Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

https://twitter.com/jamesmelville/statu ... 81441?s=21

John Barnes gets it bang on.

Most of us try not to be racist, but we all are to a lesser or greater degree.

It’s how you deal with it and try to do better.

I often think people get the wrong end of the stick when I call ‘em out as racist - but Ja, people take it more personally than they need to.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's a problem though if adults in public life can't discuss issues for fear of falling foul of being called anti Semitic. It is being used as a way of shutting down debate over Israel and more widely of simply smearing political opponents. If I were say a Labour councillor I'd probably be risking suspension just for this post.

Is that really what you think Hatton was doing?

Never trust anyone that makes up their own nickname.

What Hatton was doing? No I think that is what those who argue that is an anti Semitic tweet are doing. I think Hatton was criticising Israeli policy towards Palestinians.

Yes it can be argued that he is imposing a moral duty on Jews to take an interest in Israel's actions but isn't it true that many do anyway? I don't see anything wrong in that either btw, it's not a criticism of British Jews just a fact, I'm sure if I were Jewish chances are I'd be more engaged in the politics of that region.

Somebody with thighs in his name explained why all of this. I won’t try and give a précis as I would not do it justice.

Can I ask you a couple of questions?
1) why do you think it is acceptable to suggest that all Jews should take an interest in Israel’s actions?
2) Assuming Hatton is a Christian do you think he should be taking an interest in every Christian country?

Can you clarify your position on dehumanising Jews

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's a problem though if adults in public life can't discuss issues for fear of falling foul of being called anti Semitic. It is being used as a way of shutting down debate over Israel and more widely of simply smearing political opponents. If I were say a Labour councillor I'd probably be risking suspension just for this post.

Is that really what you think Hatton was doing?

Never trust anyone that makes up their own nickname.

What Hatton was doing? No I think that is what those who argue that is an anti Semitic tweet are doing. I think Hatton was criticising Israeli policy towards Palestinians.

Yes it can be argued that he is imposing a moral duty on Jews to take an interest in Israel's actions but isn't it true that many do anyway? I don't see anything wrong in that either btw, it's not a criticism of British Jews just a fact, I'm sure if I were Jewish chances are I'd be more engaged in the politics of that region.

I can't quite believe that you are holding up a Derek Hatton tweet as an example of adults sensibly discussing Israeli government policy. On that basis, should I ask my Indian Muslim colleague to clearly state his objection to the Khashoggi murder? Or maybe he should have a position on the actions of Hindu extremists. I mean if he had any humanity he would feel obliged to condemn both as a Muslim and an Indian.

Or maybe neither is anything to do with him. Hatton's tweet is exactly the same as those people that suggest that British Muslims have some additional responsibility to publicly condemn any and all Islamist terrorism because if they don't, that is an indication that they support it. It's not an oversensitive spin on an unfortunately worded tweet; it's blatant suggestion of shared responsibility on the basis of a shared religion.

rick_chasey

https://neweconomics.org/2019/02/auster ... -this-year

Quite interesting.

‘Fixing’ the public sector finances has suppressed the economy by almost £100bn, around £1,500 for every woman, man and child this year alone.

AFAIK it's not a think tank that's aligned with any party or any particular political persuasion (at least, as much as you can when you take a view on how successful or not policies have been from a particular perspective)

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry wrote:

I can't quite believe that you are holding up a Derek Hatton tweet as an example of adults sensibly discussing Israeli government policy. On that basis, should I ask my Indian Muslim colleague to clearly state his objection to the Khashoggi murder? Or maybe he should have a position on the actions of Hindu extremists. I mean if he had any humanity he would feel obliged to condemn both as a Muslim and an Indian.

Or maybe neither is anything to do with him. Hatton's tweet is exactly the same as those people that suggest that British Muslims have some additional responsibility to publicly condemn any and all Islamist terrorism because if they don't, that is an indication that they support it. It's not an oversensitive spin on an unfortunately worded tweet; it's blatant suggestion of shared responsibility on the basis of a shared religion.

