Are labour antisemitic?

[BOR]

BlackLabel said:

McCluskey seems to think that this whole anti semitism thing is the fault of the Jews and they should really be a bit more grateful for all the good deeds Jeremy Corbyn has done for their community.


“Union boss Len McCluskey accuses Jewish community of 'intransigent hostility' towards Labour”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/16/union-...

Non paywall...

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/anti-semi...

Thanks Black, I enjoyed that. Quite well written, but if there is anything specific you want to challenge, then I guess now would be a good time.

Try to be specific and cite evidence to back up your case if you don't mind.

Did you follow the link in the piece ?

"The foreign editor at the Jewish News is understood to have taken personal leave from the newspaper after describing its coverage of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party as “repulsive” in an interview."

Didn't get the memo presumably ?

[LoonyTunes]

BOR said:

Thanks Black, I enjoyed that. Quite well written, but if there is anything specific you want to challenge, then I guess now would be a good time.

Try to be specific and cite evidence to back up your case if you don't mind.

Did you follow the link in the piece ?

"The foreign editor at the Jewish News is understood to have taken personal leave from the newspaper after describing its coverage of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party as “repulsive” in an interview."

Didn't get the memo presumably ?

The non-paywall link above is damning of how Jewish leaders have responded to the actions Labour has already taken on anti-semitism.

Reading that I don't know what more they can expect Labour to do.

[Burwood]

LoonyTunes said:

irocfan said:

indeed len "the " mcclusky seems to think that the Jews are being oversensitive - I mean it's not like anyone tried to exterminate them within living memory...

Hmmm...I may be wrong...but I don't think that was the Labour party. Although I'm sure sure some on here would like to pin that on them as well.

Yeah, it was another 'Union' that did that. Not Lens

[irocfan]

LoonyTunes said:

irocfan said:

indeed len "the " mcclusky seems to think that the Jews are being oversensitive - I mean it's not like anyone tried to exterminate them within living memory...

Hmmm...I may be wrong...but I don't think that was the Labour party. Although I'm sure sure some on here would like to pin that on them as well.

Correct it wasn't the labour party - it does show, however, why they may be a tad sensitive

[Kccv23highliftcam]

LoonyTunes said:

BOR said:

Thanks Black, I enjoyed that. Quite well written, but if there is anything specific you want to challenge, then I guess now would be a good time.

Try to be specific and cite evidence to back up your case if you don't mind.

Did you follow the link in the piece ?

"The foreign editor at the Jewish News is understood to have taken personal leave from the newspaper after describing its coverage of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party as “repulsive” in an interview."

Didn't get the memo presumably ?

The non-paywall link above is damning of how Jewish leaders have responded to the actions Labour has already taken on anti-semitism.

Reading that I don't know what more they can expect Labour to do.

So your saying they have tried so very very hard but that's it?

[LoonyTunes]

Kccv23highliftcam said:

LoonyTunes said:

BOR said:

Thanks Black, I enjoyed that. Quite well written, but if there is anything specific you want to challenge, then I guess now would be a good time.

Try to be specific and cite evidence to back up your case if you don't mind.

Did you follow the link in the piece ?

"The foreign editor at the Jewish News is understood to have taken personal leave from the newspaper after describing its coverage of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party as “repulsive” in an interview."

Didn't get the memo presumably ?

The non-paywall link above is damning of how Jewish leaders have responded to the actions Labour has already taken on anti-semitism.

Reading that I don't know what more they can expect Labour to do.

So your saying they have tried so very very hard but that's it?

Have you read what they've actually done? What more would you like them to do?

[irocfan]

LoonyTunes said:

Have you read what they've actually done? What more would you like them to do?

They should have adopted the Holocaust association wording in full and most of this ststorm could've been avoided

[vsonix]

I think the current row is basically a smear campaign designed to damage the image of Corbyn and the party as a whole. I certainly don't think on a member by member basis that Labour is any more anti-semetic than either Con or LD, nor are they any more or less Islamophobic than the other major parties. In fact considering BoJo's 'letterbox' gaffe surely we should be examining the Tories attitude to Muslims just as closely.

[Kccv23highliftcam]

LoonyTunes said:

Kccv23highliftcam said:

LoonyTunes said:

BOR said:

Thanks Black, I enjoyed that. Quite well written, but if there is anything specific you want to challenge, then I guess now would be a good time.

