Genocide 2
Christian Persecution

ISIS is committing genocide, but Tory MPs are whipped into denial

 

The legal definition of genocide is not restricted to genus: it is defined as the intent “to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part..”

So, if what ISIS/Daesh is perpetrating throughout Iraq and Syria is not genocide, what is? If the systematic butchering of Christians, Yazidis and other minorities with the stated purpose of ‘cleansing’ them from the self-declared Islamic State is not genocide, what is? If the slavery of Yazidi women, the crucifixion of Christian men or the beheading of minority children is not genocide, what is?

This isn’t a political or religious game: there is no ‘competition’ to diminish what the Nazis did to the Jews. It is simply that when genocide is being committed, we have a moral obligation to call it so. US Secretary of State John Kerry says ISIS/Daesh is perpetrating genocide; the US House of Representatives calls it genocide; the Council of Europe calls it genocide; the EU Parliament calls it genocide. When 1.5 million Christians are whittled down to 260,000 in just over a decade, we observe the eradication of an entire human group. This is a crime, and this crime has a name: it is called ‘genocide’.

But not by HM Government.

Nor by the Church of England.

Today MPs debate whether what ISIS/Daesh is doing to Christians and other minorities should be called genocide. Fiona Bruce MP has tabled the motion, in the hope (and prayer) of drawing further attention to the appalling suffering of her Christian brothers and sisters; hoping (and praying) that the UN Security Council might be pressured into doing more to bring it to an end.

But Conservative MPs are being whipped to vote against the motion. Yes, whipped. It might only be 1-line, but it is still a whip. HM Government argues that it is not for Parliament to make a judgment about whether or not what ISIS/Daesh is doing is genocide: it is a matter for the courts. This makes sense, of course. But parliamentary votes are sometimes only symbolic, and that symbolism may reverberate around the world. One thinks of the 2014 vote to recognise the state of Palestine. A few politicians voting in Britain cannot and did not make Palestine a state, but the symbolism of solidarity had purpose and effect. There is nothing to stop MPs recognising ISIS/Daesh crimes as genocide and then using its position in the UN Security Council to table a resolution to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court.

Bishop Angaelos, the General Bishop in the United Kingdom of the Coptic Orthodox Church, says: “If the British Parliament recognises these violations as genocide, along with other parliamentary bodies around the world, this will allow an essential co-ordinated approach across the international community for the protection of the sanctity and dignity of God-given human life.”

The vote would have manifest moral purpose and righteous effect.

Of course, by acknowledging that what ISIS/Daesh is doing is genocide, we would be compelled to do something about it. But why shouldn’t we? If individual Conservative MPs are convicted in their consciences that this is genocide and something needs to be done about it, why should they not freely vote in support of Fiona Bruce’s motion? Why are their consciences being constrained by the whip? If the exercise of Conservative political authority is compromised to the extent that it may not bear witness to the truth of the systematic persecution and eradication of Christians, its authority is suspended, and its moral judgment and obligation are deaf to the divine command. They become genocide deniers.

Reason itself directs Conservative MPs to understand the rational righteousness if Fiona Bruce’s motion. They should stand before the burning bush, take off their shoes, and refuse to worship the whip.

  • PessimisticPurple

    Perhaps age is making me cynical, but I wonder how many of our secular overlords, in the secret fastnesses of their hearts, are not entirely appalled at there being one million less Christians in the world.

    • Findaráto

      There aren’t one million less. There are one million fewer.

      It’s bad enough to bear false witness against your masters. But to intimate that their command of English is as poor as yours is truly contemptible.

      • Pubcrawler
        • Findaráto

          Squirm all you like, fewer is for countables and less for uncountables.

          And what would Alfred the Great know? Dull and grunting Saxons couldn’t even hold on to the throne let alone speak the gutteral language they invented. Not proper like. Real English was a result of French intervention. They took a peasant tongue and transformed it into the language of Shakespeare.

