Jump to content

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


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

Going back to Frank Field, the writing was on the wall for him well before his propping up of the government, that was just the final straw. Writing for the S#n on its own probably did for him well before then

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

Do you think most Tory supporters or the right wing press drumming this home give an absolute stuff about the Jewish population's feelings?  

Some do, but most, maybe not. The situation with Labour MPs and members is different though. There is definitely genuine hurt and upset and disappointment as well as hypocritical and made up fuss. The cry wolf thing I mentioned a while ago - it's counter-productive and only aids the bells who deny there's any problem at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, blandy said:

Newman is a shoddy journalist Smeeth talked to the Telegraph...therefore....

It's not that Newman is a shoddy journalist, it's that she deliberately fabricated a story making out that she had been poorly treated by the Imam at a mosque, making herself out to be a victim, and seeking to create disapproval of the mosque in question and its philosophy.  That's not shoddy journalism, it's an utter lack of integrity and a display of untrustworthiness.  That she did it against a group of people already subject to racist attacks makes it worse.  I'm surprised she's still working for a programme with pretensions to seriousness.  So when she writes a story about someone else being victimised, let's say I don't find her the most credible channel for this information.

The issue with Smeeth is not that she talked to the Telegraph.  It is that when she was criticised for talking to the Telegraph, she and her mates made it out to be an antisemitic attack, though nothing to do with Judaism was any part of the criticism of her behaviour.  The basis for claiming it as antisemitism was apparently that she is Jewish, which is a level of ludicrousness you'd think she would be ashamed to stoop to, and which would mean that any criticism of anyone who happens to be Jewish is ipso facto antisemitic.  Mad.

The common thread in the examples I gave is fabrication, in service of a political agenda.  We really have to challenge this stuff, not take it at face value, because we have often seen that the people making these claims are either exaggerating, or downright lying - and it is this behaviour on their part which may at least partly explain the anger that some people show towards them.  If they disagree with the views of other members of their own party, they should challenge those views, and if they lose the vote they should accept the majority verdict, not engage in lying and manipulative behaviour aimed at undermining and discrediting those who disagree with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, magnkarl said:

How about when the Jewish population repeatedly says what they think is wrong?

You make it sound as though the Jewish population is of one mind, but I suppose you recognise that's very much not the case.

One thing that many Jews think is wrong, is equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism.  Over 40 Jewish organisations signed this statement.

It includes this comment on the IHRA definition issue:

Quote

...Of particular concern is the usage of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, intentionally worded such that it equates legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, as a means to suppress the former...

Though to make the point yet again, the Labour Party has adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism, word for word, just not the illustrative examples that would prohibit criticism of Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, magnkarl said:

. Who's better qualified to decide how an ethnic group should experience racism than a 70-year old white man 

 

In general, I totally agree with what you are getting at here.

It is not for others to decide what some groups feel threatens them or undermines them. If someone believes they have been a victim of racism then they have an absolute right to call that out and to seek redress.

Definitely agree with that principle.

However, example 10:

Quote

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Sorry, but if something looks like a turd, smells like a turd and sticks like a turd. I have the right to call it out as a turd.

If comparison with a turd offends Israel, stop shitting on the Palestinians.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/08/2018 at 22:13, chrisp65 said:

In general, I totally agree with what you are getting at here.

It is not for others to decide what some groups feel threatens them or undermines them. If someone believes they have been a victim of racism then they have an absolute right to call that out and to seek redress.

Definitely agree with that principle.

However, example 10:

Sorry, but if something looks like a turd, smells like a turd and sticks like a turd. I have the right to call it out as a turd.

If comparison with a turd offends Israel, stop shitting on the Palestinians.

Again - and we've been over this a million times. Being critical of Israel and its right wing populist government is absolutely fine and most people are. Do you see the CPS or anyone else punishing someone for speaking up against Israel? They've adopted the same principles and possibly to Corbyn and the left of the Labour party's amazement, no one has been frogmarched down to the station for saying that Netenyahu is a turd.

The difference as Blandy and myself has tried to point out, is that Corbyn has a long history of crossing the grey zone between disliking Israel and being antisemitic. It's not only example 10 he wanted to change because as we've seen in recent weeks he's called into question whether or not certain Jews understand "British irony". Were he to adopt said principles he'd be in an even bigger mess himself. He's using example 10 as a scapegoat for the fact that he's realised that he and his fellow campaign for Palestine buddies have overstepped several times and that he's been filmed doing so. I. e. laying a wreath at a confirmed terrorist tombstone or hugging someone who's been sentenced to life in prison for blowing up and killing several people in Israel. This is me not even getting into the fact that he's been filmed attending meetings with DYR after he told parliament that he stopped seeing them once he "realised" they were holocaust deniers. 

