Forum menu
According to that 30pc of Labour voters are anti-semites which seems *way* OTT.
On the other hand, 40% of tories being racist seems a low ball figure.
God knows.
Those handy charts list some antisemitic tropes that you hear all the time, and aren’t all about the actions of the right wing government of Israel. Antisemitism is still rife in Britain.
I fear a 2019 update to that would have us back to 2015 figures. The last few years have seemed more toxic to me. I still “feel” that it is more prevalent with Tory voters (and more pertinently with active Tory members) but all three UK wide parties have had to deselect candidates during the current election campaign because they have made antisemitic comments.
Two other points:
1- People can be ridiculously sensitive about things. My wife was speakign to a Bolivian (I think) friend who decided that our Labour MP 'is a racist' because she didn't smile at her in the street. That is the only reason.
2- A party the size of Labour - 500,000or so members is going to have its fair share of dimwits and undesirables. You can't vet them all, only deal with things after the fact, whatever procedures you put in place. The fact that the Tories have someone as unashamedly bigotted as Johnson in charge (never mind the rest of the Tory front bench) should be a real red flag to anyone with the slightest interest in fairness and democracy but for some bizarre reason he gets a free pass.
Those handy charts list some antisemitic tropes that you hear all the time
Speak for yourself, I've honestly never heard any of those.
Well, we have one handy example in this very thread. Unless it’s been deleted. The poster even went on to claim that it’s “unlikely” they are antisemitic, despite posting antisemitic nonsense. That there is the problem.
Fair enough buddy, I've only just checked back into the thread.
One was here:
The second graph was from here:
Credible sources. 🙂
More or Less did this in the Summer:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04yk0jf
Will listen later, I'm dubious about these numbers.
EDIT: No, wrong episode. I'm sure they did it in the Summer.
More or Less did this in the Summer:
Wasn’t that about something else entirely? It was a claim that most faith hate crimes were against Jews. But it was highly dubious, to put it mildly. It just didn’t stack up at all. That’s nothing to do with he prevalence of antisemetic views held by the population, or any group of voters. I’ll listen again…
The credible source is yougov. That those websites have used the numbers is neither here nor there.
Be as dubious as you like, these are surveys of british peoples attitudes presented in black and white (well, colour, bu you get what i mean).
As for fearing that we'd be back to 2019 numbers I can see no reason for that at all other than heightened 'alert' due to the ongoing media campaign against Labour.
Yeah, hopefully people are being called out for their antisemetic views more, rather than them being more prevalent (or more public). I hope you are right.
EDIT: No, wrong episode. I’m sure they did it in the Summer.
It is the right episode… just got to this bit. They boiled it down to about 25% of people still holding an antisemetic view (back in 2015, and the data above suggests that had fallen by 2017).
Wasn’t that about something else entirely?
As I said I'd got the wrong episode. I am sure More Or Less covered AS this summer, I don't recal any of the detail but I do recall is was survey based. Google isn't helping much.
Here's some numbers from 2017 that appear to be based on similar questions:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41241353
Again there must be something missing. I can't belive that 25pc of use are a) Anti Semetic, b) Willing to pretty much admit that to a stranger on the phone.
...and then at the same time they conclude were one of the least Anti-Semetic countries!
Willing to pretty much admit that to a stranger on the phone.
Again, it’s because they think their views are not antisemetic!
Take our example in this thread…
‘Chase money’ tick
‘Too much power in the media’ tick
But say they are “unlikely” to be antisemetic.
It is the right episode… just got to this bit.
If they mention a telephone survy then it could well be. Scary that what I remember as a very recent summer (In my recollection I was driving in daylight) would have been a winter 4 years ago!
Kelvin:
Well, we have one handy example in this very thread. Unless it’s been deleted. The poster even went on to claim that it’s “unlikely” they are antisemitic, despite posting antisemitic nonsense. That there is the problem.
In fairness shouldn’t you perhaps quote what they said, as I don’t remember it being that clear cut. And you appear to be suggesting that the person is anti-Semitic, who made you judge and jury?
who made you judge and jury?
> sigh <
Read and judge for yourself.
I’m out of here.
Just perhaps a lot of jewish people own large companies,which Mr Corbyn will be hopefully taxing more, to pay for more services that need more help. They have a huge tax bill looming and are coordinating a huge uprising against him, supported by the media…
who made you judge and jury?
> sigh <
Read and judge for yourself. I’m out of here.
