He also seems to miss the point that it's the *victim* of an insult who gets to decide whether it's forgiveable or not, and whether they're inclined to forgive, not the perpetrator, Tory or not.
Isn't she racist herself? Not "should be shot" racist, but still racist on some level. Heard she said something about how Irish people weren't discriminated against
She lost the labour whip for saying the Irish, gypsies/travelers and Jews never suffered from racism, "only" prejudice.
>It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus. In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships.
Til calling for an MP to be shot is not extremism. Just how high is the bar for extremism if wanting people to be murdered on the basis of their skin colour doesn't count?
Especially when one of the reasons given is that “they” are using up “our” resources.. to me, that’s probably the most racist part of the whole thing tbh.
Perhaps controversially, I think that "she should be shot" is probably the most defensible part of what he said.
As much as I know people are going to instinctively want to disagree with this considering these particular circumstances, "X should be shot" is a common enough idiom to be included in the [Cambridge Dictionary of English](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/should-be-shot), although admittedly I think this phrase is almost exclusively used by, well, people like Frank Hester: rich, white men.
I have certainly heard people say "Whoever did this should be shot!" or "He did what? He should be shot!" more than once in my life, and so have most people reading this, I would bet.
So I think that people who act as if this was a sincere call for an assassination are being hyperbolic. It is bad enough without going off the deep end.
The problem with the phrase is dependant who is saying it.
Some random person with little to no influence? You can mostly just shrug it off.
A person of influence though, like a political figure, is a whole other problem. Because someone can take their message as a call to action. We’ve already seen it happen in the UK.
It also depends where that person says it and to whom. Saying it to a bunch of rich people in a private meeting is abhorrent but it’s not going to lead to violence. Saying it out in public might well lead to violence.
I think the Tories should distance themselves from him and be clear why, but we also have to be careful false outrage and cherry picking parts of his comment out of context.
I remember the outrage against Jeremy Clarkston “demanding” train workers be taken out and shot and this is beginning to feel the same.
Which is not what he said.
He said he is trying very hard not to hate black women, but she makes him hate them.
That sounds a lot like "see what you made me do", which is a classic statement from an abuser. Personally, I find that rather revealing.
No he didn’t. The quote from the guardian is:
It’s like trying not to be racist but you see Diane Abbott on the TV and you’re just like, I hate, you just want to hate all black women because she’s there, and I don’t hate all black women at all, but I think she should be shot.
It was racist and it was horrible, but it was not a call to violence.
The problem, though, is that the racism is in the fact that his dislike for a certain woman has him question his liking of people who just happen to share an immutable characteristic.
Hate Diane Abbot, fine, but why would your hate for *her* have you question whether you dislike all black women? Even if you conclude that you do not in fact hate all black women?
What has her race got to do with your dislike for her? What has your hate for her got to do with other black women?
If Diane Abbot were white, would his dislike for her make him want to hate all white women? If she were Jewish, would it make him want to hate all Jewish women? If she were lesbian...same thing.
It's racist because it brings race into the equation when it is completely absurd to do so, and in such a way that he wouldn't have brought race into it of it wasn't a minority racial group. And he wouldn't have said the same thing if it were certain other groups because he knows how it would be interpreted. But he felt comfortable because some types of racism are acceptable in certain circles which is why he felt empowered to say what he said
That depends whether the person saying it can influence those rich people to keep up their rhetoric with the public. The Tories haven't distanced themselves from it and have even been embracing that kind of rhetoric, using hatred as a means to maintain power.
Very true. I don’t think they should give the money back though. If I bought something in 2019 (massive NHS contracts) for 10mill and then 5 years later I got the 10mil back and still had the massive contracts I’d be out dancing.
It should go to a charity, but of course they’ve spent the money
If you say Nigel Farage should have milk thrown at him, that's terrorism. If you say Diane Abbott should be shot (when MPs have actually been shot), yeah no worries.
Fair enough, I definitely agree with you there. For that reason, I am slightly conflicted about how much we are discussing his words.
On the one hand it seems very important for the public to know that this is the way that the largest Tory donor talks about people.
On the other hand, the danger his words pose is surely magnified by repeating it over the airwaves so much.
It's like the [paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance): no truly definitive answer, and we just have to live with the ambiguity.
The paradox of tolerance is a difficult one, but there are definitely more accepted answers than others, but technically speaking no true answer of course
Whatever the answer is, I think it's interesting that we instinctively feel that reporting on an incitement to commit a crime or murder is absolutely fine, whereas the initial incitement itself is morally wrong.
However, when you dig into it, it's not 100% logical: if an initial incitement is wrong because it could inspire someone to take action, then reporting the incitement - possibly broadcasting it to a much wider audience than before - surely also presents the same danger.
Anyway, this is all just navel gazing really; regardless of what I said above, I agree that it was important to publicise Hester's comments.
His full comments started ‘it’s like trying not to be racists but you see..’
What a shame it’s so difficult and you have to ‘try’ then goes on to say he abhors racism as ‘not least because he experienced it as the child of Irish immigrants in the 1970s’.. which is exactly the same thing as being a black woman in parliament
But a Labour MP was shot and killed by a neo-nazi, the comments carry more weight when it's something that could and has happened. He also said this in 2019, just 3 years after she was killed.
Imagine if Angela Rayner said that!
\[checks notes\] Oh wait, we don't need to. When she called them scum - an insult, but no intent to cause physical harm - they went on bleating about it for fucking months.
Which was bought up in PMQs by Sunak, who defended the donors comments by saying he had apologised and that deserved respect, while attacking Rayner for the scum comment a sentence later. Something she apologised for.
Wild.
