This video shows a group of women on a London tube train chanting, “Settlers, settlers, go back home, Palestine is not your home.” A minute later the racism is even more explicit. They chant, “Israel out of Palestine. Whities out of Palestine’”.
I saw the video via Andrew Fox (Mr_Andrew_Fox) but it is all over Twitter. Like Mr Fox, I reject the racism and religious bigotry displayed by these women. But I am also confused by it.
It is hard to count the number of women in the group of chanters because the camera and the train are moving, but I can see that about half of them are wearing hijabs and about half of them are dark skinned. In itself, that is not surprising. London is by far the most ethnically and religiously diverse city in the UK.
Do they not see the problem? They may genuinely be ignorant of the fact that the direct ancestors of most Israeli Jews came from the Middle East and North Africa, not Europe – because that statistic, and the whole history of the twentieth-century expulsion of the Mizrahi Jews from Muslim-majority countries in which Jews had lived for centuries, is not reported often in pro-Palestinian circles. But surely these women cannot be honestly unaware that by the same criteria that they demand be used to expel Jews from Israel, they themselves would be expelled from the UK?
Do you expect logical consistency from a ‘woke’ worldview?
Consider the handwringing disclaimers that head up much Australian TV these days. There’s often a pitiful word salad about ‘acknowledging the theft of the land from first nation aboriginals’ or some such bollocks.
Can you imagine the reaction if white britain insisted on a similar disclaimer on anything produced by non-whites in London, Bolton, Rochdale, or Leicester?
“But surely these women cannot be honestly unaware that by the same criteria that they demand be used to expel Jews from Israel, they themselves would be expelled from the UK?”
These young women of many colours know full well that British rules and laws do not apply to them. Politicians, civil servants, police, judiciary and the media have their backs.
To paraphrase Papa Lazarou, this is their country now.
.
If only we could deport them…
According to David Atherton and many other sources, the woman on the right is Lujane Hamzeh, a “Palestinian Welsh Activist, spokesperson for the Palestinian Forum in Britain @PalForumUk
and Co-chair of Stop the War Cymru.”
He says that her LinkedIn profile has been deleted and the British Transport Police are investigating.
These folk think that under ideas such as Critical Race Theory, they can use racism against a certain object because reasons.
This is all about power. It comes from a hatred of reason, principle and at base, common decency.
@Natalie Solent (Essex)
He says that her LinkedIn profile has been deleted and the British Transport Police are investigating.
I think this statement is far more chilling than the chanting of a bunch of foolish women. What are the British Transport Police investigating? A bunch of noisy, stupid women exercising their right to express their political opinions?
Of course I think their opinion is stupid, hypocritical and utterly self unaware. But didn’t some guy say something about vehemently disagreeing but defending to the death their right to say it?
I certainly understand that nothing will come of the investigation because this is the “right” kind of hate speech. What bothers me is the casual way in which such an investigation seems perfectly normal rather than what it is — Orwellian.
Deport them to Gaza in a crate marked “FTAO: Hamas – Joy Division”.
I am thinking increasingly datrk thoughts.
Fraser Orr, in terms of a general right to free speech, I agree that these women have the right to be as racist and offensive as they wish, but the fact that the speech concerned took place on the London Underground does change things. Even in a libertarian utopia, transport companies and the like would be entitled to have more stringent rules than those in place on the public street. I lived in London for the first half of my life, and am pretty sure I have been seeing signs in tube stations saying some version of “offensive behaviour towards staff or passengers will not be tolerated” for decades. Although in practice it usually was tolerated. One of the good things about the smartphone era is that people seeing such behaviour can get evidence of it – though in this case it seems to have been proudly filmed by a member of the group doing the chanting.
“Settlers, settlers, go back home, Eng-er-land is not your home.”
I don’t recall what, if anything, happened to the tube driver who shouted “from the river to the sea” over the intercom last autumn.