I'm not holding up Derek Hatton as anything. For the record I do not support Derek Hatton, Momentum or Militant Tendency. I think he did immense harm to the labour Party.

However I do think that we live in a democracy where people who I disagree with should be able to discuss politics without being censored for being anti-semitic when they aren't.

Of course British Jews do not have a moral responsibility for Israel's foreign policy. However to deny that British Jews tend to be more interested in Israeli politics than British non-Jews is to deny the facts. Again there is nothing wrong with that - if I were Jewish I'm sure I would take more interest in what is after all a Jewish state given the history of Jews especially in the 20th century. Given that, and given that British Jews are probably more sympathetic towards Israel's actions than the average it is not anti-semitic for Hatton to tweet - and let's not forget this was not an academic paper here it was a tweet - what he did.

poptart242

Tangled Metal wrote:

Sorry but it is a surprise to me. I used to visit family in strong Labour areas of Liverpool as a kid it's been a long time since those days but I never encountered antisemitism back then. Either I'm more aware now or it was less open back then. That was back in the militant era of Liverpool Council. Hatton's cronies owned Liverpool Council then too. It wasn't in the ordinary guy on the street.

This reflects my own experience too - grew up in a Scottish former mining town in as Labour an area as you're ever likely to find. Never, ever in my life have I encountered anti-semitic tendencies, other than online. I'm well aware of my own priveleges and don't want to project them onto a large population, but when all of this started to hit the media I was confused and since learning more about it, appalled.

DeVlaeminck

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's a problem though if adults in public life can't discuss issues for fear of falling foul of being called anti Semitic. It is being used as a way of shutting down debate over Israel and more widely of simply smearing political opponents. If I were say a Labour councillor I'd probably be risking suspension just for this post.

Is that really what you think Hatton was doing?

Never trust anyone that makes up their own nickname.

What Hatton was doing? No I think that is what those who argue that is an anti Semitic tweet are doing. I think Hatton was criticising Israeli policy towards Palestinians.

Yes it can be argued that he is imposing a moral duty on Jews to take an interest in Israel's actions but isn't it true that many do anyway? I don't see anything wrong in that either btw, it's not a criticism of British Jews just a fact, I'm sure if I were Jewish chances are I'd be more engaged in the politics of that region.

Somebody with thighs in his name explained why all of this. I won’t try and give a précis as I would not do it justice.

Can I ask you a couple of questions?
1) why do you think it is acceptable to suggest that all Jews should take an interest in Israel’s actions?
2) Assuming Hatton is a Christian do you think he should be taking an interest in every Christian country?

Can you clarify your position on dehumanising Jews

Nobody has suggested all Jews should take an interest in Israel's actions. I do suggest that Jews are more likely to do so - that is human nature - that is not the same as suggesting they should do or have an obligation to.

Following that your question about Hatton taking an interest in Christian countries makes no sense - so no I don't think he has any obligation to do that.

My position on dehumanising Jews - I think you are being hysterical here tbh - I don't mean funny either. Your post is an example of not being able to engage in mature debate without resorting to veiled insults.

rick_chasey

On the flip side DeVlaemink is the problem that anti semites use the more reasonable argument as a vehicle for their own more nefarious means.

People who want to be racist tend to veil their language in ways that signify their views with all the Associates cultural baggage but doesn’t literally point to their racism; a semiotic attack with a technical escape hatch.

That’s why people have to go out and deconstruct what people say to tease our those inferred symbols and meanings.

DeVlaeminck

In 2015 an IPSO poll of British Jews found 93% say Israel plays a part in their Jewish identity, 73% saw it as an “important” or “central” part.

I don't think that is surprising or wrong but it does show that it's ridiculous to pretend this isn't a group of people with an interest in Israel and therefore is it really wrong to address them on an issue central to Israel's actions.

I don't even say that Hatton's views on Israel's actions are the same as mine - I'm pretty certain they aren't - just that he has the right to tweet what he did. Freedom on political expression is central to democracy.

