Latest post on Left Futures

Putting “Labour’s problem with antisemitism” into context

ib-logo2The following statement has been issued by the Jewish Socialist’s Group:

Antisemitism exists and must be exposed and fought against in the same way as other forms of racism by all who are concerned with combating racism and fascism.

Antisemitism and anti-Zionism are not the same. Zionism is a political ideology which has always been contested within Jewish life since it emerged in 1897, and it is entirely legitimate for non-Jews as well as Jews to express opinions about it, whether positive or negative. Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews.

Criticism of Israeli government policy and Israeli state actions against the Palestinians is not antisemitism. Those who conflate criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism, whether they are supporters or opponents of Israeli policy, are actually helping the antisemites. We reject any attempt, from whichever quarter, to place legitimate criticism of Israeli policy out of bounds.

Accusations of antisemitism are currently being weaponised to attack the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party with claims that Labour has a “problem” of antisemitism. This is despite Corbyn’s longstanding record of actively opposing fascism and all forms of racism, and being a firm a supporter of the rights of refugees and of human rights globally.

A very small number of such cases seem to be real instances of antisemitism. Others represent genuine criticism of Israeli policy and support for Palestinian rights, but expressed in clumsy and ambiguous language, which may unknowingly cross a line into antisemitism. Further cases are simply forthright expressions of support for Palestinian rights, which condemn Israeli government policy and aspects of Zionist ideology, and have nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism.

The accusations do not refer to antisemitic actions but usually to comments, often made on social media, long before Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour leadership. Those making the charges now, did not see fit to bring them up at the time, under previous Labour leaders, but are using them now, just before mayoral and local elections, when they believe they can inflict most damage on the Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn.

The attack is coming from four main sources, who share agendas: to undermine Jeremy Corbyn as leader of Labour; to defend Israeli government policy from attack, however unjust, racist and harmful towards the Palestinian people; and to discredit those who make legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy or Zionism as a political ideology. As anti-racist and anti-fascist Jews who are also campaigning for peace with justice between Israelis and Palestinians, we entirely reject these cynical agendas that are being expressed by:

  • The Conservative Party
  • Conservative-supporting media in Britain and pro-Zionist Israeli media sources
  • Right-wing and pro-Zionist elements claiming to speak on behalf of the Jewish community
  • Opponents of Jeremy Corbyn within the Labour party.

The Jewish Socialists’ Group recognises that ordinary Jewish people are rightly concerned and fearful about instances of antisemitism. We share their concerns and a have a proud and consistent record of challenging and campaigning against antisemitism. But we will not support those making false accusations for cynical political motives, including the Conservative Party, who are running a racist campaign against Sadiq Khan, and whose leader David Cameron has referred to desperate refugees, as “a swarm” and “a bunch of migrants”. The Conservative Party demonstrated their contempt for Lord Dubs, a Jewish refugee from Nazism, when they voted down en masse an amendment a few days ago to allow 3,000 child refugees into Britain while Labour, led by Jeremy Corbyn, gave total support to Lord Dubs and his amendment.

The Jewish Socialists’ Group sees the current fearmongering about antisemitism in the Labour Party for what it is – a conscious and concerted effort by right-wing political forces to undermine the growing support among Jews and non-Jews alike for the Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, and a measure of the desperation of his opponents.

We stand against antisemitism, against racism and fascism and in support of refugees. We stand for free speech and open debate on Israel, Palestine and Zionism.

25 Comments

  1. Mervyn Hyde (@mjh0421) says:

    Thank you for this article which gets right to the heart of the matter, the claims made against the left and the Labour Party in general are as the article points out, a deliberate attack on the members and current leadership of the party.

    These attacks are deliberately timed to do the Labour as much harm as possible just as Labour is rising in the polls.

    The character assassination conducted on Ken Livingstone is to deliberately tarnish his chances of staying on the Labour Party NEC so that right wing elements are elected.

    Zac Goldsmith has clearly conducted a racist Islamophobia campaign against Sadiq Kahn, where has all the Ire been vented on him from those that have so willingly attacked Ken Livingstone, the silence of course has been deafening.

    1. Karl Stewart says:

      There’s no defence of the idiot Livingstone in this article Mervyn.

      Livingstone’s degenerated into a foolish old attention seeker who now seems to be dabbling dangerously in revisionism.

      Let’s not confuse the vital defence of Corbyn and his leadership with wasting time on Livingstone.

