http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/2062

“How’s that for your nuanced understanding of what I’m trying to say?”

But jaanam, the problem is that this post and the other brown politics one AREN’T nuanced.

“Desis – I eat children for breakfast, dontcha know?”

So you’re a communist now?

Desis – I eat children for breakfast, dontcha know?

How’s that for your nuanced understanding of what I’m trying to say?

“How come everyone’s surprised at Sunny’s post? Have ya’ll forgotten the “Why I Have Still Have a Soft Spot for Musharraf” post?”

Heh. He wasn’t being sarcastic on that one either.

Um, horror, betrayal, loathing, betrayal, disgust, betrayal, and a deep sense of betrayal. That’s just fourth generation Labour. Feel betrayed.

Doubt if there are any dyed in the wool red team who see Nu-Lab as a socialist party. A few still think it can be recovered. Wish I could.

Except in Wales, where they can vote Plaid Cymru, or Scotland, where they can vote SNP.

Actually, they already do.

Could you please give an example of what you mean

In 2008, yes. But this would not have been so 10 years ago. The legislation would have disproportionately affected white people then. In 10 years time, it might disproportionately affect some other group.

The legislation only disproportionately affects brown people, because Muslims are disproportionately brown. Notably, though, there have been a number of white converts arrested under terrorist legislation. The last two high profile arrests involves white people.

In reality, though, “brown” people as a whole aren’t more likely to be arrested. The people who are more likely to be wrongly arrested are people who are on the very fringes of a terrorist millieu. The cousin of somebody who trained with Al Qaeda, and just happened to be there when the police kicked down the door, for example. They’re not going to be “brown people” generally.

Put it this way, Sunny. You’re just as likely as I am to be killed by terrorists: because of what we say and do politically, and because we live in London. We’re equally unlikely to be detained for 42 days.

The situation might be different were my best mate involved in animal rights terrorism, or if your best mate turned out to be engaged in pro-Khalistan terrorism. But, again, this has nothing to do with our skin colour.

if white people were being disproportionately hurt by some legislation…. for example the view that Europe will fuck them up, then I expect to vote in their self-interests.

So, there you have it. You’re not advocating voting Tory because of the principle of the matter. You’re calling for people to vote Tory because of your misperception of your own self-interest.

You’re a man who, in the final analysis, sees the world as “brown” and “not brown”. Isn’t this precisely what you’ve spent the last five years arguing against?

Seriously mate, have a think about this again.

No, you’re mischacterising my point.I’m saying anti-terrorism legislation, which has not been argued for effectively but pushed through to make political points at a time Labour wants to look hard, is more likely to disproportionately affect brown people.

If they’re guilty then the police has already enough time to gather evidence against them. If they’re innocent, then you have a situation where you can be kept in prison for 6 weeks while the press write all sorts of rubbish about you, your life is ruined, and then you come out with it in tatters. And the govt doesn’t care and neither do those who want to appear hard on terrorism.

if white people were being disproportionately hurt by some legislation…. for example the view that Europe will fuck them up, then I expect to vote in their self-interests.

I’m not playing a zero sum game here, where protecting the rights of innocent brown people means I want to screw over white people. I don’t. Just to make it quite clear.

You’re unhappy with it, sure: but why?

Because you think that the Government failed to make a case for the necessity of 42 days? Well, so do I.

But that’s not what you’ve said here. Your anger appears to be connected with the fact that, in 2008, you think that a large number of people who are engaged in murderous acts of terrorism are “brown people”, who you need to defend.

That’s why I’m asking: would you be urging “brown people” to vote Tory if the perpetrators of certain offences were disproportionately “white”, and the victims disproportionately “brown”.

Don’t get me wrong. You might still think that (for example) if there was an active White Nationalist terrorist movement in this country, which was attempting to slaughter as many “brown” people as possible in the hope that they’d ignite a race war etc., that you’d still oppose 42 days, on pure civil libertarian grounds.

But you wouldn’t say “brown people should vote Tory for this reason”.

You wouldn’t be able to say “the government is intent on locking all brown people in the country up”.

You’d probably – rightly – decry as hysterical, somebody who argued that “white” people should vote Tory because “white” people were disproportionately being arrested in connection with terrorist offences.