Jump to content

Free range Lentil, anyone? - The green party


blandy

Recommended Posts

 

...Membership of organisations: the proposal is that people should be punished for what they do, not what they think.  There was a time when I'd have thought that uncontroversial, and that pretty much everyone in a supposedly liberal society like the UK was against "thought crime".

For the purposes of discussion, the nature of an organisation might be worth considering. For example, an organisation whose stated aim might be (say) "to violently murder all children under the age of 5" just might be more problematic than one whose stated aim is to (say) "promote inter faith understanding"

Membership of groups whose core purpose is violent, criminal or terrorist activity seems a legitimate "flag" for action to be taken against them, before they actually manage to implement that core activity?

 

Now you could say "well nab them and prosecute them for planning to commit an act...or for buying or trying to buy poisons or whatever. - i.e. prevent, rather than react.

 

But isn't criminalising membership of such groups in essence a step to prevent them even being drawn into planning and so on?

 

Like I say, for discussion purposes.

 

 

The parliamentary groups which title themselves "Friends of Israel" actively support violent, criminal and terrorist activity; it seems that we distinguish between such activity in our own jurisdiction and elsewhere.  Supporters of the ANC in years gone by might have been similarly accused of supporting terrorism.  Supporters of the IRA who went round the bars of Boston collecting money to purchase guns and bombs were actively facilitating the commission of terrorist acts, and were untroubled by the forces of law and order in doing so.  Of course the definition of criminal and terrorist is subjective, and people try to appropriate the terms as a mark of disapproval of others, as we have discussed.

 

It's quite a step from banning violent action in our own jurisdiction, to banning the expression of support for violent action elsewhere.  Our foreign policy depends heavily on the support of violent acts elsewhere.  Should we for example allow membership of groups supporting the Kurdish defence of Kobani, and not the IS forces attacking them?  That might coincide with my own preferences as between the two sets of people, but where's the moral justification?  I don't think it comes down to who's the aggressor, especially coming from the country with the world record for invading others.

 

I can see why we might prosecute people for their actions, less so their thoughts.

 

I don't say that's an easy line to draw.  The expression of thoughts changes actions.  The climate of aggression towards Jews in pre-war Germany, and Muslims here today, shows that relentless campaigns of hostility and race-hate lead to acts of violence.  Again, the act is the expression of views, rather than the private holding of views.  Banning organisations crosses that line, and I find it very problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Should we for example allow membership of groups supporting the Kurdish defence of Kobani, and not the IS forces attacking them?  That might coincide with my own preferences as between the two sets of people, but where's the moral justification?

The Kurds aren't rampaging across the Middle East and ruthlessly murdering religious minorities and homosexuals. Given that they're fighting people who are doing just that I don't see how anybody can not see the moral justification there.

Edited by Mantis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a dig in to the harder to find parts of their website that cite policies

You're joking, I take it? At the top of the home page, you will see these tabs:

 

 

I don't think that anyone who can find their way to the VT or any other website could really have a problem finding the GPEW policies.

 

I know you can strongly criticise every party, that's a given. But these guys currently remind me of early 1980's Labour. Heart of gold, great intentions and very very easily made to look like fruitcakes.

 

You can't just ban all forms of energy and hope we invent something nice.

You can't disband the military and hope the rest of the world turns nice.

You can't have open door immigration, no banned organisations, £72 for everyone anywhere, no border control, and hope the rest of the world decides to stay home and leave us alone.

 

In an ideal world, the Green Party are the obvious and only choice. In a possibly slightly less than ideal world, they are the unreformed hippy dreamers of old that would absolutely destroy the living standards of our children.

 

In all the places across the world where living standards are being destroyed, from Iraq and Libya, to Greece and Spain, to the increasingly impoverished communities in the US and UK, you will find it's not hippy dreamers, but powerful global elites who are the agents of destruction.

 

Caricaturing and misrepresenting GP policies is really not a sensible response to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Should we for example allow membership of groups supporting the Kurdish defence of Kobani, and not the IS forces attacking them?  That might coincide with my own preferences as between the two sets of people, but where's the moral justification?

The Kurds aren't rampaging across the Middle East and ruthlessly murdering religious minorities and homosexuals. Given that they're fighting people who are doing just that I don't see how anybody can not see the moral justification there.

 

 

The PKK are listed as a terrorist organisation by NATO, the EU, and several individual countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Should we for example allow membership of groups supporting the Kurdish defence of Kobani, and not the IS forces attacking them?  That might coincide with my own preferences as between the two sets of people, but where's the moral justification?

The Kurds aren't rampaging across the Middle East and ruthlessly murdering religious minorities and homosexuals. Given that they're fighting people who are doing just that I don't see how anybody can not see the moral justification there.

 

 

The PKK are listed as a terrorist organisation by NATO, the EU, and several individual countries.