  2. Chris Baldwin says:

    It is a coup attempt, plain and simple.

    I know it’s unfashionable to say such accusations should simply be dismissed, but when they are so clearly baseless I think taking them seriously constitutes appeasement.

    Here is what Jeremy Corbyn should do now:

    Lift the suspensions of Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone.

    Suspend John Mann and issue warnings to Sadiq Khan, Jess Phillips etc.

    Scrap the inquiry.

    Make a public statement that there is no anti-semitism problem and the accusations are a deliberate attack on Labour.

  3. David Pavett says:

    Yes, a good clear statement.

    I would to add only that the recent media frenzy about an alleged serious problem of anti-Semitism on the left in general and among the Labour left in particular has been a disgraceful episode in the willingness of most journalists to stand on the sidelines shouting “fight”, “fight” without the slightest effort to check their facts.

    The facts as concern the Labour party are enumerated by Jamie Stern-Weiner in Open Democracy. (The article was written before Ken Livingstone’s unhelpful contribution but perhaps that will be taken into account in Part II which has not appeared yet).

    1. Mervyn Hyde (@mjh0421) says:

      This is a must read and the Video content is evidence based, which clarifies the distinction between genuine criticism of Zionism and the smearing of anyone who dares to speak up.

      http://www.thecanary.co/2016/04/28/how-the-establishment-is-trying-to-silence-corbyn-and-the-left-with-cries-of-anti-semitism/

  4. John Penney says:

    There is much in this article from the Jewish Socialist’s Group that is very true – especially the cynical determination of the Right Labour, pro Israeli Right, and Tories to use this issue to smear the Labour Left , particularly Jeremy Corbyn.

    Sadly, although it serves to make all those who have been so keen on the Left to claim “there is no problem here – just a neoliberal conspiracy ” – feel good about their clean hands, it goes along uncritically with a key problem of a lack of careful definition of terms and narrative on “Zionism” which has bedevilled the Left for generations.

    The article starts off badly early on with the statement:

    “Antisemitism and anti-Zionism are not the same. Zionism is a political ideology which has always been contested within Jewish life since it emerged in 1897, and it is entirely legitimate for non-Jews as well as Jews to express opinions about it, whether positive or negative. Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews.”

    Unfortunately, this over-brief “description ” of Zionism , fails to outline the core belief or reasoning behind political Zionism, ie, that Jews generally, but particularly in Russia/Europe, could never be safe from oppression and periodic pogroms as minorities inside nation states. Zionism proposed that only by establishing a specifically Jewish state (“Somewhere ” originally – not automatically Palestine”) to which the perpetually persecuted , could Jews everywhere be free from persecution, and create for themselves a more “normal” class and occupational structure as a nation.

    Until the WW2 Holocaust changed the survivor’s minds in a big way, this very much minority viewpoint Zionist proposal was hotly contested by both the conservative Jewish establishment everywhere – wedded to a traditional “keep our heads down and try to survive and prosper” perspective, and Jewish Socialists/communists , who proposed Jews should fight alongside the non-Jewish Left to build non-sectarian socialist societies.

    So far, so non-controversial, surely ? But the current article, and the Left generally today, now do a strange thing – they totally ignore the impact of the European Holocaust, in utterly destroying the ancient multi-state-based European Jewish civilisation, and 6 million of its people . And, lest we forget, creating the original 20th century stateless “Boat People” in 1945 – seeking sanctuary, in the face of both continued hostility from the populations in Nazi occupied Europe (periodic local pogroms of returning Jews disfigured Poland for a decade after 1945), and a surely understandable desire to find a “Life Raft state” to give them a prospect of an end to a future of endless oppression.

    We all know that the Zionist proposition that Palestine was “a land without people – for a people without land” was a convenient fiction – and that the displacement of Palestinians after 1948 was, and is brutal and unjust. But the issue the Left has a key problem with is where to go from here ?

    The point that the article and the Left generally will not address is that the belief that the Jewish People need a state in which they are the majority, and that that state is Israel, is now held by the absolutely overwhelming majority of Jews , everwhere. This does not however mean that all Jews ignore the plight of the Palestinians – or indeed aren’t willing to negotiate a “Two State solution” with the Palestinian People. Survey’s of Jews in the UK actually reveal a majority to be very keen for a negotiated Palestinian/Israeli territorial agreement. Indeed there are still a sizeable proportion of Israeli Jews keen to reach a territorial settlement . The one thing the overwhelming majority of Jews will not countenance is the abolition/destruction of a viable Israeli state itself . In this “Two States solution” objective they are nowadays joined by the PLO, and the overwhelming majority of most of the populations of the Western democracies when ever polled on the issue.

