Anti semitism

Post Reply
User avatar
Sandydragon
Posts: 10444
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Sandydragon »

Digby wrote:
Zhivago wrote: Joining the EU was a Conservative decision in the first place, and makes sense when you think about how it increases the supply of labour which suppresses wages. Everything is upside down at the moment.
Ben Youngs in his worst games shows more accuracy with his passing than the accuracy of that comment, actually Bergamasco in his worst game at 9 has more accuracy. Also beyond being imo just plain wrong it's a sadly depressing and limited view as to how things can work, and it's anchored in some weird conservatism itself around restoring/protecting a time in the past that probably never existed in the first place.
I suppose that depends on whether you view Benn et al as being the real voices of Labour or if you go with the official Labour Party position.

It’s also interesting to look at the political affiliations of the European founding fathers and other key drivers thereafter who is certainly not call right wing.
User avatar
Stom
Posts: 5817
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:57 am

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Stom »

Sandydragon wrote:
Digby wrote:
Zhivago wrote: Joining the EU was a Conservative decision in the first place, and makes sense when you think about how it increases the supply of labour which suppresses wages. Everything is upside down at the moment.
Ben Youngs in his worst games shows more accuracy with his passing than the accuracy of that comment, actually Bergamasco in his worst game at 9 has more accuracy. Also beyond being imo just plain wrong it's a sadly depressing and limited view as to how things can work, and it's anchored in some weird conservatism itself around restoring/protecting a time in the past that probably never existed in the first place.
I suppose that depends on whether you view Benn et al as being the real voices of Labour or if you go with the official Labour Party position.

It’s also interesting to look at the political affiliations of the European founding fathers and other key drivers thereafter who is certainly not call right wing.
Well, what was considered right wing in 1990 and what is considered right wing in 2020 are two very different beasts, especially depending on who you ask.
User avatar
Zhivago
Posts: 1947
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:36 am
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Zhivago »

Sandydragon wrote:
Digby wrote:
Zhivago wrote: Joining the EU was a Conservative decision in the first place, and makes sense when you think about how it increases the supply of labour which suppresses wages. Everything is upside down at the moment.
Ben Youngs in his worst games shows more accuracy with his passing than the accuracy of that comment, actually Bergamasco in his worst game at 9 has more accuracy. Also beyond being imo just plain wrong it's a sadly depressing and limited view as to how things can work, and it's anchored in some weird conservatism itself around restoring/protecting a time in the past that probably never existed in the first place.
I suppose that depends on whether you view Benn et al as being the real voices of Labour or if you go with the official Labour Party position.

It’s also interesting to look at the political affiliations of the European founding fathers and other key drivers thereafter who is certainly not call right wing.
You're not making sense with this nonsense... 'real voices of Labour'... my god... how about Clement Atlee for example then?
The UK Prime Minister Clement Attlee opposed Britain joining the proposed European Coal and Steel Community, saying that he 'would not accept the [UK] economy being handed over to an authority that is utterly undemocratic and is responsible to nobody.'
Or are you going to try to claim that he doesn't speak as a 'real voice of Labour'??

Treaty of Paris signatories were clearly on the right of the political spectrum:
Paul van Zeeland- Catholic Party (centre right)
Joseph Bech - Christian Social People's Party (centre right)
Joseph Meurice - CVP (centre)
Carlo Sforza - Italian Republican Party (centre)
Robert Schuman - Christian Democrat (centre right)
Konrad Adenauer - CDU (centre right)
Dirk Stikker - VVD (centre right)
Johannes van den Brink - KVP (centre right)

So please tell me who these supposed founding fathers are who you would 'certainly not call right wing'? The vast majority of these fellows certainly can be called right wing.

Все буде Україна!
Смерть ворогам!!

User avatar
Zhivago
Posts: 1947
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:36 am
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Zhivago »

Digby wrote:So a paragraph not on wage inflation speaks to wage inflation because?

You are aware that the European project (and freedom of movement of labour) started just after the second world war when there was a Labour supply shortage, no??

Все буде Україна!
Смерть ворогам!!

Digby
Posts: 13436
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Digby »

Zhivago wrote:
Digby wrote:So a paragraph not on wage inflation speaks to wage inflation because?

