Isn't there currently a Criminal Investigation into the allegations against Mr Salmond? Whether anything comes of them, we don't know, but Police Scotland are involved.
I know his appeal is for funds to support a challenge to the process the Scottish government followed - but the Crowdfunder Condition anything related is very broad.....and his appeal relates to something relating to a criminal investigation.....
I'd say that someone would have to make a complaint, and then we would see.
Salmond's claim for the Judicial Review is (quoting the beeboids):
"Mr Salmond claims that the subsequent investigation into the allegations against him by senior Scottish government civil servants was "unfair and unjust".
Access to the accusations made against you, and to know the identity of your accusers, is a basic point of natural justice / legal principle, and on those points he is correct to question the process.
The last thing we need is organisations (whether Universities or the Scottish Government) running their own kangaroo courts without proper process or representation. We all know about Obama's Title IX shambles in the US education system.
So on this one I support Salmond's right to launch a Judicial Review. Not so clear on the Crowd Funding, though.
Another whopper from Carlotta, there is no criminal investigation at present
Police Scotland have confirmed that they are investigating allegations of sexual harassment against Alex Salmond....
A Police Scotland spokeswoman said: "We are carrying out an assessment of information which we have received and enquiries are at an early stage."
Surely it is time for a VONC in the House. What sort of government has England 36/4 on the first morning of a test having chosen to bat? What hope has the government got of sorting out details like Brexit if they can't even find 4 men in England who can bat? This country is going to the dogs, it really is.
England still lead the series
Barely. At this rate it will be 2-2 with India having all the momentum going into the decider.
There are still several days of this test to go let alone the final test
It's 'Marine La Pen hasn't lost this yet' all over again.
Le Pen came first in most regions and departments of France in the first round of the 2017 presidential election even if she comprehensively lost the runoff
Well yeah that was one of the two possibilities, the first one I mentioned.
from my just quoted post
___________________________________ a close relationship with the minority you are accused of being racist towards doesn't invalidate it. ___________________________________
Although admittedly maybe I didn't write that clearly enough, I'll make it clearer.
a close relation with a member of the minority group you are accused of being racist towards doesn't invalidate it.
So lover or friend for example. So Corbyn, you or the old guy in your story could be racist towards these groups despite a close relationship with a member of them.
You wrote: "Corbyn has Jewish friends but he is apparently racist against them, so you stop being an idiot."
So we are agreed that that comment is, in fact, a pretty meaningless defence of Corbyn.
I know where you're heading with your last sentence, and I'm LOLing at you.
In my defence, I've commented about Islamaphobia, sexism and other 'isms' on here many times in the past. I'm not saying I'm always right, but it's not as though I'm just picking on anti-Semitism because of the mess your party is in, and in fact many of the people I've criticised in the past probably identify as Kippers, Conservatives or Lib Dems.
Well it was as meaningless as your similar comment, that is my point. If it is an invalid defence of Corbyn when I used it in reply then it was invalid when you used it originally.
Corbyn IS an anti-Semite racist based upon recordings of what he has said and his lack of action against others within his own twisted little cabal. If you wish to keep defending him you might want to reflect on what that makes you.
It's a baroque, in the literal not figurative sense...
Figurative in art is not exactly the same thing as figurative in literary terms - indeed it's pretty well the opposite - "representing forms that are recognizably derived from life".
Agree there - organisations should not be self-investigating criminal offences.
But ,y view of this is that abuse of process has now been thoroughly institutionalised in our legal system where allegations of sexual harrassment are concerned.
Up here - in Ashfield - local rumours from 10 years previously about the Lib Dem candidate miraculaously reemerged a few weeks before the 2015 Election. The majority in 2010 had been tiny, and it was a marginal.
Actually that gives details about one universities interpretation of a different (but similar) definition. That's not the same thing. The examples are here and they make it explicitly clear that criticism of Israel is permissible: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
So which example do you have an issue with?
Do you have a problem with: "Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust"?
I don't speak for Labour but I have a problem with
1) "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
- because races don't have a right to self-determination, and if the State of Israel is an exercise in racial self-determination, as this implies, then it's by definition a racist endeavor.
2) "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
- because when countries do things that are similar in kind, albeit not degree, to the Nazis, it's sometimes good to say so, and in the many occasions when it isn't, that's often because the comparisons are shrill and over-the-top, not because they're anti-semitic
Some people will disagree with me in these but even if I'm wrong then the idea that I should be drummed out of the Labour Party for saying them (not that I'd join it in the first place, but hypothetically) isn't reasonable.