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck wrote:

In 2015 an IPSO poll of British Jews found 93% say Israel plays a part in their Jewish identity, 73% saw it as an “important” or “central” part.

I don't think that is surprising or wrong but it does show that it's ridiculous to pretend this isn't a group of people with an interest in Israel and therefore is it really wrong to address them on an issue central to Israel's actions.

I don't even say that Hatton's views on Israel's actions are the same as mine - I'm pretty certain they aren't - just that he has the right to tweet what he did. Freedom on political expression is central to democracy.

Oh man stop digging.

You’re entitled to say it but it doesn’t mean it’s a good opinion to have.

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://twitter.com/jamesmelville/status/1098728450603581441?s=21

John Barnes gets it bang on.

Most of us try not to be racist, but we all are to a lesser or greater degree.

It’s how you deal with it and try to do better.

I often think people get the wrong end of the stick when I call ‘em out as racist - but Ja, people take it more personally than they need to.

As they sing in Avenue Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXnM1uHhsOI

DeVlaeminck

Rick Chasey wrote:

On the flip side DeVlaemink is the problem that anti semites use the more reasonable argument as a vehicle for their own more nefarious means.

People who want to be racist tend to veil their language in ways that signify their views with all the Associates cultural baggage but doesn’t literally point to their racism; a semiotic attack with a technical escape hatch.

That’s why people have to go out and deconstruct what people say to tease our those inferred symbols and meanings.

Yes but we must hang people for the evidence not what we suspect they really think.

If say Hatton was a former BNP leader with a history of racist actions we'd view his tweet in a different light - I don't know if there is actual evidence that Hatton is or was anti -semitic I just don't think this tweet is such evidence.

DeVlaeminck

Rick Chasey wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

In 2015 an IPSO poll of British Jews found 93% say Israel plays a part in their Jewish identity, 73% saw it as an “important” or “central” part.

I don't think that is surprising or wrong but it does show that it's ridiculous to pretend this isn't a group of people with an interest in Israel and therefore is it really wrong to address them on an issue central to Israel's actions.

I don't even say that Hatton's views on Israel's actions are the same as mine - I'm pretty certain they aren't - just that he has the right to tweet what he did. Freedom on political expression is central to democracy.

Oh man stop digging.

You’re entitled to say it but it doesn’t mean it’s a good opinion to have.

Stop digging ! Supporting the right to free expression is a wrong opinion to have or Hatton's opinion ?

I think this is another of your attempts to throw out an insult without any actual argument or substance - if you've got something to say then do so but otherwise your post is hard to reply to without dropping to your level.

rick_chasey

It’s more I cba to deconstruct why your post is wrong like others have earlier on this thread.

You’re making the same assumptions they called you out for.

Have a proper read of the deconstruction - if you put your own baggage to one side and really understand it you’ll find it illuminating.

bobmcstuff

DeVlaeminck wrote:

In 2015 an IPSO poll of British Jews found 93% say Israel plays a part in their Jewish identity, 73% saw it as an “important” or “central” part.

I don't think that is surprising or wrong but it does show that it's ridiculous to pretend this isn't a group of people with an interest in Israel and therefore is it really wrong to address them on an issue central to Israel's actions.

I don't even say that Hatton's views on Israel's actions are the same as mine - I'm pretty certain they aren't - just that he has the right to tweet what he did. Freedom on political expression is central to democracy.

What about the other 27%?

The problem with Hatton's tweet is that he says ALL British Jews are morally obliged to speak out on Israel otherwise they have no humanity. It is very black and white.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's a problem though if adults in public life can't discuss issues for fear of falling foul of being called anti Semitic. It is being used as a way of shutting down debate over Israel and more widely of simply smearing political opponents. If I were say a Labour councillor I'd probably be risking suspension just for this post.

Is that really what you think Hatton was doing?

Never trust anyone that makes up their own nickname.

What Hatton was doing? No I think that is what those who argue that is an anti Semitic tweet are doing. I think Hatton was criticising Israeli policy towards Palestinians.