 

You never said the PKK, just "membership of groups supporting the Kurdish defence of Kobani", of which there are many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The climate of aggression towards Jews in pre-war Germany, and Muslims here today, shows that relentless campaigns of hostility

 

 

no offence but that has to be one of the most invalid comparisons I've ever seen

 

most people  , other than Boris Johnson in the Uk aren't even remotely aggressive or show hostility to Muslims  ... you get outrage (and rightly so ) when someone kills in the name of Islam , like with Lee Rigby , but that hardly manifests into aggression towards Muslims   ... maybe some Muslim VT'ers have a better perspective on this though ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The climate of aggression towards Jews in pre-war Germany, and Muslims here today, shows that relentless campaigns of hostility

 

 

no offence but that has to be one of the most invalid comparisons I've ever seen

 

most people  , other than Boris Johnson in the Uk aren't even remotely aggressive or show hostility to Muslims  ... you get outrage (and rightly so ) when someone kills in the name of Islam , like with Lee Rigby , but that hardly manifests into aggression towards Muslims   ... maybe some Muslim VT'ers have a better perspective on this though ?

 

 

I disagree. There may not be aggressive or overt anger directed at Muslims, but I've seen and heard enough snide and racist comments to know there is an ugly anti-Muslim sentiment among a not-insignificant number of the population.

 

Similar to feelings towards Jewish people in early 20th Europe, a lot of it centers around whether or not they can be trusted, and where their loyalties really lie.

 

For example how many people called for all Muslims to denounce Islamists following Charlie Hebdo? Quite a lot, is the answer.

Edited by CarewsEyebrowDesigner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Immigration: long policy here.  In brief, most migration is caused by people fleeing either conflict or environmental degradation (I suppose everyone accepts this is a fact, no?)

 

 

 

Er, no.  Certainly not in the UK in recent years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The climate of aggression towards Jews in pre-war Germany, and Muslims here today, shows that relentless campaigns of hostility

 

 

no offence but that has to be one of the most invalid comparisons I've ever seen

 

most people  , other than Boris Johnson in the Uk aren't even remotely aggressive or show hostility to Muslims  ... you get outrage (and rightly so ) when someone kills in the name of Islam , like with Lee Rigby , but that hardly manifests into aggression towards Muslims   ... maybe some Muslim VT'ers have a better perspective on this though ?

 

 

I disagree. There may not be aggressive or overt anger directed at Muslims, but I've seen and heard enough snide and racist comments to know there is an ugly anti-Muslim sentiment among a not-insignificant number of the population.

 

Similar to feelings towards Jewish people in early 20th Europe, a lot of it centers around whether or not they can be trusted, and where their loyalties really lie.

 

 

Tony's right, you and Peter need to get a grip.  The UK on the whole is an incredibly tolerant society, and Birmingham one of the most tolerant cities.  Anybody trying to link that to Germany just before the war is being offensively argumentative.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The climate of aggression towards Jews in pre-war Germany, and Muslims here today, shows that relentless campaigns of hostility

 

 

no offence but that has to be one of the most invalid comparisons I've ever seen

 

most people  , other than Boris Johnson in the Uk aren't even remotely aggressive or show hostility to Muslims  ... you get outrage (and rightly so ) when someone kills in the name of Islam , like with Lee Rigby , but that hardly manifests into aggression towards Muslims   ... maybe some Muslim VT'ers have a better perspective on this though ?

 

 

I disagree. There may not be aggressive or overt anger directed at Muslims, but I've seen and heard enough snide and racist comments to know there is an ugly anti-Muslim sentiment among a not-insignificant number of the population.

 

Similar to feelings towards Jewish people in early 20th Europe, a lot of it centers around whether or not they can be trusted, and where their loyalties really lie.

 

For example how many people called for all Muslims to denounce Islamists following Charlie Hebdo? Quite a lot, is the answer.

 

 

that's not aggression or even necessarily hostility and it certainly isn't  herding them off to Krakow  ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

that's not aggression or even necessarily hostility and it certainly isn't  herding them off to Krakow  ....

 

 

 

Bollocks it isn't. The insinuation is that Muslims can't be trusted and need to declare their loyalties.

 

Again, the Germany argument isn't mine. Read what I wrote and try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

that's not aggression or even necessarily hostility and it certainly isn't  herding them off to Krakow  ....

 

 

 

Bollocks it isn't. The insinuation is that Muslims can't be trusted and need to declare their loyalties.

 

Again, the Germany argument isn't mine. Read what I wrote and try again.

 

 

I don't have to do anyhting  ..  except maybe write  a post about aggression by CED towards posters on a forum  :P

 

the insinuation is your interpretation of  the events of France  , I don't think people asking why the Muslim world isn't condemning these acts is even remotely  a demand for a show of loyalty  ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i4pf9h.gif

 

Back to lentils.

 

Money - The new religion. Just as bonkers as the old ones, when it comes to a model for running a society with any sort of future.

 

Energy - There's no one solution and you mix it up accordingly. If you're in the sun - solar. If you're in the wind?... You take the locale into consideration. Since we're an island nation, the tides are the bleeding obvious answer. FFS we've had missiles capable of being launched from submarines, that plan their own route over thousands of miles and taking evasive action if they're detected for decades now. In comparison, devices like this..

atup9w.jpg

 

... which the Japanese are funding now, are child's play. It's just that they're expensive to develop in the short term and don't promise as much profit as hydrocarbons in the medium term. They don't give a **** about the long term, see 'Money' above.