It is so depressing that there are a significant number of people who think this racist idiot who has two Es at A level and a perspective of an adolescent students union rep should be Prime Minister
Isn't there currently a Criminal Investigation into the allegations against Mr Salmond? Whether anything comes of them, we don't know, but Police Scotland are involved.
I know his appeal is for funds to support a challenge to the process the Scottish government followed - but the Crowdfunder Condition anything related is very broad.....and his appeal relates to something relating to a criminal investigation.....
I'd say that someone would have to make a complaint, and then we would see.
Salmond's claim for the Judicial Review is (quoting the beeboids):
"Mr Salmond claims that the subsequent investigation into the allegations against him by senior Scottish government civil servants was "unfair and unjust".
Access to the accusations made against you, and to know the identity of your accusers, is a basic point of natural justice / legal principle, and on those points he is correct to question the process.
The last thing we need is organisations (whether Universities or the Scottish Government) running their own kangaroo courts without proper process or representation. We all know about Obama's Title IX shambles in the US education system.
So on this one I support Salmond's right to launch a Judicial Review. Not so clear on the Crowd Funding, though.
Another whopper from Carlotta, there is no criminal investigation at present. Also whilst he should be able to afford it himself , there is no other reason why you would not ask friends, family , etc to help you fight an injustice.
There is a massive difference between accepting offers of help from close friends and family and putting a giant begging bowl out on the internet and asking the public to help.
A wealthy man with a highly paid media role begging in public. Not a good look at all.
As opposed to the poor, deserving Alistair Carmichael who failed with his crowdfunding appeal but was bailed out to the tune of £50,000 by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust?
Surely it is time for a VONC in the House. What sort of government has England 36/4 on the first morning of a test having chosen to bat? What hope has the government got of sorting out details like Brexit if they can't even find 4 men in England who can bat? This country is going to the dogs, it really is.
You must write a thread header on the perils of selling off school playing fields, and how it is unpatriotic to make children revise sums and old battles when they should be out practising their spin bowling and free kicks.
Sounds pretty uncontentious to me. Not sure what debate such a thread header could actually generate.
I object. We need to concentrate on batting and pace not spin.
A fair point. Batting especially.
You see you hold this end and the object is to stop the ball from hitting these wooden things behind you. Also if you can stop hitting it in the air so it can be caught that would help too.
Isn't there currently a Criminal Investigation into the allegations against Mr Salmond? Whether anything comes of them, we don't know, but Police Scotland are involved.
I know his appeal is for funds to support a challenge to the process the Scottish government followed - but the Crowdfunder Condition anything related is very broad.....and his appeal relates to something relating to a criminal investigation.....
I'd say that someone would have to make a complaint, and then we would see.
Salmond's claim for the Judicial Review is (quoting the beeboids):
"Mr Salmond claims that the subsequent investigation into the allegations against him by senior Scottish government civil servants was "unfair and unjust".
Access to the accusations made against you, and to know the identity of your accusers, is a basic point of natural justice / legal principle, and on those points he is correct to question the process.
The last thing we need is organisations (whether Universities or the Scottish Government) running their own kangaroo courts without proper process or representation. We all know about Obama's Title IX shambles in the US education system.
So on this one I support Salmond's right to launch a Judicial Review. Not so clear on the Crowd Funding, though.
Another whopper from Carlotta, there is no criminal investigation at present. Also whilst he should be able to afford it himself , there is no other reason why you would not ask friends, family , etc to help you fight an injustice.
There is a massive difference between accepting offers of help from close friends and family and putting a giant begging bowl out on the internet and asking the public to help.
A wealthy man with a highly paid media role begging in public. Not a good look at all.
As opposed to the poor, deserving Alistair Carmichael who failed with his crowdfunding appeal but was bailed out to the tune of £50,000 by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust?
I'd say the nature of the alleged crime makes Salmond's pleas for cash more distasteful. It isn't as if he can't afford it.
It is so depressing that there are a significant number of people who think this racist idiot who has two Es at A level and a perspective of an adolescent students union rep should be Prime Minister
If he is accurate that West Germany and the Soviet Union provide better nursery care (or taxpayer funded) then that the article seems fair enough...
Admittedly I think there may be messages secreted away about how the Soviet Union was perfect and we should copy it, nobody died etc. in articles written by Corbyn and those around him but they only seem to appear to people who really don't like Corbyn so I can't comment on those sections.
Now if he is inaccurate in his statement that is a problem, or at least for me it would be. I get the feeling we are supposed to be shocked whether his statement is accurate or not though...
Actually that gives details about one universities interpretation of a different (but similar) definition. That's not the same thing. The examples are here and they make it explicitly clear that criticism of Israel is permissible: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
So which example do you have an issue with?
Do you have a problem with: "Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust"?
I don't speak for Labour but I have a problem with
1) "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
- because races don't have a right to self-determination, and if the State of Israel is an exercise in racial self-determination, as this implies, then it's by definition a racist endeavor.
2) "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
- because when countries do things that are similar in kind, albeit not degree, to the Nazis, it's sometimes good to say so, and in the many occasions when it isn't, that's often because the comparisons are shrill and over-the-top, not because they're anti-semitic
Some people will disagree with me in these but even if I'm wrong then the idea that I should be drummed out of the Labour Party for saying them (not that I'd join it in the first place, but hypothetically) isn't reasonable.
I could add some really silly ones, in my opinion.
People , even here in PB, have called Nick Clegg, the MP for Brussels Central. Of course, it was a joke, but the implication was clear. His loyalty was more to the EU than to the UK / constituency , whatever.
But no one would call it a racist joke.
I believe Margaret Hodge was called [ I don't know who by ] the MP for Tel Aviv Central. Apparently, that was racist. Why ?
Clarifying, I was told that if John Mann was referred to as the MP for Tel Aviv Central, it would not be anti-semitic. Because he is not Jewish.
If he is accurate that West Germany and the Soviet Union provide better nursery care (or taxpayer funded) then that the article seems fair enough...
Admittedly I think there may be messages secreted away about how the Soviet Union was perfect and we should copy it, nobody died etc. in articles written by Corbyn and those around him but they only seem to appear to people who really don't like Corbyn so I can't comment on those sections.
Now if he is inaccurate in his statement that is a problem, or at least for me it would be. I get the feeling we are supposed to be shocked whether his statement is accurate or not though...
As if good childcare makes up for living under a totalitarian state.
For the not-cultists - the Saint Jeremy Corbyn prayer candle. A bargain at £18.
"Corbyn is a good man. He’s strong, principled and courageous. Time and time again he has reminded us that poverty, injustice and inequality aren’t inevitable. Our country doesn’t have to be like this. Things can change if you have the will to act. Saint Jeremy Corbyn reads "FOR THE MANY NOT THE FEW". 9"/22.5cm yellow unscented wax jar candle." https://www.aintsaint.co/products/saint-jeremy-corbyn-prayer-candle
Actually that gives details about one universities interpretation of a different (but similar) definition. That's not the same thing. The examples are here and they make it explicitly clear that criticism of Israel is permissible: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
So which example do you have an issue with?
Do you have a problem with: "Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust"?
I don't speak for Labour but I have a problem with
1) "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
- because races don't have a right to self-determination, and if the State of Israel is an exercise in racial self-determination, as this implies, then it's by definition a racist endeavor.
2) "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
- because when countries do things that are similar in kind, albeit not degree, to the Nazis, it's sometimes good to say so, and in the many occasions when it isn't, that's often because the comparisons are shrill and over-the-top, not because they're anti-semitic
Some people will disagree with me in these but even if I'm wrong then the idea that I should be drummed out of the Labour Party for saying them (not that I'd join it in the first place, but hypothetically) isn't reasonable.
To be fair, the IHRA definition is not quite as cut-and-dry as that. It doesn't say those examples are always antisemitic. It says they "could, taking into account the overall context". Theoretically you could compare Israeli policy to the Nazis and not fall foul of the definition, if you provided suitable "context".
I think the IHRA definition is a good general guide for identifying antisemitism, but I can't see how you could make it legally enforceable precisely because of how ambiguously it's worded.
For the not-cultists - the Saint Jeremy Corbyn prayer candle. A bargain at £18.
"Corbyn is a good man. He’s strong, principled and courageous. Time and time again he has reminded us that poverty, injustice and inequality aren’t inevitable. Our country doesn’t have to be like this. Things can change if you have the will to act. Saint Jeremy Corbyn reads "FOR THE MANY NOT THE FEW". 9"/22.5cm yellow unscented wax jar candle." https://www.aintsaint.co/products/saint-jeremy-corbyn-prayer-candle
Carlotta, why don't you link that video you were so enthusiastically forwarding just before the election which apparently had 5m hits which showed what a friend of the terrorist Corbyn was.
____________________________________________ Lilleker said Corbyn was not among those Labour MPs who were sympathetic to the Soviet Union. “He was against both sides, the US and the Soviet Union, seeing them both as a danger to world peace.”
Corbyn was only one of four MPs to sign a parliamentary early day motion in December 1989 congratulating striking workers in Czechoslovakia “against the corruption and mismanagement of the Stalinist bureaucracy”.
Labour activists also remember Corbyn’s sympathies as lying with dissident movements, partly through his involvement in peace movements. _________________________________________
It is good to carefully word your smears, of course signing an EDM condemning the actions of the Soviet Union doesn't involve asking a question about human rights abuses.
