Then stand up and oppose it being used as an anti immigration symbol. Because after the BNP copted it. Any org using it as a sign opposing immigration. Is very clearly an obviously attempting to use that history to scare. Not as a sign patriot ideals.
What do you propose I do? I’m very not anti-immigration. I’m not pro immigration but I’m anti-anti-immigration. I think people should be able to come here with good reason and/or if it’s mutually beneficial
I raised some pride flags next to the flags around my area. It really kills the racist message. Somebody else has also gone round attaching a “No hate” sign to the bottoms of every flagged lamppost.
I’m so sick of the inability to speak like a human online. The way you’re being spoken to for acting like a well adjusted adult is actually embarrassing for this community.
Exactly what I said. Oppose the use of the flag as a intent to scare immigrants.
While making reasoned and rational arguments for and against different immigration policies.
Of course the above is as unbiased as it can be.
But as someone with more left of centre ideals.
It’s not complex. As a nation we have always depended on immigration. Angle Celts and Jutes immigrated to this nation before the flooding of dogger bank some 12k years ago. Much as in the rest of the world. Excluding the plains of Kenya. No human is entirely native to any one nation. Mixing of cultures and people has always advantages the human race.
But the right wing is very much being intentional in their use of other to distract the people. It is a key goal of fasism.
The rights use of the flag as an element of fear. Is both intentional and a long known core element of fascist ideology.( Ultra nationalism and the selectionof a enemy class. ). intended to control opposition to the elite.
Absolutely nothing the right claim as an issue to the UK is the fault or responsibility of immigration.
While all the issues that drive people to accept such claims. Are the result of intentional reductions in rights and equality lead by 50 plus years of right of centre governments.
As bad as godwins law can be. Their is a reason so many of the rights actions match 1930 Germany.
It’s not complex. As a nation we have always depended on immigration.
That’s an Americanism. Immigration from one country to another is generally accepted, eg, between european countries. The issues are people “fleeing war” from Afghanistan and where do they settle. Pakistan? No. Turkiye? No. They have to make it to the UK for some strange reason.
I’m actually pro letting Afghans in who helped our nation and may face persecution under the taliban. The people coming in on small boats aren’t honest people. The honest people migrate legally as they respect our laws.
For starters there is absolutely no law or history where war refugees are required to settle in the first safe nation. Much the opposite the Geneva convention makes it illegal to use access or distance to limit the movement of refugees. This is specifically their as forcing nations nearest a war zone to accept refugees would increase the odds of the war spreading into their borders.
As for the difference between EU and refugees. Given the whole Brexit history that is an utterly dumb complaint. It has absolutely no marit in this debate as the flag was specifically used to argue against all type of immigration in recent times.
The law should be changed because you have fallen for right wing bull crap.
The law was created in the 1950s with the UK as a major proponent of that law. Yet we have had 0 wars on UK soil since then.
Where as nations bordering wars have had multiple wars expand into their territory as refugees run to escape. Seriously, you seem totally unable to base any of your arguments on facts or logic. But just emotional rubbish pushed by right wing lies and folks fighting for fascism.
Turkiye has been fine for Syrian refugees, the war didn’t carry over into there. If the war expands, run further there.
There is no right-wing bull crap. If you pay someone to get you to another country illegally, you have already shown you don’t respect the law. Someone who gets on a boat on the English channel isn’t a good person 99% of the time. They’re selfish. They don’t desperately need to go to England.
One or multiple examples where it did not happen. Is in no way an argument against 1000s of years of history, where it has. And a rather stupid argument.
It is illegal to consider the way an asylum seeker enters a nation. As a limitation on there right to claim asylum. That is also part of the Geneva convention.
It is there to stop the right wing actions of multiple Tory govs who intentionally limited access to the UK. In an attempt to end claims. Why did the convention do this after WW2. Because nations supporting Germany attempted the same crap when people ran from nations attacked by the fascists there.
The right wing gov trying to stop the boats is the illegal action. Not the boats.
Then stand up and oppose it being used as an anti immigration symbol. Because after the BNP copted it. Any org using it as a sign opposing immigration. Is very clearly an obviously attempting to use that history to scare. Not as a sign patriot ideals.
