View previous topic | View next topic

Megxit

Page 2 of 19
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 17, 18, 19  Next

suze
1340631.  Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:54 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
Does that make me think that Mr Trudeau's position might be fairly close to "We can provide it, but howsabout 50:50 on who pays for it?"?


It's looking as if this is about right. Justin Trudeau has told Boris Johnson that he is entirely happy for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to take care of the Sussexes' security while they are in Canada. The RCMP already looks after the Governor-General, and Mr Trudeau does not object in principle to expanding Canada's equivalent of SO14.

Buuuut, he doesn't especially want to pay for it. He doesn't have a majority in the Canadian House of Commons, and some of the Conservative opposition have jumped on a Republican bandwagon. Canadian comment pages are currently full of remarks about "foreign leeches", "freeloading Royals", and so on and so on.

 
barbados
1340643.  Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:19 am Reply with quote

An interesting thing was raised on Nick Ferrariís LBC show yesterday.
Meghan has suggested that America is not a place sheíd settle, because the the President is a racist. But she is prepared to settle in Canada, where the PM thinks nothing of blacking up.
I appreciate his job is to prompt discussion, but heís got a point.

 
suze
1340662.  Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:01 pm Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Canada, where the PM thinks nothing of blacking up.


Oh come on. The photos of Justin Trudeau in blackface make up are nearly twenty years old, and he now acknowledges that it was a rather silly thing to have done. If there's anyone here who didn't do anything silly in their 20s, please raise your hand.

If we ever get to a point at which neither Donald Trump nor Boris Johnson nor indeed Nick Ferrari has done anything which might be perceived as racist for twenty years, then maybe there will then be a discussion to be had here. Come back to me when that's the case.

 
'yorz
1340663.  Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:18 pm Reply with quote

There's that. And not that long ago her own husband thought it was a great idea to go to a party dressed in a Nazi outfit. We've all been young eejits once.

 
tetsabb
1340666.  Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:23 pm Reply with quote

I think I did a few sensible things in my 20s.
😉

 
'yorz
1340670.  Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:29 pm Reply with quote

We have to take your word for it. :-)

 
barbados
1340676.  Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:54 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
barbados wrote:
Canada, where the PM thinks nothing of blacking up.


Oh come on. The photos of Justin Trudeau in blackface make up are nearly twenty years old,

That's alright then.

 
dr.bob
1340706.  Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:41 am Reply with quote

Personally I don't think that's alright. However, I do think an incident 20 years ago that the person involved has acknowledged was wrong and apologised for is very different from the active racism being perpetrated, and not apologised for, by the POTUS in the present day.

 
barbados
1340719.  Thu Jan 16, 2020 2:41 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
Personally I don't think that's alright. However, I do think an incident 20 years ago that the person involved has acknowledged was wrong and apologised for is very different from the active racism being perpetrated, and not apologised for, by the POTUS in the present day.

That would be fair enough, if the comment was not preceeded by the suggestion that it was indeed the presenters job to promote conversation.

Coincidentally today there was further conversation, where an "expert" suggested that the British Presshad been overtly racist, when asked for an example she brought up an example by an overseas source that she couldn't recall. Then when asked for an example from the British media, she couldn't give one.

One reason for this could be that people now are more sensetive on race issues, and they see racism where there isn't any.

 
suze
1340726.  Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:46 pm Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
The suggestion that it was indeed the presenters job to promote conversation.


I suppose that is indeed Nick Ferrari's job, but coming from him it's a bit pot:kettle.

barbados wrote:
One reason for this could be that people now are more sensetive on race issues, and they see racism where there isn't any.


This may be possibly be true, but - as white people - it is not your place or mine to say so. If Mrs Sussex, being a non-white person, perceives something as racist then it is. We white people do not have the right at that point to say that actually, it isn't.

 
Alexander Howard
1340729.  Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:09 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
[This may be possibly be true, but - as white people - it is not your place or mine to say so. If Mrs Sussex, being a non-white person, perceives something as racist then it is. We white people do not have the right at that point to say that actually, it isn't.


