I guess it's just a personal opinion since some of the reaction is Israel = Jewish People which I strenuously do not agree with. But I think talking about "Final Solution" when it comes to anyone is dodgy as it's been used quite a bit in reference to immigrants and refugees.
UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
- Status
I guess it's just a personal opinion since some of the reaction is Israel = Jewish People which I strenuously do not agree with. But I think talking about "Final Solution" when it comes to anyone is dodgy as it's been used quite a bit in reference to immigrants and refugees.
Not too sure about other parts of the world, but in West Africa ( where I worked for the last 20 years or so ) the word is routinely used between the locals to antagonise each other in order to start a fight or even worse.
Think of the famous Clint Eastwood line - ' Do you feel lucky, Punk '
The fact that it's used this way indicates how awful and insensitive this horrible word is with its references to history.
Nobody, absolutely nobody, should use this word.
Useful website for party issues with anti-semitism
https://antisemitism.uk/politics/
Obviously membership numbers are wider i think there was a backlog of 100 odd last time the figures were publically discussed. It's small but factor in anti-israel sentiment is much more prevalent then the appearance of it seems higher in my view.
The lobby groups are never going to be on board with Corbyn because of his views but that doesn't mean the disciplinary processes don't need improving too.
It's a big standard poll
It's a non departmental government body
It's members are appointed by government. So it's current head was appointed by Nicky Morgan to much controversy because his law firm profits from government contracts. And it's CEO was also appointed by the current Conservative government.
Curiously The JC has deleted an article in which they boasted about the Jewish representation at the top of the EHRC: https://www.thejc.com › news › the-diary › equal-opportunity-knocks-1 Archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/2019052...ws/the-diary/equal-opportunity-knocks-1.56881
I would take anything that Stephen Pollard writes with a barrel of salt.
The below are the words of a Jewish man who risked facing actual harm on Pollard:
The below are the words of a Jewish man who risked facing actual harm on Pollard:
Incorrect... It's a non departmental public body... As I posted befire
So what is a non-departmental public body
Well funnily enough I posted that before
As well
Literally the first line and first link off wiki shows its a non governmental organisation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_and_Human_Rights_Commission
Or you could have checked on the ehrc own website on their about us section
For example under the section about they work with the government
Hindus vs Labour now?
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-urged-whatsapp-messages-vote-against-labour
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-urged-whatsapp-messages-vote-against-labour
All this shows is that you're sympathetic to patently anti-Semitic slurs under the guise of ignorance; but are far less sympathetic to patently anti-black slurs under the same guise.
I won't criticise you personally as I know lots of people try to defend or normalise the actions of groups to which they affiliate (I'd like to pretend you haven't ticked the Labour box but unfortunately your post implies it beyond doubt). However I'd urge for you to take a fresh perspective because those two terms are genuinely comparable to the people who are horrified by each of them.
Trust me when I say that my wife would want to leave this country if the term "final solution" were thrown about as much in general discourse as it is in hard left circles; just as much as a black person would want to leave if the N word were thrown about as much as it might be in KKK circles.
/Edit - I recall the reaction of the left when Katie Hopkins said it... Not sure I remember a lot of "benefit of the doubt" back then (rightly so).
But they haven't and they won't, which renders your point a misguided attempt at straw man whataboutery.
Last edited:
Standard Tory tactics, throw a ton of shit, some of it will surey stick.
I think you are either misunderstanding me or arguing in bad faith. The n word has a much more extensive history and as far as I know has never had any non-racist use. The words final solution have not always had the connotations that they do and if the words came out of someone's mouth and they immediately apologised then I might give them the benefit of the doubt depending on what I know of their character, whereas if someone said the n word in pretty much any context, even if they apologised it would negatively impact my view of them as a person.
Also my hypothetical wasn't a straw man or whataboutery, it was a deliberately absurd demonstration of the principle I was talking about.
