans are rapists and criminals? He was talking about some illegal aliens.
“Didn’t he suggest that most Mexicans were ‘rapists and criminals’?”
Wow. It is really shocking that someone on a site like Free Republic could actually believe that this most outrageous of made-up left-wing slanders is actually true. I really find that mindboggling, and it really shows how much the propagandists in the press still control what people think is true.
Trump said Mexico was sending us rapists, which is undeniably factual. There is no way on earth you can deny that there are rapists among the illegals. He absolutely never at any point said that most Mexicans were rapists and criminals. You, my friend, just falsely slandered the president.
The author must be using the “new” definition of “racist,” which means anything or anyone the Cultural Marxist, radical left hates. It is objectively true that the president has said many things leftists hate, so yeah, “racist!”
It is aggravating, but it probably is to our benefit that the left runs primarily on slandering anyone with differing ideas nowadays. They are too closed-minded and controlling to debate instead of slander.
It could be more easily said of the Germans, who even have a city called Worms.
No. Trump explicitly said illegal immigrants are for the most part criminals, rapists or murderers. Which is true.
Over 50% of last years illegal detainees had prior convictions or charges in the USA. Over 70% of the illegal population in jail has major crimes they serving for.
The media and racist people assume what Trump meant is that most Mexicans are criminals and rapists. That is an insult to the legal Mexican immigrants in the USA and the Mexicans living lawfully in their own country. Not only that, Mexican nationals are only 50% or less of the flow of illegal immigrants into the USA.
So: Illegal immigrants are for the most part criminals, rapists or murderers, President Trump is correct.
No: Only if you have a racist bias (like the news media has) you would assume that that means that all Mexicans are criminals, or that all legal immigrants are criminal, or that all illegals crossing the southern border are Mexican. They don’t realize how insulting they come across, and how they project they own racism and bigotry.
I don’t understand why the media has not been sued in a class action suit.
I think they meant to write ‘none of his rhetoric was objectively racist’.
No one aboard the Enterprise!!
Who wants to get ‘accidently’ beamed into the garbage bin in the hold!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.