You are aware that the European project (and freedom of movement of labour) started just after the second world war when there was a Labour supply shortage, no??
I am. I also know roughly the numbers who've arrived from the EU over the decades Vs the numbers from India, Pakistan, the West Indies.... Which isn't to say I agree with the idea that migration has lowered wages, if anything I'd take the opposite view
User avatar
Sandydragon
Posts: 10444
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Sandydragon »

Zhivago wrote:
Sandydragon wrote:
Digby wrote:
Ben Youngs in his worst games shows more accuracy with his passing than the accuracy of that comment, actually Bergamasco in his worst game at 9 has more accuracy. Also beyond being imo just plain wrong it's a sadly depressing and limited view as to how things can work, and it's anchored in some weird conservatism itself around restoring/protecting a time in the past that probably never existed in the first place.
I suppose that depends on whether you view Benn et al as being the real voices of Labour or if you go with the official Labour Party position.

It’s also interesting to look at the political affiliations of the European founding fathers and other key drivers thereafter who is certainly not call right wing.
You're not making sense with this nonsense... 'real voices of Labour'... my god... how about Clement Atlee for example then?
The UK Prime Minister Clement Attlee opposed Britain joining the proposed European Coal and Steel Community, saying that he 'would not accept the [UK] economy being handed over to an authority that is utterly undemocratic and is responsible to nobody.'
Or are you going to try to claim that he doesn't speak as a 'real voice of Labour'??

Treaty of Paris signatories were clearly on the right of the political spectrum:
Paul van Zeeland- Catholic Party (centre right)
Joseph Bech - Christian Social People's Party (centre right)
Joseph Meurice - CVP (centre)
Carlo Sforza - Italian Republican Party (centre)
Robert Schuman - Christian Democrat (centre right)
Konrad Adenauer - CDU (centre right)
Dirk Stikker - VVD (centre right)
Johannes van den Brink - KVP (centre right)

So please tell me who these supposed founding fathers are who you would 'certainly not call right wing'? The vast majority of these fellows certainly can be called right wing.
I was actually referring to the debates at the Labour Party Conference in the 1990s before the Maastricht Treaty was signed.

As for the European founding fathers, there are 11 -

Adenauer - centre right
Bech - centre right
Beyen - Liberal
Churchill - right
De Gasperi - centre
Hallstein - an academic and for argument sake centre right
Mansholt -LEft wing
Monnet - not a national politicians but again I'll refer to him as a centralist
Schuman - centre
Spaak - Left
Spinelli - Communist and independent left

I'd say that was pretty balanced.
User avatar
Sandydragon
Posts: 10444
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Sandydragon »

Read this the Times the other day. Whilst it can be debated how personally anti-semitic Corbyn was, some of the supporters (who he failed to restrain) there is certainly no doubt about:

The release of the damning report into Labour Party antisemitism on Thursday brought everything back for Luciana Berger — it immediately triggered a fresh onslaught of racist abuse.

The former MP for Liverpool Wavertree — who had joined the party as a student and was in effect hounded out of it by antisemitism — received a message online threatening that she “would pay” for the suspension of the former leader Jeremy Corbyn. During a Live Chat session run by the Corbyn-sympathising Novara Media, anonymous commentators dubbed her “a vile fifth columnist” and “the face of evil”. On Twitter she was called a “criminal”, “duplicitous” and a host of misogynistic slurs, while all the classic antisemitic tropes were deployed: she was “an agent for a foreign power” and “Zionist scum”.

“The volume and toxicity of what has come in the past 48 hours is an example of the problem that still permeates the left,” Berger said.

“They [former Corbyn supporters] are still seeking to do down the experience of Jewish members and former members.”

She is, unfortunately, used to this. While heavily pregnant with her son, Zion, now one year old, she had received death threats most days and needed a police escort to keep her safe outside the secure zone at Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool two years ago.

In 2018 a letter was hand-delivered to her office from people claiming to be Corbyn supporters which said that she would have acid thrown at her, be stabbed and raped.

Perhaps the most egregious example of her treatment is by the party, though. She became aware of a physical threat to her only because of a leak: Labour had not told her or the police. “I happen to be pretty resilient but that doesn’t mean I haven’t had some very low times over the past three years,” she said.

“I’ve managed to come out on the other side. There are other [party members] for whom this has taken an unimaginable toll; they’re unable to work, or suffer in their relationships.”

The report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) concluded that Labour could have tackled antisemitism “if the leadership had chosen to do so”. The EHRC served the party with an unlawful act notice, requiring it to tackle the failings. Corbyn, however, insisted that the level of antisemitism had been “exaggerated”, a statement that led to his suspension.

“What was required was a wholesome apology, not another moment when he has chosen to obfuscate and not take that responsibility. This wasn’t just one event — this is a sea of incidents and processes and the culture,” Berger said.

“He and the people around him will not take responsibility and see that they caused this: by the words he said, the lack of action and by not speaking out. He and his supporters can see this only through the prism that ‘this has all been done for political reasons’, rather than acknowledging the facts.”

