Must admit I never could stand Deggsy.
Him and his tinfoil suits.
I find that arsehole Galloway much more objectionable.
I’m blocked by Galloway on Twitter but this sums him up.I find that arsehole Galloway much more objectionable.
Hatton has been suspended from the party already over Tweets that are being investigated
Utter rubbish.He wasn't suspended for criticising the Israeli government. Unwittingly or not, a defence of this is a defence of antisemitism.
As to Hatton....his tweet said....
"Jewish people with any sense of humanity need to start speaking out publicly against the ruthless murdering being carried out by Israel." I personally do not find that unreasonble.
With over 50 years in the Labour and Trade Union Movement I have met dozens of Jewish friends no doubt as Hatton has, who have opposed actively the action of the State of Israel's treatment of Palestinians. More so ones who have visited and experienced over decades.
Attacking Hatton for having silvery suits or what he does now is crass nonsense.
BiG G
I'm actually sympathetic with your view on this, though it would carry a bit more weight if the people arguing it had been equally vociferous about all muslims being told that they have to be stronger in their condemnation of islamic terrorismYou think it's okay to hold Jews collectively responsible for the actions of Israel? That's antisemitic and it is defined as such in the Labour Party's own code of conduct which is why Hatton was suspended.
I'm actually sympathetic with your view on this, though it would carry a bit more weight if the people arguing it had been equally vociferous about all muslims being told that they have to be stronger in their condemnation of islamic terrorism
The point I'm making is that those doing so have not repeatedly been called racists. Indeed the very media and politicians deliberately obscuring the difference between anti-Israel and anti-Semitism are often the ones attacking Muslims for not marching against terrorism.Yes. Although quite a lot of people have done that. Me, for one, although I am admittedly not influential.
I think there is a complete lack of balance in the attention given to this and I think it is political. Christ one of the breakaway MPs uses terms about funny tinged people and after 12 hours its put down to her being tired. The Goldsmith campaign has never been condemned by the Tory Party and the media pretty much schtoom about it. The suspension of racist Tory Councillors then let back into the party and not a dicky bird. If you can't see an issue here I don't think you're looking hard enough.The left are quite welcome to go, "yeah, there might be some issues with racism in Labour but the tories are awful too" but that isn't a movement I personally would want anything to do with.
Its not that they are being weaponized by opponents but that they are taken as fact when those opponents mention them that I have a problem with. And the lack of Jewish voices on the other side is equally problematic. Jewish Voice for Labour get very little attention for example, but the conservative Jewish groups are taken as speaking for all Jews.Obviously some of Labour's antisemitism issue has been weaponised by opponents and no doubt exaggerated. In what political world would that not happen? But that doesn't mean it's not there and unfortunately and as I say probably inadvertently, this thread goes some way towards showing that.
The point I'm making is that those doing so have not repeatedly been called racists. Indeed the very media and politicians deliberately obscuring the difference between anti-Israel and anti-Semitism are often the ones attacking Muslims for not marching against terrorism.
I think there is a complete lack of balance in the attention given to this and I think it is political. Christ one of the breakaway MPs uses terms about funny tinged people and after 12 hours its put down to her being tired. The Goldsmith campaign has never been condemned by the Tory Party and the media pretty much schtoom about it. The suspension of racist Tory Councillors then let back into the party and not a dicky bird. If you can't see an issue here I don't think you're looking hard enough.
Its not that they are being weaponized by opponents but that they are taken as fact when those opponents mention them that I have a problem with. And the lack of Jewish voices on the other side is equally problematic. Jewish Voice for Labour get very little attention for example, but the conservative Jewish groups are taken as speaking for all Jews.
Its called context henry old bean
I don't think it's whataboutery to point out that rules and policies are being selectively enforced.
The point isn't that antisemitism is fine, it's that, if other forms of bigotry are being held to a more relaxed standard, is it possible that the difference in treatment has less to do with antiracism and more to do with politics?
e: to be clear, this is in the context of thinking fuck Derek Hatton and fuck what he said about Jews.
Hatton's a prick and demanding Jews apologise for Israel isnae on.
The more concerning point for me is the volume of sitting MPs who've made the same demands of British Muslims without facing blowback. Because either the political classes are fine with institutional bigotry as long as it's against Muslims, or they don't give a shit about institutional bigotry whatsoever but will weaponise it to throw mud at the left, or both. And all of those options are shit.
Oh ok, so the rules on discussion boards is that you can never write anything that diverges in the slightest from the original post, so comments about Galloway above should also be removed. That's nonsense Henry and I think you know it. lack of context means that you accept racists shouting racist at someone at face value, lack of context means that when you responded to Big G and tried, unwittingly or not, to give the impression that Corbyn had driven you away from the Labour Party we should ignore that very recently you were a card carrying Tory. So on the former, when Trump calls Spike Lee a racist we ignore Trumps racism, on the latter we just accept that you are a good Labour man whose party has left him. You don't see the problem in any of this Henry?
The very first think I said on this thread was that I agreed with you about hatton, so there is no minimising on my part, contextualizing yes, minimising no.
He didnae ask Jews to apologies for Israel. Speaking out against murderous agression is neither apologising nor anti semetic. Less we forget 6 years after Hatton's comments, , less than a year ago over 160 men ,women and children were slaughtered and some 10,000 injured by the brutal reactionary forces of the Israeli State in Gaza.
