Corb Blimey!

[NHH]

The answer is probably somewhere between the lack of any reliably pro-Corbyn media outlet to feed this stuff in and Seamus Milne not being particularly bothered for political reasons.

[Nefertiti2]

I think a number of people have written about it.(jewish Judge ) Stephen Sedley in the Guardian

The pro-Israeli Jewish Labour Movement seems to have obtained some very odd legal advice, if your report is correct. Sir William Macpherson did not advise that everything perceived as racist was ipso facto racist. He advised that reported incidents that were perceived by the victim as racist should be recorded and investigated as such. His purpose was to reverse the dismissive culture that characterised the reporting and policing of racial incidents.

Advertisement

To derive from this fallacy a proposition that anything perceived by one or more Jewish people as antisemitic is legally an act of racism is not only absurd: it overlooks another aspect of legality, the right of free expression contained in article 10 of the European convention on human rights and now embodied in our law by the Human Rights Act. It is a right that may be qualified by proportionate legal restrictions necessary for protecting the rights of others: hence the legal bar on hate speech.

There is no legal bar on criticising Israel. Yet several of the “examples” that have been tacked on to the IHRA definition (by whom is not known) seek to stifle criticism of Israel irrespective of intent. The House of Commons select committee on home affairs in October 2016 advised adding: “It is not antisemitic to criticise the government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.” Do the Jewish Labour Movement and its lawyers accept this?

(Jewish) Brian Klug in the The Guardian

Pollard, the Likudniks who dominate Jewish press and the Tories who want to hammer away at Labour don't give a shit. They've tuned what is a legitimate debate about how best to codify antisemtism in a form that is legally binding into a rant- an existential threat to Judasism in this county. It's completely fucking mad

I've signed this. i hope othes will too.

This week, the Jewish Chronicle, Jewish News and Jewish Telegraph are publishing the same front page, headed “United we stand” on what they describe as the community’s anger over “Labour’s anti-Semitism row” and its “refusal to adopt the full International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism”. The heading suggests that these papers speak for the whole community. We, the undersigned members of the UK Jewish community, take strong exception to the statement and disassociate ourselves from it. Whatever our views on the Labour Party and its handling of the antisemitism allegations, we consider that the demand to “implement IHRA in full or be seen by all decent people as an institutionally racist and anti-Semitic party” and the prediction of “the existential threat to Jewish life in this country that would be posed by a Jeremy Corbyn-led government” go beyond the boundaries of acceptable political discourse. Worse, they could help to create a climate of fear among many in the Jewish community and by conflating real antisemitism with what they call “political anti-Semitism targeting Israel”, jeopardise prospects for a just and peaceful solution in the Middle East.

But I know a lot of Jewish friends who i consider sane and on the left who are repeating this stuff so for some its working.

I don't think this is something Milne could stop,though

[Nefertiti2]

https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1022468722345168896

[Tubby Isaacs]

Corbyn might want to get somebody in who can be bothered.

"Adopt the code in full" is an imprecise shorthand including the examples too. Jon Ashworth used the phrase in exactly that way. I don't think there's any way of getting away from the fact that, whatever you think of them, the examples were always going to matter.

[Nefertiti2]

But the examples are not legally binding. if you are going to expel people because they are in breach of the code it has to be legally binding. I

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

no but Corbyn could make things a bit clearer. those quotes from the guardian are good, but they're not by the leader of the labour party. I know that the a large proportion of the media is out to get him, but Corbyn is actively bad at this sort of thing. It worked out quite well in election when it turned out that once people actually heard him speak, or encountered the Labour party's message. But there's no reason that you shouldn't try to be good at both. You can complain all you want about others misrepresenting you, and twisting everything, but unless you actually get out there and make your own case, then you cede the entire ground to your opponents.

[Tubby Isaacs]

But the examples are not legally binding. if you are going to expel people because they are in breach of the code it has to be legally binding. I

I don't know what the law's got to do with expelling people from political parties. I mean, there's no law saying you can't campaign for the Tories in an election, but you'd get slung out of Labour for doing that.

[Nefertiti2]

Because any code has to be able to stand up in court. If you are going to use it to expel people they have the right to bring that to court..

[Snake Plissken]

Also, this discussion has already gone in to the kind of nuance that the media aren't interested in.

[Nefertiti2]

no but Corbyn could make things a bit clearer. those quotes from the guardian are good, but they're not by the leader of the labour party. I know that the a large proportion of the media is out to get him, but Corbyn is actively bad at this sort of thing. It worked out quite well in election when it turned out that once people actually heard him speak, or encountered the Labour party's message. But there's no reason that you shouldn't try to be good at both. You can complain all you want about others misrepresenting you, and twisting everything, but unless you actually get out there and make your own case, then you cede the entire ground to your opponents.

I hear the Shadow solicitor general talking about this on the today programme. He explained calmly and rationally which bits of the examples had been taken into the code. the interviewer just shouted at him that Jeremy Corbyn was an anti semite.

[Lang Spoon]

I don't know what the law's got to do with expelling people from political parties. I mean, there's no law saying you can't campaign for the Tories in an election, but you'd get slung out of Labour for doing that.

Tubbs as far as I’m aware expelling someone from a party is like removing the right to practice as a doctor/solicitor /architect, there might be no law set down, but due process has to be followed. Or they can go to the High Court to appeal.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Tubbs as far as I’m aware expelling someone from a party is like removing t/]he right tonpractice as a doctor/solicitor /architect, there might be no law set in, but due process has to be followed.

That makes sense. You can have due process with or without those examples, whether or not they're qualified.

[johnr]

Corbyn is not the NEC. He's a member of it, but he's not 'it'. That's the way the Labour Party works, and generally he doesn't - to the disappointment of some who would like him to lead more - undermine the NEC, or any other Labour process, or indeed much comment on it.
Unfortunately, that does leave the way open for it to be personalised about him - he's the anti-semite here, even though, of course, he isn't. Because, as many people have pointed out, much of this is not really about anti-semitism, it's about him.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Corbyn is not the NEC. He's a member of it, but he's not 'it'. That's the way the Labour Party works, and generally he doesn't - to the disappointment of some who would like him to lead more - undermine the NEC, or any other Labour process, or indeed much comment on it.

You're going to get put on the spot about something controversial that a committee in your party has produced, so can't really stand aside from it. At the very least you have to go on the record saying whether you agree with it or not.

I can understand why he was more careful when there were disciplinary processes that eg Livingstone could have complained about having been prejudiced, and cause even more trouble. But even so, somebody wanting to be the Prime Minister will be expected to find a way of solving problems like Livingstone more quickly.

[Snake Plissken]

no but Corbyn could make things a bit clearer. those quotes from the guardian are good, but they're not by the leader of the labour party. I know that the a large proportion of the media is out to get him, but Corbyn is actively bad at this sort of thing. It worked out quite well in election when it turned out that once people actually heard him speak, or encountered the Labour party's message. But there's no reason that you shouldn't try to be good at both. You can complain all you want about others misrepresenting you, and twisting everything, but unless you actually get out there and make your own case, then you cede the entire ground to your opponents.

You've (presumably) read that editorial. On what possible planet is he going to change the opinion of the person who wrote it? It is a step sort of Dacre-esque foaming at the mouth. I do get annoyed at his policy of non-engagement with the media, but you have to pick your battles.

On another forum I'm on, someone who is staunchly anti-Corbyn and worked under a Labour Minister is arguing that because the accusation of antisemitism exists, then Corbyn must be on some level an anti-semite. You can't deal with that irrationality.

[Snake Plissken]

I can understand why he was more careful when there were disciplinary processes that eg Livingstone could have complained about having been prejudiced, and cause even more trouble. But even so, somebody wanting to be the Prime Minister will be expected to find a way of solving problems like Livingstone more quickly.

