EHRC report investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party

[FindTheTruth]

Published just now:

EHRC Investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party
www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/investigation-antisemitism-labour-party

@xxyzz I’m certainly not a TRA, nor am I trying to stir up trouble.

Perhaps you could say exactly what I’ve said that that you think makes me a racist.

I’ve pointed out that according to the Report the supposed effect of Livingstone’s action was that it “was humiliating, denied the victims’ experience, diminished the issue, had the effect of stirring up and fuelling hatred for Jews and contributed to the creation of a hostile and intimidating environment for Jewish Labour Party members.”; and that this is exactly the sort of wording that TRA’s use to describe the supposed effect on trans people when a woman says that biological males can't be women.

I don’t know what you mean when you say that I’ve suggested that “the real victim here is the anti-Semitic cabal who used to rule Labour”.

Maybe you’re referring to my scepticism about Ken Livingstone’s supposed antisemitiism? That’s something we could reasonably disagree about without you telling me to fuck off.

Absolutely shocking that these sorts of vile racists can be so overt on MN.

Even after Corbyn's grim supporters have been excoriated by the EHRC.

Truly these Holocaust deniers and Jew-haters have no shame.

To be clear, the kind of gaslighting howard97A is undertaking is akin to when TRAs claim that women are bigots for not calling Karen White a woman and welcoming 'her' into women's prisons.

Well, sunshine, women aren't the bigots then for calling out the misogyny, and Jews aren't the bigots here either for calling out Ken Livingstone's

• and your - anti-Semitism.

TRAs are misogynist. Ken Livingstone and anyone who supports his views on Jews are anti-Semites.

HTH.

If you don't accept Israel has a right to exist you are an antisemite

When you say Israel’s right to exist should not be questioned, what boundaries are you using? Do you think they have a right to exist across the whole of Jerusalem? Gaza Strip? Do you think the settlers have a right to land in the East Bank? Do you think those objecting to settlements are simply antisemetic if they do not give up their land?

Two state solution, dear.

@Aesopfable , this is a democratic discussion they have in Israel. What with it being a parliamentary democracy. Flawed, as is ours, but still a democracy.
And blaming all Jews for the Likud Government's policy is Antisemitism 101.

But it is not just an internal issue is it? Not when the boundaries are disputed?

I never said all Jews are to blame for the actions of a government elected by the people who live there. I am saying it is grossly over simplistic to name the questioning of Israel’s right to exist as antisemetic when what constitutes Israel in terms of boundaries is so contentious.

But you are trying to pretend it's all about the borders and not it's very existence. Anti Zionism is about the very existence of Israel. Every time you and your pals say it, we can hear you.

@xxyzz Calm down

Many members of the Labour party and other political parties and those not in political parties do question the legitimacy of Israel

Aesop, so when people talk about 'questioning the legitimacy of Israel' you feel they're not really questioning the legitimacy of Israel, they're talking about the legitimacy of Israel's settlements or its claim to Jerusalem, etc?

If only they'd say that then.

I usually lurk but one “calm down” and one “dear”, on the feminism board of all places, really caught my eye. I think it says something about the attitude of those arguing that Corbyn is blameless.

@Digeridont , the "dear" was me and, you're right. It was out of order in any context.

@Digeridont "Calm down" is surely quite restrained when somebody is making accusations like holocaust denial? Unless I missed something, then that seems well out of order.

I don't think the "dear" was being used by someone defending Corbyn either.

I get that feeling are strong on this, but I think certain posters are being treated unfairly on this thread.

WHATEVER you think about antisemitism or Zionism, you can have concerns about free speech on those issues, and also the implications for free speech re women's rights/trans issues.

I’ve pointed out that according to the Report the supposed effect of Livingstone’s action was that it “was humiliating, denied the victims’ experience, diminished the issue, had the effect of stirring up and fuelling hatred for Jews and contributed to the creation of a hostile and intimidating environment for Jewish Labour Party members.”; and that this is exactly the sort of wording that TRA’s use to describe the supposed effect on trans people when a woman says that biological males can't be women.

No, that's exactly what is happening to women including those within the Labour Party. TRA's and their supporters are the ones regularly denying female victims experiences - look at what was said to JKR about the domestic abuse she suffered, see also the comment by a TRA Labour Womens Officer that rape victims who can't/don't want to share spaces with men should just get over it.

The free speech point isn't really relevant. No one is saying Ken Livingstone ought to be prosecuted. It is a matter of whether his ill-thought out and tendentious views are compatible with being in the Labour party, and reasonably enough they have taken the view that they aren't.

In a similar way I might describe my enjoyable Saturday on a pheasant shoot, and it would be of no interest to the authorities. But if I was the chairman of the League of Cruel Sports, I might face some consequences.This would be nothing to do with free speech, but rather the incompatibility of my views with the position I hold.