          • preacher

            Sorry, but I think you’ll find they weren’t French but of Viking descent. Norman – Norseman, see the connection ? they settled in Normandy after raiding the French mainland, & in an attempt to pacify them the French King gave them the land that later became known as Normandy.
            The same thing happened here, only the Southern counties were the Saxon realm, the North & East Anglia were known as the Danelaw.

          • Anton

            The Danes invaded, beginning a war that lasted more than a lifetime to expel them (beginning with Alfred), several centuries after the Anglo-Saxons had settled down in England. You are right about the Normans – William the Conqueror was descended from Rollo the Viking who fought his way up the Seine to Paris. But they picked up Christianity there.

          • preacher

            They picked up a lot Anton, including a standard that was blessed by the Pope, it was granted in exchange for the promise of more lands in England for the R.C Church. Thus it officially became a Crusade & an excuse for mercenaries to join William & his Normans in the land grab. Many of Harold’s troops originated from the Danelaw, but still fought on foot as their ancestors had done, so it was more of a generational thing than many people think.

          • Findaráto

            No matter what the origins of the Normans, their language was French.

          • preacher

            I would have thought not pure French, but more surely a bastardised type learned from the natives & necessary for trade.

          • preacher

            Anyway we digress from the post. apologies to all & to our host !.

          • Findaráto

            Norman French was a variant of the langue d’Oïl common to all of Northern France. There were regional differences, but no more so than between various northern dialects of English. The original Norse language of the Viking invaders was abandoned within a generation or two.

            This did not happen when they conquered England. They were so horrified with the English language they refused to speak it and French – a version thereof that developed apace with the French spoken in France and was heavily influenced by it – remained the language of the court for several hundred years. At least until its influence had transformed English into a language fit to be spoken.

          • preacher

            Hey brother, you’ve obviously never spoken with a Geordie, the Normans must have stopped in the Midlands LOL.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            “And Frenche she spake ful fayre and fetishly
            After the scole of Stratford-atte-Bow
            For Frenche of Paris was to her unknowe.”

          • James Bolivar DiGriz

            Indeed, and it is commonly called Norman French
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_language

            In 1066 a huge number (quite possibly a majority) of the inhabitants of what is now France did not speak but a local language.

          • Anton

            Shakespeare, as the late great Gilbert Highet explained, gets many of his most powerful effects by skillful juxtaposition of the directness of Anglo-Saxon words, Norman French words, and Latin loan-words that came in several centuries after the Norman conquest.

          • Findaráto

            Without French English would be as mellifluous as German. Or worse, Dutch.

            This realm, this sceptered isle, this England would be this cyngrig, this

          • Anton

            When you say “Without French” you mean “without 11th century Norman French”, but nobody here is denying that.

        • James Bolivar DiGriz

          My first thought was about the likelihood of such a ‘rule’ being endorsed at LL.

  • preacher

    What a shambles. After 2000 years nothing has changed, the Pilate principal is still with us, try & pass the buck, pacify those that scare you, make the right noises, deny responsibility, wash your hands & try to save face.
    Some leadership !.

  • pobjoy

    Omnes enim, qui acceperint gladium, gladio peribunt.

  • Uncle Brian

    There’s an online petition here, addressed to the United Nations. (There may even be another one somewhere, addressed to Dave and the Tory Party, but if so I haven’t found it.)

    PETITION TO: THE UNITED NATIONS

    #WeAreN2016: Join our global call-to-action by asking the United Nations to preserve religious freedom and recognize the genocide against Christians

    http://www.citizengo.org/en/pr/34037-wearen2016-join-our-global-call-action-asking-united-nations-preserve-religious-freedom-and?dr=148191::

    • len

      Thanks for the link Uncle Brian , just signed and posted on Facebook and Twitter.

  • len

    The intervention of Western Government’s in the Middle east has contributed to the rise of groups such as ISIS. The UK Government and the C of E cannot just walk away and leave helpless Christians Yazidis and other minorities to their fate.