Funnily enough, right now Margaret Hodge is getting her lawyers to write letters complaining about the disciplinary process being too fast.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

This bogus anti=Semitism thing is a very annoying distraction from the crucial issue of our times, namely Brexit. Could anyone answer these questions:

1. Would there be a majority in the Parliamentary Labour Party in favour of having a new referendum given the new facts (Leave campaign breaches of electoral law, car crash negotations heading for no deal etc.)?
2. Would there be a majority amongst the Labour Party membership for that?
3. If so, is that unspeakable **** Corbyn with his daydreams of a splendidly isolated socialist paradise the biggest obstacle to the Labour Party playing its essential part in saving our country from catastrophe?

[ad hoc]

Q3 seems a bit loaded

[Tubby Isaacs]

15 Labour MPs felt it was too much to abstain on the Single Market, they felt they had to vote against. These aren't voting for a second referendum.

[johnr]

This bogus anti=Semitism thing is a very annoying distraction from the crucial issue of our times, namely Brexit. Could anyone answer these questions:

1. Would there be a majority in the Parliamentary Labour Party in favour of having a new referendum given the new facts (Leave campaign breaches of electoral law, car crash negotations heading for no deal etc.)?
2. Would there be a majority amongst the Labour Party membership for that?
3. If so, is that unspeakable **** Corbyn with his daydreams of a splendidly isolated socialist paradise the biggest obstacle to the Labour Party playing its essential part in saving our country from catastrophe?

1. Probably not yet. I keep asking a few of the pro-2nd Ref ones whether it should be a 2- or 3-way option, but get no answer. I think, once that is clarified by those who are pushing for one, we might see some change.
2. No way of knowing at the moment. There was, of course, a larger group for Remain than Leave, and there's definitely some rumblings in some CLP's; however, there's also some disengenuous 'Labour members for Remain, so must therefore back a 2nd Ref' media stuff, which isn't necessarily the case - fwiw, out of the friends I have in Labour, I'd say it's about 60-40 in favour of not having one (mainly along the lines of supporting Starmer's approach - get the best deal we can - and some follow that with the idea that we leave, then go into next GE with a commitment to rejoin. That's sort of where I'm at too.)
3. Can't be bothered answering that bollocks.

[Flynnie]

The three-way option proposed by Justine Greening is by far the best one from a Remainer POV, because once Soft Brexit inevitably drops out of the running, those people break mostly for Remain rather than Hard Brexit.

Remain has a four-point lead over Leave today, but polling last week done on the three-way option showed Remain winning by 10 over Hard Brexit.

I think most of the Lexiter Online crowd have socialism in one country blinkers on, but I was pleasantly surprised at Corbyn's speech pointing out how the Tories use the EU as a fig leaf for their desires.

[ad hoc]

This is a good range of Jewish opinion on the IHWA definitions https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...P=share_btn_tw (Obviously i agree more with some than with others, but it;s good to get a range of thought)

[Nefertiti2]

This from former BBC Journalist Robin Lustig is also good

[Lucy Waterman]

https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1022468722345168896

They should flag up the outreach work he does with the Jewish community in his constituency, which I believe there is ample evidence of. Not signing EDMs which take seconds. My favourite is EDM 1801. They should build a statue to him for that.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

You've (presumably) read that editorial. On what possible planet is he going to change the opinion of the person who wrote it? It is a step sort of Dacre-esque foaming at the mouth. I do get annoyed at his policy of non-engagement with the media, but you have to pick your battles.

On another forum I'm on, someone who is staunchly anti-Corbyn and worked under a Labour Minister is arguing that because the accusation of antisemitism exists, then Corbyn must be on some level an anti-semite. You can't deal with that irrationality.

Nothing is going to change the mind of the people writing that editorial, however it's not them you're interested in. You're interested in the General public, Which is why as soon as this started to become an issue Corbyn should have come out front and centre and said that Labour had adopted this definition, and was working to make it into a series of rules that could withstand a legal challenge, so they could actually be used to expel anti-semites. this is a fucking battle that he should have picked. Because now he's being called an existential threat to jews in the UK, and is saying practically fuck all about it. now the essentially unchallenged public narrative is that he's an anti-semite, whereas he's actually just fucking useless.