@samG76

The free speech point isn't really relevant. No one is saying Ken Livingstone ought to be prosecuted. It is a matter of whether his ill-thought out and tendentious views are compatible with being in the Labour party, and reasonably enough they have taken the view that they aren't.

In a similar way I might describe my enjoyable Saturday on a pheasant shoot, and it would be of no interest to the authorities. But if I was the chairman of the League of Cruel Sports, I might face some consequences.This would be nothing to do with free speech, but rather the incompatibility of my views with the position I hold.

Fair enough, I should have said I have concerns about the implications for debate/discussion in the Labour party rather than free speech per se. (Though worth noting that lots of people ARE worried that the Scottish hate crimes bill will criminalise speech on contentious areas like gender. And some want similar laws in the rest of the UK.)

I’ve pointed out that according to the Report the supposed effect of Livingstone’s action was that it “was humiliating, denied the victims’ experience, diminished the issue, had the effect of stirring up and fuelling hatred for Jews and contributed to the creation of a hostile and intimidating environment for Jewish Labour Party members.”; and that this is exactly the sort of wording that TRA’s use to describe the supposed effect on trans people when a woman says that biological males can't be women.

@RedDogsBeg No, that's exactly what is happening to women including those within the Labour Party. TRA's and their supporters are the ones regularly denying female victims experiences

I agree,RedDogs, that this happening to women, but as you said in your previous post EHRC are not interested in protecting women.

However, they and the trans lobby in general are very interested in controlling the language of gender-critical feminists.

I suspect that at some point ECHR will decide to investigate feminist organizations, and will conclude that they are transphobic because according to TRA’s, their arguments that biological males can't be women “were humiliating, denied the victims’ experience, diminished the issue, had the effect of stirring up and fuelling hatred for trans people and contributed to the creation of a hostile and intimidating environment for trans people.”

*@samg76 The free speech point isn't really relevant. No one is saying Ken Livingstone ought to be prosecuted.

I’d say it’s relevant because what KL said was related to the ECHR finding that that the Labour Party had committed unlawful acts.

agreed on Scottish hate crimes bill, Sugarplum. That is a matter of free speech.

@howard97A

I’ve pointed out that according to the Report the supposed effect of Livingstone’s action was that it “was humiliating, denied the victims’ experience, diminished the issue, had the effect of stirring up and fuelling hatred for Jews and contributed to the creation of a hostile and intimidating environment for Jewish Labour Party members.”; and that this is exactly the sort of wording that TRA’s use to describe the supposed effect on trans people when a woman says that biological males can't be women.

@RedDogsBeg No, that's exactly what is happening to women including those within the Labour Party. TRA's and their supporters are the ones regularly denying female victims experiences

I agree,RedDogs, that this happening to women, but as you said in your previous post EHRC are not interested in protecting women.

However, they and the trans lobby in general are very interested in controlling the language of gender-critical feminists.

I suspect that at some point ECHR will decide to investigate feminist organizations, and will conclude that they are transphobic because according to TRA’s, their arguments that biological males can't be women “were humiliating, denied the victims’ experience, diminished the issue, had the effect of stirring up and fuelling hatred for trans people and contributed to the creation of a hostile and intimidating environment for trans people.”

Oh I agree with you about the trans lobby controlling the language of gender critical feminists and the ECHR's woeful record on protecting women, we need to be vigilant that what they've said is not used against us and is in fact quoted back at them from our perspective and we have more than enough proof that the above is exactly what is happening to women and is being done by TRA's.

It's one long continual fight for women, the misogyny and hatred for us never stops.

And your attempt to piggyback your support for Ken Livingstone's disgusting racism onto women's support for our own rights is shameless.

It's just like those TRAs who try to piggyback onto gay rights and pretend that opposing women's rights is just the same as opposing Section 28.

We see you. Your attempt to conflate hate speech and free speech don't fool anyone.

The women on here can see quite clearly that there are ZERO parallels between supporting women's rights and supporting a bunch of Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites.

@xxyzz

Wow !

@bellinisurge That was gracious, thank you.

@SugarPlumElf I suspect you would find an TRA saying ‘calm down’ patronising and suspect them of trying to minimise concerns and shut down debate. I find the same here.

I also agree with @samG76 - this is not a point about free speech but about the rules of being in the Labour Party. In the same way as I would expect a GC feminist to get thrown out of Stonewall for her views, the Labour Party has acted to exclude those who don’t agree with their views. It’s their action - based on evidence from the EHRC, yes - but their decision. The Labour Party haven’t tried to prosecute anyone, or shut down any organisations they are part of, or encourage violence against them - they’ve just excluded them from their organisation. This is in contrast to TRA actions against GC feminists.