Just perhaps a lot of jewish people own large companies,which Mr Corbyn will be hopefully taxing more, to pay for more services that need more help. They have a huge tax bill looming and are coordinating a huge uprising against him, supported by the media…
I read that, perhaps naively as ‘some owners of large companies...’ and the Jewish part of the statement as poorly worded speculation. Having never been on the receiving end of hate speech it is perhaps difficult for me to see things the same way as you, but it does not appear as clear cut as your assertion that the poster is anti-Semitic.
It's the implications in it, it's implying that Jews are well off, own businesses, don't like paying taxes and control the media.
All of which are good old-fashioned anti semetic tropes.
I think I’m doing a worse job than usual of posting clearly/coherently, so it should probably be me who takes time out. Apologies for any offence.
A party the size of Labour – 500,000or so members is going to have its fair share of dimwits and undesirables. You can’t vet them all,
I joined the Labour party a few years ago and didn't get asked any questions about whether I was a racist. Once a member I could spout all sort of racist shit wherever I wanted. The Labour party issue is that I should have be ejected if I did so. No if, no buts - it is not a human right to be a member of a political party so just cancel the membership immediately.
Not sure if this happens but guessing it doesn't.
More or Less did this in the Summer:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04yk0jfWill listen later, I’m dubious about these numbers.
I was right first time. More Or Less FTW, once again.
It's the first segment so you get right to it.
Yes, she’s of historical note as the first female MP
Wrong, that was Constance Markievicz of Sinn Fein who, in line with party policy, never took her seat in Westminster. Won Dublin St Patrick's in 1918 from Holloway.
Nobody will give a shit about any anti semitism now the election is done. It won't ever get mentioned again in the press.
Nobody will give a shit about any anti semitism now the election is done. It won’t ever get mentioned again in the press.
That's a really strong point.
Yeah, Labour can fill their boots with antisemitism now they have no chance of seizing power. They're irrelevant.
Good article. I'm certainly not going to tar a huge demographic with the same brush but a decent proportion of these Corbyn hating Tory voting working class are xenophobes or racists, and yet they'd never vote for him because he's an antisemite. There was a heated discussion the other day on a friends facebook where a few of these creatures felt empowered to crawl out of the woodwork, one comment was along the lines "Corbyn scum haha, great now all these dirty *ers can * off back home lol." So I asked him if Corbyn being an antisemite is one of the reasons he hated him so much? "Yes, and many other things". The ignorance is astounding.
It's a new right wing trick to win votes. Call anyone that speaks out against the Israeli government's terrorism an antisemite. Trump's started doing it to Bernie. A jew who's parents fled the holocaust. They had a lucky escape. Larry Sanders told me all about it when we spent a week together on Iona with others at a Conference.
Larry Sanders told me all about it when we spent a week together on Iona with others at a Conference.
You spent a week with Larry Sanders, very envious.
Nobody will give a shit about any anti semitism now the election is done. It won’t ever get mentioned again in the press.
You do wonder whether some on here actually have any interest in mtb or even have any bikes.
Anti-semitism definitely cost them the election.
https://twitter.com/TheUriGeller/status/1206520912884969473
If they sort things out now, in five years they can get a magic spoon that was once licked by Golda Meir.
https://www.thejc.com/comment/columnists/don-t-fall-for-bogus-claims-of-islamophobia-1.494367
oh the ironing
Is this the kind of thing that is considered antisemitic?
https://twitter.com/ma000111/status/1207247222074679296
and yet they’d never vote for him because he’s an antisemite
They didn't vote for him because he didn't have enough political nous to say "sorry". It demonstrated how inept he was.
Would you apologise for something you didn't do? Asking for an apology is a trope for an admission of guilt, 'tropes' are all about putting words in others' mouths to call them out and shut them up, like M Phillips.
I used to have regular meetings with FoI and gradually as I discovered the mindset and modus operandi I was appalled. Phrases like 'all ethnic groups compete' shocked me having sat on countless interview panels where the last thing on my mind was advantaging someone's application because of their particular ethnic group or engaging in ethnic cleansing.
I do wish someone would produce some evidence of who, when, where, what did they say. With modern technology it shouldn't be difficult, if the evidence is there.
Would you apologise for something you didn’t do?
He would be apologising as Labour Leader rather than as JC, so it's just part of the job.
As a leader I'd still want evidence, that's part of the job.
They didn’t vote for him because he didn’t have enough political nous to say “sorry”. It demonstrated how inept he was.