Try to be specific and cite evidence to back up your case if you don't mind.

Did you follow the link in the piece ?

"The foreign editor at the Jewish News is understood to have taken personal leave from the newspaper after describing its coverage of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party as “repulsive” in an interview."

Didn't get the memo presumably ?

The non-paywall link above is damning of how Jewish leaders have responded to the actions Labour has already taken on anti-semitism.

Reading that I don't know what more they can expect Labour to do.

So your saying they have tried so very very hard but that's it?

Have you read what they've actually done? What more would you like them to do?

Bleat, bleat, bleat...

[LoonyTunes]

irocfan said:

LoonyTunes said:

Have you read what they've actually done? What more would you like them to do?

They should have adopted the Holocaust association wording in full and most of this ststorm could've been avoided

Labour has created it's own code which it feels better suits the anti-semitism issue. It will likely adopt the IHRA's definition at some point but the two codes are almost only separated by the examples given of anti-semitism in the codes.

Seven of IHRA’s examples are incorporated word for word in Labour’s list. So, the row boils down to: why not the remaining four? Because the IHRA intends its examples as mere indications of what “might” and “could” manifest antisemitism, whereas Labour’s code says its examples are “likely” to be deemed antisemitic. Labour says that this shift – from mere possibility to likelihood – strengthens the role of the examples and makes them easier to apply as guidelines.

Should Labour change the code to exactly mirror the IHRA's code do you think the anti-semitism accusations will disappear???

I don't.

Labour says it's code in fact enhances the IHRA document. For instance, it adds the use of derogatory terms for Jewish people such as “kike” or “yid”, plus stereotypical physical depictions of Jewish people, and equating Jews with “the ruling class”.

[psi310398]

LoonyTunes said:

Labour has created it's own code which it feels better suits the anti-semitism issue. It will likely adopt the IHRA's definition at some point but the two codes are almost only separated by the examples given of anti-semitism in the codes.

Seven of IHRA’s examples are incorporated word for word in Labour’s list. So, the row boils down to: why not the remaining four? Because the IHRA intends its examples as mere indications of what “might” and “could” manifest antisemitism, whereas Labour’s code says its examples are “likely” to be deemed antisemitic. Labour says that this shift – from mere possibility to likelihood – strengthens the role of the examples and makes them easier to apply as guidelines.

Should Labour change the code to exactly mirror the IHRA's code do you think the anti-semitism accusations will disappear???

I don't.

Labour says it's code in fact enhances the IHRA document. For instance, it adds the use of derogatory terms for Jewish people such as “kike” or “yid”, plus stereotypical physical depictions of Jewish people, and equating Jews with “the ruling class”.

Does Labour's version have anything on consorting with, and/or celebrating the lives of, people who murder Jewish people simply because they are Jewish?

[Deptford Draylons]

LoonyTunes said:

Labour says it's code in fact enhances the IHRA document. For instance, it adds the use of derogatory terms for Jewish people such as “kike” or “yid”, plus stereotypical physical depictions of Jewish people, and equating Jews with “the ruling class”.

Yet this is fine for the leader.


I hear for the next party conference, they've cancelled the singing Red Flag, and got Borat to sing Throw the Jew Down the Well.

[LoonyTunes]

psi310398 said:

LoonyTunes said:

Labour has created it's own code which it feels better suits the anti-semitism issue. It will likely adopt the IHRA's definition at some point but the two codes are almost only separated by the examples given of anti-semitism in the codes.

Seven of IHRA’s examples are incorporated word for word in Labour’s list. So, the row boils down to: why not the remaining four? Because the IHRA intends its examples as mere indications of what “might” and “could” manifest antisemitism, whereas Labour’s code says its examples are “likely” to be deemed antisemitic. Labour says that this shift – from mere possibility to likelihood – strengthens the role of the examples and makes them easier to apply as guidelines.

Should Labour change the code to exactly mirror the IHRA's code do you think the anti-semitism accusations will disappear???

I don't.

Labour says it's code in fact enhances the IHRA document. For instance, it adds the use of derogatory terms for Jewish people such as “kike” or “yid”, plus stereotypical physical depictions of Jewish people, and equating Jews with “the ruling class”.