Mind you as the CPS set a precedent by justifying doing nothing about men driving through Jewish areas of North London chanting “Kill the Jews, rape their daughters” I doubt if these charming ladies are losing any sleep.
I wish I were a left wing activist. It must be great to be able to say what you think in public without fear of repercussion.
If the entire country of Israel suddenly and collectively decided, you know what screw this we’re leaving and going back to being a diaspora, who would the Palestinians blame all their problems on then? Because it seems to me that Palestine is a craphole and the Palestinians blame the Jews and that’s why they hate them. If the Jews all left and Palestine remained a craphole, as I’m sure it would, they would have to find a different scapegoat.
@Natalie Solent (Essex)
but the fact that the speech concerned took place on the London Underground does change things.
Isn’t the tube owned by TfL, which is to say the government? So I’m not sure how it is different than saying those things on the street.
And I might well ask — who exactly was harmed here? Sure some people might have heard some things that they found offensive, but so what? They didn’t threaten anyone, or even shout anyone down. Nobody has the right not to be offended. If they didn’t like it they are perfectly at liberty to move to a different carriage, much as people who don’t like something on the TV can change the channel. Or if they prefer, speak up and present a different point of view. Those are the solutions we have available to offensive speech — don’t listen or speak up. Prosecution by law is not only bad intrinsically, immoral even, but, from a practical point of view, it is the slipperiest of slopes.
I think it is really important that people like this have the right to speak their mind. It lets us know how stupid they are, and how much stupidity there is in the world. I think it is extremely useful information for me personally were I a rider on that train, so that I know to avoid these specific people like the plague.
“Palestinian” was NOT how Muslims in the area tended to describe themselves before the 1960s – it was the 1960s when the KGB (from Moscow) basically invented the idea that this war is about creating a “Palestinian State” for a people called “Palestinians”, which was a term that Jews (rather than Muslims – at least not normally Muslims) sometimes used to describe themselves back in the 1930s.
And, yes of course, most Israeli Jews have much the same skin tone as most Muslims in the area do – as most Israeli Jews have ancestors who were driven out of Islamic ruled countries in the Middle East.
As for Arab Christians – they are in decline everywhere in the Middle East, with the exception of one place.
And that place is Israel – not the “West Bank” where the “Palestinian Authority” rules, but the Jewish ruled part of Israel.
Of course “Uncle Tom” Christians are trotted out by various Islamic groups to say how much they love Islamic rule and how much they hate Jews – but the Christians are really “voting with their feet”.
How long would a Christian last in Gaza (or elsewhere in he Islamic world) who attacked the claims of Muhammed and called him a liar? Such a Christian would last about as long as it took to put a noose round their neck.
In London such a Christian would not be killed (at least not killed by the state) – but they would be sent to prison.
Sadly, tragically, two casualties of modern “diverse” Britain are Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion.
It is not really an “odd line for them to take” – remember they want to “decolonise” London as well.
“Whites out of London” is what is really meant by “decolonise”.
A false history is being pushed – in which London, and the island generally, were traditionally inhabited by non white people, but evil white people somehow took over.
It is all insane – but soon people who oppose it will be punished.
Black and brown people need, as much as white people, to stand against the insanity.
This mad campaign to turn races against each other.
Fraser Orr, while it is legally true that the people in that tube carriage were “perfectly at liberty to move to a different carriage” when the chanting began, in practice it is more difficult. To get up and move when someone starts to make a scene in a confined public space such as a tube carriage is inconvenient, embarrassing, even slightly frightening because one fears that it will attract their attention. Does anyone else remember Jasper Carrot’s “nutter on the bus” sketch? I related to “Please God, don’t let the nutter sit next to me” because as a commuter I’d often been in a similar position. I’m not nearly so bothered by nutters in the street, because all I have to do to get away from them is quicken my steps.
