Student diversity officer in racism row could lose her job after allegedly tweeting 'kill all white

Dis86 said:
It was left to a vote that only a limited number of students could vote in.
We don't know how well it was publicised.
It's exam time so a lot of students are away or finished already. The rest are stressed to hell.
Click to expand...

LOL!

Or perhaps they just didn't feel as strongly as you about the matter. Maybe you should write a strongly worded letter to the union. They needed just 3% vote, they got half that.
 
RoboCod said:
It was left to a vote, and there was not enough support to kick her out, so she wasn't. Seems fair enough to me.
Click to expand...

there wasn't a vote, there was a lack of support for the petition required to get the vote in the first place...

but given that it is exam time, final exams for some students... I'd suspect they're mostly not interested in Student politics right now - or rather they're usually not interested in student politics and right now they're especially not interested
 
Get in. Let's hope the daft mare gets the metaphorical slap she needs.
Would be nice if it was off a female Asian judge.
 
the law has to work both ways, if we want to stop racists from putting out that sort of message re: minorities it also needs to be enforced when it is some SJW type being a numpty
 
estebanrey said:
She's been summoned to face a face malicious communications charge for the 'Kill All White Men' tweet.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ter-tweeting-kill-all-white-men-a6683241.html

No doubt she'll try and spin this charge as evidence of the "patriarchy" wielding its power against poor little women like her and label herself the next Emily Pankhurst
Click to expand...


"Ms Mustafa explained that she could not be guilty of sexism or racism against white men "because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system."

I can't BELIEVE this paragraph.


uXn7uC6.jpg
 
Hang on so she's up in front of a magistrates court, yet shes been allowed to keep her bloody position at the uni as the vote to get rid of her didnt get 3% of votes??!?
 
I think its a bit extreme for the police to get involved. Its not like the message was literal.

As much as I would like to see her lose her job, i would take her side in this. Its usually the feminist that are calling for ending free speech and I don't think doing exactly what they would do is right thing to do. It would be better if she keeps her job. Better for free speech online.
 
estebanrey said:
It says the vote took place in December but there was an earlier motion in October which they refused to, so it looks like they made a U-Turn after the bad PR.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess you're right. Technically they did refuse but I suppose my point was that they eventually did condemn ISIS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom