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

TesselateMore

Let's try your post substituting women and misogyny for Jews and anti-Semitism, shall we? Tell me if you still think this sounds so good on a feminist board:

4. If people get labelled as misogynists simply for trying to discuss their doubts about the current orthodoxy then they may stop caring about the real issues that actually do affect marginalised groups.

So xxyzz and others probably think I'm a misogynist now. Why would I worry about misogyny now that describes me?

I'm probably a gaslighter too. Shrug. Can't be that bad after all as I think I'm as honest as the next person.

What else have you got left to call me now I'm equivalent to people who believe in "wife-beating, rape, femicide"?

Congratulations, you got me bang to rights. Has that really made the world a better place?

Basically, sounds like every other racist, abusive, gaslighting male ever.

I think you've illustrated my point xxyzz.

Anyone who disagrees with you is framed as having some or other intolerable attitude. If posters suggest that's comparable to TRA tactics, you say that's gaslighting. So there's no legitimate way to disagree with you.

I reread the beginning of the Purity Spirals thread today and thought one of RoyalCorgi's posts was relevant to the development of this thread. (Apologies in advance to RoyalCorgi if they don't agree with their post being transplanted to this context.)

What does he mean by no upper limit? No boundaries on how far they will go to prove their morality?

I think he means that with something like racism, there is no agreed point at which everyone says "This is not racist". So potentially anything can be deemed racist, however tenuous the connection to actual racism. Laurence Fox is racist for saying that white privilege doesn't exist. I'm racist for saying that the condemnation of Fox is excessive, even though I don't agree with him. Anyone who says they think I'm not a racist is also a racist. And so on.

I have read through this entire thread and cannot see any examples of Anti-Semitism or racism.
There are obviously quite a few Jewish people in the Labour Party who do not agree with the latest report.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Voice_for_Labour

twitter.com/JVoiceLabour?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

@xxyzz Nice try, howard, , but then you come up with this corker:

"there might be different opinions about what anti-Semitism is, and there are free-speech issues around its suppression."

I don’t think that’s a controversial statement. Are you saying that everybody agrees about what ant-semitism is, and that there are no free-speech issues around its suppression?

Actually, I think we can all tell that Holocaust denial, blood libel or incitement to violence against Jews are anti-Semitic.

Yet apparently, Jeremy Corbyn and his hangers-on are blind to all three. Hence they continue to make out that Corbynites who take part in all three are just the victim of smears and should be allowed 'free speech'.

NO. Incitement to violence is NOT covered under free speech laws. Men should not have the right to claim that they want women to 'die in a grease fire' or threaten women with baseball bats. Any more than the Labour member who threatened to march on a synagogue or the supporters of actual terrorists who murder Jews should get a free pass.

Everyone should be protected against demonstrable harm - actual or potential.

So incitement to violence should obviously be suppressed, regardless of whether or not it’s anti-Semitic, and so should holocaust denial and blood libel if they are likely to lead to harm.

Your implication that Jews should not have the right to protection under the law because someone else might try to misappropriate their rights and claim them for themselves is ludicrous. That's like saying that women should not be entitled to safe spaces because transwomen might try to misappropriate them. Jews are not responsible for what other people do with legal text intended to protect Jews. Women are not responsible for what men do in safe spaces designed to help women.

I’m saying we need to be very careful about legal processes that are used to suppress the right to be offensive, especially when those processes are available to people who want to undermine the rights of women.

I think that is where your analogy falls down. What I’m concerned about is not Jews having the right to protection under the law, which you equate with women having the legal right to safe spaces (ie spaces that protect them from harm)

but

Jews having the legal right to protection from offence, which does not equate to women having the legal right to safe spaces (ie spaces that protect them from harm)

Ah, all the woke people coming out of the closet and finding their way to FWR to tell me that Corbyn is really a good guy. I have as much fondness for them as I do for the woke trolls who come on FWR to tell me men are actually women.

I'm reluctant to keep this discussion going. I am fed up of the blatant gaslighting eg.

1. the implication that JVL are representative of Jews (they contain many non-Jews and were set up expressly as a Corbyn support group - 87% of Jews thought Corbyn was an anti-Semite before the EHRC report came out, and are hardly likely to have changed to think he is not as a result of the report, so JVL are hardly representative of the views of Jews on this).

See www.survation.com/new-polling-of-british-jews-shows-tensions-remain-strong-between-labour-and-the-british-jewish-community/

1. Ludicrous strawmen like howard's claim he is worried about "Jews having the legal right to protection from offence".

It has magically escaped howard's notice that he has been non-stop offensive throughout this thread, but at no point have I threatened to report him to anyone (unsurprising, given that there are no laws under which I could do that if I even wished to), or at any point suggested there should be a law against him being offensive to Jews. There isn't even a law against Holocaust denial in this country, which is about as offensive as it is possible to get as far as Jews are concerned, so it is laughable to suggest that howard and his anti-Semitic cronies are somehow at risk of having their free speech curtailed if they say something offensive to Jews. You are quite free to say it, howard. I am also equally free to call you a racist. Free speech cuts both ways. I don't get to stop you being racist. You don't get to stop me calling you a racist. Seems fair, I'm sure you'd agree? Unless you are suggesting that my free speech should be gagged???

I thought you were sooo in favour of free speech? Or is that only when you get to call other people things they don't like? Funny how you're not so keen on free speech when it is other people saying things about you that you don't like...