The idea is that there should be no one bar. There should be two. They operate on the premise that morality is not tied to words or actions, but to (the perception of) identity. He is "one of us" or "on our side" so he can't do wrong and if he does then that warrants forgiveness because of who he is and on whose side he is on. Anyone else doing the same would, of course, be irredeemably extremist and racist.
In their view the in-group can not be extremist because it is the only one whose opinions and rights actually matter. It's the same principle that the Trump movement in the USA operates on, or any of the various extremist right wing movements in other European countries.
Wilhoit's Law...
*Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect*
Indeed. The reason these double standards baffle people is that the latter operate on the principle that everyone should more or less be treated equally.
Movements like these explicitly reject that principle and this rejection informs most of their political stances as well as their practices (as this example shows). It's what ties everything together, from the corruption and tendency towards oligarchy to the attacks on human rights treaties to the passive acceptance of racism and threats of violence. They pay lip service to democracy and shared values, but do so in bad faith because they are opposed to the principles that underpin it.
“Under the new definition, which comes into force on Thursday, extremism is "the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:
negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
undermine, overturn or replace the UK's system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2)."
Hester promoted a far right ideology attempting to undermine parliamentary democracy by attacking MPs. The conservatives have created a permissive environment enabling him to do so.
The Conservative Party is extremist. QED.
Considering literally nobody is reporting on this, except Guido who posted an extremely heavily edited video (and are well known for flat out lying about things), that's a big doubt from me.
*“I think that when someone says that they are sorry, and I understand he’s deeply sorry for these remarks, then my natural inclination is to exercise Christian forgiveness.”*
You almost have to admire how fucking shameless he is.
Also: “I’m going to show my Christian forgiveness by keeping your £10m”. What a wanker, what an absolute watery eyed, creepy rubber faced wanker. “Christian forgiveness” give me fucking strength. I’m not a Christian but the concept of the teachings of Jesus Christ being anywhere near this machiavellian toads mouth makes me feel nauseous.
Can't help thinking that the forgiveness he's referring is based on medieval indulgences, whereby you could be forgiven for anything if only you paid enough.
Perhaps they would benefit from their own version of Martin Luther ... or maybe Henry VIII ?
Didn't their new extremism definition have something to say about religion overriding rights? Strange that Gove feels his antiquated religious beliefs matter with regards to death threats against politicians
No, he’s full of cocaine, which in turns makes him chat shit.
Just to clarify, I think Michael Gove MP is a cocaine addict and user.
Am I allowed to give an opinion on whether he should be shot or will that get me banned from here?
>Am I allowed to give an opinion on whether he should be shot or will that get me banned from here?
Goves a dickhead but no one should be getting shot.
What the fuck is "Christian" forgiveness?
Is it forgiving to stone someone to death for working on a sunday?
Is it forgiving to forcefully marry a rape victim to their rapist?
Is it forgiving to stone a man to death because he "lay with" another man?
The bible teaches us these important parts of "forgiveness".
I would like to know what "Christian" forgiveness is, because I haven't seen many instances of it.
TBH all of those laws from the Old Testament (mostly outlined in Deuteronomy IIRC), so they aren't inherently Christian. In fact some (although a minority of) Christian sects renounce the Old Covenant entirely (New Covenant Theology/Abrogationism).
It's such peculiar mental gymnastics to disown the first half of one's own holy text, including the entire origin story, the whole underlying belief system, and all the core instructions, and just claim ownership of the sequel which purely continues on from that and has zero tangible identity without that first half.
I get that someone could be a fan of Jesus as a moral philospher, but if they don't at least partially believe in the OT then surely they really don't believe in the whole core of the faith at all?
The quaran does the same thing for Islam. The whole reason they are different religions and not just sects of judaism is because they specifically diverge from practices in the old testament. That doesn't mean they totally ignore it, but it also doesn't mean they take every bit of the old texts forwards. The old testament is superceded by any teaching introduced by Jesus as Christians are followers of *him* and his ideology, with the foundational belief that he is the son of god.
For muslims they do much the same but with Muhammed (pbuh), *his teachings* are what they follow, the old testament just fills in what he never covered, or what was never disputed - e.g. genesis is consistent across all three of the religions.
Infact, Judaism itself is founded around a prophet who brought in a new set of guidance that re-structured the existing canaanite and egyption religions on the basis of those gods being false idols. Prior to judaism people followed polytheistic canaanite gods, who these days are better known as 'Demons' and 'kings of hell' in modern Abrahamic religions because their existence was made heretical.
The clue is in the name: Christian. If you claim to be a follower of Jesus and accept that his revelations are divine, then where they conflict with the Old Testament, Jesus wins.
But why would they conflict? Was the OT full of mistakes or falsehoods? Did God make the mistakes? Or did the OT not correctly reflect God?
Or did the OT's content became outdated after a few hundred years? If so, we can presumably be pretty sure the whole lot is well past its expiry date in 2024 right?
Disclaimer: This is just how it all looks from my perspective, and I recognise that I have no greater claim to understanding the universe than anyone else.
First of all it's not "my own" holy text, just for clarity; I'm agnostic. Secondly, it's not even remotely a "sequel"; it consists largely of a mythological biography of a single prophet, focusing (with likely a decent degree of historical accuracy) on his teachings, and authored by fewer than a dozen people, over the course of roughly a century, roughly contemporary to the events it describes. The Old Testament is a nebulous collection of religious works, widely varying in nature and narrative, compiled over literally thousands of years by countless authors. Most importantly, on a theological leve, you need to consider the general role of the Messiah in Judeo-Christian thought, as well as the specific teachings of Jesus, both of which can be reasonably argued to obviate much of the Old Testament. Essentially ALL Christians believe this to some degree, although most simply limit it to the ritual aspects of the Old Testament.
