The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

. The IHRA definition disagrees with you, you've just been antisemitic. WHich is why the IHRA definition is bobbins

Must admit that’s not my interpretation at all. I just went and re read their definition to be sure, and (again, unless my addled brain missed something) it absolutely does not highlight anything I’ve written as Antisemitic. Quite the opposite, it makes a similar point, to my reading  pdf here.

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf

It baffles me why labour didn’t just use their definition.

 

[blandy]

From my pdf link above

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish
collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
 Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
 Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
 Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
 Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
 Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
 Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
 Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other
democratic nation.
 Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
 Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
 Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

This, the substantive bit, they've adopted in its entirety.

Where the problem lies is in the examples you've quoted below but not quoted fully (see below, previously quoted by me earlier in topic)

Quote

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
   
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
   
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
   
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
   
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
   
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
   
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
   
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
   
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
   
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
   
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Note the e.g. 

I believe there are two IHRA definitions which confuses the issue, yours is one, mine is the other (may be wrong here), the ones I've quoted are the "Working Definition" which is the one all those other bodies have accepted and the one that the Labour Party have altered four of the examples. The first bit of the emboldened example is fine, the e.g. after it clearly in light of the new law enacted by the Knesset clearly isn't as the example clearly says you can't criticize the state of Israel for being racist when it clearly right now is

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

This, the substantive bit, they've adopted in its entirety.

Where the problem lies is in the examples you've quoted below but not quoted fully

EDIT to follow

The "working definition" is indeed the same. The "problem" as you posted earlier from that person's opinion piece, is that Labour has taken some but not all of the IHRA examples and left out others. To go to all that trouble, there must be some reasoning behind excluding those 4. I genuinely don't see what's problematic with any of them, or see any grounds for leaving them out. Every single one is a good example of clear anti-semitism and ought to have been left in. IMO. Adding additional examples could have been possible, but there's no need. Not adopting the IHRA definition in its entirety was IMO both foolish in terms of Labour having a problem both with antisemitism and dealing with antisemitism, so a focus would (rightly) be on their new process and rules. Adopting an kind of international standard definition would have been wise and bulletproof. Fiddling about with it to make it more "palatable" to a faction of Labour's more obsessed "thinkers" (sarcasm) on Israel was a mistake and always likely to backfire. "We're not going to use the same framework as everyone else, we're going to adjust it for our specific situation" is just (at best) niaive under the circs.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

The "working definition" is indeed the same. The "problem" as you posted earlier from that person's opinion piece, is that Labour has taken some but not all of the IHRA examples and left out others. To go to all that trouble, there must be some reasoning behind excluding those 4. I genuinely don't see what's problematic with any of them, or see any grounds for leaving them out. Every single one is a good example of clear anti-semitism and ought to have been left in. IMO. Adding additional examples could have been possible, but there's no need. Not adopting the IHRA definition in its entirety was IMO both foolish in terms of Labour having a problem both with antisemitism and dealing with antisemitism, so a focus would (rightly) be on their new process and rules. Adopting an kind of international standard definition would have been wise and bulletproof. Fiddling about with it to make it more "palatable" to a faction of Labour's more obsessed "thinkers" (sarcasm) on Israel was a mistake and always likely to backfire. "We're not going to use the same framework as everyone else, we're going to adjust it for our specific situation" is just (at best) niaive under the circs.

explained in the edit (I hope). It hasn't taken any out btw, it has just altered the wording

[bickster]

@blandyFollow this link to see the Labour Party policy in full (Sorry its unquotable)

See specifically what they've changed from the emboldened bit above on Page 3, point 12 in the guidelines on Antisemitism.

[blandy]

36 minutes ago, bickster said:

explained in the edit (I hope). It hasn't taken any out btw, it has just altered the wording

It has taken out 4 "examples" to my reading. In itself that's just foolish, rather than sinister. If you take the charitable view, as your quoted blogger person does, then everything's in good faith and people have different opinions...etc. etc.

But for a party with a history of repeated anti-semitism and then not taking adequate action, it was (IMO) absolutely typical that they would come up with an "adjusted" version of things, rather than accepting and following the established version. It was politically stupid and totally avoidable.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

It has taken out 4 "examples" to my reading. In itself that's just foolish, rather than sinister. If you take the charitable view, as your quoted blogger person does, then everything's in good faith and people have different opinions...etc. etc.

But for a party with a history of repeated anti-semitism and then not taking adequate action, it was (IMO) absolutely typical that they would come up with an "adjusted" version of things, rather than accepting and following the established version. It was politically stupid and totally avoidable.

No it hasn't, it has replaced them. It has taken some out in point 9 and replaced them in points 10 onwards

[blandy]

18 minutes ago, bickster said:

No it hasn't, it has replaced them. It has taken some out in point 9 and replaced them in points 10 onwards

 

On 18/07/2018 at 10:36, bickster said:

Is This the one you're you're on about?

It goes on to give examples of what it considers to be Anti-Semitic...

I'm guessing here but the three emboldened examples cited are three of the four the Labour Party removed. 

On 18/07/2018 at 14:01, bickster said:

Five of the eleven IHRA examples are taken over bodily – word for word – into the NEC code where they reappear as examples (a), (b), (c), (e) and (g). Example (d) in the NEC Code is identical to the corresponding IHRA example except for substituting ‘Nazi’ for ‘National Socialist’ (a difference without a distinction). One of the IHRA examples is “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis”. The NEC Code incorporates this as example (f) and expands on it: “Classic antisemitism also includes the use of derogatory terms for Jewish people (such as ‘kike’ or ’yid’); stereotypical and negative physical depictions/ descriptions or character traits, such as references to wealth or avarice and – in the political arena – equating Jews with capitalists or the ruling class”. Not only is this a valid addition, not only does it plug a hole in the examples given by IHRA, but it picks out discourse that, in the British context, Labour needs to be cognizant of for the purpose of conducting its educational and disciplinary work.

This is not the only respect in which, in terms of dealing with antisemitism, the NEC Code improves upon the IHRA document. Thus, par. 10 says: “To those examples [in par. 9] the Party would add...

Both you previously and your Labour blogger person have said they did leave out some examples. In their example section, Labour omits 4 of the examples. 

It's true, you're right that Labour then adds their own (different) interpretations of some of the missing 4 examples in the next part of their document and here they they either attempt to give extra context/ or to allow wriggle room (delete as you see fit). Why omit the words in bold - such as  "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." or "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."

My point isn't that Labour's version is "wrong" in what it does say, It's that the established version would have been the easiest and most sensible thing to use and that their version in some aspects is watered down - wrong in what it doesn't say..

[HanoiVillan]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

My point isn't that Labour's version is "wrong" in what it does say, It's that the established version would have been the easiest and most sensible thing to use and that their version in some aspects is watered down - wrong in what it doesn't say..

I think my point is that these disagreements are fine and completely fair enough, but it's a bit **** much for the Home Secretary to then take them as evidence that Corbyn is a holocaust-denier, or for other journalists to say that they are evidence of 'Jew-hate', amongst other discourse abusers, and that, in general, these technical disagreements about wordings are not the evidence of rampaging institutional anti-semitism that so many are claiming they are. 

If you adopt definitions that you don't actually believe in for the sake of political expediency, then in certain cases you will be suspending or expelling people from the party who have said things you don't believe are wrong, and that's an issue. Just to take your examples above, I don't believe that any comparison between an Israeli policy and a policy of Nazi Germany must *automatically* be evidence of personal anti-semitism, and I think it would be wrong to say it was. 

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think my point is that these disagreements are fine and completely fair enough, but it's a bit **** much for the Home Secretary to then take them as evidence that Corbyn is a holocaust-denier, or for other journalists to say that they are evidence of 'Jew-hate', amongst other discourse abusers, and that, in general, these technical disagreements about wordings are not the evidence of rampaging institutional anti-semitism that so many are claiming they are. 

If you adopt definitions that you don't actually believe in for the sake of political expediency, then in certain cases you will be suspending or expelling people from the party who have said things you don't believe are wrong, and that's an issue. Just to take your examples above, I don't believe that any comparison between an Israeli policy and a policy of Nazi Germany must *automatically* be evidence of personal anti-semitism, and I think it would be wrong to say it was. 

I think 3 things about that reply. Firstly, yes I agree with a fair part of it. Secondly, @bickster and I agree on so many things, it's interesting (for me at least) to explore an area where we might have slightly different takes on it, thirdly yes, the document they've produced and its falws - it's basically a storm in a teacup and you're right it's not worthy of hyperbolic acustations of holocaust denying and such like, But the flip side of that is this kind of scenario

Everyone: "You've been caught many times doing anti-semitism. You need to stop, behave yourself and abide by the rules"

Labour : "OK, Can I examine the rules?"

E: "Yes, here's the IHRA rules"

L: "OK, I'll adopt those rules, apart from the bit about comparing Israeli policy to the Nazis and the bit about claiming the state of Israel is a racist endeavour and the bit about..."

E: "Oh, FFS!"

And that's their problem (IMO) 

 

[Xann]

Israel became a somewhat of a Nazi state with the passing of the Nation State bill yesterday.

They can bleat all they like about anti semitism. They're full of shit.