    These Islamic terrorists came for the helpless Christians and Yazidis first then they will come for the Israelis, then for the rest of us….

    This is a threat that will not go away by ignoring it!.

    • David

      Quite !

    • Merchantman

      Cameron intervened in Libya yet has done virtually nothing to reverse the chaos that ensued. Do nothing Dave.

  • by acknowledging that what ISIS/Daesh is doing is genocide, we would be compelled to do something about it

    We felt compelled to do something about Saddam Hussein, and ISIS was the result.

    ‘This dream team of Abrams, Wolfowitz and Feith formed the powerful Israel-First Troika responsible for the military policies which systematically destroyed Iraq’s state apparatus, decimating its civil society, fragmenting the country and precipitating gruesome ethno-religious wars and the rise of ISIS.’—James Petras

    Petras concludes that, while US foreign policy in the Middle East has been disastrous for America, the ‘systematic destruction of the Iraqi civil society and state’ allowed Israel to make ‘a major advance toward unopposed regional military dominance without losing a soldier or spending a shekel.’

    Off topic but Petras’ article also mentions Lawrence Summers, who has today urged Britain to remain in the EU. Summers ‘was one of the prime authors of the deregulatory financial policies leading to the 2008-09 financial-economic crash’ and he advised Boris Yeltsin to privatize the Russian economy, ‘resulting in the pillage by gangster-oligarchs of over $500 billion in public properties, banks and natural resources and providing significant profits for a score of Harvard-based “advisers”.’ At the time, Summers was President of Harvard.

    • Anton

      I would be delighted if Israel had military dominance of the region.

      • CliveM

        Yes agreed.

      • @ Anton—Bearing in mind that the price of Israeli dominance is Christian slaughter, your lack of consideration for your fellow Christians never ceases to amuse.

        • Anton

          “your lack of consideration for your fellow Christians never ceases to amuse.”

          Please finish the sentence. Amuse whom?

          • @ Anton—I have the choice of weeping over you or laughing at you; I choose the latter. Based on how Christians fare in Israel—‘Death to the heathen Christians’, ‘Christians to Hell’—Syria’s Alawites must seem like a breath of fresh air.

          • Anton

            I simply reply to you.

            So how many Christians – ethnic Jews or otherwise – have been killed for their religion in Jewish-run Israel since 1948?

          • @ Anton—How many Christians have been killed, maimed and dispossessed in the Middle East by the US, Britain and other countries going to war on behalf of Israel?

          • Anton

            None. But many have been killed by ISIS, furthered by Western ineptness. Perhaps support of Israel was one reasons why the West acted, but it would need proving and even if so it is not the only reason.

            Tat’m my answer to your question. Feel free to disagree with it. What’s your answer to my question?

          • Findaráto

            Western forces, especially the trigger happy Americans, are constantly shooting at the wrong targets and killing those they’re supposed to protect.

            “Friendly fire” incidents are so common they’re hardly even reported any more. Many Christians must have died at the hands of Western forces.

          • The Yanks as recently as end of 2015 bombed a hospital in Syria by mistake many civilians incl. Christians died.

          • Anton

            But not for their faith, which is the point at issue.

          • Uncle Brian

            JR—It’s quite true that there are Jewish factions in Israel that call for the expulsion of Christians and sometimes set fire to churches. But the Israeli police are on to them and they have no support from any branch of the Israeli government. It’s the opposite from many other Middle Eastern countries, beginning with Saudi Arabia, where anti-Christian thugs are acting not only with impunity but with official government support.