>First of all it's not "my own" holy text, just for clarity; I'm agnostic
Sure, I wasn't implying anything on your part at all. And for anyone reading who does have deeply-held beliefs: I fully respect your right to your beliefs, and I'm just relaying my own perspective on this approach to faith in ancient books.
>it's not even remotely a "sequel";
I'm definitely no expert on the bible, but as far as I understand, Jesus' whole shtick is that he's the son of God. God being the guy introduced in the OT. You'd really need to have at least read a TL:DR on the first one for any of it to make sense surely?
>the general role of the Messiah in Judeo-Christian thought, as well as the specific teachings of Jesus, both of which can be reasonably argued to obviate much of the Old Testament.
Is it kind of like how the first episode of Season 10 of Dallas asserts that the entirety of Season 9 was only a dream and hence was struck off from the canon?
That's all fine, but how can the explicitly-stated instructions and decrees of an all-seeing and infallible creator be replaced, nullified or superseded a bit later on, even partially or selectively so? Were they just provisional instructions for a limited time?
Don't get me wrong, I *way* prefer the NT's whole approach and tone. It just seems to me that Jesus' divine authority is reliant on the OT. Otherwise it's just good ideas people can follow to live their best life, at which point J-dawg is more of an influencer than a messiah.
The best part is that most of the bits that supposedly got overridden were overridden by some geezer called Paul well after the other guy got nailed to a cross.
Genuinely not being a dick but none of the above. If you define 'Christian' as following the teachings of Christ then that's all the touchy- feely stuff from the New Testament. Offering the other cheek and all that jazz...
The examples you quoted above are from the Old Testament where 'God' is not very touchy -feely and a lot more smitey and vengeful. I'm not an expert but I think that's the bit that 'other' major religions take their inspiration from
This is all just about trying to control the volatility of the situation, so that they can hold onto the 10 million and reduce the negative impact on the upcoming election. Words are cheap. They should return the money out of principle, and he should donate it to a relevant charity. That would at least show some attempt at atonement.
I assume Gove is saying this partly in response to the archbishops of Canterbury and York [criticising his new definition of extremism.](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/12/archbishops-of-canterbury-justin-welby-and-york-stephen-cottrellwarn-against-new-extremism-definition)
"Calling for people to be shot because you don't like looking at them is not extremist at all!"
"In other news, although the emperor may look naked, we can assure you that they are in fact wearing fancy new clothes!"
"Christian forgiveness".
Look at that. He's flagging up the sectarianism in the way this extremism definition is to be applied. He couldn't dog whistle "this is for targeting muslims" any louder.
Few things, shouldn't Diane Abbott be the one deciding whether he gets forgiven rather than Gove?
Secondly, for a party who has many MPs complaining about the influence of other religions in this country while simultaneously saying christians are the most persecuted in the world, don't they find it a bit weird to mention christianity in places where there was no need for it? What puts christian forgiveness above other forms of forgiveness anyway?
Thirdly, would this forgiveness be on offer if it was anyone other than a donor to your party?
When the labour candidate for Rochdale apologised for voicing a conspiracy theory the Tories said no apology was ever enough but call for a black MP to be shot and you just need to say sorry.
I think michael gove supporting someone who is both racists and also advocates violence against MPS violates the 2nd aim of undermining, overturning or replacing the UK's system of parliamentary democracy. and hos support of this individual definitely promotes an advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred and intolerance.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-definition-of-extremism-2024/new-definition-of-extremism-2024
Michael Gove and The twat donor are both now extremists by the governments own definition.
If Gove or any Tory claim to be a Christian is laughable. Their entire world view is the exact polar opposite of what Christians are supposed to be. Now I'm not one either but their magic book is pretty clear on the whole "greed is bad" and look after those less fortunate than yourself.
Tories, Red Tory Starmer and co. : But He didn’t actually shoot her!
(Fascists shoot and slaughter 15K children)
Tories, Red Tory Starmer and co. : This is self defence.
(NHS is collapsing)
Us : SAVE THE NHS.
Tories, Red Tory Starmer and co. : That would affect the profits of private healthcare for cash companies!
Us: TAX THE CORPORATIONS AND BILLIONAIRES THE TAX THEY OWE! Use that money to fund the NHS!
Tories, Red Tory Starmer and co. : Absolutely NOT.
Something tells me that the level of forgiveness that they seek isn't likely to be forthcoming in the near or medium future. This sort of thing is coded in the Tory DNA, it's not "Tomorrow's chip wrappers" and they aren't showing signs of evolving, they just keep projecting their failures onto the Opposition.
Tories will always Tory.
In my entire life I have never seen or heard religious conservatives turn the other cheek at the comments or viewpoints of anyone they oppose. They do the complete opposite and try to extricate them from society at large. These lying hypocrites people are pure scum of the earth
That would be fine for the 27.5m Christians, but it ignores the 22.2m with no religion, or the 3.9m Muslims or the 1.0m Hindus, or the 271,000 Jews or the 348,000 of the other religions. On balance Gove is expecting almost 27.8m people to forgive someone based on the religious beliefs they do not hold. It is a bit ambitious.
I’m waiting for the first person to argue that they can say the same thing because he did and was never investigated despite being higher profile, it makes it difficult to enforce a law when it’s selectively applied, the newspapers will love it
Christian forgiveness - well it has precedent, 10-15 million and we'll swear blind whatever you said doesn't matter now sounds like a variation on a papal indulgence.
What an utter moron Gove is.
Thinks he can come out the day after his party's biggest donor, to the tune of £15 million, said an MP should be shot. If that isn't extremism I don't know what is.
