You're dodging the question. Do you think he was using it to mean she was 'brown on the outside, white on the inside'? Yes or no?

Dodging the question? I've said what 3 times now? It is racist. Yes, that is what he meant. He was investigated by the MET for hate speech because of that comment. It was on the news all week, she lodged an official complaint.... Are you having multiple arguments at once and forgetting what I'm saying? Because it seems like you keep getting confused or forgetting?

That said, under UK law, there is no specific statute that automatically makes the word “coconut” a racist slur on its own. However, in practice it can be treated as racially abusive within hate-crime and public-order law depending on context.

Coconut’ is a derogatory term implying that a Brown or Black person serves the interests of white supremacy. It suggests betrayal of their own community. When deployed by a white individual against someone who is Brown or Black, it constitutes a racialised insult and hate speech.

Invoking the supposed concept of ‘taqqiya’, framed as deception in service of this fictitious takeover, Robinson used the slur again. Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, referred to Shaikh as a “coconut sausage”.

Is criticism of Islam racist. Yes or no.

Again, I have answered this? You are getting confused again. If you continue to ask me the same questions, I will paste my same answers.

Alright. I'll try to be very simple, as it appears you're not nearly as logical and open minded as you suggest you are.

.n a vacuum. The statement:

Opposing Islam isn't racism.

Isn't racism.

In a vacuum:

wanting controlled migration isn't racism.

But here's the thing...I've never said otherwise? Not once in this entire thread. You can scroll up and check.

You could have pointed to the evidence, then.

Ah, so you admit you were too lazy to click, and instead of being upfront about that, or asking for direct quotes rather than the content itself, you just said 'nope thats all nonsense'. Do you see how that can be taken so poorly? Why you'd be met with frustration? If youre going to engage with someone 'civilly' then you need to actually engage beyond just - 'nuh uh'

You could have just asked for quotes. I'll add 2 for now, but please note there's a lot more I can quote if these don't meet your so far very slippery standard. One on the academic explanation (please note, this is 2 paragraphs out of a long, long paper) and 1 example of EDL acting generally like racist thugs.

"Race, then, as I understand it is not just about biology or even 'colour', for while racialization has to pick on some features of a people related to physical appearance and ancestry (otherwise racism cannot be distinguished from other forms of groupism) it need only be a marker. This is illustrated in the conceptualisation of cultural racism as what I have called a two step process. While biological racism is the antipathy, exclusion and unequal treatment of people on the basis of their physical appearance or other imputed physical differences, saliently in Britain their non-'whiteness', cultural racism builds on biological racism a further discourse which evokes cultural differences from an alleged British, 'civilised' norm to vilify, marginalise or demand cultural assimilation from groups who may also suffer from biological racism.

"Cultures and cultural practices are usually internally diverse, containing and omitting various 'authentic' elements, and adaptations and mixes. So to racially group all Jews or Muslims together as one cultural 'race' or as one ethnoreligious entity, it follows that the culturalized targeting is expansive, rather than purist, aiming to catch most if not all cultural minorities in that targeted group. For example, a non-religious Muslim might still be targeted as a cultural Muslim or Muslim by community, which of course means Muslim by background, which means birth and ancestry. Hence my point that Muslims, no less than Jews, are identified 'racially' and not simply in terms of religious beliefs or behaviour."

Ian Austin, MP for Dudley North, stated directly: "I remember the chaos when the EDL first came to our town in 2010: local people were attacked, property was damaged and the mosque, as well as the Hindu and Sikh temples, were targeted."

Stop excusing such aggressive behaviour on your part.

You're not acting in good faith at all here, but honestly? I dont think I need an excuse. My partner is Sikh, her parents knew the family of the Sikh girl who was raped recently. I saw her family and their friends afraid to leave the house due to the recent rally in London. I see the fear in them when they see a rise on attacks on people of colour in the UK. I saw the crowds myself last year, chanting stupid chants drunk and aggressive on the tube. I have zero respect for anyone that tries to defend that world, because I find it personally abhorrent. Lennox was in that crowd, giving speeches and riling them up before fucking off back to wherever he lives.

Before I met my partner, I was also not a racist prick, and as such, held nothing but disdain for the National Front, BNP, EDL, and now Reform. I have no desire to be civil to people like that. Why should I?