[VILLAMARV]

It's what we do now isn't it? When governments around the world want to do stuff but then annoyingly find out it goes against the pesky "Human Rights Laws".

Got some guys being tortured somewhere and the world's found out? Redefine torture, redefine the human being's legal status and carry on

Got some guys at the Calais/Mexico/Aus border?  Want to start turning a profit off the problem? Redefine the human's legal status again and start rounding them up for processing

Want to exist as a racist state but the international community has issues with that? Redefine the racism and carry on shooting them.

 

[chrisp65]

Have to congratulate Labour on finding something to discuss at this time of absolutely nothing else happening in politics.

[magnkarl]

As a British Jew who absolutely disagrees with what Israel's current government is doing and where they are taking the country it still irks me that Labour sees the need to alter a very clearly defined set of agreements adopted by the rest of the world so that Corbyn's far left chums can keep doing Livingstone's, Sha's and other idiotic things and "only" be suspended. 

Being critical of Israel is something that a lot of British Jews are, but sadly since Corbyn's taken over labour one gets accused of starting a storm in a teacup for pointing out VERY obvious matters within labour that stink. I can't tell you the amount of times I've been accused of all sorts by labour supporters (both on here and at labour rallies) who just can't see the problem if it's staring them in the face. It's easier to conflate their hate for Israel with hate for Jews. 

Israel needs to stop hiding behind IHRA's definitions because what they do has nothing to do with being Jewish, just like Labour needs to start seeing how stupid their actions are when they can't quite deal with the big red cockroach under the fridge. Palestine and Israel is so far removed from saying/supporting that Jews worked with Hitler or that we should "transport Jews away to solve the problem" like Shah did. There shouldn't be tolerance for this sort of drivel in a modern progressive labour yet it took years to get rid of Livingstone and Shah is currently the shadow MP for Women and Equalities. 

Edited July 24, 2018 by magnkarl

[ml1dch]

I was curious, so thought I'd check:

Did you know that the last time you posted on any subject other than anti-Semitism in the Labour party was March 5th?

Edit - it was about you weeing in your own garden, if you're interested

Edited July 23, 2018 by ml1dch

[bickster]

30 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

it still irks me that Labour sees the need to alter a very clearly defined set of agreements adopted by the rest of the world

This isn't true

It can irk you all you like but have you actually read what they've changed them to?

Have you formed an opinion based on the Labour changes as to why they've done them?

32 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

It's easier to conflate their hate for Israel with hate for Jews. 

Or is it easier for you to blindly accept something because a particular organisation said it rather than do you're own analysis and come to your own conclusion? For example, do you know which of the examples they changed and what they replaced them with? Can you understand why they were changed because of the problems Labour perceived in them?

 

Yet paradoxically you go on to say...

36 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Israel needs to stop hiding behind IHRC's definitions because what they do has nothing to do with being Jewish

Which is just about what Labour are saying

 

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

I can't tell you the amount of times I've been accused of all sorts by labour supporters (both on here and at labour rallies) who just can't see the problem if it's staring them in the face.

Ooh, go on. Give it a go.

And after, would you care to direct us towards these accusations on here, please?

Which Labour rallies have you attended?

Edited July 23, 2018 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

I can't tell you the amount of times I've been accused of all sorts by labour supporters (both on here and at labour rallies) who just can't see the problem if it's staring them in the face. It's easier to conflate their hate for Israel with hate for Jews. 

Two quick points.

Firstly, you've only ever been called out on here on the numerous occasions you've written something patently wrong or repeated a falsehood. That stupid photo shopped billboard you claimed was real. Your Mexican friend that was so offended by Diane Abbot that he 'literally' fell off a chair. Comically weird stuff.

Second, if you are even attempting the slightest hint of suggestion that some on here have opposed your position on stuff because you are Jewish then I think you are 100% wrong. Personally, my 'issue' is that you are using the Israel and Jew argument to advance your dislike of Labour. Which cheapens the whole anti semitism issue.

That's my personal take on it. I couldn't care less if you are Jewish or not. This is the internet, you could be making anything up, as could I. You could be a Female Hindu lorry driver from Switzerland for all I know. So I won't be judging anything you say as Jewish or not. Just whether I agree or not, or just whether I consider it rings true, or not.

Difficult to get the wording right without it being post on poster?

[bickster]

Here's but one example of why the IHRA Working Definition is bobbins and how its being used to defend the State of Israel

Quote

Some key allies of Mr Corbyn have made comments in the past which could amount to antisemitism according to the IHRA definition. Seumas Milne, Mr Corbyn’s communications director, referred to the creation of Israel “a crime” during an address to a rally in 2009.

Mr Milne and others would not be in trouble for past comments, if Labour adopted the full IHRA definition.

The Jewish Chronicle