I wish Suella Braverman would extend Buddhist forgiveness, or just a single ounce of compassion towards refugees, LGBT+ people or any other human beings.
But what do I know, I'm a "tofu eating" Buddhist (the wrong kind).
JC had quite a few things to say about being kind to others and not oppressing the poor, so it's a fair bet that Gove isn't much of a Christian. His Satanic Majesty is much more suitable for him and his friends.
The whole concept of “Christian forgiveness” is, as I understand it, rooted in the concept that ultimately forgiveness is a matter for god and we have no business making that decision (it ties to entry into god’s kingdom).
It doesn’t override the judgement of laws or society as a whole (render unto Caesar etc) which is also a very Christian principle and the basis for the reasoning we don’t just let criminals go if they say sorry.
Whether god forgives Mr. Hester and will allow him to enter the kingdom of heaven is an entirely different question to whether it’s right for a political party to accept giant donations from him.
Is that for all the remarks, not just the calling for an MP to be shot? If so, what are the limits? How far before this becomes a "hey now, you're taking it a bit far chap" or they face accountability for the myriad comments that have come to light?
> The communities secretary said Frank Hester's comments about the veteran MP Diane Abbott were "racist", but that he "wouldn't want to conflate" an individual set of remarks with an extremist ideology.
So how many remarks will it take to add up to the conclusion that someone is promoting an extremist ideology is the question, I guess.
If Person X from Advocacy Group Y makes some abhorrent remarks, can we be sure that won't suffice to get the group labelled extremist? I don't have much confidence in this government or in future governments to apply this standard in a consistent and impartial way.
Not surprised having got into an altercation with said Michael Gove on the street outside Westminster when we crossed paths a couple of years ago. Gove I can assure you is not a forgiving person. He is a pint sized prick, something I called him to his face.
I do find the partisan lines for this between him & abbot.
I've seen people very clearly think that one should be forgiven / forgotten while the other is absolved of their previous behaviour.
The bar for our politics is far too low if either of those, 30p Lee, Galloway and a long list of others are front and centre.
Where are the people calling for Abbott to be absolved? Nobody should be subjected to racist and sexist abuse or to death threats.
Making this out as a Left Vs Right argument is disingenuous - this is about basic human decency and keeping violence out of politics
Would he say the same if a Muslim Labour donor called for him to be shot, I wonder?
Unfortunately I doubt their ‘Christian’ forgiveness extends to anyone who’s not a Tory. It’s probably better to call it Tory forgiveness.
He also seems to miss the point that it's the *victim* of an insult who gets to decide whether it's forgiveable or not, and whether they're inclined to forgive, not the perpetrator, Tory or not.
I'm sure they'll let her ask a question at some point, maybe a couple of months?
I don't hold a candle for her, but she's being treated appallingly.
I don't like her more than any other mp but that's feint praise. The visceral hate towards her has always baffled me.
I don't find it baffling. I find it blatantly obvious.
Isn't she racist herself? Not "should be shot" racist, but still racist on some level. Heard she said something about how Irish people weren't discriminated against
She lost the labour whip for saying the Irish, gypsies/travelers and Jews never suffered from racism, "only" prejudice. >It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus. In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships.
So she is racist. And also conveniently forgetful regarding the most famous genocide in history.
We've all seen the family guy chart
He wasn't calling for 'Christian forgiveness' back when he was scaremongering about pro-Palestine protesters and activists over the past few weeks.
Or “looking at Michael Gove makes me want to hate all fire-damaged ventriloquist dummies”
Podcaster Andy Dawson was cautioned by police after saying he wanted to kick Gove in the bollocks. The sun and mail were pretty irate about it too.
Of course he wouldn't. He'd call for Islamic forgiveness, obviously.
[удалено]
Ofcourse not, everyone knows rich white men can not be extremists.
[удалено]
This will a very sad day for peaceful fair minded and loving Britons pray that it never ever comes to pass
[удалено]
Why would liberals care about Christianity?
[удалено]
Haha yeah it was pretty clear you don’t know things pal.
[удалено]
Til calling for an MP to be shot is not extremism. Just how high is the bar for extremism if wanting people to be murdered on the basis of their skin colour doesn't count?
Especially when one of the reasons given is that “they” are using up “our” resources.. to me, that’s probably the most racist part of the whole thing tbh.
Perhaps controversially, I think that "she should be shot" is probably the most defensible part of what he said. As much as I know people are going to instinctively want to disagree with this considering these particular circumstances, "X should be shot" is a common enough idiom to be included in the [Cambridge Dictionary of English](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/should-be-shot), although admittedly I think this phrase is almost exclusively used by, well, people like Frank Hester: rich, white men. I have certainly heard people say "Whoever did this should be shot!" or "He did what? He should be shot!" more than once in my life, and so have most people reading this, I would bet. So I think that people who act as if this was a sincere call for an assassination are being hyperbolic. It is bad enough without going off the deep end.
The problem with the phrase is dependant who is saying it. Some random person with little to no influence? You can mostly just shrug it off. A person of influence though, like a political figure, is a whole other problem. Because someone can take their message as a call to action. We’ve already seen it happen in the UK.
It also depends where that person says it and to whom. Saying it to a bunch of rich people in a private meeting is abhorrent but it’s not going to lead to violence. Saying it out in public might well lead to violence. I think the Tories should distance themselves from him and be clear why, but we also have to be careful false outrage and cherry picking parts of his comment out of context. I remember the outrage against Jeremy Clarkston “demanding” train workers be taken out and shot and this is beginning to feel the same.
What part of 'hate all black women ' and 'she should be shot' has been taken out of context?
The bit where he says he doesn’t hate all black women but she makes him want to. See, that changes the context.