Yes it can be argued that he is imposing a moral duty on Jews to take an interest in Israel's actions but isn't it true that many do anyway? I don't see anything wrong in that either btw, it's not a criticism of British Jews just a fact, I'm sure if I were Jewish chances are I'd be more engaged in the politics of that region.

Somebody with thighs in his name explained why all of this. I won’t try and give a précis as I would not do it justice.

Can I ask you a couple of questions?
1) why do you think it is acceptable to suggest that all Jews should take an interest in Israel’s actions?
2) Assuming Hatton is a Christian do you think he should be taking an interest in every Christian country?

Can you clarify your position on dehumanising Jews

Nobody has suggested all Jews should take an interest in Israel's actions. I do suggest that Jews are more likely to do so - that is human nature - that is not the same as suggesting they should do or have an obligation to.

Following that your question about Hatton taking an interest in Christian countries makes no sense - so no I don't think he has any obligation to do that.

My position on dehumanising Jews - I think you are being hysterical here tbh - I don't mean funny either. Your post is an example of not being able to engage in mature debate without resorting to veiled insults.

This is exactly what the Hatton tweet we're discussing does.

The difference between what he's saying (all Jews are morally obliged to speak out on Israel) and what you're saying (British Jews are more likely to care about Israel, I think?) is a pretty important one, no?

rick_chasey

This is the one.

Thigh_burn wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

: "Jewish people with any sense of humanity need to start speaking out publicly against the ruthless murdering being carried out by Israel."

Apparently tweeting that several years ago when you aren't a member of the party will get you suspended should you ever choose to join Labour.

Ok let me explain why this is antisemitic and why it isn't an attempt at stifling debate, which I'm inferring you're getting at based on:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's a problem though if adults in public life can't discuss issues for fear of falling foul of being called anti Semitic. It is being used as a way of shutting down debate over Israel and more widely of simply smearing political opponents.

Jewish people

He's calling to everyone based on their religion and assuming they'll have one view/opinion. (anti-semitic trope right there)

...with any sense of humanity...

Jews who don't agree with him aren't human (antisemitic trope right there)

...need to start...

They haven't done it to date and given what he's said already, we know that makes all Jews sub-human (antisemitic trope right there)

...ruthless murdering being carried out by Israel...

Why's it incumbent on all (to-date) sub-human Jews to comment on Israel? Is it perhaps because he thinks we have unfailing and unquestioning loyalty to Israel - what could be described at best as dual-loyalty? (guess what, antisemitic trope right there).

So what he said was dripping with antisemitism. That's why he was suspended. It's also why he shouldn't have been allowed in.

On a broader point, having been born in this country and being Jewish and now middle age, I am genuinely scared and saddened that so many people could not care less about the vile racism that is being flaunted. I don't understand why the response is so often a shrug of the shoulders or dismissive. I know this is self-interested, but I would have thought that with so many Jews saying "this is antisemitic, it is hurtful", others would listen. The weird thing is, too often the response to that is "oh it's not that bad, and anyway Israel..."

DeVlaeminck

Rick Chasey wrote:

It’s more I cba to deconstruct why your post is wrong like others have earlier on this thread.

You’re making the same assumptions they called you out for.

Have a proper read of the deconstruction - if you put your own baggage to one side and really understand it you’ll find it illuminating.

OK so you cba to offer a proper response just an insult - pretty much what you do on a regular basis on here when your opinionated nature is let down by your capacity to construct an argument. Of ffs I've descended to your level now.

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It’s more I cba to deconstruct why your post is wrong like others have earlier on this thread.

You’re making the same assumptions they called you out for.

Have a proper read of the deconstruction - if you put your own baggage to one side and really understand it you’ll find it illuminating.

OK so you cba to offer a proper response just an insult - pretty much what you do on a regular basis on here when your opinionated nature is let down by your capacity to construct an argument. Of ffs I've descended to your level now.

As above why repeat what someone else has done quite well?

If that post doesn’t persuade you or teach you anything, nothing I say will make a difference either, right?

