• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UK Labour Party reportedly suspends 50 members over anti-Semitic, racist comments

I believe it was Hemingway who once recounted being told by the editor of the newspaper he worked for as a young man "If you can't say it in three lines, try it in two".

:roll:
 
I'm not really sure how you reconcile the chair of an independent inquiry into anti-Semitism within the Labour Party, with the chair joining the party: Anti-Semitism inquiry leader Shami Chakrabarti joins Labour - Anti-Semitism inquiry leader Shami Chakrabarti joins Labour - BBC News
Hmmmmmm..............

Do you reckon it will compromise her impartiality? Beyond the fact that the review was commissioned by Labour itself anyway?

Perhaps not the most elegant of moves but then she never was seen as a "true independent" anyway. For that she would have had to come from Mars.

Perhaps better then finishing the review and then declaring her political desires. Tongues may still wag now but imagine the ruckus if (once) she'd have done the latter.
 
Last edited:
Hmmmmmm..............

Do you reckon it will compromise her impartiality? Beyond the fact that the review was commissioned by Labour itself anyway?

Perhaps not the most elegant of moves but then she never was seen as a "true independent" anyway. For that she would have had to come from Mars.

Perhaps better then finishing the review and then declaring her political desires. Tongues may still wag now but imagine the ruckus if (once) she'd have done the latter.

Yes, definitely an issue over impartiality. I mean she suggests it has to do with "gaining trust of members"; does that mean if you were to investigate the bankers you'd have to become a banker, first? People will only tell you what they want you to know, simple. In addition she is not intending on broaching the subject directly with Livingstone. It seems already that she is treading very lightly around the possible issues.
 
~ In addition she is not intending on broaching the subject directly with Livingstone ~

There were times I admired her liberty positions against the establishment. So easy to lose the respect you gained.
 
Yes, definitely an issue over impartiality. I mean she suggests it has to do with "gaining trust of members"; does that mean if you were to investigate the bankers you'd have to become a banker, first? People will only tell you what they want you to know, simple. In addition she is not intending on broaching the subject directly with Livingstone. It seems already that she is treading very lightly around the possible issues.
Yeah, there's a sour taste to it all, every which way.

If one desires an independent investigation, commission an independent and make sure s/he stays that way.
 
Yeah, there's a sour taste to it all, every which way.

If one desires an independent investigation, commission an independent and make sure s/he stays that way.

You suggest appointing someone from where, to head an inquiry into why members of the Labour Party were in effect asked, 'when did you stop beating your spouse'?
 
You suggest appointing someone from where, to head an inquiry into why members of the Labour Party were in effect asked, 'when did you stop beating your spouse'?
Truth be told I have not the foggiest how such an investigation is conducted (or supposed to be) and I'd be clueless, once that primary ignorance were dissipated, whom to commission it to.

As to loaded questions, I certainly see your point.

I mean if there's a smoking gun anywhere, all it needs is documenting and whatever subsequent steps being taken. If there isn't, who's going to say "Hey Shami, great to have you aboard and now that you've joined I can tell you how I regularly advocate on Israel needing to be dissolved".

The whole thing somehow smells of cosmetics and it would be better if, for example, Livingstone or whoever else (not being picky here) were given the chance to elaborate by way of explanation on whatever statements they're being accused of having made (from what I gather Livingstone did that but it isn't getting much coverage even now).
 
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has not done enough to tackle anti-Semitism in the party, a committee of MPs has said.
The Home Affairs Select Committee report criticised him for a lack of "consistent leadership" on the issue, which it said benefited people with "vile attitudes" toward Jewish people. Link.

Some members of the forum have been saying this for a while and now a Parliamentary committee has said the same. Labour has to deal with this problem far more effectively than it has so far.
 
Some members of the forum have been saying this for a while and now a Parliamentary committee has said the same. Labour has to deal with this problem far more effectively than it has so far.

The issue is about politics not antisemitism and it is important to keep them separate. Robert Frisk argued several years ago that if calling criticism of Israel antisemitism continued a time would come when it would be considered a virtue to be called antisemetic - then the real antisemities would come crawling out of the closets. Views on this are based by politics not discrimination and thousands of British Jews are on the threshold to being called antisemites because of their political position on Israel. Here you can see the opposing viewpoint on the report - and again, note it is political stance not prejudice which determines what is considered antisemitism.

(the link is beneath this which I forgot to put in!)

