It is appalling. I don't know why the MP's are allowed to ask questions if they are not allowed to show the contradictions in the witnesses argument.
There is nothing appalling except the MP's behavior, which is why he was booted!
The man was there to make a presentation on behalf of his group; the presentation did not mention the Conservative Party.
It was specifically discussing the link to Alt-Right, to hate-promotion, with a particular link to the manner of ideas raised by people such as Trump where you refer to people in demeaning ways (see Shi...hole countries remark, amongst many others) as promoting hatred and how that leads some people to acts such as mass shooting.
That is entirely accurate, and is well documented and evidenced and not in fact contradicted by anything in the manifesto of the NZ shooter.
The Conservative MP lit into the witness as if he had either made up such links, or as if he had testified that they applied more broadly to mainstream conservatism. He did no such thing.
The link was to hard-right, populist, increasingly xenophobic and racist BS.
That was clear.
On top of that the MP said the Witness should be ashamed of himself, which is clearly insulting, rude, inappropriate and unjustified.
The MP was both wrong and he was grandstanding and testifying rather than thoughtfully examining the witness.
Let me show you how its done properly.
"Mr. Suri, just to clarify your testimony, you were drawing a link with more extreme view points on the right, with hateful rhetoric, and not with mainstream conservatism, correct?"
That would have been parliamentary and just fine.
That's not what happened.
It is because according to SJW logic no matter what the muslim person says, it must be correct and whatever the conservative says it must be wrong.
See above. Your representation of what happened here is incorrect.
Your suggested line of thinking is at least as extreme as the type of thinking your offended by; and which in any event didn't happen here.
How about actually carefully reading the account of the event and transcripted remarks
before drawing a conclusion?
