AIBU - problems with antisemitism amongst NHS medical staff?

If you can’t see the issue with the accusation then I am not sure I can explain it to you.

if you fancy a bit of critical thinking you could try swap out “Muslim” with any other discriminated group (and obviously do the same on the other circumstances to make it fit)- black, gay, even Jewish - just to see how the allegation lands.

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. If she felt it was a racist then it was. We all know this.

On the other hand it may just have been a young doctor's error which is probably more likely but we just don't know.

Sorry wait. PP thought this Muslim doctor purposely poisoned her essentially. And you think because that’s what she felt then that’s true? We aren’t talking about the experience of racism, we are talking about an allegation of a serious crime.

It’s not ‘extremely serious’ to talk about a scary medical incident on an anonymous chat forum and wonder if there might have been some nefarious intent behind it.
I completely disagree when the intent alluded to was because the doctor was muslim and they were jewish, that is an extremely serious suggestion and could easily have negative connotaions for muslim health care workers and jewish patients. No one knows who is reading these forums and what that type of assumption may enocurage them to do.

No. Not that it's true. An allegation of a hate crime. Unfortunately this is the current law.

"Any criminal offence perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice regarding protected characteristics."

That might be true, but I still think the real threat to trust between Jewish patients and Muslim healthcare workers isn't an anonymous forum post, but the fact that medical professionals have actually been caught posting antisemitic and anti-Israel comments online.

A Jewish patient wondering about potential bias when they experience a dangerous medical error is a consequence of that, not the cause.

Who said "Palestinians hate Jews"?

If you quote the post then it's easier to understand what you are referring to because I honestly don't remember anyone saying Palestinians hate Jews.

You are missing the first bit. Establishing a criminal offence. Medical negligence isn’t a criminal offence. Attempted murder required intent. It fails at the frist hurdle. A criminal offence didn’t take place just because PP felt it did. Can you imagine the chaos of the legal system if that’s how it worked 😂😂

Yes I assumed you realised that the fact a crime such as assault or attempted murder had taken place would need to be proven first. Obviously.

The hate crime laws meams that if the victim perceived the perpetrator to have been motivated by hostility to a protected characteristic. This means it is an aggravated offence and thd sentence will be longer.

Yes it is a rubbish law as it depends on thd subjective opinion of the victim. Which isnt great.

Yes its not a useful analogy really. It doesn't compare like for like.

I don't think you can speak for the Northern Irish as a whole obviously regarding their views on poppies.

But focusing on poppies and getting agitated about the thought of them is a useful distraction from the issue on this thread.

But we don’t know a crime took place at all? The PP just said she felt it had for no other reason than the fact the doctor was Muslim.

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.

Well they said Palestinians hate Jews, as that’s the way they are brought up. That’s pretty much saying that just by being Palestinians they are antisemitic is it not? “Hating Jews” is antisemitism is it not?!

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 and this is the problem. You don't understand about basic professional behaviour.

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

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.

No, you are trying to paraphrase what I said into something I did not say. I can’t type it out again, it’s boring. Read what I said and take it at face value. There’s nothing more to it. I am ever so sorry if I didn’t address every single point of the OP or the 400nor so comments since when u expressed my very simple opinion.

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.

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.