Berger required a police escort at the party conference in 2018 after suffering antisemitic abuse
Berger required a police escort at the party conference in 2018 after suffering antisemitic abuse
PETER BYRNE
Berger, 39, believes Corbyn is antisemitic: “Once is a mistake, twice careless; more than that and you are antisemitic. You can’t profess not to be and engage in antisemitic actions. If you seek to deny the experience of victims of racism, you are complicit.” She had been parliamentary chairwoman of the Jewish Labour Movement and last met Corbyn in late 2017: “He wanted to talk about everything [but] antisemitism. He basically wanted me to long it out.”

Berger’s breaking point came towards the end of 2018. There had been deeply painful moments earlier that year — especially the revelation that Corbyn had defended an antisemitic mural in east London — but she says it was seeing herself cast as a “political opponent, rather than someone standing up for something that the party was supposed to care about” that was her final straw.

While pregnant, she attended her last constituency meeting where she faced abuse. “I decided then I was never going back,” she said.

“I was on the way to the maternity unit — there were concerns about my blood pressure ... I could no longer represent the party: the only conclusion I could come to was that it was institutionally racist. I had become ashamed to be part of it ... and I couldn’t ... stand at people’s front doors [campaigning] and possibly get Corbyn as prime minister.”

Berger left the Labour party in February 2019, first to join the new Independent Group in the Commons, then to run as a Liberal Democrat candidate in Finchley and Golders Green in north London. She put up a strong fight, lifting the Lib Dems’ share of the vote from 6.6% in 2017 to 31.9%, but finished second to the Conservative MP. Corbyn’s wife, Laura Alvarez, campaigned against Berger in the constituency.

Berger says Labour’s new leader, Sir Keir Starmer, must address antisemitism in Labour’s ranks, both from a “procedural and cultural perspective” and “proactively root it out wherever it raises its head”. That should start by employing someone to comb through the online responses under the party’s statement in response to the EHRC and evict members who made antisemitic comments.

She will not be drawn into criticising Starmer — although she said last week that he and his shadow cabinet colleagues “could have done more”. When pressed, she would confirm only that she had not heard from Starmer since 2018 until the night before the report was published. An ally of Berger, however, said the deputy leader, Angela Rayner, had contacted her, saying Starmer might mention her in his speech, leading Rayner to tell Starmer to call Berger.

In that call, Starmer apologised on behalf of the whole Labour movement, said he would work with the EHRC to implement its recommendations and acknowledged the “significant” hurt that Berger and others had experienced.

“It was foolish they didn’t get in touch with her earlier,” the friend added. “Did they think this report would come out and she’d sit in a box?”

Berger does not know if she will rejoin Labour. She feels loyalty to the Lib Dems, who welcomed her with open arms when her former party had abandoned her. Starmer has said that it should be up to the departed MPs as to whether they wish to return; though some critics feel that is the wrong approach.

“The party should be hugging them back, embracing them — she won’t beg to come back. You wouldn’t wish her past 18 months on your worst enemy: pregnancy, abuse, leaving the party, former friends campaigning against her, losing the job she loved,” said a Jewish Labour member.

Berger has also had a frenetic lockdown, with a new job as a managing director at the PR firm Edelman, as well as caring for two young children (her daughter, Amélie, is three). So she feels she has not truly had time to think.

She chooses her words carefully: “I am still decompressing ... what has been a very tumultuous and traumatic three years. The report just reinforced how awful it was. Now I have to put my family and my life outside parliament first.”
User avatar
Zhivago
Posts: 1947
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:36 am
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Zhivago »

Sandydragon wrote:Read this the Times the other day. Whilst it can be debated how personally anti-semitic Corbyn was, some of the supporters (who he failed to restrain) there is certainly no doubt about:
How can he restrain an anonymous poster on a random website?

Все буде Україна!
Смерть ворогам!!

User avatar
Puja
Posts: 17454
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Puja »

Zhivago wrote:
Sandydragon wrote:Read this the Times the other day. Whilst it can be debated how personally anti-semitic Corbyn was, some of the supporters (who he failed to restrain) there is certainly no doubt about:
How can he restrain an anonymous poster on a random website?
As a first suggestion, he could start by not responding to a very heavily publicised report about anti-semitism in the Labour party with a statement saying that it was deliberately overblown as a political attack on his election campaign.

Puja
Backist Monk
User avatar
Zhivago
Posts: 1947
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:36 am
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Zhivago »

Puja wrote:
Zhivago wrote:
Sandydragon wrote:Read this the Times the other day. Whilst it can be debated how personally anti-semitic Corbyn was, some of the supporters (who he failed to restrain) there is certainly no doubt about:
How can he restrain an anonymous poster on a random website?
As a first suggestion, he could start by not responding to a very heavily publicised report about anti-semitism in the Labour party with a statement saying that it was deliberately overblown as a political attack on his election campaign.