Whilst I can condemn him for his smears I must congratulate him on his excellent propaganda techniques, past masters would be proud.
Well yeah that was one of the two possibilities, the first one I mentioned.
from my just quoted post
___________________________________ a close relationship with the minority you are accused of being racist towards doesn't invalidate it. ___________________________________
Although admittedly maybe I didn't write that clearly enough, I'll make it clearer.
a close relation with a member of the minority group you are accused of being racist towards doesn't invalidate it.
So lover or friend for example. So Corbyn, you or the old guy in your story could be racist towards these groups despite a close relationship with a member of them.
You wrote: "Corbyn has Jewish friends but he is apparently racist against them, so you stop being an idiot."
So we are agreed that that comment is, in fact, a pretty meaningless defence of Corbyn.
I know where you're heading with your last sentence, and I'm LOLing at you.
In my defence, I've commented about Islamaphobia, sexism and other 'isms' on here many times in the past. I'm not saying I'm always right, but it's not as though I'm just picking on anti-Semitism because of the mess your party is in, and in fact many of the people I've criticised in the past probably identify as Kippers, Conservatives or Lib Dems.
Well it was as meaningless as your similar comment, that is my point. If it is an invalid defence of Corbyn when I used it in reply then it was invalid when you used it originally.
Corbyn IS an anti-Semite racist based upon recordings of what he has said and his lack of action against others within his own twisted little cabal. If you wish to keep defending him you might want to reflect on what that makes you.
Actually that gives details about one universities interpretation of a different (but similar) definition. That's not the same thing. The examples are here and they make it explicitly clear that criticism of Israel is permissible: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
So which example do you have an issue with?
Do you have a problem with: "Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust"?
I don't speak for Labour but I have a problem with
1) "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
- because races don't have a right to self-determination, and if the State of Israel is an exercise in racial self-determination, as this implies, then it's by definition a racist endeavor.
2) "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
- because when countries do things that are similar in kind, albeit not degree, to the Nazis, it's sometimes good to say so, and in the many occasions when it isn't, that's often because the comparisons are shrill and over-the-top, not because they're anti-semitic
Some people will disagree with me in these but even if I'm wrong then the idea that I should be drummed out of the Labour Party for saying them (not that I'd join it in the first place, but hypothetically) isn't reasonable.
To be fair, the IHRA definition is not quite as cut-and-dry as that. It doesn't say those examples are always antisemitic. It says they "could, taking into account the overall context". Theoretically you could compare Israeli policy to the Nazis and not fall foul of the definition, if you provided suitable "context".
I think the IHRA definition is a good general guide for identifying antisemitism, but I can't see how you could make it legally enforceable precisely because of how ambiguously it's worded.
When did anti-semitism become anti-Jewish ? After all, the vast majority of semites are not Jewish. They are mostly Arab Muslims or Christians. Some jews.
Corbyn was only one of four MPs to sign a parliamentary early day motion in December 1989 congratulating striking workers in Czechoslovakia “against the corruption and mismanagement of the Stalinist bureaucracy”. _________________________________________
Did you read the motion?
"...the only way forward for the peoples of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is on the basis of a return to the principles of genuine workers' democracy and socialism which formed the basis and inspiration for the October revolution."
Actually that gives details about one universities interpretation of a different (but similar) definition. That's not the same thing. The examples are here and they make it explicitly clear that criticism of Israel is permissible: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
So which example do you have an issue with?
Do you have a problem with: "Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust"?
I don't speak for Labour but I have a problem with
1) "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
- because races don't have a right to self-determination, and if the State of Israel is an exercise in racial self-determination, as this implies, then it's by definition a racist endeavor.
2) "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
- because when countries do things that are similar in kind, albeit not degree, to the Nazis, it's sometimes good to say so, and in the many occasions when it isn't, that's often because the comparisons are shrill and over-the-top, not because they're anti-semitic
Some people will disagree with me in these but even if I'm wrong then the idea that I should be drummed out of the Labour Party for saying them (not that I'd join it in the first place, but hypothetically) isn't reasonable.
To be fair, the IHRA definition is not quite as cut-and-dry as that. It doesn't say those examples are always antisemitic. It says they "could, taking into account the overall context". Theoretically you could compare Israeli policy to the Nazis and not fall foul of the definition, if you provided suitable "context".
I think the IHRA definition is a good general guide for identifying antisemitism, but I can't see how you could make it legally enforceable precisely because of how ambiguously it's worded.
When did anti-semitism become anti-Jewish ? After all, the vast majority of semites are not Jewish. They are mostly Arab Muslims or Christians. Some jews.
If he is accurate that West Germany and the Soviet Union provide better nursery care (or taxpayer funded) then that the article seems fair enough...
Admittedly I think there may be messages secreted away about how the Soviet Union was perfect and we should copy it, nobody died etc. in articles written by Corbyn and those around him but they only seem to appear to people who really don't like Corbyn so I can't comment on those sections.
Now if he is inaccurate in his statement that is a problem, or at least for me it would be. I get the feeling we are supposed to be shocked whether his statement is accurate or not though...
As if good childcare makes up for living under a totalitarian state.
In my defence that appears to be another one of those secret messages he wrote in the article that I can't read.
But yes, Corbyn stating that good childcare made up for living in a totalitarian state in that article was stupid.
The bits that appear to me all seem fair enough though.. again assuming the statement is accurate (something that clearly doesn't matter to most)
Surely it is time for a VONC in the House. What sort of government has England 36/4 on the first morning of a test having chosen to bat? What hope has the government got of sorting out details like Brexit if they can't even find 4 men in England who can bat? This country is going to the dogs, it really is.
You must write a thread header on the perils of selling off school playing fields, and how it is unpatriotic to make children revise sums and old battles when they should be out practising their spin bowling and free kicks.
Sounds pretty uncontentious to me. Not sure what debate such a thread header could actually generate.
I object. We need to concentrate on batting and pace not spin.
A fair point. Batting especially.
You see you hold this end and the object is to stop the ball from hitting these wooden things behind you. Also if you can stop hitting it in the air so it can be caught that would help too.
With a rider that one is supposed to use his bat to defend the wooden things, using a padded leg doesn’t count.
Isn't there currently a Criminal Investigation into the allegations against Mr Salmond? Whether anything comes of them, we don't know, but Police Scotland are involved.
I know his appeal is for funds to support a challenge to the process the Scottish government followed - but the Crowdfunder Condition anything related is very broad.....and his appeal relates to something relating to a criminal investigation.....
I'd say that someone would have to make a complaint, and then we would see.
Salmond's claim for the Judicial Review is (quoting the beeboids):
"Mr Salmond claims that the subsequent investigation into the allegations against him by senior Scottish government civil servants was "unfair and unjust".
Access to the accusations made against you, and to know the identity of your accusers, is a basic point of natural justice / legal principle, and on those points he is correct to question the process.
The last thing we need is organisations (whether Universities or the Scottish Government) running their own kangaroo courts without proper process or representation. We all know about Obama's Title IX shambles in the US education system.
So on this one I support Salmond's right to launch a Judicial Review. Not so clear on the Crowd Funding, though.
Another whopper from Carlotta, there is no criminal investigation at present. Also whilst he should be able to afford it himself , there is no other reason why you would not ask friends, family , etc to help you fight an injustice.
There is a massive difference between accepting offers of help from close friends and family and putting a giant begging bowl out on the internet and asking the public to help.
A wealthy man with a highly paid media role begging in public. Not a good look at all.
As opposed to the poor, deserving Alistair Carmichael who failed with his crowdfunding appeal but was bailed out to the tune of £50,000 by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust?
I'd say the nature of the alleged crime makes Salmond's pleas for cash more distasteful. It isn't as if he can't afford it.
AS is not asking for funding to defend an alleged criminal action in court.
Actually that gives details about one universities interpretation of a different (but similar) definition. That's not the same thing. The examples are here and they make it explicitly clear that criticism of Israel is permissible: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
So which example do you have an issue with?
Do you have a problem with: "Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust"?
I don't speak for Labour but I have a problem with
1) "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
- because races don't have a right to self-determination, and if the State of Israel is an exercise in racial self-determination, as this implies, then it's by definition a racist endeavor.
2) "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
- because when countries do things that are similar in kind, albeit not degree, to the Nazis, it's sometimes good to say so, and in the many occasions when it isn't, that's often because the comparisons are shrill and over-the-top, not because they're anti-semitic
Some people will disagree with me in these but even if I'm wrong then the idea that I should be drummed out of the Labour Party for saying them (not that I'd join it in the first place, but hypothetically) isn't reasonable.
To be fair, the IHRA definition is not quite as cut-and-dry as that. It doesn't say those examples are always antisemitic. It says they "could, taking into account the overall context". Theoretically you could compare Israeli policy to the Nazis and not fall foul of the definition, if you provided suitable "context".
I think the IHRA definition is a good general guide for identifying antisemitism, but I can't see how you could make it legally enforceable precisely because of how ambiguously it's worded.
When did anti-semitism become anti-Jewish ? After all, the vast majority of semites are not Jewish. They are mostly Arab Muslims or Christians. Some jews.