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's a problem though if adults in public life can't discuss issues for fear of falling foul of being called anti Semitic. It is being used as a way of shutting down debate over Israel and more widely of simply smearing political opponents. If I were say a Labour councillor I'd probably be risking suspension just for this post.

Is that really what you think Hatton was doing?

Never trust anyone that makes up their own nickname.

What Hatton was doing? No I think that is what those who argue that is an anti Semitic tweet are doing. I think Hatton was criticising Israeli policy towards Palestinians.

Yes it can be argued that he is imposing a moral duty on Jews to take an interest in Israel's actions but isn't it true that many do anyway? I don't see anything wrong in that either btw, it's not a criticism of British Jews just a fact, I'm sure if I were Jewish chances are I'd be more engaged in the politics of that region.

Somebody with thighs in his name explained why all of this. I won’t try and give a précis as I would not do it justice.

Can I ask you a couple of questions?
1) why do you think it is acceptable to suggest that all Jews should take an interest in Israel’s actions?
2) Assuming Hatton is a Christian do you think he should be taking an interest in every Christian country?

Can you clarify your position on dehumanising Jews

Nobody has suggested all Jews should take an interest in Israel's actions. I do suggest that Jews are more likely to do so - that is human nature - that is not the same as suggesting they should do or have an obligation to.

Following that your question about Hatton taking an interest in Christian countries makes no sense - so no I don't think he has any obligation to do that.

My position on dehumanising Jews - I think you are being hysterical here tbh - I don't mean funny either. Your post is an example of not being able to engage in mature debate without resorting to veiled insults.

not being hysterical - read the original tweet.

Why should Jews have a moral duty to take an interest in Israel but you see no sense in my suggestion that as a Christian Hatton seems to have no moral duty to take an interest in Christian countries

DeVlaeminck

bobmcstuff wrote:

What about the other 27%?

The problem with Hatton's tweet is that he says ALL British Jews are morally obliged to speak out on Israel otherwise they have no humanity. It is very black and white.

I think you are taking this too far - it's a tweet addressing a group in society of whom over 90% associate Israel with their own identity and Hatton is asking them to condemn what he sees as terrible actions carried out by Israel.

Yes if you read that he actually thinks 100% of Jews have a moral responsibility for those actions of course he is wrong and I'm sure he'd accept that but it's a tweet not an essay on morality and politics.

The key issue here is not is he 100% correct - it's is he being anti semitic.

kingstongraham

DeVlaeminck wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

What about the other 27%?

The problem with Hatton's tweet is that he says ALL British Jews are morally obliged to speak out on Israel otherwise they have no humanity. It is very black and white.

I think you are taking this too far - it's a tweet addressing a group in society of whom over 90% associate Israel with their own identity and Hatton is asking them to condemn what he sees as terrible actions carried out by Israel.

Yes if you read that he actually thinks 100% of Jews have a moral responsibility for those actions of course he is wrong and I'm sure he'd accept that but it's a tweet not an essay on morality and politics.

The key issue here is not is he 100% correct - it's is he being anti semitic.

And the answer is yes.

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck wrote:

In 2015 an IPSO poll of British Jews found 93% say Israel plays a part in their Jewish identity, 73% saw it as an “important” or “central” part.

I don't think that is surprising or wrong but it does show that it's ridiculous to pretend this isn't a group of people with an interest in Israel and therefore is it really wrong to address them on an issue central to Israel's actions.

I don't even say that Hatton's views on Israel's actions are the same as mine - I'm pretty certain they aren't - just that he has the right to tweet what he did. Freedom on political expression is central to democracy.

If Hatton was genuinely commenting on Israeli government policy, then he could have written "People need to start speaking out publicly against the ruthless murdering being carried out by Israel."

But he decided to insert the words "Jewish [people] with any humanity". It's not even a dog whistle; it's just flat out having a go at Jews.

DeVlaeminck

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Why should Jews have a moral duty to take an interest in Israel but you see no sense in my suggestion that as a Christian Hatton seems to have no moral duty to take an interest in Christian countries

Well as I've already said my view is that there is no reason Jews should have any interest in anything they don't want to.