Puja
Looks like someone didn't read the report, which states
Article 10 will protect Labour Party members who, for example, make legitimate
criticisms of the Israeli government, or express their opinions on internal Party
matters, such as the scale of antisemitism within the Party, based on their own
experience and within the law.
It does not protect criticism of Israel that is
antisemitic.
The suspension looks to be unlawful given that his comments are protected by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.

Все буде Україна!
Смерть ворогам!!

User avatar
Puja
Posts: 17454
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Puja »

Zhivago wrote:
Puja wrote:
Zhivago wrote:
How can he restrain an anonymous poster on a random website?
As a first suggestion, he could start by not responding to a very heavily publicised report about anti-semitism in the Labour party with a statement saying that it was deliberately overblown as a political attack on his election campaign.

Puja
Looks like someone didn't read the report, which states
Article 10 will protect Labour Party members who, for example, make legitimate
criticisms of the Israeli government, or express their opinions on internal Party
matters, such as the scale of antisemitism within the Party, based on their own
experience and within the law.
It does not protect criticism of Israel that is
antisemitic.
The suspension looks to be unlawful given that his comments are protected by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.
That is beside the point for what I was responding to you about. You asked how he could be expected to restrain an anonymous poster on a random website. He knows he has fanatical fans and that, if he suggests that anti-semitism was a political weapon aimed to take down his candidacy (which, tbf, it partially was), then there will be a portion of those fans who'll take that as "The Jews lied to cost Corbyn the Prime Ministership". While he is not necessarily responsible for every nutter who follows him, he does have a responsibility when he's speaking knowing they're listening.

This is especially true in this situation, as there was no benefit to him of making that statement. He's not in a position of power in the Labour party anymore and there was no advantage to him saying, "I still think I was right," at a volatile time. It would've cost him nothing except a little bit of ego to remove that one paragraph from his statement and he knew it would inflame his nuttier fans to leave it in. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour and knowing when the shut the fuck up is the better part of discretion.


On a separate note, addressing what you've just brought up in the report - that does seem rather open and shut. Makes it a very odd choice from Starmer to have made the speech saying that downplaying AS was just as bad in the first place, given the report appears to give that a free pass.

Puja
Backist Monk
User avatar
Zhivago
Posts: 1947
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:36 am
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Zhivago »

Puja wrote:
Zhivago wrote:
Puja wrote:
As a first suggestion, he could start by not responding to a very heavily publicised report about anti-semitism in the Labour party with a statement saying that it was deliberately overblown as a political attack on his election campaign.

Puja
Looks like someone didn't read the report, which states
Article 10 will protect Labour Party members who, for example, make legitimate
criticisms of the Israeli government, or express their opinions on internal Party
matters, such as the scale of antisemitism within the Party, based on their own
experience and within the law.
It does not protect criticism of Israel that is
antisemitic.
The suspension looks to be unlawful given that his comments are protected by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.
That is beside the point for what I was responding to you about. You asked how he could be expected to restrain an anonymous poster on a random website. He knows he has fanatical fans and that, if he suggests that anti-semitism was a political weapon aimed to take down his candidacy (which, tbf, it partially was), then there will be a portion of those fans who'll take that as "The Jews lied to cost Corbyn the Prime Ministership". While he is not necessarily responsible for every nutter who follows him, he does have a responsibility when he's speaking knowing they're listening.

This is especially true in this situation, as there was no benefit to him of making that statement. He's not in a position of power in the Labour party anymore and there was no advantage to him saying, "I still think I was right," at a volatile time. It would've cost him nothing except a little bit of ego to remove that one paragraph from his statement and he knew it would inflame his nuttier fans to leave it in. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour and knowing when the shut the fuck up is the better part of discretion.


On a separate note, addressing what you've just brought up in the report - that does seem rather open and shut. Makes it a very odd choice from Starmer to have made the speech saying that downplaying AS was just as bad in the first place, given the report appears to give that a free pass.

Puja
Given that Keir Starmer is famously a human rights lawyer, it is not reasonable to think that he was unaware that Corbyn's statement is protected by freedom of speech legislation. That leaves the only plausible conclusion that it was a purely political decision - i.e. partly a public relations play, and partly a furthering of the ongoing purge of the left within the party. He obviously counted on the media siding with him against Corbyn, and so far that calculation seems to be a safe one.