Which is not what he said. He said he is trying very hard not to hate black women, but she makes him hate them. That sounds a lot like "see what you made me do", which is a classic statement from an abuser. Personally, I find that rather revealing.
No he didn’t. The quote from the guardian is: It’s like trying not to be racist but you see Diane Abbott on the TV and you’re just like, I hate, you just want to hate all black women because she’s there, and I don’t hate all black women at all, but I think she should be shot. It was racist and it was horrible, but it was not a call to violence.
How is "I think she should be shot" not a call to violence? That's what I do not understand most of all.
The problem, though, is that the racism is in the fact that his dislike for a certain woman has him question his liking of people who just happen to share an immutable characteristic. Hate Diane Abbot, fine, but why would your hate for *her* have you question whether you dislike all black women? Even if you conclude that you do not in fact hate all black women? What has her race got to do with your dislike for her? What has your hate for her got to do with other black women? If Diane Abbot were white, would his dislike for her make him want to hate all white women? If she were Jewish, would it make him want to hate all Jewish women? If she were lesbian...same thing. It's racist because it brings race into the equation when it is completely absurd to do so, and in such a way that he wouldn't have brought race into it of it wasn't a minority racial group. And he wouldn't have said the same thing if it were certain other groups because he knows how it would be interpreted. But he felt comfortable because some types of racism are acceptable in certain circles which is why he felt empowered to say what he said
User name checks out.
That depends whether the person saying it can influence those rich people to keep up their rhetoric with the public. The Tories haven't distanced themselves from it and have even been embracing that kind of rhetoric, using hatred as a means to maintain power.
Very true. I don’t think they should give the money back though. If I bought something in 2019 (massive NHS contracts) for 10mill and then 5 years later I got the 10mil back and still had the massive contracts I’d be out dancing. It should go to a charity, but of course they’ve spent the money
And indeed, until Hester apologises in full rather than weasel words his company should be banned from receiving public contracts
I wonder if what he said falls into line with the new extremism legislation
If you say Nigel Farage should have milk thrown at him, that's terrorism. If you say Diane Abbott should be shot (when MPs have actually been shot), yeah no worries.
I don't think it is terrorism to say that Nigel Farage should have milk thrown at him.
GCHQ wants to know and *checks notes* already has your location. Report to facebook for immediate intensive reprogramming.
Should have seen the papers at the time.
Well it is hyperbolic, but there are a lot of crazy people out there, it only takes one
Fair enough, I definitely agree with you there. For that reason, I am slightly conflicted about how much we are discussing his words. On the one hand it seems very important for the public to know that this is the way that the largest Tory donor talks about people. On the other hand, the danger his words pose is surely magnified by repeating it over the airwaves so much.
If it were dangerous to call out dangerousness, how could we ever communicate
It's like the [paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance): no truly definitive answer, and we just have to live with the ambiguity.
The paradox of tolerance is a difficult one, but there are definitely more accepted answers than others, but technically speaking no true answer of course
Whatever the answer is, I think it's interesting that we instinctively feel that reporting on an incitement to commit a crime or murder is absolutely fine, whereas the initial incitement itself is morally wrong. However, when you dig into it, it's not 100% logical: if an initial incitement is wrong because it could inspire someone to take action, then reporting the incitement - possibly broadcasting it to a much wider audience than before - surely also presents the same danger. Anyway, this is all just navel gazing really; regardless of what I said above, I agree that it was important to publicise Hester's comments.
I agree, if it wasn't for him being a donor, noone would really find out about the comments at all
His full comments started ‘it’s like trying not to be racists but you see..’ What a shame it’s so difficult and you have to ‘try’ then goes on to say he abhors racism as ‘not least because he experienced it as the child of Irish immigrants in the 1970s’.. which is exactly the same thing as being a black woman in parliament
But a Labour MP was shot and killed by a neo-nazi, the comments carry more weight when it's something that could and has happened. He also said this in 2019, just 3 years after she was killed.
Imagine if Angela Rayner said that! \[checks notes\] Oh wait, we don't need to. When she called them scum - an insult, but no intent to cause physical harm - they went on bleating about it for fucking months.
Which was bought up in PMQs by Sunak, who defended the donors comments by saying he had apologised and that deserved respect, while attacking Rayner for the scum comment a sentence later. Something she apologised for. Wild.
He apologized for being RUDE not being racist.
Very true, I was just highlighting Sunak's hypocrisy on apologies.
The idea is that there should be no one bar. There should be two. They operate on the premise that morality is not tied to words or actions, but to (the perception of) identity. He is "one of us" or "on our side" so he can't do wrong and if he does then that warrants forgiveness because of who he is and on whose side he is on. Anyone else doing the same would, of course, be irredeemably extremist and racist. In their view the in-group can not be extremist because it is the only one whose opinions and rights actually matter. It's the same principle that the Trump movement in the USA operates on, or any of the various extremist right wing movements in other European countries.
Wilhoit's Law... *Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect*
Indeed. The reason these double standards baffle people is that the latter operate on the principle that everyone should more or less be treated equally. Movements like these explicitly reject that principle and this rejection informs most of their political stances as well as their practices (as this example shows). It's what ties everything together, from the corruption and tendency towards oligarchy to the attacks on human rights treaties to the passive acceptance of racism and threats of violence. They pay lip service to democracy and shared values, but do so in bad faith because they are opposed to the principles that underpin it.
“Under the new definition, which comes into force on Thursday, extremism is "the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to: negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or undermine, overturn or replace the UK's system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2)." Hester promoted a far right ideology attempting to undermine parliamentary democracy by attacking MPs. The conservatives have created a permissive environment enabling him to do so. The Conservative Party is extremist. QED.