The whole issue comes from the European definition on antisemitism which was drawn up in the US behind closed doors and never worked on. A few years ago one of our academic unions decided to toss it in the bin as unworkable due to it conflating criticism of Israel with antsemitism and hence not allowing free speech which particularly for academics cannot work in any free society. What followed this a couple of years ago was a Jewish Lecturer taking his Union to court for antsemitism. He said he was a Jew and he considered Israel part of his identity (not all Jews do). He said because of this when people criticised Israel it hurt his feelings and hence criticism of Israel was antisemetic. The judge ruled against and advised him not to go to these meetings. This was the first try to get the European Working definition of Antisemitism, which has now been rejected by all Europe back in.

This is the second.

The Jewish Labour Movement, a Labour movement consisting of pro Israeli Jews and non Jews since 2004 with ties to the Israeli Labour movement and with an Israel Director is trying to get the right to say what is antisemitism and has already said it wants the EWDA brought back in. That is what in the leaked speak Jackie Walker was arguing about.

OK must run to pick up grandson from nursery.



Media coverage skews antisemitism report | Jews for Justice for Palestinians



 
Last edited:
The issue is about politics not antisemitism and it is important to keep them separate.

~

OK must run to pick up grandson from nursery.

You must have been too busy to read examples from the link I gave.

  • Labour MP Luciana Berger received more than 2,500 abusive tweets in three days in 2014
  • Since walking out of the launch of a report on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, the Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth has reported more than 25,000 incidents of abuse
  • Police-recorded anti-Semitic hate crime in England and some parts of Wales increased by 29% between 2010 and 2015, compared with a 9% increase across all hate crime categories
  • A fifth of British Jewish people responding to an Institute for Jewish Policy Research study had experienced at least one anti-Semitic harassment incident during the last year, with 68% of incidents taking place online

They don't sound like politics to me but simple antisemitism.
 
You must have been too busy to read examples from the link I gave.



They don't sound like politics to me but simple antisemitism.

Of course there is also antisemitism and it always gets worse after Israel has been involved in a war for instance the 2014 Gaza war. However in the labour party it very definitely is about politics - that is the blairites in particular against the Corbyns. No question on that and it ought to be clear enough from the taster I gave you. Because there is genuine antisemitism is the very real reason it needs to dealt with as that rather than calling criticism of Israel antisemitism. I probably cannot talk too much more because of forum rules but possibly you might also look at this site. If you just go by the tabloids then you do not have any proper information and understanding of the situation. I appreciate that may be enough for a forum but it is not as the situation is.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/315237906/Free-Speech-on-Israel-Submission-to-Chakrabarti-Submission

Free Speech on Israel - Jews & friends who say antizionism is NOT antisemitism
 
Last edited:
Of course there is also antisemitism and it always gets worse after Israel has been involved in a war for instance the 2014 Gaza war. However in the labour party it very definitely is about politics - that is the blairites in particular against the Corbyns. No question on that and it ought to be clear enough from the taster I gave you. Because there is genuine antisemitism is the very real reason it needs to dealt with as that rather than calling criticism of Israel antisemitism. I probably cannot talk too much more because of forum rules but possibly you might also look at this site. If you just go by the tabloids then you do not have any proper information and understanding of the situation. I appreciate that may be enough for a forum but it is not as the situation is.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/315237906/Free-Speech-on-Israel-Submission-to-Chakrabarti-Submission

Free Speech on Israel - Jews & friends who say antizionism is NOT antisemitism

None of this is what the parliamentary committee criticised Jeremy Corbyn for.?
 
None of this is what the parliamentary committee criticised Jeremy Corbyn for.?

We are obviously seeing very different things. The first link I gave you

Media coverage skews antisemitism report | Jews for Justice for Palestinians

gives a criticism of that report, a copy of the report and other links which without question have relevance to what I said even if not to what you wanted me to be talking about as well as other material which they also believe illustrates their point. The whole thing that is being spoken about is that antisemitism in the Labour Party is about politics. The reality that the report did not even concentrate on where most antisemitism is - the far right, but on the many and frequently false or depending on your political view, calls of antisemitism on Labour people. Indeed the last article on that link discusses the many fabrications of accusations. The one I know most specifically being Jackie Walker.

You said antisemitism is going up. I am unsure whether it is going up though I know it went up dramatically after the 2014 Gaza War and possibly continued in 2015. I believe there is some controversy as to whether antisemitism has gone up or whether it is what is being called antisemitism - that is whether what is said is seen as a political view or prejudice.

