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

[dAVe80]

I'm hearing the Momentum slate won all seats on the NEC. I expect sections of the PLP may be getting a bit twitchy.

 

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by dAVe80

[bickster]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

You absolutely can say that the Israeli Gov't has passed racist laws, or that the IDF act in a racist way, or whatever else without being anti-semitic, or being accused of it. Governments pass laws, not Nations or States of (in this case) 9 million or so people. The machinery of a state - its institutions, government, police, army, health service etc. are not the same thing as the state, the nation of 9 million Jews and Arabs and whatever else (though people seem often to equate the two) 

As long as you (anyone, I mean) can somehow, resist your apparent urges to stray into a Livingstone-esque, comparing Israel to the Nazis who gassed 6 million plus Jews, type meltdown, and can can follow some unchallenging, even for a child,  guidelines on human decency, then there is no issue at all.

I'm sorry, I disagree. Statutory Law is part of the State as I see it. If the law is racist, which the Nation State Law surely is I should be allowed to say so. The IHRA Definition examples say I can't. The Nation State Law actually completely changes the very essence of the country, it turns it into a racist endeavour, it defines the State and turns non-Jews into second-class citizens

This boils down the interpretation of "State as a racist endeavour." I don't see how you can separate The State from a Law that defines it's very nature

The fact that you and I, 2 reasonably intelligent human beings who generally agree most of the time are getting hung up about this shows that examples aren't fit for purpose, too much is open to interpretation and it depends who is doing the interpreting. That's never a good thing when we're talking about such a serious issue.

In short, our discussions prove they aren't fit for purpose because we're probably very close in what we'd both describe as anti-semitic, most of us are. it's the definitions examples that are crap

[peterms]

The LRB published an article by Stephen Sedley, to which was (9 months later) appended this letter by Sedley on the IHRA definition.

Quote

Neve Gordon mentions the definition of anti-Semitism ‘adopted by the current UK government’ and its accompanying list of examples (LRB, 4 January). I’d like to add a word about its origins.

In 2005 a working party of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, an EU institution, produced a forty-word ‘working definition’:

Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

It was followed by a series of examples, of unknown authorship, which, depending on their context, might constitute acts of anti-Semitism. Of the 11 examples, seven referred to Israel rather than to Jews. But both the definition and the illustrations were rejected by the EUMC, and in 2013 its successor, the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), removed the entire text from its website as part of a clear-out of non-official documents.

In May 2016 the same text was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (the IHRA), a Berlin-based association of 31 states, at its meeting in Bucharest. To it were added, in the IHRA’s press release, the list of 11 examples. I wrote about this composite text in the LRB of 4 May 2017, because the definition seemed to me clumsy and open-ended, and a number of the illustrations, by seeking to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, slanted.

What I did not appreciate then was, first, that the IHRA text was not original but had been retrieved from the files of two other bodies which had never adopted it; second, that the ‘examples’ had been added to the adopted text; and, third, that the content of the versions adopted by UK institutions and bodies (and by governments such as those of Austria and Romania) has itself been variable.

In December 2016, a press release from the Department for Communities and Local Government and the prime minister’s office announced that the UK had ‘formally’ adopted the IHRA’s working definition of anti-Semitism, setting out the forty-word definition without any of the associated examples. It is not known what ‘formal’ adoption means in constitutional terms: either a text has to take legislative form, with all that this entails, or it remains simply a policy. On the same day Jeremy Corbyn announced that the Labour Party was adopting the definition.

In neither of these announcements were the tendentious illustrations included. But central government has cited them as grounds for rejecting the advice of the Home Affairs Committee that the ‘definition’ should be qualified by spelling out that in the absence of additional evidence of anti-Semitic intent, it is not anti-Semitic to criticise Israel’s government, to hold it to the same standards as other liberal democracies or to take a particular interest in its policies or actions. A number of municipalities, including London, Manchester and Birmingham, have adopted the list wholesale – London, among others, using a version which omits the proviso that the listed examples depend on their context.