However given over 90% associate Israel with their own personal identity it seems reasonable that someone concerned with Israel's actions might call on them to condemn them no ?

Would it provoke such concern if someone tweeted that Catholics should condemn abuse in the Catholic church ? Yes we could have a debate on whether they were unfairly implying all Catholics were being morally implicated but I doubt anyone would say that tweet was somehow strongly anti Catholics and use it as a reason to suspend them from a political party.

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

In 2015 an IPSO poll of British Jews found 93% say Israel plays a part in their Jewish identity, 73% saw it as an “important” or “central” part.

I don't think that is surprising or wrong but it does show that it's ridiculous to pretend this isn't a group of people with an interest in Israel and therefore is it really wrong to address them on an issue central to Israel's actions.

I don't even say that Hatton's views on Israel's actions are the same as mine - I'm pretty certain they aren't - just that he has the right to tweet what he did. Freedom on political expression is central to democracy.

If Hatton was genuinely commenting on Israeli government policy, then he could have written "People need to start speaking out publicly against the ruthless murdering being carried out by Israel."

But he decided to insert the words "Jewish [people] with any humanity". It's not even a dog whistle; it's just flat out having a go at Jews.

So if someone were to write Jewish people with any humanity should support Israel that would also be anti-semitic ?

The fact is that there are plenty of Jewish people who themselves do see Israel's actions as connected to their religion - people who both support and object to those actions. What Hatton wrote is clumsily expressed but it's referring to a real phenomenon that (unsurprisingly) there is a connection between Jewishness and attitudes and interest towards Israel. All he's doing is calling on a community that on the whole are interested in that issue to condemn those actions - nothing more.

kingstongraham

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Why should Jews have a moral duty to take an interest in Israel but you see no sense in my suggestion that as a Christian Hatton seems to have no moral duty to take an interest in Christian countries

Well as I've already said my view is that there is no reason Jews should have any interest in anything they don't want to.

However given over 90% associate Israel with their own personal identity it seems reasonable that someone concerned with Israel's actions might call on them to condemn them no ?

Would it provoke such concern if someone tweeted that Catholics should condemn abuse in the Catholic church ? Yes we could have a debate on whether they were unfairly implying all Catholics were being morally implicated but I doubt anyone would say that tweet was somehow strongly anti Catholics and use it as a reason to suspend them from a political party.

You are doing the same. You are conflating Israel (a Jewish state) with the religion of Judaism. All Catholics wherever they are in the world would not be held responsible for calling out the actions of the Italian state. Further, if there was a history of anti Catholic violence using similar words, that would be even more of a problem.

rjsterry

KingstonGraham wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Why should Jews have a moral duty to take an interest in Israel but you see no sense in my suggestion that as a Christian Hatton seems to have no moral duty to take an interest in Christian countries

Well as I've already said my view is that there is no reason Jews should have any interest in anything they don't want to.

However given over 90% associate Israel with their own personal identity it seems reasonable that someone concerned with Israel's actions might call on them to condemn them no ?

Would it provoke such concern if someone tweeted that Catholics should condemn abuse in the Catholic church ? Yes we could have a debate on whether they were unfairly implying all Catholics were being morally implicated but I doubt anyone would say that tweet was somehow strongly anti Catholics and use it as a reason to suspend them from a political party.

You are doing the same. You are conflating Israel (a Jewish state) with the religion of Judaism. All Catholics wherever they are in the world would not be held responsible for calling out the actions of the Italian state. Further, if there was a history of anti Catholic violence using similar words, that would be even more of a problem.

Ahem, Vatican.

Also *if* there was history of anti-Catholic violence?! How much violence does there need to be to qualify?

Ben6899

I just read the Guardian article. She's done well to cherry pick members of the public that suit her clear narrative. You know those YouTube videos that show Americans not knowing any geography whatsoever or Leave voters (spit) all giving racist or xenophobic reasons for their vote?

There's a problem in the Labour party, but I fully resent any article that aims to paint an entire political party's support in an anti-Semitic light.