Now after you came back with talk of increased antisemitism suggesting this proved it was not a political issue, I gave you a link to Free Speech on Israel's submission to the Chakrabarti report. As you will be aware one of the key criticisms was her and basically accusing her of being a corrupt woman who was only in it to get into the Lords. As it happens many Jewish groups who work for justice in that part of the world put in their statements which are very different to what we hear on the media but they too are Jews, just Jews with a different opinion. She took heed of what they all said not just the ones working for Israel such as the Jewish Labour Movement who only lets in Jews whose priority that is and also non Jews whose key priority that is. They are the people wanting to have the power to say what is antisemitism and they want that to include criticism of Israel. FSoI describes how they view things differently, indicating why what they see as antisemitism may be different from a person whose first priority is Israel as is the case with those in the Jewish Labour Movement.

I then provided a link to their website where the lead article is on the report so I am absolutely at a loss as to how you do not see anything which I provided as having any relevance to the reports criticisms of Corbyn. That is what they are about. The differences they see is from political viewpoint. Antisemitism is very much a political issue in mainstream not one on prejudice and the links I gave you all deal with that.

If you do not look at any of the links which are all either directly about the report or dealing with related material, there is nothing more I can say.
 
Last edited:
We are obviously seeing very different things. The first link I gave you

Media coverage skews antisemitism report | Jews for Justice for Palestinians

gives a criticism of that report, a copy of the report and other links which without question have relevance to what I said even if not to what you wanted me to be talking about as well as other material which they also believe illustrates their point. The whole thing that is being spoken about is that antisemitism in the Labour Party is about politics. The reality that the report did not even concentrate on where most antisemitism is - the far right, but on the many and frequently false or depending on your political view, calls of antisemitism on Labour people. Indeed the last article on that link discusses the many fabrications of accusations. The one I know most specifically being Jackie Walker.

You said antisemitism is going up. I am unsure whether it is going up though I know it went up dramatically after the 2014 Gaza War and possibly continued in 2015. I believe there is some controversy as to whether antisemitism has gone up or whether it is what is being called antisemitism - that is whether what is said is seen as a political view or prejudice.

Now after you came back with talk of increased antisemitism suggesting this proved it was not a political issue, I gave you a link to Free Speech on Israel's submission to the Chakrabarti report. As you will be aware one of the key criticisms was her and basically accusing her of being a corrupt woman who was only in it to get into the Lords. As it happens many Jewish groups who work for justice in that part of the world put in their statements which are very different to what we hear on the media but they too are Jews, just Jews with a different opinion. She took heed of what they all said not just the ones working for Israel such as the Jewish Labour Movement who only lets in Jews whose priority that is and also non Jews whose key priority that is. They are the people wanting to have the power to say what is antisemitism and they want that to include criticism of Israel. FSoI describes how they view things differently, indicating why what they see as antisemitism may be different from a person whose first priority is Israel as is the case with those in the Jewish Labour Movement.

I then provided a link to their website where the lead article is on the report so I am absolutely at a loss as to how you do not see anything which I provided as having any relevance to the reports criticisms of Corbyn. That is what they are about. The differences they see is from political viewpoint. Antisemitism is very much a political issue in mainstream not one on prejudice and the links I gave you all deal with that.

If you do not look at any of the links which are all either directly about the report or dealing with related material, there is nothing more I can say.

You really don't have to go past your first link, to know who has the skewed view on this topic.
 
You really don't have to go past your first link, to know who has the skewed view on this topic.

I notice there is nothing you can do to deny what I have said and the quite substantial information given except a personal attack. No surprise there.
 
Last edited:
I notice there is nothing you can do to deny what I have said and the quite substantial information given except a personal attack. No surprise there.

Since when have mistruths and propaganda been determined as 'substantial information '.
 
Since when have mistruths and propaganda been determined as 'substantial information '.

Ah still engaging in the mindless personal attacks! Wow!

I answered this post

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...emitic-racist-comments-14.html#post1066431537

It stated
Some members of the forum have been saying this for a while and now a Parliamentary committee has said the same. Labour has to deal with this problem far more effectively than it has so far.

Now this is a hugely contested opinion. Hugely and one I have been following since the beginning. So I gave quite a lot of information about the opposing view. My study has led me to believe that this issue of antisemitism in the Labour Party is about Politics not prejudice. You can choose to believe that or not but that is reality. I am aware you refuse to read about it. If you only know half the story much safer, eh?

These issues are not based on people's opinions but on people who really know what they are talking about - facts which sadly our media seems lacking n.