What do you propose I do? I’m very not anti-immigration. I’m not pro immigration but I’m anti-anti-immigration. I think people should be able to come here with good reason and/or if it’s mutually beneficial
I raised some pride flags next to the flags around my area. It really kills the racist message. Somebody else has also gone round attaching a “No hate” sign to the bottoms of every flagged lamppost.
That’s nice, although the Union Flag should be above the pride flag
Also that Union Flag is upside down.
It gets ripped down too quickly if I put it below! You can see the old cable ties from when I made that mistake.
I am SHOCKED that the patriots who hung the Union Flag did not respect proper flag protocol.
Maybe fix it for them ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) then they’ll know it was fixed by the pride guy
I’m so sick of the inability to speak like a human online. The way you’re being spoken to for acting like a well adjusted adult is actually embarrassing for this community.
Eh, not all are bad. What @GiveOver@feddit.uk did was pretty based
Exactly what I said. Oppose the use of the flag as a intent to scare immigrants.
While making reasoned and rational arguments for and against different immigration policies.
Of course the above is as unbiased as it can be.
But as someone with more left of centre ideals.
It’s not complex. As a nation we have always depended on immigration. Angle Celts and Jutes immigrated to this nation before the flooding of dogger bank some 12k years ago. Much as in the rest of the world. Excluding the plains of Kenya. No human is entirely native to any one nation. Mixing of cultures and people has always advantages the human race.
But the right wing is very much being intentional in their use of other to distract the people. It is a key goal of fasism.
The rights use of the flag as an element of fear. Is both intentional and a long known core element of fascist ideology.( Ultra nationalism and the selectionof a enemy class. ). intended to control opposition to the elite.
Absolutely nothing the right claim as an issue to the UK is the fault or responsibility of immigration.
While all the issues that drive people to accept such claims. Are the result of intentional reductions in rights and equality lead by 50 plus years of right of centre governments.
As bad as godwins law can be. Their is a reason so many of the rights actions match 1930 Germany.
That’s an Americanism. Immigration from one country to another is generally accepted, eg, between european countries. The issues are people “fleeing war” from Afghanistan and where do they settle. Pakistan? No. Turkiye? No. They have to make it to the UK for some strange reason.
I’m actually pro letting Afghans in who helped our nation and may face persecution under the taliban. The people coming in on small boats aren’t honest people. The honest people migrate legally as they respect our laws.
You are inventing divisions where non existent.
For starters there is absolutely no law or history where war refugees are required to settle in the first safe nation. Much the opposite the Geneva convention makes it illegal to use access or distance to limit the movement of refugees. This is specifically their as forcing nations nearest a war zone to accept refugees would increase the odds of the war spreading into their borders.
As for the difference between EU and refugees. Given the whole Brexit history that is an utterly dumb complaint. It has absolutely no marit in this debate as the flag was specifically used to argue against all type of immigration in recent times.
The law should be changed. It didn’t account for a people smuggling industry. Why would you want a war to spread to the UK?
The law should be changed because you have fallen for right wing bull crap.
The law was created in the 1950s with the UK as a major proponent of that law. Yet we have had 0 wars on UK soil since then.
Where as nations bordering wars have had multiple wars expand into their territory as refugees run to escape. Seriously, you seem totally unable to base any of your arguments on facts or logic. But just emotional rubbish pushed by right wing lies and folks fighting for fascism.
Turkiye has been fine for Syrian refugees, the war didn’t carry over into there. If the war expands, run further there.
There is no right-wing bull crap. If you pay someone to get you to another country illegally, you have already shown you don’t respect the law. Someone who gets on a boat on the English channel isn’t a good person 99% of the time. They’re selfish. They don’t desperately need to go to England.
One or multiple examples where it did not happen. Is in no way an argument against 1000s of years of history, where it has. And a rather stupid argument.
It is illegal to consider the way an asylum seeker enters a nation. As a limitation on there right to claim asylum. That is also part of the Geneva convention.
It is there to stop the right wing actions of multiple Tory govs who intentionally limited access to the UK. In an attempt to end claims. Why did the convention do this after WW2. Because nations supporting Germany attempted the same crap when people ran from nations attacked by the fascists there.
The right wing gov trying to stop the boats is the illegal action. Not the boats.