The Home Office and UK government policy concerning asylum seekers/Rwanda deportations

[Spymaster]

Thing is, with terms like 'idiot' or 'moron', there isn't a group of people who would say 'hang on, don't say that, it applies to us and is derogatory' ...

Have Jews said this about Shekels, or is this people taking offence on their behalf?

I know many Jews and have never been made aware that it's an issue.

 

[A380]

What about moron?

Don't use it.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Sunak claiming he will announce 'emergency legislation to confirm Rwanda is safe' - er okay, so he'll cast a spell pass a law saying Rwanda is safe and then it will be safe. Whatever will this new agreement be? 'This time the Rwandan government swear on their mum's life they won't deport people to danger zones'.

 

[JimW]

I think Silas Loom is right and although lots of people will have used it without that intent since, I suspect shekels came into common currency (ooh get me) back in the good old days of general anti-Semitism and associating Jews and money, given our sad and sorry history in this regard.

 

[Yossarian]

Didn't know that, and it was only about an hour ago that I heard that Shekels is used pejoratively by anti-semites.

Is that for certain, or is this a U75 thing?

Eric Trump was criticised for using it a few years ago

Eric Trump accused of anti-Semitism after ‘shekels’ remark

The president's son says Bob Woodward sold his book "for three extra shekels"

www.politico.com

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Sunak bringing in Emergency laws now. He's gonna out Braverman Braverman

Well, that's pretty grim. A country isn't "safe" because it meets some agreed standard, but because Rishi says it is...

 

[Pickman's model]

It's really good to see the amount of effort that's gone into ignoring sunak's announcement he's going to declare Rwanda a safe country and ignore the echr

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sunak claiming he will announce 'emergency legislation to confirm Rwanda is safe' - er okay, so he'll cast a spell pass a law saying Rwanda is safe and then it will be safe. Whatever will this new agreement be? 'This time the Rwandan government swear on their mum's life they won't deport people to danger zones'.

It is bonkers, isn't it? He's trying to cast today's ruling as a victory for the government because it confirmed that the principle of sending people to Rwanda was lawful. I'm not sure it did do that, though. From what I heard, the ruling was specific that it was only considering a very narrow legal test.

 

[Pickman's model]

It is bonkers, isn't it? He's trying to cast today's ruling as a victory for the government because it confirmed that the principle of sending people to Rwanda was lawful. I'm not sure it did do that, though. From what I heard, the ruling was specific that it was only considering a very narrow legal test.

That it turned out to be really dangerous to send people to Rwanda given what they'd done under the agreement with the zionists

 

[Pickman's model]

The rate of tory unravel has increased and I wouldn't be surprised if we end up having a snap election in the next six months

 

[Serge Forward]

This is especially true about using words in particular contexts. While generally using shekels as a synonym for money is probably fine, there are contexts where anyone should realise that using it could well be taken as deliberately bigoted. Even with less contentious, but still potentially bigoted, words it's just obvious to just avoid them. Anyone continuously using black as a synonym for bad (black mood, a black day, etc etc) in a meeting on racism would similarly be an idiot.

For similar reasons, we stopped using the word 'blackleg'. There were no racist connotations in the term but it became perceived as such by Black workers (not helped by its occasional use in a piss-takey way by racist union members). Use of shekels, in itself, is not racist, but it's probably time we dropped it, especially as it's now favoured by wrong 'uns.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That it turned out to be really dangerous to send people to Rwanda given what they'd done under the agreement with the zionists

Yes.

I may have this wrong, but I don't think they ruled on anything else. They weren't asked 'is it lawful to send people to third countries' so we don't know their opinion on that. Sunak is lying.

JCWI agrees with me

The decision is final and the Government cannot appeal. However, it’s important to remember that the judgement is limited to whether Rwanda is a safe country - and not on the lawfulness of the policy in principle.

Rwanda Supreme Court ruling: what's next?.


They haven't declared that it is legal. They haven't even considered the question. They were only considering the reasons the court of appeal had given for its ruling, which they concluded were correct.

 

[existentialist]

You're fighting a losing battle if you want to go against common usage, though. There are plenty of words around and we can always make new ones. If any word acquires an unpleasant connotation, I'll happily ditch it.

That's an interesting new perspective . I won't say I'm a complete stuck-in-the-mud, but I do try to cling on to usages...

(don't get me on the loss of the subjunctive - "If I were...")

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes.

I may have this wrong, but I don't think they ruled on anything else. They weren't asked 'is it lawful to send people to third countries' so we don't know their opinion on that. Sunak is lying.

JCWI agrees with me


Rwanda Supreme Court ruling: what's next?.


They haven't declared that it is legal. They haven't even considered the question. They were only considering the reasons the court of appeal had given for its ruling, which they concluded were correct.

