4 ms·

Exactly how is taking and/or sharing images of illegal immigrants entering the UK aiding them? If anything, might make identifying them easier. Not to mention

Exactly how is taking and/or sharing images of illegal immigrants entering the UK aiding them? If anything, might make identifying them easier. Not to mention seemingly bizarre reasoning given UK only has jurisdiction over content viewed in the UK, which means anyone viewing the content would already be in the UK. If they are suggesting it’s a tool to recruit those in UK to aid illegal immigrants in entering the country, find it hard to believe children are being recruited to help. Using similar reasoning, is anyone donating to an organization to change UK laws to be more immigration friendly is also committing a crime?

olliej 4y ago
It’s aiding them because if voters see them the might see that they are people or at least develop some sense of empathy. If your platform is driven by a bunch of anti-immigrant rhetoric that’s not good. Also the irony of England complaining about immigrants when they invaded entire continents will never not be lost on me.
- ralusek 4y ago
  Your hypothesis is literally the exact inversion of reality.
- steponlego 4y ago
  Kinda proves the dangers of flooding a nation with foreigners though doesn’t it? I mean if it’s bad when a bunch of Brits come invade some place why isn’t it bad when Pakistanis or “Syrians” do the same? Are you for, or against colonialism?
  - derelicta 4y ago
    "colonialism is when folks whose country I annihilated try to seek shelter somewhere around where I live"
    - steponlego 4y ago
      It’s when outsiders invade some place. So is it good or bad?
  - eynsham 4y ago
    I missed the bit where immigrants had military superiority over us and were in the business of excluding locals from meaningfully exercising political and administrative power without the approval of the competent authority in the metropole.
    - steponlego 4y ago
      Still seems in the interest of the natives to keep foreigners out though eh? They didn’t make the policies after all.
Zuider 4y ago
It is the other way around. Any criticism of immigration, even if it is illegal, is now being categorized as racist 'hate speech' supposedly being promulgated by the 'far right.' There is no First Amendment in the UK, and the police have become notoriously active in prosecuting and jailing for 'hate speech' in the last decade, even as they become lax in investigating robbery and assaults. The new Online Safety Bill has a lot of draconian and arguably over-broad measures against what they call 'harmful speech' and 'hate' (who gets to define these things?) and one of them is a prohibition against showing migrants arriving illegally across the English Channel from Calais.
- O__________O 4y ago
  Idea that anti-immigration speech is hate speech is a stretch. Hate speech is hate speech. Yes, there might be a correlation between the two and might even be exploited as an indirect means of expressing hate, but equating anti-immigration speech as equal is deeply flawed.
  - Zuider 4y ago
    It is deeply flawed, but once you introduce the notion of hate speech, the definition can be expanded indefinitely to include any speech that can conceivably cause 'offense,' which is now defined as 'harm.' OFCOM, the British media regulation authority has recently defined 'hate speech' as: ‘All forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of disability, ethnicity, social origin, gender, sex, gender reassignment, nationality, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, colour, genetic features, language, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth or age.’ It is a good thing that British weather is so variable, because that is pretty much all they will legally be permitted to talk about. Even tea and crumpets is out of bounds because 'tea' might offend the Chinese, and 'crumpets' may offend women.
    - O__________O 4y ago
      Bit of a stretch to call the OFCOM’s definition of hate speech inaccurate. Obviously if someone is going to use slang terms to spew hatred it should not be excusable.

olliej 4y ago

It’s aiding them because if voters see them the might see that they are people or at least develop some sense of empathy. If your platform is driven by a bunch of anti-immigrant rhetoric that’s not good. Also the irony of England complaining about immigrants when they invaded entire continents will never not be lost on me.

ralusek 4y ago
Your hypothesis is literally the exact inversion of reality.
steponlego 4y ago
Kinda proves the dangers of flooding a nation with foreigners though doesn’t it? I mean if it’s bad when a bunch of Brits come invade some place why isn’t it bad when Pakistanis or “Syrians” do the same? Are you for, or against colonialism?
- derelicta 4y ago
  "colonialism is when folks whose country I annihilated try to seek shelter somewhere around where I live"
  - steponlego 4y ago
    It’s when outsiders invade some place. So is it good or bad?
- eynsham 4y ago
  I missed the bit where immigrants had military superiority over us and were in the business of excluding locals from meaningfully exercising political and administrative power without the approval of the competent authority in the metropole.
  - steponlego 4y ago
    Still seems in the interest of the natives to keep foreigners out though eh? They didn’t make the policies after all.

Zuider 4y ago

It is the other way around. Any criticism of immigration, even if it is illegal, is now being categorized as racist 'hate speech' supposedly being promulgated by the 'far right.' There is no First Amendment in the UK, and the police have become notoriously active in prosecuting and jailing for 'hate speech' in the last decade, even as they become lax in investigating robbery and assaults. The new Online Safety Bill has a lot of draconian and arguably over-broad measures against what they call 'harmful speech' and 'hate' (who gets to define these things?) and one of them is a prohibition against showing migrants arriving illegally across the English Channel from Calais.

O__________O 4y ago
Idea that anti-immigration speech is hate speech is a stretch. Hate speech is hate speech. Yes, there might be a correlation between the two and might even be exploited as an indirect means of expressing hate, but equating anti-immigration speech as equal is deeply flawed.
- Zuider 4y ago
  It is deeply flawed, but once you introduce the notion of hate speech, the definition can be expanded indefinitely to include any speech that can conceivably cause 'offense,' which is now defined as 'harm.' OFCOM, the British media regulation authority has recently defined 'hate speech' as: ‘All forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of disability, ethnicity, social origin, gender, sex, gender reassignment, nationality, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, colour, genetic features, language, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth or age.’ It is a good thing that British weather is so variable, because that is pretty much all they will legally be permitted to talk about. Even tea and crumpets is out of bounds because 'tea' might offend the Chinese, and 'crumpets' may offend women.
  - O__________O 4y ago
    Bit of a stretch to call the OFCOM’s definition of hate speech inaccurate. Obviously if someone is going to use slang terms to spew hatred it should not be excusable.