I still don't agree with your suggestion that Corbyn is responsible for random internet nutters. The report also states that Labour is not lawfully responsible for the acts of its members, so I think that is supportive of my position on the matter as the acts of random internet nutters (real or fake) are clearly even less the responsibility of Labour than that of its members. That would leave only the possibility that you are claiming his statements amount to some kind of incitement to hatred against members of the media, which is patently absurd.

And since you clearly haven't read the report, I can also clarify for you that it found that Labour was only responsible for unlawful discrimination carried out by Ken Livingstone and Pam Bromley. You probably know this, but both individuals are no longer members of the Labour party. The media has not made this clear, and has propagated the idea that the report holds Labour responsible to a much greater degree than it does.

Все буде Україна!
Смерть ворогам!!

User avatar
Son of Mathonwy
Posts: 4950
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 4:50 pm

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Son of Mathonwy »

Sandydragon wrote:Read this the Times the other day. Whilst it can be debated how personally anti-semitic Corbyn was, some of the supporters (who he failed to restrain) there is certainly no doubt about:
Pretty ballsy to call your kid Zion.

If Corbyn had balls like that he'd have called one of his kids Soviet Union ;)
User avatar
Puja
Posts: 17454
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Puja »

Zhivago wrote:
Puja wrote:
Zhivago wrote:
Looks like someone didn't read the report, which states

The suspension looks to be unlawful given that his comments are protected by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.
That is beside the point for what I was responding to you about. You asked how he could be expected to restrain an anonymous poster on a random website. He knows he has fanatical fans and that, if he suggests that anti-semitism was a political weapon aimed to take down his candidacy (which, tbf, it partially was), then there will be a portion of those fans who'll take that as "The Jews lied to cost Corbyn the Prime Ministership". While he is not necessarily responsible for every nutter who follows him, he does have a responsibility when he's speaking knowing they're listening.

This is especially true in this situation, as there was no benefit to him of making that statement. He's not in a position of power in the Labour party anymore and there was no advantage to him saying, "I still think I was right," at a volatile time. It would've cost him nothing except a little bit of ego to remove that one paragraph from his statement and he knew it would inflame his nuttier fans to leave it in. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour and knowing when the shut the fuck up is the better part of discretion.


On a separate note, addressing what you've just brought up in the report - that does seem rather open and shut. Makes it a very odd choice from Starmer to have made the speech saying that downplaying AS was just as bad in the first place, given the report appears to give that a free pass.

Puja
Given that Keir Starmer is famously a human rights lawyer, it is not reasonable to think that he was unaware that Corbyn's statement is protected by freedom of speech legislation. That leaves the only plausible conclusion that it was a purely political decision - i.e. partly a public relations play, and partly a furthering of the ongoing purge of the left within the party. He obviously counted on the media siding with him against Corbyn, and so far that calculation seems to be a safe one.

I still don't agree with your suggestion that Corbyn is responsible for random internet nutters. The report also states that Labour is not lawfully responsible for the acts of its members, so I think that is supportive of my position on the matter as the acts of random internet nutters (real or fake) are clearly even less the responsibility of Labour than that of its members. That would leave only the possibility that you are claiming his statements amount to some kind of incitement to hatred against members of the media, which is patently absurd.

And since you clearly haven't read the report, I can also clarify for you that it found that Labour was only responsible for unlawful discrimination carried out by Ken Livingstone and Pam Bromley. You probably know this, but both individuals are no longer members of the Labour party. The media has not made this clear, and has propagated the idea that the report holds Labour responsible to a much greater degree than it does.
Responsible, perhaps not. Needs to be aware of how his words affect the world and some of his fanbase, yes. Like it or not, when you are famous and have a zealous fanbase, you do need to be careful of what you say.

I am aware of the contents of the report (haven't read it, have had it summarised by people whose opinions I trust), but you are missing the point which is that the contents of the report are largely irrelevant. The narrative is what's relevant and that narrative is that Labour have an anti-Semitism problem and are thus awful and unelectable. This narrative will not change by shouting "They don't really!" and "Look at what the report actually says!" and "If you look at the nuances of it, then..."

Is it fair that this is the narrative? No. Will pointing out that it's unfair make any difference to the narrative? No. Will being technically right make any difference to the narrative? No.

Puja
Backist Monk
User avatar
Zhivago
Posts: 1947
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:36 am
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Zhivago »

Puja wrote:
Zhivago wrote:
Puja wrote:
That is beside the point for what I was responding to you about. You asked how he could be expected to restrain an anonymous poster on a random website. He knows he has fanatical fans and that, if he suggests that anti-semitism was a political weapon aimed to take down his candidacy (which, tbf, it partially was), then there will be a portion of those fans who'll take that as "The Jews lied to cost Corbyn the Prime Ministership". While he is not necessarily responsible for every nutter who follows him, he does have a responsibility when he's speaking knowing they're listening.

