Has the BBC become a Tory tool?

[gordondaviesmoustache]

In what way is it fascist? The fascist thing to do would be to treat them as subhumans, round them up into camps, and work them to death. I don’t think that’s the case here.

You’ve obviously never flown with Ryan Air.

 

[lloydie]

I don’t think I’ve ever stood by the government. They’re not really involved in this, Lineker’s comments just happened to be about them. Lineker is perfectly within his rights to criticise them, subject to his agreements with the BBC. I just think people shouldn’t invoke the evils of nazism lightly, which is what Lineker did in my opinion. Trivialising the holocaust is antisemitic. Lineker should probably find better comparisons in future.

Millions died in the holocaust due to direct murder by the state. If you seriously think the current government actions around immigration are similar to that, or look like they’re leading to that, then you lack a sense of proportion.

That's beyond parody.

 

[BobKowalski]

In what way is it fascist? The fascist thing to do would be to treat them as subhumans, round them up into camps, and work them to death. I don’t think that’s the case here.

Bingo. The Govt has stated that those crossing in boats irrespective of their circumstances will not benefit from UK human right protections such as protection from exploitation and slavery. They will be treated as sub-human ie not worthy of human rights under UK law.

Once you have classed a group of people as not quite human, you have taken that first step.

 

[Chris B]

That's beyond parody.

Well, they are not. The dispute is between Lineker and the ‘independent’ BBC. My issue is with Lineker’s invocation of Nazi Germany as a comparison to contemporary UK. Lineker doing that is ridiculous and crass, and borderline antisemitic. That issue is nothing to do with the government, it concerns only Lineker’s choice of argument.

 

[BrianW]

The Nazis did not go straight to exterminating Jews en masse.

It built up over time, but the start was a vast raft of demonising language, blaming them (and socialists and communists and social democrats) for Germany's loss of World War I. The Wannsee Conference, at which the definite plan of extermination was apparently decided, did not happen until as late as 1942. In other words, nine years after the Nazis gained power and only three years before their collapse.

Adolf's original plan was to drive the Jews out by making their life intolerable by persecution. He would have been happy if they'd all emigrated to the US and UK (leaving their money behind of course) but the USA and UK were not 'open border' states and turned most refugees away. A later idea was to ship the Jews to Madagascar, but the war made it impossible as Germany did not enjoy the freedom of the seas. Had we made peace in 1940, that might well have happened.

I think it's quite reasonable, if you see stuff tending in that general direction, to draw comparisons. It's ludicrous to call that any form of 'holocaust denial'. In fact, it's the direct opposite. It's worrying (perhaps excessively) that the holocaust, or something like it, will come again. Now if you want to say such fears are grossly exaggerated and even absurd, you may have a point, but it's actually the extreme consciousness of the holocaust in people's minds that drives such fears. Again the direct opposite of holocaust denial.

 

[Mid Wales blue]

Are you Judith Chalmers?

Must be, as Alan Whicker died 10 years ago!

 

[blueparrot]

To be honest it’s not particularly different from the approach of the previous Home Secretary a couple of years ago. We don’t know that it is illegal yet, doubtless it will be tested in court. It seems a big reach to say a bill very similar to previous ineffective government acts is equivalent to genocide.

Stops saying it then.

 

[Chris B]

Bingo. The Govt has stated that those crossing in boats irrespective of their circumstances will not benefit from UK human right protections such as protection from exploitation and slavery. They will be treated as sub-human ie not worthy of human rights under UK law.

Once you have classed a group of people as not quite human, you have taken that first step.

Every government on earth restricts people’s human rights everyday. They lock up rapists, murders and other criminals. They are denied the freedom to engage in society. Like most things in life rights are a trade off. A person right to live in safety is balanced against another’s to live in freedom.

Similarly, in the case of those illegally entering certain rights will be restricted. I fully expect that human dignity and decency will be respected. If they are systematically beaten, raped or have gold fillings ripped from their mouths as happened in Nazi germany then the comparison Lineker made will stand, but that won’t happen.

 

[lloydie]

Well, they are not. The dispute is between Lineker and the ‘independent’ BBC. My issue is with Lineker’s invocation of Nazi Germany as a comparison to contemporary UK. Lineker doing that is ridiculous and crass, and borderline antisemitic. That issue is nothing to do with the government, it concerns only Lineker’s choice of argument.

 

[Chris B]

He was referencing the language which was used in Germany that allowed the rise of the Nazi's.

…And led to the holocaust. It is a very specific example to pick. As others have said it echos comments of a holocaust survivor recently.

He is clearly implying the UK government is on the same road as the Nazis, and that the current uk government is equivalent to the Nazi regime that went on to murder millions.