Anyone living in Europe in the last 70 years knows the history behind the term final solution. I don't know what your definition of "always" is but if ignorance is an excuse for a term synonymous with the death of 6 millions Jews, then you should be equally sympathetic to the cynical Suarez defence.
If it came out of someone's mouth and they immediately apologised then it would be no different to Ron Atkinson... Whom I recall was defended by Carlton Palmer immediately who knew his character and said he wasn't racist.
You're engaging in reductio ad absurdum.
If you want to argue a legitimate situation whereby a group of people feel genuinely distressed by an action or inaction and at the same time it's legitimate to completely ignore their distress, actively deem it manipulated or exaggerated and continue to perpetuate said distress, then go ahead. I imagine the person in that scenario who ignores their distress and actively continues to cause it would be at absolute best an asshole.
Or you can talk about some parallel universe where Jews find eating Mars Bars offensive and you can happily mock them and it not be racist... Or something.
I hadn't seen the offending post in question so I was with your position till now, but having seen it, I think I agree with sweet square - insensitive, stupid, but very different from someone saying, for example, that we need a final solution for the migrant crisis.*
*someone has said this, which is why i used the example. i think it was an australian tory minister.
labour is probably losing anyway so i hope this one spreads. the more the merrier. it will affect the way some people process these things in the longer term.
First of all I don't know who Carlton Palmer is and I'm definitely not him.
The n word is not a word that should be connected to your vocal chords in any way. The words final and solution are commonly used words and I can imagine someone clumsily using them in combination, realising what they said and then immediately apologising.
Thirdly this is the third logical fallacy you've said I've used that isn't true, knock it off.
I never said I'd mock anyone, I just like Mars bars.
I've already given you an example in the parents who feel uncomfortable about LGBT education in schools.
"final solution", in the way it was used there, always refers to the holocaust, and that is what he was comparing gaza to. it is a stupid and insensitive comparison, but i am not sure it is worth 5 pages.
I agree with all of this.
i agree with shamwow's point but once i saw he engaged in reductio ad absurdium i have to say that finneh wins the debate. congrats, you've qualified for the regional debate finals. good luck at winning the trophy.
Lib Dems winning 10 sounds about right
Interesting piece by bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...us-as-chaos-hits-johnson-s-u-k-election-train
John Bercow: ‘I do not believe Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic’
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/john-bercow-interview
Some fair points. Snippet below.
AC: One final thing. You are Jewish. What has your sense been of the Labour Party anti-Semitism debate?
JB: I think that racism is a challenge across society. After decades in which huge advances were made, I think there is a real danger of regression now. Now, I know you didn't ask more widely about racism, but that is my answer on racism. I don't want to intrude on the grief of a particular political party. All I would say is that, yes, it is an issue and it needs to be addressed, but I myself have never experienced anti-Semitism from a member of the Labour Party. Point two, though there is a big issue and it has to be addressed, I do not myself believe that Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic. That is my honest view. You haven't asked me explicitly, but you've nevertheless drawn me and I want to make that point. I am not saying that he doesn't have a challenge in his party. It is an issue and it does need to be addressed and I respect those who are very concerned about it, but I don't believe Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic. I've known him for the 22 years I've been in parliament. Even, actually, when I was a right-winger we got on pretty well. He was quite a personable individual.
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/john-bercow-interview
Some fair points. Snippet below.
AC: One final thing. You are Jewish. What has your sense been of the Labour Party anti-Semitism debate?
JB: I think that racism is a challenge across society. After decades in which huge advances were made, I think there is a real danger of regression now. Now, I know you didn't ask more widely about racism, but that is my answer on racism. I don't want to intrude on the grief of a particular political party. All I would say is that, yes, it is an issue and it needs to be addressed, but I myself have never experienced anti-Semitism from a member of the Labour Party. Point two, though there is a big issue and it has to be addressed, I do not myself believe that Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic. That is my honest view. You haven't asked me explicitly, but you've nevertheless drawn me and I want to make that point. I am not saying that he doesn't have a challenge in his party. It is an issue and it does need to be addressed and I respect those who are very concerned about it, but I don't believe Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic. I've known him for the 22 years I've been in parliament. Even, actually, when I was a right-winger we got on pretty well. He was quite a personable individual.