Exactly, I think Corbyn's downfall he as so anti-establishment that he was disconnected how it looked to voters on the fence, and as well put in the left supporting press (many articles from the Guardian), he should have actually resigned to give Labour and the country a chance to not have the next 5 years under conservative rule. It's not only Anti Semitism where he proved too stubborn for office, he refused to condone the IRA.
Imagine if he'd apologised a couple of years ago, he might have won the election, but as a result he got what he deserved and unfortunately the country has to be a victim to his ideological, politically immature selfishness.
Yes, he was useless at dealing with things. Any decent leader would have sorted out the problem very quickly.
- Put processes in place and make them visible (especially to media)
- Apologise for any issues caused
- Ask for any future issues to be highlighted to the leader so he can review that processes are working correctly
Instead of that he skirted around the issue until a few days before election where he sort of apologised in an f'ing Philip Schofield interview of all places.
I am actually not convinced it made much difference to the vote as majority of people don't actually care (they voted Tory so can't care) but it did distract many interviews away from what should have been the topics pushed by Corbyn
He apologised last year. He apologised earlier this year. Labour remains the only political party with an actual process to deal with complaints (of all sorts).
Corbyn is a ****, but he's not racist or antisemitic. This is 100% about Israel, not Jews.
That's an uncontroversial view held by a sizeable section of the intellectual labour-supporting jewry who think Israel is an apartheid state. - it's difficult to call them antisemitic as it means calling them self-haters.
Lets separate this out for what it is. I give zero shits about Labour. I think racism and antisemitism are terribad. I don't think - but can clearly see - that Israel is an inherently racist, violent human-rights abuser and murderous state and our continued protection of it should shame us.
he refused to condone the IRA.
I absolutely refuse to condone the IRA too.
Also, what he said ☝🏼
Corbyn is a ****, but he’s not racist or antisemitic.
Yep, but some of the members are, which was the problem. He didn't look as though he was dealing with it well and didn't have the media awareness to even pretend he was.
some of the members are
Evidence for this? You can't just keep repeating these vile tropes without naming names. Go on, dare ya.
he refused to condone the IRA
Even if you use the right word that’s not actually true.
Evidence for this? You can’t just keep repeating these vile tropes without naming names. Go on, dare ya.
Where have you been for the last 3 years. There is loads of evidence of AS crap from members.
Not surprising as just because somebody is a labour member it doesn't mean they can't be racist and no party will ever be 100% pure.
Again, the thing that Corbyn failed to portray that it was a minority, it was being dealt with and he was sorry for any issues that his parties members were causing others. He needed more help on how to deal with that aspect handling the media.
Obviously I meant Corybn hasn't condemned the IRA.
Chevychase, the problem with the way you and many people express their thoughts about the situation in Israel is how it's worded, and as a politician Corybn has failed at this.
A person might be critical is American politics, so they cite issues with Trump. You might have concerns with the far right in Brazil and criticise Jair Bolsonaro. When a person is accused of being anti-semitic with their views on the situation in Israel, it's because it's worded as criticising an entire country rather than the ruling party and their leader.
If you were to say all Americans are racist Mexican haters who support supplying weapons for those to shoot school children for fun and they don't deserve to exist, you would be xenophobic. Somehow wording it this way about Israel is not seen as racist, but it is.
he refused to condone the IRA.
Freudian Slip?
I meant Corybn hasn’t condemned the IRA.
Right word but still incorrect.
Still talking about IRA and Corbyn? Yawn.
Talk about Maria Gatland and the Tories for a change. You know for evidenced based connection between a Tory and actually being a member of the IRA.
It will also be interesting when a new Labour leader is selected (assuming they have no anti Israel history and no talking to terrorists at any point) how much of an issue there will be for Labour in the future. I would imagine very little.
@solamanda - I roundly condemn this in the strongest terms as emotional unevidenced bull:
Chevychase, the problem with the way you and many people express their thoughts about the situation in Israel is how it’s worded, and as a politician Corybn has failed at this.
Tell me exactly how there is a problem with the "wording" of this, which is what you've responded to:
Israel is an inherently racist, violent human-rights abuser and murderous state and our continued protection of it should shame us.
...
Explicit condemnation of Israel. Not a whiff of antisemitism.
The problem isn't the way that the vast majority of people word their criticism of Israel - it's that there's a powerful, well-funded, pro-Israel lobby that are doing their level best to (with incredible success) conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. And it means large swathes of our population aren't able to hold an adult discussion about the horrors that Israel inflicts - so Israel gets away with it.