    So who stands out against a (undoubtedly very difficult to achieve )”Two States Solution” objective today ? Firstly of course, whatever they say in public, the Right wing Likudists within Israel won’t agree to giving up land to the Palestinians. But beyond them, there are the various Middle East dictatorships/oligarchies , and fundamentalist Islamic groups wordwide, who demand only the utter destruction of what they see as the illegitimate “Zionist Entity”. And the radical Left ? Most of the radical Left hide behind a position which actually mirrors the “Israel must be totally destroyed” objective of the most extreme Islamacist regimes and groups – but “prettified up” by demanding the “replacement” of the Israeli state with a “non-sectarian, democratic , ideally socialisdt new single state of Palestinian, Druze, and Jews. A totally “impossibilist” demand – that actually requires that Israel be militarily defeated and its Jewish population fall under the domination of a Muslim dominated state. How realistic and attractive does that look in today’s Middle East reality ?

    So from the point of view of the radical Left generally, and all the constantly self avowing “anti-Zionist but definitely NOT anti-Semitic” posters on this site , who are these “Zionists” exactly ? If “Zionism” is defined simply as anyone who thinks that since 1948 a distinct Hebrew-speaking Israeli Jewish nation has been created in part of Palestine (yes, yes, by conquest and land seizure – and its boundaries are the critical issue of contention) , and that this “nation” has a legitimacy and right to self determination equal to any other distinct nation (eg, The Kurds) , then almost ALL Jews are “Zionists”, and most of the non-Jewish populations of the Western democracies are “Zionists” too ! Indeed Jeremy Corbyn has now adopted the “Two States” position – and is therefore “a Zionist” !

    It is the refusal of the radical Left , with a few exceptions, to accept the existence of an Israeli state (within boundaries to be determined by negotiation with the Palestinians vis a vis their own state ), that has led too many on the radical Left to hob nob with dodgy Islamacist groups who have an overall political value system completely at odds with our socialist beliefs , and to get drawn into loose, careless and ambiguous usages of the term “Zionism”, which feed into the politically toxic misrepresentations that “Zionism and Nazism are twins”, that “Israel is a fascist state” , narratives that actually explain nothing – and alienate and divorce the radical Left from even that significant portion of the Jewish community which does seek an honourable territorial settlement with the Palestinian people.

    1. John Penney says:

      Oops, a typo in my paragraph commencing “So far, so non-controversial, surely ? …” later in that paragraph I meant to say , ” in the face of continuing racist hostility from elements of the populations of what had been Nazi occupied Europe (periodic local pogroms of returning Jews disfigured Poland for a decade after 1945 )….”

  5. Jim Denham says:

    It’s a wretched statement by a tiny group of unrepresentative “anti-Zionist” Jews who systematically evade the real issue of anti-Semitism, and ascribe it all to “Zionist”/Blairite conspirators whose sole objective is to deflect legitimate criticism of Israel and/or undermine Corbyn’s leadership. This will simply not do, and the fact that the individuals claiming this happen to be Jewish in no way changes that.

    1. Karl Stewart says:

      No Jim, it’s a decent article posted by a genuine organisation and it deserves to be taken seriously and discussed seriously.

      1. Jim Denham says:

        I don’t doubt the personal “decency” of the people who put their names to the statement.

        But it’s an appalling statement which, as part of a longstanding tradition, claims that accusations of anti-semitism are being raised in bad faith by a Zionist-Tory alliance. (Is there some kind of ban on Zionists criticising anti-semitism?)

        It also gives the Labour party as a whole, and the present leadership a clean bill of health as though this was simply a given, and puts inverted commas round the word “problem”:

        *Accusations of antisemitism are currently being weaponised to attack the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party with claims that Labour has a “problem” of antisemitism. This is despite Corbyn’s longstanding record of actively opposing fascism and all forms of racism, and being a firm a supporter of the rights of refugees and of human rights globally*

        I’m sure there’s a nasty right-wing witch-hunt going on. But the right would be really stupid not to take the opportunity to shoot at an open goal.

        And I can’t think of anything re. homophobic comments or anti-abortion comments which compares even remotely with Livingstone’s comments. And Livingstone’s comments are emblematic of an entire political current in the Labour Party (and the unions).