That is true even for relatively harmless people like beggars or so-called entertainers who move down a tube carriage seeking money. But I have absolutely no doubt that those women knew and revelled in the fact that they were making the other passengers, especially Jewish and white passengers, at best deeply uncomfortable and at worst afraid. They weren’t quite so openly threatening as the gang in the New York subway who told passengers “Raise your hand if you are a Zionist – this is your chance to get out”, but it was close.
Where is the counter-shout from the guys behind them, of “Hamas wenches, go back home, London is not your home!”? (It’s not even very good simple poetry, but it’s easy to chant, I guess.)
Free speech is great because we can counter bad speech with better speech. So, c’mon, guys, make some “better speech”!
Let’s hope so….mass deportations long overdue.
Even in a public square, you need a permit for a demo.
A public square is not res nullius.
I have always had a strong suspicion that that is something that a person would say only if (s)he did not expect to have to actually do it. Especially a Frenchman moving in aristocratic circles. (Although i am not sure that the attribution to Voltaire is correct.)
They can say whatever they like if it makes it easier to justify deporting them.
@Snorri Godhi
Even in a public square, you need a permit for a demo.
Not for doing what these women did. You need a permit for protests if you are blocking the road or a few other special circumstances. What these women were doing would be perfectly permissible on the street or in a “public square”. In the United States anyway.
And thank god for that. I remember one time that President Bush was on a visit somewhere and the secret service set up “free speech zone” where you were allowed to protest. In one of its few decent actions in recent times the ACLU published a fact sheet on this, also declaring that “America is a Free Speech zone.”
It is one of the few remaining truly great things about the United States. It really is a free speech zone and it is very difficult for the government to do much about it. The judiciary is very protective of the first amendment. I don’t know how long that will last, but it is true for now.
If we want to have free speech we have to recognize that we need to demand it for everybody, not just the people we agree with. Listening to these women ranting (without any threats as far as I can see) is the price we pay to ensure that we can rant about whatever we care about. They certainly deserve our contempt, opposition and our mockery, they do not deserve to have the police set upon them.
The Muslim women have the right to express their opinions. However, should the British people on the train, if their were any, have responded with a rousing rendition of Rule Britannia, channeling the scene in the film Casablanca, we all know which group the government goons would be most interested in.
“If there were any”
Should the harridans, in a fit of rage at having their self-satisfied worldview challenged, respond by violently upping the ante there can be little doubting which group will be arrested and convicted of committing a hate crime.That is why English people keep their heads down, particularly on enemy territory like the London Underground.
Fraser: I take a dim view of freedom of speech in North America, and Britain, since 2006. That is because i noticed the contrast between their reactions (that is, their media & government reaction) to the Cartoon Jihad, and the reaction of the rest of the West.
My view has become even dimmer after the Hunter’s Laptop story in the NY Post, and the events in the following 3 months or so.
That makes me somewhat ashamed of the fact that (by my estimate) most of my culture is British and North American. But i am not going to throw the baby away with the bathwater. And Elon Musk has restored some of my confidence.
— Speaking of the Cartoon Jihad, the only demo that i ever attended was in support of Denmark, and freedom of speech, in early 2006. I am glad that the organizer got a permit, because that gave us police protection from Antifa. Something that i do not expect to get today in the US, or in the UK, not even with a permit.
And you have not addressed the fact that a public square is not res nullius.
Sorry, but this is a non sequitur. England accepted them; they did not accept Israel.
Their argument is this: This is our land. Get off.
If are serious about addressing that argument, you can say only:
You lost the war. It’s not your land anymore. Get over it. Until you get over it, you will continue to be oppressed.
Snorri Godhi
Fraser: I take a dim view of freedom of speech in North America, and Britain, since 2006.
Freedom of speech is dramatically different in the USA compared to Canada and the UK.
That is because i noticed the contrast between their reactions (that is, their media & government reaction) to the Cartoon Jihad, and the reaction of the rest of the West. My view has become even dimmer after the Hunter’s Laptop story in the NY Post, and the events in the following 3 months or so.
