Evidently someone got hold of the monkey’s paw and wished for humans to stop killing each other
Hard to find the sources for that tweet (their own link contains a vague reference to the NYT but no actual link to a specific article).
However I think this is the article it’s based on:
I am surprised by how little the Rwanda Bill is being discussed
it’s an attempt to completely undermine the rule of law, it would be an extreme executive power grab
I think (hope) it would be challenged successfully if parliament was ever to pass it (don’t think it will pass). They keep pointing out we have the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty as the basis of our constitution. But we also have the rule of law. And Parliament is only supreme because the courts have recognised it as such.
We are in a very dangerous situation where senior politicians and journalists don’t really understand our constitution/ rule of law/role of the judiciary in a democracy.
Liberal media has fully shifted to now actually engaging with the cost and effectiveness of the Rwanda scheme. They’ve stopped even pointing out that it’s absurd and cruel. I’ve heard so much in the past few days about figures of “legal” migration and “illegal” migration and how ineffective the Rwanda scheme will be in tackling the “problem” of “illegal” migration.
Literally no serious economist or policy analyst would think it makes any sense to use these as categories, or to go along with the idea of arbitrary numerical targets. These are fictions and the liberal media is making us all live in them.
Yeah… they ain’t getting my vote.
don’t think anyone is getting mine at this point
Fucking weapon, what the fuck are these people talking about? Wtf
I’ve had a few people tell me Saffron Walden is a nice place to live, I just nod while thinking “but they elected this fucking ghoul as their MP!”
I really worry we don’t have the leadership in place to defend against these attacks on academic freedom. There should be more dismay at a politician telling scientists what they’re allowed to research, and bullying them if they don’t.
The fact that Hollobone can ask the question he did and Badenoch can respond the way she did without them both being laughed out of the building is not reassuring.
Even by the dismal standards of the culture war, this is scraping the barrel. It’s a single research paper published in a pretty low-key journal, and would no doubt never have reached wider public attention had Hollobone not decided to mention it in parliament.
What worries me though is that this appears to be an effective tactic. In a media climate where political reporting often mirrors sports reporting, policy and tangible consequence are secondary to inflammatory soundbites and snap responses.
It’s all so deeply unserious. But these are profoundly nasty individuals, who should be taken extremely seriously. For instance, look at some of the bills Hollobone has introduced during his time in parliament:
He has attempted to reintroduce national service. His private member’s bill on capital punishment received its first reading in the House of Commons on 24 June 2013, but was withdrawn, and so did not receive a second reading. Similarly, his Young Offenders (Parental Responsibility) Bill, Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the United Kingdom) Bill, Fishing Grounds and Territorial Waters (Repatriation) Bill, Asylum Seekers (Return to Nearest Safe Country) Bill, BBC Licence Fee (Civil Debt) Bill and Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill, all due for second reading on 28 February 2014, were all withdrawn. His European Communities Act 1972 (Repeal) Bill failed to progress to a vote.
I guess they’ve figured out that saying the worst things in the most ridiculous ways will get attention and be hard to rebuke. I mean, if you try and respond earnestly to the claim “woke archaeology”, your very sincerity only serves to give it credence. Yet the continual barrage of absurd and divisive comments does have a detrimental impact, whether on academic freedom, societal cohesion or the public sphere as a place for considered, informed debate.
The stakes are so low in the moment, but so high for our future as a functioning democracy.
In order to get Phil Hollobone, you need a Level 24 Peter Bone and a turdstone.
I really really hope the institutions involved are protecting the researchers right now. Must be absolutely bizarre and scary to wake up and find out there’s government led campaign against something you’ve done at work.
They of course only do this for attention. I’d hope that the institutions don’t waste breath or paper giving any kind of response. And I blame outlets such as the BBC or Guardian for even reporting this shit. Just let these turds fall into the void.
I think the thing that’s surprised me is, I expected liberals to end up endorsing fascist policies out of stupidity, unaware how right wing they’ve ended up. Like frogs in a boiling saucepan etc. But with Gaza, with Rwanda, Starmer’s and Cooper’s recent pronouncements on immigration, and with the Democrats immigration bill too, the complete disregard for the climate crisis, it really feels like liberals have just gone ‘fuck it’ and took the mask off.
Idk, maybe they’ve finally realised all of our overlapping crises are reaching crunch point, and that it really is socialism or barbarism. I really just thought they might hesitate before going full bore for barbarism, but I guess not.
I guess what I’m saying is I’m feeling pretty sad, I used to think that Children of Men was overegging it a bit as a vision of our future (at least in developed countries). But it looks pretty inevitable now.
Also have a feeling, looking in particular at how Germany is treating Palestinian resistance to the war, that it’s part of a trend that’s going to emerge of western states aiding and abetting genocide against Muslims as a way to manage coming migration flows due to climate change. Feel like bombing them to fuck, starving them out and holding them in concentration camps is gonna be presented as a ‘new anti-fascism’ rather than what it is, which is treating them as collateral to consciously allow co2 emissions to exceed the 2 degree threshold, and probably the 3 degree threshold.
Maybe a bit tinfoil, and I know there’s plenty of other factors too, but I think this is something EU politicians have been thinking about how to manage for a while now and they have been planning mitigation strategies for years. I’m sure they’ll have been considering ways to spin the coming mass murder of EU border regimes as humanitarian actions