            It may surprise you to learn that the Catholic Church has a vicariate for Hebrew-speaking Catholics in Israel, which not only operates freely and publicly but is even allowed to have its own website, which you can visit here, unless you’re afraid that it will bring the Mossad knocking on your door in the middle of the night.

            http://www.catholic.co.il/index.php?lang=en

            The various Protestant churches similarly operate freely, as does the Bible Society in Israel, which also has its own website:

            http://www.biblesocietyinisrael.com/

            The BSI freely and openly publishes its own uncensored Bible in Hebrew, including its own uncensored translation of the New Testament, which you can read online here if you care to:

            http://www.kirjasilta.net/hadash/

          • @ Uncle Brian—In Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky write: ‘Rabbi Yoseph acknowledged that in messianic times Jews would be more powerful than non-Jews and would then be obligated to conquer the land of Israel, to expel all non-Jews and to destroy the idolatrous Christian churches.’ They quote the rabbi: ‘The Israeli government is obligated by international law to guard the Christian churches in the land of Israel, even though those churches are definitely places of idolatry and cult practice. This is so in spite of the fact that we are commanded by our [religious] law to destroy all idolatry and its servants until we uproot it from all parts of our land and any areas that we are able to conquer.’

            Click here and scroll down chapter one to page 20 of 25.

          • Uncle Brian

            Thank you, Johnny. I’ve read the page you mentioned and several other pages, as well, of what is clearly a very interesting book. But I’m not sure what point, exactly, you’re trying to make. The page you singled out is mainly about the controversial Ultra-Orthodox rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who was a highly influential figure in Israeli politics until his death a couple of years ago at the age of ninety-something:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovadia_Yosef

            Naturally he was free to call for “idolatrous” Christian churches to be closed. Israel, after all, is a democratic country where free speech is safeguarded, even for a controversial rabbi accused of “hate speech”, such as Ovadia Yosef. But, as I said in my earlier comment, when overzealous anti-Christian campaigners turn from pamphleteering to direct action and start setting fire to churches, as they did last year at the historic Church of the Loaves and Fishes on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, they don’t enjoy the support of the Israeli state. Or even of the Ultra-Orthodox religious establishment: Ovadia Yosef’s son Yitzhak Yosef, who is now one of Israel’s two Chief Rabbis — the same position formerly held by his father for ten years in the seventies and eighties — had no kind words for the arsonists:

            The Chief Sephardic Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef commented, “The deviant behavior of church arsonists in the north must be condemned absolutely, and they should be punished severely.” He said all Jews are bound by religious law to stop this type of behavior, referring to the traditional Jewish law of the pursuer.
            He added, “Judaism has always been proud of being a light unto the nations and not, heaven forbid, the opposite.”

            http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.661848

          • @ Uncle Brian—The point that Judaism is no friend of Christianity. Additionally, Judaism is skilled at disguising its enmity, see here, reading from ‘A Totalitarian History’ to the end of the chapter, or until you’ve had enough. The book is Shahak’s Jewish History, Jewish Religion.

          • Uncle Brian

            Ever since the young Christian Church split off from its parent Temple worship only thirty years or so after the Crucifixion, relations between the two organized religions have been frosty, tense or uneasy for most of the time, and that was in the periods when they weren’t in a state of outright hostility. I don’t think there’s anything either original or controversial in that potted history of the 1,950 years, give or take, that have elapsed since Antioch replaced Jerusalem as the main centre of the Christian Church. That doesn’t mean, of course, that there haven’t been warm and friendly relations between Christians and Jews at a personal level or even at an institutional level. Rabbi Abraham Skorka of Buenos Aires was on close friendly terms with Archbishop Bergoglio, as he then was, and he still drops in from time to time at his old buddy’s new address in St Peter’s Square. Going back a few years, the Emperor Charlemagne appointed one Isaac, surname apparently unknown, as the ambassador of the Holy Roman Empire to the court of Haroun al-Rashid in Baghdad. The point of this thread, however, is not angry words hurled by the institutions of one religion at those of another, but the cutting off of heads. The Islamic State is murdering Christians and other non-Muslims on an industrial scale.

