Talking Iran
ON THURSDAY, I joined the Spiked podcast to discuss the Iran war, digital ID, the attack on trial by jury, and the introduction of a new ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ speech code.
The episode can be viewed below.
A reminder that you can follow me on ‘X’: @PaulEmbery
That was an interesting discussion and thanks for posting it up Paul.
1. I thought you were spot on in your criticism of Trump's war on Iran and it was odd hearing the other man saying how 'the left supports the regime' when you were clearly saying that you are on the left, that you oppose the regime and that you want it overthrown - but crucially that it needs to be overthrown by the Iranian people and not by external war.
Surely the best help we can give Iranian people is to provide serious material support to the oppositionists to assist them in their own struggle. Not bomb them.
2. Reducing trial by jury is a terrible idea and I strongly agreed with everyone in their criticisms on that subject.
David Lammy seems to be arguing that reducing the right to trial by jury is primarily to tackled the backlog of cases. But if our law courts are facing a backlog of cases then the answer is to resource the legal system better. We wouldn't close down the NHS because of waiting lists would we? He does seem and extremely ignorant man, making a foolish argument.
3. Digital ID is a horrible prospect and will only benefit the big companies who will provide the tech for it. (And of course those who will be getting kickbacks from those companies.
It will not impact on illegal migration - it will actually help the people who run these illegal migration rackets as they have IT skills and will easily be able to fake digital IDs. By contrast, law-abiding citizens who struggle with tech will lose out.
If we are serious about stopping the small boat people-trafficking, the only serious way to do this is by deploying the Royal Navy to track, intercept and seize the vessels and return the passengers to their shore of departure. Not with cruelty, but being firm but fair.
4. On the Islamophobia regulations, again, I agree with what was said in the discussion. There are already laws against those who would discriminate or stir up hatred on grounds of religion, so there is no need for these regulations at all. Yes the regulations will stifle free speech and will seem like a blasphemy law.
Meanwhile, our government could be (and should be) focussing efforts on rebuilding our manufacturing sector, building houses, renewing our infrastructure, teaching trade skills to our youngsters...etc...
Really enjoyed this debate. A couple of takeaways; “Our government can’t control our borders, so we have to suffer ID cards to make up for it” and “the administration of our Courts system is failing so we lose an ancient rite of trial by jury” then “Starmer as a human rights lawyer cares more about the ECHR of 1950 than the Magna Carta of 1215”. Thank you Paul. God knows why you’re even bothering to try to reform these lefty idiots who have infested the Labour Party.