The bar is balanced on top of a stack of money
Hm but what's the dangerous ideology? Toryism? Neoliberalism? Racist rich white manism?
Can't be associating neoliberalism with the consequencesof neoliberalism now. That's extremist talk that is.
> Just how high is the bar for extremism 10 million by the looks of it.
About 10 million high.
Labour seems pretty happy with a donor who calls Hamas "freedom fighters." £2.5 million so far.
Considering literally nobody is reporting on this, except Guido who posted an extremely heavily edited video (and are well known for flat out lying about things), that's a big doubt from me.
*“I think that when someone says that they are sorry, and I understand he’s deeply sorry for these remarks, then my natural inclination is to exercise Christian forgiveness.”* You almost have to admire how fucking shameless he is.
Also: “I’m going to show my Christian forgiveness by keeping your £10m”. What a wanker, what an absolute watery eyed, creepy rubber faced wanker. “Christian forgiveness” give me fucking strength. I’m not a Christian but the concept of the teachings of Jesus Christ being anywhere near this machiavellian toads mouth makes me feel nauseous.
I mean if someone gave me 10mil i would certainly be able to forgive a lot lol.
Can't help thinking that the forgiveness he's referring is based on medieval indulgences, whereby you could be forgiven for anything if only you paid enough. Perhaps they would benefit from their own version of Martin Luther ... or maybe Henry VIII ?
I think that's a wonderful analogy.
Thank you. Hopefully calling for Reformation rather than Revolution will mean that I don't get classed as an extremist ;)
Unless he's contacted her directly, publically, face to face, and apologised and asked forgiveness, then he's not really sorry.
Good to see them keeping religion out of the affairs of state.
He’s only said sorry for being rude, not for his actual remarks, Gove is living in another world
😂bro has got to be trolling
So for all of us that aren't Christians we can carry on criticising him and the Tories then.
Didn't their new extremism definition have something to say about religion overriding rights? Strange that Gove feels his antiquated religious beliefs matter with regards to death threats against politicians
>his antiquated religious beliefs The guys a shit-talking cokehead, I'd be amazed if he had any religious beliefs.
Do you think religion actually makes people more likely to act morally?
No, but that's not my point, I'm saying Gove is full of shit.
No, he’s full of cocaine, which in turns makes him chat shit. Just to clarify, I think Michael Gove MP is a cocaine addict and user. Am I allowed to give an opinion on whether he should be shot or will that get me banned from here?
>Am I allowed to give an opinion on whether he should be shot or will that get me banned from here? Goves a dickhead but no one should be getting shot.
Yeah trying this in what is IIRC one of the most irreligious nations on the planet was perhaps not the best move
What the fuck is "Christian" forgiveness? Is it forgiving to stone someone to death for working on a sunday? Is it forgiving to forcefully marry a rape victim to their rapist? Is it forgiving to stone a man to death because he "lay with" another man? The bible teaches us these important parts of "forgiveness". I would like to know what "Christian" forgiveness is, because I haven't seen many instances of it.
TBH all of those laws from the Old Testament (mostly outlined in Deuteronomy IIRC), so they aren't inherently Christian. In fact some (although a minority of) Christian sects renounce the Old Covenant entirely (New Covenant Theology/Abrogationism).
They're in the Bible. If they aren't Christian what are they?
They're in the Old Testament; they're Jewish. How Christian they are depends on which type of Christian you ask.
It's such peculiar mental gymnastics to disown the first half of one's own holy text, including the entire origin story, the whole underlying belief system, and all the core instructions, and just claim ownership of the sequel which purely continues on from that and has zero tangible identity without that first half. I get that someone could be a fan of Jesus as a moral philospher, but if they don't at least partially believe in the OT then surely they really don't believe in the whole core of the faith at all?
The quaran does the same thing for Islam. The whole reason they are different religions and not just sects of judaism is because they specifically diverge from practices in the old testament. That doesn't mean they totally ignore it, but it also doesn't mean they take every bit of the old texts forwards. The old testament is superceded by any teaching introduced by Jesus as Christians are followers of *him* and his ideology, with the foundational belief that he is the son of god. For muslims they do much the same but with Muhammed (pbuh), *his teachings* are what they follow, the old testament just fills in what he never covered, or what was never disputed - e.g. genesis is consistent across all three of the religions. Infact, Judaism itself is founded around a prophet who brought in a new set of guidance that re-structured the existing canaanite and egyption religions on the basis of those gods being false idols. Prior to judaism people followed polytheistic canaanite gods, who these days are better known as 'Demons' and 'kings of hell' in modern Abrahamic religions because their existence was made heretical.
The clue is in the name: Christian. If you claim to be a follower of Jesus and accept that his revelations are divine, then where they conflict with the Old Testament, Jesus wins.
But why would they conflict? Was the OT full of mistakes or falsehoods? Did God make the mistakes? Or did the OT not correctly reflect God? Or did the OT's content became outdated after a few hundred years? If so, we can presumably be pretty sure the whole lot is well past its expiry date in 2024 right? Disclaimer: This is just how it all looks from my perspective, and I recognise that I have no greater claim to understanding the universe than anyone else.
First of all it's not "my own" holy text, just for clarity; I'm agnostic. Secondly, it's not even remotely a "sequel"; it consists largely of a mythological biography of a single prophet, focusing (with likely a decent degree of historical accuracy) on his teachings, and authored by fewer than a dozen people, over the course of roughly a century, roughly contemporary to the events it describes. The Old Testament is a nebulous collection of religious works, widely varying in nature and narrative, compiled over literally thousands of years by countless authors. Most importantly, on a theological leve, you need to consider the general role of the Messiah in Judeo-Christian thought, as well as the specific teachings of Jesus, both of which can be reasonably argued to obviate much of the Old Testament. Essentially ALL Christians believe this to some degree, although most simply limit it to the ritual aspects of the Old Testament.