          • @ Uncle Brian—Islamic State is murdering Christians and other non-Muslims

            The number of dead attributable to Islamic State is dwarfed by the West’s death toll in Iraq. The linked article in my first comment reveals at whose insistence Iraq was wrecked, an act which led directly to the rise of IS.

          • Ivan M

            The Allawites being “don’t ask, don’t tell” type of Muslims have sympathy for their fellow minorities including the Christians. The “strategists” in Washington would rather all this disappear in the name of fighting Iran.

    • Ivan M

      I have had to modify my views on the culpability of the Israeli Firsters for the ongong crisis in Iraq and Syria in the light of the many revelations of their in their interference in US policy making. They have brought nothing but disasters to the peoples there. The US is indifferent to the fate of the Arabs. Naturally the Arabs will come to certain conclusions.
      Larry Summers along with the Harvard set put in place the economic rationale for the looting of the natural resources of the Soviet Union, along with the immersaration of the Soviet peoples. This according to the mostly Jewish oligarchs and their acolytes constituted “reform”, “openness” and “freedom”. When Putin put a stop to this, then according to the same buggers the Russians had sunk back into autarky, corruption, and statism. It is far better for the Russians to learn modernization from Germany and Japan.

      • Jewish interference in the policy-making of the white countries which have given them shelter has come to light because of the Internet, a medium (thus far) beyond Jewish control. My instinct is that the Jews are riding for the biggest fall of their lives.

        • Ivan M

          All I am interested in is to see the removal of the man behind the curtain from the levers of power. This will be good for all concerned.

  • Anton

    Very well said, Your Grace.

  • IanCad

    Bless you YG, and Fiona Bruce.
    Symbolism counts.

  • CliveM

    Considering the febrile state of Tory MP’s at the moment, I am surprised that Cameron is investing any of his declining authority in a vote that would simply be seen as symbolic. Besides he could argue that the half dozen Tornado’s he posted out there satisfy any legal commitments.

    So again he is making a decision which is both immoral and politically stupid.

    • len

      No change there then?

      • CliveM

        Can’t disagree.

    • David

      He makes a habit of that.

      • CliveM

        Doesn’t he just. If he hadn’t been so lucky in his political opponents, he would have been toast long ago.

  • Findaráto

    What the government wants to avoid is yet another Middle-Eastern entanglement.

    One can’t help but agree. Especially where religion is concerned. Is it really our responsibility to protect religious minorities in far-flung places over which we have no control and little influence?

    First and foremost these people are responsible for their own fate. Why can’t they take a leaf out of Elizabeth I’s book and bend to the prevailing wind to save their skins, hoping for better days ahead? Outward conformity does not preclude inward dissent. Except of course if you want to pose as a martyr.

    It may be that Daesh is using religion as an excuse to slaughter ethnic minorities they don’t like, in which case the issue becomes political rather than religious. But even then, our responsibility is not engaged. We didn’t intervene in Rwanda, so why would we intervene now? We’re not the world’s policeman.

    This is an affair for the UN, not for unilateral action by the UK.

    • Anton

      I agree about unilateral action, but where you want to support one faction against another without sending your armed forces, you send arms to your preferred faction. As for the UN, it is a contemptible organisation.

      • Findaráto

        The UN is what it is and it’s pointless criticising it because in today’s world it can’t be anything else.

        We could try arming Christians in the Middle-East but the arms would just fall into the hands of Daesh.

        Whatever we do, a lot of people are going to die. We can’t prevent that, but we can deal with Daesh as a military force and stop its spread by cooperating with regimes we might not particularly like, but which Realpolitik forces us to acknowledge and accept.

        That’s the reality of the world in which we live. If it’s a choice between Assad and Daesh, and it is, the choice is clear.

        • Anton

          Agreed. And it always was, although not to David Cameron.

        • David

          I certainly agree that it has always been a choice between Assad or Daesh. In my book, faced with such a reality, it is wise and moral to pick the one who is by far the lesser of the two evils.
          But in the strange world inhabited by David Cameron this is not so.

