AIBU - problems with antisemitism amongst NHS medical staff?

Neither would I.

but I also wouldn’t conclude that the people that did were prejudice against the orthodox Christian Church. I would conclude they hated Russia.

You can hate Israelis without hating Jews. The two aren’t the same. Still not great obviously and not something I’d condone, as I’ve said numerous times now but which you just seem to ignore….

Celebrating the deaths of 1,200+ people implies hating those people, not just the country. And yes, I’d wager a guess it’s fuelled by antisemitism.

Fwiw, I find the actions of the current Russian government abhorrent, but I wouldn’t dream of celebrating the deaths of Russian civilians.

😂😂 ok, I will do my best to sound more lawyery in mumsnet 🙄

i understand the law and what you are trying to explain. I just don’t agree there is any evidence of a crime at all, so the hate crime element doesn’t even come into it. It’s not about a defence, it’s about the evidencing a crime at all. If you are a lawyer too, I am sure you know this and an accusation does not in of itself create a crime, even if the person making the accusation thinks it is one due to perceived discrimination, especially one like attempted murder. This is criminal law basics. But we are going around in circles here….. or should I say “notwithstanding the foregoing” instead of but, just so you might believe I’m a lawyer? I’ll brush up on my Latin for the next one.

Really not sure what point you are trying to make here.

The doctor would certainly have a defence to the accusation of a hate crime. But the issue with the law as drafted is that its the victims subjective opinion that the crime was motivated by hate that is the relevant part. The doctor will have to rebut that.

Apologies for suggesting you aren't qualified. I can usually detect other lawyers on MN quite easily but missed it witb your posts.

I did. In another post. I can’t copy and paste everything I’ve written directly to you.

I understand the law. And I am, want a copy of my practice certificate. I am not invested enough to lie.

my point is that the elements that create a hate crime presupposes a crime. You said the same yourself. The fact is there I nothing to indicate a crime has taken place, other than PP’s suspicions based on nothing other than the religions of her and her doctor.

it’s like if there was a car accident. Let’s assume I am white (this is just illustrative without involving Jews and Muslims). I find out the driver is black. I then allege that the black driver was trying to kill me. I think this because I am personally of the view, perhaps due to some personal experiences I have had in the past, that black people hate white peoples and want to harm them. If it was established the other driver was trying to kill me and it wasn’t just a car accident then the way I felt would be relevant. However me just feeling that it wasn’t an accident because the other driver was black, and I think black people are out to hurt me (however justified that feeling may or may not be), doesn’t all of a sudden transform that car accident to a hate crime, or indeed a crime at all. People might also accuse me of being racist by accusing the black driver of attempted murder just because he was black.

that’s the entire point I am trying to make.

Well, then it would be helpful if you quoted the comment you were referring to.
The one you quoted above does say (amongst other things) ‘Palestinians are taught from birth to hate Jews’.

It is. Although still not automatically antisemitism is it? It’s about hating Israel, not Jews. Although, as I already said, I do not condone or support celebrating or encouraging violence in either direction, and I think those comments are just as problematic (again, in either direction).

Well I'm not sure you are. Because if you were you would understand the law. And you would understand exactly what I mean.

Depends on what someone means by ‘anti-Israel’.
Criticising actions of the Israeli government is one thing, celebrating a terror attack on Israel (as referenced by OP in their first post) is another.

😂😂I’m a lawyer. But sure, because I don’t agree with you I must simply not understand. I agree though, let’s leave it there.

Ok lets leave it there. I appreciate you may not understand the law which is perfectly OK. Particularly when it is a very peculiar law.

Sorry, do you set the rules on how people may or may not respond to an op? I set out my opinion, which is what it is at face value.

This is what you said (no need to write it all again, you can just copy+paste it, just like I just did):

‘Hmm, I don’t like the celebration of 7/10 or encouraging people to hurt someone’s relative, but being anti the genocide is a perfectly normal and reasonable political view. As long as the comments are online and not said to their patients I don’t see what the issues are. Being anti genocide or even anti Israel’s current government and its policies is not in of itself antisemitism.’

It’s not quite clear which exact online comments you deem acceptable, because the ones OP mentioned do include celebrations of October 7th.

There is no need to address every single one of OP’s comments, her first post makes it quite clear that it’s not people expressing legitimate criticism of Israel she’s concerned about.

But whether is a hate crime or not is irrelevant if there is no crime at all. Which, as far as I can tell there isn’t? So while I agree that IF this doctor was found to have poisoned PP on purpose then, yes it would be a hate crime. But based on what we know the only “evidence” we have of that is that the doctor was Muslim and PP is Jewish. If there is no crime all that ⬆️is irrelevant…..

I don’t know how to explain if differently either.

I think youre referring to the comment that Palestinian children are taught to hate Jews which is evidenced by the report by the international research group Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-se) .

I think you are trying to extrapolate the comment to your own view that what was said was all Palestinian children hate Jews which is not the same thing and not what was said.

Clearly your experience of professional behaviour, if you have some, and mine are wildly convergent.

Im not sure how to explain differently. I don't think you need to understand law particularly.

The poster said she thought she had been attacked by a doctor (we don't know if that is true as there hasn't been a conviction presumably)

If there did turn out to be a conviction and the doctor was found guilty of assault or attempted murder then the judge might then examine whether the crime was a hate crime.

This is described as a crime "perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice regarding protected characteristics."

If the crime of attempted murder (say) was found by the judge to he motivated by hostility to a protected characteristic (ie becuase the victim was a Jew) then the judge would consider this an aggravating factor and add to the sentence.

The law states that to determine whether the perpetrator was hostile to the victim due to racism (or whatever) the judge needs to determine whether the victim felt it was. This is a subjective rather than objective view.

This means that if the victim felt the crime was motivated by racisim then the judge must rule it a hate crime and add a few more years to the sentence. More than if it was a simple attempt at murdering your husband or something.

It is a stupid law in my opinion. Exactly as you say you think the victims view is due to prejudice against Muslims. But unfortunately its the victims viewpoint that makes it a hate crime.

And that’s not the comment I was referring to.

Someone on here mentioned that children in Gaza and the West Bank are exposed to antisemitic content in schools.

That is an observation of a documented, state-sponsored curriculum, not a random claim. Independent international audits confirm that this unified curriculum contains antisemitic tropes, erases Israel from maps, and glorifies violence.

I’m afraid I don’t understand your point then. You our point was:

“But the poster felt that a potential hate crime had occurred because of her religion and that of who she felt was attacking her. And it's her subjective viewpoint that is relevant.”

my point was it’s a serious allegation to make based on nothing except the doctors faith, which is in itself therefore an Islamophobic assumption. Because it is entirely based on prejudice against Muslims.

Yes that wasnt really the point I was making?

We dont know a crime took place.

We do know the poster thought it was due to hostility to protected characteristics which she has if she is Jewish. So any crime found will necessarily be aggravated by that fact.

I didn't claim to at any point. You're the person insisting on speaking for all about what poppies represent. We either are making policy based on the feelings and perceptions of patients or we aren't, is your real concern patient distress and comfort or not?.