→ Labour MP calls Lee Anderson a ‘snowflake’
They’ve done it again.
Made me look fat and old with a big nose.
Legal advice being sought. pic.twitter.com/P5w4zHJP1E
— Lee Anderson MP (@LeeAndersonMP_) March 13, 2024
There was no love lost between Labour MP Dawn Butler and Lee Anderson today when she called the newly defected Reform MP a ‘snowflake’ on X today. Anderson was responding to The Spectator front cover which showed an unflattering caricature of him holding a wooden plank, looking menacingly down at Rishi Sunak.
Caricatures are meant to be just that — caricatures — but the former deputy chair of the Tory party clearly didn’t see the funny side. He responded to the cover by claiming that it “made me look fat and old with a big nose”, rounding off the tantrum by warning that “legal advice being sought.” At least the Speccy artist didn’t include the Odysseus of Ashfield’s clay feet.
→ Margaret Atwood criticises Canada censorship bill
Who can guess which Canadian public figure wrote the following about Justin Trudeau’s new speech bill? “If this account of the bill is true, it’s Lettres de Cachet all over again. The possibilities for revenge false accusations + thoughtcrime stuff are sooo inviting! Trudeau’s Orwellian online harms bill”. No, it’s not Jordan Peterson. In fact, it’s novelist Margaret Atwood, who criticised the Online Harms Act, or Bill C-63, on X.
We’ll give her a pass on using possibly the most over-used cliché in the English language to describe the law (“Orwellian”), but her concerns appear to be well-justified. Bill C-63 would allow judges to imprison adults for life if they advocate for genocide and impose house arrest if there were reasonable grounds to believe a defendant “will commit” an offence. Euthanasia, censorship and open borders — all seems well in the Great White North!
→ Scholz gets schooled
A stunning exchange in Berlin between Scholz and Anwar Ibrahim. We live in a new world. Germany just didn’t get the memo. The contrast in public speaking ability also striking pic.twitter.com/uYNb175V3a
— Bruno Maçães (@MacaesBruno) March 14, 2024
Olaf Scholz is among the least popular politicians in the West — and it’s easy to see why. Compare his rote, heavily scripted remarks on Israel with Malaysia PM Anwar Ibrahim’s fluent defence of Palestinian rights. There are strong arguments to be made for either side, but the contrast in style and substance between the two leaders left one clear winner.
“You cannot find a solution by being so one-sided and erasing 60 years of atrocities,” said Ibrahim. “The solution is not just releasing the hostages. What about the settlements”? Meanwhile, in his inimitably robotic manner, Scholz repeated for the umpteenth time that Israel had a right to defend itself and that Germany supported a two-state solution. No wonder Germans are clamouring for an election…
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIsrael has a right to defend itself
.
Two-state solution denies Israel’ right to defend itself
.
Global Concern for Palestinians means you want Hamas in its any reincarnation to remain in power because you support extremist
.
The oppressed are not always the victims, in many cases they are the perpetrators
Na3i Germany / Hamas Gaza plus ça change
Israel has only 1 reason to exist. God wills it. One should support the Jews if one believes in God. The Bible says to do it. Atheists have many reasons not to support Israel none of which are apparent to those in the area in question. Even the Moslems see that God has given the Jews many improbable war victories. This should have served to indicate to Moslems the will of God. Islam means submission to God, but the Moslems have not submitted to God’s obvious will. They will be punished for failure to submit to God’s expressed command.
so if one does not believe in God, should one not support the Jews?
Israel does have a right and a reason to exit. But what is the best way to secure it? Existence in an eternal state of war is existence without meaning.
What about putting the Palestinians in Jordan and disabusing them of the notion they have another home? After a generation or two their situation might dawn on them as not being too distasteful and certainly better than that of their grandparents.
The Abraham Accords offered a new path after all the old ones had proven to be dead ends. It’s too bad we scrapped them.