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

[blandy]

17 minutes ago, bickster said:

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

The Jewish Chronicle

The overall direction of that article is in parts analytically critical of Labour's approach, without being antagonistic or partisan. It clearly points out some flaws in what Labour has done and these outweigh the one example you quote. They've simply and entirely predictably messed up. Apart from the Corbyn cultists, a whole range of folk across the Labour spectrum have said so, too. And then been slated by (some) acolytes of Jezza in a pretty vile anti-semitic way, rather proving the point that there's a major problem. I'd link to some of it, but it's against the decency guidelines of this site.

[bickster]

11 hours ago, blandy said:

The overall direction of that article is in parts analytically critical of Labour's approach, without being antagonistic or partisan. It clearly points out some flaws in what Labour has done and these outweigh the one example you quote. They've simply and entirely predictably messed up. Apart from the Corbyn cultists, a whole range of folk across the Labour spectrum have said so, too. And then been slated by (some) acolytes of Jezza in a pretty vile anti-semitic way, rather proving the point that there's a major problem. I'd link to some of it, but it's against the decency guidelines of this site.

I disagree. It uses the argument that these bad guys did this, that makes it wrong. It doesn't

My interest in all this has nothing to do with Labour, as we know, I'm not exactly enamoured with them. Yes, some mates of Jezza have been anti-semitic, some others, however, have been criticised for being antisemitic when they weren't (to my mind). One such example I've quoted above. When the IHRA WD can be twisted so that someone describing the founding of the state of Israel as a crime is dubbed an antisemitic statement then there's something wrong. The IHRA definition allows the State of Israel to hide behind a shield shouting Anti-semite! to anyone that disagrees with them, they do it a lot

My interest is that the IHRA Working Definition allows Israel to silence genuine criticism by just shouting racism! 

The idea that you can't use the analogy of Nazi Germany to describe Israel is particularly galling especially given its latest piece of legislation making Israeli Arabs second-class citizens, they always were but now its legal. Slippery slopes and all that. Also describing the state of Israel as a racist endeavour is anti-Semitic? What? it is, they even proved it in the Knesset the other day, it absolutely is that. I also don't get how saying to someone you are more loyal to Israel that *insert country* is racist, its again saying a bad person used this argument once so it must be bad.

It's my opinion that the IHRA WD is a shield that Israel uses to protect itself from legitimate criticism. I think it is well-intentioned but isn't actually fit for purpose and is detrimental to world peace

[blandy]

Bicks, you’re arguing with yourself ( what you previously posted ) there.

12 hours ago, bickster said:

....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.

 

21 minutes ago, bickster said:

When the IHRA WD can be twisted so that someone describing the founding of the state of Israel as a crime is dubbed an antisemitic statement then there's something wrong.

Essentially, I understand where you’re coming from, I think, but your most recent post is a bit, er, different. Probably early morning related.  Anyway, I don’t like Corbyn Labour either and this whole shenanigans is another example of why. The underlying deviousness and spite while exclaiming piety is the modus operandi, and it’s vile.

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

Bicks, you’re arguing with yourself ( what you previously posted ) there.

 

Essentially, I understand where you’re coming from, I think, but your most recent post is a bit, er, different. Probably early morning related.  Anyway, I don’t like Corbyn Labour either and this whole shenanigans is another example of why. The underlying deviousness and spite while exclaiming piety is the modus operandi, and it’s vile.

You missed a bit off the end there Pete without looking it up, on the end of that statement is a bit that says something like "But would be if he said it now and Labour adopted the IHRA WD in full"

EDIT: it actually says this

Quote

There was no suggestion that people be called to account retroactively for previous statements. But they would not have been able to make similar comments so freely in future.

See previous link

[chrisp65]

I think the Newsnight piece last night was quite illuminating.
Admittedly a vox pop. They canvassed a woman at a rally in Tolpuddle that was protesting Labour’s stance on not adopting all the examples in the standard document. She said something along the lines of people trying to pick through the words and find little differences to separate people and cause division was exactly how the nazi’s in Germany had started and got a foot hold. So Labour should just adopt it wholesale.
So her argument, sounded very much like we should make it racist to compare Israel and nazi Germany, because if we don’t, that makes the UK racist like nazi Germany. Which either makes her a racist by her own definition, or, calls out Israel to be judged to different standards to other countries. Which would also be racist by the examples in the document.
The document appears to be asking for Israeli exceptionalism, whereby they can declare themselves a state for the jews but nobody must call it a jewish state for the fear of being called racist. 
Too complicated to be workable. So will end up being a weapon against dissenting voices.
 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

You missed a bit off the end there Pete without looking it up, on the end of that statement is a bit that says something like "But would be if he said it now and Labour adopted the IHRA WD in full"

Ah, OK, my bad. Sorry.

[magnkarl]

I don't think it's anti-Semitic to call Israel racist. Labour's issue isn't that it has supporters that call Israel racist. Labour's issue is that it can't deal with this problem without looking like idiots. After years of this saga with Livingstone, Martin Linton, Naz Shah, Jackie Walker, Christine Shawcroft, Roy Smart ++++ this should have been done without having to edit the definitions. When you start editing these sort of things people start to wonder why. With labour's very muddled past on this subject it's a PR disaster. 

Israel is racist to Arabs, that doesn't mean that it's okay to argue about why there's a Holocaust remembrance day at a Labour conference, support "relocating" Jews, talk about how Jews control UK society through "tentacles of control" etc. To think that 300,000 people "control" anything in Britain due to their race is ludicrous. 

