That's a worrying attitude; should we only defend someone if we agree with them otherwise they shouldn't have justice? I'm sure Sir Kier had no sympathy with the extremist organisation he was defending - it would be in opposition to many things he stood for: sexual, gender, racial equality, etc - but as a civil rights lawyer (or any lawyer) he surely wanted to see his client had a fair trial? (The problem with the current Post Office scandal seems to be that too many lawyers, even some of the defence ones, were willing to take the money without really caring about seeing justice done.) As an atheist I'm not "pro" any religion but I don't see being "pro" Islamic much different to being "pro" other religion. I've worked and studied with Muslims and I think your use of "pro Islam" here would be insulting to them. Perhaps you meant pro religious extremists? (The region to is surely irrelevant?) In the early 90s when I was studying on my telecoms/networking post grad course I often went for a drink with a fellow student from Iraq with a Muslim background - it was very interesting to get his perspectives on various things like the first Iraq war. I think he'd have found the comment an Islamaphobic slur! (He and his English wife had left a very comfortable life style in Iraq in the 1980s where he was an engineer and refer to his wife's native Devon after he said some very unwise things about Sadam Hussein.) Anyway, perhaps also remember that Sir Kier provided pro bono support to the McLibel pair as they couldn't afford a lawyer and had to defend themselves - another poor example of English justice - but I don't think that makes Sir Kier a vegan?Sunak may not have meant it to be disrespectful (let's face it the taunt would have been preprepared by some lacky) but that just emphasises his lack of judgement in not skipping the comment about trans women and making a crass, insensitive and, some would say, ignorant comment in the circumstances. The main concern is that joking about matters concerning trans people is that it may lead to them being more targeted by abuse and violence, and it shows a lack of understanding by him that times are changing and the gender definitions are blurring. Ok, we know that there are two primary sexes - male and female - and a few intersex people - defined by chromosomes. However, we are still not sure why those with the same chromosome make up can be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. It's generally considered to be one or more factor based on genetics, epigenetics, hormones, microbiome, neurological conditions, physical development, environment, etc but it is now accepted that it's what someone is rather than a choice. So it seems sensible to accept that gender difference such as transgender where people feel uncomfortable on their birth body or asexual people who don't feel a desire for sex are influenced by these factors as well and thus defined on the LGBT+ gender spectrum. I consider it's an area being evolved and I like it to the theory of gravity: Newton's theory has served us well and still works for rocket launches, but Einstein determined it wasn't a force and was actually the curvature of space time that created waves as movement occurs - which has only been proven, well, as much as science ever is? - in the last decade. So I guess we're still learning about gender? I mean, why would someone who has lived several decades, for example, as a man go through the difficult process of gender realignment if there wasn't some driving factor to make them do it? So, perhaps it's not really funny? Interesting, the few people I've met who have don't seem to talk about it, they just want to be accepted for who they now are. Anyway, why do people care so much about people's gender?
Michael Ixer ● 75d