I don’t remember the details of the Muhammad cartoon scandal and how it was handled in the US. It sounds like you were very active in protesting that horrific event, and so you have my respect that you stood up for freedom of speech undoubtedly at some risk. Some of those demos got nasty.
However, I do remember the Hunter Biden laptop story, so let’s talk about that. I think the answer is right there in your comment: “Hunter’s Laptop story in the NY Post”. The laptop story absolutely WAS published in the USA, in the New York Post, on Fox News and on many other places including several books written about it. Freedom of speech is not the same as the right to be heard. The stupid women in the Tube can say what they want, they do not have the right to make me hear them (which is why I can move to another carriage, or plug in my headphones and crank up some music to block them out.)
Now both the Twitter files and Zuckerberg have indicated that the government interfered and threatened to get the publication suppressed, though I suspect twitter would have suppressed it anyway. That is most likely criminal behavior on the part of the government entities that did so, and I hope, should we have one, a Trump DoJ will investigate and put some people in jail for that. Though I doubt it. Despite his reputation, Trump is magnanimous and I think it is very unlikely he would pursue such a thing.
Nonetheless, the bottom line is that people DO NOT go to jail in the US for expressing their views. Used to be this was something that went without saying, but it isn’t. Thousands of people are criminally charged with expressing unfavored views in the UK every year and many end up in jail. There is little doubt that there is an appetite for that here in the US too, however, the first amendment has been an absolute buttress against this.
FWIW, this was not always true. There is a very famous USSC case Schenck v. United States from whence came the famous “fire in a crowded theater” defense. In this case Schenck was arrested under the Espionage act for protesting against the US’s entry into WWI. He was prosecuted and spent several years in jail. Fortunately that would not happen today because in present day USA you can express even the most controversial views without fear of arrest.
And you have not addressed the fact that a public square is not res nullius.
Because I don’t really understand your point. It is not res nullis but it is America, and subject to its constitution and so, therefore, a zone of free speech.
No: they go to hospital, if not to an early grave.
But only if they express views opposed to the American regime.
Which is why US newspapers did not publish the Danish cartoons.
To grant freedom of speech to people who deny yours, is unilateral disarmament.
As a disciple of Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and the Sagas of Icelanders, i am not inclined to unilateral disarmament.
Lawyers are welcome to correct me, but as i understand, the 1st amendment grants people the right to speak, but not the right to force other people to listen.
bobby b at 6:39pm, “…make some better speech…”
Aren’t we about 10 years too late for that? If those guys made better speech, they would be arrested for some alleged hate crime.
Better speech is now illegal…at least in the UK and most of the EU; probably close to it in the US.
We might delay it in the US if Trump gets back in, but Trump would not reverse the direction we’re headed. He can’t. POTUS’s power is not broad or deep enough (thank God!)
If (IF) Trump gets in, AND then we get JD Vance or DeSantis for 8 years thereafter (or both for longer), that might be enough time with the right guys at the top to change directions…but I still despair that the job is too big for our political masters no matter how well intentioned.
The job is up to the mass of us. We need to purge the academy, right down to pre-school. But I digress…
@GregWA
Better speech is now illegal…at least in the UK and most of the EU; probably close to it in the US.
I doubt anyone would call me Pollyanna, but I don’t think we are anywhere close to that in the the US. Were those women to do their thing in a public space in the US and someone were to respond there is zero chance they would be arrested, not unless it devolved into a fight or credible threats. You will not be arrested in the US for something you said on twitter or facebook. It is, as I think I said, one of the few remaining great things about America.
Now I think it is important to draw the distinction between the right to say something and the right to be heard, or the right to access a particular microphone. If facebook wants to censor me they have no first amendment obligation to let me speak. If you come to my house and start spouting views I disagree with, I’m perfectly within my rights to ask you to leave, and insist if you refuse.