Another former teacher, a few doors away, named Catherine, said: “There’s no antisemitism in this lane. We’re very cosmopolitan.”

Her words echoed the line that the Labour party, both in Wavertree and nationally, keeps restating, as accusations of antisemitism keep growing.

One interviewee tells the journalist that she's not anti-Semitic and in fact likes living in a cosmopolitan society... and the following sentence basically reads "... but of course she'd say that"

Get in the fuck1ng sea.

kingstongraham

rjsterry wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Why should Jews have a moral duty to take an interest in Israel but you see no sense in my suggestion that as a Christian Hatton seems to have no moral duty to take an interest in Christian countries

Well as I've already said my view is that there is no reason Jews should have any interest in anything they don't want to.

However given over 90% associate Israel with their own personal identity it seems reasonable that someone concerned with Israel's actions might call on them to condemn them no ?

Would it provoke such concern if someone tweeted that Catholics should condemn abuse in the Catholic church ? Yes we could have a debate on whether they were unfairly implying all Catholics were being morally implicated but I doubt anyone would say that tweet was somehow strongly anti Catholics and use it as a reason to suspend them from a political party.

You are doing the same. You are conflating Israel (a Jewish state) with the religion of Judaism. All Catholics wherever they are in the world would not be held responsible for calling out the actions of the Italian state. Further, if there was a history of anti Catholic violence using similar words, that would be even more of a problem.

Ahem, Vatican.

Also *if* there was history of anti-Catholic violence?! How much violence does there need to be to qualify?

Maybe it was a bad example, as it is no longer a state religion. But Vatican would specifically not be an equivalence.

rjsterry

Ben6899 wrote:

I just read the Guardian article. She's done well to cherry pick members of the public that suit her clear narrative. You know those YouTube videos that show Americans not knowing any geography whatsoever or Leave voters (spit) all giving racist or xenophobic reasons for their vote?

There's a problem in the Labour party, but I fully resent any article that aims to paint an entire political party's support in an anti-Semitic light.

Another former teacher, a few doors away, named Catherine, said: “There’s no antisemitism in this lane. We’re very cosmopolitan.”

Her words echoed the line that the Labour party, both in Wavertree and nationally, keeps restating, as accusations of antisemitism keep growing.

One interviewee tells the journalist that she's not anti-Semitic and in fact likes living in a cosmopolitan society... and the following sentence basically reads "... but of course she'd say that"

Get in the fuck1ng sea.

I think that was the point: the denial that there was any kind of problem. Everyone saying they hadn't seen any antisemitism and yet the MP has felt compelled to leave the party.

rjsterry

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Why should Jews have a moral duty to take an interest in Israel but you see no sense in my suggestion that as a Christian Hatton seems to have no moral duty to take an interest in Christian countries

Well as I've already said my view is that there is no reason Jews should have any interest in anything they don't want to.

However given over 90% associate Israel with their own personal identity it seems reasonable that someone concerned with Israel's actions might call on them to condemn them no ?

Would it provoke such concern if someone tweeted that Catholics should condemn abuse in the Catholic church ? Yes we could have a debate on whether they were unfairly implying all Catholics were being morally implicated but I doubt anyone would say that tweet was somehow strongly anti Catholics and use it as a reason to suspend them from a political party.

You are doing the same. You are conflating Israel (a Jewish state) with the religion of Judaism. All Catholics wherever they are in the world would not be held responsible for calling out the actions of the Italian state. Further, if there was a history of anti Catholic violence using similar words, that would be even more of a problem.

Ahem, Vatican.

Also *if* there was history of anti-Catholic violence?! How much violence does there need to be to qualify?

Maybe it was a bad example, as it is no longer a state religion. But Vatican would specifically not be an equivalence.

I think there are a lot of parallels. A good deal of the anti-Catholic sentiment that blighted Britain from the Reformation to the beginning of the 20th century was focused on the idea that Catholics had divided loyalties - to Rome as well as the British Crown - and were therefore not trustworthy.