George Galloway is the MP for Rochdale

Galloway won in an unusual by-election. The Labour candidate was found to have expressed anti semitic belief and repeated conspiracy theories. Labour stopped him standing and it was too late to introduce an alternative so the party wasn’t represented. Galloway is a dangerous divisive figure. I hope he doesn’t win next time.
The independent candidate was second. He reminds me of Dave Fishwick over in Burnley, another local hero

Casdon

Glorianny

Casdon

Or to put it another way, the Labour Party has matured, and is better at handling the nuances of human rights issues than it was in the past, now preferring conciliation to partisan approaches. Those who prefer the Galloway approach will no doubt have an opportunity to vote for others of the same ilk, I doubt that they will be heavily supported.

What's mature about ignoring abuses of human rights, supplying arms to a regime committing war crimes and supporting an apartheid state. There is nothing "nuanced" about human rights. That's why they are called "rights"
Galloway was heavily supported. That's why he won. 40% voted for him.

Glorianny, I believe most people can see that protecting human rights is indeed nuanced. People who see the world in black and white like yourself are in the minority.

The three principles of Human rights deny that completely
The UDHR has three principles: universality, indivisibility and interdependency
1.Universal: this means it it applies to all people, in all countries around the world. There can be no distinction of any kind: including race, colour, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national or social origin, of birth or any other situation
2.Indivisible: this means that taking away one right has a negative impact on all the other rights
3.Interdependent: this means that all of the 30 articles in the Declaration are equally important. Nobody can decide that some are more important than others.

Isn't in fact saying they are or can be "nuanced" the very start of losing some?

No. The nuancing is in respecting that the human rights of people from opposing sides have equal value in a conflict, and that a decision to uphold the rights of one group can’t be to the detriment of the other. You don’t seem to understand that, because you do see the world in black and white not in the myriad shades of grey that exist. Nobody I have met or am aware of condones what is happening in Gaza, but they do recognise that the blunderbuss approach is not the way forward. The only people who can solve this are the diplomats.

Dont be bringing nuance into this Casdon. People cant get the utter rush of self righteousness if they consider nuance.

Casdon

No. The nuancing is in respecting that the human rights of people from opposing sides have equal value in a conflict, and that a decision to uphold the rights of one group can’t be to the detriment of the other. You don’t seem to understand that, because you do see the world in black and white not in the myriad shades of grey that exist. Nobody I have met or am aware of condones what is happening in Gaza, but they do recognise that the blunderbuss approach is not the way forward. The only people who can solve this are the diplomats.

But that is absolutely nothing to do with human rights Casdon which will remain as they are and have been. The present situation is in fact the result of diplomats and governments failing to support or act to protect the human rights of the Palestinian people. Those rights will remain. Hopefully there will be a solution found, but I very much doubt it. The diplomats may cobble together some sort of agreement but unless they can force Israel to recognise the rights of the Palestinian people the battle will go on. No amount of nuancing will stop it. This isn't the first time Gaza has been bombed to bits by Israel and sadly I doubt it will be the last.

I’m just so relieved you’re at odds with pretty much all the posters on this thread, Glorianny and in no way involved in the political and diplomatic efforts being made to reach a humanitarian ceasefire. I can just hear you on the barricades shouting No Surrender

Iam64

I’m just so relieved you’re at odds with pretty much all the posters on this thread, Glorianny and in no way involved in the political and diplomatic efforts being made to reach a humanitarian ceasefire. I can just hear you on the barricades shouting No Surrender

The point is Iam64 that there will be people doing that, if a proper agreement which gives Palestinians a state where their human rights are observed, and they can live decent lives isn't established. It isn't a question of what I want. It is a question of how peace is achieved. And there is not a single country which has managed to establish a lasting peace whilst subjugating a group of people, or denying them their human rights. Rebellion always happens eventually. Gaza isn't a new problem. It's been there for a long time. There may well be some short term solution, but if it is at all "nuanced" about Palestinian rights it won't last. Blaming me for the inevitable is just ridiculous.

The negotiated settlement that ended the troubles in Ireland and ended apartheid in South Africa both required a nuanced approach to human rights, with agreements reached to not prosecute those who had committed terrorists offences that killed and maimed people. denying victims justice.

The route to Human Rights requires negotiations and generousity on both sides.

M0nica

The negotiated settlement that ended the troubles in Ireland and ended apartheid in South Africa both required a nuanced approach to human rights, with agreements reached to not prosecute those who had committed terrorists offences that killed and maimed people. denying victims justice.

The route to Human Rights requires negotiations and generousity on both sides.

I don't think the Human rights were "nuanced " though. The route requires adjustment and compromise. The rights remain.

Glorianny

M0nica

The negotiated settlement that ended the troubles in Ireland and ended apartheid in South Africa both required a nuanced approach to human rights, with agreements reached to not prosecute those who had committed terrorists offences that killed and maimed people. denying victims justice.

The route to Human Rights requires negotiations and generousity on both sides.

I don't think the Human rights were "nuanced " though. The route requires adjustment and compromise. The rights remain.

The rights are not maintained though when some who have abused or disregarded those rights for others do not face a sanction in order to reach an agreement. If the rights were absolute nobody would have an official pardon for the sake of an agreement.

I don't think the Human rights were "nuanced " though. The route requires adjustment and compromise. The rights remain.

In other words, nuanced.

