I was planning to leave this conversation but have considered that it is here for all to read and feel my character may be publicly impugned, so a reply is needed.
I have seen on other topics how these provocative threads can go.
My text was buckshot aimed towards Britain further to @Porridge’s comment, “a constitutional objection, based on the idea that a British citizen had no need to prove the fact.”
Whether or not that in itself appears constitutionally arrogant may be subjective. What I was trying to spotlight was that ill defined social pride may be getting in the way of progress in Britain.
My critique of Britain was further to the “constitutional objection” and was not specific to Porridge. Exactly where did I call any member prejudiced? This interpretation is not mine. The accusation is alarming, personal and I think contravenes SF guidance:
“remember to criticize ideas, not people . Please avoid:
- Name-calling.
- Ad hominem attacks.
- Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content.
- Knee-jerk contradiction.
Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.”
Since the subject of race relations has arisen, it may be opportune to address it here. Race and British attitudes regarding it are part of an ongoing debate and a living reality for many in Britain and beyond.
For good reason the active prejudice in Britain’s judiciary was recognised and condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in 2020.
Unfortunately, the situation has not changed or improved. Any country’s governing bodies set an example for its citizens’ behaviour.
No one here has accused anyone personally of racism. Racism in Britain on the other hand, not non-existent.
When we shy away from talking about racism by reacting defensively or labelling amendments derogatively as ‘woke’, we feed into and perpetuate its continuance in society.