What is at issue is suggested by the prime minister’s contemporaneous speech, quoted in the government’s press release: ‘Israel guarantees the rights of people of all religions, races and sexualities, and it wants to enable everyone to flourish.’ From this it isn’t far to the first of the ‘examples’ of anti-Semitism: ‘Manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.’ Leaving aside the difference between targeting and criticism, one asks: conceived by whom? The world at large, millions of Jews included, conceives of Israel as a state with the same rights and obligations as any other state, including an obligation not to extend its territory by incremental colonisation or to occupy and administer the land of others under military law. It is hardline Zionism and hardline jihadism which coincide, as extremes tend to do, in regarding Israel as a ‘Jewish collectivity’ – jihadism by seeking to identify Israel with all Jews (making every Jew a legitimate terrorist target), Zionism by seeking to identify all Jews with Israel (whence the description of Israel’s Jewish critics as ‘self-hating’).

None of this is addressed by a definition which sets the bar needlessly high by stipulating hatred rather than simple hostility as the defining characteristic of anti-Semitism, nor by tendentious examples which look to immunise Israel from sharp criticism. Those who seek to make use of such material in the UK should perhaps remember that public authorities are bound by the Human Rights Act to give effect to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right of free expression subject only to restrictions prescribed by law – which the IHRA definition is not.

 

[peterms]

10 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

I'm hearing the Momentum slate won all seats on the NEC. I expect sections of the PLP may be getting a bit twitchy.

 

 

 

[blandy]

56 minutes ago, bickster said:

I'm sorry, I disagree. Statutory Law is part of the State as I see it. If the law is racist, which the Nation State Law surely is I should be allowed to say so. The IHRA Definition examples say I can't. The Nation State Law actually completely changes the very essence of the country, it turns it into a racist endeavour, it defines the State and turns non-Jews into second-class citizens

This boils down the interpretation of "State as a racist endeavour." I don't see how you can separate The State from a Law that defines it's very nature

The fact that you and I, 2 reasonably intelligent human beings who generally agree most of the time are getting hung up about this shows that examples aren't fit for purpose, too much is open to interpretation and it depends who is doing the interpreting. That's never a good thing when we're talking about such a serious issue.

In short, our discussions prove they aren't fit for purpose because we're probably very close in what we'd both describe as anti-semitic, most of us are. it's the definitions examples that are crap

The example in th IHRA definition is that denying the Jewish people self determination , for example by saying the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour.

As I posted last week, or the week before, it's fine to say (as you could for any nation, if true) "their (Israel's) laws are racist against the minority Arab population, or that there is fundamental discrimination and racism endemic in their institutions or in their Gov't or in their society". That's fine by the IHRA defintion and examples. IHRA def'n specifically says that treating Israel the same as any other state is not anti-semitic.

It is however concerned specifically with the setting up of the nation/state of Israel - in essence saying that if that act is said to be "racist" then that is anti-semitic - like I said last week, that's because it denies legitimacy - Israel not being legitimate would imply it and its population shouldn't exist or be there and therefore they could be singled out and treated differently..."

The Government of Israel is fair game for criticism, the institutions are fair game, Saying Israel has bad or racist laws is OK. It's fine. As long as we don't tar all Jews or the establishment of the Israeli state as racist, then all's good. There's no problem. the IHRA does not prevent criticism of Israel at all.

[peterms]

Outline of Geoffrey Robertson's recent view of the IHRA issue.

Quote

IHRA definition of antisemitism is not fit for purpose

31.08.18

The definition of antisemitism adopted by the government is not fit for purpose, Geoffrey Robertson QC has concluded in an opinion prepared for the Palestinian Return Centre and published today. The definition does not cover the most insidious forms of hostility to Jewish people and the looseness of the definition is liable to chill legitimate criticisms of the state of Israel and coverage of human rights abuses against Palestinians.

 

Mr Robertson, an expert on freedom of speech and human rights, who has lectured on genocide at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has criticised Theresa May for adopting a definition which was not intended to be binding and which was not drafted as a comprehensible definition. By pivoting on expression that arouses hatred (a “very strong word”) it does not cover speech that arouses hostility and fails to protect Jews from many prevalent kinds of antisemitism. For this reason, Mr Robertson’s opinion evinces surprise that Jewish organisations are advocating acceptance of the full definition by the Labour Party and other organisations.