Last edited:
From my experience, it's pretty safe to say a majority of Jews will find the notion of a "Jewish final solution" antisemitically charged. You say that listening to them is "of course essential". So what should be the consequence of listening to them?
"Also racist", but possibly well-intentioned, so not that bad. I think that's a good example for standards that aren't usually used towards minority groups among people that understand themselves as anti-racist. Normally, the predominant (and absolutely correct) view is that intention isn't decisive for the question if something's racist or not. And that ignorance is not a mitigating factor, but a fundamental part of the problem.
Otherwise, I agree that the "N word" is inherently racist when uttered by non-black people.
As has been said, that's a really bad example.
Trust me, no Jews will prevent you from eating them.
I think it probably falls under the category of “Jew-baiting”, if we must draw a distinction. Trolling Jews with the most horrific episode in their history, distorting its history to the absurd in order to deny to them the sympathy or pity we’d normally expect might be due to a group who have suffered in such a way, while transferring the right to those sentiments to another group with Jews now cast in the role of their own oppressor. It’s the primary impulse underlying the Nazis = Israelis / Auschwitz = Gaza analogies so beloved of certain people. Although I’m not really sure why it should be distinguished from antisemitism rather than understood as a distinct form of it.
Yay Skills Wallets
Ok, whoever is doing this needs to just come out and admit that they're messing around. If this election is a multiplayer game of Call of Duty then the person playing as the Lib Dems is someone on a wind up who's just running around firing their grenade launcher into the air and blasting dance music through their mic.
He's such an utter buffoon
As the TIG group found out, running the party infrastructure and campaigns isn't so easy. Although it's not as hard as 'Skills Wallets".
They've taken on half the TIGgers who had constant internal battles over every detail so I'm not surprised the combination is horryfying.
Do they not conduct research/focus groups to test these ideas before they publish them ? Honestly Skills Wallet is dreadful.
It's a Red Tory Israeli conspiracy funded by the banks at the behest of Blair and the corrupt ehrc... Or some other lame excuse
In other news nice to see blunket talking sense
Equally I'm sure he's only saying that because Blair told him or Israel paid him or some other pathetic excuse
That story has no source. No cited evidence. It allegedly happened in March 2018 but the story is written now. Do you have any questions about that article before jumping to a pseudo conspiracy that you've made up in your head?
What do you mean the story has no source? It's a first-hand account. One that would be pretty easy for any of those accused to dispute if it was untrue. The article also explains why the decision to publish the story has been made now. It's not like this is some random Daily Mail journo either, he's the senior political correspondent for a legit outlet who would be hugely exposed if he made up something he claims happened in front of (literally) a bus load of MPs from several parties.
Pretty poor reasoning, the Labour anti semitism issues have been going on for a very long time, they didn't just start over the last 48 hours.
I'd say it's almost certain that Wickham (ex Guido) has held it back to release at a more damaging point. Doesn't mean it's not true, of course.
McGinn wasn't attempting to become deputy leader until now though, which the article also says the story has been published in response too.
However, as Ubik says, there could well be more cynical reasons for the timing of the story on the journalist's part. Or indeed a reluctance prior to now to release a first hand account gained from having access to private coaches full of MPs. That hardly matters in the slightest if it's true though. The problem is what happened, not the story getting out.
Why does that matter? They both held important positions at the time being members or Parliament, it should have come out straight away.
Journalists sit on many stories for many reasons. For example, one doesn't have to think too hard to see why telling people what happened in a private coach of MPs on downtime might result in some difficulty in terms of similar access later. Also, with greater profile comes greater scrutiny and greater newsworthy-ness.
None of that matters in regards to whether the story is true or not though.
What on earth does that mean? Why are they slightly in each other's half of the pic?
- Status