          • Findaráto

            Politicians in general, but especially Conservative politicians, are scared witless of being forced into a U-turn.

            For that you can blame Margaret Thatcher. The lady was not for turning, but in refusing to turn, she made it impossible for any other Conservative politician ever to do so again without being pilloried to the point of becoming a lame duck.

            In many ways I admired Lady Thatcher, but the expectation of inflexibility she bequeathed to her successors doesn’t work in the real world. It requires the kind of indomitable personality and comfortable majority that just don’t exist in politics today.

            Cameron has to deal with Assad whilst never being seen to be dealing with Assad, because to deal with Assad would bring the curse of Thatcher down on his head and make his position in the party utterly untenable, and not to deal with him will end in catastrophe for all of us.

            Poor chap, he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. How he must revile the Iron Lady’s name!

          • Ivan M

            Mrs Thatcher would not have got involved in the first place. She did not have any skeletons in her closet that screwed minds out of common sense.

          • Findaráto

            Never say never. Who knows what Britain’s economy would have been like had it not joined the EEC when it did? Would Margaret Thatcher have been elected prime minister if Britain had stayed out? Would she have become leader of the Conservatives? We’ll never know.

            Pointless conjecture about what might have happened if things had been done differently is a waste of time. What happened, happened.

          • Ivan M

            I was referring to the Iraqi misadventure, buddy.

        • B flat

          It was not “Daesh” which started the war to remove Assad from Syria. The local enemy behind this mess is Erdogan of Turkey, whose aims have grown exponentially since the West collectively revealed the blind stupidity of its political leaders.
          Look at the immigration chaos in Greece and eastern Europe, and the profligate financial agreement struck by Turkey with the EU.

      • carl jacobs

        People misunderstand the UN. It’s not supposed to be the League of Nations only better. It was designed as a military hegemony with five members above the “law”. It’s purpose is to prevent war among the major powers and to give them a forum for cooperation. It is not, was never intended to be, and will never be an agent if Global governance.

        • Watchman

          Not until Obama becomes General Secretary!

  • Albert

    But Conservative MPs are being whipped to vote against the motion. Yes, whipped.

    Disgraceful, but to be expected.

  • carl jacobs

    refer the matter to the International Criminal Court

    Seriously? The ICC? The only court in the world with more prosecutors than convictions? Let’s come up with a more effective plan. How about writing a stern editorial and printing it in a prominent newspaper.

    If you want to do something about ISIS, you have to send soldiers, seize power, monopolize violence, and govern. Anyone want to sign up for that task?

    • Anton

      Not at my age, but I’d rather my taxes funded it than funded Foreign Aid.

      • carl jacobs

        Foreign Aid is cheap. The blood of a soldier is expensive. Too many people treat soldiers as chits to be sacrificed in a game of international do-goodery.

        • Anton

          We agree – I have long complained that brave men who have sworn to defend Queen and Country have been sent by recent Prime Ministers to places where they face mortal danger but are defending neither.

  • Martin

    Let’s face it, the UN/ICC are a joke, let’s noit waste time with them.

    Equally, the concept that “something must be done” got us into this mess

    • “There’s no requirement for deciding that something is wrong to lead to anything when that something is outside of our zone of influence.”

      As the priest and the Levite said to the Samaritan …..

      • Martin

        HJ

        Both the priest and the Levite were capable of doing something on that Jericho road, which I take it you were referring to.

        Recent history has shown that when our government meddle in the affairs of middle eastern countries the resulting mess is worse than what they sought to alleviate. I have no doubt that if they were to attempt to do anything in this situation they would make it a great deal worse.

  • jsampson45

    Another joke is our spivocracy where MPs obey whips instead of representing the people.

  • dannybhoy

    Some weeks ago I emailed the office of the PM, my own MP and Lambeth Palace about the massacre of Pakistani Christians at Easter and our overseas aid programme. I asked why there was no correlation between the two things.
    I have heard nothing back from any of them.

