Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
From Brendan Cox, widower of Jo Cox MP, murdered by a Leave fanatic, whose memory was, let's say, slighted by Johnson yesterday:

"I was genuinely shocked by the the willingness to descend to vitriol, because I think it does long lasting harm. To have this debate descend into this bear pit of polarisation, I think it's dangerous for our country."

There is a willingness to jump out and decry the other side when they use language like `surrender' or `traitor' or `betrayal'. And I think that is inflammatory language. But as inflammatory are those people who have used the language of it being a `coup' and `dictatorship' and `fascism'.

I think both of those approaches are unacceptable. It is not just bad behaviour by one side of the debate. This is something which is infected our politics, and it's this vicious cycle where language gets more extreme, response gets more extreme, it all gets hyped up ... It creates an atmosphere where I think violence and attacks are more likely.

You can disagree passionately with people. But you don't have to impugn their motives, whether you are a hard Brexiteer or a hard remainer, actually, what you have in common is a desire to do what you think is best for the country.

What isn't acceptable is to demonize each other to build a culture of hatred to the other to create this tribal identity. Whatever happens with Brexit, the country is going to have to come together again. And we have to remember that, otherwise, we'll be building a toxic legacy.

He's right, but it's not just about language (and "sloppy" is a sloppy epithet to describe yesterday's rhetoric). Johnson-Cummings-Rees-Mogg are deliberately setting out to weaken Parliament and, while paying lip service to it, the judiciary too. As for the toxic legacy, well, it's already there.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Thu Sep 26th, 2019 at 06:59:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Demonization is an integral part of the "mainstream" right playbook now.
by Bernard on Thu Sep 26th, 2019 at 07:46:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And not only in the UK.  Trump is claiming "Presidential Harassment" by being compelled  to follow the law.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Thu Sep 26th, 2019 at 03:17:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not exactly.

You may recall as fondly as I sudden, EXPLOSIVE interest in innerboob legal analysis, catalyzed by the Panic of '08. And, of course, US Americans obey the spirit of civil rights laws, if not letter annually memorialized by the SOTU address since, gosh, forever.

Right?

Although I haven't encountered that particular locution from de basement of intrigues, I believe that you and I can agree that the yella sheets and speaker of the House have berated the POTUS administration's flouting NORMS and litigation to COMPEL judicial review of US Constitutional provisions and US statutes and US case law.

It's this prerogative UNDER THE LAW, from which the POTUS is not excluded, that offends some people. Traumatized people. People in a hurry. People who ...hold up your favorite stat again, angels and dinosaurs or something... are unfamiliar with the elephant in politics, so to speak.

A similar dilemma informs controversy in the UK --disjunctive, or dissociative, "convention", case law, and statute.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Fri Sep 27th, 2019 at 04:42:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series