No I posted the UN rules on human rights
The first is
1.Universal: this means it it applies to all people, in all countries around the world. There can be no distinction of any kind: including race, colour, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national or social origin, of birth or any other situation
No distinction of any kind- no nuances

You twist peoples words Glorianny . Nobody is denying that a human right is as defined. To take you back to my earlier post which started the discussion about nuances.
‘Or to put it another way, the Labour Party has matured, and is better at handling the nuances of human rights issues than it was in the past.’
It was the issues I said had nuances, not the defined definition of a human right. Everybody else has grasped the simple concept that the issues raised in upholding human rights of conflicting groups is not denying that the rights exist, except you. It seems you take pleasure in being deliberately opposed to what other people say just for the sake of it, rather than from a rational perspective.

(S)he only does it to annoy because (s)he knows it teases
Lewis Caroll, Alice in Wonderland

Casdon

You twist peoples words Glorianny . Nobody is denying that a human right is as defined. To take you back to my earlier post which started the discussion about nuances.
‘Or to put it another way, the Labour Party has matured, and is better at handling the nuances of human rights issues than it was in the past.’
It was the issues I said had nuances, not the defined definition of a human right. Everybody else has grasped the simple concept that the issues raised in upholding human rights of conflicting groups is not denying that the rights exist, except you. It seems you take pleasure in being deliberately opposed to what other people say just for the sake of it, rather than from a rational perspective.

I'm not twisting anyone's words (funny how when they run out of answers or are proved wrong that is the route people always take).
I was accused of being "on the barricades shouting "No surrender"
I simply pointed out that there will be people doing that if there isn't a solution which gives Palestinian people their full human rights. I was then told the approach to human rights has to be "nuanced". But human rights are not and cannot be "nuanced".
If Palestinians don't get them (and I seriously doubt if they will because Israel will not concede sufficiently) then there will be people on the barricades,just as there have been for decades. It won't be me. But I understand why those people are there.

This man is known as a Jew hater and anyone who can be a cat on live tv can’t be taken seriously but his speech was a joke. I always thought MPs were voting for for the area not a country nothing to do with us. As for whoever didn’t like what Lee said you clearly didn’t see the whole thing Lee said as a few channels cut off and only let show the part which made him look bad all pure set up BBC is so biased

Galloway is 100% nutty Roman Catholic. He has never (admittedly) converted to Islam.

M0nica

The negotiated settlement that ended the troubles in Ireland and ended apartheid in South Africa both required a nuanced approach to human rights, with agreements reached to not prosecute those who had committed terrorists offences that killed and maimed people. denying victims justice.

The route to Human Rights requires negotiations and generousity on both sides.

Absolutely

Cossy

M0nica

The negotiated settlement that ended the troubles in Ireland and ended apartheid in South Africa both required a nuanced approach to human rights, with agreements reached to not prosecute those who had committed terrorists offences that killed and maimed people. denying victims justice.

The route to Human Rights requires negotiations and generousity on both sides.

Absolutely

The apartheid that exists in Gaza and Israel is different to that which was in SA, according to Andrew Feinstein, because SA needed the cheap black workforce to exist. Israel he says does not need the Palestinians. The prospects of them accepting any sort of progress on human rights are therefore few.
They have never shifted in the past.
But I do wonder would you see peace being negotiated with the Hamas kidnappers being free from prosecution in return for Israel not being convicted of war crimes?
I don't think either side would accept that.

It bc osa common misconception that Galloway is far left. He was elected on an anti woke, anti LGBTQ+, anti abortion etc etc platform and is supported by far right figures such as the former head of the BNP. He is a vile opportunist who has hooked onto the tragedy of Gaza for his own benefit.

The news from Hamas today is that they can’t provide a list of hostages.
I suspect that they will claim all those missing will have been killed by Israelis.
Do you think they regret their actions which started this b****y conflict?

Mouse

It bc osa common misconception that Galloway is far left. He was elected on an anti woke, anti LGBTQ+, anti abortion etc etc platform and is supported by far right figures such as the former head of the BNP. He is a vile opportunist who has hooked onto the tragedy of Gaza for his own benefit.

I absolutely agree! He’s a vile excuse for a man and how dare he use the tragic situation of Gaza for his own ends.

Again, I don’t support Hamas or their actions BUT I think the Israeli Govt has gone way way too far now and I pray for a total ceasefire

Mollygo

The news from Hamas today is that they can’t provide a list of hostages.
I suspect that they will claim all those missing will have been killed by Israelis.
Do you think they regret their actions which started this b****y conflict?

No I don’t think they regret their actions one bit. I can understand though why they cannot name all the hostages as I seem to remember right at the beginning that it was reported that it was thought some hostages may have been taken a breakaway group

BlueBelle

I can only ever see him licking milk out of a saucer with Edwin’s curry and purring with Rula Lenski
I can’t take him seriously

I can only see him toadying up to Saddam Hussein and praising the tyrants "indefatigability".

For Bluebelle and that "I can only ever see him licking milk out of a saucer with Edwina Curry and purring with Rula Lenska, I can’t take him seriously" (& the many others who said similar).

Well, 1) Why would you be watching such airheaded tripe as "Z-list Celebrity, Get me on Telly I need a Payday" in the first place? . . . . and 2) Why not instead recall him visiting Saddam in Iraq, and his posturing speech about "strength and bravery", that to a despot who is comfortably in the world's top-10 mass-murderers, so, well over 2 million victims, the vast majority, goodness, MUSLIMS, the rest made up of Kurds and Marsh Arabs?

It's a supreme irony that Rochdale voters, some Muslims, and others persuaded by Galloway's conversion to the Iranian cause (he was once labelled as the MP for Baghdad East!), have elected a man who strongly supported the dictator responsible for more Muslim deaths than the Israeli state has ever managed to do, and would take a number of years to accomplish at the present rate?

Galloway is a skilled debater and speaker, supremely gifted at promoting his own ego, but I'm amazed that nobody else up there pointed out his past association with mass murderer Saddam?