Independent Media | Campaigning Journalism
Amber Rudd just tried to use terrorism to smear Corbyn. It backfired immediately [VIDEO]
On the BBC debate on 31 May, Amber Rudd tried to use terrorism to smear Jeremy Corbyn. But it backfired immediately.
Corbyn managed there to turn one of Rudd's key lines of attack – that he's weak on terror – against her. He got the applause, not her
— Amol Rajan (@amolrajan) May 31, 2017
Filling in for an absent Theresa May, the Home Secretary said:
I am shocked that Jeremy Corbyn just in 2011 boasted that he had opposed every piece of anti-terror legislation in his 30 years in office. And I really think he must be held accountable for that. Because I find it chilling
Her attack yielded zero applause. And then, the Labour leader turned Rudd’s own words against her:
Can I remind you that, in 2005, Theresa May voted against the anti-terrorist legislation at that time… as did David Davis, as did a number of people that are now in your cabinet. Because they felt that that legislation was giving too much executive power. My opposition to anti-terror legislation isn’t opposition to protecting us from terrorism. It is simply saying there must be judicial oversight over what is done in our name.
Rudd denounces Corbyn's "chilling" anti-terror law opposition; Corbyn says May also voted against anti-terror laws https://t.co/h9Ad0bpZ7a pic.twitter.com/KD02UqVdn7
— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) May 31, 2017
Corbyn’s response was met with huge applause in the studio, and praise from people at home.
Rudd tries to expose Corbyn on terror laws and ends up exposing her own missing in action leader #BBCDebate #GE2017
— Dave Ward (@DaveWardGS) May 31, 2017
Terrorism legislation has long been used as a pretext to erode the rights of UK civilians and hand sweeping powers to government. Corbyn appears to be on the right side of history yet again.
Featured image via screenshot
We need your help ...
The coronavirus pandemic is changing our world, fast. And we will do all we can to keep bringing you news and analysis throughout. But we are worried about maintaining enough income to pay our staff and minimal overheads.
Now, more than ever, we need a vibrant, independent media that holds the government to account and calls it out when it puts vested economic interests above human lives. We need a media that shows solidarity with the people most affected by the crisis – and one that can help to build a world based on collaboration and compassion.
We have been fighting against an establishment that is trying to shut us down. And like most independent media, we don’t have the deep pockets of investors to call on to bail us out.
Can you help by chipping in a few pounds each month?
Support us