He never called them N*zis. He said:
Freedom is being eroded because 1) the new rules are a flagrant breach of international law (here’s a hint: when someone suggesting a policy says it pushes the boundaries of international law, it’s breaking international law) and 2). Free speech is being eroded
Yeah, I read the article.Do you not read the article I linked by a qualified historian?
I'll repost it.
Gary Lineker doesn't understand the Holocaust
It’s like clockwork. Every few months the government announces a new plan to tighten immigration policy and then, within seconds, you find ‘1930s Germany’ trending on Twitter. From the moment a picture of the Prime Minister’s flashy ‘Stop the Boats’ podium emerged, it became obvious what the...unherd.com
Is Johnathon Pie a recognised expert now?
Lineaker hasn't done this because he actually cares about the plight of immigrants. The fact is that immigration, is different to the issue surrounding people travelling illegally on boats.
He's skirting over the actual issues, just to push his own political agenda.
Also its worth noting that Robbie Gibb was one of the leading forces behind GB News, funny how the nut jobs who wanted to start the British Fox News ended up in the top positions at the BBC
Maybe that is used because it's such a massive lesson in history, something that's been taught in schools ever since it happened?If this were true then why did he not say "language reminiscent of 2010's Britain" or "New Labour Britain" or "Thatchers Britain" or "1960's Britain" with rivers of blood speeches.
Or literally hundreds of other liberal democratic nations in dozens of post war eras where similar language has been employed by politicians of every side of the chamber on the subject of illegal immigration- driven by the fact it's a hot button issue with voters?
We all know why. He was talking about NAZIS because that's where Godwins fucking law demands social media goes.
Bizarre that people are deploying the "he didn't mean what he clearly meant" argument. Most people agree with him BECAUSE they know exactly what he meant
Because he never called the government Nazis, he said the language being used is reminiscent of that used by the Nazis (when they were planting seeds to get everyone to hate who they wanted them to hate).If this were true then why did he not say "language reminiscent of 2010's Britain" or "New Labour Britain" or "Thatchers Britain" or "1960's Britain" with rivers of blood speeches.
Or literally hundreds of other liberal democratic nations in dozens of post war eras where similar language has been employed by politicians of every side of the chamber on the subject of illegal immigration- driven by the fact it's a hot button issue with voters?
We all know why. He was talking about NAZIS because that's where Godwins fucking law demands social media goes.
Bizarre that people are deploying the "he didn't mean what he clearly meant" argument. Most people agree with him BECAUSE they know exactly what he meant
Did he? I thought he was pretty much just a political comedian?Jonathan Pie made his name taking coin from Russian state television. Whether he's right or not on any particular subject I'm taking anything he has to say with a freighter full of salt
Yes. He was calling the Government Nazis.
No, he did not. It's a line people who don't like what he (the comedian) has to say trot out to discredit him. He worked for RT for about 3 months before he made a video about Trump which went viral.
No he didn’t. He said language being used was reminiscent. That isn’t the same thing at all, and various nazi historians have agreed with him (some have already been posted on this thread)
Do you have a credible link to this claim because everything I can find states that Jonathan Pie is a character created by a comedian and actor.Jonathan Pie made his name taking coin from Russian state television. Whether he's right or not on any particular subject I'm taking anything he has to say with a freighter full of salt
I dont know, maybe because they are literally using the language of nazis prior to the warIf this were true then why did he not say "language reminiscent of 2010's Britain" or "New Labour Britain" or "Thatchers Britain" or "1960's Britain" with rivers of blood speeches.
Or literally hundreds of other liberal democratic nations in dozens of post war eras where similar language has been employed by politicians of every side of the chamber on the subject of illegal immigration- driven by the fact it's a hot button issue with voters?
We all know why. He was talking about NAZIS because that's where Godwins fucking law demands social media goes.
Bizarre that people are deploying the "he didn't mean what he clearly meant" argument. Most people agree with him BECAUSE they know exactly what he meant
Claiming asylum is not illegal immigration. It’s a universally recognised human right that the current policy seeks to strip awayIf this were true then why did he not say "language reminiscent of 2010's Britain" or "New Labour Britain" or "Thatchers Britain" or "1960's Britain" with rivers of blood speeches.
Or literally hundreds of other liberal democratic nations in dozens of post war eras where similar language has been employed by politicians of every side of the chamber on the subject of illegal immigration- driven by the fact it's a hot button issue with voters?
We all know why. He was talking about NAZIS because that's where Godwins fucking law demands social media goes.
Bizarre that people are deploying the "he didn't mean what he clearly meant" argument. Most people agree with him BECAUSE they know exactly what he meant
Stop conflating policy and language, it’s completely disingenuous. He didn’t compare the policy to Nazi Germany, just the language being used.