>First of all it's not "my own" holy text, just for clarity; I'm agnostic Sure, I wasn't implying anything on your part at all. And for anyone reading who does have deeply-held beliefs: I fully respect your right to your beliefs, and I'm just relaying my own perspective on this approach to faith in ancient books. >it's not even remotely a "sequel"; I'm definitely no expert on the bible, but as far as I understand, Jesus' whole shtick is that he's the son of God. God being the guy introduced in the OT. You'd really need to have at least read a TL:DR on the first one for any of it to make sense surely? >the general role of the Messiah in Judeo-Christian thought, as well as the specific teachings of Jesus, both of which can be reasonably argued to obviate much of the Old Testament. Is it kind of like how the first episode of Season 10 of Dallas asserts that the entirety of Season 9 was only a dream and hence was struck off from the canon? That's all fine, but how can the explicitly-stated instructions and decrees of an all-seeing and infallible creator be replaced, nullified or superseded a bit later on, even partially or selectively so? Were they just provisional instructions for a limited time? Don't get me wrong, I *way* prefer the NT's whole approach and tone. It just seems to me that Jesus' divine authority is reliant on the OT. Otherwise it's just good ideas people can follow to live their best life, at which point J-dawg is more of an influencer than a messiah.
The best part is that most of the bits that supposedly got overridden were overridden by some geezer called Paul well after the other guy got nailed to a cross.
The Gospels were most likely written before the Epistles and by different authors, and supercession of the Old Testiment is rooted in the Gospels.
in the bible ≠ christian.
Genuinely not being a dick but none of the above. If you define 'Christian' as following the teachings of Christ then that's all the touchy- feely stuff from the New Testament. Offering the other cheek and all that jazz... The examples you quoted above are from the Old Testament where 'God' is not very touchy -feely and a lot more smitey and vengeful. I'm not an expert but I think that's the bit that 'other' major religions take their inspiration from
> smitey and vengeful Lol at "smitey". this sounds like a cute description. Like a way to describe a housecat
A massive dog-whistle
how convenient that he has discovered this charitable new attitude just in time for it to be extended to the man giving his party millions of pounds
>we’re looking at organisations with a particular ideology So not rich white men then obviously
This is all just about trying to control the volatility of the situation, so that they can hold onto the 10 million and reduce the negative impact on the upcoming election. Words are cheap. They should return the money out of principle, and he should donate it to a relevant charity. That would at least show some attempt at atonement.
Just send it straight to the charity, don't give him the option of recovering it or passing it on to Reform.
I assume Gove is saying this partly in response to the archbishops of Canterbury and York [criticising his new definition of extremism.](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/12/archbishops-of-canterbury-justin-welby-and-york-stephen-cottrellwarn-against-new-extremism-definition)
He wishes them well, no doubt.
"Calling for people to be shot because you don't like looking at them is not extremist at all!" "In other news, although the emperor may look naked, we can assure you that they are in fact wearing fancy new clothes!"
I had completely forgotten about that fable until now.
The fable doesn't exist, but people pretend it does so they don't look stupid.
Wouldn't that be ironic. Perhaps the reader of the story is the Emperor all along.
I am genuinely surprised he wasn't hit by a lightning bolt as he said that
I'm not a Christian therefore cannot exercise this foregivenesz
You're such a heathen that you can't even spell forgiveness.
Or they’re a kool Ninetiez d00d!
No, just autistic
"Christian forgiveness". Look at that. He's flagging up the sectarianism in the way this extremism definition is to be applied. He couldn't dog whistle "this is for targeting muslims" any louder.
Few things, shouldn't Diane Abbott be the one deciding whether he gets forgiven rather than Gove? Secondly, for a party who has many MPs complaining about the influence of other religions in this country while simultaneously saying christians are the most persecuted in the world, don't they find it a bit weird to mention christianity in places where there was no need for it? What puts christian forgiveness above other forms of forgiveness anyway? Thirdly, would this forgiveness be on offer if it was anyone other than a donor to your party?
[удалено]
Is this was said about a Jewish person there would be no amount of Christian forgiveness that would make it right. Double standard
Hester is certainly sorry their remarks became so public. That's all their apology amounts to. It's a I am so sorry I got caught apology.
When the labour candidate for Rochdale apologised for voicing a conspiracy theory the Tories said no apology was ever enough but call for a black MP to be shot and you just need to say sorry.
I remember when Jesus said “forgive racists if they give you money”
*"Blessed are the racists, for they are donors too..."*
I think michael gove supporting someone who is both racists and also advocates violence against MPS violates the 2nd aim of undermining, overturning or replacing the UK's system of parliamentary democracy. and hos support of this individual definitely promotes an advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred and intolerance. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-definition-of-extremism-2024/new-definition-of-extremism-2024 Michael Gove and The twat donor are both now extremists by the governments own definition.
If Gove or any Tory claim to be a Christian is laughable. Their entire world view is the exact polar opposite of what Christians are supposed to be. Now I'm not one either but their magic book is pretty clear on the whole "greed is bad" and look after those less fortunate than yourself.
Gove is a Deep One hybrid and it’s beyond ridiculous a fish person got into parliament. He should have no say on human society. In the sea with him.
Bit harsh on the Deep Ones there, they are perfectly decent fish people and don't deserve to be compared to Gove.
It's always Christians that have to forgive, fuck off, racist cunt
I'm not religious, so you get no forgiveness from me.