    • IanCad

      Danny, My MP got back to me within six hours after contacting him this A.M.

      • CliveM

        What did he say?

        • IanCad

          Clive, Danny,
          After the obligatory courtesies and sympathies with my cause he then explains the Gov’s position:

          “It is a long-standing Government policy that any judgements on whether genocide has occurred are a matter for the international judicial system rather than legislatures, governments or other non-judicial bodies. The UK’s approach is to seek an end to all violations of International Humanitarian Law, and to prevent their further escalation, irrespective of whether these violations fit the definition of specific international crimes. That said, I think it is healthy that there has been discussion in the House of Commons about whether these acts constitute a genocide and I am pleased that the issue is being debated again this afternoon.”

          He then suggest a remedy; aligning ourselves with 66 other countries to respond to dash’s beastliness, and finishes up with an assurance that the UK will double its aid for humanitarian suffering.
          It should me noted he is a whip and really would be in a pickle were he not to toe the gov. line.
          The letter offers me no satisfaction apart from confirming I have a courteous and responsive MP.

          • CliveM

            Hmm I’ve been re-checking what a One Line Whip is;

            “A single-line whip is a guide to what the party’s policy would indicate, and notification of when the vote is expected to take place; this is non-binding for attendance or voting.”

            It doesn’t seem to preclude people voting according to conscience it simply informs them what the official position is and when the vote will take place. Not as I remembered it and about as non directional as it’s possible to get.

            Which I suppose is fair enough.

          • IanCad

            Thanks for that info Clive.
            I wonder though, whether such a rule frees the whips to vote as they please. Probably would be considered bad form.

          • CliveM

            I think someone else has said no one voted against it, which would indicate that they could at least abstain. I am left wondering however what those MP’s who voted for it would expect the Govt to do, if it is judicially confirmed as genocide?

      • dannybhoy

        That’s great. As Clive said, what did he say? My MP is let’s say…….politically ambitious, so perhaps wants to stay in the leader’s good books.
        It’s democracy Jim. but not as we’d like it..

  • Jill
  • chiefofsinners

    Whipped into denial… it sounds like the culture secretary all over again.
    But this has been going on a long time. When Israel was in Egypt their taskmasters whipped them into de Nile.

    • Uncle Brian

      Two hundred and seventy-eight votes in favour and how many against, did you say? Sorry, I didn’t quite catch that, would you mind saying it again? A little bit louder?

      Well, well. I see. So much for a Tory one-line whip, then.

      • CliveM

        See my comments to IanCad as to what a 1line whip means.

        • Uncle Brian

          Even so, you wonder why they bothered. If they’d just kept their mouths shut they’d have been saved the embarrassment.

          • CliveM

            I can only assume they felt the need to make a point, so as not to allow a precedent. In retrospect it all seems a bit tokenistic.

          • Uncle Brian

            A fine precedent they’ve set themselves, haven’t they, now that the final score is in. Two hundred and seventy-eight votes to … What was the other number again?

          • CliveM

            Yes I have to admit can’t see why the bothered! Still the vote doesn’t bind them to anything (I believe).

  • David

    What a good result.
    There’s hope for Parliament yet.

  • Anton

    It would be worth asking the government WHY they whipped against this motion.

  • prompteetsincere

    The last fierce sitz im leben for genocide on an unprecedented scale – 1933-945 – with an enabling UK fatal White Paper ( May 17, 1939) in between would warrant a whip AGAINST that 2014 vote on ‘Palestine’ ( aed.circa 1964 in Moscow):
    this recent reluctance is but of an amoral to immoral piece with HM Government;HM loyal Opposition ;The Church of England (and Scotland); and, yes, His Holiness’ own unilateral declaration but a year ago on June 27; at which point Sinai quaked at 5.2. Hag Sameach!