This is especially true in this situation, as there was no benefit to him of making that statement. He's not in a position of power in the Labour party anymore and there was no advantage to him saying, "I still think I was right," at a volatile time. It would've cost him nothing except a little bit of ego to remove that one paragraph from his statement and he knew it would inflame his nuttier fans to leave it in. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour and knowing when the shut the fuck up is the better part of discretion.


On a separate note, addressing what you've just brought up in the report - that does seem rather open and shut. Makes it a very odd choice from Starmer to have made the speech saying that downplaying AS was just as bad in the first place, given the report appears to give that a free pass.

Puja
Given that Keir Starmer is famously a human rights lawyer, it is not reasonable to think that he was unaware that Corbyn's statement is protected by freedom of speech legislation. That leaves the only plausible conclusion that it was a purely political decision - i.e. partly a public relations play, and partly a furthering of the ongoing purge of the left within the party. He obviously counted on the media siding with him against Corbyn, and so far that calculation seems to be a safe one.

I still don't agree with your suggestion that Corbyn is responsible for random internet nutters. The report also states that Labour is not lawfully responsible for the acts of its members, so I think that is supportive of my position on the matter as the acts of random internet nutters (real or fake) are clearly even less the responsibility of Labour than that of its members. That would leave only the possibility that you are claiming his statements amount to some kind of incitement to hatred against members of the media, which is patently absurd.

And since you clearly haven't read the report, I can also clarify for you that it found that Labour was only responsible for unlawful discrimination carried out by Ken Livingstone and Pam Bromley. You probably know this, but both individuals are no longer members of the Labour party. The media has not made this clear, and has propagated the idea that the report holds Labour responsible to a much greater degree than it does.
Responsible, perhaps not. Needs to be aware of how his words affect the world and some of his fanbase, yes. Like it or not, when you are famous and have a zealous fanbase, you do need to be careful of what you say.

I am aware of the contents of the report (haven't read it, have had it summarised by people whose opinions I trust), but you are missing the point which is that the contents of the report are largely irrelevant. The narrative is what's relevant and that narrative is that Labour have an anti-Semitism problem and are thus awful and unelectable. This narrative will not change by shouting "They don't really!" and "Look at what the report actually says!" and "If you look at the nuances of it, then..."

Is it fair that this is the narrative? No. Will pointing out that it's unfair make any difference to the narrative? No. Will being technically right make any difference to the narrative? No.

Puja
So you agree that it's about public relations then.

There's no reason the left should let the right have an easy time when they completely sabotaged the left when they had their go.

Labour should split, and if people get fed up of the tories then they should demand proportional representation.

Все буде Україна!
Смерть ворогам!!

Digby
Posts: 13436
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Digby »

I've been demanding PR since 1994 or so, my plan is working really well.

I would like to note Labour in those groups they have that are so anti-Semitic also have a problem with misogyny in those same groups, both in the traditional hard left members who come at it with the Britain is Imperial ergo Britain is bad slant, and those who come from a muslamic background and perhaps take a particular stance over Israel. That's not to say all such people are part of problem groups, but it's interesting to me at least how little the misogyny gets talked about, almost as though it's not seen as a problem.
User avatar
Stom
Posts: 5817
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:57 am

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Stom »

Digby wrote:I've been demanding PR since 1994 or so, my plan is working really well.

I would like to note Labour in those groups they have that are so anti-Semitic also have a problem with misogyny in those same groups, both in the traditional hard left members who come at it with the Britain is Imperial ergo Britain is bad slant, and those who come from a muslamic background and perhaps take a particular stance over Israel. That's not to say all such people are part of problem groups, but it's interesting to me at least how little the misogyny gets talked about, almost as though it's not seen as a problem.
Well indeed. And I’d say much more of the attacks on Berger were misogynistic than anti Semitic.
Banquo
Posts: 18854
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Banquo »

Stom wrote:
Digby wrote:I've been demanding PR since 1994 or so, my plan is working really well.

I would like to note Labour in those groups they have that are so anti-Semitic also have a problem with misogyny in those same groups, both in the traditional hard left members who come at it with the Britain is Imperial ergo Britain is bad slant, and those who come from a muslamic background and perhaps take a particular stance over Israel. That's not to say all such people are part of problem groups, but it's interesting to me at least how little the misogyny gets talked about, almost as though it's not seen as a problem.
Well indeed. And I’d say much more of the attacks on Berger were misogynistic than anti Semitic.
Poor her, really. Ironic that she was shadow minister for mental health under Jezza
User avatar
Zhivago
Posts: 1947
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:36 am
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Zhivago »

Banquo wrote:
Stom wrote:
Digby wrote:I've been demanding PR since 1994 or so, my plan is working really well.