        1. Karl Stewart says:

          No Jim, Livingstone’s shocking and revolting revisionism is extremely rare outside of the fascistic far-right.

    2. Chris says:

      What’s up Sean?

      Parrotting your Trot sect line again?

      How about thinking for yourself once in a while?

  6. Bazza says:

    And the attacks on Labour’s alleged ‘Anti-Semitism’ continue in the media and it’s starting to feel a bit like McCarthyism!
    But is anyone asking who is trawling the social media of Labour councillors, MPs, activists, to feed the right wing contacts and media?
    Some have suggested to me some disaffected Right Wing Labour but would they be so barmy to damage their own party? Some the right wing blogger Guido Fawkes (a word play on a religious fundamentalist terrorist) who may not have the resources? Someone have even suggested to me it could even be the Right wing Governent’s UK Israeli Embassey although this would be far fetched- surely they wouldn’t interfere in in the internal politics of another democracy?
    Then I read Mathew d’Acona in the Guardian today (2/5/16) and he felt to some of the left, “A little bit of learning was a dangerous thing” adding that the left fails to remember that Jewish people were victims.
    But as Germany had to choose between barbarianism or the socialism on offer tragically (with the aid of capitalism) barbarianism won for a short while and Jewish people were forced to their deaths in their millions.
    But in much smaller numbers so too were socialists, communists, anarchists, LGBT people, the disabled, people with learning disabilities, people with mental health difficulties, gypsies etc. so on a much smaller scale the Left were victims too.
    Yes some on the left may be niaive and use inappropriate language and may not think through their arguments but perhaps it is a coalition of the above which offers humanity the most hope.
    Jonathan Freedland again in the Guardian (1/5/16) said then what should we do then about the US, New Zealand, Australia who all treated their indigenous people terribly robbing them of their land.
    But I think this could aid the argument that time seems to decide thus adding credence to those who argue for the possibility of a one-state solution?
    And the great Palestinian writer Edward Siad was to come to this conclusion; but I would argue a political one negoiated by Jewish and Palestinian left wing democratic socialists; a peaceful solution where everyone’s religious rights (as well as those of none) are respected.
    But as some dismiss this as a left wing democratic socialist I have to ask, can’t diverse working people live together peace in this disputed area?
    Love, peace & international solidarity!

    1. C MacMackin says:

      I would hardly use the US, Australia or Canada as they exist at present (I’ve heard New Zealand has turned things around in recent years but would need to hear it confirmed) as examples of the viability of a one-state solution. I’m most familiar with the Canadian context and it is not pretty. Aboriginals live on reserves which are usually on pretty terrible land. While they have some special privileges (free tuition, different hunting rules, etc.), they lose these if they leave the reserve. The reserves are rife with social problems such as drug abuse, alcoholism, violence, and corruption. Many of them do not have drinkable water or adequate housing. Relationships with nearby non-aboriginal communities are often extremely poor. Those more knowledgeable about the issue than I could go on at much greater length.

      That was a bit off-topic, but it does show one of the ways in which a single-state solution could go wrong. A multicultural single state is undoubtedly the preferred solution, but it just isn’t on the table and a just two-state solution is not only infinitely better than what we have right now but is much more attainable than a just one-state solution.

