No I am not but I expect the leader of the Labour Party to hold a stronger opinion on such behaviour and language than ‘you must say sorry’. He’s only under investigation because of Tom Watson.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
No I am not but I expect the leader of the Labour Party to hold a stronger opinion on such behaviour and language than ‘you must say sorry’. He’s only under investigation because of Tom Watson.
As far as Momentum are concerned, most Jews are well off so that legitimises their anti-semitism.
They have, it keeps being rejected because nothing is enough until the policy on Palestine is changed. All the noise is to turn Labour into a party that will remove any member that says Zionism is unacceptable
A Palestinian would say Zionism is anti-palestinian racism. Who's definition of racism wins?
Is it? Which other minority has an IHRA?
Tom Watson didn't report this case as far as I'm aware? I'm not sure what role you think he played here
I'm not sure that's the resounding response you think it is.
He led the calls for Williamson’s suspension today. Williamson wasn’t initially suspended, but then he was after those calls for action. I’d say Watson takes credit for exerting the pressure.
It's a question, do you have an answer?
It doesn't have to be zero sum does it.
Some people are so pro-palestinian that they have become anti Jew... rather than anti Israeli government.
You can't be an anti-racist and a zionist
Is that an accepted principle? I don’t think it is at all.
I actually don’t know of another ethnic group where there is such an effort to specifically define what racism against that group includes... I must have missed the long list of islamaphobic tropes to avoid.
At the moment we have a bizarre situation where non-Jewish people are calling Jewish people anti-semites... and people trying to box off what is an acceptably Jewish attitude or opinion to have as if they are the arbiters of Jewish identity.
Does anybody sincerely believe the amount of news coverage anti-semitism in Labour receives is remotely proportional to the actual problem? It’s pure McCarthyism in action.
There is an ongoing effort at doing just this - https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...70ceee/1543315109493/Islamophobia+Defined.pdf
Tbf that principle is at the root of our legislation on hate crimes.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-2/hate-crimes-england-and-wales-2011-to-2012
Yet I have not heard about it until you posted that and I strongly suspect most people are the same... whereas we’ve probably all heard about the IHRA definition of anti-semitism about 50 times in the last month alone. It certainly isn’t because Islamaphobia is less of an issue.
Yet nobody is going to be convicted of a hate crime purely because a victim says they are one.... not without an investigation and appraisal of the facts.
This is the issue when you only hear the self-promoting figures, i don't dislike Watson but he is just that and only comes out in public when it's to his benefit. It isn't always the case that someone is suspended pending investigation and the committee didn't sit until 2pm today so obviously it couldn't have occurred when Watson did some interviews but from reports it wasn't Watson who led those calls.
It's amusing because you also have the TIG lot trying to spin it as their influence, they must have influenced Ken Livingstones suspension last year too.
You also have Williamson reported as a close Corbynite in all this, i mean he's been in the party for a fairly long time and was in Millibands shadow cabinet he's not a new figure so has he only now turned to antisemitism or something?
Remember that time Zac Goldsmith ran a blatantly islamaphobic to become London mayor? Remember how he was chased out the Conservative party never to darken their door step again?
That's a thing they had to put in place to make sure that police record hate crimes, it's not the same principle though. It just affects how the police record crime reports and places no special status on the victim or the minority of which they are a part.
Well of course, but the principle is still underpinning the investigation.
I suppose in the absence of evidence one way or another, we’re both going to draw conclusions that suit how we see things.
Correct. No one is ever charged with 'hate crime' as such, as there is no such offence in law. It's how the police categorise offences, but any actual charges must be more specific to law.
I'm not sure the Tories being cnuts excuses Labour being cnuts.
It demonstrates that not all racism is treated the same. Antisemitism has been weaponised as a means to attack the Labour Party
I'm not sure if you believe that .. but if you do your in a minority of 1... Sorry 2 you and Chris Williamson and even the labour party have suspended his anti semitic arse
Nonsense, plenty of people recognise this operation for what it is, a means to protect apartheid Israel
The famously anti-racist Daily Mail is leading with false anti-semitism stories
Come on Mozza, give it a rest. The Labour Party is commiting political suicide with this antisemitism, its not some grand conspiracy.
The point in letting the victim determine if the incident was racist or not is because the alternative, letting an institution decide, opens the door to institutional racism. This was one of the macpherson recommendations. So while in a narrow sense its about making sure the police record hate crimes properly, the rationale behind that is not to just have more accurate statistics, its an anti-racist measure.
So there's a secretive Jewish cabal operating the media, then, in your view?
Doesn't matter if there was no racism within the labour party, they'll still be attacked until their policy on Palestine changes
Zionist cabal, and it isn't even secrative
Ok, I mean, as strategies go responding to claims of antisemitism by deploying an age old anti-semitic trope is... well, it's brave, I'll give you that.
It must be a kick in the teeth for the genuine Corbynistas on this forum putting reasoned arguments to see one of their ranks responding like that, undermining everything they have said.
Sure but it's not the same as the principle you were talking about. I'm not sure when MacPherson changed from "record it as a racist incident if anyone says it is" to "the mainstream representatives of a minority have the final word on what is and isn't racist".
What we've now ended up with is a world where Jewish people are being labeled as anti-Semitic for certain criticisms of Israel or defending the right to free speech but it's seemingly fine to call these people "self hating Jews".
Which will do little damage compared to the self inflicted wound on their foot.
I am perfectly capable of separating Judaism from Zionism. I don't give a shit of you're Jewish, I won't hate you for it. I do give a shit if you're a Zionist, I will hate you for it
We both know Macpherson had a vast cultural impact and was not limited to recording crimes.
And it isn't about who gets the final word. Its about the best way to begin a process. The principle here is about accepting people at face value and going from there, not making judgements about whether they're right or wrong up front. Because those judgements can be skewed by underlying prejudice, which in turn skews the subsequent process against the person already prejudiced against. That applies as much to two people talking as it does to an institution.
Remember, this princple applies to everyone. If you're Jewish & are being labelled a "self hating Jew" for your views, you're facing discrimination. If you then raise those concerns in any forum, the presumption should be that the discrimination is taken at face value in good faith and explored, you shouldnt have someone dismissing you out of hand simply because you're not in the majority.
Mozza, let's be quite clear on this, are you anti-semitic? The majority of your posts indicate that this is the case, rightly or wrongly.
One of the main issues with the anti-Israel lobby is that, if you are anti-semitic you will be anti-Israel. It is possible to be anti-Israel, or shall we say critical of the Israeli Government's policies, without being anti-semitc, but the vast majority of those who climb on the anti-Israel band wagon are anti-semitic first and foremost.
One of the main issues with the anti-Israel lobby is that, if you are anti-semitic you will be anti-Israel. It is possible to be anti-Israel, or shall we say critical of the Israeli Government's policies, without being anti-semitc, but the vast majority of those who climb on the anti-Israel band wagon are anti-semitic first and foremost.
They could sit quietly in a room and say nothing, as long as the policy on Palestine doesn't change, the attacks will keep coming
I don't care what race or creed you are, what your sexuality is, or how you want to live. It matters only that their is equality under the law
Nonsense, antisemite Victor Orban is pro Israel. Christian evangelicals are pro-Israel because they want all Jews in one place to bring about the 2nd coming of christ before they'll all be converted or die, aka ethnic cleansing. Your post demonstrates you haven't got a clue
That's not what adoption of IHRA is achieving though. It's being treated as the be all and end all of what is and isn't anti Semitic. I saw a guy get called a self hating Jew on good morning Britain the other day and not a peep about it.