Is that what Jeremy Corbyn said about the EHRC report? At this point I’m genuinely not sure, as I’m pretty sure he said that it had the scale of the issue had been overstated in the media, but honestly maybe he said that the EHRC report itself had overstated the problem.
I honestly do not think anyone, outside of the Labour left, has actually read and understood the EHRC report or what Corbyn said, and everyone else is just making up what ever they want to justify their pre-existing views.
Like… it’s just in passing - it’s just an article about Hodge trying to ban internet anonymity because she’s a 60-something Blairite politician, and fuck privacy amirite?!?!? - but it still sees fit to just straight up libel him like it’s nbd.
At this point I really wish he’d just sue everyone that just says shit that’s not true at this point.
I was responding to what I took as the implication in @kiyonemakibi 's post (possibly erroneously, apologies kiyonemakibi if that is the case) that by comparing with two far more historical antisemites it was a bit daft to expect someone’s children or grandchildren to apologise for them.
To my mind there is no question that if you are profiting off the estate you should at the very least be apologising.
As to whether that is the only reason one would or should apologise for an antecedent’s actions or words, that’s a different matter. And not one I was addressing
One of the things I don’t get about this, is that it seems inconsistent with recent Labour voting. On the one hand, they say funding defence is the biggest issue for our security, but when it’s another armed forces matter, Labour abstain?
Maybe this is a reaction to the Tories pushing a narrative that Labour won’t back the armed forces, but it seems slapdash and amateurish. Also very easy for the Tories to say funding is reactive to the biggest issue at the time and right now it’s recovering from Covid but they will closely monitor international security and adapt to protect our best interests etc. Yeah just seems odd all round for Labour to try this, but maybe I’m missing something/misremembering the abstaining.
Maybe they’re just cunts. Honestly less and less interested in the motives of the current leadership, when you can just as easily explain everything they do by the fact they’re complete cunts.
Both of the previous instances of abstaining allowed the more authoritarian option through:
One was allowing security services to commit crimes in their line of work, up to and including murder; the other was preventing war crimes being prosecuted and preventing ordinary soldiers being able to bring claims against their superiors.
I’m merely playing devil’s advocate. Personally I find this apology on Roald Dahl’s behalf superfluous. Unless it’s to assuage his relatives’ feelings, I don’t see what it achieves. You either like his work or you don’t. Apologising on his behalf isn’t going to change that. Everyone knows he was an anti-semite. I knew that as a child and it didn’t affect my enjoyment of his work. As someone with Jewish origins I doubt he would have liked me, yet I can still appreciate his work and I don’t need this apology.
Does everybody know he was an anti-semite? Easy to read books as a kid and not really ever explore the author in detail, none of this would ever have been mentioned to me at school. It’s good that awareness is raised at the very least.
Doesn’t do any harm, doesn’t do any good. Hence why I feel it’s superfluous. I mean, he’s been dead 30 years. Why now? Why didn’t his relatives distance themselves from his views when he was alive and being openly antisemitic?
I find it all rather cynical and I’d rather they didn’t apologise on his behalf.
Kind of amazes me that that conversation was deemed necessary. Who thinks Ghengis Khan is not problematic? Like, who’s lionising the character of Ghengis Khan?