Is only one of those okay or something?
None of them are OK. But the vast majority of Semites are not Jewish, so why is being anti-Semitic means, to some people, anti-Jewish.
If someone is anti-Jewish, he/she should be called anti-Jewish. Simple.
If he is accurate that West Germany and the Soviet Union provide better nursery care (or taxpayer funded) then that the article seems fair enough...
Admittedly I think there may be messages secreted away about how the Soviet Union was perfect and we should copy it, nobody died etc. in articles written by Corbyn and those around him but they only seem to appear to people who really don't like Corbyn so I can't comment on those sections.
Now if he is inaccurate in his statement that is a problem, or at least for me it would be. I get the feeling we are supposed to be shocked whether his statement is accurate or not though...
I think many people will just see it for what it was, a pathetic individual who got his kicks from toadying to the Soviet Union; a brutal regime which at that time was hostile to this nation and the other liberal democracies of the West.
He gets his current similar juvenile pleasure from sucking up to Putin. Those of us that frequented student union functions in our youth recognise the type; idiots who think it is cool to be "edgy". Most grow out of it by the time they are about 22. Corbyn clearly doesn't have the intellectual maturity to do so.
Actually that gives details about one universities interpretation of a different (but similar) definition. That's not the same thing. The examples are here and they make it explicitly clear that criticism of Israel is permissible: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
So which example do you have an issue with?
Do you have a problem with: "Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust"?
I don't speak for Labour but I have a problem with
1) "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
- because races don't have a right to self-determination, and if the State of Israel is an exercise in racial self-determination, as this implies, then it's by definition a racist endeavor.
2) "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
- because when countries do things that are similar in kind, albeit not degree, to the Nazis, it's sometimes good to say so, and in the many occasions when it isn't, that's often because the comparisons are shrill and over-the-top, not because they're anti-semitic
Some people will disagree with me in these but even if I'm wrong then the idea that I should be drummed out of the Labour Party for saying them (not that I'd join it in the first place, but hypothetically) isn't reasonable.
To be fair, the IHRA definition is not quite as cut-and-dry as that. It doesn't say those examples are always antisemitic. It says they "could, taking into account the overall context". Theoretically you could compare Israeli policy to the Nazis and not fall foul of the definition, if you provided suitable "context".
I think the IHRA definition is a good general guide for identifying antisemitism, but I can't see how you could make it legally enforceable precisely because of how ambiguously it's worded.
When did anti-semitism become anti-Jewish ? After all, the vast majority of semites are not Jewish. They are mostly Arab Muslims or Christians. Some jews.
Is only one of those okay or something?
None of them are OK. But the vast majority of Semites are not Jewish, so why is being anti-Semitic means, to some people, anti-Jewish.
If someone is anti-Jewish, he/she should be called anti-Jewish. Simple.
Because that's the commonly-used term. Debating the inaccuracies of terminology rather than tackling the issue at hand is exactly why Labour are in this mess.
Corbyn was only one of four MPs to sign a parliamentary early day motion in December 1989 congratulating striking workers in Czechoslovakia “against the corruption and mismanagement of the Stalinist bureaucracy”. _________________________________________
Did you read the motion?
"...the only way forward for the peoples of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is on the basis of a return to the principles of genuine workers' democracy and socialism which formed the basis and inspiration for the October revolution."
So they should return, in Jeremy's view, to the high ideals that originally inspired them rather than the perversion of it they currently live in? (or did at the time)
Probably important to remember at this point that Corbyn isn't actually a fan of the Soviet Union so by this statement he didn't mean go back to how it was under Stalin in the 50's but he genuinely does mean that they should go back to the ideals of the original revolution and live by them rather than what the Soviet Union become.
I think this is where a lot of the conversations with Corbyn struggle, if you assume negative intent then things follow on much easier, if you don't then you come to a bit of a impasse in the conversation.
For example I might see a comment about childcare provision being better in West Germany and the Soviet Union as being exactly that. Someone who assumes negative intent in Corbyn knows that this is Corbyn excusing or lying about the murders that took place and the fact they weren't democratic societies using the cover of talking about childcare.
Actually that gives details about one universities interpretation of a different (but similar) definition. That's not the same thing. The examples are here and they make it explicitly clear that criticism of Israel is permissible: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
So which example do you have an issue with?
Do you have a problem with: "Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust"?
I don't speak for Labour but I have a problem with
1) "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
- because races don't have a right to self-determination, and if the State of Israel is an exercise in racial self-determination, as this implies, then it's by definition a racist endeavor.