  7. I fully agree that the anti-Semitism charges intentionally exaggerate any anti-Semitic tendencies that may exist in Labour and are principally a tactic meant to weaken Jeremy Corbyn.
    At the same time I roundly condemn Ken Livingstone for his provocative and inaccurate statements. To claim that Hitler supported Zionism is nonsense. Hitler may have sought tactical alliances with Zionists at times. However, since Zionism is a Jewish nationalist movement, to “support Zionism” requires being well-disposed toward the Jewish people, which Hitler never was.
    I have known that Livingstone has a twisted mind ever since, as mayor of London, he invited the Muslim Brotherhood’s top hate preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi to London, and then actually EMBRACED the creep!
    I largely agree with John Penney’s letter asserting the anti-Semitic nature of much criticism of Israel.
    Even if not deliberately anti-Semitic, overheated rhetoric about “genocide” by Israel and the like tends to de-legitimise Israel. Since Israel is currently the only Jewish state, and it guarantees the safety of all Jews everywhere, the practical effect is definitely anti-Semitic.
    Israel’s undoubted oppression of Palestinians is the ostensible cause of Mohammedan hatred for Israel. But the same Mohammedan louts in France that rail against Israel also revile, menace and murder French Jews, thus provoking their emigration to … Israel, of all places! This shows the irrational nature of Mohammedan attitudes toward Israel and Jews.
    If aforesaid Mohammedan louts REALLY cared about their Palestinian brothers and sisters, they would refrain from harassing French Jews and hence from encouraging Jewish migration to Israel.
    Accordingly Mohammedan hatred toward Israel is essentially a tribalist ideological phenomenon and should accordingly be denied any legitimacy.
    Most indignation against Israel is postulated on very tight framing of the Israeli-Arab conflict, by disguising it as an Israeli-Palestinian conflict and studiously ignoring its regional and historical dimensions. See my Ethnic Disentanglement After Multi-Ethnic Empires, http://islamophiliawatch.blogspot.com/2016/02/ethnic-disentanglement-after-multi.html
    As for the vulnerability of Palestinians to Zionist encroachments and abuses, they have only themselves to blame. THE PALESTINIANS LEADERS CHOSE STATELESSNESS, not once but about eight times, by consistently rejecting all offers of statehood made to them since 1947. Presumably they imagined that time was on their side and that by relying on regional Arab predominance, eventually they would prevail, seize all Palestine and eject the Jews, thus establishing undisputed Arab Mohammedan hegemony in the region.
    This is the assessment of Benny Morris, the most prominent of the “New Israeli Historians” who revealed the ruthlessness of many Israeli actions and policies against the Arabs, thus trashing the zealously cultivated myth of Zionist saintliness.
    However the brash Palestinian leadership had misjudged the regional balance of military power. Their faith in Arab military prowess was misplaced [see Why Arab Armies Lose Wars, by Joe Katzman, http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/002471.html ]. Furthermore the surrounding Arab states largely lacked the political will to avenge the Palestinians.
    Palestinian overconfidence concerning the final outcome of the Jewish-Arab conflict in Palestine has been a constant feature of Palestinian nationalism for at almost one century. Very early on into the British Mandate in Palestine (1920-1948) the Arab leadership adopted extremely unyielding and violent policies, as epitomised by the career of Amin al Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. This included torturing and murdering Palestinian Arabs who disagreed with Husayni’s intransigent policies or were suspected — often without justification — of collaborating with the Zionist foe.
    Despite initial friendly gestures toward native, non-Zionist Palestinian Jews, very soon Palestinian nationalists – reflecting the traditional Islamic obsession with classifying people primarily by their religious affiliation — proceeded to slaughter such Jews along with the Zionists, as occurred in 1929 in Hebron, where detachments of armed Arab villagers converged on Hebron and massacred much of its Jewish population, predominantly composed of well-integrated Arabic-speaking Jews. By the way, the English Wikipedia article on the Hebron massacre carefully conceals the fact that the pogrom was a planned military operation conducted simultaneously with a similar one in distant Safed. The German and French Wikipedias are more candid.
    The Hebron pogrom had the predictable effect of turning local, Arabised Jews into ardent Zionists. The Hebron pogrom brought forth an Israeli nation.

    1. Mervyn Hyde (@mjh0421) says:

      I started reading your diatribe but seriously question your historical facts, the idea people were frightened for their lives would rush back to possibly subject themselves to the intimidation and violence that forced them off their land in the first place, is not only a distorted view of history, but bizarre in the extreme.

      There is no need for me to justify your clear distorted view of History, I will just let this Jewish Rabbi prove your twisted claims are untrue.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrptuoYhRJE

      I have no doubt you think these Jews are anti-Semites as well.

      1. Dear Mr Hyde:
        You reproach me with having a distorted and bizarre view of history. I assure you I make a considerable effort to be objective and precise in my choice of sources and use of language. I am not a professional historian and have no access to primary sources. Nonetheless I carefully screen secondary sources for bias and compare different versions of the same events to note discrepancies. I routinely visit web sites that represent extremely divergent points of view. The pro-Palestinian web sites that I have consulted either agree with or else are silent regarding the facts and events that I recounted in my letter. Consequently I presume that my statements reflect the current state of historical knowledge.
        I decline with thanks your offer to view a video featuring a religious official, since I distrust men of god.
        Regarding my use of the term “Jew”, I use it all the time.
        On the merits of my claims, you write about “intimidation and violence that forced them [presumably Palestinian Arabs] off their land”. This seems to reflect the mutilated version of history that is customarily presented in pro-Palestinian writings. You seem to think that the violence originated with the Jews, and quite suddenly at that. I must disabuse you.
        To my knowledge the first case of major violence between Jews and Arabs in Palestine occurred in 1920, with the Jerusalem riots. “Speeches by Arab religious leaders during the festival … led to violent assaults on the city’s Jews.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots Shortly after those riots the first Jewish militia, the Haganah, was formed.
        Conflict persisted sporadically for three decades, leading up to the war of 1948 that concluded with the Nakba.
        The issue of which side initiated violence is only one of many issues – and perhaps not even the most important one — that must be taken into account before making any judgment on the rights and wrongs of the Palestine conflict.

