Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Tubey]

I see the point you’re making although I think it’s twisting his words a bit to suit the Antisemitic theme.

If someone said this in reference to Salisbury then I doubt anyone would mind:
“Russian people with any sense of humanity need to start speaking out publicly against the ruthless murdering being carried out by the Russian state!”

Russian isn't a race or religion, but let's take that example and say they were - it'd be wrong because Russians are entitled to form an independent thought and not be dismissed as lacking humanity if they did.

It's straight up anti-Semitism by definition, there's no way to sugarcoat it. It doesn't matter what your view on Israel is; you should be able to separate the nation from the religion.

 

[The binman chronicles]

The biggest shock here is that he is 71! That botox has worked wonders.

Aged well. Can't have had a hard life after being booted out.

 

[tim cahill]

Russian isn't a race or religion, but let's take that example and say they were - it'd be wrong because Russians are entitled to form an independent thought and not be dismissed as lacking humanity if they did.

It's straight up anti-Semitism by definition, there's no way to sugarcoat it. It doesn't matter what your view on Israel is; you should be able to separate the nation from the religion.

It would’ve been better to say “the people of Israel” of course. I suppose that’s the distinction.

 

[Carl O'Ancelotti]

Can only speak from personal experience but many Jewish people who I've encountered have no time at all for the aggressive military actions of Israeli governments, past and present.

Its very important to keep the distinction between a people who were nearly wiped off the face of the earth because of their religion, and a national government which regards Palestinian lives as being of lesser value than other lives, and that's being kind.

That distiction seems to have become blurred in the Labour Party of late.

 

[magicjuan]

Russian isn't a race or religion, but let's take that example and say they were - it'd be wrong because Russians are entitled to form an independent thought and not be dismissed as lacking humanity if they did.

It's straight up anti-Semitism by definition, there's no way to sugarcoat it. It doesn't matter what your view on Israel is; you should be able to separate the nation from the religion.

But that is a fundamental issue where Judaism, Israel and Zionism collide as to where religion starts to become the state and then a political entity, it's always been muddied waters in this regard and therefore had he said Israelis instead of jews it could still be considered anti-semitic. Even the now 'legal' definition isn't clear and is purposefully so.
We're probably a small step away from crimethink/thoughtcrime.

 

[magicjuan]

What is antisemitism? | IHRA working definition

What is antisemitism? The IHRA working definition helps governments, educators, and institutions identify and counter antisemitism all over the world.

www.holocaustremembrance.com

​

​

It's quite literally a textbook definition of anti-semitism by Hatton.

If you don't speak publicly about it, you are endorsing it and collectively responsible.

That is anti-semitism.

​

Just on a point, the quote was from 2012 and the IHRA definition declared sometime after 2015/16 iirc.
I am in no way defending Hatton, met him a few times, he's an ass-hat, but are we retroactively declaring crimes? At the point he tweeted were the lines more blurred?
Whichever way I turn with this I can't get my head around how loose the definition is, especially when you see people say things like 'self hating jew' to a jewish journalist on live UK tv going unchallenged yet I've seen articles about people being suspended from LP for saying the same in the same context. Can you see where the confusion lies?

 

[tim cahill]

Russian isn't a race or religion, but let's take that example and say they were - it'd be wrong because Russians are entitled to form an independent thought and not be dismissed as lacking humanity if they did.

It's straight up anti-Semitism by definition, there's no way to sugarcoat it. It doesn't matter what your view on Israel is; you should be able to separate the nation from the religion.

Another example for you:
“Catholic people with any sense of humanity need to start speaking out publicly against the child abuse being carried out within the Catholic Church!”

Would that be a prejudiced statement? I don’t think so.

I really don’t think it’s as clear cut as you say.

 

[Tubey]

Another example for you:
“Catholic people with any sense of humanity need to start speaking out publicly against the child abuse being carried out within the Catholic Church!”

Would that be a prejudiced statement? I don’t think so.

I really don’t think it’s as clear cut as you say.

Yes it would.

 

[tsubaki]

Another example for you:
“Catholic people with any sense of humanity need to start speaking out publicly against the child abuse being carried out within the Catholic Church!”

Would that be a prejudiced statement? I don’t think so.

I really don’t think it’s as clear cut as you say.

The point is that noone would ever make that argument. People only do it for Muslims and Jews.

 

[tim cahill]

Yes it would.

How is that prejudiced??

 

[Tubey]

How is that prejudiced??

'kin hell mate, how isn't it??! Think of the connotations behind it - "every catholic person is accountable for what some priest did and if they aren't personally speaking out about it then they aren't human".

 

[tim cahill]

The point is that noone would ever make that argument. People only do it for Muslims and Jews.

Nonsense. A similar statement could be made about any group, urging their members to encourage their leaders to do what is right.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

“Jewish people with any sense of humanity need to start speaking out publicly against the ruthless murdering being carried out by Israel!”

Why should a Jewish person have to "speak out" againt the state of Israel as though they were connected to it or it's crimes?

They don't have to do anything. Why should they have to justify or explain themselves to anyone for crimes they personally haven't commited?

 

[tim cahill]

'kin hell mate, how isn't it??! Think of the connotations behind it - "every catholic person is accountable for what some priest did and if they aren't personally speaking out about it then they aren't human".

I think any catholic would be prepared to condemn what went on without feeling personally responsible for it. If they didn’t feel that they could condemn it then I think it would be fair to accuse them of a lack of humanity.

 

[Tubey]

I think any catholic would be prepared to condemn what went on without feeling personally responsible for it. If they didn’t feel that they could condemn it then I think it would be fair to accuse them of a lack of humanity.

You don't get the point - it's the fact that they uniquely should be compelled to do so.