 
Mr Robertson examines all eleven “examples” attached to the definition and concludes that several of them are so loosely drafted that they are likely to chill criticism of action by the Government of Israel and advocacy of sanctions as a means to deter human rights abuses in Gaza and elsewhere. He says there is a particular danger that the definition will be used mistakenly, to defame criticisms of Israel by branding them as anti-Semitic.
 
Mr Robertson is particularly critical of the Prime Minister for “adopting” the definition without Parliamentary discussion and without the protection for free speech recommended by the Home Affairs Committee. Should any University or local council apply it, he says they should follow the Home Affairs Committee recommendation and add to it the clarification that “it is not anti-Semitic to criticise the Government of Israel without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.” He adds that this should be added by any public bodies or organisations that adopt the full definition endorsed by the government.       
 
Mr Robertson continues that “a particular problem with the IHRA definition is that it is likely in practice to chill free speech, by raising expectations of pro-Israeli groups that they can successfully object to legitimate criticism of Israel and correspondingly arouse fears in NGO’s and student bodies that they will have events banned, or else will have to incur considerable expense to protect them by taking legal action. Either way, they may not organise such events.” 
 
The opinion concludes that whether under human rights law or the IHRA definition, political action against Israel is not properly characterised as anti-Semitic unless the action is intended to promote hatred or hostility against Jews in general.
 
The full opinion is available here. See media coverage here and here.

To repeat the obvious, the aim of this stooshie is to conflate antisemitism and antizionism, in order to inhibit criticism of Israel.

And for the right wing of the Labour Party, it's to use this confected fuss to undermine Corbyn.

[snowychap]

35 minutes ago, peterms said:

stooshie

Is not a word I think I've encountered before. Thanks.

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Is not a word I think I've encountered before. Thanks.

It's a lesser version of a stramash. 

 

[peterms]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

It's a lesser version of a stramash. 

 

And in time, it may be reduced to the status of a stairheid rammy.

But probably not this week.

[HanoiVillan]

16 hours ago, peterms said:

 

Have you seen that Simon Franks' new centrist party have decided to be pro-Brexit, because that turned out to be more popular when they focus-grouped it?

[peterms]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Have you seen that Simon Franks' new centrist party have decided to be pro-Brexit, because that turned out to be more popular when they focus-grouped it?

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them, I have others".

I thought he was trying to attract people for whom being in the EU is a matter of principle, not something that depends on conditions.  Obviously not.  Clueless and doomed to fail anyway, just wonder why he got so much publicity.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them, I have others".

I thought he was trying to attract people for whom being in the EU is a matter of principle, not something that depends on conditions.  Obviously not.  Clueless and doomed to fail anyway, just wonder why he got so much publicity.

Such incredible thinking - 'the key thing is to start a party, we'll work out what our core beliefs are later'

[VILLAMARV]

So, Labour adopt the full IHRA definitions then...

[Chindie]

Now watch the anti-Semitism thing go away!

...

Also...

The entire thing is outright bollocks.

[HanoiVillan]

 

[peterms]

[Jon]

4 hours ago, peterms said:

Chucky egg, Jewish Rabbi guy?, Tommy Watson, Field, Gordy, the 'Angel of Death' Blair, Hodge, Kinnock, Hattersley?

[peterms]

 

[blandy]

Marvellous isn’t it. A United, competent, well oiled opposition machine is just what the country needs to get rid of the tories and the Brexit madness, austerity, NHS problems etc.

i know, let’s have another row about Israel, that should help.

[VILLAMARV]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

Marvellous isn’t it. A United, competent, well oiled opposition machine is just what the country needs to get rid of the tories and the Brexit madness, austerity, NHS problems etc.

i know, let’s have another row about Israel, that should help.

All things being rational then I'd agree with you. But to be honest, the opposition party - whatever colour it is and rightly or wrongly - tends to keep it's head down till election time. Stay out of it and the Tories will screw themselves. 5 years of soapboxing just supplies the other side with Ammo. I don't like it. I don't think it's healthy for our society but politically in the world of winning elections it's a fair tactic.

Of course keeping your heads down doesn't usually come easy to Labour though eh?