This is an example of editorializing a title to generate outrage rather than actually complaining about the substance.
Striving that all citizens live within a 15 minute walk of greenspace is not unreasonable. Nor is it outrageous to acknowledge that minority groups statistically have less access to greenspace.
Article doesn’t have any link to the report that was given to MPs and instead asks readers to have do journalism work themselves if they want to find out the truth. It is journalism malpractice, it’s why I hate Fox and CNN, and we should ask more from the sources of information we share.
Here is a link to the actual report
And I actually do have complaints about these groups playing the race card about this. I think it takes an actual issue and turns it into an us vs them, identity issue. Low-income, disadvantaged people of all ethnicities suffer from more exposure to pollution and less access to greenspaces, their own report shows that. Yes, PoCs are more effected because of historical racism, but the problems we face today are because we don’t give a shit about poor people, not because we are racist.
And?
Its racist against the indigenous people of Britain.
How?
How is it not?
That’s not how the burden of proof works. You made the claim that it was racist. You have the burden to prove that it is racist. I have no burden to prove it isn’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
You can’t just shift the burden of proof onto me, it is a fallacy:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof
Jack: I have tiny, invisible unicorns living in my anus.
Nick: How do you figure?
Jack: Can you prove that I don’t?
Nick: No.
Jack: Then I do.
Racism: prejudice against a race.
This is prejudiced against the anglo saxons.
How is it not racist?
How is it prejudiced? All you’ve done is traded the word you’re using.
It says that no matter where white people live, they are colonists, even if they are the natives.