Gareth is right. The shite on a daily basis over the past 3 years, against Jeremy Corbyn on the unrepresentitive Jewish Chronicle if not only inaccurate and would be would be laughable. However the kept Tory anti Labour movement press regularly reproduce it without sourcing back.
Right wing Benjamin Netanyahu in an unprecedented move attacked Corbyn personally. Jeremy you must be doing something right regarding the Palestinians.
BIG G
I don't think it's whataboutery to point out that rules and policies are being selectively enforced.
The point isn't that antisemitism is fine, it's that, if other forms of bigotry are being held to a more relaxed standard, is it possible that the difference in treatment has less to do with antiracism and more to do with politics?
e: to be clear, this is in the context of thinking fuck Derek Hatton and fuck what he said about Jews.
Overall this is a pretty desperate response Henry, it really is. People are accepting at face value accusations of racism, these accusations are not being scrutinised. And its pretty obvious why i'm introducing context, because accusations of racism where they do not exist are being used as political weapons by bonafide racists. I think that matters, you obviously don't.There are different kinds of context and these are different kinds of context. But by all means let's explore why you're introducing this 'relevant background' to the discussion. You think that what Hatton said is antisemitic but... but what? We should't accept people shouting racist at him at face value? We are not. We should submit their claims to scrutiny? They have been.
Its pretty clear Henry, Trump is an example of a racist accusing others of racism and was a big story in the media at the point I introduced Trump to the discussion. And yes I am saying, not implying, that there are many cases re antisemitism where racists (for example in the Tory Party) are accusing non and anti-racists of racism.Specifically, what has Trump to do with Hatton's accusers? The context you want us to see seems to be that sometimes people call others racist with no foundation. I can only assume you're implying that that might be happening here. Otherwise why raise it?
Its not weird, is an example of racists shouting racism. And I'm not suggesting vetting every accuser, I'm suggesting examining the accusation primarily but also providing a bit of context.The analogy is weird anyway because in the Hatton instance 'Trump' is 'the Labour Party'. If you're saying we need to exhaustively vet every accuser rather than the evidence at hand then you'll need to begin with Labour and its rules, which I'm not sure is worth more than a cursory viewing.
That comment was not related to antisemitism, it was related to a comment you made that were it not for the context you had provided in previous posts some time ago would have suggested that you were a good and long-standing Labour man who'd been chased out of the party you love. It was, as I think you are perfectly well aware, a means of highlighting the importance of context.And when you say that the history of my political affiliation is important in considering how to assess my replies you're suggesting I have an ulterior motive. But that has no bearing on whether what happened was actually antisemitic or not.
So again, you seem to be providing 'context' - by delving into my history - to try to call into question the charge. But what Hatton said and whether it's racist stands and falls on its merits. What use is your context other than to diminish that?
Overall this is a pretty desperate response Henry, it really is. People are accepting at face value accusations of racism, these accusations are not being scrutinised. And its pretty obvious why i'm introducing context, because accusations of racism where they do not exist are being used as political weapons by bonafide racists. I think that matters, you obviously don't.
Its pretty clear Henry, Trump is an example of a racist accusing others of racism and was a big story in the media at the point I introduced Trump to the discussion. And yes I am saying, not implying, that there are many cases re antisemitism where racists (for example in the Tory Party) are accusing non and anti-racists of racism.
Its not weird, is an example of racists shouting racism. And I'm not suggesting vetting every accuser, I'm suggesting examining the accusation primarily but also providing a bit of context.
That comment was not related to antisemitism, it was related to a comment you made that were it not for the context you had provided in previous posts some time ago would have suggested that you were a good and long-standing Labour man who'd been chased out of the party you love. It was, as I think you are perfectly well aware, a means of highlighting the importance of context.
The accusation is literally being officially scrutinised by the Labour Party! And in the media, and, er, even by us if we could ever focus on it and not some broad-brush generality. Can you explain how you would like this scrutiny to be performed if not in the manner in which it is? Because it comes across as though you're setting an artificially high bar so you can equivocate.
At least twice on this thread I've given my view on Hatton, you are choosing to ignore that both here and a further couple of times below. Why?Well we must be careful lest we fall into their trap. But I'd appreciate you explaining how we risk doing that with Hatton, specifically.
I have no power to vet anything Henry old chap, when I hear accusations of racism unless they are made against people with a record of racism I tend to look at what was said rather than accept the view of media and politicians with a political motive outside of any related to racism.In what situation would you not vet the accuser? One where you are personally satisfied that the offence is definitely racist? Why are you not satisfied that this is the case here?
In this case I've agreed, is that the fourth time I've said this?The 'accuser' in this case is of course the Labour Party. So it'll add a whole layer of complexity if you deem its accusation invalid because the accuser might be racist.
What messenger am I shooting? What offence am I minimising?Your framing here seems designed to do what I'm suggesting you're trying to achieve with your context above - shoot the messenger so as to minimise the offence. It's also wrong. I said I had been a Labour Member for "quite a while" in response to a baffling assertion that I was a 'liberal' voter. I didn't say anything about being forced out of a party I loved, that's your gloss.
But I still don't get what this 'context' is doing for you. Why is does it exonerate Hatton? If it doesn't why are you providing it?
This thread has been viewed 3559 times.