Opinion piece in newspaper -RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: The only purpose of these endless marches is to intimidate British Jews.

[floodlightonwhatisright]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12878659/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-marches-intimidate-British-Jews-tolerate-hatred-streets.html

He raises some interesting ideas.

Gaslighting.

Where I am is none of your business. Also, any chance of actually engaging with what was said in that post - why someone felt emboldened enough to come on this thread and state the following.

"It’s a small minority who are verbally and physically aggressive to Jewish people"

No one was characterising anti semitism as hot air.

I mean, it's literally upthread in black in white.

So are your posts trying to blame antisemitism - not on antisemites - but an actual anti-racism charity that exists to support Jewish victims of antisemitism. Because apparently they're just a political front. The true enemies of peace is how I think you put it? Basically, Jews.

The gaslighting on here is repulsive.

hellsteeth I am not asking for an address.
Just bit of the country.
It is relevant with regard to core issue and your garnering of facts on the marches.
So have you witnessed any of these marches?

Please quote the post upthread in case I missed it,

Oh it's that poster.

and PS, of course anti semitism exists.
feel free to quote where I have said that anti-semitism is not a thing.
In view of some other posts on this topic, without swearing please.

Fucksake.

I also feel for those Jewish people who are triggered by the marches. None of this is contradictory - just uncomfortable - but goes with living in a democracy.

@Polka83 antisemitism comes with democracy?

@noblegiraffe yep that one.

Shutting down Zara is similar behaviour to boycotting Nestlé and shaming anyone who doesn’t, standing outside Marie Stopes clinics handing out anti-abortion leaflets, standing outside schools handing out anti-vaccine literature, gluing yourself to a motorway, etc. It is not a necessary part of marching for a cause, is patently not the aim of the march itself but a sideline further action of some of those involved to indicate the strength and extent of their personal opinion, and is likely to be counterproductive in terms of public opinion in any event. As the majority of people being booed outside McDonalds or put off going into Zara are unlikely to be Jewish, it isn’t obviously antisemitic, however.

I didn’t say it was antisemitic. I agree that it is counterproductive, and I would also say intimidating.

Yes, of course intimidating, as is being handed an anti-abortion leaflet outside Marie Stopes, or being told it is unacceptable to drink Nescafé or eat a Kit Kat, or being caught up in any large crowd filled with people whose intent you are not 100% certain of, whether coming out of a football stadium, celebrating New Year, or taking part in a protest march. That’s why police are always present at all of these events. Some people seem to believe they will influence political opinion by telling people where to shop, or trying to shame them for behaving in ways they disagree with, but it more often than not results in more entrenched positions when the action is clearly picking on individuals, rather than directed towards the powers that be.

I have said there are limits to free speech if you read my posts carefully and this includes antisemitism.

A comment like that doesn't deserve a more reasoned response

We can all understand just how funked up that comment was

Are you suggesting it is a reasonable comment to make and a reasonable response to the fact there are people on these marches that want to verbally and physically harm myself and my children?

Is this you defending and being an apologist for such comment and beliefs that if only a minority that is fine then?

Would you say this irregard to violent verbal or physical conduct directed at all other minority groups?

If they are people on those marches who want to harm other people those people should be dealt with, the right to protest shouldn’t be taken away from others. Remember the far right groups wanting to join the Pro Israeli marches, they too want to harm all Muslims. The daily mail that keeps getting mentioned in this thread wants is both racist and islamophobic but we have to tolerate it for freedom of speech.

At the moment I am far less concerned about the marches themselves and far more concerned about why some people feel the need to minimise verbal and physical violence towards Jewish people. There are far more apologists and people that deny the problem with some of these marches than fuckwits behaving this way. The fuckwits get away with it because organisers and apologists minimise and deny the problem. I don't mind marches and agree with free speech. I just think people should force out some of the organisers that are know for hate speech against Jewish people, zero tolerance of verbal or physical violence should be a must and antisemitism obviously should be zero. Unless these things happen these will be called hate marches or protests by the general public and that doesn't exactly help people in Gaza. So what is the point of them. It wouldn't take much to clean up the protests if people actually wanted to support the cause properly, however I don't see that a sizeable percentage are interest in much other than causing upset to others.

I'll repost this from earlier.

Surely the only possible response to the above list is "yeah, fair enough"?

I wonder which regular poster has changed their name as this is a relatively new username to be wading in here.

There should be zero tolerance towards verbal and physical aggression.
I am not sure the police can go against the organisers or indeed anyone else if there has been no crime committed. Hence Suella Braverman’s row with the Met.

I agree with all of that apart from the river to the sea, I think that slogan means different things to different people and isn’t hate speech. However the police already crack down on all those other things, it’s the job of the police really not civilians.

Your list seems to cover all reasonable changes to me

I do still think the avoidance of an ex Hamas member as an organiser on at least one of the marches would have made sense. Plus there was a list of 5 other know Jew haters that were organisers on other marches. These were not people thought to be Jew haters but people where video evidence etc of them saying some horrible stuff about Jews (not Israel or Israelis) was known before the marches. Therefore if people want the marches to be taken as a ceasefire or peace march then bar these people like we barred Tommy Robinson and the EDL from the antisemitism march.

But if the aim is to make Jews feel less anxious about the marches, then in the bin River to the Sea goes.

Would from the river to the sea be better if Palestine was changed to Palestinians, maybe?