I would like to note Labour in those groups they have that are so anti-Semitic also have a problem with misogyny in those same groups, both in the traditional hard left members who come at it with the Britain is Imperial ergo Britain is bad slant, and those who come from a muslamic background and perhaps take a particular stance over Israel. That's not to say all such people are part of problem groups, but it's interesting to me at least how little the misogyny gets talked about, almost as though it's not seen as a problem.
Well indeed. And I’d say much more of the attacks on Berger were misogynistic than anti Semitic.
Poor her, really. Ironic that she was shadow minister for mental health under Jezza
Yeah, I can't stand the abuse that is thrown. It's just so uncivil. And it comes from both sides too, let's not forget. I guess there's a wider malaise in society.

However, Luciana Berger should never have been MP (at least not for Liverpool) - she was very tight with Blair's son, and Blair parachuted her into the safe seat.

Все буде Україна!
Смерть ворогам!!

User avatar
Zhivago
Posts: 1947
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:36 am
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Zhivago »

Digby wrote:I would like to note Labour in those groups they have that are so anti-Semitic also have a problem with misogyny in those same groups, both in the traditional hard left members who come at it with the Britain is Imperial ergo Britain is bad slant, and those who come from a muslamic background and perhaps take a particular stance over Israel. That's not to say all such people are part of problem groups, but it's interesting to me at least how little the misogyny gets talked about, almost as though it's not seen as a problem.
Your claim that muslim members are anti-semitic is Islamophobic, because we've seen more complaints against white anti-Israel campaigners than we have seen against muslim ones.

The scale of the problem is about 0.3% of members. They should just be kicked out. It's not worth having them in the party. Some complaints have clearly been somewhat spurious though, and of course in such factional infighting you'll even get fake complaints, no doubt. It just means that every complaint needs to be thoroughly and transparently investigated.

Все буде Україна!
Смерть ворогам!!

User avatar
Sandydragon
Posts: 10444
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Sandydragon »

Zhivago wrote:
Sandydragon wrote:Read this the Times the other day. Whilst it can be debated how personally anti-semitic Corbyn was, some of the supporters (who he failed to restrain) there is certainly no doubt about:
How can he restrain an anonymous poster on a random website?
He could have:

Supported his Jewish MPs better,
Made clear statements that abuse of those MPs and anti-semitism in general was and is unacceptable,
He could not have gotten involved in disciplinary processes against party members who have been accused of anti-semitism,
He could have spent some time with Jewish and Israeli dignitaries in order to demonstrate that he sought to fully understand the issues in the region and was seen as less biased,
He could have spent less time with people whose views on Israel and Jews are questionable,
He should have been more careful about endorsing artwork and literature that included anti-semitic comments.

Just a starter for 10. Whilst he cannot physically control every environment his supporters operate in, he can take a firm stand and isolate the lunatics. He failed to do so.
User avatar
Zhivago
Posts: 1947
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:36 am
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Zhivago »

If we regard the EHRC report as the case for the prosecution (given that it is based almost wholly on CAA's evidence), then to give a fair hearing to Labour, let's not forget that they also put out a report in defense of their efforts, which Starmer suppressed.

https://cryptome.org/2020/04/Labour-Ant ... Report.pdf

They key message for me is that until 2018 Corbyn had little influence over some key positions and departments in Labour HQ, most notably GLU and the General Secretary, Iain McNicol, who actively worked against him.
However, when questioned by the office of the Leader of the Opposition (LOTO) about
such matters, as the Party’s handling of antisemitism complaints came under
unprecedented media and political scrutiny, senior GLU and GSO staff, including the
General Secretary Iain McNicol, repeatedly:
● Insisted that all complaints were dealt with promptly.
● Justified delays and claimed that outstanding issues would be dealt with soon.
● Provided timetables for the resolution of cases that were never met.
● Falsely claimed to have processed all antisemitism complaints.
● Falsely claimed that most antisemitism complaints the party received were not
about Labour members.
● Provided highly inaccurate statistics of antisemitism complaints.
Last edited by Zhivago on Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Все буде Україна!
Смерть ворогам!!