Antisemites exist. Big deal. That's a totally separate issue.
Yep, but some of the members are, which was the problem. He didn’t look as though he was dealing with it well and didn’t have the media awareness to even pretend he was.
He could hardly have handled it worse from a PR point of view other than maybe saying 'yeah, so what?'.
At best he showed complete indifference to the whole issue, at worst tacit approval. He was strung up by his own indifference, provided his own noose and tree and all the media had to do was pull...
He was a walking PR disaster from start to finish.
Israel is an inherently racist, violent human-rights abuser and murderous state and our continued protection of it should shame us.
May be better to say "the government of Israel" rather then just "Israel" which implies the people living there are human rights abusers and murderers. While they are largely complicit by electing who they do they can't all be called that.
Israel is an inherently racist, violent human-rights abuser and murderous state and our continued protection of it should shame us.
May be better to say “the government of Israel” rather then just “Israel” which implies the people living there are human rights abusers and murderers. While they are largely complicit by electing who they do they can’t all be called that.
That is not the way people talk about countries. I’m not saying I agree with what chevychase has said, but it was clear what he meant.
He could hardly have handled it worse from a PR point of view other than maybe saying ‘yeah, so what?’.
go on then, tell us how he could have handled it and got a favourable reaction from daily fail, murdochs climate deniers, the express, the barclay brothers gammons utd. They found a stick to beat him with and there was nothing he could say or do would stop them beating.
Absolutely clear:
Israel is an inherently racist, violent human-rights abuser and murderous state.
Not even 'Israelis are murderous arseholes' (which still isn't antisemitic as not all Israelis are jews any more than all the brits are christian) - but explicitly state.
Get yer heads out of your arse. It IS the 'way people talk about countries' - just not Israel, because they shout "JEW HATER" at anyone who even hints at criticism.
The problem the Labour Party has with antisemitism is exactly the same as the problem UEFA has with racism
They both have a glaringly obvious problem with it, but neither express any remotely serious intention to acknowledge it, let alone address it
So in the same way that when black players are faced with monkey chants, UEFA shrugs and issues the offending team with some cursory, derisory fine, and considers the matter done, Jeremy Corbyn did the same as Jewish labour MPs are hounded out of the party and the Corbynista’s pile in with vile, abusive antisemitism online. As well as their misogynistic sexism of course - it all goes hand in hand.
All with total impunity as ‘the leadership’ demonstrates their collective disinterest in the whole subject.
Failure to address the issue properly is basically just a tacit endorsement. A nod.
Carry on...
Move along now... nothing to see here
Chevychase have a +1.
Sorry, haven't the thread but it's the internet so here's my take. Israel is a Jewish state, any criticism of Israel is a criticism of Jews and therefore anti-semitic. So, to be pro-semitic (is that a thing?) you have to be in favour of Israeli troops shooting stone throwing Palestinians, or the settlement of occupied lands, etc, whilst condemning anything the Palestinians do.
Then you've got the chief rabbi congratulating his "long standing friend" on becoming leader of the Tories whilst at the same time condemning Labour as being anti-semitic and the whole lot being repeated by the right wing Tory supporting press. Really??
There is no more a problem with anti-semitism with the membership than the general population at large.
It's a red herring in terms of a practical debate. Designed to keep the attention away from the Tories.
Noam Chomsky (whom I consider slightly more of a heavy weight than some of the tabloid analysis...) has just done a decent interview on this subject.
It's just another reason to take apart Labour. The report is disproportionate to the issue; certainly when compared to other types of racism.
It feels like Labour take all the flak for everything they stand for these days which is repeated ad infinitum without scrutiny and it's a wonder why they don't get elected. People like Jonathan Freedland quite clearly have an agenda to use this a battering ram. This is despite the fact they are by far the most socially progressive party we have.
Absurd.
It feels like Labour take all the flak for everything they stand for these days which is repeated ad infinitum without scrutiny and it’s a wonder why they don’t get elected
That has always been the case and that is exactly why you need to be better at dealing with it. Corbyn and his current advisors were clearly awful at dealing with it. I could seriously have done a better job in the interviews.
go on then, tell us how he could have handled it and got a favourable reaction from daily fail, murdochs climate deniers, the express, the barclay brothers gammons utd. They found a stick to beat him with and there was nothing he could say or do would stop them beating.