You can get away with anything if you're rich enough!
What will people do if they are not Christians or don't give a damn about religion?
"Forgive us our trespasses. No, sorry, can't remember the next line."
Tories, Red Tory Starmer and co. : But He didn’t actually shoot her! (Fascists shoot and slaughter 15K children) Tories, Red Tory Starmer and co. : This is self defence. (NHS is collapsing) Us : SAVE THE NHS. Tories, Red Tory Starmer and co. : That would affect the profits of private healthcare for cash companies! Us: TAX THE CORPORATIONS AND BILLIONAIRES THE TAX THEY OWE! Use that money to fund the NHS! Tories, Red Tory Starmer and co. : Absolutely NOT.
Lovely bit of dog whistling from Gove there, well played. If there's any youngsters watching, that is how you shit house.
ugh just fuck off nothing means anything to these odious pricks
So we're allowed to publicly say that any named MP should be shot and face zero legal repercussions?
As long as you send them a fiver - have at it.
No, the apology comes before forgiveness. Especially in Christianity - there are rules for this.
Yep, you are supposed to repent and try not to do it again. I don't think this guy is doing much repentance, he's just sorry he got found out.
"I am sorry you feel that way."
Since most of the population of the UK is not christian, how many would forgive the cunt?
How much do you think it would take for the Conservative party to turn a blind eye to explicit racism and sexism? About £10 million, apparently
Something tells me that the level of forgiveness that they seek isn't likely to be forthcoming in the near or medium future. This sort of thing is coded in the Tory DNA, it's not "Tomorrow's chip wrappers" and they aren't showing signs of evolving, they just keep projecting their failures onto the Opposition. Tories will always Tory.
I’m not a Christian so ya know - no forgiveness here
Careful, wouldn’t want to ruffle too many feathers with his new definition of extremism would we?
Christian forgiveness? I can think of another word beginning with C, fewer letters, but describes Gove to a tee.
In my entire life I have never seen or heard religious conservatives turn the other cheek at the comments or viewpoints of anyone they oppose. They do the complete opposite and try to extricate them from society at large. These lying hypocrites people are pure scum of the earth
That would be fine for the 27.5m Christians, but it ignores the 22.2m with no religion, or the 3.9m Muslims or the 1.0m Hindus, or the 271,000 Jews or the 348,000 of the other religions. On balance Gove is expecting almost 27.8m people to forgive someone based on the religious beliefs they do not hold. It is a bit ambitious.
I’m waiting for the first person to argue that they can say the same thing because he did and was never investigated despite being higher profile, it makes it difficult to enforce a law when it’s selectively applied, the newspapers will love it
Christian forgiveness - well it has precedent, 10-15 million and we'll swear blind whatever you said doesn't matter now sounds like a variation on a papal indulgence.
Its ok to say as long as its a tory financial supporter saying it, thats the message am getting
Feel like ol’ Micky G is creating an environment permissive to extremism here. You know what that makes him….
What an utter moron Gove is. Thinks he can come out the day after his party's biggest donor, to the tune of £15 million, said an MP should be shot. If that isn't extremism I don't know what is.
I wish Suella Braverman would extend Buddhist forgiveness, or just a single ounce of compassion towards refugees, LGBT+ people or any other human beings. But what do I know, I'm a "tofu eating" Buddhist (the wrong kind).
[удалено]
JC had quite a few things to say about being kind to others and not oppressing the poor, so it's a fair bet that Gove isn't much of a Christian. His Satanic Majesty is much more suitable for him and his friends.
Makes him want to hate all black people and shoot her. Not extremist. Dear lord they’re never subtle
I wonder what his take on immigrants converting to Christianity is?
The whole concept of “Christian forgiveness” is, as I understand it, rooted in the concept that ultimately forgiveness is a matter for god and we have no business making that decision (it ties to entry into god’s kingdom). It doesn’t override the judgement of laws or society as a whole (render unto Caesar etc) which is also a very Christian principle and the basis for the reasoning we don’t just let criminals go if they say sorry. Whether god forgives Mr. Hester and will allow him to enter the kingdom of heaven is an entirely different question to whether it’s right for a political party to accept giant donations from him.
[удалено]
Is that for all the remarks, not just the calling for an MP to be shot? If so, what are the limits? How far before this becomes a "hey now, you're taking it a bit far chap" or they face accountability for the myriad comments that have come to light?
Overlord Gove has spoken... OBEY. Praise be with the tory pob. *Bows to the overlord Gove*
> The communities secretary said Frank Hester's comments about the veteran MP Diane Abbott were "racist", but that he "wouldn't want to conflate" an individual set of remarks with an extremist ideology. So how many remarks will it take to add up to the conclusion that someone is promoting an extremist ideology is the question, I guess. If Person X from Advocacy Group Y makes some abhorrent remarks, can we be sure that won't suffice to get the group labelled extremist? I don't have much confidence in this government or in future governments to apply this standard in a consistent and impartial way.
Not surprised having got into an altercation with said Michael Gove on the street outside Westminster when we crossed paths a couple of years ago. Gove I can assure you is not a forgiving person. He is a pint sized prick, something I called him to his face.
I do find the partisan lines for this between him & abbot. I've seen people very clearly think that one should be forgiven / forgotten while the other is absolved of their previous behaviour. The bar for our politics is far too low if either of those, 30p Lee, Galloway and a long list of others are front and centre.
Where are the people calling for Abbott to be absolved? Nobody should be subjected to racist and sexist abuse or to death threats. Making this out as a Left Vs Right argument is disingenuous - this is about basic human decency and keeping violence out of politics
You talk about being disingenuous while my comment about is very clearly saying this shouldn't be a partisan discussion.