 

Nuclear could be good, it needs more work on its waste products. Thorium is a massive step in the right direction with decay time, but more steps need to made.

In a perfect world the existing nuclear nations would club together for the greater good. Go somewhere remote, pool minds and reduce parallel unnecessary research.

 

Another factor to take into consideration before completely poo pooing the Greens is the media slant. The vast majority of the media, beyond the obvious buffoonery of Fox and the Mail, are controlled by folks who do not want you to vote Green.

 

Now all go watch 'Baraka', peruse a respected scientific journal or two and buy just one copy of 'Private Eye' - especially if you haven't before.

 

I wanted spaceships from the future, and we got hedge funds.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the act is the expression of views, rather than the private holding of views.  Banning organisations crosses that line, and I find it very problematic.

It can be but isn't always an expression of views. Various organisations have the aim of using force and violence to achieve their objective. Membership of such is more than expressing a view, or hold opinions. It's supporting and being (potentially in the future, or actually now) involved in violence. Prevention of that involvement is seen by most reasonable people as a good thing. So I don't think that having a policy of never making membership of any group, ever, illegal is necessarily a wise one. Al-Quida and ISIS are two such groups, existing at present, where I feel legalising involvement in them is not a good policy. Their aims are not just abroad - they have committed acts, and tried to in the UK. They are not peaceful, legitimate pressure groups. They are armed sky fairy believing nutters. The fewer of them the better. And yes, making them illegal, and making membership of them illegal is something that the vast majority of peiople of whatever religion or nationality would see as a fair way to legislate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear could be good, it needs more work on its waste products. Thorium is a massive step in the right direction with decay time, but more steps need to made.

In a perfect world the existing nuclear nations would club together for the greater good. Go somewhere remote, pool minds and reduce parallel unnecessary research.

Thorium is simply much safer. I'd have a thorium reactor in my house. I don't want uranium anywhere near people. And there is no (obvious) way to weaponise it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Immigration: long policy here.  In brief, most migration is caused by people fleeing either conflict or environmental degradation (I suppose everyone accepts this is a fact, no?)

 

 

 

Er, no.  Certainly not in the UK in recent years.

 

 

Migration is mostly caused by war and reduced capacity for the land to support people.  That is to say migration globally, not immigration to the UK.  Some immigrants to the UK fall into this category, most are eg Chinese students, Italian restaurant workers, Australian baristas and hundreds more groups of people, some of whom will be temporary visitors, others will become permanent residents.  In countries like Lebanon and Jordan, it's a very different picture.

 

The best outcome would be to reduce greatly the negative factors which drive people to flee their own countries, and have arrangements where people can travel to different countries, and settle there if they wish.

 

Immigration to the UK is a tiny, tiny proportion of all migration, in the same way that wealthy UK pensioners moving to Spain isn't representative of most migration. 

 

The point being made in GP policy is that if we reduce the very bad reasons behind a lot of migration, and have a more balanced international economic framework, we will come closer to having free movement of people based on positive reasons.  (That policy section is titled "migration" rather than "immigration", because it's based on looking at the wider factors).  The current debate in the UK about immigration seems dominated by strident voices advocating a gated community, defending our "overcrowded island" from freeloaders.  I don't think we have to accept that pathetic, parochial, racist nonsense as a starting point for any kind of discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the "racist" card has been pulled out again. It was that kind of attitude towards concerns around immigration which allowed parties like UKIP to flourish.

 

And I fail to see how Green policy on immigration will do anything to address the main causes of migration.

Edited by Mantis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Immigration: long policy here.  In brief, most migration is caused by people fleeing either conflict or environmental degradation (I suppose everyone accepts this is a fact, no?)

 

 

 

Er, no.  Certainly not in the UK in recent years.

 

 

Migration is mostly caused by war and reduced capacity for the land to support people.  That is to say migration globally, not immigration to the UK.  Some immigrants to the UK fall into this category, most are eg Chinese students, Italian restaurant workers, Australian baristas and hundreds more groups of people, some of whom will be temporary visitors, others will become permanent residents.  In countries like Lebanon and Jordan, it's a very different picture.

 

The best outcome would be to reduce greatly the negative factors which drive people to flee their own countries, and have arrangements where people can travel to different countries, and settle there if they wish.

 

Immigration to the UK is a tiny, tiny proportion of all migration, in the same way that wealthy UK pensioners moving to Spain isn't representative of most migration. 

 

The point being made in GP policy is that if we reduce the very bad reasons behind a lot of migration, and have a more balanced international economic framework, we will come closer to having free movement of people based on positive reasons.  (That policy section is titled "migration" rather than "immigration", because it's based on looking at the wider factors).  The current debate in the UK about immigration seems dominated by strident voices advocating a gated community, defending our "overcrowded island" from freeloaders.  I don't think we have to accept that pathetic, parochial, racist nonsense as a starting point for any kind of discussion.

 

 

Isn't the topic about a UK political party and its immigration policy (or lack thereof)? By far the biggest (ie 'most') migration to the UK in recent years has been the hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans who haven't being fleeing war or repression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â