That is such complete and utter nonsense that I do not know where to begin. If someone perceives something that is not true, correcting them is the best course. If I think I have been passed over for promotion because I am Irish, it is quite open for my boss to say that no, it is because I am hopeless, and that he didn't see me as Irish anyway. And all those potatoes at client lunches were because he likes potatoes.

In this case, the claims of racism have been slung around by the press as a way to avoid thinking, not expressed by Her Royal Highness as far as I am aware. (Anyway, she's not black, if ever that made difference.) Prince Henry in the meantime saw what the press did to his mother, and she so fragile of mind, and while he is too much of a gentleman to say so openly, the hints are all there in the statements.

 
barbados
1340735.  Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:08 am Reply with quote

When a person of colour sees a criticism about claims of caring for the environment while flying across the Atlantic in a private jet for what is basically a night out as racism, then it doesnít matter what the colour of your skin is - you have the right to call that person ridiculous.
If a person is called racist for suggesting that Meghan Markle was just a third rate actor, that is being ridiculous, and it doesnít matter what colour your skin is - if you think that opinion is steeped in racism, you are been over sensitive.
Unless you can come up with a reason why it is acceptable to suggest that the offended person is not being over sensitive and seeing a problem that just isnít there in those two examples Iíll disagree with you.

 
Alfred E Neuman
1340736.  Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:31 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Then when asked for an example from the British media, she couldn't give one.

For some reason that reminds me of someone who posts quite regularly in here...

 
PDR
1340750.  Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:17 am Reply with quote

Alexander Howard wrote:

That is such complete and utter nonsense that I do not know where to begin.


I'm inclined to agree with you - I would want to see a valid supporting argument offering some combination of analysis, analogy and/or demonstration actually showing it to be the case.

I have just done a selection of eight engineers to attend a formal institute dinner next month. This selection includes only two women and no engineers of colour. By Bob's assertion it would only need a person of colour or gender to accuse me of being racist or sexist for it to be true. The reality is, of course, that I wasn't being racist. of our 8,000 engineers I established that some 2,600 "qualified" (by virtue of being in the appropriate division, being members of the particular institute and being Professionally registered). I polled the 2,600 and established that 80 were both interested in going and available on the specific evening. None of these were people of colour. I stratified these 80 by site and by registration category to meet a general aspiration to offer places as equally as possible across the business and the categories. There was only one IEng candidate and only two EngTech candidates, so they went straight in. Of the remaining CEng candidates I divided them into sites and drew names from a hat* for each site for the five sites.

Now I WAS sexist in my selection process. Our engineering function has somewhere around 28% female engineers and 36% female Professional Engineers. But of the pool of 80 candidates only two are female. I decided that we should at least look to represent the make-up of the organisatio n so I gave both of them places, outrageously discriminating against their male colleagues in the process. One of these women is also one of the EngTechs, which helped a bit. Amusingly I have subsequently discovered that one of the selected men and one of these women are actually a couple (I don't know them - they're not on my site), so out of 80 (or indeed 2,600) I had randomly selected a couple to go to a social event.

So nothing in the process was actually racist, but by Bob's claim it only needs someone of colour to say it was and it will become so.

See also Lawrence Fox's remarks (and treatment) on Question time.

PDR

* metaphorically. I actually used a random number sort in excel

 
dr.bob
1340751.  Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:39 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
That would be fair enough, if the comment was not preceeded by the suggestion that it was indeed the presenters job to promote conversation.


It was not the comment about the presenters job that I was responding to. It was the words immediately following that when you stated that "heís got a point". I disagree with that opinion for the reasons outlined.

barbados wrote:
Unless you can come up with a reason why it is acceptable to suggest that the offended person is not being over sensitive and seeing a problem that just isnít there in those two examples Iíll disagree with you.


You would be justified in doing so if those had been the only two bad things the press had printed about Ms Markle.

It's hard to deny that the treatment of Meghan by the press has been very different, and much more negative, than their treatment of her sister-in-law. Are you completely sure that absolutely none of that negative coverage has been motivated by racism?

 

Page 2 of 19
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 17, 18, 19  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group