2) "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
- because when countries do things that are similar in kind, albeit not degree, to the Nazis, it's sometimes good to say so, and in the many occasions when it isn't, that's often because the comparisons are shrill and over-the-top, not because they're anti-semitic
Some people will disagree with me in these but even if I'm wrong then the idea that I should be drummed out of the Labour Party for saying them (not that I'd join it in the first place, but hypothetically) isn't reasonable.
I could add some really silly ones, in my opinion.
People , even here in PB, have called Nick Clegg, the MP for Brussels Central. Of course, it was a joke, but the implication was clear. His loyalty was more to the EU than to the UK / constituency , whatever.
But no one would call it a racist joke.
I believe Margaret Hodge was called [ I don't know who by ] the MP for Tel Aviv Central. Apparently, that was racist. Why ?
Clarifying, I was told that if John Mann was referred to as the MP for Tel Aviv Central, it would not be anti-semitic. Because he is not Jewish.
That seems fair enough.
If I called Margaret Hodge "Mrs. Big Nose", it would be an anti-Semitic slur, because she's Jewish. If I called John Mann "Mr. Big Nose" it would just be a silly comment.
Actually that gives details about one universities interpretation of a different (but similar) definition. That's not the same thing. The examples are here and they make it explicitly clear that criticism of Israel is permissible: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
So which example do you have an issue with?
Do you have a problem with: "Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust"?
I don't speak for Labour but I have a problem with
1) "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
- because races don't have a right to self-determination, and if the State of Israel is an exercise in racial self-determination, as this implies, then it's by definition a racist endeavor.
2) "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
- because when countries do things that are similar in kind, albeit not degree, to the Nazis, it's sometimes good to say so, and in the many occasions when it isn't, that's often because the comparisons are shrill and over-the-top, not because they're anti-semitic
Some people will disagree with me in these but even if I'm wrong then the idea that I should be drummed out of the Labour Party for saying them (not that I'd join it in the first place, but hypothetically) isn't reasonable.
To be fair, the IHRA definition is not quite as cut-and-dry as that. It doesn't say those examples are always antisemitic. It says they "could, taking into account the overall context". Theoretically you could compare Israeli policy to the Nazis and not fall foul of the definition, if you provided suitable "context".
I think the IHRA definition is a good general guide for identifying antisemitism, but I can't see how you could make it legally enforceable precisely because of how ambiguously it's worded.
When did anti-semitism become anti-Jewish ? After all, the vast majority of semites are not Jewish. They are mostly Arab Muslims or Christians. Some jews.
Is only one of those okay or something?
None of them are OK. But the vast majority of Semites are not Jewish, so why is being anti-Semitic means, to some people, anti-Jewish.
If someone is anti-Jewish, he/she should be called anti-Jewish. Simple.
Anti-semitism is the term that has been used since the 1870's. Hence, August Babel's remark that "Anti-semitism is the socialism of fools."
If he is accurate that West Germany and the Soviet Union provide better nursery care (or taxpayer funded) then that the article seems fair enough...
Admittedly I think there may be messages secreted away about how the Soviet Union was perfect and we should copy it, nobody died etc. in articles written by Corbyn and those around him but they only seem to appear to people who really don't like Corbyn so I can't comment on those sections.
Now if he is inaccurate in his statement that is a problem, or at least for me it would be. I get the feeling we are supposed to be shocked whether his statement is accurate or not though...
I think many people will just see it for what it was, a pathetic individual who got his kicks from toadying to the Soviet Union; a brutal regime which at that time was hostile to this nation and the other liberal democracies of the West.
He gets his current similar juvenile pleasure from sucking up to Putin. Those of us that frequented student union functions in our youth recognise the type; idiots who think it is cool to be "edgy". Most grow out of it by the time they are about 22. Corbyn clearly doesn't have the intellectual maturity to do so.
I think you confuse many people with some politically interested people on the right and the centre... many people (if they ever got around to reading it) will see it for what it was, a claim regarding childcare being better in West Germany and the Soviet Union.
Many people would not assume negative intent so would not read more into it.
Comments
A Police Scotland spokeswoman said: "We are carrying out an assessment of information which we have received and enquiries are at an early stage."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/24/nicola-sturgeon-says-allegations-sexual-harassment-against-alex/
Do keep up.....the story is 6 days old.....
Let’s hope Moeen can save the day....
So Thomas it is then.
https://twitter.com/TimesCorbyn/status/976166696192036865
1) "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
- because races don't have a right to self-determination, and if the State of Israel is an exercise in racial self-determination, as this implies, then it's by definition a racist endeavor.