For anyone who is interested in knowing more about this situation there is a good article out today which deals with some of the issues I mentioned yesterday - though of course much better.

jfjfp.com/?p=87629
 
~ I am aware you refuse to read about it. If you only know half the story much safer, eh? ~

No Alexa, you just always seem to be on the way to pick up kids and seem to have stopped discussing or as you have done in the past simply said you wouldn't respond further. You still post long articles which obfuscate the issue rather than deal with them. Nothing in what you posted deals with the very simple criminal acts of hate which the committee listed such as all the twitter posts directed at various jews.

How you say the issue is political rather than simple antisemitic hate incidents is beyond me. When you can clarify why you ignore the incidents shown on the links I gave, then we can have a discussion as we then have some grounds for discussion / agreement or disagreement.
 
No Alexa, you just always seem to be on the way to pick up kids and seem to have stopped discussing or as you have done in the past simply said you wouldn't respond further. You still post long articles which obfuscate the issue rather than deal with them. Nothing in what you posted deals with the very simple criminal acts of hate which the committee listed such as all the twitter posts directed at various jews.

How you say the issue is political rather than simple antisemitic hate incidents is beyond me. When you can clarify why you ignore the incidents shown on the links I gave, then we can have a discussion as we then have some grounds for discussion / agreement or disagreement.

It amazes me how she can disappear from these boards for several years and then return and she's exactly the same as she was.

1) Posts a link to some opinion piece on a propaganda site and writes a wall of text on it.
2) Talks about her "links" and the "substantial information" they contain, makes use of the words "links" and "study" a lot.
3) Anyone confronting her? Tells them to look at her "links" again as she posts another opinion piece from a propaganda site to confuse them further.
4) Still confronting? Accuses them of personal attacks even though they clearly attack her words and not her character.
5) Tells the other side that she's done responding to them. This is a key part.
6) Continues responding to them with claims of personal attacks and mumbling about her "links" and "study".

Since May '09. I could refer you to arguments I had with her 6 years ago you'll be amazed how similar they are to this one.
 
It amazes me how she can disappear from these boards for several years and then return and she's exactly the same as she was.

1) Posts a link to some opinion piece on a propaganda site and writes a wall of text on it.
2) Talks about her "links" and the "substantial information" they contain, makes use of the words "links" and "study" a lot.
3) Anyone confronting her? Tells them to look at her "links" again as she posts another opinion piece from a propaganda site to confuse them further.
4) Still confronting? Accuses them of personal attacks even though they clearly attack her words and not her character.
5) Tells the other side that she's done responding to them. This is a key part.
6) Continues responding to them with claims of personal attacks and mumbling about her "links" and "study".

Since May '09. I could refer you to arguments I had with her 6 years ago you'll be amazed how similar they are to this one.

Funny, for quite a while I thought it was just me got that treatment.

Alexa - rather than take that personally, you should reflect on your discussion style as it's clearly not working or engaging those you are discussing with..
 
Part 1

No Alexa, you just always seem to be on the way to pick up kids and seem

I pick up a grandchild from nursery at 11.45, one from primary 1 at 3.10 and one from primary 4 at 3.20 on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. So you begin with suggesting I am a liar.
to have stopped discussing

I am not the person who has stopped discussing. I made clear my position from the beginning which was that your position
Some members of the forum have been saying this for a while and now a Parliamentary committee has said the same. Labour has to deal with this problem far more effectively than it has so far.

is a highly contested one. That rather what is going on now is a political issue.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...emitic-racist-comments-14.html#post1066433688

I also gave a link where you could have a look at the opposing view to yourself - that is your view that Labour has a big problem with antismetism which it has to deal with.

Media coverage skews antisemitism report | Jews for Justice for Palestinians

This page provided a criticism of the inquiry, a copy of it, a link to Free Speech on Israel - a group begun by Jewish Labour Members to combat this disinformation which is going on, a link to an article describing fabrication of antisemitism and more. All these supported the argument which I was making which is that this is not genuinely about antisemitism but rather about using antisemitsm for Politics .

To all this you expressed the believe that I had not looked at some issues you had raised. http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...emitic-racist-comments-14.html#post1066433780

I replied that I do not deny that there is antisemitism but simply that to imagine that what is going on re it and the Labour Party is not at base Politics and gave you a link to the submission to the Chackrabarti enquiry by Free Speech on Israell
Free Speech on Israel is a network of labour, green and trade union activists in the UK, mainly Jewish, who came together in April 2016 to counter attempts by pro-Israel right wingers to brand the campaign for justice for Palestinians as antisemitic.