1. TesselateMore - nice try but I have no interest in discussing just how much anti-Semitism you think should be socially acceptable. You can call that a purity spiral if you like, if you live in a world where anti-Semitism is just one of those things that people inevitably do, and so think it is quite unreasonable of people to attempt to clamp down on it or set ceilings on it.

Call me old-fashioned if you like, but I'm a zero-tolerance kind of gal on anti-Semitism, just as I am on misogyny. I daresay you think all feminists, with their hateful insistence on zero misogyny, are in a massive purity spiral too. But you know what? I don't really care. Because I don't really value the opinions of anti-Semites. Especially gaslighting woke ones.

Bye now. Depressing to see one of my favourite bits of MN being turned into a temporary sewer.

xxyzz - the reason why you haven't reported Howard, is because you know that he has not been racist or anti-Semitic, he simply doesn't agree with what you are saying.
Everyone is free to have differing opinions.

Really, Andy?

Go on then, tell me what law I could use to report anyone on, if they said something anti-Semitic on this thread. I'm not sure you'd actually recognise anything as anti-Semitic, because you have a curious blind spot where anti-Semitism is concerned, but let's say a poster started attacking Jews as being involved in a worldwide conspiracy to attack the leaders of a political party - a pretty classic anti-Semitic trope I'm sure you'd agree.

I'd love to know who you think I could report them to, and on what grounds.

Because funnily enough, that's exactly the kind of thing Corbyn fans like you have been saying non-stop. And yet I see a distinct lack of criminal records, or curtailing of free speech. The same way people like you are also free to be racist about other groups, call women T, etc. There are no laws to curtail it.

I'm not arguing there should be laws to curtail it, btw. I'm calling out your bullshit that paints you and other racists as victims because someone criticised your racism and you imagine free speech = freedom to spout racism without being pulled up on it.

Get over it. You are not the victim because Jews don't like your anti-Semitism any more than TRAs are the victims because women don't like their misogyny.

I will never get over your hypocrisy in stating that 'Everyone is free to have differing opinions', while simultaneously trying to shut me down from mentioning posters' blatant anti-Semitism!

Either you think free speech rules. Or you don't. You don't get to claim that free speech gives you carte blanche to be racist but at the same time object to my right to object to the racism!

@xxyzz

Ah, all the woke people coming out of the closet and finding their way to FWR to tell me that Corbyn is really a good guy. I have as much fondness for them as I do for the woke trolls who come on FWR to tell me men are actually women.

I hear you.

"I would add a number 4 to SugarPlumElf's list;

1. If people get labelled as racist/transphobic/anti-semitic/islamophobic simply for trying to discuss their doubts about the current orthodoxy then they may stop caring about the real issues that actually do affect marginalised groups."

Good point @TesselateMore. Also, when these labels are thrown around so readily it debases them. If everyone is racist etc, then nobody is. Which means that those people who really are, can start spouting hatred with impunity. And shrug off those who call them out.

xxyzz
You could quite easily report a poster to MN and if MN thought they had posted something offensive, then the posts could be deleted or the poster banned - this has clearly not happened.
You have called me "racist", "anti-semitic", "woke" and I am none of those things, you have basically defamed me. So, what am I going to do about it?
Absolutely nothing, sticks and stones etc.
I have asked you to give examples of racism and anti-Semitism in this thread and you have given none, you have just hurled insults at myself and others.

Ludicrous strawmen like howard's claim he is worried about "Jews having the legal right to protection from offence".

That was part of my argument that your analogy was invalid. I think your answer to my argument might be that Jews do not in fact have the legal right to protection from offence and that therefore my argument was simply ‘gaslighting’ and a ‘ludicrous strawman’. Is that correct?

If that is your argument, I would point out that ECHR didn’t need a Holocaust-denial law to protect Jews from offence by curtailing the free speech of KL and the LP. They found that KL and LP were guilty under the Equality Act 2010 of “harassment”, that is, “unwanted conduct related to race, which has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.” (Report, p.22)

This finding was based on the assertion by Labour Party members that the effect of his comments 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.” (Report, p.106)
I would say that this constitutes "Jews having the legal right to protection from offence".

howard “has been non-stop offensive throughout this thread”

Could you point to something that I’ve said that you consider offensive?

You don't get to claim that free speech gives you carte blanche to be racist but at the same time object to my right to object to the racism!

I wouldn’t object to your objecting to my racism, if you could tell me why you think I’m a racist.

Funny how you're not so keen on free speech when it is other people saying things about you that you don't like...

Yes, I have reported some of your posts. I won’t discuss their contents. Suffice it to say that MNHQ decided to delete three of the worst. MN Talk Guidelines are not and should not be the same as our laws about free speech.

Just for the record, xxyzz:
I am not a member or supporter of the Labour Party, and I have no interest in its quarrels (except to regret that it is such a pathetic Opposition).
I am not a “Corbynite”, and I don’t have any “anti-Semitic cronies”.
I am not a supporter of KL, except insofar as I support his right to free speech.
I am not a holocaust-denier, or a ‘jew-hater’, and I am not a member or supporter of the BNP.
I don’t think of myself as being “of the left” (although I used to)

I am, as you point out, a man. The reason I lurk and occasionally post on MN is that I have four grandchildren (three girls, and a vulnerable 12-year-old boy), and I’m terrified of what life will be like for them if the transgender lobby achieves its aims. I want to do whatever I can to support the GC position, and what I learn from MN helps me do that.

It's kind of up to us non-Jews, fellas, to understand how anti-Semitism works, and how prevalent a/s tropes are, and how we might stray into that territory even without malice - rather than gaslight a Jewish woman about a/s.

Has gaslighting changed definition to mean "disagree with"?