    2. Jimbo says:

      “THE PALESTINIANS LEADERS CHOSE STATELESSNESS”

      That’s a neat a piece of victim-blaming as I have seen for many a day.

      I also suggest to you that your repeated negative stereotyping of the group you refer to as ‘Mohammedans’ is sufficiently racist as to disqualify anything else that you say from serious consideration. I am sure that you would object most strongly to attacks on ‘The Jews’ – and quite rightly so.

  8. Alex Perry says:

    It is a good thing that we live in a multicultural society. But it would be even better if the diverse communities in the UK became more integrated. I would like to see more cooperation between Jews, Moslems and everybody else in opposing the far right. It would be fantastic if the friends of Israel and the friends of Palestine became friends with each other in the struggle against Fascism. The Labour Party has the potential to generate models of equality and fraternity between minority groups which can be shared with to the rest of the world. We don’t have to import ethnic conflict, we can export peace. Deep down I know that the solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is not lines drawn on a map. There has to be justice, equality and fraternity for the human beings who live in the Middle East and also here in the UK.

  9. In defence of my letter, I reply as follows to Jimbo:
    “MOHAMMEDAN”
    The term “Mohammedan” has been used for centuries. It is a neutral and descriptive term, i.e. it designates the followers of Mohammed. If you assert that the term is pejorative, then you are implying that Mohammed was a disreputable individual. That is for each person to decide, preferably on the basis of reliable historical records and not just gossip, as is usual in political discussions.
    I have often called Mohammedans “Mohammedans” to their faces, and their reaction has never been indignant. At most they become intrigued as to why I choose this term in preference to more fashionable ones.
    Occasionally they object to my use of the term “Mohammedan” to describe them. Their reasoning is that the term seems to imply that Mohammed is a god. I am not persuaded by this argument. It is analogous to claiming that Trotskyists worship Trotsky. Other examples abound.
    “RACISM”
    I object to your misuse of the term “racist”. Racial discrimination is a criminal offence enshrined in international and domestic law, so you cannot define “racism” to suit your individual taste.
    DEFINITIONS OF RACISM
    The UN convention against all forms of racism defines racism as discrimination based on “colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin”. It makes no mention of religion.
    In British law the phrase racial group means “any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
    As far as I know, no law in any country designates hostility to any religion as “racist”.
    Nonetheless, with the mendacity so characteristic of political zealots, the Institute of Race Relations inaccurately claims that discrimination based on religion is classed as racial discrimination in British law. “In the UK, denying people access to good and services on the basis of their colour, nationality, ethnicity, RELIGION etc is illegal and called racial discrimination.”
    http://www.irr.org.uk/research/statistics/definitions/
    Consequently to call people “racists” because they criticize certain religions is simply a lie, and nothing more.
    My above discussion of these two terms reveals to what extent political discussion is conducted in a deceptive and propagandistic manner, by misusing language, i.e. by attributing to words meanings that diverge from their meanings as defined in laws and dictionaries.

    1. Jimbo says:

      Your reply is boringly familiar, containing all of the quibbles and denials predictably and formulaically served up by those attempting to deny/defend their own racist sentiments.

      Niggle and nit-pick as you may, your original post reeked of bigotry.

      I have a proposal: if you are a member of the Labour Party, let us go together to the Compliance Unit and let them judge.

      1. let us go together to the Compliance Unit and let them judge.

        I think I would prefer to have put myself at the mercy of the judgment of the Stasi

        1. Jimbo says:

          Whoops – that’s your membership gone should you ever find yourself before them.

  10. […] On another matter, there is a worrying development of several party members being suspended due to alleged anti-Semitism, of whom Ken Livingstone is the most famous. Members might be interested in this article by Jon Lansman and this statement by the Jewish Socialist Group. […]

© 2017 Left Futures | Powered by WordPress | theme originated from PrimePress by Ravi Varma