[bickster]

30 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I don't think it's anti-Semitic to call Israel racist. Labour's issue isn't that it has supporters that call Israel racist. Labour's issue is that it can't deal with this problem without looking like idiots. After years of this saga with Livingstone, Martin Linton, Naz Shah, Jackie Walker, Christine Shawcroft, Roy Smart ++++ this should have been done without having to edit the definitions. When you start editing these sort of things people start to wonder why. With labour's very muddled past on this subject it's a PR disaster. 

Israel is racist to Arabs, that doesn't mean that it's okay to argue about why there's a Holocaust remembrance day at a Labour conference, support "relocating" Jews, talk about how Jews control UK society through "tentacles of control" etc. To think that 300,000 people "control" anything in Britain due to their race is ludicrous. 

 

You know that none of the things you've just mentioned would be allowed under the modified Labour Party rules

And you agree with the Labour Party in the very first sentence. That sentence is antisemitic according to the IHRA WD.

Like I've already suggested, do some research, read up on the subject and not spout contradictory bollocks which you've done twice in a day in this very topic

 

[dAVe80]

Interesting interview with Naomi Wimborne Idrissi, founding member of Jewish Voice For Labour.

 

[bickster]

Anyone ever heard of Kenneth S Stern?

He wrote what is now the IHRA WD

This is him appearing before Congress 

Quote

And they will be right. The EUMC’s “working definition” was recently adopted in the United Kingdom23, and applied to campus. An “Israel Apartheid Week” event was cancelled as violating the definition.24 A Holocaust survivor was required to change the title of a campus talk, and the university mandated it be recorded, after an Israeli diplomat complained that the title violated the definition.25 Perhaps most egregious, an off-campus group citing the definition called on a university to conduct an inquiry of a professor (who received her PhD from Columbia) for antisemitism, based on an article she had written years before.26 The university then conducted the inquiry.27 And while it ultimately found no basis to discipline the professor, the exercise itself was chilling and McCarthy-like. 23 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/12/antisemitism-definition-governmentcombat-hate-crime-jews-israel 24 http://www.timesofisrael.com/citing-anti-semitism-uk-university-nixes-israel-apartheidweek/ 25 https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/sep/29/manchester-university-censors-titleholocaust-survivor-speech-criticising-israel 26 https://antisemitism.uk/caa-exposes-lecturer-as-author-of-sickening-holocaust-article-butuniversity-of-bristol-defends-academic-freedom/ (This article’s link is not working, but that the definition was used as a basis for the inquiry is clear: see the group’s prior article, before it wrote to the university: https://antisemitism.uk/university-of-bristol-lecturer-reportedlyauthors-antisemitic-article/ 27 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/02/20/bristol-university-investigates-claimsanti-semitism-lecturer/ 15 My fear is, if we similarly enshrine this definition into law, outside groups will try and suppress – rather than answer – political speech they don’t like. The academy, Jewish students, and faculty teaching about Jewish issues, will all suffer

2

link

EUMC looked after the original definition until IHRA took over.

[bickster]

Just an example of the anti-Corbyn faction using anti-semitism as a stick to beat Corbyn without actually understanding the issue they're using.

Clearly, Wes hasn't read the code

[blandy]

46 minutes ago, bickster said:

Clearly, Wes hasn't read the code

The code (the IHRA one) does not forbid / allows him (this Wes person) to say what he said, and rightly so, IMO.

Quote

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.

 

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

The code (the IHRA one) does not forbid / allows him (this Wes person) to say what he said, and rightly so, IMO.

 

Which is completely contradicted by... 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.

I completely agree he should be allowed to say it btw

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

Which is completely contradicted by... 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.

I completely agree he should be allowed to say it btw

I read that bit diffferently - any government passing a racist law is fair game for criticism. Ergo Wes thingy is fine under the code(s) and under common sense.

He's not "denying the Jewish people the right ot self-determination" or saying the existence of Israel is a racist endeavour. He's saying at a point in time (last week) a government of a country did an instance of a bad thing.

[bickster]

36 minutes ago, blandy said:

I read that bit diffferently - any government passing a racist law is fair game for criticism. Ergo Wes thingy is fine under the code(s) and under common sense.

He's not "denying the Jewish people the right ot self-determination" or saying the existence of Israel is a racist endeavour. He's saying at a point in time (last week) a government of a country did an instance of a bad thing.

The law in question declares that The State of Israel is primarily for Jews and makes any non-Jews second-class citizens. It is a law that actually defines the State of Israel. This is Israel exerting it's right to self-determination and enacting a racist law, that defines the very nature of the country

 

Either way, regardless of which one of us is correct in our interpretation, the fact that it is being interpreted differently by two different people (who oddly normally agree) shows that the definition isn't fit for purpose

[VILLAMARV]

How much outrage over a Law restricting speech is the correct amount when the shooting of people carries on regardless? I'm confused.

[bickster]

I see Corbyn is going to out himself as a Brexit loving economic illiterate later. About time he came clean, he'll be claiming the weak pound will be good for manufacturing and he wants to see an end to cheap foreign labour

Donald is that you in disguise?

F**king moron

[blandy]

17 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

How much outrage over a Law restricting speech is the correct amount when the shooting of people carries on regardless? I'm confused.

Given that this discussion about Labour’s rule book, in an off topic part of a football website is so clearly distracting from international opposition to IDF brutality, I guess we should desist, and dutifully return to the “things you often wonder” thread in order to bring about peace in the Middle East. Soz, like.

[StefanAVFC]

**** this waste of skin and air

[bickster]

12 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

**** this waste of skin and air

She's really saying don't blame me