User avatar
Zhivago
Posts: 1947
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:36 am
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Zhivago »

Sandydragon wrote:
Zhivago wrote:
Sandydragon wrote:Read this the Times the other day. Whilst it can be debated how personally anti-semitic Corbyn was, some of the supporters (who he failed to restrain) there is certainly no doubt about:
How can he restrain an anonymous poster on a random website?
He could have:

Supported his Jewish MPs better,
Made clear statements that abuse of those MPs and anti-semitism in general was and is unacceptable,
He could not have gotten involved in disciplinary processes against party members who have been accused of anti-semitism,
He could have spent some time with Jewish and Israeli dignitaries in order to demonstrate that he sought to fully understand the issues in the region and was seen as less biased,
He could have spent less time with people whose views on Israel and Jews are questionable,
He should have been more careful about endorsing artwork and literature that included anti-semitic comments.

Just a starter for 10. Whilst he cannot physically control every environment his supporters operate in, he can take a firm stand and isolate the lunatics. He failed to do so.
You're just repeating propaganda now.

The reality is that he stood in solidarity with Jewish people many times over his career. Unlike the media who only cared once they could make political capital from the issue.
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk ... sh-people/

Все буде Україна!
Смерть ворогам!!

User avatar
Sandydragon
Posts: 10444
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Sandydragon »

Zhivago wrote:
Sandydragon wrote:
Zhivago wrote:
How can he restrain an anonymous poster on a random website?
He could have:

Supported his Jewish MPs better,
Made clear statements that abuse of those MPs and anti-semitism in general was and is unacceptable,
He could not have gotten involved in disciplinary processes against party members who have been accused of anti-semitism,
He could have spent some time with Jewish and Israeli dignitaries in order to demonstrate that he sought to fully understand the issues in the region and was seen as less biased,
He could have spent less time with people whose views on Israel and Jews are questionable,
He should have been more careful about endorsing artwork and literature that included anti-semitic comments.

Just a starter for 10. Whilst he cannot physically control every environment his supporters operate in, he can take a firm stand and isolate the lunatics. He failed to do so.
You're just repeating propaganda now.

The reality is that he stood in solidarity with Jewish people many times over his career. Unlike the media who only cared once they could make political capital from the issue.
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk ... sh-people/
Thats not the input from his Jewish MPs who felt marginalised by him and his office. And its a matter f record that he has endorsed literature and imagery that is anti-semitic. Either deliberately or due to a lack of intelligence on how such endorsement might be construed.

Unless you consider the report to be propaganda, its very clear that as a leader he failed to deal with this issue and failed those MPs (and other staff) who are Jewish or were otherwise impacted by this situation.
User avatar
Zhivago
Posts: 1947
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:36 am
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Anti semitism

Post by Zhivago »

Sandydragon wrote:
Zhivago wrote:
Sandydragon wrote: He could have:

Supported his Jewish MPs better,
Made clear statements that abuse of those MPs and anti-semitism in general was and is unacceptable,
He could not have gotten involved in disciplinary processes against party members who have been accused of anti-semitism,
He could have spent some time with Jewish and Israeli dignitaries in order to demonstrate that he sought to fully understand the issues in the region and was seen as less biased,
He could have spent less time with people whose views on Israel and Jews are questionable,
He should have been more careful about endorsing artwork and literature that included anti-semitic comments.

Just a starter for 10. Whilst he cannot physically control every environment his supporters operate in, he can take a firm stand and isolate the lunatics. He failed to do so.
You're just repeating propaganda now.

The reality is that he stood in solidarity with Jewish people many times over his career. Unlike the media who only cared once they could make political capital from the issue.
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk ... sh-people/
Thats not the input from his Jewish MPs who felt marginalised by him and his office. And its a matter f record that he has endorsed literature and imagery that is anti-semitic. Either deliberately or due to a lack of intelligence on how such endorsement might be construed.

Unless you consider the report to be propaganda, its very clear that as a leader he failed to deal with this issue and failed those MPs (and other staff) who are Jewish or were otherwise impacted by this situation.
As leader he was in between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand he is told by the media that he should take personal responsibility to ensure the complaints are dealt with, and on the other hand he is told that as leader is must not interfere in the complaints process. All the while he has a part of his party who wants him out and will do everything they can to work towards that end.

He probably should have been more ruthless and consolidated his power early on, then he would have been able to deal with the issues more effectively, but as you suggest, he was ultimately a weak leader.

Starmer on the other hand is trying to be a strong leader, but he'll face different issues. At least the media isn't calling him stalinist though, which it would have called Corbyn if he had taken a stronger approach at consolidating power, and in any case did so whenever there was the hint that he would try to consolidate even the least little bit.

p.s. The infamous mural was more anti-capitalist than anti-semitic, as the figures depicted were the monopolist tycoons of America in the 1900s. The anti-semitism claims relate to the noses on the two individuals who were Jewish, which in my opinion is a bit of a small detail to take note of when you're just liking a post on Facebook.

Все буде Україна!
Смерть ворогам!!

Post Reply