Yeh, if they decided to send people to Botswana and reached an agreement with that country and there was evidence to show it was safe then there'd be no legal issue even if there'd be a clear moral one

 

[ouirdeaux]

Have Jews said this about Shekels, or is this people taking offence on their behalf?

I know many Jews and have never been made aware that it's an issue.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/eric-trump-draws-anti-semitism-accusations-for-shekels-comment/ for example.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeh, if they decided to send people to Botswana and reached an agreement with that country and there was evidence to show it was safe then there'd be no legal issue even if there'd be a clear moral one

I don't think it's quite that. If they decided to send people to Botswana and showed evidence it was safe, a new case would need to be brought to the court contesting the legality of sending anybody anywhere. The SC today hasn't declared that there is no legal issue with the idea, as Sunak claims. It's simply a question they didn't consider. Someone would need to present a new legal argument saying why it's unlawful.

The judge reading the thing out was keen to stress that they were only considering a single narrow legal point.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't think it's quite that. If they decided to send people to Botswana and showed evidence it was safe, a new case would need to be brought to the court contesting the legality of sending anybody anywhere. The SC today hasn't declared that there is no legal issue with the idea, as Sunak claims. It's simply a question they didn't consider. Someone would need to present a new legal argument saying why it's unlawful.

The judge reading the thing out was keen to stress that they were only considering a single narrow legal point.

I think we both mean much the same thing tbh.

 

[Silas Loom]

Are you very young (under 30)?

Have Jews said this about Shekels, or is this people taking offence on their behalf?

51. Half Jewish, with children who are three-quarters Jewish.

Not that the second question is in any way legitimate, in the context, as I was rather hoping someone else would point out. And as I’ve been here, on and off, since 2007, complaining about those same children, it’s difficult to believe the first question was asked in good faith either.

 

[GarveyLives]

It's really good to see the amount of effort that's gone into ignoring sunak's announcement he's going to declare Rwanda a safe country and ignore the echr

The Right Honourable Rishi Sunak MP has just announced that his government intends to pass a law stating that Rwanda is safe?

​

 

[danny la rouge]

Sunak bringing in Emergency laws now. He's gonna out Braverman Braverman

Cruella admitting she knowingly acted unlawfully:

Sunak claiming he will announce 'emergency legislation to confirm Rwanda is safe' - er okay, so he'll cast a spell pass a law saying Rwanda is safe and then it will be safe. Whatever will this new agreement be? 'This time the Rwandan government swear on their mum's life they won't deport people to danger zones'.

This is the problem with relying on the courts for moral victories: the government only needs to change the legislation and then it will be perfectly legal to do the immoral thing.

 

[Pickman's model]

The Right Honourable Rishi Sunak MP has just announced that his government intends to pass a law stating that Rwanda is safe?

​

Yep

 

[Spymaster]

I think we both mean much the same thing tbh.

That'd be a first.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is the problem with relying on the courts for moral victories: the government only needs to change the legislation and then it will be perfectly legal to do the immoral thing.

Yes, although that's where treaties come in. Governments can't so easily override treaties.

My guess is that this isn't going to go anywhere. Sunak is posturing absurdly but this idea is dead in the water.

 

[steeplejack]

A Stop the Boats / Rwanda is Safe and Starmer is a Soft Touch Who Says it Isn't election looms.

What a time to be alive.

 

[Spymaster]

Sunak is posturing absurdly but this idea is dead in the water.

This.

Straw clutching.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, although that's where treaties come in. Governments can't so easily override treaties.

This one seems very keen to override the European convention on human rights and a range of other treaties

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This one seems very keen to override the European convention on human rights and a range of other treaties

Yes, they're very keen to do it (or at least are posturing that they're keen to do it). Doesn't mean they're going to succeed.

 

[andysays]

This one seems very keen to override the European convention on human rights and a range of other treaties

I wonder how much they really want to override the ECHR, and how much it's performative, ie they just want to appear to want to override it

 

[GarveyLives]

Sunak claiming he will announce 'emergency legislation to confirm Rwanda is safe' - er okay, so he'll cast a spell pass a law saying Rwanda is safe and then it will be safe. Whatever will this new agreement be? 'This time the Rwandan government swear on their mum's life they won't deport people to danger zones'.

It's really good to see the amount of effort that's gone into ignoring sunak's announcement he's going to declare Rwanda a safe country and ignore the echr

The Right Honourable Rishi Sunak MP has just announced that his government intends to pass a law stating that Rwanda is safe?

Yep

The Right Honourable Rishi Sunak MP really needs to learn to listen and learn.​

 

[Pickman's model]

The Right Honourable Rishi Sunak MP really needs to learn to listen and learn.​

Sadly the wrong & dishonourable rs is listening to the wrong people