Does Labour's version have anything on consorting with, and/or celebrating the lives of, people who murder Jewish people simply because they are Jewish?

Who consorts with people who murder Jewish people "simply because they are jewish"?

Does Netanyahu kill Palestinians "simply because they Arabic/Muslim"?

[irocfan]

LoonyTunes said:

Labour has created it's own code which it feels better suits the anti-semitism issue. It will likely adopt the IHRA's definition at some point but the two codes are almost only separated by the examples given of anti-semitism in the codes.

Seven of IHRA’s examples are incorporated word for word in Labour’s list. So, the row boils down to: why not the remaining four? Because the IHRA intends its examples as mere indications of what “might” and “could” manifest antisemitism, whereas Labour’s code says its examples are “likely” to be deemed antisemitic. Labour says that this shift – from mere possibility to likelihood – strengthens the role of the examples and makes them easier to apply as guidelines.

Should Labour change the code to exactly mirror the IHRA's code do you think the anti-semitism accusations will disappear???

I don't.

Labour says it's code in fact enhances the IHRA document. For instance, it adds the use of derogatory terms for Jewish people such as “kike” or “yid”, plus stereotypical physical depictions of Jewish people, and equating Jews with “the ruling class”.

And here is the problem - labour (and corby in particular) seem to think that they know better than Jews (and indeed the rest of the world) what is/isn't offensive/upsetting to Jews....

[LoonyTunes]

irocfan said:

And here is the problem - labour (and corby in particular) seem to think that they know better than Jews (and indeed the rest of the world) what is/isn't offensive/upsetting to Jews....

They would argue their definitions go further and add more protection for Jews. It may not be what you want exactly but if you feel that is actually anti-semitic then I can't agree.

[irocfan]

LoonyTunes said:

They would argue their definitions go further and add more protection for Jews. It may not be what you want exactly but if you feel that is actually anti-semitic then I can't agree.

Once again - that's the issue. The Jews themselves don't agree with that perspective I'd say that their opinion is more valid than anyone else's

[psi310398]

LoonyTunes said:

Who consorts with people who murder Jewish people "simply because they are jewish"?

Does Netanyahu kill Palestinians "simply because they Arabic/Muslim"?

Barking up the wrong tree there, matey.

I, and many others (including a lot of Jewish people) utterly condemn Netanyahu's actions and think he is close to being a war criminal, if not one. BTW, I don't see many mainstream non-American politicians spending time in his company.

But that bit of whataboutism does not get away from what Labour is doing to address anti-semitism in the party.

[LoonyTunes]

psi310398 said:

Barking up the wrong tree there, matey.

I, and many others (including a lot of Jewish people) utterly condemn Netanyahu's actions and think he is close to being a war criminal, if not one. BTW, I don't see many mainstream non-American politicians spending time in his company.

But that bit of whataboutism does not get away from what Labour is doing to address anti-semitism in the party.

One mans Whataboutism is another man's Comparison - but it really is the buzz word on PH right now isn't it?

Again - tell me what you think they should have done to address it but haven't. And we're not talking about the code here.

[LoonyTunes]

irocfan said:

LoonyTunes said:

They would argue their definitions go further and add more protection for Jews. It may not be what you want exactly but if you feel that is actually anti-semitic then I can't agree.

Once again - that's the issue. The Jews themselves don't agree with that perspective I'd say that their opinion is more valid than anyone else's

Then perhaps you'd have to 'agree to disagree' over what examples of a code should be used. But to go from there to calling them anti-semitic is ridiculous.

[psi310398]

LoonyTunes said:

One mans Whataboutism is another man's Comparison - but it really is the buzz word on PH right now isn't it?

Again - tell me what you think they should have done to address it but haven't. And we're not talking about the code here.

At the very least JC should have put his hands up and said that he had made some errors of judgement in the past, which he would not repeat; that he regretted the offence he had caused to many; and that, for the avoidance of doubt, he explicitly supported zero tolerance for anti-semitism within the Party, backed up by prompt action when it surfaces. A public call to his attack dogs to lay off the Luciana Bergers and Margaret Hodges of the Party wouldn't go amiss, either.

But, to his credit in an odd way I suppose, he can't because he doesn't believe it.