There is a troubling development in America where the government is pressuring social media platforms to censor certain speech. That is almost certainly illegal and, as I said above, I hope that should we have a Trump DoJ some people will go to prison for that. I doubt it will happen, but a robust defense of the first amendment really needs those people in jail and their lives destroyed. I’m not a vindictive person, but the first amendment is the foundation for liberty and there needs to be some serious consequences to deter this pernicious behavior in future. However, I think it is not something Trump will pursue, even if he had the opportunity.
Nonetheless, in the UK and Canada people ARE being arrested solely for things they post of social media. Thousands of times a year. And many people are being thrown in jail. That is horrifying. And it simply does not happen, and, under the present circumstances, will not happen in the USA. For which I say God bless America.
Of course if Kamala packs the supreme court we could very quickly spiral into oblivion. But that seems unlikely to happen any time soon even if she wins, or is said to have won, the election.
Many such examples of this.
I keep saying to people you don’t have to like Carl Schmitt as a man, but you do need to realise he was completely right that politics is reducible to the friend-enemy distinction.
A great part, if not most, of the Arabs who call themselves “Palestinians” immigrated to Palestine from neighboring countries at the same time as the Jews. They came to take advantage of the employment opportunities created by the Jewish settlers. Other “Palestinians” are of Chechen or Circassian descent (Muslims from the Caucasus) who were brought here in the 19th (some earlier) century to help the Ottomans rule and defend the area. So “go back home” applies to them too.
I beg to disagree.
Politics is not entirely reducible to anything; but, to the extent that it is reducible, it is reducible, first and foremost, to the people vs ruling class distinction.
All talk of “patriarchy” and “white privilege” has the sole purpose of obfuscating the above distinction.
Snorri – I agree, Carl Schmitt is a very bad guide, unless he is used as a guide as to what NOT to do.
His basic idea was that because the Marxists reject the principles of the Rule of Law their opponents should do the same – that leads to National Socialist Germany and it is fair to write that it does, as Carl Schmitt himself joined the Nazi Party and supported the regime.
“The answer to tyranny is tyranny” is the best summing up of his position – and it is an insane position.
It is like someone reading Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” and saying “that is what the radicals do – so we should do it to them!”.
No, no, a thousand times no.
When the principles of just conduct, including the principles of the Rule of Law, are under savage attack it is more, more – not less, important to stick to them.
And bodies given latitude to “fight the left”, such as the FBI, ended up being under the control of the left.
And it was highly predictable that they would.
Set up such bodies, with their terrible powers, and OF COURSE they will end up under the control of evil forces – such powers are evil by their very nature.
I am reminded of Ruddy Giuliani and others breaking the rules of classical jurisprudence in order to “smash the Mafia”.
Mr Giuliani and others were then horrified to find such power being used to “smash” them – and other conservatives.
The words of Sir Thomas Moore in the film “A Man For All Seasons” spring to mind – do not destroy the principles of law to hunt the Devil, for, if you do, you will have no shelter when the Devil turns round and starts hunting you.
Paul: Thank you for the kind words, but my view is more “nuanced” than that.
My understanding (quite possibly wrong) of Schmitt is that it’s worse than that.
Adopting the rules that your opponents follow, is legitimate in my view — with VERY important qualifications that i won’t go into, here.
But my understanding is that Schmitt’s basic idea is that you should always reject the principles of the Rule of Law, no matter whether or not your opponents respect said principles.
My understanding is that Marx and Lenin held the same view.
Incidentally, Schmitt’s view of Hegel’s political philosophy, if Wikipedia is correct (a Big IF), makes me think that Hegel was not as bad as i thought.
——–
I remember reading, though, that Schmitt advised President Hindenburg to become dictator himself, rather than appointing Hitler as Chancellor.
But according to Wikipedia, Schmitt changed his mind.
If you can’t beat them, join them.