AIBU - problems with antisemitism amongst NHS medical staff?

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.

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

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, 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’.

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.

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

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.

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

😂😂 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.

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.

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….

Well its a hypothetical isnt it. As to whether a crime occurred. Because its MN and we don't know if anything is true.

But assuming it did (the doctor was found to be guilty of trying to kill the patient for example) the victim's perception of racisim will upgrade the original crime to a hate crime. And the perpetrator will get extra time. If the victim felt it, the law says it is therefore a hate crime. Subjective rather than objective view.

Presumably you agree with me that law is open to abuse.

Its not "sounding more lawyerly". Its just a general approach that you can just tell.

Yes assuming it was established a crime had taken place, with the relevant intent etc, then yes it would likely be a hate crime. I don’t disagree with you in that.

The problem with that is there is a lot of assumptions and no actual evidence except PP’s feeling which PP herself admitted was due only to the religion of the doctor. That was my original point, which hasn’t changed.

Well obviously. Its MN. We aren't putting anyone on trial.

But that feeling of the victim is relevant if a crime had been committed. And she says she did feel it.

IF a crime has been committed. That’s not the same as a crime being committed because she feels it has. It sounds like splitting hairs, but it is a really important distinction, especially for the doctor who should be presumed innocent unless there is evidence- other than her religion - to the contrary. Again, a justice basic. We can’t go around assuming guilt based on religion.

You edited to add this:

Its not "sounding more lawyerly". Its just a general approach that you can just tell.

I would be curious to understand in what way you consider my “general approach” not be that of a lawyer so you can “just” tell. If we see concluding anything here it is that you can’t “just” tell - based on someone’s religion or the way they post on mumsnet. In fact doing that is based in internal biases rather than fact. Arguably not a usual approach of an officer or the courts.

No I don't think so. Mainly because I don't have the time or inclination. I just didnt want to leave your post unanswered (sort of..not much of an answer obviously).

Or just to get in a last insult….

But that’s fine, luckily mumsnet is outside my work remit and doesn’t have anything to do with my professional competence.

In case you are interested, I’m unsurprised you are a lawyer, your posts and tone reflect quite a lot of lawyer stereotypes.

But if Palestinians hate Israelis (and the events of Oct 7 show that they do) then there is no hope of a one state solution. Even a two state solution is a stretch as Palestinians are likely to continue to attack a people that they hate. The hate has been building up and fermenting for many decades.

There really isn't any satisfactory solution to the conflict.

Muslims are creating a climate of fear for Jewish people? What all of them?

Is it far to say that Jews are creating a climate of fear for Muslims just because some British Jews fund terrorism, go to Gaza and slaughter Muslims etc? I mean how are Muslims supposed to know which British Jews are just back from sniping children just like theirs in Gaza or which ones are sending money for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the West Bank? That must be pretty scary, is it fair to blame all Jews for the actions of some though and say that Jews are creating of fear?

Jews are not creating a climate of fear for Muslims in the UK. It's synagogues and Jewish schools where people have to organise their own security.

The bitterness of middle east conflicts shouldn't be brought to the UK. That's a disaster for this country, and especially for the Jews who live here, as Muslims outnumber Jews about 12:1 at the moment and rising.

The far right is though.

That analogy doesn't work. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has nothing to do with religion. Both nations are predominantly Eastern Orthodox Christian, so why would anyone assume Russians were killed because of their faith?

The Russian Orthodox Church is a religious institution, whereas Judaism is both an ethnicity and a faith.

When someone viciously attacks and celebrates the slaughter of ordinary civilians, their hatred clearly goes far beyond a hatred of a state.

Ukrainians must have quite strong feelings towards Russia (to put it mildly), yet their military focus remains on defending their territory and striking strategic targets, rather than hunting down Russian teenagers and families.

Israel is the only Jewish state, and celebrating the deadliest attack on Jewish people since the Holocaust inherently spills into antisemitism.

You were the one who brought it up an an analogy.

Are you now suddenly claiming Israel and Jews are the same thing? Because you can’t have it both ways.

Do Palestinians agree this is a religious conflict, or to do with two nations and territorial sovereignty?

A lot of people believe that Palestinians have been viciously attacked and slaughtered as well. By Israel (or are you alleging by Jews? Wonder if all Jews would be comfortable with that statement), for many decades.