@dan32113188485@JustaGuyInit@youseethisguy@owenjonesjourno@ZackPolanski 1) We don't have Christian states run on Christian law
2) 13 countries have the death penalty for atheism and apostasy. 8 countries have the death penalty for being gay. 6 countries have the death penalty for blasphemy. They are all Islamic.
3) You are an idiot.
@toadmeister@spectator Minor correction, 160 yrs. The W African squadron was formed in 1808. Whilst it was disbanded, elsewhere RN anti slaving activity continued until 1940, the RAF deploying bi-planes to spot over the Red Sea in the closing years. https://t.co/u8e9RdK81N
@Bolwog@toadmeister@spectator According to the 2023 Global Slavery Index (Walk Free, based on 2021 data), an estimated 11.05 million people live in modern slavery in India, 2.35 million in Pakistan and 1.16 million in Bangladesh. That is roughly 14.6 million combined.
In this week's @Spectator I've written about visiting the East African slavery museum in Zanzibar.
"Next to the cathedral is a small museum devoted to the East African slave trade that, among other things, pays tribute to the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron, which was established in 1808 to enforce the ban introduced by the Slave Trade Act a year earlier. A photograph in the museum shows the captain of a ship surrounded by freed slaves with an African child sitting on his shoulders. The only duff note is struck by the accompanying text which says Britain’s commitment to abolishing slavery was ‘ironic’ given that it established the transatlantic slave trade in the first place. In fact, it was Portugal that first started transporting enslaved Africans to Europe in the 1440s, with Spain expanding the trading routes after colonising the Americas in 1492. Yes, the British dominated the trade in the 18th century, but we didn’t start it. On the contrary, we paid a heavy price to end it, with 1,600 sailors in the West Africa Squadron losing their lives in the 60 years it spent patrolling the seas, intercepting slave ships."
https://t.co/laRS7uqGy3
Three days ago a gunman opened fire outside Venture-N, a Tucson gay bar. Two men dead. The shooter dead. Police now call it a targeted hate crime. He had a list of LGBTQ businesses on him.
You probably even didn’t heard about it.
Because the shooter wasn’t the approved villain. He WASN’T a white Christian nationalist. He was Ousman Ceesay, 44, a Muslim immigrant born in The Gambia. He confronted two men in the parking lot and started shooting.
One of the victims was Cameron Davis Capara, a well-known local photographer and left- wing political activist who spent years documenting pro-Palestine marches, anti-ICE actions, anti-Trump, anti-fascism rallies, and anti-capitalist “No Kings” circles. The other was Vincent Anthony Siqueiros.
Both were killed where they stood.
Police didn’t rush out a mugshot package. Some coverage danced around the shooter’s background. National cameras never really showed up. No wall-to-wall specials. No Democratic officials lining up at podiums to denounce homophobia and demand action. The story dropped fast.
That’s the tell. When the facts don’t fit the script, the outrage machine stays quiet. Two men get murdered outside a gay bar, the killer leaves a target list, and the same people who never miss a chance to lecture the country about hate suddenly have nothing to say.
If that doesn’t show you how selective the media and the virtue-signal crowd really are, nothing will.
@hehisself@WingsScotland There's no-one in Scottish politics rn capable of running a bath never mind a country.
I'll never forgive sturgeon for the ruins she made of the amazing movement started by Alex. She better hope I never meet her face to face.
In Spain, a gay couple says that if the ‘far-right’ wins the next election, they will seek asylum in Palestine because they consider it the most ‘progressive’ place on earth.
This is mental illness. How can they be so dumb?
Miriam just did a racism. But don’t worry, she recovered well & I don’t think anyone noticed. It’s a good job she’s not some far right monster otherwise the media would have a field day with this! It’s best if folx didn’t share this & then we can just sweep it under the carpet.
I’m not usually one to defend Zack Polanski, but the idea he doesn’t have at least one single connection to Camden is just nonsense.
Look, here he is standing for the council there in 2015… as a Lib Dem… during the austerity coalition…
A day in my beautiful Europe.
09:00 – Get stabbed by immigrants while protecting your daughter from being groped on the way to school.
10:00 – Budget your €2,100 wage against €1,000 in rent and €600 in absolute necessities. Realize you belong to the permanent underclass.
12:00 – Pay the lesbian-art tax, the queer-dance-theory tax, and the intersectional-massage-therapy-for-refugees tax.
13:00 – Eat oatmeal for lunch.
14:00 – Learn that Ursula von der Leyen wants access to your deposit account.
15:00 – Your free-healthcare doctor calls to say your surgery has been postponed for another six months.
16:00 – Console your brilliant daughter, who lost a scholarship to a low-performing immigrant so they could fill a racial quota.
Have a wonderful day,
Wolfgang
Dear The Left, I really hate that you've made me like this guy. I really don't want to. He's not a good person. But here's the killer - COMPARED TO YOU he is. He's the least insane option. For God's sake come to your fucking senses.
Graham Linehan has published an email exchange between himself and journalist Jon Ronson that raises some interesting questions about journalistic impartiality.
In 2021, Ronson approached @Glinner about appearing in what became his BBC Radio 4 series Things Fell Apart.
Linehan declined because Ronson would not say whether people in photographs he had shown him were male or female.
Ronson said no reputable journalist could be required to state an interviewee’s “ideological position” as a condition of access.
As a general principle, that’s fair.
But it rather depends on whether the thing you’re being asked to acknowledge is ideological in the first place.
Linehan was asking Ronson to recognise what he regarded as a material fact: biological sex.
Ronson could simply have said: I recognise their sex, but I won’t submit to conditions imposed by an interviewee.
Instead, he avoided answering the underlying question.
Which raises a bigger journalism question: at what point does refusing to take a side become refusing to acknowledge a fact?
Link below 👇