Media coverage skews antisemitism report | Jews for Justice for Palestinians

I am sticking to what my argument is, that is that this is primarily about Politics, not antisemitism and I have given you a link which will allow you to see one of the different positions which Chackrabarti received on which she based her report. Given that she is strongly criticised by the Inquiry it makes sense to be aware of the information she received. Her inquiry unlike the recent Home Affairs one was not one sided. She took in summations from several of our Jewish groups who are critical of Israel - Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Independent Jewish Voices, Jewish Socialists and of course Free Speech on Israel.
or as you have done in the past simply said you wouldn't respond further.

what is this, still complaining about my need to pick up my grand children? I do get fed up with nothing but abuse and personal attacks. Certainly there is no way that political argument can go forward in such a situation. They are a waste of my time and energy. I did however provide another link for anyone who did have a genuine interest in understanding what is really going on. It covered several of the arguments I had made. It is quite long so for anyone interested possibly slip down to 'How not to define antisemitism/The Jewish Labour Movement to get some information on what is really going on

Juggernaut narrative of Labour antisemitism | Jews for Justice for Palestinians

I remain arguing where I came in, that there is another side to this belief that Labour is riddled with antisemitism and that the issue is very much about Politics something the article I give above gives significant information on.
 
Part 2.

You still post long articles which obfuscate the issue rather than deal with them.
The articles I provided supported what I said. You never even looked at them. You believe only Jews of one political view are concerned about antisemitism? I may assure you you are very wrong.
Nothing in what you posted deals with the very simple criminal acts of hate which the committee listed such as all the twitter posts directed at various jews.


Well no, it wouldn't because I was not dealing with that issue but rather with the reality that this is a Political issue. I watched some of that inquiry and I saw things being declared as true which I know from my reading have long since been shown not to be. Regarding tweets - well tweets are tweets and not necessarily what they seem - for instance one labour member was suspended for discussing a movie - being accused that the words spoken in the movie were theirs!! But as far as the general public's tweets are concerned do you give as much care to the disgusting tweets that Jackie Walker received about how she could not be a Jew because she was black with the most sickening cartoons and what not that she found for her mental health she had to shut her account. I am not discussing tweets at this point. My point is simply that this is a political issue masquerading as antisemitism. You are arguing this is not the truth by simply refusing to make yourself aware of the argument as to why it is. You believe if you ignore it it never was.
How you say the issue is political rather than simple antisemitic hate incidents is beyond me.


It is only beyond you because you refuse to allow yourself to become informed. Maybe on antisemitism you may be interested in what this anti Corbyn Israeli article had to say about antisemitsm in the UK

The committee commissioned its report following a rise of antisemitism in Britain. But this rise is attributed only to verbal and mainly online abuse, not to physical violence against Jews, cases of which are nearly nonexistent. By every objective parameter, except abuse online, Jews’ situation in Britain has never been better, and the committee’s very existence proves just how much antisemitism is not tolerated outside a few pockets on Labour’s far left, among the tiny neo-Nazi skinhead groups and in a few deluded student unions.


This important report points out the isolated pockets of antisemitism in Britain and helps to further marginalize them. When in France, Belgium and Denmark, Jews have been murdered, and in the United States, Donald Trump has risen as a presidential candidate openly appealing to neo-Nazis and white supremacists, it’s hard not to argue that the Jews of Britain are safer than any other community in the world.


British Parliament took a brave stance against 'goysplaining' anti-Semitism - Europe - Haaretz - Israel News | Haaretz.com




So I will leave you now - ever heard the old saying last line of which is 'he who knows not and knows not he knows not is a **** **** him ........'



You have great ignorance and with your friends reply to information with abuse. While I will give you a grade A on that, you fail on all else even at one point trying to claim I had not provided any links which dealt with the report when all I had given to that time did. I have provided sufficient information so that anyone who is interested in the situation now has an opportunity to learn more. My life is better spent with people who are capable of genuine debate - a situation where it is possible for all to learn rather than those who give into personal attacks to hide their ignorance.
 
~ You have great ignorance and with your friends reply to information with abuse. While I will give you a grade A on that, you fail on all else even at one point trying to claim I had not provided any links which dealt with the report when all I had given to that time did. I have provided sufficient information so that anyone who is interested in the situation now has an opportunity to learn more. My life is better spent with people who are capable of genuine debate - a situation where it is possible for all to learn rather than those who give into personal attacks to hide their ignorance.

And you claim I reply with abuse? I simply asked that you try a different tack in your debate. I am not wrong in showing that your tendency is to post long articles which in the past I found had little to do with the subject being discussed so I stopped bothering to engage with you. If you find that troubling or my problem - then we can go no further.
 
Back
Top Bottom