2) "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
- because when countries do things that are similar in kind, albeit not degree, to the Nazis, it's sometimes good to say so, and in the many occasions when it isn't, that's often because the comparisons are shrill and over-the-top, not because they're anti-semitic
Some people will disagree with me in these but even if I'm wrong then the idea that I should be drummed out of the Labour Party for saying them (not that I'd join it in the first place, but hypothetically) isn't reasonable.
You see you hold this end and the object is to stop the ball from hitting these wooden things behind you. Also if you can stop hitting it in the air so it can be caught that would help too.
https://twitter.com/TerryDignan/status/976219945183870977
https://twitter.com/TimesCorbyn/status/976179871897522183
Admittedly I think there may be messages secreted away about how the Soviet Union was perfect and we should copy it, nobody died etc. in articles written by Corbyn and those around him but they only seem to appear to people who really don't like Corbyn so I can't comment on those sections.
Now if he is inaccurate in his statement that is a problem, or at least for me it would be. I get the feeling we are supposed to be shocked whether his statement is accurate or not though...
People , even here in PB, have called Nick Clegg, the MP for Brussels Central. Of course, it was a joke, but the implication was clear. His loyalty was more to the EU than to the UK / constituency , whatever.
But no one would call it a racist joke.
I believe Margaret Hodge was called [ I don't know who by ] the MP for Tel Aviv Central. Apparently, that was racist. Why ?
Clarifying, I was told that if John Mann was referred to as the MP for Tel Aviv Central, it would not be anti-semitic. Because he is not Jewish.
"Corbyn is a good man. He’s strong, principled and courageous. Time and time again he has reminded us that poverty, injustice and inequality aren’t inevitable. Our country doesn’t have to be like this. Things can change if you have the will to act. Saint Jeremy Corbyn reads "FOR THE MANY NOT THE FEW". 9"/22.5cm yellow unscented wax jar candle."
https://www.aintsaint.co/products/saint-jeremy-corbyn-prayer-candle
I think the IHRA definition is a good general guide for identifying antisemitism, but I can't see how you could make it legally enforceable precisely because of how ambiguously it's worded.
https://twitter.com/TimesCorbyn/status/976183659890868224
[For those new, be aware this is written with ink soaked in sarcasm. Only a stone cold idiot would believe such a thing sincerely].
Corbyn needs your help now !
____________________________________________
Lilleker said Corbyn was not among those Labour MPs who were sympathetic to the Soviet Union. “He was against both sides, the US and the Soviet Union, seeing them both as a danger to world peace.”
Corbyn was only one of four MPs to sign a parliamentary early day motion in December 1989 congratulating striking workers in Czechoslovakia “against the corruption and mismanagement of the Stalinist bureaucracy”.
Labour activists also remember Corbyn’s sympathies as lying with dissident movements, partly through his involvement in peace movements.
_________________________________________
It is good to carefully word your smears, of course signing an EDM condemning the actions of the Soviet Union doesn't involve asking a question about human rights abuses.
Whilst I can condemn him for his smears I must congratulate him on his excellent propaganda techniques, past masters would be proud.
Just a little insight-it does not matter who has the better chance, as neither of them will actually become FM.
"...the only way forward for the peoples of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is on the basis of a return to the principles of genuine workers' democracy and socialism which formed the basis and inspiration for the October revolution."
But yes, Corbyn stating that good childcare made up for living in a totalitarian state in that article was stupid.
The bits that appear to me all seem fair enough though.. again assuming the statement is accurate (something that clearly doesn't matter to most)
NEW THREAD
If someone is anti-Jewish, he/she should be called anti-Jewish. Simple.
He gets his current similar juvenile pleasure from sucking up to Putin. Those of us that frequented student union functions in our youth recognise the type; idiots who think it is cool to be "edgy". Most grow out of it by the time they are about 22. Corbyn clearly doesn't have the intellectual maturity to do so.
https://twitter.com/iyad_elbaghdadi/status/970410735162535937
Probably important to remember at this point that Corbyn isn't actually a fan of the Soviet Union so by this statement he didn't mean go back to how it was under Stalin in the 50's but he genuinely does mean that they should go back to the ideals of the original revolution and live by them rather than what the Soviet Union become.
I think this is where a lot of the conversations with Corbyn struggle, if you assume negative intent then things follow on much easier, if you don't then you come to a bit of a impasse in the conversation.
For example I might see a comment about childcare provision being better in West Germany and the Soviet Union as being exactly that. Someone who assumes negative intent in Corbyn knows that this is Corbyn excusing or lying about the murders that took place and the fact they weren't democratic societies using the cover of talking about childcare.
If I called Margaret Hodge "Mrs. Big Nose", it would be an anti-Semitic slur, because she's Jewish. If I called John Mann "Mr. Big Nose" it would just be a silly comment.
Many people would not assume negative intent so would not read more into it.