What Frank Field uses as an excuse to leave the party is not really interesting, he's himself had several run-ins with the Jewish community with comments about Jews "controlling" Britain and wealth in his war against poverty. 

Edited by magnkarl
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

the CPS ... They've adopted the same principles

Have they?

You may be correct. I've searched their website for a reference to the IHRA and it returns zero results. Maybe they just haven't updated it.

Edit:

Perhaps they make some kind of reference to the college of policing's adoption of the EUMC definition and examples which seem to be the same as those of the IHRA?

And herein lies another problem, I think. It's not particularly clear who has 'adopted' whose definitions, examples and principles and even how these adoptions have been made.

The issue in the labour party has shown, perhaps, how dangerous it has become to even discuss the definitions and examples because, merely in doing so, it would appear that people are liable to fall foul of accusations of anti-semitism.

Edited by snowychap
too many evens
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Being critical of Israel and its right wing populist government is absolutely fine

Well that depends doesn't it, should we decide that the laws Israel passes are racist we can't say so because... that's antisemitic

53 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

has a long history of crossing the grey zone between disliking Israel and being antisemitic. It's not only example 10 he wanted to change 

It's not only example ten that's problematical. I don't understand why people keep saying it's not a problem when it clearly is. At the moment, if you take out the names of the sides and the baggage, you have a situation where one group wants everyone to agree to the definition AND its examples. The definition itself is universally accepted, some of the examples aren't, why can't those in favour of the definition actually have a look and see if they can be reworded to suit everybody? Intrangesance doesn't help anyone

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

I. e. laying a wreath at a confirmed terrorist tombstone or hugging someone who's been sentenced to life in prison for blowing up and killing several people in Israel.

This is clearly wrong and bad. These are the things that should be pushed not the whole heap of crap that has been, it's also on its own not evidence of anti-semitism

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

This is me not even getting into the fact that he's been filmed attending meetings with DYR after he told parliament that he stopped seeing them once he "realised" they were holocaust deniers. 

see above but you have to ask why these aren't the things being pushed, to the vast majority they are unheard of

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

What Frank Field uses as an excuse to leave the party is not really interesting

It absolutely is when it come's to hypocritical bullshit, not only that but this is the Labour Thread not the MagnaKarl bangs on and on in a confused manner about Corbyn and anti-semitism thread so I'll post what I like about Labour Party politics without the need for your approval if you don't mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Chindie said:

If anyone is still under the impression that this has anything to do with anti-Semitism, check Hodge's latest comments.

The cynicism is galling.

For the sake of anyone unaware of these comments...

Quote

“It might have been enough three months ago, it might have just enabled us all to start talking to each other and bring trust again, but I think that moment has passed,” she said at the event in north London on Sunday.

The Barking MP went on to argue that Corbyn’s presence as party leader was at the heart of the issue. “The problem is that he is the problem,” she said to applause at the event. “The party is bigger than Corbyn. Our party has been around for over 100 years, Corbyn has only been there for three – three damaging years.”

Quote

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great - let's get things out in the open. To be honest, if Margaret Hodge believes what she says, really there are only two moral options open to her: leave the party led by a '**** antisemite' or start organising a vote of no confidence and a leadership challenge. What other option could be moral, if this is a 1930s retread? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bickster said:

Well that depends doesn't it, should we decide that the laws Israel passes are racist we can't say so because... that's antisemitic

6 hours ago, magnkarl 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Example 8 says you should not apply double standards to the behaviour of Israel.

Example 10 says no comparison of Israeli policy with nazism.

Does this logically mean we must never again compare any state with the nazis? If we can't compare the Israeli government's policies with nazi policies, and we must not treat Israel in any exceptional way, then we can never use that comparison against anyone. Not Apartheid South Africa, not early Serbia, not the current crowd in charge of Italy.

 

These are non-legally binding examples, it says so in the document. That they can be debated shows they are not perfect. They are not intended to be perfect they are explicitly non legally binding. It says so in bold print in a box on the IHRA document. In that respect, I personally have no problem with the document.

 

Yet apparently they must be adopted in total, without exception, without question? Who has decreed this? When did this become our law?

 

Stupid thing is, I have never in my life used them as much as a crude clunking example, or spoken of them, as since I've been told they mustn't ever be spoken of again when describing this murderous land grabbing racist regime.

 

I'll personally stop banging on about it now, and give people a rest. But I reserve the right to call out the next Netanyahu turd as a turd.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â