I would use data. Data was very lacking throughout all of this. Number of cases raised, number of cases dealt with, elapsed time in dealing with each case until resolution etc,.
Assuming any plan to tackle it worked I would then be able to show a decrease in number of cases along with a higher speed of response and resolution. I could also then do a comparison with labour party members versus general population, tory party etc,. to show that Labour had a lesser problem than elsewhere.
I would use data
how well does data work with the right wing press and anthropogenic climate change ?
They used data, they apologised repeatedly over 18 months, they're they only party with a formal process, the leader was a lifelong anti-racist campaigner (incompetent, yes, but not a racist).
Labour went to extraordinary lengths to combat this, but data or apologies (multiple explicit apologies were ignored) were going to do nothing - and indeed could never do anything.
Antisemitism is an emotional rallying cry to the voting public - a bedrock of shit which other shit can be piled on to justify disliking a candidate or party regardless of the arguments they make. Nothing Corbyn could do, ever, could stop those accusations. Ever.
When we talk about the United States politics being paralyzed ny their powerful Israel lobby you can now see it here. It's always been here - but we've never had a pro-palestine candidate at the helm of an electable party before.
It's a ****ing joke - and shame on those of you who've fallen for it.
Sorry, haven’t the thread but it’s the internet so here’s my take. Israel is a Jewish state, any criticism of Israel is a criticism of Jews and therefore anti-semitic. So, to be pro-semitic (is that a thing?) you have to be in favour of Israeli troops shooting stone throwing Palestinians, or the settlement of occupied lands, etc, whilst condemning anything the Palestinians do.
I assume then, that you consider being pro Christian or Pro British to mean in favour of killing brown people in the Middle East?
Because not all Jews hold the same opinion about the direction of the Israeli state.
Oh and I agree with Binners et al, the evidence for labours antisemitism
is quite clear - and the people who deny it are always the ones that without fail, make anti-semitic comments like the one quoted above.
@raybanwomble - I think you failed to comprehend the meaning of that post.
Context. Don't take that bit in isolation.
Context is all...
They used data, they apologised repeatedly over 18 months, they’re they only party with a formal process, the leader was a lifelong anti-racist campaigner (incompetent, yes, but not a racist).
Well I didn't see it so they didn't do a great job of presenting it did they?
Did Corbyn mention the they have had 673 cases since April 2018 (who many people were actually expelled) and that was 0.1% of the members in any of his interviews?
Did Corbyn apologise at any time prior to the Schofield interview? Again I didn'tsee it if he did.
Labour went to extraordinary lengths to combat this, but data or apologies (multiple explicit apologies were ignored) were going to do nothing – and indeed could never do anything.
Simply not true. Corbyn did not go to extraordinary lengths at all, he fact he completely screwed it up in all the interviews I saw him in (which is pretty much all of them). I notice you keep saying Labour did this, Labour did that. They may well have done things but Corbyn didn't which i the problem here, it appeared HE wasn't in control of it or portraying the scale of it or what HE was doing about it.
And remember, I actually like Corbyn for his integrity and what he stands for and I agree they don't have an AS problem. That doesn't mean he didn't make a complete hash of being a leader over the last 2 years though...
Corbyn is a ****, but he’s not racist or antisemitic.
I, like most people don't think Corbyn is anti Semitic, but the investigation by the ECHR isn't about Corbyn (or any other individual for that matter), it's about whether the Labour party as an institution is. Like the Lawrence inquiry into the the Met when it found that it was Institutionally racist. It's not about individuals it's about whether the party as an institution has policies or acts in a way that disadvantages Jewish members.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (not European Court of Human Rights) that Labour set up in the first place, you mean.
I'd be astonished if it found against labour. Especially as they have instituted a process.
There'll be criticism, of course, but at least they have an auditable process - unlike other parties that aren't even being audited.
Yup. A big part of what Corbyn failed to deal with was the ridiculous double standards- Tories insisting Labour sign up to the IHRA definition when the Tories hadn't themselves frinstance. Or the current absolute fiasco of the Tory islamophobia "enquiry". He did try- the constant "we reject all forms of racism" frinstance- but he always did it in a way that could only work if everyone involved was actually fairminded and open, which of course was daft.
It’s speeches like that that made me really like JC. It’s his singular failure to make (or at least project into the public domain) any speeches like that in the last few years that made me despair of him.
No place for gentle, reasonable, nice people at the top of politics. Loud and nasty always overwhelms and grabs public attention.
Jonathan Pie for PM?